Looting in Missouri after cops shoot 18 year old (2 Viewers)

[Henry Ford]

Is Quez a shtick account? I honestly don't understand what he's talking about.

 

[Quez]

Haha my bad. I just read the wiki and must of confused the stuff that happened by the officers vehicle to be the 2 guys getting in a vehicle.

 

[Henry Ford]

The victim definitely wasn't innocent here. He basically walked into the gas station and bullied the little Indian man. You can easily see the guy cowering in the stills.

Then he likely walked out and went to get in his car and leave when the officer approached asking him to get out of his vehicle. He likely ignored the officer, and proceeded to back up. Officer opens door tries to grab him, he backs up while officer is attempting to apprehend. Which is considered using the vehicle as a weapon, so the officer shoots him.

If the story ended there I might consider siding with the officer, but then it sounds like the officer proceeded to "finish him" off by executing the guy in broad daylight in front of witnesses.

What?

I see we've reached the stage where random people pop in and make stuff up.

I heard the kid then pulled out a rocket launcher filled with nuclear-tipped missiles. The cop was named John McClain.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

"I didn't know exactly what was going on, but I knew it didn't look right for someone to be wrestling with the police through the police window, but I didn't get a video because a shot was fired through the window, so I tried to get out of the way," Mitchell said.


Mitchell then described what she saw happen between Brown and the police officer.

"As I pull onto the side, the kid, he finally gets away, he starts running. As he runs the police get out of his vehicle and he follows behind him, shooting," Mitchell said. "And the kid's body jerked as if he was hit from behind, and he turns around and puts his hands up like this, and the cop continued to fire until he just dropped down to the ground and his face just smacks the concrete."

Mitchell clarified she heard a shot after she saw Brown trying to pull away from the cop, and said even after Brown turned to face the cop and put his hands in the air, "the cop continued to come up on him and shoot him until he fell down to the ground." She said she counted "more than about five or six shots."

Mitchell also said she only saw one officer involved in the incident, and described him as a "white male, kind of tall, not too big."

Mitchell said she received no pressure to change her story from detectives who on the case, but said the cops that arrived at the scene "were very rude" to bystanders and "didn't want to tell" the public what had happened.

"They showed no kind of remorse for what happened to the kid at all," she said.

Mitchell's attorney said she gave a statement to the St. Louis County detectives right after the incident.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/13/tiffany-mitchell-michael-brown_n_5677003.html

She sounds like a credible witness, why does she need an attorney?

You can laugh all you want....She witnessed a crime.....she tells her version of what she saw......she goes home until there is a trial....She didn't do anything wrong, she didn't commit a crime..... Interview Room: So miss Mitchell what did you see the day Mr. Brown was shot?.... Attorney for Mitchell :...Don't answer that?....WTF.....Unless you think that the Ferguson Police Department, the State Police, The FBI and the State attorney are all corrupt. Ridiculous.....Who is going to pay for her expenses?

Talking to police without an attorney present is idiotic.

Yeah if you are accused of have any knowledge relevant to a crime that wasn't perpetrated against you or are afraid of the local police....I agree....

Fixed

Again....Is there a threat she is going to go to jail for coming in and answering questions about a crime she saw committed?...She doesn't have to get involved at all....No way if I'm in her shoes that I pay for an attorney to provide my story....I simply tell what I saw...If they don't believe it, F- 'em...I walk out and never come back...

 

[jamny]

Must of

 

[Henry Ford]

Again....Is there a threat she is going to go to jail for coming in and answering questions about a crime she saw committed?...She doesn't have to get involved at all....No way if I'm in her shoes that I pay for an attorney to provide my story....I simply tell what I saw...If they don't believe it, F- 'em...I walk out and never come back...

And what do you do when they tell you they think you're lying because you're implicating a police officer, they consider that interfering with a police investigation and filing a false report with the police, and they're going to charge you with a crime because they think you're just trying to make the kid look good because of the media circus?

 

[TheIronSheik]

Haha my bad. I just read the wiki and must of confused the stuff that happened by the officers vehicle to be the 2 guys getting in a vehicle.

They organized a mob in this thread quicker than the people of Missouri did. Yikes.

 

[timschochet]

I don't think it was a good idea for the police chief to give out the name of the officer. Don't care how much demand there was. Nothing good can come of this.

Nothing good can come out of this? Tell that to the guy that anonymous incorrectly named.

Fair point- but all the police have to do is say "that's the wrong guy," they don't have to say who the right one is.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I don't think it was a good idea for the police chief to give out the name of the officer. Don't care how much demand there was. Nothing good can come of this.

Nothing good can come out of this? Tell that to the guy that anonymous incorrectly named.

Fair point- but all the police have to do is say "that's the wrong guy," they don't have to say who the right one is.

Who would possibly believe them?

 

[johnnycakes]

Interesting article here on when police use of lethal force is justifiable. I know, the source isn't the best in the world, but they cite a Supreme Court case and their analysis would seem to make sense. Unfortunately, it was written before news hit that Brown was a suspect in an unarmed robbery in which a store clerk was battered.

