Re: Michael Brown

[lilpixieofterror]

We don't yet HAVE all the facts.

And that has stopped him from making bald assertions? He can't even back up his position that officer in the UK are better trained nor can he explain how he has determined the difference between a murder and a thief, within a second.

[Sparko]

If I lived next to PM, this is the sign I would put up in my yard.

[JimL]

Nope. That's a COMPONENT. Jimmy, you don't get to pick and choose the legal factors.

No, the question is whether it was a justified homicide or an unjustified use of deadly force and the answer to that question lies in whether or not Brown was surrendering with his arms in the air at the time he was shot twice in the head.

What MATTERS is who testifies UNDER OATH in a court of law, subject to cross examination. Why do you have such a hard time comprehending that?

Of course that is what matters, but the problem for Officer Wilson is that all of these witnesses are independent observers whose stories all match in the details. They didn't get together and cook up a conspiracy. Their stories are recorded. Do you think that they all lied about what they observed but managed to come up with the same details, or are you just hoping that for some reason they will not testify under oath.

IF it goes to trial, he will have opportunity to tell his side. It is the COURT that is important here, Jimmy, not your couch potato analysis.

Yes, and he will have to explain why he didn't file an incident report at the time of the incident as is requiredby law. Seriously CP, why do you think that there is no incident report available.

And WHAT EXACTLY is the Missouri state law that requires him to tell his side of the story BEFORE court, Jimmy? I praise God you will NEVER be a for really judge.

Missouri law requires an incident report to be filed and open which is Wilsons side of the story. Why would he want to hide that CP? Any ideas?

[Cow Poke]

No

YES!

Of course that is what matters

Yes, and he will have to explain why he didn't file an incident report at the time of the incident as is requiredby law. Seriously CP, why do you think that there is no incident report available.

I don't know that there ISN'T, and neither do YOU. I'm just smart enough and honest enough to ADMIT I don't know. Jimmy -- are you familiar with the concept of trying to prove a negative?

Missouri law requires an incident report to be filed and open which is Wilsons side of the story. Why would he want to hide that CP? Any ideas?

Jimmy --- repeating the same thing over and over does not make it true or truererererererer. Cite the law. Like I did from the Missouri Government website. I don't TRUST you, Jimmy --- you say GOOFY things like "all those people should be in jail today" (then try to backtrack it) and "there is no mechanism to give money to the government". You are UNRELIABLE, Jimmy, because I have found you to be grossly ignorant of principles of law, and just so profoundly wrong so often.

Cite the law. The ACTUAL law.

[lilpixieofterror]

Jimmy --- repeating the same thing over and over does not make it true or truererererererer. Cite the law. Like I did from the Missouri Government website. I don't TRUST you, Jimmy --- you say GOOFY things like "all those people should be in jail today" (then try to backtrack it) and "there is no mechanism to give money to the government". You are UNRELIABLE, Jimmy, because I have found you to be grossly ignorant of principles of law, and just so profoundly wrong so often.

FIFY;NC

[Cow Poke]

FIFY;NC

Well, yeah.

[Sparko]

Interesting article on the use of force by police officers:

http://www.policeone.com/Officer-Saf...-use-of-force/

One relevant bit is:

1. An officer can shoot an unarmed man under certain conditions.
An officer may have to use deadly force on an unarmed man who is larger, stronger, and/or attempting to disarm the officer, for example. In the case of a suspect, who is battering an officer to the point that he or she may suffer death or great bodily harm, the use of deadly force is defensible. Police officers do not have to sustain a severe beating in the line of duty.

Other factors that could justify an officer’s choice to utilize deadly force are the extent of that officer’s injury, exhaustion, or the number of assaultive adversaries the officer is confronted with.

2. An officer can, in certain conditions, shoot someone in the back.
You see if a suspect is fleeing and their escape presents an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm to the community at large, the use of deadly force can be justified. On some occasions a round might enter through the back, because of the dynamics of the circumstance.

3. Officers are not — and never will be — trained to shoot to wound or shoot weapons out of subjects’ hands.
These are not realistic options. Handguns are not accurate enough to deliberately attempt such things when lives are on the line.

