Michael Brown unarmed shooting in Ferguson, MO

[marshaul]

Frankly, even if they're both guilty as sin I still grant them greater credibility than an officer in 2014 who can't provide video evidence to back his claims.

The cop is potentially guilty of murder. He has every bit as much incentive - and more - to lie as that possessed by the eyewitness.

 

[Primus]

Neither did I since I am not monitoring the news while interacting with you. It is your contentions and assumptions that keep me engaged. The fact that your contentions/assumptions are being proven correct does not change the fact that you are believing the cop and his version of the event out of hand, you got lucky. Also, the now co-thief and his version of the shoot are just as credible as the cop's version of the shoot until all of the facts are presented in a courtroom, if it gets to a courtroom.

Sound whacky, I know, placing a alleged thief at the same credibility level as a cop. Although, he being at the store does not necessarily mean he participated in the robbery, he may be nothing more than a witness who will not snitch on a 6'4" 290 lb dude that lives in his neighborhood. No snitching is a big part of that little slice of STL.

Correct. I will believe a guy who is at work (ANY WORK) over a dude who just robbed a whole box of cheap cigars because hes a ****** bag. Also I will believe same guy over any of said d bags friends who were also present for robbery.

I'd believe the store clerk over the robber. I'd believe the kid in the back stocking the shelves over the robber. There's a friggin video of the dude robbing the place and photos of him grabbing the clerk by the throat and his boy present for it. Yes when you commit a crime YOUR version of the crime gets less credibility then ANY non criminal present.

Oh.. And the WITNESS LIED.... He lied on CNN. Said they were just walking along and were stopped for no reason.... Lie. So that means one crime commited (on video) and one lie on national TV.

Anyone have a lie the cop involved told? No? Damn....

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[marshaul]

Correct. I will believe a guy who is at work (ANY WORK) over a dude who just robbed a whole box of cheap cigars because hes a ****** bag. Also I will believe same guy over any of said d bags friends who were also present for robbery.

Indeed. But there is clearly a large segment of the local populace with whom this does not sit right.

Nobody's disputing the stop, or an arrest. What we're concerned about is the shooting, and police procedures in general.

I'll start having a lot more sympathy for your perspective when cops reliably present video corroboration of their claims (something which is perfectly within their present ability).

Yet again we see a case where a cop could easily prove his innocence, and yet I am forced to assume guilt because he refuses to behave in an aboveboard manner. The prior guilt of the individuals in question for an unrelated crime, unfortunately, has no bearing on this given the complete lack of credence I place in the account of an officer.

The day your profession implements this reform is the day I take you seriously.

 

[Redbaron007]

Here is a story from The Smoking Gun, they have a copy of the police redacted report on the robbery available. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/michael-brown-strong-arm-robbery-657032

Pages 1-5 are there; however, the report shows 10 pages.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Use of deadly force?

Here is a story from The Smoking Gun, they have a copy of the police redacted report on the robbery available. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/michael-brown-strong-arm-robbery-657032

Pages 1-5 are there; however, the report shows 10 pages.

Very interesting the information forum members have brought up here, thanks.

What are people's opinion's on the following scenario: If the store clerk had been armed, say with a CW in his pocket, would deadly force have been justified once the clerk was grabbed by Brown?

 

[Toymaker]

The police should have revealed that Michael Brown had been a strong armed robbery suspect right after the shooting. Instead they held on to this info for almost six days and had to be forced to release it. This is a prime example of the police's unwillingness to communication between the community and the general public.

It's as if they were saying, "hey, we shot him.......so what? We're the police and don't have to give an explanation as to why". It's a very arrogant position to take and it causes more problems than there should be.

 

[Kopis]

The police should have revealed that Michael Brown had been a strong armed robbery suspect right after the shooting. Instead they held on to this info for almost six days and had to be forced to release it. This is a prime example of the police's unwillingness to communication between the community and the general public.

It's as if they were saying, "hey, we shot him.......so what? We're the police and don't have to give an explanation as to why". It's a very arrogant position to take and it causes more problems than there should be.

yes, that's what i said as well. I dont understand why it took five days

 

[marshaul]

yes, that's what i said as well. I dont understand why it took five days

My guess is, because they know damn well it has basically nothing to do with whether the individual posed an immediate threat of lethal force. Their unwillingness to offer any actual evidence (rather than what basically amounts to innuendo) speaks volumes.

If their guy is so justified, why not just release the facts which demonstrate it? Instead, they are trying the deceased in the court of public opinion with what, again, basically amounts to innuendo.

IMO, even if the alleged are guilty of everything (including constituting an immediate lethal threat to the officer in question), this incident speaks to the arrogance of police, and the need for them to start turning their damn cameras on (dash and lapel), and be held accountable when they inexcusably do not.

 

[davidmcbeth]

My guess is, because they know damn well it has basically nothing to do with whether the individual posed an immediate threat of lethal force. Their unwillingness to offer any actual evidence (rather than what basically amounts to innuendo) speaks volumes.

