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.
So-called "witness" testimony is a joke. There is no way to confirm if any of these so-called witnesses were even there, at the time of the shooting. And the only person who said Wilson grabbed Brown by the throat, was Johnson, who has become the biggest laughingstock of the whole case.No one but stupid people are disputing that 'Big Mike' punched the cop.FALSE! That is not what the court decided. YOU are full of shit. The court decided exactly what I said (in Post # 9) > it decided >> "An officer can also shoot a fleeing suspect if the officer believes the suspect has committed a violent felony and his or her escape would pose a significant and serious threat."It isn't. He's full of shit. Even Ron Paul thinks so.
Police Have No Right to Shoot Someone Running Away
"""As noted previously, that case went before the Supreme Court a decade later, resulting in the 1985 Tennessee v. Garner ruling in which the Court held that “The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable.” This was a rejection of the “Any Felony Rule” under which officers in many states, including Tennessee, were authorized to use deadly force to stop a fleeing or resisting suspect."""
The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity Police Have No Right to Shoot Someone Running Away
Missouri Statute 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.
Also :
While there is no national statute outlining police use of deadly force, there are national standards, established by a pair of 1980s US supreme court decisions.David Klinger, an associate professor in the department of criminology and criminal justice at the University of Missouri–St Louis and a former officer with the Los Angeles police department, said there are two permissible circumstances in which an officer can use lethal force.
Brown fits the # 2 item here, to a T.
- Constitutionally, a police officer can shoot a suspect who is threatening the life of the officer, a fellow officer or a member of the public, said Klinger, a use-of-force expert. This is known as the “defence of life” standard.
- An officer can also shoot a fleeing suspect if the officer believes the suspect has committed a violent felony and his or her escape would pose a significant and serious threat, he said.
Garner vs. Tennessee (1985)
Graham vs. Conner (1989)
(some people have to be told twice)
Stealing a $45 box of cigars is not a felony. Brown would only be guilty of a violent felony if he actually assaulted the cop, and that is still in dispute.
Even 'Big Mike's' bum-boy Johnson has admitted the fact. Pretty hard not to when witnesses have come forward and sworn they saw 'Big Mike' punching Wilson.
You need to get up to speed or leave pal.
The GJ will see medical evidence that Wilson's eye socket was broken. When that happens the GJ will rule that no charges be brought against Wilson.
Then the fucking monkeys in Ferguson can go out and loot and burn down the rest of the shit hole.
Then they can figure out how to travel three miles and back to buy a can of watermelon juice.
Witnesses agree there was an altercation at the cop's car, but most did not catch the beginning of it. The only witness who has publicly made a statement on it that I've seen confirmed that Officer Wilson initiated the struggle by grabbing Brown by the throat and pulling him toward the car and Brown, naturally, resisted.
We do not actually know what Wilson's medical condition was.
And please keep ending your posts on the subject with your racist rants. Otherwise people might take something you say seriously.
FALSE! That's not what Tennesse Vs, Garner ruled at all. Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may use deadly force to prevent escape only if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Tennessee v. Garner - Wikipedia the free encyclopediaInteresting part of this is that even if Wilson had shot Brown square in the back, while he was running away, that would be entirely LEGAL, and proper under US law. So rather than have a slew of posts in this thread, we could have just one saying "So What ?"
Why is that legal?
Tennessee v. Garner
Another idiot who can't read:
Tennessee v. Garner ruling in which the Court held that “The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable.”
Try reading the thread before posting, so as to not enter making a fool out of yourself.It's not legal.Interesting part of this is that even if Wilson had shot Brown square in the back, while he was running away, that would be entirely LEGAL, and proper under US law. So rather than have a slew of posts in this thread, we could have just one saying "So What ?"
Why is that legal?
FALSE! That's not what Tennesse Vs, Garner ruled at all. Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may use deadly force to prevent escape only if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Tennessee v. Garner - Wikipedia the free encyclopediaInteresting part of this is that even if Wilson had shot Brown square in the back, while he was running away, that would be entirely LEGAL, and proper under US law. So rather than have a slew of posts in this thread, we could have just one saying "So What ?"
Why is that legal?
Tennessee v. Garner
Another idiot who can't read:
Tennessee v. Garner ruling in which the Court held that “The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable.”
Which, obvioulsy, was exactly the case with Michael Brown.
In addition: Missouri state law confirms this as well >>
Missouri Statute 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.
Also :
While there is no national statute outlining police use of deadly force, there are national standards, established by a pair of 1980s US supreme court decisions.David Klinger, an associate professor in the department of criminology and criminal justice at the University of Missouri–St Louis and a former officer with the Los Angeles police department, said there are two permissible circumstances in which an officer can use lethal force.
Brown could have legally been shot in the front or the back, while he was running away.
- Constitutionally, a police officer can shoot a suspect who is threatening the life of the officer, a fellow officer or a member of the public, said Klinger, a use-of-force expert. This is known as the “defence of life” standard.
- An officer can also shoot a fleeing suspect if the officer believes the suspect has committed a violent felony and his or her escape would pose a significant and serious threat, he said.
