Funny because I thought the only witness was the guy who was with Michael Borwn.

I'm going to go on a bit of a rant--one because I'm sick and tired of this incident having become apparently the only news happening in the St. Louis area, but also because I'm sick and tired of the circus this thing has become.  Also, I assume I've got a little leeway to vent to the people on this board that I may not have through other avenues.  Hopefully I don't offend anyone in the process.

Let me start by saying, I don't have a fucking clue what happened.  I wasn't there.  I've heard from the "eyewitness," and there are aspects of the story I don't find credible.  I've heard what's been reported from law enforcement, and there are parts of that story that raise questions.  I'll be the first to admit, I don't have a clue what happened.

That said, WTF is being protested?  The protestors demand justice?  What is justice?  The protestors complained that the Ferguson PD was biased--the matter was turned over to St. Louis County.  The protestors complained St. Louis County would be biased because the County Prosecutor's father was a former police officer killed in the line of duty--fine, the FBI is conducting a parralel investigation and the Department of Justice is on hand to look into potential civil rights violations.  So what are they protesting?  The name of the officer hasn't been released?  Guess what, the names of suspects are never released until charges are filed and none have been filed in this case.  Oh, and never mind the death threats made against the officer, and the threats by Anonymous to leak the officer's personal information (address and information about his family members) once the name becomes public.  What else are we protesting?  The investigation is taking too long.  Do you want it done fast, or do you want it done correctly?  

I think we all know the answer to all of these questions, and it certainly doesn't involve justice.  The only "justice" that will be found acceptable is criminal charges being filed against the officer.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there isn't a scenario in which that shouldn't happen.  But there are also scenarios in which charges shouldn't be filed.  Justice means getting to the truth, but the protesters don't want the truth, they want their own version of it.

And I particularly love all the outcry over the police handling of the peaceful protests.  Peaceful.  Interesting word.  Sunday night, those peaceful protests included looting stores and burning down a gas station.  Monday night, it involved more looting (this time in a different neighborhood).  Tuesday night, those peaceful protests included four upstanding young men carrying shotguns and carrying ski masks which led to shots fired and another police involved shooting.  Tuesday night also featured a woman shot in a drive by.  Last night those peaceful protests included rocks and bottles thrown at police and protesters carrying molatov cocktails (which has been denied despite photographic evidence).  Yet all we hear is how the police have been too militaristic, and it's their fault because the police are antagonizing the poor citizens during their peaceful protests.  I'd love to hear the cries and complaints if the police simply didn't show up and let the residents burn down the town.  I'm sure it would be law enforcement's fault then too.

My new favorite from last night was the protestor who complained that there were children present when the police fired tear gas cannisters and rubber pellets into the crowd.  I have two children.  Neither of them have ever smelled tear gas, nor have they ever been hit by a rubber bullet.  Know why?  Because I was never stupid enough to take them to a "peaceful" protest involving thugs throwing bricks, bottles and molatov cocktails at the police.

I get it, I've seen the news.  White cop shoots unarmed black male.  Let's just hang the guy on Main Street Ferguson and let the residents drag his body through the streets while celebrating just like Mogadishu.  

I swear there are times I wish I had access to a heavily armed drone.

Rant over.

Again, I emphasize, I have no idea what happened, but this incident hits pretty close to home for me.

I had been with the police department for about a year.  I got a call from another call that he had just seen a guy who was wanted for a shooting walking down the street headed in the direction of his house.  There was an alley that led to the street where the guy lived, and the cop asked me to go over to the other side to cut off his escape route.

The plan went off pretty much as expected.  The other cop drove up, bad guy started to run and ran through the alley to where I was.  He saw me and continued to run but I was able to catch and tackle him against a car.  As I was trying to turn him around to get his back to handcuff him, I felt a tug near my hip.  Instinctively, my hand went down toward the tug and when it did, my hand knocked my gun (which was out of its holster) out of the guy's hand and down to the street.  I pushed the guy away from the direction of the gun and went to retrieve the gun.  Meanwhile he continued his escape by running the other way.  I retrieved my gun and leveled off.  I didn't fire for a variety of reasons, the main one being that he was about to run behind a house, and if I had fired and missed, the bullet(s) would likely had gone into the front room of the house.  We also knew who the guy was, where he lived, and it was inevitable that we would eventually catch him (which we did 3 months later).

