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

[msommer]

map here

this guys was fast!

Not that far. Could easily be walked in 10 minutes.

He was jaywalking though...

 

[Henry Ford]

This appears to be a contemporaneous eyewitness livetweeting Saturday's event. Fascinating.

The picture of him laying there in the street. Damn.

There's a second cop in that photo.

 

[hagmania]

This appears to be a contemporaneous eyewitness livetweeting Saturday's event. Fascinating.

The picture of him laying there in the street. Damn.

There's a second cop in that photo.

The account also offers up "apparently he stole some rellos" so who knows what is what anymore.

 

[Henry Ford]

If that photo was taken when it says it was - minutes after the shooting - then there may have been two officers on scene during the shooting.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Dude's story dovetails with that other witness pretty tight.

One shot in car, one shot in back while running, dude turns (with his hands up according to her) and cop unloads on him.

 

[Todd Andrews]

I am genuinely mystified about the police's communication plan here.

I actually have a hard time believing that the chief was actively seeking to simply discredit Brown, but It's just mind boggling to think that he'd release the information he released without also disclosing that the victim wasn't stopped for the robbery. I want to believe it's just extreme incompetence, but it's been days. There has to be someone who understands how to deal with the media on the scene by now.

Truly stunning if not intentional. I believe that it was intentional because the police chief also said that the officer was responding to the robbery, which was not true. I think he was forced to come clean because of the press was all over him all day on that point (they were the ones submitting FOIAs he claimed forced him to release that video and they wanted and still want a lot more than that video).

The only reason I'm having a hard time believing it was intentional is that it's somehow 10X stupider to do it intentionally than out of incompetence. He thought nobody would ask? God forbid the original officer actually has something like a defense, because the chief has left the guy's ### hanging out in the wind.

I understand. I think maybe the police chief and higher ups are so far behind the times and still trying some old school tactics and they are blowing up in their faces. Used to be the police could beat the #### out of minority neighborhoods and subdue them pretty indiscriminately. Didnt work over the last five days did it? Used to be the police could vaguely indict a black youth they killed and there was no questioning or outcry.

Actually, that isnt really used to be stuff. It still happens all the time. But I think there will be more and more Fergusons going forward and less and less idiots like this chief of police screwing everything up.

 

[hagmania]

If that photo was taken when it says it was - minutes after the shooting - then there may have been two officers on scene during the shooting.

Christ and if that's the guy Anonymous released...

Conjecture, all of it, but it makes one think.

 

[Todd Andrews]

If that photo was taken when it says it was - minutes after the shooting - then there may have been two officers on scene during the shooting.

There was a second officer on the scene quickly and he identified Brown as the suspect in the robbery. So it could have been a photo taken shortly after the shooting, and the witness could have heard out on the street that Brown was the suspect in the robbery.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This appears to be a contemporaneous eyewitness livetweeting Saturday's event. Fascinating.

Yeah, I agree.

This guy appears to be something else. Happens to be a rapper by the looks of it.

There were white people throwing up the black power fist. Its a bit deeper than race.

 

[Henry Ford]

If that photo was taken when it says it was - minutes after the shooting - then there may have been two officers on scene during the shooting.

Christ and if that's the guy Anonymous released...

Conjecture, all of it, but it makes one think.

It does. And the tweeting eyewitness said two clear shots followed by a barrage. That does suggest more than one shooter.

 

[Henry Ford]

If that photo was taken when it says it was - minutes after the shooting - then there may have been two officers on scene during the shooting.

There was a second officer on the scene quickly and he identified Brown as the suspect in the robbery. So it could have been a photo taken shortly after the shooting, and the witness could have heard out on the street that Brown was the suspect in the robbery.

Makes more sense. Thank you. The EMS audio doesn't have anyone reporting it that quickly, does it?

 

[Todd Andrews]

More interesting stats on Ferguson. Note the contraband stats based on race versus the stop and search rates based on race.

 

[Concept Coop]

The only reason I'm having a hard time believing it was intentional is that it's somehow 10X stupider to do it intentionally than out of incompetence.

