IF Brown did reach in to the cruiser, punch Wilson in the face and reached for his side-arm, under current law Wilson could justifiably use lethal force in self-defense. Ask any cop out there, if you go for their gun, they take that as a lethal threat. I'm a Jainist so I think every cop should not carry a firearm, but that is the current law of the land
I have no idea why we would ask every cop whether another cop was justified in shooting a black man.
Also, no, we're literally talking about this right now, and Brown having done something threatening in the past does not make him an imminent threat now and forever into the future.
You're also wilfully ignoring the part of the article where a witness states it was BROWN acting in self-defense:
However, Mr. Johnson’s description of the scuffle is detailed and specific, and directly contradicts what Officer Wilson has told the authorities.
Mr. Johnson has said that Officer Wilson was the aggressor, backing up his vehicle and opening the door, which hit Mr. Johnson and Mr. Brown and then bounced back.
“He just reached his arm out the window and grabbed my friend around his neck, and he was trying to choke my friend,” Mr. Johnson told reporters after the shooting. “He was trying to get away, and the officer then reached out and grabbed his arm to pull him inside the car.”
Self-defense doesn't go in circles where you can claim self-defense against someone who's engaged in self-defense against you.
I just wanted to point out that you can claim excessive force and threat to life in defending yourself against someone who was initially defending themselves.
So, actually, ya it can circle right around.
IE you punch someone, they turn around and knock your ass flat then pull a gun or see you're carrying and go for yours. Or they try to like curb stomp you or something, you can absolutely claim an attempt to protect your life. Self defense actually escalates.
Good thing none of that actually happened, then, and also that he was shot six times after trying to run away.
And that's why the entire thing will hinge on this alleged threatening step that Brown took towards Wilson when he was trying to surrender.
Because the right to self-defense does not extend to finishing someone off, so while anything that might have happened in the car could be justified, once Brown ran out of the car none of that is justification to gun him down, and the "imminent threat to the public" angle is so retarded as to not constitute a defense even in nutso scared white people land.
Good thing none of that actually happened, then, and also that he was shot six times after trying to run away.
the jury's still out on that. At least the first one
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I don't know about the accurcy of the leak, but this article suggests Wilson will be free and clear in a few days. The photo near the bottom of Wilson smiling as he attends a council meeting doesn't have the look of a man worried much about anything so I would guess he already knows he's clear.
I don't know about the accurcy of the leak, but this article suggests Wilson will be free and clear in a few days. The photo near the bottom of Wilson smiling as he attends a council meeting doesn't have the look of a man worried much about anything so I would guess he already knows he's clear.
Good thing none of that actually happened, then, and also that he was shot six times after trying to run away.
the jury's still out on that. At least the first one
Even if it did happen, and I don't believe for a nanosecond that it did, the officer was not justified in shooting an unarmed man running away according to the SCOTUS. You do not get to pursue an assailant and shoot them as they attempt to disengage from you. Even if you're a cop.
Graham v. Connor states the following:
All claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force—deadly or not—in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of a free citizen are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's "objective reasonableness" standard, rather than under a substantive due process standard. Pp. 490 U. S. 392-399.
And the use of force continuum is cited in this article with regard to what a reasonable police response would have been to inappropriate protest behavior:
"In general, police officers in the United States train around what we refer to as 'continuum of force.' So that means first you identify yourself as a cop. This should stop individuals from transgressing. Then you ask people to disperse with verbal command. Then if it doesn't work it escalates to use of force including 'impact techniques' and then less than deadly force which includes gas and various equipment," said Maria Haberfeld, the chair of the Department of Law, Police Science and Criminal Justice Administration at John Jay College.
The use of force continuum is, in general, supposed to be constructed around a reasonableness standard as defined by Graham v. Connor, but either the continuum established in Ferguson is way out of whack with anything reasonable or they are ignoring it entirely.
At this point, I'm becoming more and more convinced that state and local police ought to be held to both state and federal standards. The use of force continuum ought not be something decided upon locally; it should be a semi-rigid set of rules about when force may be escalated. We already have Supreme Court precedent for shooting fleeing, unarmed suspects being totally unacceptable. It ought to result in criminal charges every single time it happens, with very few and very rare exceptions for when an officer honestly believes someone is in imminent danger. For instance, a bank robber holding a teller hostage with what appears to be a real gun but is in reality not. What I explicitly do not mean is a situation involving an unarmed and fleeing suspect having four AK-47s and ten grenades in the officer's fevered and wild imagination.
