Michael Brown shooting - justified?

Post Reply New Topic

And it appears all shots were to the front from the autopsy.

Heh.

Not weighing in on whether the shooting was justified or not till all the evidence is in, the witnesses did say Brown had run, stopped, turned and raised his hands when he was shot. If true, that would explain why he was shot in the front.

One witness put that, yeah.

One said he was on his knees and the officer was close and "executed" him.

Another put him running at the officer (also the officer's).

So, three differing views.

I'd say his arms weren't straight up in the air though, due to the arm hits. That can be determined easily enough though based on entries and exits.

it just doesn't make any logical sense, why would the kid charge the police officer after being shot several times? Why would he "charge" him at all? He isn't a wild animal, why would he run into gunfire?

And cops always shoot with the intent to kill, they're not firing to wound or to warn, they fire to kill only.

http://news.yahoo.com/none-back-brown-a ... 24156.html

About as much sense as murdering an innocent.

People charging officers and getting gunned down isn't anything new though.

If Brown thought he could close the distance and disarm/kill the officer via fisticuffs, then there's your reason to charge. He absorbed several hits to the arm, with two to the head area, which would have been the lethal hits (one of the head wounds would have been the one that stopped him). Easy to see this happening. He was also large enough to overwhelm most people out there with fisticuffs.

Or, you can think the police officer just felt like gunning down someone, perhaps due to being in a violent scuffle early on, and not thinking entirely clear (someone going for your weapon.... Someone hitting you... ). I recall a security guard nearby was beaten up and left battered in a car, but she got out and gunned down the person that did it to her (she wasn't found guilty of murder). Or, you know, he could be a racist psychopath.

No, police* fire to stop the threat. The same as anyone via the Criminal Code. It's just that stopping the threat often requires lethal shots. If someone takes a round to the arm and stops whatever they were doing (like say, charging), then the threat is stopped.

*This one might not have if you're to believe he was a psychopathic racist murderer

I can't say anything about what the cop believes, I've just encountered so many hothead roided out cops who think they they're Judge Dredd in my lifetime that it doesn't ever surprise when they unjustly beat up or unload their clip into some poor soul. If somebody swung on these types of cops, I 100% would believe if they straight up murdered the person. More times than not cops are never held accountable for their actions, if use of force dropped by 60% when cops have body cameras then what does that say about the mindset of a cop?

Yes, I think the cop killing Brown without just cause in the heat of the moment is much more likely than Brown charging a cop like some wounded animal after taking a few slugs to the arm. I think we'll hear the story change again and the cop will claim that he thought Brown was reaching for a gun or something, it doesn't make any sense for him to have kept firing. Brown was put down 35 feet away from the squad car and likely shot at a distance, why would he double back after being shot? Why wouldn't he keep running? I would imagine that if he turned around for anything it would be to surrender, you'd have to suicidal to do anything else.

Too much is uncertain. There are many odd things that need to be resolved but I find it difficult to believe that a trained cop can't hit the center mass of a stationary target with raised arms at 35 feet. He puts 4 of 6 rounds into raised stationary arms? Really? Running arms that blocked the center of mass maybe. The lawyers will have fun with that in court.

There was a video today where a witness in the background seems to support a few of the police views. Brown was in and across the top of the SUV (possibly indicating a fight), and "doubled back" and advanced on the officer. The second part is ambiguous as to who is advancing I think. But the cops lawyers will run with it if they can.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... e-Incident

The cop needs that to be true and a friend of the cop says that's what he's saying.

Yes.

The shot pattern doesn't really lead one to see it as a calm and controlled situation, no matter what view people believe.

Ah, famous last words:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sL-cGjinaM[/youtube]

Just kinda...terribly ironic, yo. No, seriously.

It can't be real.

So having more melanin in your skin is the equvalant to having a mental illness on the police brutality meter?

At one time any man having long hair was in danger of getting a beat down from cops in the South.They didn't like hippies or people of color.

Man, who the hell likes hippies?

You can see past color. You can't see past the bong smoke.

Stealing cigars is not a felony.

I don't really know what happened, and it doesn't seem like the PD does, either. They have changed their story in their statements a half dozen times already, and I'm not sure which is the current version. Last I heard it was that the officer knew about the robbery and Brown was a suspect. Which differs from the version a few hours earlier where the officer knew there was a nearby robbery but that Brown was approached for impeding traffic. Which is different from the story a few hours earlier which said it for jay-walking and that Brown was not a suspect at all. They have also gone back and forth on when, where, and why shots were fired other than implying or outrighting saying that the shooting was fully justified.

These weren't all issued by the same person were they? That would be rather funny

From what ive heard the police dept are refusing to publish or release incident reports. It's a little frightening that its up to police discretion whether they disclose incident reports.