Uh...

 

[Henry Ford]

More interesting stats on Ferguson. Note the contraband stats based on race versus the stop and search rates based on race.

I'm more interested in the "contraband" versus "arrest" rate.

 

[Todd Andrews]

If that photo was taken when it says it was - minutes after the shooting - then there may have been two officers on scene during the shooting.

There was a second officer on the scene quickly and he identified Brown as the suspect in the robbery. So it could have been a photo taken shortly after the shooting, and the witness could have heard out on the street that Brown was the suspect in the robbery.

Makes more sense. Thank you. The EMS audio doesn't have anyone reporting it that quickly, does it?

Not the audio I heard.

 

[Jim11]

Ferguson PD chief says initial contact between officer Wilson and Mike Brown had nothing to do with alleged theft at store.

This weakens the officer's reason for stopping Brown and it may even weaken the officer's claim of self defense (if that's what he argues) because the officer would not be, in his mind, trying to arrest someone who had recently evidenced violent tendencies. The officer likely would still argue he feared for his life due to the size difference and Brown allegedly reaching for his gun.Even if the robbery plays no role in the subsequent interaction between the officer or in a potential murder trial, the robbery probably causes Brown to lose some support in the court of public opinion. It'll now be easier for some people to dismiss Brown as a thug who got his.

People who would dismiss Brown as a thug who got his are already in the anti-Brown camp. If it played out the way the witnesses claim, no rational person is going to consider Brown as deserving the treatment he received.

If the cop stopped Brown, who incidentally robbed a convenience store just prior, for walking in the road, it's conceivable to think Brown thought he was actually being stopped for the robbery, and therefore was ready to be confrontational with the officer.

If I'm armed, and someone tries to get physical with me, they're either going to back off quickly or die. I'm not letting them become the armed aggressor.

Good post.

 

[Henry Ford]

If that photo was taken when it says it was - minutes after the shooting - then there may have been two officers on scene during the shooting.

There was a second officer on the scene quickly and he identified Brown as the suspect in the robbery. So it could have been a photo taken shortly after the shooting, and the witness could have heard out on the street that Brown was the suspect in the robbery.

Makes more sense. Thank you. The EMS audio doesn't have anyone reporting it that quickly, does it?

Not the audio I heard.

Then there were two police officers on scene who didn't report the shooting?

 

[Todd Andrews]

If that photo was taken when it says it was - minutes after the shooting - then there may have been two officers on scene during the shooting.

Christ and if that's the guy Anonymous released...

Conjecture, all of it, but it makes one think.

It does. And the tweeting eyewitness said two clear shots followed by a barrage. That does suggest more than one shooter.

Or it could support the eyewitness accounts of one point blank shot at the car, then another quick one as Brown ran away, then Brown turning and the cop walking towards him emptying his clip.

 

[Henry Ford]

If that photo was taken when it says it was - minutes after the shooting - then there may have been two officers on scene during the shooting.

Christ and if that's the guy Anonymous released...

Conjecture, all of it, but it makes one think.

It does. And the tweeting eyewitness said two clear shots followed by a barrage. That does suggest more than one shooter.

Or it could support the eyewitness accounts of one point blank shot at the car, then another quick one as Brown ran away, then Brown turning and the cop walking towards him emptying his clip.

I guess I just can't imagine a copy walking toward a guy who'd been shot already just unloading that quickly. That's more chilling to me than two shooters.

 

[Todd Andrews]

If that photo was taken when it says it was - minutes after the shooting - then there may have been two officers on scene during the shooting.

There was a second officer on the scene quickly and he identified Brown as the suspect in the robbery. So it could have been a photo taken shortly after the shooting, and the witness could have heard out on the street that Brown was the suspect in the robbery.

Makes more sense. Thank you. The EMS audio doesn't have anyone reporting it that quickly, does it?

Not the audio I heard.

Then there were two police officers on scene who didn't report the shooting?

