Scruit

http://ohioriders.net/index.php?/topic/105698-michael-brown-shooting/page-14#entry1409748

Taser is a one-shot deal. If you miss then the taser is limited to drive-stun mode, assuming the darts don't short out. A Glock gives you more than a dozen chances to stop the guy approaching you with the knife. I don't have a problem with this guy getting shot. The officer has a right to free speech, however if any of the opinions that he holds impact his work in a way that would be illegal or in violation of policy - or creates a reasonable suspicion that it might, then I can see him being suspended while it is determined if he is safe to continue being a police officer. Free speech does not protect you from the consequences of what you say.

That is a stretch. Anyways, my devil's advocate streak comes to an end here. The reason I don't personally consider those last two shots be be an "execution" is to do with reaction time. It takes time to react to the fact that someone is attacking you, and it also takes time to react to the fact that the person has stopped attacking you. The first shots were justified in my opinion, he was clearly advancing with a deadly weapon. The last two shots, and indeed the couple of shot before those, happened when he was falling or had fallen. Over that second, the officers had to perceive the change in circumstances and react appropriately (stop shooting). How much time does the officer need to react to this? I'm not an expert, but I say a second is not enough time for the officer to process the new information. The reason I'm even bringing this up is that the officer in the Brown case clearly fired at least one shot into Brown while Brown's head was facing the ground. That's not really a "charging" position (unless you're doing jujitsu and "shooting for the legs"). That strikes me as more of a "falling" position. The first few shots hit his arm and he began to fall, and the last shot caught him falling. A key question would be if any significant time passed between Brown beginning to fall and the last shot. The witnesses would certainly be asked about that. - If that amount of time was a second or less then it is likely to be considered to be Brown 'falling" and the time would be faster than the officer's ability to perceive, parse and react to the change in posture and recognize that the threat is stopped. - If that amount of time was several seconds (meaning Brown was kneeling or doubled-over rather than falling) then that becomes a huge problem for the officer as a jury would very likely conclude that not only had the threat stopped, but that a reasonable officer would have had time to see that and stop shooting - meaning that the last shots could be perceived as punitive not preventative.

Was he still trying to attack?

Last two shots, he was on his back.

I'm confused why nobody pointed out these last two shots. Not saying the first few were not warranted...

Something I noticed on the other St.Louis shooting (the guy with the knife) that nobody is upset about... After the man hits the floor 2 more shots are fired over a second? Why is nobody upset about this? Shooting starts shortly after 1:37 in this video. Why is nobody pointing out that the last 2 shots were fired at a motionless man lying on the floor completely incapacitated?

It's only natural for people to ask themselves "Is it more likely that a police officer with no disciplinary record lost his tempter shot a surrendering man knowing there was a witness 5' away? Or that a robbery suspect fought with the officer to escape because he was afraid of getting arrested?" It is also possible that all the eyewitnesses are correct. BOTH the hands-up and the charge could have happened. He may have put his hands up initially, then charged at the officer - or he may have charged at the officer then put his hands up.

They posted a grainy video of Zimmerman which people said disproved his injuries. Then a hi-res pic showed them. This video proves he wasn't "holding his head" or staggering etc, but does not disprove injuries. Does not prove injuries either.

This is why confirmation bias is a horrible thing: The "orbital blowout fracture" claim may have been a hoax. http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/08/20/fake-injury-ferguson/ http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2014/08/21/nr-lemon-grace-officers-broken-eye-socket-claim-false.cnn.html

I would have to agree with this. Trying to take the officer's gun is grounds for being shot, however if you STOP trying to take the gun and run away then the justification becomes less clear. It would be extremely difficult to make the argument that Brown was am immediate deadly threat to the public as he ran away unarmed. Having said that, his ass is still getting arrested and quite rightly so, so him running away does not mean the officer cannot chase him. In fact the officer is likely required by policy to pursue. Him running away unarmed just means he cannot be stopped by shooting him. Once he turned around again, the fatal shots were fired. What was Brown doing at that exact moment? Surrendering or charging? At the end of the day that is all that matters here. I expect the officer will be charged unless compelling proof of Brown charging the officer is found. This would have to be a video etc. If it stays as one set of witnesses versus another set of witnesses then that will go to trial.