In the 1980s, a pair of Supreme Court decisions set up a framework for determining when deadly force by cops is reasonable. Those decisions have governed how state laws are applied. Furthermore, many agencies simply use identical standards to the Supreme Court's for their own use-of-force policies — though some departments don't let officers use deadly force even when the Court decisions say they'd be allowed to.

Constitutionally, "police officers are allowed to shoot under two circumstances," says Klinger. The first circumstance is "to protect their life or the life of another innocent party" — what departments call the "defense-of-life" standard. The second circumstance is to prevent a suspect from escaping, but only if the officer has probable cause to think the suspect's committed a serious violent felony.

The logic behind the second circumstance, says Klinger, comes from a Supreme Court decision called Tennessee vs. Garner. That case involved a pair of police officers who shot a 15-year-old boy as he fled from a burglary. (He'd stolen $10 and a purse from a house.) The Court ruled that cops couldn't shoot every felon who tried to escape. But, as Klinger says, "they basically say that the job of a cop is to protect people from violence, and if you've got a violent person who's fleeing, you can shoot them to stop their flight."

Some police departments' policies only allow deadly force in the first circumstance: defense of life. Others have policies that also allow deadly force to prevent escape in certain cases, within the limits of the Supreme Court decision.

Without knowing the full account that the officer who killed Michael Brown provided, it's impossible to know which of those standards he believes he met — but it's more likely that he would say he feared for his life when Brown (according to his story) assaulted him in his car. In that case, the next question will be whether it was reasonable for him to be afraid of Brown.

The key to both of the legal standards is that it doesn't matter whether there is an actual threat when force is used. Instead, what matters is the officer's "objectively reasonable" belief that there is a threat.

That standard comes from the other Supreme Court case that guides use-of-force decisions: Graham v. Connor. This was a civil lawsuit brought by a man who'd survived his encounter with police officers, but who'd been treated roughly, had his face shoved into the hood of a car, and broken his foot — all while he was suffering a diabetic attack. The Court didn't rule on whether the officers' treatment of him had been justified, but it did say that the officers couldn't justify their conduct just based on whether their intentions were good. They had to demonstrate that their actions were "objectively reasonable," given the circumstances and compared to what other police officers might do.

There are plenty of cases in which an officer might be legally justified in using deadly force because he feels threatened, even though there's no threat actual threat there. Klinger gives the example of a suspect who has is carrying a realistic-looking toy gun. That example bears a resemblance to the shooting death of James Crawford, an Ohio man who was killed by police last week while carrying a toy rifle in Wal-Mart.

Hypothetically, if the gun looked real, Klinger says, "the officer's life was not in fact in jeopardy, but that would be an appropriate use of force. Because a reasonable officer could have believed that that was a real gun." In fact, toy gun manufacturers — including the maker of the air rifle Crawford had — have started using this standard to limit their liability, putting on a warning label that tells consumers police could mistake their products for real guns.

Walter Katz, a California attorney who specializes in oversight of law enforcement agencies — particularly during use-of-force investigations — points out that it's hard to determine whether an officer's fear is reasonable because the decision to shoot is so fast. "Officer-involved shootings happen extremely quickly. Usually, the point from where the officer believes he has to use deadly force to the point where he uses deadly force — where he pulls the trigger — is about two seconds." That can make it much harder for investigators to decide whether or not the officer was reasonable in thinking he had to shoot.

That puts a lot of weight on an officer's immediate instincts in judging who's dangerous. And those immediate instincts are where implicit bias could creep in — believing that a young black man is a threat, for example, even if he is unarmed.

But each use of deadly force does have to be evaluated separately to determine if it was justified. "The moment that you no longer present a threat, I need to stop shooting," said Klinger. According to the St. Louis County Police Department's account, the officer who killed Michael Brown fired one shot from inside the police car. But Brown was killed some 25 feet away, after several shots had been fired. To justify the shooting, the officer wouldn't just need to demonstrate that he feared for his life not just when Brown was by the car, but even after he started shooting and Brown started running away. The officer would need to establish that, right up until the last shot was fired, he felt Brown continued to pose a threat to him, whether he actually was or not.

 

[Limp Ditka]

I don't think it was a good idea for the police chief to give out the name of the officer. Don't care how much demand there was. Nothing good can come of this.

Nothing good can come out of this? Tell that to the guy that anonymous incorrectly named.

Fair point- but all the police have to do is say "that's the wrong guy," they don't have to say who the right one is.

 

[metoo]

"I didn't know exactly what was going on, but I knew it didn't look right for someone to be wrestling with the police through the police window, but I didn't get a video because a shot was fired through the window, so I tried to get out of the way," Mitchell said.


Mitchell then described what she saw happen between Brown and the police officer.

"As I pull onto the side, the kid, he finally gets away, he starts running. As he runs the police get out of his vehicle and he follows behind him, shooting," Mitchell said. "And the kid's body jerked as if he was hit from behind, and he turns around and puts his hands up like this, and the cop continued to fire until he just dropped down to the ground and his face just smacks the concrete."

