Re: Michael Brown

[robrecht]

He didn't make the claim at all, as far as we know, since he never filed an incident report. And if he did make the claim to the investigating officers, then there is no excuse for his not filing an incident report. That is a cover up, pure and simple. If it is not in writing, he and they can always deny exactly was was said or meant if evidence to the contrary turns up.

So now you seem to at least be conceding that he might have made this claim following the incident and not two weeks later. The only other possibility is that the investigating officer or someone else made up this claim on his behalf, again, following the incident and not two weeks later. So your whole "two weeks after the event" bit is just a red herring. Still waiting for your evidence that he never filed an incident report.

[JimL]

Good of you to finally admit that!

If you are going to take me out of context in order to further your agenda, then there is no point in trying to have an honest discussion with you.

You really don't understand basic fundamentals of law -- which is why YOU would have had all those Bundy supporters "in jail right now"!

You know what I meant CP, all those who were purposely preventing the officers from performing their duty should have been arrested.

[JimL]

The second one that was released was "heavily redacted" so we cannot say how much detail or what details were included.

Link please. The heavily re-dacted one of which you speak did not come from Ferguson PD or Wilson, it came from the County who didn't arrive on the scene for some 45 minutes after the fact.

I know of no one here who ever said that a fleeing felon in and of itself is justification for the use of deadly force. Certainly, I never said that so this sounds like a bit of a strawman.

That is what the whole shooting in the back of a fleeing suspect argument is all about. Is it legally justifiable simply because he is a felon. No, it isn't.

[JimL]

So now you seem to at least be conceding that he might have made this claim following the incident and not two weeks later. The only other possibility is that the investigating officer or someone else made up this claim on his behalf, again, following the incident and not two weeks later. So your whole "two weeks after the event" bit is just a red herring. Still waiting for your evidence that he never filed an incident report.

Already gave you the evidence, an incident report detailing the event was never filed by Wilson. Claims made by the investigating officers is not an incident report. The 2 weeks after the event has to do with the actual release of a blank incident report. If it is blank, then it is not an incident report.

[JimL]

I actually agree. In FACT, the notion that he was "signed up" for college itself is totally irrelevant.

Then stop insinuating that the fact that you think he was a gang member is relevant!

[robrecht]

Link please. The heavily re-dacted one of which you speak did not come from Ferguson PD or Wilson, it came from the County who didn't arrive on the scene for some 45 minutes after the fact.

No, I am speaking of the Ferguson police report. The Missouri ACLU, who filed the FOI request and filed suit and won, say that the county report was "redacted" and that the police report was "heavily redacted". This is from their own website, which I linked to earier in this thread: http://www.aclu-mo.org/

On the same day, it was reported by NBC:

Critics and news media outlets have questioned why Ferguson police released an incident report from a robbery in which Brown was a suspect, as well as security video showing the robbery, but not the report on the shooting of the unarmed 18-year-old a short time later by Officer Darren Wilson.

The reason, according to the office of St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert P. McCulloch, is that it doesn’t exist.

The St. Louis County police department presumably did file an incident report, but any such documents will not be made public until a grand jury investigating the officer-involved shooting concludes its investigation, according to officials from the office who briefed NBC News on the case.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/mic...report-n186431

That is what the whole shooting in the back of a fleeing suspect argument is all about. Is it legally justifiable simply because he is a felon. No, it isn't.

No, that is entirely too simplistic. If you read the supreme court ruling I quoted for you, you will see that it also considers it germane whether the fleeing felon is violent or there is probably cause that he fleeing from a violent crime. This is why the earlier incident is so important. If Michael Brown assaulted Officer Wilson, if there was a struggle for his gun, then Wilson had more than probably cause that Brown was fleeing from a violent felony.

[robrecht]

Already gave you the evidence, an incident report detailing the event was never filed by Wilson. Claims made by the investigating officers is not an incident report. The 2 weeks after the event has to do with the actual release of a blank incident report. If it is blank, then it is not an incident report.

Depends on whether it is blank because it was always blank or if it was blank because it was heavily redacted.

[Teallaura]

Then stop insinuating that the fact that you think he was a gang member is relevant!

Goes to state of mind - admissible but you need to show relevance. Given his alleged confrontational attitude, I think the case for relevance can be made but I'm dubious this will show up at trial. The GJ may hear it, however.

[rogue06]

My argument is that armed police should use the same tactics unarmed police use when dealing with unarmed assailants. I don't see how what you said is relevant.

If most of the following things are true then I would disagree

• IF Wilson knew that Brown just engaged in a strong arm robbery

• IF Brown had physically assaulted Wilson to the extent described in the press

• IF Brown had tried to take Wilson's sidearm

• IF Brown was charging back toward Wilson

All of these contentions are disputable but if true then all bets are off especially when dealing with a 6.4' 300 lb. man.

[Teallaura]

I'm a 5'4", never-you-mind, woman and I wouldn't wait to see what the guy was gonna do once he started charging from only little more than ten yards away. I can cover that distance quickly - he's gonna cover it a LOT more quickly - waiting is suicide.

[rogue06]

I'm 5'16"

[Sparko]

Wow, that's a significant typo! Sorry! I did mean "always".

I assume your brother was carrying a gun at the time, in which case even if I did argue that a police officer should be willing to use a gun against a single unarmed assailant, it wouldn't have mattered in this situation.

1. Please stop responding to everyone in one post. I don't have to wade through your replies to everyone else to see mine in the middle. And then edit out all of the others to respond to you.

2. It was a domestic dispute, so he did not draw his gun. A man and his wife were arguing with each other and they were there to break it up. IF he had drawn his gun, people like you would have complained against an excessive show of force, but my brother would not have been attacked and almost die.

3. The guy was unarmed and almost killed him, and that shows that an unarmed criminal does present a danger to the life of a police officer or other people.

4. I believe my brother's partner did draw his gun and that is when the guy ran off.


and you also mentioned tasers and pepper spray in one of your posts.

tasers have a very limited range, they have very little accuracy and would not be useful in a situation where someone is rushing the cop. They are usually used when the suspect is standing still, but threatening harm to others, or even himself. They also have to penetrate the clothes which doesn't always work. and they don't always stop someone, especially if they have a lot of adrenaline in their system. It basically causes muscles to seize up. Not all muscles either, it depends where the taser hits. and as soon as the officer stops the electricity, the person gets instant control back. It doesn't knock people out like on TV.

Pepper spray is even worse. It doesn't affect everyone, some are immune. It just burns your eyes, so it has to reach the eyes. Spraying anywhere else doesnt work. Many people can still function even with the burning. It is very inaccurate, and the officer could end up getting it in his own eyes and be even more defenseless.

[Teallaura]

I'm 5'16"

Don't you mean 4' 28" ?

[tabibito]

Don't you mean 4' 28" ?

Actually, 63.7 寸: that's kind of impressive.

[rogue06]

Don't you mean 4' 28" ?

Now you're just being plain silly