From a legal perspective, the robbery is largely irrelevant to the actual shooting. What is DOES do is help jurors get into the heads of those involved and try to understand motives. Key factors: - Did the officer know about the robbery, and did he believe Brown was the suspect? That could explain why his response escalated quickly. - Did Brown fear that he was going to be arrested? That could make us believe that he fought the officer. - Is Dorian Johnson worried about being charged in relation to the robbery or his interaction with the officer? That might make us wonder if he's lying or omitting facts to save himself legal woes.

Then we are in belligerent agreement. So to speak.

I'm aware of Garner, have cited it already in this thread I believe. Did you post that to refute something I said? Or just for general information. I had said the officer would have to show they "believed that allowing him to escape presented an immediate danger to the community", which I feel is an appropriate paraphrasing of "believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."

In general terms, I agree. Justifying the shooting of fleeing suspect requires the officer demonstrate he or she believed that allowing him to escape presented an immediate danger to the community - something difficult to argue when we're talking about an unarmed person. However in this exact case, the "officer shooting during the pursuit" claim is a matter of contention and is not been proven by any physical evidence, so cannot be reliably stated as absolute fact.

Also consider the body was found on the passenger side. If the officer fired from inside the cruiser he'd have had to shoot through the passenger window. And would have a cruiser full of shell casings... Witnesses agree that Wilson gave chase, and that the final shooting took place within a few feet. Some say it was front-to-back while Brown was standing facing the officer, one (Michael Brady) said it was while Brown was on his knees incapacitated, and at least one unnamed witness claimed the officer was standing directly over Brown firing downwards.

Ok, so proximity plus charging can be justified? Generally speaking? The family's pathologist stated all shots that hit Brown went "front to back", except to the top of the skull which was directly downwards. The shot that went from his eye downwards through his jaw and into his shoulder was fired from the front and deflected downwards by the bone at the top of Brown's eye cavity. The family attorneys made claims that were at odds with the finding of the pathologist, stating the shot to the top of Brown's head was "back to front" proving he was shot from behind. They also stated he was shot through the palm of the hand, indicating he had his hands up. They alternately claimed the shot through his eye came (A) through the back of his head and out his eye and (B) directly downwards through a bullet hole at the hairline above his eye (an abrasion not listed as a gunshot wound by the pathologist). the attorneys had claimed the downwards shots proved Brown was on his knees surrendering and was executed, however no witness claimed he was on his knees until after the autopsy results were released. The pathologist's finding prove and disprove some things, and don't help with others: Proven: - Brown was shot to death - He was shot approximately 6 times, with some bullets entering and re-entering, all survivable except the shot to top of head - All shots that hit him were fired from the front (top of head shot must have been at the end because it was an "instant kill shot" after which he could not have stopped running and turn around and put his hands up - both narratives had final shots fired from front, so this shot must have been one of the last ones) Disproven: - Two eyewitness claims that he was shot in the back, visibly reacting to this, and that this is what prompted him to surrender Neither proven or disproven, but not inconsistent with: - Hands up - Charging - Punched officer - Struggled for gun - Was surrendering I can run faster than someone can run and aim. They can either run and not aim, or aim and not run, or do both in fast-walk-and-aim-relatively-well - but nobody is going to run at full speed and aim with full accuracy at the same time.