It appears that way but we dont know the exact timeline. There is definitely a second cop on the scene quickly, and there is definitely a timelag in reporting the shooting, but we dont know those exact time periods or how they coincide.

 

[Henry Ford]

If that photo was taken when it says it was - minutes after the shooting - then there may have been two officers on scene during the shooting.

Christ and if that's the guy Anonymous released...

Conjecture, all of it, but it makes one think.

It does. And the tweeting eyewitness said two clear shots followed by a barrage. That does suggest more than one shooter.

Or it could support the eyewitness accounts of one point blank shot at the car, then another quick one as Brown ran away, then Brown turning and the cop walking towards him emptying his clip.

Oh, and "in" before someone gets on your case about this.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

More interesting stats on Ferguson. Note the contraband stats based on race versus the stop and search rates based on race.

I'm more interested in the "contraband" versus "arrest" rate.

At first glance that's pretty damning. 15% of whites with "contraband" arrested, 48% of blacks. Maybe there's an explanation (or at least partial), but given everything else we know at this point I wouldn't bet on it.

 

[Todd Andrews]

If that photo was taken when it says it was - minutes after the shooting - then there may have been two officers on scene during the shooting.

Christ and if that's the guy Anonymous released...

Conjecture, all of it, but it makes one think.

It does. And the tweeting eyewitness said two clear shots followed by a barrage. That does suggest more than one shooter.

Or it could support the eyewitness accounts of one point blank shot at the car, then another quick one as Brown ran away, then Brown turning and the cop walking towards him emptying his clip.

I guess I just can't imagine a copy walking toward a guy who'd been shot already just unloading that quickly. That's more chilling to me than two shooters.

Im pretty sure that is why so many people are so upset about this incident.

 

[Henry Ford]

If that photo was taken when it says it was - minutes after the shooting - then there may have been two officers on scene during the shooting.

There was a second officer on the scene quickly and he identified Brown as the suspect in the robbery. So it could have been a photo taken shortly after the shooting, and the witness could have heard out on the street that Brown was the suspect in the robbery.

Makes more sense. Thank you. The EMS audio doesn't have anyone reporting it that quickly, does it?

Not the audio I heard.

Then there were two police officers on scene who didn't report the shooting?

It appears that way but we dont know the exact timeline. There is definitely a second cop on the scene quickly, and there is definitely a timelag in reporting the shooting, but we dont know those exact time periods or how they coincide.

We know that the picture of the two cops was uploaded to twitter at 12:05 p.m., four minutes after the encounter started and one minute after the other officer supposedly made it onto the scene.

 

[timschochet]

1. Policeman (or policemen) shot Michael Brown out of bigotry and/or rage, and tried to cover it up.

2. Policeman (or policemen) shot Michael Brown out of good intent but poor decision-making, and tried to cover it up.

3. Policeman (or policemen) shot Michael Brown because Brown deserved to be shot, (it was an act of self-defense,) but afterwards police got nervous and tried to cover it up.

4. Policeman shot Michael brown because Brown deserved to be shot, and there was no coverup.

It seems to me that, based on the two eyewitnesses (I discount Johnson's story), it's either #1 or #2. In both instances, the policeman (or men) who did this deserve to be prosecuted, though it's worse if it's #1, obviously.

 

[Todd Andrews]

More interesting stats on Ferguson. Note the contraband stats based on race versus the stop and search rates based on race.

I'm more interested in the "contraband" versus "arrest" rate.

At first glance that's pretty damning. 15% of whites with "contraband" arrested, 48% of blacks. Maybe there's an explanation (or at least partial), but given everything else we know at this point I wouldn't bet on it.

Great point, guys. Crazy. So they stop and search blacks far more and arrest them far more, even though the whites they stop and search appear to carry significantly more contraband. What that actually means is that they are stopping and searching a lot of blacks when they shouldnt.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

The only reason I'm having a hard time believing it was intentional is that it's somehow 10X stupider to do it intentionally than out of incompetence.

Uh...

I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, Coop. I mean, I can understand why some elements (like "The Young Conservatives" on Twitter) would want to post the pictures to show the victim was some type of thug who "deserved it." There's no consequences for them. The people who are turned off by that aren't their audience anyway.