Mitchell clarified she heard a shot after she saw Brown trying to pull away from the cop, and said even after Brown turned to face the cop and put his hands in the air, "the cop continued to come up on him and shoot him until he fell down to the ground." She said she counted "more than about five or six shots."

Mitchell also said she only saw one officer involved in the incident, and described him as a "white male, kind of tall, not too big."

Mitchell said she received no pressure to change her story from detectives who on the case, but said the cops that arrived at the scene "were very rude" to bystanders and "didn't want to tell" the public what had happened.

"They showed no kind of remorse for what happened to the kid at all," she said.

Mitchell's attorney said she gave a statement to the St. Louis County detectives right after the incident.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/13/tiffany-mitchell-michael-brown_n_5677003.html

She sounds like a credible witness, why does she need an attorney?

You can laugh all you want....She witnessed a crime.....she tells her version of what she saw......she goes home until there is a trial....She didn't do anything wrong, she didn't commit a crime..... Interview Room: So miss Mitchell what did you see the day Mr. Brown was shot?.... Attorney for Mitchell :...Don't answer that?....WTF.....Unless you think that the Ferguson Police Department, the State Police, The FBI and the State attorney are all corrupt. Ridiculous.....Who is going to pay for her expenses?

Talking to police without an attorney present is idiotic.

Yeah if you are accused of have any knowledge relevant to a crime that wasn't perpetrated against you or are afraid of the local police....I agree....

Fixed

Again....Is there a threat she is going to go to jail for coming in and answering questions about a crime she saw committed?...She doesn't have to get involved at all....No way if I'm in her shoes that I pay for an attorney to provide my story....I simply tell what I saw...If they don't believe it, F- 'em...I walk out and never come back...

I'm pretty sure she's not paying Otis. This is the norm for high-profile cases.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hmmm. They're showing still photos from a robbery that occurred that the officer was investigating. Seems Mike Brown is a suspect.

video to be released of robbery

Reading through this thread this am I kind of think everyone has been too far ahead in the timelines, who struggled with whom, when.

I think the key is the initial stop. Either the cop stopped these two kids for no reason (bad, very bad) or he had reasonable suspicion that one of them had engaged in some criminal activity.

In other instances, if a cop has reason to think that a suspect is violent, or sells drugs, or has committed some violent crime, then resisting arrest and trying to flee takes on a whole other aspect. It doesn't permit shooting someone in the back and killing them often, but still it's a whole other context.

If these kids were stopped for no good reason at all, then everything else that follows after that is practically a crime by the state.

 

[timschochet]

I don't think it was a good idea for the police chief to give out the name of the officer. Don't care how much demand there was. Nothing good can come of this.

Nothing good can come out of this? Tell that to the guy that anonymous incorrectly named.

Fair point- but all the police have to do is say "that's the wrong guy," they don't have to say who the right one is.

Who would possibly believe them?

Well you got me there. You guys have a good ppint. Really hate that it has to be this way though.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Hmmm. They're showing still photos from a robbery that occurred that the officer was investigating. Seems Mike Brown is a suspect.

video to be released of robbery

Reading through this thread this am I kind of think everyone has been too far ahead in the timelines, who struggled with whom, when.

I think the key is the initial stop. Either the cop stopped these two kids for no reason (bad, very bad) or he had reasonable suspicion that one of them had engaged in some criminal activity.

In other instances, if a cop has reason to think that a suspect is violent, or sells drugs, or has committed some violent crime, then resisting arrest and trying to flee takes on a whole other aspect. It doesn't permit shooting someone in the back and killing them often, but still it's a whole other context.

If these kids were stopped for no good reason at all, then everything else that follows after that is practically a crime by the state.

He told them to get out of the street. He didnt stop them. When they said "were going right there" or the equivalent he backed up and opened his door into one of them.

 

[roadkill1292]

Andrew Kaczynski ‏@BuzzFeedAndrew 2m

Darren Wilson named as officer in Michael Brown shooting.

Is that the name that Anon posted yesterday or did they just cause someone else all kinds of headaches?

Anonymous got it wrong. This is a different name. I haven't seen a picture yet but I am sure this name will be in top of google in no time.

If they're gonna assume this role of vigilante that they seem to want to, I expect better and I'd like an apology for this.

Sorry.

You're a good man for doing this.

Seriously, though, if they want to play this game and be taken credibly, they've got to realize the damage they can do when they screw up and take more responsibility for it than blaming it on "lack of information".

GUESSING DOESN'T CUT IT, ANON. Well, unless you're gb FavreCo.

 

[jamny]

Hmmm. They're showing still photos from a robbery that occurred that the officer was investigating. Seems Mike Brown is a suspect.

video to be released of robbery

Reading through this thread this am I kind of think everyone has been too far ahead in the timelines, who struggled with whom, when.

I think the key is the initial stop. Either the cop stopped these two kids for no reason (bad, very bad) or he had reasonable suspicion that one of them had engaged in some criminal activity.

