New York Times publishes Officer Darren Wilson’s account of the Michael Brown shooting

[ScarletRage]

Regarding the missouri statutes, arguing a felony was committed therefore Officer Wilson had a right to kill Michael Brown is circular.

If Wilson was defending himself and feared for his life, then the statutes support this..

If Brown was defending himself fromWilson, then the statutes do not.

The statutes do not justify anything on their own.

 

[ScarletRage]

So what you are saying is blacks wouldn't fight with cops in the first place if they didn't try to make them obey the law?

Number one, I didn't say anything about the race of either of them.

Number two, this undoubtedly would have been averted if Brown had simply moved quickly out of the road.

Number three, it is undoubtedly equally true that this would have been averted if Wilson hadn't stopped to tell these guys to get out of the road.

You are in affect saying this could have been avoided if Wilson had merely ignored the lawbreakers. Which is stupid.

Wilson was legally obligated to stop and tell those guys to get out of the road. That's what the citizens of Ferguson pay him to do. To then blame him for what transpired is stupid.

Officers do have discretion as to which laws they enforce and when.

 

[ricechickie]

You are in affect saying this could have been avoided if Wilson had merely ignored the lawbreakers. Which is stupid.

Wilson was legally obligated to stop and tell those guys to get out of the road. That's what the citizens of Ferguson pay him to do. To then blame him for what transpired is stupid.

Bullshit. The police ignore lawbreakers every day. It's called exercising their discretion. If you live in an area in which the police stop people driving 36 in a 35 mph zone, or ticket someone for jaywalking, then your police officers don't have enough to do.

 

[ScarletRage]

You are in affect saying this could have been avoided if Wilson had merely ignored the lawbreakers. Which is stupid.

Wilson was legally obligated to stop and tell those guys to get out of the road. That's what the citizens of Ferguson pay him to do. To then blame him for what transpired is stupid.

Bullshit. The police ignore lawbreakers every day. It's called exercising their discretion. If you live in an area in which the police stop people driving 36 in a 35 mph zone, or ticket someone for jaywalking, then your police officers don't have enough to do.

You would be surprised how many robberies burglaries and other such offenses go largely uninvestigated while cops just sit on the side of the road looking for speeders or pulling people over for DUI for "weaving within their lane". There is much more money in the latter if they make quota politically.

 

[Wake]

Though we likely disagree on some things, it should be noted that Scarlet has a good deal of knowledge about the law. I believe we can put a premium on what she has to bring to the table, whether we disagree or not.

Please forgive me: I'd like to hear what Grandma , Avatar4321 , House , Wolfsister77 , Luddly Neddite , JakeStarkey , Mertex , FA_Q2 and others have to say on this issue. I strongly believe in the value of various opinions chiming in, because it aids in developing a more refined and informed opinion on the matter. Hearing what others have to say can polish and change what you think on the matter, which can be infinitely wholesome.

 

[MikeK]

Officers do have discretion as to which laws they enforce and when.

If a police officer comes upon an armed robbery in progress, are you saying he has the discretionary option of either intervening or doing nothing?

If that's not what you're saying, please tell us if it is written into police training procedures that an officer is authorized to make his own judgments as to which laws to enforce or to not enforce.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

You are in affect saying this could have been avoided if Wilson had merely ignored the lawbreakers. Which is stupid.

Wilson was legally obligated to stop and tell those guys to get out of the road. That's what the citizens of Ferguson pay him to do. To then blame him for what transpired is stupid.

Bullshit. The police ignore lawbreakers every day. It's called exercising their discretion. If you live in an area in which the police stop people driving 36 in a 35 mph zone, or ticket someone for jaywalking, then your police officers don't have enough to do.

You would be surprised how many robberies burglaries and other such offenses go largely uninvestigated while cops just sit on the side of the road looking for speeders or pulling people over for DUI for "weaving within their lane". There is much more money in the latter if they make quota politically.

I know plenty about police work.

Here, let me explain something to you. Police that "are sitting on the side of the road looking for speeders" aren't the same cops who investigate robberies and such. There is a huge difference between a patrolman and a detective.

In other words, no robbery is going un investigated because a cop is writing speeding tickets. That is ridiculous.