I don't know about the accurcy of the leak, but this article suggests Wilson will be free and clear in a few days. The photo near the bottom of Wilson smiling as he attends a council meeting doesn't have the look of a man worried much about anything so I would guess he already knows he's clear.
Calm it down here. The photo in the article you linked is a screen cap from a video:
A New York Times article has a different screen cap quite obviously from the very same council meeting, and their article cites the meeting as being in February:
Darren Wilson, the officer who shot Mr. Brown, at a City Council meeting in Ferguson, Mo., in February
You'll also notice the large winter coats on the backs of the chairs of the people attending the meeting, which are unlikely to be necessary in St. Louis in October, where the highs have recently been in the 60's and low 70s.
There's a stupid huge pile of other reasons to worry the grand jury will clear Wilson, but this is at least not one of them.
EDIT: The most upsetting thing about the photos, really, is that the council meeting is packed full of white people.
Good thing none of that actually happened, then, and also that he was shot six times after trying to run away.
And that's why the entire thing will hinge on this alleged threatening step that Brown took towards Wilson when he was trying to surrender.
Because the right to self-defense does not extend to finishing someone off, so while anything that might have happened in the car could be justified, once Brown ran out of the car none of that is justification to gun him down, and the "imminent threat to the public" angle is so retarded as to not constitute a defense even in nutso scared white people land.
Listen, I've got some bad news for you.
You might want to spend a little time with your faith in humanity.
You know?
While you still can?
0
Options
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
It's too late for us, save yourself!
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Good thing none of that actually happened, then, and also that he was shot six times after trying to run away.
the jury's still out on that. At least the first one
Even if it did happen, and I don't believe for a nanosecond that it did, the officer was not justified in shooting an unarmed man running away according to the SCOTUS. You do not get to pursue an assailant and shoot them as they attempt to disengage from you. Even if you're a cop.
Graham v. Connor states the following:
All claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force—deadly or not—in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of a free citizen are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's "objective reasonableness" standard, rather than under a substantive due process standard. Pp. 490 U. S. 392-399.
And the use of force continuum is cited in this article with regard to what a reasonable police response would have been to inappropriate protest behavior:
"In general, police officers in the United States train around what we refer to as 'continuum of force.' So that means first you identify yourself as a cop. This should stop individuals from transgressing. Then you ask people to disperse with verbal command. Then if it doesn't work it escalates to use of force including 'impact techniques' and then less than deadly force which includes gas and various equipment," said Maria Haberfeld, the chair of the Department of Law, Police Science and Criminal Justice Administration at John Jay College.
The use of force continuum is, in general, supposed to be constructed around a reasonableness standard as defined by Graham v. Connor, but either the continuum established in Ferguson is way out of whack with anything reasonable or they are ignoring it entirely.
At this point, I'm becoming more and more convinced that state and local police ought to be held to both state and federal standards. The use of force continuum ought not be something decided upon locally; it should be a semi-rigid set of rules about when force may be escalated. We already have Supreme Court precedent for shooting fleeing, unarmed suspects being totally unacceptable. It ought to result in criminal charges every single time it happens, with very few and very rare exceptions for when an officer honestly believes someone is in imminent danger. For instance, a bank robber holding a teller hostage with what appears to be a real gun but is in reality not. What I explicitly do not mean is a situation involving an unarmed and fleeing suspect having four AK-47s and ten grenades in the officer's fevered and wild imagination.
Can we just put this (and Josh's other post on Tennessee vs. Garner) in the OP?
I don't know about the accurcy of the leak, but this article suggests Wilson will be free and clear in a few days. The photo near the bottom of Wilson smiling as he attends a council meeting doesn't have the look of a man worried much about anything so I would guess he already knows he's clear.
Calm it down here. The photo in the article you linked is a screen cap from a video:
A New York Times article has a different screen cap quite obviously from the very same council meeting, and their article cites the meeting as being in February:
Darren Wilson, the officer who shot Mr. Brown, at a City Council meeting in Ferguson, Mo., in February
You'll also notice the large winter coats on the backs of the chairs of the people attending the meeting, which are unlikely to be necessary in St. Louis in October, where the highs have recently been in the 60's and low 70s.