In other instances, if a cop has reason to think that a suspect is violent, or sells drugs, or has committed some violent crime, then resisting arrest and trying to flee takes on a whole other aspect. It doesn't permit shooting someone in the back and killing them often, but still it's a whole other context.

If these kids were stopped for no good reason at all, then everything else that follows after that is practically a crime by the state.

He told them to get out of the street. He didnt stop them. When they said "were going right there" or the equivalent he backed up and opened his door into one of them.

So far, has any one else but the guy's friend given this account? Did anyone else hear the cop tell them to get off the street?

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Again....Is there a threat she is going to go to jail for coming in and answering questions about a crime she saw committed?...She doesn't have to get involved at all....No way if I'm in her shoes that I pay for an attorney to provide my story....I simply tell what I saw...If they don't believe it, F- 'em...I walk out and never come back...

And what do you do when they tell you they think you're lying because you're implicating a police officer, they consider that interfering with a police investigation and filing a false report with the police, and they're going to charge you with a crime because they think you're just trying to make the kid look good because of the media circus?

Well...I'm not paranoid like you.....I say thanks for having me in...see you later. She didn't file anything, she answered questions...This whole scenario that you have described is

 

[jamny]

Again....Is there a threat she is going to go to jail for coming in and answering questions about a crime she saw committed?...She doesn't have to get involved at all....No way if I'm in her shoes that I pay for an attorney to provide my story....I simply tell what I saw...If they don't believe it, F- 'em...I walk out and never come back...

And what do you do when they tell you they think you're lying because you're implicating a police officer, they consider that interfering with a police investigation and filing a false report with the police, and they're going to charge you with a crime because they think you're just trying to make the kid look good because of the media circus?

Well...I'm not paranoid like you.....I say thanks for having me in...see you later. She didn't file anything, she answered questions...This whole scenario that you have described is

Really? I'm no lawyer but it sounds entirely possible.

 

[igbomb]

Now as far as this case is concerned, that part really doesn't matter when you shoot someone in the back. Just like the Tony Stewart case, where both involved were idiots, the same applies here and the outcome is the same. One idiot dead the other idiot's life is changed forever.

I'd also like to know why the other kid was not shot at. Seems very odd. He was right there too.

I disagree with the bolded. One may have been an idiot, the other is suppose to have the training to handle a situation like this. Shooting someone in the back is something a housewife does to a cheating husband. Not something a trained cop does.

That's why they are both idiots. Kid is an idiot for walking down the middle of the road AND not leaving the road when a cop tells him to.

Cop is an idiot for shooting a kid in the back, and then continuing to shoot him until he's dead.

Good thing you're hear to point out that the kid may have made some ill-advised decisions.

But, contrary to your general understanding of people's positions, saying that he shouldn't have been shot in the back as he ran away (if that is indeed what happened) does not actually mean that anyone is suggesting that the kid made all the right decisions. It's just that in this case the cop's bad decisions may have just been a bit more egregious than Brown's.

So I'm frankly not sure why it even bears mentioning that the kid was an idiot.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I don't think the key is really the initial stop at all. Let's assume that I take as true a number of exonerating factors. That the cop thought Brown was a suspect in a robbery. That Brown tried to assault the cop in some way. The cop is still tasked with exercising appropriate force at all times. And everything we appear to know shows that he continued to fire at a point when he could no longer have a reasonable fear for his safety (or even an expectation that he was stopping a fleeing violent offender).

Maybe there is some set of facts that makes this just a "bad shooting" instead of a monstrous civil rights violation, but unless there are additional facts that we don't know that haven't even been suggested yet, it doesn't seem like it can get much better than that.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

"I didn't know exactly what was going on, but I knew it didn't look right for someone to be wrestling with the police through the police window, but I didn't get a video because a shot was fired through the window, so I tried to get out of the way," Mitchell said.


Mitchell then described what she saw happen between Brown and the police officer.

"As I pull onto the side, the kid, he finally gets away, he starts running. As he runs the police get out of his vehicle and he follows behind him, shooting," Mitchell said. "And the kid's body jerked as if he was hit from behind, and he turns around and puts his hands up like this, and the cop continued to fire until he just dropped down to the ground and his face just smacks the concrete."

Mitchell clarified she heard a shot after she saw Brown trying to pull away from the cop, and said even after Brown turned to face the cop and put his hands in the air, "the cop continued to come up on him and shoot him until he fell down to the ground." She said she counted "more than about five or six shots."

Mitchell also said she only saw one officer involved in the incident, and described him as a "white male, kind of tall, not too big."

Mitchell said she received no pressure to change her story from detectives who on the case, but said the cops that arrived at the scene "were very rude" to bystanders and "didn't want to tell" the public what had happened.

"They showed no kind of remorse for what happened to the kid at all," she said.

Mitchell's attorney said she gave a statement to the St. Louis County detectives right after the incident.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/13/tiffany-mitchell-michael-brown_n_5677003.html

She sounds like a credible witness, why does she need an attorney?

