carlfense Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 He assaulted the officer on some level,Maybe. a weapon was discharged,Yep. a weapon was discharged, Wilson has to affect an arrest at the point where he was assaulted.The bold doesn't necessarily require shooting. 1 Link to comment
carlfense Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 If Brown listens to the verbal commands to get down this situation doesn't even make the news.Quite true. Does his alleged refusal to get down justify killing him? (Talking about morality more than legality in this instance.) you can definitely cover 150 feet if you are a 300 lb 18 year old.I don't doubt that he can cover that distance but I do question the immediacy of the threat. But by all means let's question the officers response instead of Brown's lack there of.............Questioning the officers response is entirely appropriate. I'm sure you'll agree if you stop and think about that a bit more. 3 Link to comment
tschu Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 If only there was some way to examine all of the evidence and hear and cross-examine witness testimony in a court of law. Let's call it a "trial" or something, if you will. That would seem to be ideal here. 1 Link to comment
BIGREDIOWAN Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Darren Wilson was not Every Officer any more than Michael Brown was Every Black Teenager. The ghost of all of history may hover over every "they", but when two men make individual decisions, the judgment must be framed by those individual moments. The law is quite settled on these matters. If activists want to change the law, that is another debate, but the law as it stands is clear, should anyone care to look: "The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments - in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving - about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation." [Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)] Popular opinion fails in precisely the way that the lawmakers predicted when courts and juries and the calm, rational systems of jurisprudence were designed. The law does not have a chip on its shoulder because a cousin was treated badly by the police. Jurors must not make any correlation between some SWAT team's error somewhere and Wilson's trigger. Those who really want justice wait for truth to be distilled from the chaos of public opinion. They are few. Article insert from PoliceOne.com. Another honest question, given the pictures of officer Wilson's face the day after, and the undisputed reality of Michael Brown being unarmed, and Darrin Wilson's own testimony to the grand jury that Brown didn't go for his gun in the holster but went for it after it was pulled out and being aimed at him, and whatever other facts or speculation you know about the situation, do you think that 6 shots, including 2 to the head, is reasonable force? We are taught as officers that you shoot to stop the threat, simple as that, if the threat is still a threat you keep shooting until it isn't a threat, they either give up or die. This isn't the movies, people don't die from one single gun shot wound immediately, except for a central nervous system shot, head shot. Officer Wilson said he couldn't get to his baton or flashlight and didn't want to use his pepper spray as often times that comes back into the officers eyes, blinding them. The last tool at his disposal was his weapon, Brown is still "attempting to disarm a peace officer" by grabbing said gun which is a felony in Missouri. Doesn't matter if it's in the holster or not, attempting to disarm a police officer immediately gives the officer discretion to use deadly force. Why? Because a reasonable person in like circumstances, which officers are judged upon when using force, can articulate that they were in fear for their life or the life of another. 1 Link to comment
carlfense Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Doesn't matter if it's in the holster or not, attempting to disarm a police officer immediately gives the officer discretion to use deadly force.For how long? Link to comment
BIGREDIOWAN Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 He assaulted the officer on some level,Maybe. a weapon was discharged,Yep. a weapon was discharged, Wilson has to affect an arrest at the point where he was assaulted.The bold doesn't necessarily require shooting. No, there is no maybe, he has red marks to the back of his head and what appears to be a fat lip on his right side. Witnesses said a struggle occurred inside or at the vehicle. I agree the bold doesn't necessarily require a shooting, but regardless, he has to make an arrest. Officer/subject size factor, whether anyone wants to like it or not, is a deciding factor on what level of force to use. 6'4" 300 lbs is quite the task for one officer to take on and looking at Wilson, I don't know his size, he doesn't appear to be a very big officer. I'm not saying that completely justifies me shooting someone based on that alone, but you have to meet their level of force if not take your level of force above their level of force to be successful in your arrest. So we can agree that it doesn't necessarily require a shooting, but it depends on the situation. 1 Link to comment
Creighton Duke Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 I try to view people as doing their best to make rational decisions that try to maximize their own best interests. With this in mind, the outrage over the "no indictment" would imply that those who refused to indict (Grand Jury members, local and possibly state law enforcement, local government) are proclaiming that it is MORE rational to not indict and to watch the city burn, citizens to hurt others and themselves, to be under scrutiny from the world (I am out of the country and this is front page news), than it is to indict and let the legal process continue to run its course. This just doesn't make sense. For those who view the situation as primarily being about race, does it really seem as though all of the negatives that come from not indicting are worth sticking it to the Black community of Ferguson and the rest of America? This seems extremely far-fetched and FAR from rational. Link to comment
carlfense Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Holy f@%!. When announcing the results of the grand jury on Monday, McCulloch blamed the media, particularly social media, for skewing opinion about the case. But the grand jurors and prosecutors didn't mind when witnesses found out about leaks. . . . Furthermore, on November 13th,an assistant prosecutor actually encouraged the jurors to bring in any outside information they thought would be helpful: "I know that typically we tell jurors not to do any research on the case, but if there is a clip that you all think that you want the rest of the jurors to view, if you can just bring it to my attention, I can give you my email address and you can email me the link or something and I'll make sure I get it copied so we can show it to everybody." http://www.vox.com/2014/11/25/7280989/darren-wilson-evidence Link to comment
