It is looking more and more like Darren Wilson acted as many thought and the shooting was justified. Shots were fired inside the vehicle. Browns blood found in vehicle, on the gun and on Wilsons clothing from the shots. Witness testimony also noted struggle and also contradicts others that his arms were not up. Seems Brown was coming or at least staggering forward from about 25 feet.
This is going pretty much exactly as it appeared and noted from the beginning despite the trolling attempts here and elsewhere to make it something else. Brown attacked the police officer, they struggled , shots were fired, he ran. He turned and faced the officer and did not surrender. The officer did what was his duty and in his defense and really the people of Fergusons defense and shot Brown down.
Now we should get some riots and more ridiculousness. As I noted from the beginning, all this has done is make racists look right and those supporting this case look dumb but they won't acknowledge it so racism wins...congrats....Now we should get some riots and looting in support of a thug who would otherwise be in jail.
Wash Post Link - (
New Window )
2000
162
2001
241
2002
157
2003
150
2004
165
2005
163
2006
156
2007
191
2008
147
2009
125
1914
116
2010
161
1915
130
2011
171
1916
154
2012
122
1917
165
2013
100
I left some of the real old stats in there for comparison. Conclusion. deaths of police officers in the line of duty have largely not changed over the years. Sometime way up sometimes way down but usually in the same range, actually for quite a long time. 1917…165 2013…100.
Google it yourself the organization is tasked with these type stat generation.
So why the militarization?
it is up to the norm 2013 was really a aberration statistically. A low aberration.
I can hear it now the politicians who favor this they are saying….we are so much higher than last year how can we not do this?
so one cannot win.
But no…the stats go up and down but really stay about the same no real trends obvious. Overall considering population increases…it is way way safer to be a PO than in say 1917 or so.
But in the last 50 years or so…about the same up and down from year to year always in the same overall range.
But exactly on point to Ferguson…it has as lot to do with why the community reacted as it did . Success or failure of community policing it could be called.
So a class that starts with say 40 will graduate 20 or less.
The other model the academic model will hire 20 use extensive screening background, even extensive use of mock scenarios/oral board type things, to weed those who are unqualified but as consequence they then graduate maybe 18 or the 20. Or even 20 of the 20.
So we are tending the military model as I mention. With the new equipment being mostly military and the culture being military it leaves that perception with the people they serve, not as a police dept to help them but a military force to control them. So peoples tend to get bothered by that not immediately but after it goes on for 10 or 20 years.
Which brings me back to my earlier point. England and the redcoats the soldiers were used to colonialize and to put down other peoples. So the people in England had a aversion to redcoats as that would put them in the category as being just another colony with people to be surpressed. So a decision was made to have the police wear blue. Little things mean a lot to perception. Having our police wear black riot gear helmets and all the rest they are safer but the community itself looks at that as being a occupying force not a police force, a military.
I think it is a big big mistake personally. The result is when a thing happens regardless of that thing or its independent merit it escalates, which is what happened in Ferguson. It is not so much this one killing, likely this officer is innocent of murder. but the past that comes back to haunt.
I read the amnesty international report on this just yesterday. The local police were completely out of control. They for just one, had the amnesty international group, who were clearly marked and are pretty easy to spot(not threatening by appearance at all are those people) at one time at the point of a gun lie on the ground. I mean really…amnesty international…geese louise what were they thinking. To mention just one the list goes on and on. 19 journalists arrested, sure one or two may have been out of line but 19?
A local council person trying to mediate between the crowd and the police…they shot him in the stomach with a rubber bullet…..out of control they clearly were. 7 pages was the report some of it biased to the left, but the incidents you just can not say they are made up. I am mentioning only a few in there.
and I think the whole militarization thing is oversold. the major proponent's argument is that because they receive military equipment - it will transform police agencies into small armies. but, that ignores the fact that exponentially more resources were provided to agencies based on community policing grants. and most of that military gear never gets used in the day to day delivery of police services. you report a burglary - cop is probably more likely to show up in a police car as opposed to a tank.
policing has come a long ways and has a long way to go, but, these high profile incidents - well, often the responses to them go off track.
the point the militarization guru makes fairly well is the use of SWAT teams/raids to execute drug warrants. lot of force, lot can go wrong - what's the reward and does it justify the risk. too often - no. That's the important point, IMO, not whether some agency got an armored vehicle they may use once or twice a year for transport purposes.
re: Ferguson - well, they were overwhelmed, unprepared, etc. and the influx of "tourists" certainly didn't help matters. I'd be interested in reading the civil rights investigation report. not re: the shooting so much, but the agency policies and practices.
The state academy was the inverse for years and years I am not current on them now however.
