New Witness to Michael Brown Shooting

[Killswitch]

Yes, I have no problems getting in touch with my erotic side....

I used to not have that problem.

lol

 

[Disgustipated]

And I'll continue the editorial.

There are those that say the officer has no probably cause because at the time of the confrontation he was unaware of the strong arm robbery. (And we do know the robbery is a fact because Brown's pard has confessed to the robbery along with Brown.)

So Brown and his bud were merely jay-walking so why the belligerence on Brown's part? Because even though the officer may not have known at the time that Brown was leaving the scene of a strong-arm robbery, Brown knew that he was leaving the scene of a strong-arm robbery, he knew that he and his bud had the goods on them, and he had NO idea that the officer didn't know. As a matter of fact it would not be unreasonable for Brown to believe that the officer did know and was there to arrest him.

Brown's state of mind is just as open to conjecture as the officer's.

Ishmael

Your 2nd sentence is a mess and no one knows what happened.

 

[doowdniw]

I don't get the bitching about the mayor of Ferguson. Was he elected by only the white minority there? And the white counsel members too, were they all elected only by the white minority in Ferguson, too? I'm just asking because I don't know how a town with an ethnic makeup of less than 40% whites ends up with a bunch of whites running the show. Don't speculate, tell me what you know about how that happened. Was it no competition, ballot stuffing, suppressing the minority vote through intimidation, apathy? What? How did that happen?

 

[nowisthetime]

cor·rupt
kəˈrəpt
adjective
1.
having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain.


You seemed to have skipped a link in this chain. When did corrupt come into it?

cor·rup·tion from Merriam Webster
noun \kə-ˈrəp-shən\

: dishonest or illegal behavior especially by powerful people (such as government officials or police officers)

: the act of corrupting someone or something

: something that has been changed from its original form

Full Definition of CORRUPTION
1
a : impairment of integrity, virtue, or moral principle : depravity
b : decay, decomposition
c : inducement to wrong by improper or unlawful means (as bribery)
d : a departure from the original or from what is pure or correct
2
archaic : an agency or influence that corrupts
3
chiefly dialect : pus
See corruption defined for English-language learners »
See corruption defined for kids »
Examples of CORRUPTION

There are rumors of widespread corruption in the city government.
the mafia's corruption of public officials
corruption of the English language
computer software that is supposed to prevent the corruption of files
the corruption of a text

First Known Use of CORRUPTION
14th century
Related to CORRUPTION

Synonyms
breakdown, decay, decomposition, festering, putrefaction, putrescence, rot, spoilage

Antonyms
morality, virtue

[+]more
Other Legal Terms
actionable, alienable, carceral, chattel, complicity, decedent, larceny, malfeasance, modus operandi


It doesn't have to be for money or personal gain. It can be any immoral act.

 

[toubab]

Now, I'll editorialize a bit.

Can shoot someone who is giving up? The short answer is...it all depends. The real world is rarely a black and white place. In general, no, you shouldn't shoot someone who is surrendering. As other posters note - at this point in the investigation we have witnesses who say Mr. Brown was and witnesses who say he wasn't. As details emerge so will perceptions.

Can you shoot some who is charging you? Yep, you sure can, if you believe it is necessary to do so (and the state of mind of the officer is the relevant one). Anyone with experience in violence, as either a victim, a participant or an observer, can tell you that single punch or kick can cripple, disable, maim or kill a person. You can use Google and search for people killed with one punch if you're into that thing, there are videos.

Can a person feign surrendering in order to attempt to lure another person into complacency? Yep, and those with law enforcement experience will tell you it is not an uncommon gambit. Can a person put their hands up as if to surrender, then decide not to and attack? Yep, also not an uncommon event.

We have enough information to see the counter-narrative now (whether it will be validated or not is a question of time). The officer approaches the person. As the officer attempts to get out of his car, the individual slams the door on the officer (assault with a dangerous weapon), then follows up with a punch to the head/face of the officer (assault & battery, assault on a law enforcement officer), the person then attempts to grab the officers gun, they struggle, at one point in the struggle the person actually manages to twist the gun around enough to aim it at the officers hip. The officer regains control of the weapon sufficiently to point it away from himself and in the struggle the weapon discharges (assault with a deadly weapon, or attempted murder) testing on the hands of the officer and victim can verify this portion of the narrative, plus any physical evidence in the vehicle or the clothing). The subject starts to flee, the officer starts pursuit.

By now, the incident has escalated all the way to the top of the scale. The officer believes that the suspect is a very dangerous person, willing to assault and attempt to kill a police officer in broad daylight on a city street. Additionally, the person is big, strong, and fast. The person turns and charges the officer. The officer shoots. (With a 9mm semi-auto, six shots can be rippled off in a few seconds.) End result, a justified use of deadly force.