For the police, there are potentially huge consequences. At the very least, this department is facing a 1983 suit. They're probably facing a DOJ investigation. Four days in, even Barney Fife would know that there's absolutely no possibility of a cover-up now. Or at least that there's no possibility of such an amateurish cover-up. Anything that makes this look less like a one-off act and more like a pattern or procedure of the department increases the department's legal vulnerability exponentially. At the very least, he's given whoever handles the civil case a nice hook into a theory of municipal liability.

 

[timschochet]

More interesting stats on Ferguson. Note the contraband stats based on race versus the stop and search rates based on race.

I'm more interested in the "contraband" versus "arrest" rate.

At first glance that's pretty damning. 15% of whites with "contraband" arrested, 48% of blacks. Maybe there's an explanation (or at least partial), but given everything else we know at this point I wouldn't bet on it.

It IS damning, but it's a nationwide damning, because I am betting that those numbers aren't significantly different anywhere in the United States in which there is a large African-American community.

 

[Concept Coop]

The only reason I'm having a hard time believing it was intentional is that it's somehow 10X stupider to do it intentionally than out of incompetence.

Uh...

I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, Coop. I mean, I can understand why some elements (like "The Young Conservatives" on Twitter) would want to post the pictures to show the victim was type of thug. There's no consequence for them. The people who are turned off by that aren't their audience anyway.

For the police, there are potentially huge consequences. At the very least, this department is facing a 1983 suit. They're probably facing a DOJ investigation. Four days in, even Barney Fife would know that there's absolutely no possibility of a cover-up now. Or at least that there's no possibility of such an amateurish cover-up. Anything that makes this look less like a one-off act and more like a pattern or procedure of the department increases the department's legal vulnerability exponentially. At the very least, he's given whoever handles the civil case and nice hook into a theory of municipal liability.

Sorry; I think I read that wrong. That makes sense.

 

[njherdfan]

The only reason I'm having a hard time believing it was intentional is that it's somehow 10X stupider to do it intentionally than out of incompetence.

Uh...

I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, Coop. I mean, I can understand why some elements (like "The Young Conservatives" on Twitter) would want to post the pictures to show the victim was some type of thug who "deserved it." There's no consequences for them. The people who are turned off by that aren't their audience anyway.

For the police, there are potentially huge consequences. At the very least, this department is facing a 1983 suit. They're probably facing a DOJ investigation. Four days in, even Barney Fife would know that there's absolutely no possibility of a cover-up now. Or at least that there's no possibility of such an amateurish cover-up. Anything that makes this look less like a one-off act and more like a pattern or procedure of the department increases the department's legal vulnerability exponentially. At the very least, he's given whoever handles the civil case a nice hook into a theory of municipal liability.

You're saying this as a (relatively) dispassionate outside observer. While what you're saying seems like common sense, the police chief apparently released the video of Brown robbing a convenience store with the hope that no one would ask whether or not that's the reason Brown was initially stopped by the police. I don't think the Ferguson PD is approaching this too rationally.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

The only reason I'm having a hard time believing it was intentional is that it's somehow 10X stupider to do it intentionally than out of incompetence.

Uh...

I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, Coop. I mean, I can understand why some elements (like "The Young Conservatives" on Twitter) would want to post the pictures to show the victim was some type of thug who "deserved it." There's no consequences for them. The people who are turned off by that aren't their audience anyway.

For the police, there are potentially huge consequences. At the very least, this department is facing a 1983 suit. They're probably facing a DOJ investigation. Four days in, even Barney Fife would know that there's absolutely no possibility of a cover-up now. Or at least that there's no possibility of such an amateurish cover-up. Anything that makes this look less like a one-off act and more like a pattern or procedure of the department increases the department's legal vulnerability exponentially. At the very least, he's given whoever handles the civil case a nice hook into a theory of municipal liability.