[seer]

Interesting article on the use of force by police officers:

http://www.policeone.com/Officer-Saf...-use-of-force/

One relevant bit is:

1. An officer can shoot an unarmed man under certain conditions.
An officer may have to use deadly force on an unarmed man who is larger, stronger, and/or attempting to disarm the officer, for example. In the case of a suspect, who is battering an officer to the point that he or she may suffer death or great bodily harm, the use of deadly force is defensible. Police officers do not have to sustain a severe beating in the line of duty.

Other factors that could justify an officer’s choice to utilize deadly force are the extent of that officer’s injury, exhaustion, or the number of assaultive adversaries the officer is confronted with.

2. An officer can, in certain conditions, shoot someone in the back.
You see if a suspect is fleeing and their escape presents an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm to the community at large, the use of deadly force can be justified. On some occasions a round might enter through the back, because of the dynamics of the circumstance.

3. Officers are not — and never will be — trained to shoot to wound or shoot weapons out of subjects’ hands.
These are not realistic options. Handguns are not accurate enough to deliberately attempt such things when lives are on the line.

Still I wonder why the officer could not have just tased Brown. Didn't he have a taser?

[tabibito]

It's already been dealt with in earlier posts seer.

There are a number of drawbacks and limitations with the use of tasers: basically, they're not reliable enough to risk using when an officer is by himself.
One of the considerations: the target's clothing might actually provide effective insulation.

[Sparko]

Tasers are not that accurate.

They are short range weapons and not useful during a headlong assault (not enough time to deploy).

They have to penetrate the clothes to be effective. In a situation where there are more than one criminals involved, the second criminal could either also attack the officer while he is busy with the taser (they only work as long as he has the trigger held down) or even rip the wires out of his friend and free him to continue to attack.

If the person shot has enough willpower or adrenaline in his system he could rip the wires out himself.

Not all police carry tasers.

[seer]

It's already been dealt with in earlier posts seer.

There are a number of drawbacks and limitations with the use of tasers: basically, they're not reliable enough to risk using when an officer is by himself.
One of the considerations: the target's clothing might actually provide effective insulation.

Well Brown was only wearing a T Shirt. I don't know, I wasn't there.

[tabibito]

It is a matter of procedure - tasers aren't used by officers that don't have backup. Clothing providing insulation is only one of the draw-backs.

[robrecht]

"... if a suspect is fleeing and their escape presents an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm to the community at large, the use of deadly force can be justified. ..."

If the Missouri law or local police procedure is written in this way, and not like the Supreme Court ruling, this is a pretty tough judgment call and Officer Wilson might not have been as clearly justified in initially opening fire from behind (if in fact he did). If one says Michael Brown tried to subdue an armed police officer and tried to take his weapon, that would certainly justify the initial shot in the car, but when he was fleeing (again if he was) without a gun it is difficult to say he presents an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm to the community at large.

Any one know the way the law or policy is written in this jurisdiction?

Of course we must also keep in mind that this is an event that occurred in a complex set of circumstances and is not as simple as a text with words on a page.

[robrecht]

Ferguson Police General Order 410.00 on USE OF FORCE

http://scribd.com/doc/238121104

[Zymologist]

Interesting article on the use of force by police officers:

http://www.policeone.com/Officer-Saf...-use-of-force/

One relevant bit is:

1. An officer can shoot an unarmed man under certain conditions.
An officer may have to use deadly force on an unarmed man who is larger, stronger, and/or attempting to disarm the officer, for example. In the case of a suspect, who is battering an officer to the point that he or she may suffer death or great bodily harm, the use of deadly force is defensible. Police officers do not have to sustain a severe beating in the line of duty.

Other factors that could justify an officer’s choice to utilize deadly force are the extent of that officer’s injury, exhaustion, or the number of assaultive adversaries the officer is confronted with.

2. An officer can, in certain conditions, shoot someone in the back.
You see if a suspect is fleeing and their escape presents an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm to the community at large, the use of deadly force can be justified. On some occasions a round might enter through the back, because of the dynamics of the circumstance.

3. Officers are not — and never will be — trained to shoot to wound or shoot weapons out of subjects’ hands.
These are not realistic options. Handguns are not accurate enough to deliberately attempt such things when lives are on the line.

In my experience, the people who disagree with point 3 are people who have never actually fired a handgun. 30 feet isn't all that far away, but if you're at the range with a pistol in your hand, it's a long way.