You can laugh all you want....She witnessed a crime.....she tells her version of what she saw......she goes home until there is a trial....She didn't do anything wrong, she didn't commit a crime..... Interview Room: So miss Mitchell what did you see the day Mr. Brown was shot?.... Attorney for Mitchell :...Don't answer that?....WTF.....Unless you think that the Ferguson Police Department, the State Police, The FBI and the State attorney are all corrupt. Ridiculous.....Who is going to pay for her expenses?

Talking to police without an attorney present is idiotic.

Yeah if you are accused of have any knowledge relevant to a crime that wasn't perpetrated against you or are afraid of the local police....I agree....

Fixed

Again....Is there a threat she is going to go to jail for coming in and answering questions about a crime she saw committed?...She doesn't have to get involved at all....No way if I'm in her shoes that I pay for an attorney to provide my story....I simply tell what I saw...If they don't believe it, F- 'em...I walk out and never come back...

I'm pretty sure she's not paying Otis. This is the norm for high-profile cases.

It's normal that an innocent witness needs an attorney.......to simply tell what they saw?

 

[gianmarco]

Now as far as this case is concerned, that part really doesn't matter when you shoot someone in the back. Just like the Tony Stewart case, where both involved were idiots, the same applies here and the outcome is the same. One idiot dead the other idiot's life is changed forever.

I'd also like to know why the other kid was not shot at. Seems very odd. He was right there too.

I disagree with the bolded. One may have been an idiot, the other is suppose to have the training to handle a situation like this. Shooting someone in the back is something a housewife does to a cheating husband. Not something a trained cop does.

That's why they are both idiots. Kid is an idiot for walking down the middle of the road AND not leaving the road when a cop tells him to.Cop is an idiot for shooting a kid in the back, and then continuing to shoot him until he's dead.

Wrong.One might be an idiot. But the other isn't. That's called a murderer.

So a murderer is not an idiot? I beg to differ.

Ted Bundy, man, that guy was a real idiot. A serial idiot at that.

 

[timschochet]

Hmmm. They're showing still photos from a robbery that occurred that the officer was investigating. Seems Mike Brown is a suspect.

video to be released of robbery

Reading through this thread this am I kind of think everyone has been too far ahead in the timelines, who struggled with whom, when.

I think the key is the initial stop. Either the cop stopped these two kids for no reason (bad, very bad) or he had reasonable suspicion that one of them had engaged in some criminal activity.

In other instances, if a cop has reason to think that a suspect is violent, or sells drugs, or has committed some violent crime, then resisting arrest and trying to flee takes on a whole other aspect. It doesn't permit shooting someone in the back and killing them often, but still it's a whole other context.

If these kids were stopped for no good reason at all, then everything else that follows after that is practically a crime by the state.

He told them to get out of the street. He didnt stop them. When they said "were going right there" or the equivalent he backed up and opened his door into one of them.

Youre accepting verbatim the most incendiary account. That doesn't surprise me.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

It is not uncommon for witnesses to obtain counsel, no. When the witnesses are white people testifying about possible white collar crimes, in fact, it's almost mandatory.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hmmm. They're showing still photos from a robbery that occurred that the officer was investigating. Seems Mike Brown is a suspect.

video to be released of robbery

Reading through this thread this am I kind of think everyone has been too far ahead in the timelines, who struggled with whom, when.

I think the key is the initial stop. Either the cop stopped these two kids for no reason (bad, very bad) or he had reasonable suspicion that one of them had engaged in some criminal activity.

In other instances, if a cop has reason to think that a suspect is violent, or sells drugs, or has committed some violent crime, then resisting arrest and trying to flee takes on a whole other aspect. It doesn't permit shooting someone in the back and killing them often, but still it's a whole other context.

If these kids were stopped for no good reason at all, then everything else that follows after that is practically a crime by the state.

He told them to get out of the street. He didnt stop them. When they said "were going right there" or the equivalent he backed up and opened his door into one of them.

Incredible.

If this is correct, the DOJ is going to be doing some digging into this police force and there is going to be some hell to pay.

 

[igbomb]

Ditka -

You do realize that there are some extenuating circumstances in this case, right? Potential murder by cop.....protests in the streets....Governor and President weighing in....

Who wouldn't want some guidance from a professional in this situation?

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Again....Is there a threat she is going to go to jail for coming in and answering questions about a crime she saw committed?...She doesn't have to get involved at all....No way if I'm in her shoes that I pay for an attorney to provide my story....I simply tell what I saw...If they don't believe it, F- 'em...I walk out and never come back...

And what do you do when they tell you they think you're lying because you're implicating a police officer, they consider that interfering with a police investigation and filing a false report with the police, and they're going to charge you with a crime because they think you're just trying to make the kid look good because of the media circus?

Well...I'm not paranoid like you.....I say thanks for having me in...see you later. She didn't file anything, she answered questions...This whole scenario that you have described is

Really? I'm no lawyer but it sounds entirely possible.

I'm fairly certain the miranda warning is applicable to someone who actually committed a crime...not to the innocent person who is asked and voluntarily describes what he or she saw.