One of the things, from a legal standpoint, is that it is the officers point of view from which the reasonable man determination is resolved. So, knowing the counter-narrative, if you are capable of placing yourself in the officers position - what would you do?

I can only speak for myself but - slam a door on me, punch me, and try to wrest my gun from me and I can assure you I am in the state of mind that I am in mortal danger and will respond to perceived threatening behavior with sufficient force to end the threat immediately.

Time tells of course. As the complete narrative emerges, the picture becomes clearer. We may or may not elect to believe the parts we don't want to believe, but that is an individual thing. There are enough resources deployed in Ferguson now that that picture will doubtlessly be far more complete then many use of force/homicide investigations.

Let's assume, for discussion, the scenario you've outlined is what actually happened. If so, the cop would certainly have given this version to his superiors, and probably to investigators, to whom he has probably given a formal statement. Assuming this is true, why has this information not been given to the public already? Why has the officer not instructed his attorney to present this information to offset all the eyewitness versions that give a completely different spin on what happened?

 

[doowdniw]

Your 2nd sentence is a mess and no one knows what happened.

Change the word has to had. It should clear it right up for you.

 

[nowisthetime]

I used to not have that problem.

lol

No shame!

 

[doowdniw]

Let's assume, for discussion, the scenario you've outlined is what actually happened. If so, the cop would certainly have given this version to his superiors, and probably to investigators, to whom he has probably given a formal statement. Assuming this is true, why has this information not been given to the public already? Why has the officer not instructed his attorney to present this information to offset all the eyewitness versions that give a completely different spin on what happened?

Perhaps because in the current state of inflamed emotions, the mob would not believe him anyway?

 

[toubab]

And I'll continue the editorial.

There are those that say the officer has no probably cause because at the time of the confrontation he was unaware of the strong arm robbery. (And we do know the robbery is a fact because Brown's pard has confessed to the robbery along with Brown.)

So Brown and his bud were merely jay-walking so why the belligerence on Brown's part? Because even though the officer may not have known at the time that Brown was leaving the scene of a strong-arm robbery, Brown knew that he was leaving the scene of a strong-arm robbery, he knew that he and his bud had the goods on them, and he had NO idea that the officer didn't know. As a matter of fact it would not be unreasonable for Brown to believe that the officer did know and was there to arrest him.

Brown's state of mind is just as open to conjecture as the officer's.

Ishmael

Good points. I think it's likely the officer realized, after the initial confrontation, that Brown was probably the individual who had just committed the strong arm robbery, and attempted to put Brown under arrest, upon which Brown resisted, ultimately leading to the fatal shooting.

 

[toubab]

Perhaps because in the current state of inflamed emotions, the mob would not believe him anyway?

Saying nothing, officially, doesn't seem to be working out too well. For anyone.

 

[Balladeer08]

Let's assume, for discussion, the scenario you've outlined is what actually happened. If so, the cop would certainly have given this version to his superiors, and probably to investigators, to whom he has probably given a formal statement. Assuming this is true, why has this information not been given to the public already? Why has the officer not instructed his attorney to present this information to offset all the eyewitness versions that give a completely different spin on what happened?

Because he doesn't want to do trial-by-press?

What have you got against the legal process?

 

[toubab]

Because he doesn't want to do trial-by-press?

What have you got against the legal process?

Trial by press is happening, and has been since day one. And it's going to continue, and get worse, if the cop doesn't get his side of the story out there. If he has one worth getting out there, of course.

 

[Greenwavelawyer]

Let's assume, for discussion, the scenario you've outlined is what actually happened. If so, the cop would certainly have given this version to his superiors, and probably to investigators, to whom he has probably given a formal statement. Assuming this is true, why has this information not been given to the public already? Why has the officer not instructed his attorney to present this information to offset all the eyewitness versions that give a completely different spin on what happened?

You assume he has made a statement. I am not so sure. I have not seen anything that confirms it one way or another. I would not be surprised if he did not "lawyer up" right away. Even a wet behind the ears newly minted lawyer would not let him make a statement before know more facts. And once the situation escalated it is unlikely anything would be formally released until things settle down.

 

[Balladeer08]

Trial by press is happening, and has been since day one. And it's going to continue, and get worse, if the cop doesn't get his side of the story out there. If he has one worth getting out there, of course.

I don't see relinquishing to mob rule as the answer.

 

[Greenwavelawyer]

Trial by press is happening, and has been since day one. And it's going to continue, and get worse, if the cop doesn't get his side of the story out there. If he has one worth getting out there, of course.