There's a stupid huge pile of other reasons to worry the grand jury will clear Wilson, but this is at least not one of them.
EDIT: The most upsetting thing about the photos, really, is that the council meeting is packed full of white people.
Didn't Wilson get some kind of award back then?
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Y'know the more I think about it the more that kind of pisses me off.
Police will go to great lengths to corral and capture a frightened animal, one that can cause significant injury, even death, with one solid kick. And it's scared and confused and not acting rationally. And no weapons are out, even though anyone approaching it is at risk. And I bet that even if one of the cops was struck by the horse, the others wouldn't immediately unload sixty-seven bullets into the horse. They would show restraint.
Horses: literally treated better than the citizens of Ferguson.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
Y'know the more I think about it the more that kind of pisses me off.
Police will go to great lengths to corral and capture a frightened animal, one that can cause significant injury, even death, with one solid kick. And it's scared and confused and not acting rationally. And no weapons are out, even though anyone approaching it is at risk. And I bet that even if one of the cops was struck by the horse, the others wouldn't immediately unload sixty-seven bullets into the horse. They would show restraint.
Horses: literally treated better than the citizens of Ferguson.
Not just horses. It's animals as a whole. Barring rabies or other similar aggressive acts by an animal (except for Pit Bulls...so don't search for that recent video of a cop shooting a Pit), humans kind of lose their minds about protecting them from harm.
Silly example within (also with a literal spoiler for the book A Time to Kill):
In A Time to Kill, the protagonist is attacked by the local Klan and they burn his house down. His dog is killed as it was so sudden he was lucky to get out himself.
Actually there have been numerous publicized instances of cops shooting the family dog for barking at them. One even happened when the cop was searching back yards for a suspect and shot the dog of a completely innocent person because he wanted to search their yard.
Actually there have been numerous publicized instances of cops shooting the family dog for barking at them. One even happened when the cop was searching back yards for a suspect and shot the dog of a completely innocent person because he wanted to search their yard.
Yeah, my parent's installed a fence after the cops shot the neighbors dog for breaking out.
I'm not familiar with The Blaze. Is it some psycho site?
"Officer Wilson is an American hero and should be awarded the “Police Medal of Honor” for heroic protection of the public from a vicious, domestic terrorist bent upon robbery, mayhem, and the murder of a law enforcement official. Anyone who supports Brown is either a Black racist of a communist useful idiot. Is that clear? Is that crystal clear?"
I'm not familiar with The Blaze. Is it some psycho site?
"Officer Wilson is an American hero and should be awarded the “Police Medal of Honor” for heroic protection of the public from a vicious, domestic terrorist bent upon robbery, mayhem, and the murder of a law enforcement official. Anyone who supports Brown is either a Black racist of a communist useful idiot. Is that clear? Is that crystal clear?"
What? What? What?
It's Glenn Beck.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
That matches up pretty well with what we already knew from eyewitness accounts. Wilson's gun went off in the car, hitting Brown in the hand, so he ran. The downward trajectories in the head wounds could have been caused by Brown either bending forward, or falling over from the earlier shots.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
The other awesome thing in there is the passive voice being used on the gun becoming unholstered. How did that happen? The gun just got out, who knows how.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
That matches up pretty well with what we already knew from eyewitness accounts. Wilson's gun went off in the car, hitting Brown in the hand, so he ran. The downward trajectories in the head wounds could have been caused by Brown either bending forward, or falling over from the earlier shots.
Didn't we already know about the downward trajectory from the original autopsy? And isn't that why they came up with the narrative that he was charging at the officer?
Posts
I just wanted to point out that you can claim excessive force and threat to life in defending yourself against someone who was initially defending themselves.
So, actually, ya it can circle right around.
IE you punch someone, they turn around and knock your ass flat then pull a gun or see you're carrying and go for yours. Or they try to like curb stomp you or something, you can absolutely claim an attempt to protect your life. Self defense actually escalates.
And that's why the entire thing will hinge on this alleged threatening step that Brown took towards Wilson when he was trying to surrender.
Because the right to self-defense does not extend to finishing someone off, so while anything that might have happened in the car could be justified, once Brown ran out of the car none of that is justification to gun him down, and the "imminent threat to the public" angle is so retarded as to not constitute a defense even in nutso scared white people land.
the jury's still out on that. At least the first one
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Guardian article
"Look at the suspect in this photo and how much of a thug he looks like". Seriously, come on.