BIGREDIOWAN Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 If Brown listens to the verbal commands to get down this situation doesn't even make the news.Quite true. Does his alleged refusal to get down justify killing him? (Talking about morality more than legality in this instance.) you can definitely cover 150 feet if you are a 300 lb 18 year old.I don't doubt that he can cover that distance but I do question the immediacy of the threat. But by all means let's question the officers response instead of Brown's lack there of.............Questioning the officers response is entirely appropriate. I'm sure you'll agree if you stop and think about that a bit more. If he's continuing to charge the officer, after assaulting this officer, and attempting to disarm this officer, he may not "deserve" to die, but I think it can be argued it's justifiable to use deadly force. Not saying I would necessarily do that, but I wasn't there and not wrapped up in the encounter. Fair enough on your distance observation. No, I don't need to think about it, everyone's pointing the finger at Wilson and no one wants to question as to why Brown didn't listen to commands. Question them both fairly and there is no issue.......... 1 Link to comment
carlfense Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 <Some> witnesses said a struggle occurred inside or at the vehicle. Link to comment
BIGREDIOWAN Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 I try to view people as doing their best to make rational decisions that try to maximize their own best interests. With this in mind, the outrage over the "no indictment" would imply that those who refused to indict (Grand Jury members, local and possibly state law enforcement, local government) are proclaiming that it is MORE rational to not indict and to watch the city burn, citizens to hurt others and themselves, to be under scrutiny from the world (I am out of the country and this is front page news), than it is to indict and let the legal process continue to run its course. This just doesn't make sense. For those who view the situation as primarily being about race, does it really seem as though all of the negatives that come from not indicting are worth sticking it to the Black community of Ferguson and the rest of America? This seems extremely far-fetched and FAR from rational. I might be confused with my comment, but you don't indict someone because you fear how the citizens will respond. I'm not saying that a trial may have not cleared things up some in the long run, but it could also provide us with no further answers. 1 Link to comment
Abdullah the Butcher Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 <Some> witnesses said a struggle occurred inside or at the vehicle. Apparently the credible ones. 2 Link to comment
Landlord Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Also want to add: Even if, giving complete benefit of the doubt to Wilson's innocence, he was 100% justified in what happened, even if justice was served here, you have to understand the contrasting double standard of how these things are viewed and approached and reported in regards to race: When a white cop shoots and kills an unarmed black boy in the street, these are what we heard on major news over and over (worth being said, by all white people): - "Why aren't we covering black on black crime?" - "Why aren't african-americans protesting the 42 people shot and killed in Chicago?" (Hint: they were) - "When I get pulled over and I am carrying, I will tell the officer and often even step out of the car and lift my shirt up to show the officer where the gun is." - "Is the officer going to get a fair shake?" - "I think it is playing the race card and is disgraceful" But when two white high school kids are found guilty of raping a girl, you hear this: - "Those poor boys' lives are ruined." - "It was incredibly emotional — incredibly difficult even for an outsider like me to watch what happened as these two young men that had such promising futures, star football players, very good students, literally watched as they believe their life fell apart." - "This is a lesson in how you record things on social media that are so prevalent today." Instead of a lesson to......not rape people. - "Rape doesn't exist. Skimpy clothing is pretty much implied consent so they shouldn't dress like whores if they don't want to be treated like one." - "The town is the real victim here. You can't only look at Mike Brown. You have to juxtapose the narratives and the reactions to this against the same for high-profile cases with whites, and when you do you'll see that there is a gross double standard in our country, if not on the legal level then on the social level. 1 Link to comment
BIGREDIOWAN Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 Doesn't matter if it's in the holster or not, attempting to disarm a police officer immediately gives the officer discretion to use deadly force.For how long? Depends really, does Tennessee v Garner fall into this discussion? I don't have the answer to that, that would be something the court would have to consider. He attempted to disarm a police officer according to testimony from Wilson. This is a felony is Missouri so does the "fleeing felon rule" apply in this situation? Again, I don't know for sure, just putting that out there for discussion. I think both sides could argue for or against that honestly. Can the officer articulate that he was in fear for someone else's life because if Brown's willing to assault an officer, attempt to take his weapon, and flee, what else is he capable of? 1 Link to comment
carlfense Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 If he's continuing to charge the officer, after assaulting this officer, and attempting to disarm this officer, he may not "deserve" to die, but I think it can be argued it's justifiable to use deadly force.That's true if your stated version of the events is accurate. No, I don't need to think about it, everyone's pointing the finger at Wilson and no one wants to question as to why Brown didn't listen to commands. Question them both fairly and there is no issue..........Completely disagree. Law enforcement is held to a higher standard than of an 18yo civilian (use your whatever term you prefer here). That comes with the territory. IMO, any officer who disagrees with that should hand in his badge. I don't think that anyone here is saying that Brown acted intelligently, lawfully, or carefully. We agree (I think) that he did not. Link to comment
Recommended Posts