I did not hear any of the claims in support of the officer's position state that he fired upon Brown as Brown was moving away from the cruiser. The claims I heard were that he shouted "freeze" and Brown & friend turned around an taunted him with "What are you going to do? Shoot me?" * Not saying it didn't happen... The shot on the top of his head does not conclusively support either side. I feel it's very likely that the shots were fired in a manner that resulted in Brown falling forward by the time the last shot hit him - that would be consistent with either the "hands-up" story or the "charging" story. The witnesses have not been clear on how much time passed between the first 5 shots that hit him and the last shot to the top of the head. Were they all fired quickly enough that the officer could not have been expected to the change in his posture from charging to falling? Or did Brown fall to his knees and the officer waited several seconds before firing the last shot? (as claimed by Michael Brady) Or was Brown always in a passive surrender stance so the first shot wasn't even justified? * = If this is true, best last words EVAR.

Proximity cannot justify shooting an unarmed, charging person...? Well, that's a definitive answer at least. Not one that any CHL holder or cop will agree with, though. If someone lays hands on while you are armed then that gun is now thier weapon as much as it is yours - your hesitation has created a 50/50 chance that your attacker will get the gun and potentially use it on you. (Better than 50/50 ifhte guy is 6'4" and 300lbs) So you won't consider the shooting justified even if the "charging" claim is proven? Quid pro quo: If someone is trying to shoot me in the back and I have no place to hide, what do I do? Run. Every step increases distance and reduced the chances of being shot. Of course that is generally speaking, because in the Brown case the claims that he was shot in the back have been disproven. (the hands-up witnesses clearly stated that he reacted to being shot)

Are you going to answer the question? Pasted again: At what range do you think an officer is justified in shooting a charging man intent on doing them harm? Obviously 50' is too far, and 3 feet is too late.

I am not convinced of it either. It's just another claim. We're speaking hypothetically here, trying to establish if you would accept "he was charging" as a justification to shoot an unarmed person even if it was proven. Do you feel that an officer, in general, is ever justified in shooting an unarmed person? Or must the officer scale back his response and fight without weapons? or just without deadly weapons. If you believe than an unarmed person should never be shot at all under any circumstances ever then the whole "charging" or not becomes a moot point. Hypothetically speak, someone is charging at me after having already fought me for my gun - I'm going light him up if he gets within 10'. That only gives me one second to incapacitate him. Visible blade = 21 feet.

At what range do you think an officer is justified in shooting a charging man intent on doing them harm? Obviously 50' is too far, and 3 feet is too late.

Interesting report, but I feel you are right to take it with a grain of salt. I have only seen "corroborating" stories that refer back to this post. If this was true then I'd think the MSM would be all over it. For now I will consider this to be just another "claim".

The family attorneys appear to be laying the groundwork for a "Yeah, but..." regarding the struggle for the gun. The attorney was on CNN earlier stating that police use of force situations are very dynamic and the officer may be in a situation where shooting is justified, but in seconds it would switch to a situation where shooting is no longer justified. This is a very interesting departure from their original stated position that Brown did nothing wrong at any time. I suspect we may hear that there is evidence that supports the claim that Brown struggled for the gun and a concession that Brown did that "Yeah, But" his subsequent hands-up surrender marked the end of any justification to use force. This goes back to the whole; "Our witness was wrong about this key fact, but we will still rely on them for other key facts" thing

After the autopsy was released yesterday, a new witness (Michael Brady) has come out with a slightly new version of events that matches the autopsy perfectly. The new version is that there was a tussle at the cruiser that the witness could not characterize as to who was the aggressor. The witness did not hear a shot from inside the vehicle. Brown set off running and was shot at twice while running away with no visible impact. Then the witness said he went outside, losing sight of the scene for a few seconds, and by the time he made it outside Brown was facing the officer with his hands crossed in front of him and tucked into his armpits as if he had been shot - then Brown went down to hits knees with his head facing down, not as if in surrender but as if he was incapacitated. Then as he was on his knees, the officer shot him in the head. He stated he did not see hands up but suggested it could have happened while he was out of sight. He stated there was no rushing at the officer, but did NOT suggest it could have happened while he was out of sight.