You're saying this as a (relatively) dispassionate outside observer. While what you're saying seems like common sense, the police chief apparently released the video of Brown robbing a convenience store with the hope that no one would ask whether or not that's the reason Brown was initially stopped by the police. I don't think the Ferguson PD is approaching this too rationally.

The town presumably has a lawyer. The department probably has a lawyer. I'm not even a very good lawyer, but on the fourth day of this, I wouldn't let the chief order a chicken sandwich without clearing it with me.

 

[Henry Ford]

The only reason I'm having a hard time believing it was intentional is that it's somehow 10X stupider to do it intentionally than out of incompetence.

Uh...

I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, Coop. I mean, I can understand why some elements (like "The Young Conservatives" on Twitter) would want to post the pictures to show the victim was some type of thug who "deserved it." There's no consequences for them. The people who are turned off by that aren't their audience anyway.

For the police, there are potentially huge consequences. At the very least, this department is facing a 1983 suit. They're probably facing a DOJ investigation. Four days in, even Barney Fife would know that there's absolutely no possibility of a cover-up now. Or at least that there's no possibility of such an amateurish cover-up. Anything that makes this look less like a one-off act and more like a pattern or procedure of the department increases the department's legal vulnerability exponentially. At the very least, he's given whoever handles the civil case a nice hook into a theory of municipal liability.

You're saying this as a (relatively) dispassionate outside observer. While what you're saying seems like common sense, the police chief apparently released the video of Brown robbing a convenience store with the hope that no one would ask whether or not that's the reason Brown was initially stopped by the police. I don't think the Ferguson PD is approaching this too rationally.

The town presumably has a lawyer. The department probably has a lawyer. I'm not even a very good lawyer, but on the fourth day of this, I wouldn't let the chief order a chicken sandwich without clearing it with me.

"And when you order this fried chicken sandwich, you will not make any racially motivated remarks regarding fried chicken. Understood?"

 

[Jim11]

Federal Spy Guy ‏@FederalSpyGuy 2h

How does the (alleged) fact the cop may (or may not) have known the kid was (or wasn't) a robber negate the fact the kid was beating the cop?

 

[fatness]

Yes, I'm still catching up the last few pages - should have done so before posting. But if there was no connection, then where did the above (mis)information come from?

The chief of police.

So he said both that Wilson "responded to the call" and that "the stop had nothing to do with the robbery"?

Yes. The police chief cannot get his story straight.

Where is the police report on the shooting/killing by the way? Been released yet?

 

[johnnycakes]

Going back to the Supreme Court cases I cited earlier, it said an officer has the right to shoot a fleeing suspect if he has reasonable basis to believe the suspect was guilty of a felony.

Is shooting a cop a felony?

How about assault & battery of a police officer?

If either one of those is a potential felony, then according to the Supreme Court, the officer had the right to shoot to avoid letting him get away.

 

[urbanhack]

Federal Spy Guy ‏@FederalSpyGuy 2h

How does the (alleged) fact the cop may (or may not) have known the kid was (or wasn't) a robber negate the fact the kid was beating the cop?

pretty stand up guy....

User Actions
FollowFederal Spy Guy‏@FederalSpyGuy#### - domestic tear gas just cleans out the sinuses <#######>

 

[fatness]

I read that police reported that a dozen or fewer people actually looted. What I read wasn't souced. Can anyone provide any source information about that?

I read that the police broke out the heavy equipment at 4:25 (or earlier) the afternoon of the shooting, which I think is before any looting was reported. Does anyone have any information on whether the looting started before or after that.

Thanks.

Are you arguing that there was no reason for the police to bring out the heavy guns or, are you arguing that the heavy guns contributed to the looting?

Rioting leads to riot gear. It's hard to fault the police for proper preparation considering what had gone on.

The rubber bullets and tear gas on crowds appears to have been used prematurely. I believe that sparked an escalation that didn't need to happen.

The riot trucks were broken out at 4:25 at the latest. Pic

The first report of rioting was around 8 or 8:30 from what I've read.

It appears the riot gear appeared first on the street, and rioting happened later.