 

[Henry Ford]

Again....Is there a threat she is going to go to jail for coming in and answering questions about a crime she saw committed?...She doesn't have to get involved at all....No way if I'm in her shoes that I pay for an attorney to provide my story....I simply tell what I saw...If they don't believe it, F- 'em...I walk out and never come back...

And what do you do when they tell you they think you're lying because you're implicating a police officer, they consider that interfering with a police investigation and filing a false report with the police, and they're going to charge you with a crime because they think you're just trying to make the kid look good because of the media circus?

Well...I'm not paranoid like you.....I say thanks for having me in...see you later. She didn't file anything, she answered questions...This whole scenario that you have described is

"You're welcome. Here are a pair of shiny bracelets we'd like you to wear. Reporting this alleged murder by a police officer is a false report of a crime. Please see the booking agent."

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I don't think the key is really the initial stop at all. Let's assume that I take as true a number of exonerating factors. That the cop thought Brown was a suspect in a robbery. That Brown tried to assault the cop in some way. The cop is still tasked with exercising appropriate force at all times. And everything we appear to know shows that he continued to fire at a point when he could no longer have a reasonable fear for his safety (or even an expectation that he was stopping a fleeing violent offender).

Maybe there is some set of facts that makes this just a "bad shooting" instead of a monstrous civil rights violation, but unless there are additional facts that we don't know that haven't even been suggested yet, it doesn't seem like it can get much better than that.

I think what I was getting at was what Todd was alluding to (IMO), if these kids were stopped for no good reason, then you potentially have a pattern of institutionalized harassment. That is possible, that does go on. In that event the kid, although not advised, had a reason to resist, he had been stopped illegally. Considering it all ended in death and rioting, I think the leap to "monstrous" is a very real possibility here.

 

[Henry Ford]

Again....Is there a threat she is going to go to jail for coming in and answering questions about a crime she saw committed?...She doesn't have to get involved at all....No way if I'm in her shoes that I pay for an attorney to provide my story....I simply tell what I saw...If they don't believe it, F- 'em...I walk out and never come back...

And what do you do when they tell you they think you're lying because you're implicating a police officer, they consider that interfering with a police investigation and filing a false report with the police, and they're going to charge you with a crime because they think you're just trying to make the kid look good because of the media circus?

Well...I'm not paranoid like you.....I say thanks for having me in...see you later. She didn't file anything, she answered questions...This whole scenario that you have described is

Really? I'm no lawyer but it sounds entirely possible.

I'm fairly certain the miranda warning is applicable to someone who actually committed a crime...not to the innocent person who is asked and voluntarily describes what he or she saw.

What are you talking about?

 

[Sammy3469]

It is not uncommon for witnesses to obtain counsel, no. When the witnesses are white people testifying about possible white collar crimes, in fact, it's almost mandatory.

Hell, we won't even talk to civil regulators without a lawyer present.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Ditka -

You do realize that there are some extenuating circumstances in this case, right? Potential murder by cop.....protests in the streets....Governor and President weighing in....

Who wouldn't want some guidance from a professional in this situation?

Regardless of who is involved....What guidance do you need if you tell what you truthfully saw?....Witness: I saw the officer and the suspect struggle, I heard a shot...I saw the suspect running away....I saw the officer take chase and shoot the suspect.. I saw the suspect put his hands up...I saw the officer shoot him several more times....Investigator: are you sure that is what you saw.....Witness: yep, that is all I got....

 

[Henry Ford]

Ditka -

You do realize that there are some extenuating circumstances in this case, right? Potential murder by cop.....protests in the streets....Governor and President weighing in....

Who wouldn't want some guidance from a professional in this situation?

Regardless of who is involved....What guidance do you need if you tell what you truthfully saw?....Witness: I saw the officer and the suspect struggle, I heard a shot...I saw the suspect running away....I saw the officer take chase and shoot the suspect.. I saw the suspect put his hands up...I saw the officer shoot him several more times....Investigator: are you sure that is what you saw.....Witness: yep, that is all I got....

You're talking about going into a police station and saying things that are potentially damaging to a police officer. You should have an attorney.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Again - Ferguson City Council - 5 whites, 1 black. White mayor.

http://www.fergusoncity.com/171/Council-Members

In a 70% black city.

How does this happen?

Voting?

Same way a black president was elected.

I've seen interviews of people saying its a disgrace and that there is not more blacks in leadership roles in the city. Are people suppose to vote only for the same race they are?

I also heard on NPR that there are only three black cops on the police force.

Large numbers of white voters voted for Pres. Obama, more than had voted for Kerry for instance, but still IIRC it was only ~43%. Black turnout was a huge factor.

No, people should never vote based on ":race." However obviously the mayor and the council just don't "get it." It's not a question of skin color but at some point you need to get someone with the viewpoint of your community or someone representing the folks having the complaints in government itself.

There is a way out of this by voting. But also, obviously something has been severely lacking in political participation up until now.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Again....Is there a threat she is going to go to jail for coming in and answering questions about a crime she saw committed?...She doesn't have to get involved at all....No way if I'm in her shoes that I pay for an attorney to provide my story....I simply tell what I saw...If they don't believe it, F- 'em...I walk out and never come back...

