Michael Brown shooting - justified?

Post Reply New Topic

Assaulting a police officer. Early reports point to the officer needing medical attention. If Brown assaulted the police officer for refusing commands (seriously), and then fled, the officer could deem him to be a threat to others. That happens, and it's possible here. See before with the case nearby with the security guard.

Though he did threaten the dude in the shop with physical force during a robbery/theft (including the use of force), and any reasonable person can see that. Is that a felony? The officer probably didn't know that (though I'm betting Brown guessed the officer did, which is why the assault began in the first place, but speculation).

From all I've seen, it really looks like they're trying to offer up a sacrifice with as much hearsay and fact twisting as possible to appease the bullies. But hey, I do often side with the police/security guard/armed citizen if it looks like a good shoot before all is known. I guess I innately hold them to higher standards than thugs (plus, I do tend to think I'm a little more versed on self-defense laws than the common person, journalists included).

And Brown was a hippie... . Weed in system.

Ok, seriously, I am a terrible person.

It would actually be kind of hard to hit him several times in an arm if you were trying to. Diagram of the wounds below (unfortunately small):

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/18/us/missou ... index.html

The two shots in the upper arm seem consistent with a struggle over the gun (if the officer had already drawn it). That doesn't completely rule out the 'sociopathic-racist-cop' theory. (If an officer - or anyone else - drew a sidearm and was about to blow me away without provocation, I'd probably try to grab or push away the gun.) It does contradict Johnson's story of the officer shooting Brown in the back, and it's unlikely that all of the wounds would be placed so close together if they had been fired from a distance while he was running away.

It could be a case the cop was pissed off at the unruly kid so he took out his anger with the gun. He shot the kid six times.

Uh, you really need to reread what I wrote, as I never said any such thing. I was only using the murder of a mentally ill man here in the Spokane area in comparison to the Brown shooting, and to demonstrate that yes, while most victims of police abuse are black, there are in fact some white victims.

Yes, and the arms would be moving all over the place as far as hitting them goes (one arm in this case).

-Brown charges with arm being used as cover/shield after incident in car (perhaps the officer challenged Brown or fired on him and hit/missed when they get out), officer dumps magazine into the central area (which would be where the arm is covering); one round penetrates arm and enters torso. One round penetrates eye socket and jaw, possible ricochet downward, but also possible that head was leaning forward so round doesn't deviate too much. One round enters top of the head, and probably staying in the head. A few flesh wounds on the arm, possibly during the charge or earlier. Probably all happening in a couple of seconds and over before it's really started to witnesses.

-Officer fires on fleeing Brown, hits him in the arm/misses, Brown turns around and gets on his knees with hands up. Officer then fires several rounds, hitting the waving arm once or more and then head as Brown is doing this. None of the shots really impacted Brown as he was fleeing, so only when he turned around and started to kneel. Happens quickly.

Whether he got on his knees or not is the main point to prove, and also secondly if he only fired when Brown was fighting/charging (though it could be shown that Brown was a threat, so firing on a fleeing suspect isn't a bad shoot by definition). Also, the number of shots missed (if any) would shed light on things.

Last edited by Dillogic on 18 Aug 2014, 12:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Yes. Though he'd probably have had issues at work leading up to this. People generally don't just do things like this instantly.

Though six times isn't out of the ordinary; he probably fired more than six (others missed). The last shot would have been the only one that would have any effect regarding stopping someone purely on physical characteristics (the others could make someone mentally give up).

Unlike movies, the only way to stop someone instantly with a firearm is a brain/spine hit.

I was taught to fire four shots in my conceal-carry course. As Dillogic pointed out, handgun rounds aren't very lethal unless you hit the heart, head or upper spinal column. Even a shot through the heart will take 15-30 seconds to incapacitate.

Hitting him six times is *more* consistent with defensive use: If you just wanted to murder an unarmed, non-resisting person at close range, it would be pretty easy to put one round through his head. No need to shoot him multiple times.

Last edited by NobodyKnows on 18 Aug 2014, 4:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I think you guys give to much credit to cops as marksmen, they miss and end up blasting bystanders all the time. They act on pure adrenaline when doing these things so if the cop was already enraged and Brown was moving away, I don't think you can read too much into where he hit Brown.

It is frustrating the lack of real answers we have about about what happened in this case, I doubt Officer Wilson will be held responsible regardless if he murdered Brown or not.

I wasn't giving the officer any credit as a marksman. Try this experiment:

Go to a range, rent a pistol and get a man-shaped target. Place it at 35', aim straight at one side (targets don't always have proper arms), take several shots in rapid succession, and see how many rounds actually hit there.

The latest autopsy makes it appear that Brown was still facing the officer, not running away. He could have been backing up, I suppose.



Agreed. (The Saint Paul police hit a 14-year-old bystander two weeks ago.) But if the officer in Furguson had fired as you suggest, it's more likely that the wounds would be spread all over Brown's upper body. The lethal ones are all in a tight pattern on his neck and head, which fits better with a very close engagement. The others run down his arm. Two of those are on his right bicep - on the inside, no less. That doesn't make sense if he was trying to shield himself, since they would be on the outside. It would make sense if he was holding the officer's arm or wrist when the officer fired.

I think the officer suffered from a broken or fractured eye socket.

There's "dangerous felon".

He would only be a felon had he lived to be tried and convicted.

I am just glad I am not on that jury. All we have right now is eye witness accounts. And those are many and contradictory.

Pretty sad what's happening here.

Cops, typically armed with an array of both lethal (gun) and non-lethal weapons (night stick, pepper spray, taser) are typically excused when they use deadly force even if their own life was not in immediate danger, when they had at their disposal more proportionate means of responding to the perceived threat.

Unarmed black men are now, post-Travon, apparently lethal weapons in and of themselves. Even against trained police officers who are usually large men. Their mere presence, unarmed, apparently can constitute a threat to someone else's life, even if that threat is not imminent.

I once sat on a jury where the defendant was charged with assault with a deadly weapon. The idea that the weapon in question could have been used to kill someone, especially in the way the prosecution described it being used by the defendant, was utterly laughable. But then the judge and prosecutor defined "deadly weapon" basically such that anything that might inflict a major injury, like putting out someone's eye, is "deadly". By that definition, the weapon in question, and probably pretty much any object you can think of, could be considered "deadly".

The law goes to great lengths to exaggerate the crimes of the accused. So do the police, prosecutors, and the apologists for the police.

If the officer really fired from 35 feet - and the other person was not armed, how can that be justified. In the time it would take to close range from 35 feet, the officer could have resorted to a less lethal means of subduing the other person. There is no rational, non-racist reason for the officer to be in fear of his life under such circumstances.

Yes, but the act itself allows an officer to engage someone fleeing.

So, the only defense Brown now has is if he was on his knees and/or complying. Evidence doesn't seem to point to that.

Hell, I doubt the officer will even be sent to court unless the Feds try it (who would be pretty much abusing their power for purely interest reasons, but you know).

Someone charging or fleeing after a potentially lethal struggle. The former means fear of life (especially after being assaulted), the latter means fear for the safety of others.

A physically healthy 6 feet+ man is a dangerous weapon to any single individual. If I could get into fisticuffs range, I'm a lethal threat to any man out there.

Brain, use it.