Released early on, it would have been a good side of the story, for the police, and for the officer in question. The gentle giant bullshit would never have happened.
New Witness to Michael Brown Shooting
- Thread starter toubab
- Start date
Released early on, it would have been a good side of the story, for the police, and for the officer in question. The gentle giant bullshit would never have happened.
4est_4est_Gump
Run Forrest! RUN!
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2011
- Posts
- 89,007
Yeah, I'm keeping my remarks to Lance's thread now.
I understand the forces arrayed against the police. The police should understand also, and get their shit together way better than this.
4est_4est_Gump
Run Forrest! RUN!
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2011
- Posts
- 89,007
Which is pretty amazing since all you have is her word, in an interview, that she is a witness and no proof that she is not just repeating the story as she heard it, and didn't actually witness anything.
They may have but it was out of their hands. Under Florida law that case was a loser from the beginning for the prosecutors. That was a political trial, in that the politico's wanted a trial so that they could be seen "doing something about it". Now they can go to the Sharptons of the world and say we tried, but it was the jury.
That's what a jury will have, and I think a jury will find her credible, if she ever testifies in court. That's all I'm saying.
It was a political trial, but Rachel Jeantel was a disaster waiting to happen.
NeverEndingMe
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2011
- Posts
- 15,925
these are animals with rabies, and the best solution is to terminate
nowisthetime
The Time Is Now!
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2014
- Posts
- 11,853
These cops have been going apeshit crazy, haven't they?
This we agree on.
Looks like the cops are not the only ones going ape shit crazy in this case. Good to see you again. It has been a while.
nowisthetime
The Time Is Now!
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2014
- Posts
- 11,853
Good to see you too! Of course not all cops. But many police officers have to establish building rapport with the community. It is all about building relationships.
People are angry because this officer has not been charged and they see a young man dead on the street for hours and nothing is being done. There is only so much human beings can take.
NOTHING justifies rioting and looting. When you do that you just take away from the original act, by creating more. The officer has not been charged because they have not had time to investigate his actions. They were too busy trying to prevent the town from being burned down. Forensics will tell the tale anyway. Now I think the Feds have taken over the investigation so it is on them and not the locals that an arrest has not been made.
All cops, especially street cops, should build rapport with the community. I did and it made me that much more effective.
J
JAMESBJOHNSON
Guest
Especially from nigguh thugs.
nowisthetime
The Time Is Now!
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2014
- Posts
- 11,853
Yes, I do not agree with the rioting. But obviously law enforcement needed to build a better rapport with the community. Riots take time to brew. It is like an undercurrent that just bursts open, unleashing hot and fiery anger that has been pent up.
NeverEndingMe
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2011
- Posts
- 15,925
Law enforcement needs to go in there with guns blazing! but they are too scared to upset the slaves
Skiddles2014
#1
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2013
- Posts
- 4,732
A young nigga got it bad cuz he's brown.
NeverEndingMe
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2011
- Posts
- 15,925
the kid was a criminal!
so now the animals go wild because a thug was taken out by the cops. i'm sure the kid tried to fight the cop. just look at the asshole was with the store owner.
the kid was a piece of shit
the people rioting, are animals on rabies
when an animal has rabies you put it down
J
JAMESBJOHNSON
Guest
No better reason.
Paul_Chance
The Watcher
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2011
- Posts
- 21,690
Out of curiousity what do you see about the witness that leads you to believe they are highly credible?
In a high profile case witnesses come out of the woodwork, many of whom, at the end of the day, are never allowed to testify because of credibility problems, once all of the witnesses are interviewed, the particulars of the story don't match. When the media saturates a case it is very easy for person, perhaps even a well meaning person, to provide details that ultimately align perfectly - not with the crime, but with the media stories about the crime.
Once a witness is lawyered up you can be assured what you will get is a polished and practiced media narrative, of little probative value. With these types of witnesses they can establish value by providing details that were not in the media narrative and that correspond directly to the events. I'd never judge a witnesses credibility based on an interview on cable TV. Deceptive witnesses will miss key details (because they weren't there or didn't see).
