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

[thoughtomator]

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.

Right. Now combine that with the PD's posture on getting info out to the public:

- slow to explain officer's actions
- autopsy report withheld
- no dashcams AND an unaccompanied officer
- felonious assaults and kidnapping of journalists
- FAA flight restriction to keep news choppers out
- repeatedly engages protestors with paramilitary unit rather than trying to talk with them

There is something seriously wrong with this particular PD and their view of their mission, a wrongness which is not compatible with our laws. They behave like an occupying force, premeditatively so, as is evidenced by the acquisition and distribution of military equipment and their population-engagement strategy.

This is my concern because I believe this wrongness exists in PDs throughout the country and Ferguson could just as well have been almost anywhere.

Americans cannot be subject to summary punishment at the hands of police. That is the issue which turned a local incident into a national one.

 

[Lucille]

 

[presence]

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.

The way I understood it, the cop grabbed brown by the throat, stuck a gun in his chest and fired. I suspect brown had his hands around the cops arm as a natural reaction to someone apply pressure to the throat.


Grab suspect by throat, wait for reaction, shoot.

Wait for "felony suspect to flee", shoot again.


Justice.

 

[Philhelm]

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.

I'm wondering how Big Mike managed to reach for the officer's weapon while the officer was sitting in the vehicle, particularly since the vast majority of people are right-handed, so it's more likely than not that the officer had his firearm holstered on his right side. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I would need further information.

In any event, whatever Big Mike may or may not have been is simply a Red Herring. The real issues are:

1. The police summarily execute citizens for petty crimes, fleeing, etc.
2. The police responded with militaristic force against U.S. citizens.

These issues are far, far more important than some jackass teenager stealing a cigar.

 

[Philhelm]

Once again, this thread is separate from the militarization of police and the ensuing brutaliity.

Then this entire thread is a Red Herring.

 

[Ronin Truth]

One more ex-teenage thug that won't be missed.

 

[AuH20]

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.

Yes. That was evident from the beginning. And with that said, there are logical reasons to hate cops but this case appears to not be one of them.

 

[AuH20]

One more ex-teenage thug that won't be missed.

He'll still get memorial t shirts you would think. There is money to be made and outrage to be dispensed around the land.

 

[AuH20]

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.

Agreed. Manslaughter as opposed to unprovoked homicide if true.

 

[CPUd]

I guess that's why they wrote 'SNITCHES' on the QT sign.

 

[specsaregood]

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?

It makes me wonder why it took so long for this bit of information to be released. right or wrong if they had released this immediately then all this brouhaha might never have occurred. The PD had to have known that...

 

[thoughtomator]

From the point of view of what I care about - not being seen as a viable target by some roided-up gang member with a badge - the story was black and white from the get-go, and remains so.

Cop shows up on scene where no incident is occurring, dead citizen results. Takes forever to explain actions as if concocting a story.

Bad mojo. I want no part of it.

 

[AuH20]

It makes me wonder why it took so long for this bit of information to be released. right or wrong if they had released this immediately then all this brouhaha might never have occurred. The PD had to have known that...

Of course. Either they are negligent or cunning. Could be either.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

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.

I haven't followed this story as closely as others. My impression up until today that it was an innocent skinny young black kid who the Police pulled up and shot because he wouldn't get out of the street. But I knew that story would change over time. It always does.

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.

Yep, nothing justifies shooting him as he was fleeing or at a great distance.

Of course you used the key word "unarmed". The obvious and oft used defense there is "I thought he was armed".

 

[phill4paul]

Yes. That was evident from the beginning. And with that said, there are logical reasons to hate cops but this case appears to not be one of them.

So you have already made up your mind based on the fact that Brown had just robbed a store and therefore he obviously attacked the officer necessitating the use of deadly force against an unarmed assailant?

 

[nayjevin]

 

[jllundqu]

So you have already made up your mind based on the fact that Brown had just robbed a store and therefore he obviously attacked the officer necessitating the use of deadly force against an unarmed assailant?

No different than you already making up your mind before all the facts come out.

Jus sayin

 

[AuH20]

So you have already made up your mind based on the fact that Brown had just robbed a store and therefore he obviously attacked the officer necessitating the use of deadly force against an unarmed assailant?

This wasn't the normal contempt by cop. This was sheer stupidity by Michael Brown. Attacking a cop after they already have you positively IDed at the convenience store? Really? Where was he going to run?

 

[phill4paul]

No different than you already making up your mind before all the facts come out.

Jus sayin

That was kinda my point. I'm willing to admit I'm guilty when it comes to prejudice. I've documented many of these situations and the cover-ups that ensue along with the miscarriage of justice. So, yeah. I have my prejudice. With that said the facts have not all come in. The one fact that remains is that an officer shot and killed an unarmed suspect.

 

[AuH20]

That was kinda my point. I'm willing to admit I'm guilty when it comes to prejudice. I've documented many of these situations and the cover-ups that ensue along with the miscarriage of justice. So, yeah. I have my prejudice. With that said the facts have not all come in. The one fact that remains is that an officer shot and killed an unarmed suspect.

There is nothing wrong with being skeptical but you have to fight the urge sometimes.