Ferguson- "Big Mike" had just strong arm-robbed a convenience store (PICS)

[jllundqu]

Does the fact that the 'poor gentle giant' the media is playing up has, in fact, turned out to be a violent robber change anything for you?

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/ferguson-officer-who-shot-michael-brown-identified-brown-named-as/article_52c40b84-ad90-5f9a-973c-70d628d0be04.html

This gives a hell of a lot more credibility to the police version of events versus Brown's robbery accomplice who basically said the cop 'shot him for no reason'

The officer responded to the robbery at the convenient store, got a description of two black men (and what clothes they were wearing), and their direction of travel on foot. The officer sees the suspects and attempts to engage them. They fight.

What happens from there is still up in the air until more facts come out.

It does not change my opinion of militarized police and the like, but it certainly changes my opinion of the shooting. In my view, it would be very justifiable for the officer to shoot if "Big Mike" started fighting the officer and grabbing his weapon (as claimed). Now as to the reports of shooting Brown from a far distance while hands up, etc. If that turns out to be true then the cop should burn for it.

This just proves that too many people, including those on RPF, are too quick to jump to conclusions without all the facts and condemn ANY police action regardless of what really happened.

 

[brushfire]

Man... LEFT-RIGHT, TRAY-VON. LEFT-RIGHT, TRAY-VON. 1-2, 3-4, 3-4, 1-2... LEFT-RIGHT, TRAY-VON!

Perfect cadence.... Wonder why that is? Not really.

 

[tod evans]

Is it okay to strip the federal funding from the tax-ticks now or does this somehow justify funding the cop-tick faction?

 

[thoughtomator]

What does the law provide for the crime of robbery? Summary execution, right? Those pansy-ass Saudis with their wimpy hand-chopping, they don't know how to be tough on crime.

 

[green73]

Will Grigg:

Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson, in a press conference notable for its brevity, identified the officer who shot Michael Brown as Darren Wilson, a six-year veteran of his department. Information distributed to the media included reports suggesting that Brown was a suspect in a strong-arm robbery of a package of cigars at a local convenience store. Still photographs, reportedly of the incident in the local QuikTrip, show a large young man resembling Brown involved in what appeared to be an assault on a much smaller individual in the store.

If Brown was a suspect in a crime of that kind, this case would have uncanny similarities to the 1974 incident in which another teenaged suspect, Edward Garner, was fatally shot while attempting to flee from a Memphis police officer following a burglary. As noted previously, that case went before the Supreme Court a decade later, resulting in the 1985 Tennessee v. Garner ruling in which the Court held that “The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable.” This was a rejection of the “Any Felony Rule” under which officers in many states, including Tennessee, were authorized to use deadly force to stop a fleeing or resisting suspect.

cont.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog...-felony-rule-velvet-gloves-for-the-iron-fist/

 

[presence]

Does the fact that the 'poor gentle giant' the media is playing up has, in fact, turned out to be a violent robber change anything for you?

[]

This just proves that too many people, including those on RPF, are too quick to jump to conclusions without all the facts and condemn ANY police action regardless of what really happened.

Nope.. I'm with this guy:

“It's not OK for anyone to steal, but there's a way to arrest someone without killing them,” Whittaker said.

Innocent until summarily executed?

 

[jllundqu]

Will Grigg:



cont.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog...-felony-rule-velvet-gloves-for-the-iron-fist/

I'm very familiar with Tennesee V. Garner, as well as Graham V. Connor, Scott V. Harris, and other use of force case law. The facts will dictate what happened. What has been reported is that when the officer went to get out of his vehicle, "Big Mike"started fighting with the officer (the officer sustained head wounds) and the officer fired the first shot from INSIDE the vehicle (not from 30 feet away). What happened after that is very much up in the air. If the facts show the officer did shoot a 'fleeing suspect' he would indeed be violating Tennesee V. Garner and would get busted for it. If the facts show the officer fought a much bigger violent robbery suspect who attempted to grab his weapon (as was also reported) which led to the shooting, that's a different story.

The facts will come out. I am not so quick to judge the police in this case. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Demigod]

Does the fact that the 'poor gentle giant' the media is playing up has, in fact, turned out to be a violent robber change anything for you?

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/ferguson-officer-who-shot-michael-brown-identified-brown-named-as/article_52c40b84-ad90-5f9a-973c-70d628d0be04.html

This gives a hell of a lot more credibility to the police version of events versus Brown's robbery accomplice who basically said the cop 'shot him for no reason'

The officer responded to the robbery at the convenient store, got a description of two black men (and what clothes they were wearing), and their direction of travel on foot. The officer sees the suspects and attempts to engage them. They fight.