The forensics will provide additional information in the investigation, which will be fed into the mix. Most significantly will be entrance and exit points, as well as the trajectory of the bullet through the skin, underlying muscles, and soft tissues. This will give you a quite accurate picture of body position at the time of contact. If he had his hands up and he was shot in the chest, it will be apparent. Of course, in a high profile case, expect them to be challenged every inch of the way.
For your reading pleasure:
Missouri Revised Statutes 563.046
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.
A police officer may shoot a fleeing felon if the officer reasonably believes the suspect may otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury. Here is the Missouri Statute on resisting arrest:
http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5750000150.HTM
In this case, a reasonable person would believe that, if the cops narrative is true, the suspect had committed two felonies in the presence of the officer (assault on a police officer and resisting arrest), and we know had minutes before committed a third felony (strong arm robbery). The initial witness that reported the "hands in the air and surrendering" narrative was the suspects criminal accomplice in the strong arm robbery, so he is hardly an impartial or credible witness at this point. Subsequent witness narratives should be carefully evaluated.
I'd predict at this point, it is all going to hinge on the forensics. If the forensics support a hands raised position and a frontal shot(s), then the cop will be indicted by the grand jury and go to trial. The jury case will hinge on what the cop thought and what led him to fire the final shots. At this point, just knowing the law and what little things we do know now - the grand jury is not going to even indict.
I am sure there is a lot of information yet to come and that will push the narrative one way or another. A tragedy all the way around, any way you look at it. One young life ended and countless others forever altered.
In a high profile case witnesses come out of the woodwork, many of whom, at the end of the day, are never allowed to testify because of credibility problems, once all of the witnesses are interviewed, the particulars of the story don't match. When the media saturates a case it is very easy for person, perhaps even a well meaning person, to provide details that ultimately align perfectly - not with the crime, but with the media stories about the crime.
Once a witness is lawyered up you can be assured what you will get is a polished and practiced media narrative, of little probative value. With these types of witnesses they can establish value by providing details that were not in the media narrative and that correspond directly to the events. I'd never judge a witnesses credibility based on an interview on cable TV. Deceptive witnesses will miss key details (because they weren't there or didn't see).
The forensics will provide additional information in the investigation, which will be fed into the mix. Most significantly will be entrance and exit points, as well as the trajectory of the bullet through the skin, underlying muscles, and soft tissues. This will give you a quite accurate picture of body position at the time of contact. If he had his hands up and he was shot in the chest, it will be apparent. Of course, in a high profile case, expect them to be challenged every inch of the way.
For your reading pleasure:
Missouri Revised Statutes 563.046
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.
A police officer may shoot a fleeing felon if the officer reasonably believes the suspect may otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury. Here is the Missouri Statute on resisting arrest:
http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5750000150.HTM
In this case, a reasonable person would believe that, if the cops narrative is true, the suspect had committed two felonies in the presence of the officer (assault on a police officer and resisting arrest), and we know had minutes before committed a third felony (strong arm robbery). The initial witness that reported the "hands in the air and surrendering" narrative was the suspects criminal accomplice in the strong arm robbery, so he is hardly an impartial or credible witness at this point. Subsequent witness narratives should be carefully evaluated.
I'd predict at this point, it is all going to hinge on the forensics. If the forensics support a hands raised position and a frontal shot(s), then the cop will be indicted by the grand jury and go to trial. The jury case will hinge on what the cop thought and what led him to fire the final shots. At this point, just knowing the law and what little things we do know now - the grand jury is not going to even indict.
I am sure there is a lot of information yet to come and that will push the narrative one way or another. A tragedy all the way around, any way you look at it. One young life ended and countless others forever altered.
4yourpleasureiam
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2014
- Posts
- 6,949
sssssssssssssssssssss
Last edited:
nowisthetime
The Time Is Now!
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2014
- Posts
- 11,853
RobDownSouth
No Kings
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 77,663
No, it's one of those tertiary 'tards trying to catch the attention of the kewl wingnuts.
#Derp
nowisthetime
The Time Is Now!
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2014
- Posts
- 11,853
But his wingnut masters wouldn't approve of those who have cross-dressing tendencies.
Ooops.
Similar threads