If I am representing him I am less concerned about trial by press than trial by jury.
Only a jury trial gets him sent to prison

 

[RobDownSouth]

Incompetent goon squad in Ferguson continues harassment

Reporter almost arrested for following police orders.

Mighty fine law enforcement there. Mighty fine.

 

[toubab]

You assume he has made a statement. I am not so sure. I have not seen anything that confirms it one way or another. I would not be surprised if he did not "lawyer up" right away. Even a wet behind the ears newly minted lawyer would not let him make a statement before know more facts. And once the situation escalated it is unlikely anything would be formally released until things settle down.

What possible reason could the cop have for not giving a statement if he did nothing wrong? He should be the first person wanting his side out there if he is innocent of wrongdoing.

 

[toubab]

I don't see relinquishing to mob rule as the answer.

I can tell you what is going to happen, the way this is going. This will go to a grand jury, and the cop is going to find himself facing murder charges.

 

[toubab]

You assume he has made a statement. I am not so sure. I have not seen anything that confirms it one way or another. I would not be surprised if he did not "lawyer up" right away. Even a wet behind the ears newly minted lawyer would not let him make a statement before know more facts. And once the situation escalated it is unlikely anything would be formally released until things settle down.

It should take a lawyer about five minutes to understand the facts as presented by his client. If the facts are favorable, they should be presented to the public, in my opinion.

 

[Disgustipated]

Change the word has to had. It should clear it right up for you.

That wasn't the word, dummy.

 

[toubab]

If I am representing him I am less concerned about trial by press than trial by jury.
Only a jury trial gets him sent to prison

If I'm the cop, I'm hoping not to be charged with murder.

 

[Paul_Chance]

As some have already noted.

First, the officer has already been interviewed (twice) for his version of the events, and is reported to be cooperating (CNN) with the investigation.

Next, he is probably already lawyered up (usually, the jurisdiction or union if there is one) will immediately provide a lawyer, and most likely he has retained or someone has retained individual counsel. Even if he wanted to talk to the press he would be advised, strongly, not too.

The working product of a police investigation is not subject to release under an FOIA request in Missouri (saw that on CNN), and in general, working product is not released to the public. they can hold it for 30 days and go before a judge to request an extension.

I'd also be certain that the police, state and federal agencies are all insisting (or trying too) that nothing be released without careful vetting by their lawyers. I've never known of a police shooting case where the officer made any public statement to the press.

Would his statement serve any purpose? Do you believe it would calm the crowds? Most likely, it would just be fuel to the fire. We, as individuals and collectively may want to hear it or read it - but every government entity I've ever known moves at its own pace.

 

[toubab]

You know what, I just realized why the cop may be sitting back and doing nothing to get his side of the story out there. It could be because the investigation of this shooting is going very well, from his point of view, and he and his lawyer know that. It could be several credible witnesses have been found that back his version of the story, whatever it may be, and he is confident he will never be charged with murder or anything else.

 

[Paul_Chance]

You know what, I just realized why the cop may be sitting back and doing nothing to get his side of the story out there. It could be because the investigation of this shooting is going very well, from his point of view, and he and his lawyer know that. It could be several credible witnesses have been found that back his version of the story, whatever it may be, and he is confident he will never be charged with murder or anything else.

Yep, that is one of the many things we do not know. It is quite possible that police or federal investigators have already found corroborating witnesses/evidence and out of concern for the safety of the witnesses are keeping that information under wraps - that's pure speculation, but possible.

I was actually surprised they didn't have dash cams. Hell, I've been in little four cop departments that have dash cams.

As for murder, murder is really tough to prove because of the requirement for mental states.

 

[Balladeer08]

What possible reason could the cop have for not giving a statement if he did nothing wrong? He should be the first person wanting his side out there if he is innocent of wrongdoing.

Jesus tits, do you listen to yourself? That is the same rationale cops you hate give for abridging search and seizure rights. "Well if you don't have anything to hide, why shouldn't we search your trunk?"

I've about got it figured out that some of you don't object to lynching, to discrimination, to prejudice or anything else, as long as you are the ones it benefits, not you being the ones that suffers for it. Why not just come out and admit you are trying to take over civil authority, in effect riding the mob to revolution?

I need my faith in humanity restored.

Somebody come out in favor of equality, justice, the rule of law.

Why shouldn't he say anything? Because his lawyer will have told him NOT to. All making a statement would do is give people like you words that they can twist and take out of context.

It is not to his advantage to make any statement to the press. THE PRESS ARE NOT IN CHARGE OF THE INVESTIGATION OR THE TRIAL.

Same reason why, if he does go to court, his lawyer will tell him NOT to testify.