As for discretion, OF COURSE police have discretion. Wilson used his to yell at some kids to get out of the street. They refused, and likely mouthed back to him causing Wilson to stop rather than just continue on with his patrol.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Officers do have discretion as to which laws they enforce and when.

If a police officer comes upon an armed robbery in progress, are you saying he has the discretionary option of either intervening or doing nothing?

If that's not what you're saying, please tell us if it is written into police training procedures that an officer is authorized to make his own judgments as to which laws to enforce or to not enforce.

Scarlet apparently doesn't know the difference between a patrol officer and a detective. A patrol officer has discretion about whether to write a traffic ticket or not. A detective does not have discretion in regards to investigating a crime.

 

[Brain357]

I drive everyday, people don't walk down the middle of the road. That would be stupid. And it is illegal. You can't fault the cop for doing his job.

Likewise, I drive everyday, and on the very kinds of roads, I've described. In those residential areas, I often encounter people in the streets. Illegal or not.

Ok well I blame the guy for disobeying the law. You blame the cop for doing his job. I think this says a lot about your character.

 

[Papageorgio]

If Wilson had ignored Brown and Brown went on to commit a crime, people would be screaming because Wilson wasn't doing his job.

With some of you people, Wilson is in a no win scenario.

 

[ricechickie]

[
I know plenty about police work.

Here, let me explain something to you. Police that "are sitting on the side of the road looking for speeders" aren't the same cops who investigate robberies and such. There is a huge difference between a patrolman and a detective.

In other words, no robbery is going un investigated because a cop is writing speeding tickets. That is ridiculous.

As for discretion, OF COURSE police have discretion. Wilson used his to yell at some kids to get out of the street. They refused, and likely mouthed back to him causing Wilson to stop rather than just continue on with his patrol.

bolded is purely speculation

 

[ricechickie]

I drive everyday, people don't walk down the middle of the road. That would be stupid. And it is illegal. You can't fault the cop for doing his job.

Likewise, I drive everyday, and on the very kinds of roads, I've described. In those residential areas, I often encounter people in the streets. Illegal or not.

Ok well I blame the guy for disobeying the law. You blame the cop for doing his job. I think this says a lot about your character.

I'll live with your disapproval.

Actually, I blame both of them. I don't assume that a badge makes a cop a saint....

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

[
I know plenty about police work.

Here, let me explain something to you. Police that "are sitting on the side of the road looking for speeders" aren't the same cops who investigate robberies and such. There is a huge difference between a patrolman and a detective.

In other words, no robbery is going un investigated because a cop is writing speeding tickets. That is ridiculous.

As for discretion, OF COURSE police have discretion. Wilson used his to yell at some kids to get out of the street. They refused, and likely mouthed back to him causing Wilson to stop rather than just continue on with his patrol.

bolded is purely speculation

Of course it is just speculation, but likely correct.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I drive everyday, people don't walk down the middle of the road. That would be stupid. And it is illegal. You can't fault the cop for doing his job.

Likewise, I drive everyday, and on the very kinds of roads, I've described. In those residential areas, I often encounter people in the streets. Illegal or not.

Ok well I blame the guy for disobeying the law. You blame the cop for doing his job. I think this says a lot about your character.

I'll live with your disapproval.

Actually, I blame both of them. I don't assume that a badge makes a cop a saint....

You are being beyond stupid. Let's say someone breaks in your home and you shoot them. Who's at fault for the circumstances that led to them getting shot?

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Fergusson blacks aren't going to take this very well:


Officials: Evidence supports Ferguson police officer’s account

Forensic evidence shows Michael Brown’s blood on the gun, uniform and inside the car of Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson, law enforcement officials said, information they believe potentially corroborates the officer’s story that the unarmed 18-year-old tried to take his gun.
The evidence will make it harder for the Justice Department to prosecute Officer Darren Wilson on federal charges that he violated Brown’s civil rights, said the officials, who asked their names be withheld because of the sensitivity of the case.

Such evidence would also make it difficult for a county grand jury to indict Wilson on state charges, such as murder or manslaughter, said county sources who also are prohibited from talking on the record about the pending case.
The St. Louis County police, the FBI and a county grand jury are investigating the shooting. The Justice Department is investigating Ferguson and St. Louis County policing practices and whether they have violated the rights of residents.
Justice Department spokeswoman Dena Iverson declined to comment.