If their guy is so justified, why not just release the facts which demonstrate it? Instead, they are trying the deceased in the court of public opinion with what, again, basically amounts to innuendo.

IMO, even if the alleged are guilty of everything (including constituting an immediate lethal threat to the officer in question), this incident speaks to the arrogance of police, and the need for them to start turning their damn cameras on (dash and lapel), and be held accountable when they inexcusably do not.

Don't need facts when ya have TANKS .... submit to our viewpoint ... or die

 

[Toymaker]

The Ferguson Police Chief has just given a news conference in which he says that the officer DID NOT know that Brown was a suspect in that strong arm robbery. He'd stopped Brown and his friend because they were walking in the street.

 

[The Truth]

The Ferguson Police Chief has just given a news conference in which he says that the officer DID NOT know that Brown was a suspect in that strong arm robbery. He'd stopped Brown and his friend because they were walking in the street.

I was just going to post this.

Keep digging, statists.

 

[Primus]

The Ferguson Police Chief has just given a news conference in which he says that the officer DID NOT know that Brown was a suspect in that strong arm robbery. He'd stopped Brown and his friend because they were walking in the street.

Ok... Except brown didn't know that. What were the chances hed RANDOMLY get stopped a few minutes after he robbed a store? That's some cosmic intervention crap.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[marshaul]

Ok... Except brown didn't know that. What were the chances hed RANDOMLY get stopped a few minutes after he robbed a store? That's some cosmic intervention crap.

If the officer in question did, in fact, aggressively wield his car door (did you imagine I forgot that little detail?) against individuals whom he believed to be doing nothing more than walking on the street, then the entire confrontation, not to mention the officer's adherence to the escalation-of-force continuum, is called into question.

Which brings us back to the question:

Where is the evidence that, at any point, either of these individuals presented a reasonably-perceived threat of lethal force to the officer?

 

[Kopis]

Ok... Except brown didn't know that. What were the chances hed RANDOMLY get stopped a few minutes after he robbed a store? That's some cosmic intervention crap.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

hmmm that's a good point.... gives his state of mind for sure.

 

[WalkingWolf]

No of wouldn't alone provide justification for shooting.

But it certainly adds credence to the officers claims the guy fought him for his gun.

IF that is the guy and he just robbed a store violently do you think he'd just say "ok coppa ya got me"?

He was just about to turn his life around I'm sure...

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

IF is a pretty big word, where is the evidence that the victim was the perpetrator of the crime. This is the problem on killing people using assumptions, whether the assumptions are true does not matter. A radio dispatch is absolutely no excuse to shoot anyone.

 

[marshaul]

IF is a pretty big word, where is the evidence that the victim was the perpetrator of the crime. This is the problem on killing people using assumptions, whether the assumptions are true does not matter. A radio dispatch is absolutely no excuse to shoot anyone.

Haven't you heard? They've admitted the stop wasn't even over the robbery.

Now, the cop is justified because, since when should cops have to worry about escalating situations when they're innocently going about their business using their car doors to assault citizens they don't believe to be guilty of actual crimes?

 

[Firearms Iinstuctor]

Haven't you heard? They've admitted the stop wasn't even over the robbery.

Now, the cop is justified because, since when should cops have to worry about escalating situations when they're innocently going about their business using their car doors to assault citizens they don't believe to be guilty of actual crimes?

No but it might show a bit of Browns state of mind and the reason he attack the officer as he exited his vehicle and tried to get the officer gun.

Then it blows up any credibility of Browns friend as a witness.

 

[davidmcbeth]

While considering the authority of the cop to shoot the deceased I think that the bigger picture is the response of the state to protesters regardless if their cause is right or wrong. Freedom to assemble is not "freedom to assemble only when you are right", correct?

What if we wanted to protest a law that makes us wear underwear on our heads every Friday, even if such law does not exist? They get to shoot us for that?

 

[marshaul]

The fact is, we'll never get to the truth of the matter here in our armchairs. But the public deserves to know.

This is why police no longer have any excuse not to make video recordings, from different vantage points and at least in triplicate, if they wish to be going around shooting people under color of law. And they - individual officers - need to be held personally liable (at least civilly) for any deaths they cause without such corroborating evidence.

 

[Redbaron007]

If the officer in question did, in fact, aggressively wield his car door (did you imagine I forgot that little detail?) against individuals whom he believed to be doing nothing more than walking on the street, then the entire confrontation, not to mention the officer's adherence to the escalation-of-force continuum, is called into question.

Which brings us back to the question:

Where is the evidence that, at any point, either of these individuals presented a reasonably-perceived threat of lethal force to the officer?

Just asking....would the officer have not heard of the robbery earlier through their communications? Did they put any info on the suspect to the other officers? Could the shooting officer suspect one, if not both, hence being aggressive?

There is more to the story...it'll come out, piece by piece.