And what do you do when they tell you they think you're lying because you're implicating a police officer, they consider that interfering with a police investigation and filing a false report with the police, and they're going to charge you with a crime because they think you're just trying to make the kid look good because of the media circus?

Well...I'm not paranoid like you.....I say thanks for having me in...see you later. She didn't file anything, she answered questions...This whole scenario that you have described is

"You're welcome. Here are a pair of shiny bracelets we'd like you to wear. Reporting this alleged murder by a police officer is a false report of a crime. Please see the booking agent."

That is so ####### ridiculous that I'm surprised that you had the courage to post it. Again

 

[Henry Ford]

Again....Is there a threat she is going to go to jail for coming in and answering questions about a crime she saw committed?...She doesn't have to get involved at all....No way if I'm in her shoes that I pay for an attorney to provide my story....I simply tell what I saw...If they don't believe it, F- 'em...I walk out and never come back...

And what do you do when they tell you they think you're lying because you're implicating a police officer, they consider that interfering with a police investigation and filing a false report with the police, and they're going to charge you with a crime because they think you're just trying to make the kid look good because of the media circus?

Well...I'm not paranoid like you.....I say thanks for having me in...see you later. She didn't file anything, she answered questions...This whole scenario that you have described is

"You're welcome. Here are a pair of shiny bracelets we'd like you to wear. Reporting this alleged murder by a police officer is a false report of a crime. Please see the booking agent."

That is so ####### ridiculous that I'm surprised that you had the courage to post it. Again

You've never had a client call you from jail and say he was arrested for interfering with a police investigation because the police didn't believe what he told them?

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Again....Is there a threat she is going to go to jail for coming in and answering questions about a crime she saw committed?...She doesn't have to get involved at all....No way if I'm in her shoes that I pay for an attorney to provide my story....I simply tell what I saw...If they don't believe it, F- 'em...I walk out and never come back...

And what do you do when they tell you they think you're lying because you're implicating a police officer, they consider that interfering with a police investigation and filing a false report with the police, and they're going to charge you with a crime because they think you're just trying to make the kid look good because of the media circus?

Well...I'm not paranoid like you.....I say thanks for having me in...see you later. She didn't file anything, she answered questions...This whole scenario that you have described is

Really? I'm no lawyer but it sounds entirely possible.

I'm fairly certain the miranda warning is applicable to someone who actually committed a crime...not to the innocent person who is asked and voluntarily describes what he or she saw.

What are you talking about?

I'm talking about being a witness....If every witness of a crime needed an attorney...we would have no witnesses.

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

good lord. Just stop posting.

 

[igbomb]

good lord. Just stop posting.

This.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Again....Is there a threat she is going to go to jail for coming in and answering questions about a crime she saw committed?...She doesn't have to get involved at all....No way if I'm in her shoes that I pay for an attorney to provide my story....I simply tell what I saw...If they don't believe it, F- 'em...I walk out and never come back...

And what do you do when they tell you they think you're lying because you're implicating a police officer, they consider that interfering with a police investigation and filing a false report with the police, and they're going to charge you with a crime because they think you're just trying to make the kid look good because of the media circus?

Well...I'm not paranoid like you.....I say thanks for having me in...see you later. She didn't file anything, she answered questions...This whole scenario that you have described is

"You're welcome. Here are a pair of shiny bracelets we'd like you to wear. Reporting this alleged murder by a police officer is a false report of a crime. Please see the booking agent."

That is so ####### ridiculous that I'm surprised that you had the courage to post it. Again

You've never had a client call you from jail and say he was arrested for interfering with a police investigation because the police didn't believe what he told them?

Have you ever had an innocent witness who had absolutely no connection to the crime or criminal ever call you and say.... I've been arrested for answering a question that the police asked me?

 

[Ditka Butkus]

good lord. Just stop posting.

This.

I will because....I have to go now and shake my head and laugh at you people.

 

[igbomb]

good lord. Just stop posting.

This.

I will because....I have to go now and shake my head and laugh at you people.

Sick burn dude

 

[Gary Coal Man]

I also heard on NPR that there are only three black cops on the police force.

From The New Republic a couple days ago:

Today, Ferguson is nearly 70 percent black, but the law here is still enforced by a police department that is more than 90 percent white, a fact that helps engender widespread distrust of officers — never more so than last weekend, when a white officer shot and killed an unarmed young black man who was about to start college.

Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson said 50 of the city's 53 police officers are white. He said he made recruiting and promoting black officers a priority when he took over four years ago after a three-decade police career in St. Louis and St. Louis County.

Jackson said he promoted two black officers to sergeant in his first year in Ferguson, though one of those officers has since left for a better-paying job.

"I'm constantly trying to recruit African-Americans and other minorities," he said. "But it's an uphill battle. The minority makeup of this police department is not where I want it to be."

