I didn't say nor does Missouri law or the SCOTUS case dictate that the Officer has to believe he will go a killing spree, nor could the officer have known at the time what the "strong arm robbery" consisted of All the law says and I've highlighted it a couple times now that the Officer has to reasonably believe that the individual has the intent to continue to do harm either to the Officer or the public. Given that at the time, he had the report of a "violent robbery" coupled with the assault on an officer (the officer himself) that occurred moments before the shots were fired. It is reasonable and within the confines of SCOTUS and Missouri law that either way this could have happened is acceptable in the eye's of the law.
Ferguson
- Thread starter Angst
- Start date
I didn't say nor does Missouri law or the SCOTUS case dictate that the Officer has to believe he will go a killing spree, nor could the officer have known at the time what the "strong arm robbery" consisted of All the law says and I've highlighted it a couple times now that the Officer has to reasonably believe that the individual has the intent to continue to do harm either to the Officer or the public. Given that at the time, he had the report of a "violent robbery" coupled with the assault on an officer (the officer himself) that occurred moments before the shots were fired. It is reasonable and within the confines of SCOTUS and Missouri law that either way this could have happened is acceptable in the eye's of the law.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
I always demonstrate my intention to continue to harm someone by running away from them...oh, wait, no I don't.
I always demonstrate my intention to continue to harm someone by running away from them...oh, wait, no I don't.
I like how every post I make you clearly ignore half of it. Micheal Brown demonstrated a clear and viable threat to the Officer and the community at large. It was reasonable at the time to think that if he escaped he would continue to commit violent crimes against the community. That is the basic definition within the SCOTUS case, the Officer has to believe that the violent criminal presents a continued violent threat to the community if they were to escape. Micheal Brown clearly demonstrated that.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
I ignore the part that I've already pointed out is baloney. But since you seem insistent let's take this at face value.
He has committed violent crimes, and is now running away...so he can justifiably be shot dead as he 'could be a threat to the community'.
Great. Other than the fact that this interpretation authorizes the summary shooting of every person suspected of a violent crime. You are suspected of a violent crime. The officer says 'you there'. You aren't making any threatening move towards anyone, but what the heck, you can't be allowed to potentially escape so deadly force authorized. He shoots you. Next case.
You didn't bother reading my posts nor the applicable part of SCOTUS or Missouri Law. The Officer has to know it is a violent criminal. So as it applies to this case, Micheal Brown was suspected of a violent robbery but he did in fact commit a violent crime in the Officers presence, assault on a Police Officer. Thus it is reasonable to consider the individual a continued violent threat to the community.
Berzerker
Deity
he wasn't running away when he was killed, Tim
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Actually, the committed violence is what separates strong arm robbery (a felony) with simple theft (a misdemeanor), thus it is by definition a crime of violence.
Facts. Ruining arguments since....forever.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
The debate of the moment is about how the supreme court would view shooting at him while he was running away. If that happened, and then he turned and charged and got killed the subsequent event doesn't make shooting at a fleeing suspect retroactively legal.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
Committed violent assault on police officer (some debate over this being self defense, but neither here nor there). Discontinued assault and ran. This seems to make him a discontinued violent threat.
And yes, I do read what you say as well as the cited law and rulings...just not with the same heavy dose of 'once violent, always a threat, shoot to kill authorized' meaning you seem to be reading into it. That may well be available in the Missouri law...which needs to be challenged based on the SC ruling cited.
As Tim's pointing out, the level of violence required to boost up your crime is (intentionally) much smaller than the level required to qualify you as Bonnie and Clyde.
It's not a discontinued threat of violence. As Missouri law reads, the subject was a violent criminal, who had at this point committed two back to back violent crimes in the course of a half hour. The objective reasoning of the officer if Micheal Brown were in fact running away is that a violent criminal is fleeing to continue committing violent crime. Thus a continued threat to the community. This means under either circumstance, either via charging the officer or running away the officer, under Missouri law and SCOTUS, would have had the legal authority to shoot Brown.
You can mix words, you can try to prove that false but the facts are black and white, any version of the story, either the officers or those who said he was fleeing still would have resulted in Micheal Brown's death and it would have been legally justified.
Old Hippy
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2011
- Messages
- 3,606
being legally able to shoot some one and not shooting someone are actually covered by the laws, it does not mean that you MUST shoot someone
any way you spin it, he was still considered innocent and allegedly only a suspect of commiting a voilent crime ...
you know under laws and things
He assaulted the officer, thus it is justified to assume that the officer viewed him as violent threat to the community, as he was suspected of the strong arm robbery, and confirmed at that point he assaulted the Officer. This shows a pattern an thus constituted a continued threat to the community.
I didn't say that you must shoot the person in any given circumstance but the officer in question used sound judgement when he resorted to using deadly force in this instance. Micheal Brown was a violent threat to the community who assaulted an officer and then charged the same officer and was shot.
My problem with this entire case is that society continually glamorizes these criminals who get killed by the Police. They try to claim how innocent they all are and when it is found out that they are common thugs no one cares and for damn sure the talking heads on tv never apologize to the officers who good name they've tarnished. The Missouri Highway Patrol Captain that apologized to the family of Micheal Brown should be fired for that apology. All the News outlets who ran to this story and destroyed that Officer's life should be called on to give a public apology to him and all the other Officers in St. Louis. The Step Father should be indicted for inciting a riot, and all the witnesses who intentionally lied to the Grand Jury, namely Dorian Johnson to start with should be indicted for Perjury and Conspiracy.
Old Hippy
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2011
- Messages
- 3,606
what no inquirey to see if he acted outside procedures or not and was justified ?????
your not that far apart from those you critique
Berzerker
Deity
at the end of an interview with Chris Hayes of MSNBC Dorian Johnson said Michael didn't threaten the cop much.
Now if I was a reporter and I heard that, I'd be asking how Michael threatened the cop. But not our intrepid journalists at MSNBC, nope. I'm surprised they didn't edit that out.
The Highway Patrol Captain apologized before the relevant facts of the case were out, before the Justice System had been given a chance to decide who the aggressor was in the situation, and ultimately the Captain cast a negative light on the fine men and women of the St. Louis County Police and its subdivisions. The very same people who have done an amazing job over the past 4 months dealing with constant attacks against them both while dealing with the aggressive riots and the PR damage caused by the outside agitators, namely MSNBC talking heads.
The Highway Patrol Captain was clearly out of line at the time yet no one called him on for fear of inciting further violence in the region. It was simply disgraceful for an Officer of the law to be honoring and apologizing for the death of a common thug.
Old Hippy
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2011
- Messages
- 3,606
shouldn't that be an alledged common thug or has he been found guilty and thus not persumed innocent
I was only pointing out the similarities of using the media to be judge and jury...
an inquiry might find that officer acted responsibly and was fully justified in attempting to defuse a situation that was getting out of hand, an inquiry might find he should receive some sort of commendation for his actions under the circumstances and that he put the police department and community above his own personal safety...
who knows he might be found to be the only person actually above taking sides in the whole event.
no, can't possibly be, i read how he is basicly scum who dose not belong in the police force
Uh oh! Better make sure we don't treat those thugs as people! Kindness is clearly a problem. We ought to be stricter. Let's just pre-emptively exterminate those thugs, before they cause any more problems. Wanna restart the KKK?
Remember, distinction among the races is not accidental, but designed. Make sure they are labelled "thugs" so that people know they are beneath us. It'll be like "n*ggers" but not politically incorrect yet.