Wilson, who is white, fatally shot Brown, an African American, on Aug. 9 in the St. Louis suburb of Ferguson.
The three-minute encounter on a sunny Saturday afternoon has rocked the metro area, which remains on edge as it faces continued protests and waits for the grand jury to decide whether Wilson should face any charges in Brown’s death.
The New York Times first reported the forensic evidence Friday, citing “government officials briefed on the federal civil rights investigation.”
Officials who spoke to the Washington Post yesterday said the forensic evidence supports Wilson’s account that a scuffle occurred at the police vehicle, that Wilson feared for his life and that Brown went for, or lunged for, his gun. There were two shots fired in the vehicle, including one that hit Brown’s arm, an official said.

Wilson, who has not spoken publicly since the shooting, testified before the grand jury last month. His lawyer, James Towey Jr., did not return a call seeking comment yesterday.
Benjamin Crump, a lawyer for Brown’s family, could also not be reached for comment.
He told the New York Times, however, that Wilson’s word isn’t “gospel” and that he should be indicted and go to trial.
“The officer’s going to say whatever he’s going to say to justify killing an unarmed kid,” Crump told the Times. “Right now, they have this secret proceeding where nobody knows what’s happening and nobody knows what’s going on. No matter what happened in the car, Michael Brown ran away from him.”
It has never been in question that there was an altercation. Wilson was inside the vehicle and Brown was at the driver’s window. From the earliest days, the police have said that Brown had scuffled with Wilson and that a shot was fired in the vehicle.

MORE:Missouri Officials Evidence supports Ferguson police officer s account Concord Monitor

 

[ricechickie]

[
I know plenty about police work.

Here, let me explain something to you. Police that "are sitting on the side of the road looking for speeders" aren't the same cops who investigate robberies and such. There is a huge difference between a patrolman and a detective.

In other words, no robbery is going un investigated because a cop is writing speeding tickets. That is ridiculous.

As for discretion, OF COURSE police have discretion. Wilson used his to yell at some kids to get out of the street. They refused, and likely mouthed back to him causing Wilson to stop rather than just continue on with his patrol.

bolded is purely speculation

Of course it is just speculation, but likely correct.

I'll wait for evidence, thanks.

 

[ricechickie]

You are being beyond stupid. Let's say someone breaks in your home and you shoot them. Who's at fault for the circumstances that led to them getting shot?

That's a really poor analogy.

The actions we know of are Brown and friend walking in the street vs. Wilson taking the time to yell at them for it.

You can't claim that Brown's initial action of walking in the street necessitates shooting.

I notice that there are some that take no time to ponder what the officer did. Did he act in a professional manner? Did he let his temper get the better of him?

These are questions that need answering.

 

[CAPTCHATHIS]

In our system of law, the police don't get to kill a man and say well he desrved it even though I had no reason to suspect that at the time.

If you touch a cop's gun that is a felony.
If you punch or physically attack a cop that is battery on a LEO...another felony.

Brown committed at least 2 felonies...
Look at #3 below from the missouri statutes..

It was a good, legal shoot.



Law enforcement officer's use of force in making an arrest.
563.046. 1. A law enforcement officer need not retreat or desist from efforts to effect the arrest, or from efforts to prevent the escape from custody, of a person he reasonably believes to have committed an offense because of resistance or threatened resistance of the arrestee. In addition to the use of physical force authorized under other sections of this chapter, he is, subject to the provisions of subsections 2 and 3, justified in the use of such physical force as he reasonably believes is immediately necessary to effect the arrest or to prevent the escape from custody.

2. The use of any physical force in making an arrest is not justified under this section unless the arrest is lawful or the law enforcement officer reasonably believes the arrest is lawful.

3. A law enforcement officer in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody is justified in using deadly force only

(1) When such is authorized under other sections of this chapter; or

(2) When he reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested

(a) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony; or

(b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon; or

(c) May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.

4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.