 

[squistion]

A commentary from Joan McCarter at DailyKos regarding the Police Chief's press conference:

Ferguson Chief releases shooter's name, begins smearing of Michael Brown

Michael Brown's killer has been identified for the press and the public. But in the press conference conducted by Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson, there was scant information about the actual shooting and its immediate aftermath, and an awful lot about Michael Brown being a suspected thug who had allegedly participated in a strong-arm robbery at a convenience store, stealing cigars.

The Washington Post's Wesley Lowery confirms that no information about the shooting was included in the information packets provided to the media.

Info handed out ONLY about alleged robbery. NO info included about interaction with Officer Wilson, the shooting.
— @WesleyLowery
Not handed out: a use of force report, any police report written by Officer Wilson, any narrative of shooting
— @WesleyLowery
The fact that Ferguson cop Darren Wilson was the shooter was almost an afterthought in this press conference. The main point was to say that Brown stole cigars before the shooting, and that Wilson was apparently on the look-out for him. What also should have been communicated to police from the 911 dispatches, however, was that the cigar store robbery was not an armed robbery. Wilson, who ultimately found and killed Brown, should have known—even if he was apprehending Brown as the robbery suspect—that he was unarmed. He certainly knew he was unarmed when he shot Brown, according to witness accounts. Brown's empty hands were in the air when he was fatally shot.

The alleged robbery is a red herring. At issue is why Brown was fatally shot. Even if he was a robbery suspect, that doesn't mean it was legal for Wilson to shoot him as he was surrendering.

7:51 AM PT: Another question arises: the police allege that Dorian Johnson was with Brown in the alleged robbery and participated. Why wasn't Johnson taken into custody at the time of the shooting? He was with Brown then, an immediate eye witness.

7:56 AM PT: Good point from dinotrac in comments: Wilson should have known that the alleged robbery wasn't an armed robbery, but that doesn't necessarily mean that cops knew that the suspect didn't have some kind of weapon on him going into the situation.

 

[Courtjester]

Okay, back to the case at hand and maybe those two can take their legal arguments to the lawyer thread.

I think until we know all the facts at hand--all of us are guessing about what happened at this point. But playing Devil's advocate here. lets say Brown is involved in a Aggravated Robbery and is fleeing/leaving the scene, cop attempts to stop him, Brown struggles with the officer and is shot, then we have a case that will probably go to trial and we will have a 50 page thread for all of us to post in.

Now excusing the officer for shooting the guy when he was 30 feet away will definately be problematic for the defense. However, if (and I say IF) the facts as presented above turn out to be the facts, then this case is so far from this huge civil rights case that many are attempting to make it out to be and it just becomes a case of unreasonable use of force in apprehending a suspect in my opinion.

 

[Henry Ford]

Have you ever had an innocent witness who had absolutely no connection to the crime or criminal ever call you and say.... I've been arrested for answering a question that the police asked me?

Yes. I mean, not according to the police, but according to the witness.

 

[johnnycakes]

Ditka -

You do realize that there are some extenuating circumstances in this case, right? Potential murder by cop.....protests in the streets....Governor and President weighing in....

Who wouldn't want some guidance from a professional in this situation?

Regardless of who is involved....What guidance do you need if you tell what you truthfully saw?....Witness: I saw the officer and the suspect struggle, I heard a shot...I saw the suspect running away....I saw the officer take chase and shoot the suspect.. I saw the suspect put his hands up...I saw the officer shoot him several more times....Investigator: are you sure that is what you saw.....Witness: yep, that is all I got....

You're talking about going into a police station and saying things that are potentially damaging to a police officer. You should have an attorney.

"Listen, you think you can help us get out of here with no sweat?"

"I imagine that I can if you haven't killed anybody. At least nobody white."

 

[Henry Ford]

Okay, back to the case at hand and maybe those two can take their legal arguments to the lawyer thread.

I think until we know all the facts at hand--all of us are guessing about what happened at this point. But playing Devil's advocate here. lets say Brown is involved in a Aggravated Robbery and is fleeing/leaving the scene, cop attempts to stop him, Brown struggles with the officer and is shot, then we have a case that will probably go to trial and we will have a 50 page thread for all of us to post in.

Now excusing the officer for shooting the guy when he was 30 feet away will definately be problematic for the defense. However, if (and I say IF) the facts as presented above turn out to be the facts, then this case is so far from this huge civil rights case that many are attempting to make it out to be and it just becomes a case of unreasonable use of force in apprehending a suspect in my opinion.

 

[Josie Maran]

Okay, back to the case at hand and maybe those two can take their legal arguments to the lawyer thread.

I think until we know all the facts at hand--all of us are guessing about what happened at this point. But playing Devil's advocate here. lets say Brown is involved in a Aggravated Robbery and is fleeing/leaving the scene, cop attempts to stop him, Brown struggles with the officer and is shot, then we have a case that will probably go to trial and we will have a 50 page thread for all of us to post in.

Now excusing the officer for shooting the guy when he was 30 feet away will definately be problematic for the defense. However, if (and I say IF) the facts as presented above turn out to be the facts, then this case is so far from this huge civil rights case that many are attempting to make it out to be and it just becomes a case of unreasonable use of force in apprehending a suspect in my opinion.

Wat