Many of the circumstances are different--most significantly, my guy was already wanted for a violent crime.  However, if I had pulled the trigger, shot and killed him, the headline certainly could have been white police officer shoots unarmed black man fleeing the scene.

Justified???

"For the moment your life was in danger, when he had your gun, you can do anything, but once that threat is no longer there, you're expected to respond with lesser force (Taser, baton, etc) to bring the situation under control. "

That actually is not an accurate description of the law.  The law authorizes the use of deadly force by a law enforcement officer to apprehend a fleeing felon where the officer reasonably believes the suspect poses a threat of death or serious physical injury to others should he be permitted to escape.

In my situation, I'm fairly confident that I could have justifiably shot the guy at that point.  He's already wanted for a shooting.  His actions on this occasion show that he's willing to attempt potentially deadly force to avoid apprehension.  Based on those factors, I can reasonably conclude that failing to apprehend him at that moment could prevent the death or serious physical injury of someone else in the future.

That's the issue that a lot of people misunderstand in these situations.  The officer's life didn't have to be in imminent danger.  That's the standard for an average citizen, but it isn't the standard for law enforcement.  The standard for law enforcement is whether its reasonably for me to believe that if I let this guy escape he's likely to seriously injure or kill someone.  That's the big sticking point in this case.  IF (and again, I say if becasue I have no idea what actually happened) Michael Brown attacked the officer, and IF Michael Brown went after the officer's gun he has committed a felony.  The question then becomes is it reasonable for the officer to conclude that allowing this guy to escape presents a risk of death or serious injury to someone else.

Again, my situation had a major difference.  I knew the guy I was dealing with was wanted for shooting someone.  I knew he had a violent history.  Those things coupled with his actions on the night of our encounter, in my opinion, would have supported a decision to shoot.  In the Ferguson case, the officer's decision is based solely on what happened at the scene because there is no other history to factor into the decision (at least none that I'm aware of).

That's the part that pisses me off about everything that's going on (and I'm not directing this at you so please don't take it that way).  There are a lot of people who are being very vocal about their opinion who are basing their opinion on a misunderstanding of the law.  It isn't necessarily unlawful for a police officer to shoot an unarmed suspect.  If that unarmed person poses a legitimate threat to society at some point in the future, and the only way to apprehend him is to use deadly force, then by all means, fire away.  The issue here is whether it was reasonable to conclude Michael Brown posed a legitimate threat to society.

Of course, this all assumes that he was shot during flight and not during an altercation between the two.

Last edited by forsberg_us (8/14/2014 5:08 pm)

Good explaination of use of force fors.  Id add, and it doesnt seem to apply to the brown case, dont bring a knife to a gun fight.  With the use of tasers it seems citizens expect the police to handle deadly force situations with less then lethal force.  That isnt the law so dont expect it.  If u tase a guy with a knife and miss he now still has a knife and ur taser is useless.  Or even if the guy is unarmed but is coming to kick ur ass.  There is just so many situations in which people second guess police without putting themself in the officers situation at that moment. 

I just had some training today and excited delirium was covered.  Basicly, people go bat shit crazy mostly because they are hopped up on something.  Oh and it also makes them super strong and unable to be reasoned with, not to mention violent.  Youtube it for those who dont know.  Anyway, we were told today just like we have been told before to follow these guidelines, dont fight the subject, dont tase them or spray them, dont cuff him, pin all 4 limbs out untill the medics arrive and transport him to the hospital in a seated position.  If u dont follow those guidelines you could be liable if the subject dies.  So subdue a crazy strong person who wants to kick ur ass with no force and get the medic to have him sit peacefully in the ambulance for 40 minutes...yeah sure.

EDIT!!!! And I'm hoping this is read before replies hit. Michael Brown was identified as a suspect in a Strong Arm robbery of QuikTrip moments before fatal shooting. This can absolutely change everything. I no longer have an opinion, based on what Fors described as the authorization for use of deadly force against a potentially dangerous and violent felon who's attempting to escape.

