Michael Brown shooting - justified?

Post Reply New Topic

Ferguson police: Michael Brown was robbery suspect

I thought not but in light of this information about a strongarm robbery I tend to think otherwise. Not because the police may have treated him differently, but because Brown himself may have behaved more aggressively because he knew his guilt. (If the man in the video is indeed him.)

We had a police shooting here in Minneapolis in which three officers went down into a basement to apprehend a 20-ish black robbery suspect. All of them carried pistols, and one had a fully automatic HK MP5. Allegedly the suspect grabbed the MP5 and it went off, wounding an officer. Another officer then shot him to death.

The police initially wouldn't confirm anything, even whether the suspect had a gun. It wasn't smart of them to go into a dark basement with BOTH a pistol and an MP5, since controlling just a pistol in a holster is hard enough. (That's not 20/20 hindsight on my part; there's a whole segment of holsters designed to deal with that: http://www.tactical-life.com/magazines/ ... ting-draw/ ) An MP5 just hangs from a sling and would fall right onto a suspect if you were standing over him trying to slap cuffs on: http://www.slingsonly.com/image_files/MP5photo.jpg There is a non-trivial risk of catching the trigger on something accidentally during a struggle like that, and when you have muzzle flashes in a dark room, it's hard to tell why the gun is going off.

Anyway, while I wasn't happy with the MPD or willing to blindly trust their story, I'd be pretty pissed if anyone jumped to conclusions, rioted, sacked businesses, and hurt or endangered people who had nothing to do with it.

Last edited by NobodyKnows on 15 Aug 2014, 8:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Oh for sure. It will be interesting to see if the police have any other items of interest to offer. It is odd that Wilson continued to shoot when Brown was fleeing.

cop didn't know he was a robbery suspect at the time

they should require all cops to wear cameras

the old aid adage that if you're doing nothing wrong you got nothing to hide should apply to them as well as it apparently does to all of us

That's a big no-no. They may be able to excuse that if a suspect is armed, but otherwise it's hard to justify. A private citizen who does that while defending his or her home is likely to go to prison. I haven't followed the story closely, but am I correct that there was talk of a second suspect involved in the altercation? It could be a tough sell even if there was a second suspect who was armed, but it's the only excuse that they're likely to have if the officer did indeed shoot an unarmed guy who was running away.

1. Are you crazy? No, of course that doesn't justify the shooting. If the cop's life were in danger, that would justify it. The cop's life was not in danger, and Brown was not armed.
2. The cop didn't even know about the robbery when he shot Brown.

I know, but Brown didn't. He may have assumed he was being picked up for a more serious charge which would have given him more of a motive to resist.



Strange they don't really.



I agree. If he wasn't posing an immediate threat, there's no need to continue shooting.

Certifiably.



If there was a gun and they haven't said anything about it yet, that would be very disingenuous of them, but they seem to like to withhold information.


As above.

I do maintain that the alleged robbery does effect the situation. If nothing else, it demonstrates criminal behaviour on the part of Brown.

A body camera would pretty much answer all the questions we have about this case, did Brown reach for the gun and did the cop shoot the kid in the back as he ran away?

here is a good article making the case

Watched Cops Are Polite Cops(link)

In Rialto, California they required police officers to wear cameras and the following year complaints against police dropped by 88% and use of force dropped by 60%

It should be mandatory for all LEO, saves the cop from false complaints and the citizen from being abused. It saves the municipality on lawsuits so it pays for itself.

If he charged/assaulted the officer, then:

yes

I seriously have no idea where people get unarmed = isn't dangerous.

It's easier to subdue someone who isn't armed.

Ann2011 has a point. Assuming that Brown is shown in the CCTV shots from the store robbery, then he knew that somebody might be looking for him. Also, why reflexively trust the story of a guy who may have been involved in a violent robbery just beforehand (Dorian Johnson)?

http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyr ... etails.php



It looks as though Johnson's attorney confirmed his involvement in the robbery:

http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/20 ... /14118769/

Last edited by NobodyKnows on 15 Aug 2014, 8:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Yes, but if it's one officer and 1/2 individuals, then there you go.

All the officer in question can do is draw on the individual and tell them to get on the ground.

If the individual/s charge, then they have possible access to the officer's weapon, not to mention the ability to inflict lethal damage via hand to hand.

it doesn't really matter even if Brown resisted arrest violently tho, it is not justifiable to shot someone in the back that is running away

Of course.

But it's not known if he was shot in the back or not.

Forensics can determine that easily enough.

From looking at the body, it appears he took a round in the head, which is the one that would have anchored him on the spot.

Is this from Dorian Johnson's testimony? I agree that body-cams will help, but without that, even the coroner's report may not clear this up completely. Since there were two allegedly violent people there, the officer could have fired defensively at one of them and still hit the other in the back. Without more witnesses or CCTV evidence, it's the officer's word against Johnson's.