<p>If we can rule out those highly inflammatory scenarios, I think we can have a more constructive discourse. I believe there is deep mistrust between the public and the police force, with a good reason. One could attribiute the fatal confrontation between Brown and Wilson to lack of trust. Brown probably defied more strongly than he would have under a better circumstance. If he didn’t mistrust authorities, he may have complied with the officer’s instruction and be alive. In that indirect sense, Brown was killed because of racial injustice. But it’s like that affluenza defense. You may be mistreated but you are still responsible for your action unfortunately.</p>
<p>Wilson does not seem to claim that he shot Brown while he was going down. As I read it Wilson says that Browns head is down because he is in some kind of bull rush. My point is that even if this bull rush is happening I don’t see how Brown’s head is tucked (while running) in such a way that a bullet enters the top and exits through his eye. If Brown was indeed on his feet and charging how is that even possible at his height?</p>
<p>I thought what Wilson meant was when the shooting started. Wilson started shooting when he thought Brown was charging. I doubt he knew Brown was fatally shot until he was on the ground. I would think forensic scientists can guestimate where Brown’s head was when shot at the skull. My guess would be between his chest and waist. It takes about 1/4 of a second to get there assuming it’s free fall. Would Wilson have been aware Brown was faltering during that 1/4 second to stop shooting? Ideally, Wilson should have stopped shooting 0.25 second sooner than he did since Brown was pretty much defenseless by then.</p>
<p>It astonishes me that @marie1234 can say calmly that a police officer is justified in shooting a fleeing felony suspect.</p>
<p>This isn’t what Darren Wilson claims happened so it probably doesn’t matter but MO does have a fleeing felon law on the books. Punching a cop in the face and grabbing his gun is a rather serious offense it seems most agree happened. After all, he had a blood-dripping hand wound, gun powder on his palm, and left some of his skin in the police car. </p>
<p>A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead…however…Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.
—Justice Byron White, Tennessee v. Garner</p>
<p>The rest of it about discussing calmly I don’t even know what to say. Of course, I can discuss calmly. Everyone should.</p>
<p>Yes, but you didn’t say that an officer would be justified in shooting someone who “poses a threat of serious physical harm.” You said he’d be justified in shooting a “fleeing robbery suspect.” Robbery SUSPECT. Seriously, think about what you’ve said there.</p>
<p>My comment about “calmly” was not that I think you ought to be frothing at the mouth. It was that you seem to have absolutely no notion that what you’re proposing might lead to the kind of police state where people get shot on sight for no reason at all other than that they’re suspected of having committed a crime. </p>
<p>If MO has a “fleeing felon” law on the books then it ought to be changed.</p>
<p>In the hypothetical where Brown has a tussle with Wilson, and then runs away, I’m having trouble understanding why anyone would argue with a straight face that Brown “poses a threat of serious physical harm.” </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Blood dripping”? “Gun powder on his palm”? Where is the photographic evidence of this?</p>
<p>@dustypig </p>
<p>I’m not proposing anything. The law exists. And, my mention of it came back when Igloo was trying to decide if the question was whether or not he was fleeing a few pages back and I responded that shooting a fleeing robbery suspect who just assaulted a cop may also be ruled justified under that particular law. The assaulting a cop part is the felony. Personally, I think the question is did the officer reasonably have a fear for his life and I believe he did but what I think is neither here nor there. This is already over. </p>
<p>Actually it’s not “neither here nor there,” nor is it necessarily “already over.” The demonstrably biased PA McCulloch did a real disservice to Darren Wilson by being so transparent in his position, in my opinion. We’ll see what happens next.</p>
<p>Love your new avatar, saintfan! :)) </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is “blacks are superhuman, so we are justified in using excessive force against them” myth is nothing new.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[The</a> terrifying racial stereotypes laced through Darren Wilson’s testimony](<a href=“The terrifying racial stereotypes laced through Darren Wilson's testimony - Vox”>The terrifying racial stereotypes laced through Darren Wilson's testimony - Vox)</p>
<p><a href=“Photo: Police officer and young demonstrator share hug during Ferguson rally in Portland - oregonlive.com”>Photo: Police officer and young demonstrator share hug during Ferguson rally in Portland - oregonlive.com;
<p>In this nation, we have a due process of law. Even if Michael Brown was guilty, he should have been tried by 12 instead of carried by 6. The grand jury was a complete sham. It’s not the grand jury’s job to determine whether Wilson is guilty or not, but it’s their duty to determine whether a trial for him is worth pursuing. The Prosecutor spent more time trying to contradict the witnesses than prosecute Wilson. Our legal system is a joke.</p>
<p>It is intriguing to me how people are so happy to call racism in this specific situation. This happened so quickly, with fear, training and adrenalin put in the mix. I wonder how many of us, even the middle aged white women, think that we could attack a police officer, go for his gun, and survive.</p>
<p>Is a prosecutor required to vigorously prosecute, if they feel the defendant is innocent? If they don’t think someone should be brought to trial, must they pretend that they think he is guilty?</p>
<p>Interesting question. </p>
<p>I’d suppose the prosecutor should first look to the community and gauge their feelings on whether there ought to be a trial. And if there’s a lot outrage out there because that ham sandwich was white bread instead of wheat or mayo only… no mustard, put rings through the grand juror’s noses and lead them where they didn’t want to go.</p>
<p>The community needs some punishment handed out and if the burden of a trial is all they can get, well… indict, indict, indict.</p>
<p>The grand jurors are part of the community. many of the protesters are not.</p>
<p>@sally305 The gun powder on his palm was reported in the autopsy reports. I’ve seen Brown’s blood trail documented with yellow numbers on the ground showing that he had gone further away from Wilson and then was moving toward him again when he was killed. They showed those on TV the day of the announcement that there would be no indictment. </p>
<p>I don’t think that Michael Brown was SHOT because he was black. I think that the series of events that preceded his death came about, in part, because he was black.</p>
<p>@Harvestmoon1, I don’t have the responsibility to provide proof that my opinion of what happened is actually what did happen. It is just my gut reaction to what I have seen and read. I was not prosecuting the case. No different than anyone else on this thread or in the general public.</p>
<p>Some of those bullets that “missed” the target ended up embedded in nearby houses. </p>
<p>The idea that Michael Brown was riddled with bullets and CHARGING Wilson in a rage and that Wilson received this as a credible threat is just ridiculous to me. Again, that’s my gut talking.</p>
<p>Armchair rhetoric…Maybe we should all be forced to do 2 years as a police officer after high school, like a draft.
One would better understand when living the life as a police officer what goes through one’s mind during high stress altercations. I’m just saying that there are many people that are commenting that have never and never will be asked to act during a high stress life and death situation. The work is not for everyone and unless you are willing to put the badge on, then I think comment should be left to people that actually walk the walk. It is too damn easy to comment on things that you will never have the need to experience. You will never have to endure these life and death split second decisions because of the police, military, firefighters and EMS first responders in this country that are willing to put their lives in harms way to protect you. The courts have spoken and found that no crime was committed by this young police officer. Do you think for a moment he wanted this outcome? He was a kid at work before the events unfolded. If he was in the same scenario again do you think he may handle it differently? Of course he would.
I know of police officers that actually look the other way at crimes at times because they know it is a no win situation for them. Society is scrutinizing every move police officers make, putting cameras everywhere to protect the police officer? or to condemn?
So can you blame police officers that want to go home to their families for looking the other way at times?
If this young police officer looked the other way and kept driving down the road this conversation would not be taking place. A veteran police officer may have done just that…who knows???</p>
<p>Excellent post ^^. </p>