Last edited by alz (8/15/2014 9:54 am)

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/15/ferguson-police-say-michael-brown-fit-description-strong-arm-robbery-suspect/

I figured there may have been more to the story when obama didnt call the police stupid as he has in the past.

That's a pretty good summary, but it's even worse than that.  Yesterday, you had that idiot captain from the highway patrol giving speeches basically indicting the officer.  Plus, he's been marching with the protestors and hanging out with the New Black Panther Party who are out there leading chants about killing the cop.  You also had the St. Louis City Police Chief out there taking "selfies" with the protestors only hours before they started lobbing Molotov cocktails at his officers.

It's a complete shit show, and it's only going to get worse before it gets better.

forsberg_us wrote:

That's a pretty good summary, but it's even worse than that.  Yesterday, you had that idiot captain from the highway patrol giving speeches basically indicting the officer.  Plus, he's been marching with the protestors and hanging out with the New Black Panther Party who are out there leading chants about killing the cop.  You also had the St. Louis City Police Chief out there taking "selfies" with the protestors only hours before they started lobbing Molotov cocktails at his officers.

It's a complete shit show, and it's only going to get worse before it gets better.

Just for the sake of arguement im trying not to simply side with the police about the shooting.  I know there is so much yet to come on that subject and it is going to be far more complex then guilty or not guilty.  Mistakes can be made.  As you pointed out tho, the witness are slanted in their opinions.  Im trying not to be that way in mine.  I believe 100% it was NOT an execution.  That is a stupid accusation.  3 months down the road we may hear the officers side.  What happens in the mean time?

Imo everyone who could face feedback on this subject is in cya mode.  They would rather cops get killed then another black man.  This makes me very angry.  One incident is not a reason to allow lawlessness.  They have let it get out of hand.  They have handcuffed the police and i feel very worried for them.  They are basicly standing out there every night for target practice.  Nobody cares tho because giving a shit about the police would be basicly considered racist.  What would happen in another town if people were looting?  The police would be allowed to stop it.  What would happen if a man was waving a pistol in the street or walking around with a fire bomb?  They would be confronted and if they didnt comply deadly force would be justified.  Why is that not the case in ferguson?  This is what is wrong with this country!

Yeah all they're saying now is there was no residue on the body indicating close range shots, but none entered from the front. There is a followup autospy that has been ordered by a Federal Medical Examiner, and I'm sure they'll examine Michael's clothes to help determine the rough range of the shots (because for some reason the local medical examiner didn't? It seemed important to me but whatever).

What I do know now is that the eyewitness testimony is false (intentionally or not, I'll leave to everyone to decide). He was not shot in the back of his body. That pretty much leaves me to distrust the entire account, since the main damning piece of information in it was bullshit. 

Typically I bring most of my "WTF LEGAL SYSTEM" questions here, and I pose a lot of "omg, if that's true..." statements. I haven't been rallying however, no mask or molotov cocktail for me either. I'm too old for that kind of shit, and I can buy my own rims if I want. For the people that can't? I think this is really just a "the police are preoccupied!!! Let's get some free shit!" thing. The cameras however are rolling. People think because they aren't arrested for a month they won't get caught, but they'll eventually get to the point where things settle down, and they can look over all the submitted video evidence from store owners, and police will come knocking on doors. 

Last edited by alz (8/18/2014 10:37 am)

Who knows if them "witness" even saw the thing at all.  People can say whatever they want to the media.  They get their 15 seconds.  It will be more interesting to see what the 40 FBI guys found out.  It is easy to lie to a camera.  Alot harder to lie to a guy explaining you could be arrested for providing false information during an investigation. 

Now BROWNS family lawyer is saying that the autopsy supports that brown was surrendering.  Idk how he got that from the that information given.  His right arm was shot several time but officers are trained to shoot center mass....not at hands in the air.  The wound to the top of the head is being made a big deal of.  Officer are also taught to eliminate the threat.  Brown could have been falling when that bullet was fired.  I dont see that the autopsy says anything we didnt already know.

" Maybe tonight I'll go home and see what it says about taking your kids to a protest which has culminated in a riot and/or looting 4 of the past 6 nights.  It's sort of like Hamas putting rocket launchers on top of a children's hospital and then claiming the Israelis are targeting children when they target the rocket launchers."

I was thinking the same thing ......