Don't read the comments don't read the comments don't read the GOD FUCKING DAMN IT
Steam: adamjnet
Even if it did happen, and I don't believe for a nanosecond that it did, the officer was not justified in shooting an unarmed man running away according to the SCOTUS. You do not get to pursue an assailant and shoot them as they attempt to disengage from you. Even if you're a cop.
Graham v. Connor states the following:
And the use of force continuum is cited in this article with regard to what a reasonable police response would have been to inappropriate protest behavior:
The use of force continuum is, in general, supposed to be constructed around a reasonableness standard as defined by Graham v. Connor, but either the continuum established in Ferguson is way out of whack with anything reasonable or they are ignoring it entirely.
At this point, I'm becoming more and more convinced that state and local police ought to be held to both state and federal standards. The use of force continuum ought not be something decided upon locally; it should be a semi-rigid set of rules about when force may be escalated. We already have Supreme Court precedent for shooting fleeing, unarmed suspects being totally unacceptable. It ought to result in criminal charges every single time it happens, with very few and very rare exceptions for when an officer honestly believes someone is in imminent danger. For instance, a bank robber holding a teller hostage with what appears to be a real gun but is in reality not. What I explicitly do not mean is a situation involving an unarmed and fleeing suspect having four AK-47s and ten grenades in the officer's fevered and wild imagination.
Calm it down here. The photo in the article you linked is a screen cap from a video:
A New York Times article has a different screen cap quite obviously from the very same council meeting, and their article cites the meeting as being in February:
You'll also notice the large winter coats on the backs of the chairs of the people attending the meeting, which are unlikely to be necessary in St. Louis in October, where the highs have recently been in the 60's and low 70s.
There's a stupid huge pile of other reasons to worry the grand jury will clear Wilson, but this is at least not one of them.
EDIT: The most upsetting thing about the photos, really, is that the council meeting is packed full of white people.
This is axiomatic for all Ferguson articles anymore.
The Blaze is a special sort of crazy, though...
I can't stop reading and it's making me so fucking angry
Steam: adamjnet
Listen, I've got some bad news for you.
You might want to spend a little time with your faith in humanity.
You know?
While you still can?
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Can we just put this (and Josh's other post on Tennessee vs. Garner) in the OP?
Didn't Wilson get some kind of award back then?
Jaywalking + fleeing from police. I assume the suspect was put down.
Well the suspect wasn't white...
Police will go to great lengths to corral and capture a frightened animal, one that can cause significant injury, even death, with one solid kick. And it's scared and confused and not acting rationally. And no weapons are out, even though anyone approaching it is at risk. And I bet that even if one of the cops was struck by the horse, the others wouldn't immediately unload sixty-seven bullets into the horse. They would show restraint.
Horses: literally treated better than the citizens of Ferguson.
Not just horses. It's animals as a whole. Barring rabies or other similar aggressive acts by an animal (except for Pit Bulls...so don't search for that recent video of a cop shooting a Pit), humans kind of lose their minds about protecting them from harm.
Silly example within (also with a literal spoiler for the book A Time to Kill):
In the movie, the dog survives.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Hence: John Wick.
Yeah, my parent's installed a fence after the cops shot the neighbors dog for breaking out.
"Officer Wilson is an American hero and should be awarded the “Police Medal of Honor” for heroic protection of the public from a vicious, domestic terrorist bent upon robbery, mayhem, and the murder of a law enforcement official. Anyone who supports Brown is either a Black racist of a communist useful idiot. Is that clear? Is that crystal clear?"
What? What? What?
"I do not think that word means what you think it means – Indigo Mantoya"
Indigo Mantoya, huh?
It's Glenn Beck.
Don't read the comments anywhere. When you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back and Cthulhu is hungry.
Here's the associated article:
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/official-autopsy-shows-michael-brown-had-close-range-wound-to/article_e98a4ce0-c284-57c9-9882-3fb7df75fef6.html
I just linked the primary source, because that article (or at least the headline) strikes me as super biased.
Didn't we already know about the downward trajectory from the original autopsy? And isn't that why they came up with the narrative that he was charging at the officer?
The cap comes off for like, no reason - Archer
MWO: Adamski