 

[Fennis]

Going back to the Supreme Court cases I cited earlier, it said an officer has the right to shoot a fleeing suspect if he has reasonable basis to believe the suspect was guilty of a felony.

Is shooting a cop a felony?

How about assault & battery of a police officer?

If either one of those is a potential felony, then according to the Supreme Court, the officer had the right to shoot to avoid letting him get away.

Was it legal for Darren Wilson to shoot Michael Brown?

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, Wilson 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, Wilson would need to demonstrate that he feared for his life, or thought Brown was fleeing, not just when Brown was by the car, but even after he started shooting. 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, or a threat to flee, whether he actually was or not.

There's a difference between the moment you cease to be a threat and the moment I perceive that you ceased to be a threat," says Klinger. And Katz points out that if an officer has been assaulted and the suspect runs away, the officer's threat assessment is probably going to be shaped by having just been assaulted. But, Katz says, "one can't just say, 'Because I could use deadly force ten seconds ago, that means I can use deadly force again now.'"

 

[fatness]

I am genuinely mystified about the police's communication plan here.

I actually have a hard time believing that the chief was actively seeking to simply discredit Brown, but It's just mind boggling to think that he'd release the information he released without also disclosing that the victim wasn't stopped for the robbery. I want to believe it's just extreme incompetence, but it's been days. There has to be someone who understands how to deal with the media on the scene by now.

Truly stunning if not intentional. I believe that it was intentional because the police chief also said that the officer was responding to the robbery, which was not true. I think he was forced to come clean because of the press was all over him all day on that point (they were the ones submitting FOIAs he claimed forced him to release that video and they wanted and still want a lot more than that video).

I'm glad the Ferguson PD isn't handling the investigation.

 

[fatness]

Where is the police report on the shooting/killing by the way? Been released yet?

Doesn't look like it has.

The manner in which Ferguson officials disclosed the information Friday, which included a police report on the robbery but no new details about last Saturday’s shooting, set off renewed anger among residents and quickly overshadowed the release of the officer’s name.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/16/us/darren-wilson-identified-as-officer-in-fatal-shooting-in-ferguson-missouri.html?_r=0

 

[cstu]

Yes, I'm still catching up the last few pages - should have done so before posting. But if there was no connection, then where did the above (mis)information come from?

The chief of police.

So he said both that Wilson "responded to the call" and that "the stop had nothing to do with the robbery"?

Yes. The police chief cannot get his story straight.

Where is the police report on the shooting/killing by the way? Been released yet?

Shaun King ‏@ShaunKing 3h

WOW!!! The Police Chief JUST CONFIRMED that the officer DID NOT know that Michael Brown was involved in the store incident. AT ALL.

 

[fatness]

The name of the robbed convenience store was redacted by police, although a street name listed and security-camera footage of the store were released. A clerk at a store on that street that closely resembled the one seen in the video images said he knew nothing about the robbery. All three employees who were on duty last Saturday were away for the next two weeks, he said, declining to give his name.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/15/us-usa-missouri-shooting-idUSKBN0GF0LP20140815

 

[johnnycakes]

Going back to the Supreme Court cases I cited earlier, it said an officer has the right to shoot a fleeing suspect if he has reasonable basis to believe the suspect was guilty of a felony.

Is shooting a cop a felony?

How about assault & battery of a police officer?

If either one of those is a potential felony, then according to the Supreme Court, the officer had the right to shoot to avoid letting him get away.

Was it legal for Darren Wilson to shoot Michael Brown?

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, Wilson 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, Wilson would need to demonstrate that he feared for his life, or thought Brown was fleeing, not just when Brown was by the car, but even after he started shooting. 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, or a threat to flee, whether he actually was or not.

There's a difference between the moment you cease to be a threat and the moment I perceive that you ceased to be a threat," says Klinger. And Katz points out that if an officer has been assaulted and the suspect runs away, the officer's threat assessment is probably going to be shaped by having just been assaulted. But, Katz says, "one can't just say, 'Because I could use deadly force ten seconds ago, that means I can use deadly force again now.'"

