Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Rotagilla the broadness of which you are interpreting your statute permits situations that violate Tennessee v Garner, (can't shoot an unarmed fleeing suspect in the back).
If Michael Brown was defending himself, then his actions do not consitute felonies as he does have the right to self defense. That would make the shooting not justified even under your larger theory.
I'm not "interpreting" anything. There it is in black and white...Missouri statutes.
Brown committed 2 felonies. It was a good, legal shoot.
I'm telling you that Wilson attacked Brown, then no felonies were committed. Even if there were felonies, the officer is not permitted under the US Constitution to shoot an unarmed fleeing man.
The constitution? LMAO...Post that clause? LMAO...
Get serious...the constitution has no language whatsoever regarding use of deadly force against fleeing felons.
The Missouri statutes, however, address it SPECIFICALLY...as I showed you several posts back.
Brown committed 2 felonies on a LEO.....good, legal shoot
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCMQFjAA&url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner&ei=N5NCVIvjKeaDiwK154HoBA&usg=AFQjCNGAnAvcxKNbRTWRbSh5fQtXtTx5zg&sig2=57LFVrjN9qAc8hHNu07s7g
Also, one is allowed to use self-defense as well. If it was self-defense, no felonies were committed.
Really?
If you want to play it that way, it wouldn't have happened if Officer Wilson hadn't decided to yell at some kids for crossing the street.
Every report says he was walking down the middle of the street. We have laws against that for public safety.
Wilson is white.I really don't get all this.
Last I checked Darren Wilson had a good record as a cop. Michael Brown had just robbed a store and then was walking down the middle of the street endangering people(could easily have caused an accident). Then when a cop tries to stop him some people actually think this was when he decided to obey the law? I doubt it.
It only becomes dangerous when you decide to attack the cops.
Even if there was a struggle in or around the car, the fatal shots were fired long after that, at a time when Michael Brown was giving himself up. Just because you are pissed off, you don't all of a sudden have the right to kill the person. Had Brown been shot and killed at close range, then I would have no problem with Wilson's stance that he feared for his life. However, everything I have heard indicates that the shots that killed Brown were from a distance and Brown had given himself up.
It only becomes dangerous when you decide to attack the cops.
Certainly. For everyone's health and safety, arguing with, and certainly attacking (as in touching in any way, or even breathing too heavily upon), police officers should be categorized a dangerous act.
I don't think you were the one who said, "None of this would have happened if Brown wasn't walking down the middle of the street."
My original post was only to counter that. It takes two, as they say, to tango.
Only an idiot tries to tango with the cops.....it might just be your last dance.
Only an idiot tries to tango with the cops.....it might just be your last dance.
Didn't I just say that?
Parents, alert your children.....when approached by a police officer, answer every question immediately, produce your papers, and don't, don't, don't even think about touching them, or looking at them too hard.
It's all for your own health and safety.
It only becomes dangerous when you decide to attack the cops.
Certainly. For everyone's health and safety, arguing with, and certainly attacking (as in touching in any way, or even breathing too heavily upon), police officers should be categorized a dangerous act.
Or, basically, respect your elders and don't lay your hands on others without very good reason.
Go punch a cop and try to take his gun and see how it works out for you.
What you've said here is a wholly valid consideration. It reflects the principle which attended my thinking when I first heard about the Brown shooting.[...]
The word choice you are using indicates a reverence for the police which is dangerous for your own consitutional freedoms. They are largely gone in the DUI context. When you dehumanize people the cops say are evil, you are not far from having no freedoms yourself.
Did you watch the convenience store video? Isn't it enough to convince you of Michael Brown's true nature and disposition?I'll level with you Esmeralda that there are supporters of Darren Wilson in this very thread who are just as guilty of making biased assumptions.
We need more information.
We have laws against it for a reason. This guy robbed a store, walked down the middle of the road, and assaulted a cop. That is 3 crimes in a very short period of time. Wounds show he was probably charging the cop when he was killed. I don't see why anyone would want to go after the cop in this case.
The officer did not know that Brown had robbed a store, and he confronted Brown before Brown allegedly assaulted him.