3. A law enforcement officer in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody is justified in using deadly force only

(1) When such is authorized under other sections of this chapter; or

(2) When he reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest AND also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested

(a) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony; or

(b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon; or

(c) May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.


While you are presuming Brown committed 2 felonies, the evidence and witness testimony hardly supports that conclusively.
But let's say he did. Wilson will need to prove he reasonably believed that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest.
From what I've read, heard and watched it will take a very liberal interpretation of reasonably believed to support that deadly force was immediately necessary. He was roughly 20 feet away by most accounts, unarmed, had his arms up to some extent, and he was already shot - most probably several times before the fatal shot. It's also possible, if not likely the fatal shot came when he was already down considering the 2 head shots. One struck the crown of his head the other, the other above the eye exiting the bottom of his jaw. ( He was 6, 4").

CHAPTER 563

 

[ricechickie]

Fergusson blacks aren't going to take this very well:



MORE:Missouri Officials Evidence supports Ferguson police officer s account Concord Monitor

from this link:

In those first police accounts, St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar said that Brown “allegedly pushed” Wilson back into the car after Wilson tried to open the door. Brown, police said, then “physically assaulted” Wilson, and went for the gun. Wilson fired inside the vehicle, they said. Wilson then got out and killed Brown, Belmar said. The police had said Wilson feared for his life because Brown charged him on the sidewalk.

Dorian Johnson, the 22-year-old who was with Brown when they encountered Wilson, gave another version: Wilson encountered them in the street and ordered them onto the sidewalk. Wilson drove past, then backed up and opened the car door so forcefully that it bounced against the two men. Wilson, still in the car, then grabbed Brown by his collar. Brown was trying to free himself and never tried to get the gun. Wilson drew his gun and threatened to shoot, then it went off. Johnson and Brown then ran.

Two different accounts. That's all I'm saying.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

In our system of law, the police don't get to kill a man and say well he desrved it even though I had no reason to suspect that at the time.

If you touch a cop's gun that is a felony.
If you punch or physically attack a cop that is battery on a LEO...another felony.

Brown committed at least 2 felonies...
Look at #3 below from the missouri statutes..

It was a good, legal shoot.



Law enforcement officer's use of force in making an arrest.
563.046. 1. A law enforcement officer need not retreat or desist from efforts to effect the arrest, or from efforts to prevent the escape from custody, of a person he reasonably believes to have committed an offense because of resistance or threatened resistance of the arrestee. In addition to the use of physical force authorized under other sections of this chapter, he is, subject to the provisions of subsections 2 and 3, justified in the use of such physical force as he reasonably believes is immediately necessary to effect the arrest or to prevent the escape from custody.

2. The use of any physical force in making an arrest is not justified under this section unless the arrest is lawful or the law enforcement officer reasonably believes the arrest is lawful.

3. A law enforcement officer in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody is justified in using deadly force only

(1) When such is authorized under other sections of this chapter; or

(2) When he reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested

(a) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony; or

(b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon; or

(c) May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.

4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.

3. A law enforcement officer in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody is justified in using deadly force only

(1) When such is authorized under other sections of this chapter; or

(2) When he reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest AND also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested

(a) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony; or

(b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon; or

(c) May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.


While you are presuming Brown committed 2 felonies, the evidence and witness testimony hardly supports that conclusively.
But let's say he did. Wilson will need to prove he reasonably believed that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest.
From what I've read, heard and watched it will take a very liberal interpretation of reasonably believed to support that deadly force was immediately necessary. He was roughly 20 feet away by most accounts, unarmed, had his arms up to some extent, and he was already shot - most probably several times before the fatal shot. It's also possible, if not likely the fatal shot came when he was already down considering the 2 head shots. One struck the crown of his head the other, the other above the eye exiting the bottom of his jaw. ( He was 6, 4").

CHAPTER 563

Please learn the law before you go to quoting it.

The use of any physical force in making an arrest is not justified under this section unless the arrest is lawful or the law enforcement officer reasonably believes the arrest is lawful.

If Wilson reasonably believed that Brown committed a felony he was justified in using deadly force, he does NOT have to prove to you that Brown committed a felony. He only has to prove that he reasonably believed that Wilson committed a felony. A subtle, yet distinct difference.