That is not what the Supreme Court said. The above is the rule for civilian use of lethal force.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Going back to the Supreme Court cases I cited earlier, it said an officer has the right to shoot a fleeing suspect if he has reasonable basis to believe the suspect was guilty of a felony.

Is shooting a cop a felony?

How about assault & battery of a police officer?

If either one of those is a potential felony, then according to the Supreme Court, the officer had the right to shoot to avoid letting him get away.

You are wrong about that and I would like to see that USSC case you think says cops can shoot fleeing felons.

Because if you think thats true, you think that a cop can shoot someone fleeing them who uses or owns six dildos (a felony in Texas under certain circumstances). You also think that cops can shoot someone fleeing them in Georgie who twice operates a raffle without registering it with the sheriff.

Use your head, please.

 

[Courtjester]

I am genuinely mystified about the police's communication plan here.

I actually have a hard time believing that the chief was actively seeking to simply discredit Brown, but It's just mind boggling to think that he'd release the information he released without also disclosing that the victim wasn't stopped for the robbery. I want to believe it's just extreme incompetence, but it's been days. There has to be someone who understands how to deal with the media on the scene by now.

Truly stunning if not intentional. I believe that it was intentional because the police chief also said that the officer was responding to the robbery, which was not true. I think he was forced to come clean because of the press was all over him all day on that point (they were the ones submitting FOIAs he claimed forced him to release that video and they wanted and still want a lot more than that video).

I'm glad the Ferguson PD isn't handling the investigation.

And that is what I thought. I thought the FBI was involved and doing something, but the Chief shouldn't be anywhere near a mic at this point. He is totally just screwing this up for all sides:

the officer, who if he was going to claim officer safety as a defense, is losing that option before the charges are filed (and there will be charges)

the people of Fergusson, because slandering this dead kid is just going to piss more people off and cause more rioting.

the poor State Patrol guys who did an excellent job of defusing this situation and calming the protesters down are now going to be faced with angrier people because of the Chief's stupidity.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Johnnycakes is misreading the article somewhat and the article somewhat misstates Tennessee v. Garner. Always best to get your legal rules straight from the tap. From the opinion.

Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given. As applied in such circumstances, the Tennessee statute would pass constitutional muster.

Tennessee v. Garner, [471 U.S. 1, 12] (1985) (emphasis added).

 

[Jim11]

Gilbert Arenas weighs in.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Sports/2014/08/14/Gilbert-Arenas-Rips-Sharpton-Black-Community

Former Washington Wizards star Gilbert Arenas weighed in regarding the death of 18-year-old Mike Brown, which precipitated riots in Ferguson, Missouri. Noting Al Sharpton seeking to involve himself in the proceedings, Arenas took to Instagram to launch an attack on Sharpton, using racially insulting language and asserting that "the racism fight has never been #blackvswhite, it's always been #blackvsblack."

 

[johnnycakes]

Johnnycakes is misreading the article somewhat and the article somewhat misstates Tennessee v. Garner. Always best to get your legal rules straight from the tap. From the opinion.

Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given. As applied in such circumstances, the Tennessee statute would pass constitutional muster.

Tennessee v. Garner, [471 U.S. 1, 12] (1985) (emphasis added).

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)

 

[timschochet]

Thanks for posting that, Ramsay. I wasn't familiar with the decision, but I was fairly sure a warning had to be given: "Stop, or I'll shoot!", etc.

 

[timschochet]

Gilbert Arenas weighs in.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Sports/2014/08/14/Gilbert-Arenas-Rips-Sharpton-Black-Community

Former Washington Wizards star Gilbert Arenas weighed in regarding the death of 18-year-old Mike Brown, which precipitated riots in Ferguson, Missouri. Noting Al Sharpton seeking to involve himself in the proceedings, Arenas took to Instagram to launch an attack on Sharpton, using racially insulting language and asserting that "the racism fight has never been #blackvswhite, it's always been #blackvsblack."

If Arenas actually said that, then he is an idiot. (but many of us already knew that.)