Therefore, the cop decided that jaywalking was such a big deal that he had to stop and make a fuss.
Where I come from, jaywalking isn't something you stop a person for. Police have real crimes to worry about.
Knowing what we know about "Big Mike" Brown, walking in the middle of the road was an exercise of "I do what I wanna do!" arrogance. It is anyone's guess just how much of that kind of pumped-up nonsense he'd gotten away with in the weeks or months prior to his fatal run-in with a cop who wasn't putting up with it.Walking down the middle of the road is a lot more than the typical jaywalking. I'm pretty sure any cop would stop someone who is walking down the middle of the road. There are laws against it for the walkers and drivers safety.
I'm not sure that the lynch mob is just about Brown. When the cop in Indianapolis was shot, I was watching the news and thought that it had the capacity to spiral out of control then. However, it's a little hard to garner sympathy when the shooter was grilling with a semi automatic rifle next to him. With the shooting in Ferguson, the response jumped as if this was the one.
I think that was a mistake. It may have done more damage than what people are willing to admit to as far as what was being protested and the outcome desired. Specifically-using this event to create a national dialogue.
It's about identity politics in an election year, and manipulating your base in the hopes of increasing their turnout. It has nothing to do with 'Justice' or 'creating a national dialogue'; it's about mob violence and fever swamp demagoguery.
I'm not sure that the lynch mob is just about Brown. When the cop in Indianapolis was shot, I was watching the news and thought that it had the capacity to spiral out of control then. However, it's a little hard to garner sympathy when the shooter was grilling with a semi automatic rifle next to him. With the shooting in Ferguson, the response jumped as if this was the one.
I think that was a mistake. It may have done more damage than what people are willing to admit to as far as what was being protested and the outcome desired. Specifically-using this event to create a national dialogue.
Personally, I feel everyone should wait until all of the evidence is gone through and the jury has decided whether there should even be a trial or not.
There do exist professional race agitators who come to these events, whether they happened as they say they did or not, and stir the pot. And stir, and stir, and stir. Please consider the Tawana Brawley case. None of those agitators apologized for the crap they caused, even after she admitted to lying.
We have laws against it for a reason. This guy robbed a store, walked down the middle of the road, and assaulted a cop. That is 3 crimes in a very short period of time. Wounds show he was probably charging the cop when he was killed. I don't see why anyone would want to go after the cop in this case.
The officer did not know that Brown had robbed a store, and he confronted Brown before Brown allegedly assaulted him.
Therefore, the cop decided that jaywalking was such a big deal that he had to stop and make a fuss.
Where I come from, jaywalking isn't something you stop a person for. Police have real crimes to worry about.
Walking down the middle of the road is a lot more than the typical jaywalking. I'm pretty sure any cop would stop someone who is walking down the middle of the road. There are laws against it for the walkers and drivers safety.
We have laws against it for a reason. This guy robbed a store, walked down the middle of the road, and assaulted a cop. That is 3 crimes in a very short period of time. Wounds show he was probably charging the cop when he was killed. I don't see why anyone would want to go after the cop in this case.
The officer did not know that Brown had robbed a store, and he confronted Brown before Brown allegedly assaulted him.
Therefore, the cop decided that jaywalking was such a big deal that he had to stop and make a fuss.
Where I come from, jaywalking isn't something you stop a person for. Police have real crimes to worry about.
Walking down the middle of the road is a lot more than the typical jaywalking. I'm pretty sure any cop would stop someone who is walking down the middle of the road. There are laws against it for the walkers and drivers safety.
Actually, that kind of walking down the middle of the road is pretty typical on residential streets. He wasn't walking on a busy city street, nor down a 4 lane highway. Nor was he on a high-speed rural road with twists and turns.
In my city, kids play basketball in the middle of such streets.
He was walking down a street populated with numerous apartment complexes.
Hardly a street that doesnt see much traffic.
I myself have encountered punks who walk the center line and refuse to move just to show how badass they think they are. If I didnt have an aversion to prison I would have put the Ranch Hand bumper to good use and mowed the stupid fucks down.