What happens from there is still up in the air until more facts come out.

It does not change my opinion of militarized police and the like, but it certainly changes my opinion of the shooting. In my view, it would be very justifiable for the officer to shoot if "Big Mike" started fighting the officer and grabbing his weapon (as claimed). Now as to the reports of shooting Brown from a far distance while hands up, etc. If that turns out to be true then the cop should burn for it.

This just proves that too many people, including those on RPF, are too quick to jump to conclusions without all the facts and condemn ANY police action regardless of what really happened.

What happened to police brutality,they could have given him a special treatment in the police station for resisting,they don't have to kill him.

 

[thoughtomator]

The facts will come out. I am not so quick to judge the police in this case. That's all I'm saying.

The fact that the police arrested reporters and tear gassed a news crew is out.

These are serious felonies, by the way.

Is there any doubt in your mind that there will be no justice against the officers who perpetrated those crimes?

 

[jllundqu]

What happened to police brutality,they could have given him a special treatment in the police station for resisting,they don't have to kill him.

I know they didn't have to kill him. The cop who shot him fired his first shot from INSIDE his vehicle while fighting with Brown so obvioulsy they got tangled up. If Brown grabbed his weapon or was winning the fight, the officer had reason to shoot. We don't know what happened but I seriously doubt the cop just "shot Brown for no reason"

 

[jllundqu]

The fact that the police arrested reporters and tear gassed a news crew is out.

These are serious felonies, by the way.

Is there any doubt in your mind that there will be no justice against the officers who perpetrated those crimes?

Once again, this thread is separate from the militarization of police and the ensuing brutaliity. You and I agree wholeheartedly on that issue.

I'm just saying that as facts roll out on the Brown case, it doesn't look quite so rosey. The militarized police response is unconstitutional and I stand with Rand on that issue

 

[brushfire]

Yup - deploy the burners. Spare the courts

 

[thoughtomator]

Once again, this thread is separate from the militarization of police and the ensuing brutaliity. You and I agree wholeheartedly on that issue.

Then you know the answer to your original question, that Brown having just robbed a store doesn't change a thing.

 

[jllundqu]

Then you know the answer to your original question, that Brown having just robbed a store doesn't change a thing.

It changes quite a bit actually.

The "Graham factors" for constitutional use of force include "What information about the subject was known by the officer at the time of the incident?" The officer had reason to suspect Brown was a violent robbery suspect which changed the entire encounter. Brown and the officer fought, that much we know. As for who hit who, or if Brown tried to grab his weapon, or if Brown was shot from a distance, we don't know that yet since the only 'eyewitness account' of the incident is also a lying sack of shit who robbed a convenience store with Brown.

The way the Ferguson police responded to the protests is awful and shameful and should be fought against with everything in the tool box, but the INCIDENT that caused the protests is NOT as black and white as people here are hell-bent on believing it to be, simply because they hate cops.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Well, that just wraps up everything in a nice neat package.

Justified.

Move along...

 

[thoughtomator]

It changes quite a bit actually.

I wholly disagree, and I've explained in detail here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...cer-who-shot-Mike-Brown&p=5617647#post5617647

 

[Suzanimal]

Does the fact that the 'poor gentle giant' the media is playing up has, in fact, turned out to be a violent robber change anything for you?

No, from what I understand he was unarmed and surrendering when he was shot.

 

[jllundqu]

Well, that just wraps up everything in a nice neat package.

Justified.

Move along...

You people... I swear. Did I say or even IMPLY that it was justified? NO! I am saying the facts are not as the lying eyewitness said they were and the fact that Brown is a violent felon changed everything. If the facts come out that the cop shot Brown while fleeing or shot him with his hands up or anything like that, the cop should be fucking hanged!

Employ some basic critical thinking, for christ's sake.

 

[jllundqu]

I wholly disagree, and I've explained in detail here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...cer-who-shot-Mike-Brown&p=5617647#post5617647

I agree with everything you wrote in that post. How is it different from what I'm saying? If the facts show the cop did anything you describe, then yes, hes toast.

 

[jllundqu]

As I read more and more reports, it is showing that the officer did in fact shoot Brown from a great distance (after firing the first shot from in the patrol car). If that's the case and Brown was in fact unarmed, that officer is screwed. He shot an unarmed fleeing suspect and should pay for it.