Looting and Rioting in St. Louis (Merged)

WilyCoyote wrote: »

Just the one I've quoted.

You need to watch the second video of the same incident then. The user deliberately put up both recordings to demonstrate how something can look unjustifiable from one angle, while the second angle actually shows what happened. You've fallen into the trap he set, judging the event based on only partial evidence.

I'm not a legal expert, but from the second angle the shooting looks justifiable. Armed man in a public space, acting erratically, ignoring police instructions, approaching a store (presumably filled with people), turns on the officers twice, the second time raising his gun towards one of the police officer: at that point the police began shooting.

Sand wrote: »

See the video Manic Moran posted - both of them.

The guy in that video was armed. Brown, from all accounts, was not. Apples and oranges.

We have little or no idea of the circumstances. The story presented originally of a random cop assassination has already been shown to have been inaccurate. Early reports from the cops indicated a struggle broke out, which conflicts with the hands raised, back turned story. And that story doesn't seem coherent: why would a co-operative person have both their hands raised *and* their back turned on the police?

If there was a struggle, it is likely that he then ran and was then shot in the back. That would seem to square with the eyewitness account I linked to (see below) and would in my view make it a wrongful killing. If there was any way for the officer to protect himself without killing Brown, in my view it was a wrongful killing - and if Brown was running away, then any immediate threat to the officer's life had clearly passed.

There are two conflicting eye witness accounts. The eye witness who claims he was shot in the back, running away (and hands raised? Does that seem likely for a large man to do?) was the guy who (allegedly) accompanied him to the corner-store that was robbed. The second eye witness claims there was a struggle with the police officer trying to put Brown into the back of his police car when a gun was fired.

There's another eyewitness account which states that he was in fact shot several times in the back as he ran away from the cop:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11038527/Dramatic-pictures-emerge-of-Michael-Brown-shooting-in-Ferguson-Missouri.html

Lets judge after the facts are established.

Sure, I'm merely stating that if it is established that he was unarmed and was initially shot in the back as he ran away from the cop, in my own opinion that's enough to call it a wrongful killing. The officer's life was clearly not in immediate danger if the guy was running away from him.

^^ awaits angry replies from ' reclaim the streets protesters ' and reds in general lol

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The guy in that video was armed. Brown, from all accounts, was not. Apples and oranges.

The comparison is in that seeing the same event, from a different perspective, makes all the difference in determining what happened. The is a lot of heat and very little light in this case so far.

If there was a struggle, it is likely that he then ran and was then shot in the back.

Ran with his hands raised over his head? I find it hard to visualise anyone doing that.

There's another eyewitness account which states that he was in fact shot several times in the back as he ran away from the cop:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11038527/Dramatic-pictures-emerge-of-Michael-Brown-shooting-in-Ferguson-Missouri.html

Great - lets get that story and try to figure out why eyewitnesses have different, conflicting accounts of what happened. It is not even clear he actually saw what happened - he only began tweeting *after* the shooting, and it is likely the gunfire drew his attention to the street. I cant see any reports where the twitter user indicates Brown was running away at the time he was shot.

And forgive me for being cynical, but he seems to be enjoying the attention he has received as a result. He would have some interest in maintaining his central role in events.

Sure, I'm merely stating that if it is established that he was unarmed and was initially shot in the back as he ran away from the cop, in my own opinion that's enough to call it a wrongful killing. The officer's life was clearly not in immediate danger if the guy was running away from him.

I agree that if the cop had no reason to believe he was armed, if he had his hands raised and was co-operating then shooting him is unjustifiable.

However, we already know the guy was huge, had just (allegedly) come from a store where CCTV shows he was using his stature to intimidate a store owner he (allegedly) robbed and was (allegedly) blocking traffic which apparently led to the initial stop. That all implies he was in an aggressive, non-cooperative mood.

Both the cop and another eyewitness describe a "struggle" trying to put the guy into the car and the gunshot occurring during that struggle at the car. Apparently the police officer who shot Brown has a "swollen face" as a result of this struggle. Browns companion/accomplice describes him "running" which at the very least implies a struggle, and doesn't sit right with the claims that he had his hands raised and apparently told the police that he was unarmed. Was he co-operating or wasn't he?

Basically, if after the circumstances are established shows the shooting was unjustifiable then yep, totally agreed the police officer should be charged. But at this point those circumstances aren't established: early reports seem to indicate there was a struggle, not an execution.

Certainly, the evidence seems far too weak to justify the rioting and looting that has occurred in that town over the past few days.

Karl Stein wrote: »

'Blacks'?

Omg Karl you're such a racist !!

+1.

There were nearly 35 homicides in Chicago the weekend before among black gang bangers and nobody in the black community took it upon themselves to try and restore normality. They are turning american cities into chaos.

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Self defence includes the defence of others. So if a person is rushing away from you towards another person with a weapon then I think a shot to the back would be quite justified.

Interestingly enough, the US supreme court rulings established *two* justifications for a police officer shooting a suspect. One is the defence of life - either the police officers or a third party. The second is to prevent suspect fleeing if the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect has committed a violent felony - i.e. the officer has reason to believe the suspect is *currently* violent and dangerous, and could endanger others if he/she escapes.

Assaulting a police officer is considered a violent felony, and Wilson, having been in a struggle with Brown would have probable cause to consider him violent and dangerous. Though the shooting might seem OTT, it could also be entirely legal and justifiable and it is probably likely that Wilson's defence will rest on that angle.

The key thing though is Wilson would have to demonstrate his reasonable belief was arguably supported by the facts up until he fired his last shot. The secondary justification isn't an excuse for a police officer to ambush and murder a guy on Tuesday because he got punched on Monday.

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

It would seem that the guy was a lowlife scumbag.

Who he was is irrelevant. A killing is wrong if nobody's life is under threat, end of story.

Oh, I agree - I was just pointing out that in the US a police officer can also shoot a fleeing suspect under circumstances that do not involve an immediate and clear threat to either his life or anyone else's.

Sand wrote: »

Oh, I agree - I was just pointing out that in the US a police officer can also shoot a fleeing suspect under circumstances that do not involve an immediate and clear threat to either his life or anyone else's.

I wonder how many police are killed by american citizens and how many citizens are killed by police. Proportionally who presents the biggest threat to the other?

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

That's a pretty ridiculous comparison to try draw.

It's also fair comment that "Ridiculous" in the North American context is somewhat different to "Ridiculous" in an Irish context....;)

RustyNut wrote: »

I wonder how many police are killed by american citizens and how many citizens are killed by police. Proportionally who presents the biggest threat to the other?

I don't think it will say too much, but there are something like 500K state and local/tribal police in the US. 33 of those were killed by gunfire in 2013.

So for cops, shooting death by citizen claims 0.0066% of the force annually.

On the other hand, while there is no exact statistics on it, US law enforcement are estimated to kill about 400 people a year. I.E. NYPD killed 16 people in 2012, though that was a figure that had more than doubled from the previous year. LAPD killed 54 people in 2012 - again, a huge spike from lower figures in previous years.

So for citizens, death by cop (all causes, but lets presume shooting) claims 0.00012% of the population annually. Obviously, committing crimes, carrying weapons, attacking cops...all these will increase your chances of being shot by a cop so your mileage may vary. But basically citizens are more of a threat to cops than vice versa.

That doesn't take into account assaults and stabbings etc (there's some frankly crazy figure of police being attacked over half a million times annually) so it skews the "threat" measure against the cops. Citizens are more likely to stab cops than vice versa. And by ignoring stabbings, we skew the figures.