That state has a particular to the wording of its use of force law which will likely protect this officer from any murder charge. Killing is allowed by a PO without necessary protection from a immediate mortal danger which is present in most state wordings. The way it is worded is more important to my opinion than 90% of the whys and wherefores. Essentially to my read if you know of a felon or person committing a felon lethal force is a option to stopping him even if he poses no immediate threat.
Amnesty is requesting they change it.
I suggest if you have the time to read the amnesty report. It is quite a good read. Not the digestions by the media but the report on their web site.
That is usually a felony offense.
Another had a person self barricaded in a house, about a thousand of that per year swat incident really pretty common and typically easily handled…
this other Bum F ARiz place, they sent a hum vee up the front lawn…know why…because they had one.
I disagree in that I think it is clearly out of control in these small places. They don't have any training nevertheless to use the stuff. Hurricane Sandy places like that Hum Vee's came in real handy, Bum F utah…..not so much.
I will read that amnesty report - the issue of necessity is huge ad should be a part of any df policy.
re: police officer line of duty deaths -for a while the leading cause was auto accidents. that and liability for pursuits were the major catalysts for the trend towards restricting police pursuits.
in addition to the df policy, the training is an important piece. police generally don't get enough training and the right types of training.
... 59 60 54 70 41 50 60 73 50 31 548..total
Thought that may interest you as well bc
It comes down to the cop's inabiltiy to control a threat without lethal force. Probably due to poor training and lack of community relations.
It comes down to the cop's inabiltiy to control a threat without lethal force. Probably due to poor training and lack of community relations.
Or maybe due to the kid being 300 pounds. "Probably" should not presume to know things you clearly know next to nothing about.
You're the poster-child for jumping to conclusions. No matter what your training or your community relations, if Brown was in fact a 300 pound man acting aggressively, short of a taser (which some units don't use for reasons related to community relations) or pepper spray - maybe - or being Anderson Silva "controlling" someone his size is something that seems a lot easier to do in the comfort of your computer chair than it does on the ground.
What is relevant is this….
A law enforcement officer in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody is justified in using deadly force only
(1) When such is authorized under other sections of this chapter; or
(2) When he reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested
(a) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony; or
(b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon; or
(c) May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.
That is the Missouri law on police use of deadly force. It is quite unconstitutional as a similar law was struck down in the mid 80's. This is essentially a fleeing felon law which was declared unconstitutional by the supreme court. It has not been changed in Missouri to reflect that…
So this officer is clearly innocent of murder. The guy committed a felon when he pushed the officer, that is a felony offense to assault with intent to harm a police officer in the pursuance of his duties….
So felony established he was within the states constitution to use deadly force to stop him…it is right there above the rational for doing so.
Section 2A
This law is unconstitutional but you can't fault the cop for that.
Conversely, 300 lbers can be killed because officers believe it is necessary to effect arrest. But using deadly force on an unarmed 98 lb weakling would lead to charges, because no one would accept that a cop believes that the use of deadly force is necessay to arrest the kid.
A defense attorney of that cop all he really has to do if the cop is charged with murder….read that statute to the jury.
Clearly that cop was within the perameters of that stature. ONce the guy fights with him it is a felony. Taken to a wrong extent then(what the law is unconstitutional) if a cop wants to kill someone all he has to do is get into first a fight with him.
But it is what it is….. a law presently in that state.
This law is unconstitutional but you can't fault the cop for that.
Sure, if you believe that right and wrong begin and end with the law.
If you don't, you absolutely can fault the cop, albeit not legally.
He sucks as a cop no doubt about it, should not be one.
But guilty of murder…no not at all in this state.
State sucks as well for having that on the books 25 years after it has been outlawed.
In civil court likely the state is named as a defendant as well. Someone in that state is not doing their job. That statute should have been removed 25 years ago.
When he reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest
Combined with section A under this
If the guy is big and you expect he may beat you down or quick in that he may run away from you….you may use deadly force.
So the onus in this specific would be on the prosecutors to show that this 300 pound guy could not reasonably be believed to be able to beat down the officer…..good luck with that I would say.
ron in new mexico at 12% (started a day later than anyone else)
vs
the original michael brown thread
Sonic Youth at 12% of the posts there (but he wins on volume 227 posts)
The winner?
PA Giant fan
Collect your prize! a night in Beez's basement
On the Missouri law despite it still being present I would say it is likely that any police depts training would reflect the 1985 court ruling. So this officer would likely have violated that. the ruling was so well known in law enforcement. Why Missouri did not change theirs as they were one of the states directly affected or changed it to what is present now which is the same fleeing felon rule…is beyond me.
Nevertheless it will be a point for the officers potential defense and will certainly be mentioned.
The question will then lie on wether Brown posed a threat to the officer? I say it will be hard to prove not, but we could go on and on about that for about 1000 or so posts.