Scruit

Like I said; I'm not saying that happened. Just saying that "He had his hands up" is not always a definitive thing. I'm also saying that the only way the officer could claim he thought was in danger when Brown turned would be if the officer was in fighting range, something the witnesses were not clear about. When Brown started fleeing the officer suddenly took on a huge burden of justifying deadly force - and I've heard nothing that even hints that such a justification existed. Whether he claims the surrender was mistaken as a turn-to-attack is pure speculation on my part, and would be a difficult case to make in face of 4 eye witnesses who have all said that Brown was clearly surrendering.

Good reading on police use of deadly force: http://www.vox.com/2014/8/13/5994305/michael-brown-case-investigation-legal-police-kill-force-murder

Notwithstanding my comment above about fighting stances explicitly designed to make you look like a victim to witnesses... 100% agree... Surrender is surrender - it's over, arrest him. (Assuming the surrender was not a tactical ploy to bring the officer in close enough to attack him again, however the police have tactics to deal with that kind of scenario...) Without specific information that Brown was armed, the situation appears to fall under Tennessee v Garner 1985 wherein it was held that: 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. I haven't heard anything that would lead me to believe the officer had any reason to believe that a fleeing Brown posed a threat of serious physical harm to anyone. Whether the surrendering Brown was a threat could be more nuanced as stated above. The police need to release their side of the story quickly, as we're only hearing one side right now. The only shot the police have admitting taking so far (from what I read) was fired inside the vehicle. If there's more than one bullet wound in Brown then that's already a problem where the police need to explain the additional bullet wounds.

The thing I'm not clear on is if the eyewitnesses say the officer was still in or at his cruiser when the final shots were fired - or if he was in active pursuit and much closer. I could see it being argued that if the officer was within reach of Brown when Brown stopped and turned then it could have been mistaken as a turn to fight versus a turn to surrender. Many fighting styles use a passive/defensive-appearing "ready stance" (Kamae) with hands up, palms out (Krav Maga, Karate etc) that is trained with the express intent of appearing to be non-aggressive. Not saying this is what happened... Just pointing out that even "hands up" is not always clear-cut, and that nothing should be taken for granted. The witnesses were not clear on how long Brown had his hands up before being shot. Was it a few seconds, more tha enough for the officer to see and react to the surrender? Or was it a split-second thing where the officer had to decide if this was a surrender or an attack? Having said that, if the officer stayed at his vehicle and fired from there then no such similar claim could be made, and his justification for the use of deadly force would have to be based upon something other than him, being in immediate danger, regardless of what pose or stance Brown took.

Ding-Ding-Ding

Driver started the confrontation and should answer for it. You can't use deadly force in a confrontation you started. I wonder how long he'd been there (although that doesn't justify him using the car to bully people.

I'm separating the crowd control aspect into a separate case involving different people. I'm focusing on the shooting right now. WE could/should start another thread discussing crowd control as clearly there are right ways and wrong ways to handle it. More counter points: - Speaking in general rather than about Brown, an unarmed person can still be a deadly threat. - Multiple eyewitnesses, while very compelling, have been known to be wrong. Remember the 3 eyewitnesses that put Zimmerman on top of Martin? - It is agreed between police and eyewitnesses that a confrontation happened at the cruiser, and that the last shots were fired when Brown was 35 feet away from the cruiser. Clearly there was an event that happened between those two confrontations wherein Brown moved away from the cruiser. That supports the eyewitness accounts that Brown was running away. I can't determine if that fits with the police version as I understand the police have not yet released their official version of the shooting, am I correct? - Does the police version say they shot him in the back as he was running away. Upon what rule, law, policy etc do they justify that shot? - Wasn't one of the eyewitnesses with Brown when he allegedly robbed the store? That could become a credibility issue in court. - Was there any dashcam or body cam? The witnesses state the cruiser confrontation was in two parts - an initial contact then the cruiser drove away, followed by the cruiser backing up right next to Brown. The police stated that Brown advanced on the officer int he cruiser, the eyewitness stated that the officer opened his door into Brown who did not move. Dashcam would clear that up quickly.

The police version was that the officer gave chase and the final shots were fired at close range. The eyewitnesses version(s) were not clear to me on how far the officer was from Brown when the last shots were fired - does anyone have more information on that? I agree that even if he did try to grab the officer's gun, after he stopped trying to do that and ran away he is not a direct deadly threat any more. Not sure why the officer chose to shoot as he was running away - an action reserved only when allowing the person to escape would present an immediate danger to the public. The alleged grabbing of the gun has not been proven or refuted. That is simply a claim at this point. As is the "hands up" claim. Don't forget that in the Trayvon Martin killing, 3 different eyewitnesses stated that Zimmerman was the one pinning Martin down and that he shot downwards.

It is somewhere on a sliding scale from one extreme which is the officer thinking; "Jaywalker - I'll shoot him", to the other extreme, which is Brown launching an unprovoked attack on the officer. The truth is likely somewhere in the middle. Don't forget that Brown knows he just robbed a store, even if the officer didn't. This could have influenced how he interacted with the officer.

I would certainly expect his permit to go away for a long time. He definitely needs a laywer, like already.

Just goes to show that these things are never quite as simple as either side claims.

Matching witness stories are very compelling. I would ask if the friend in the first video was the same person that was with Brown at the store where the police allege that Brown committed the robbery (shoplifting becomes robbery if force or threats are used to effect escape) If so, then I'd ask if there's other parts of the events surrounding the altercation with police that this firend is either omitting or fabricating to avoid any legal troubles of his own. Similarly, i'd ask if the police are omitting or fabricating anything to avoid liablity? And I have no doubts that it'll go down like the court hearing where Bart Simpson and Monty Burns give wildly different accounts of how Bart was run over by Burns' car - and I have no doubt that, as in the Simpsons, neither is being fully honest and the truth is somewhere in the middle.

derp

That's more like it, except 'executed when he tried to surrender' implies intent to kill, and that the witnesses are accurate/honest - neither of which have been either established or refuted. Impartialiaty requires we use "killed while reportedly surrendering", which is a proven fact. I have no answers, but I will break down your questions even further... "How would it endanger the officer if he was running away?" - Did the officer remain with/in his vehicle and shoot from a distance, or did he chase Brown and shoot from a closer distance? "How would it endanger the officer if he was surrendering?" - What action did Brown undertake that made the witnesses believe he was surrendering? - How far was brown from the officer when he turned to face him? - Could the action that the witnesses believed was "surrendering" have been interpreted another way? We are hearing "hands up" but does that mean directly upwards and reaching for the sky, or up and forward at 45 deg, or hands in front of himself forward, or in a position or at a range where it could be interpreted as a fighting posture? "Where is deadly force justified?" - Does that state grant police the power to use deadly force to prevent the escape of a felon? violent felon? armed felon? Or is deadly force not allowed on someone running away? - What started the physcial altercation with the officer inside his car and Brown outside? Was that a "violent felony"? - Did the officer know that Brown was unarmed? We know that now, but did the officer know that at the time?

Absolutely.

- If they say the cop was in the wrong then you were right to distrust them. - If they say they can prove the cop was in the right then it is clearly a cover-up and you were right to distrust them. See how that looks to impartial folks?

I don't think the article was clear on exactly what made the caller think he was loading it. Nor was it clear if/why he had taken the thing out of the box. Was it somethign innocent like the box was already opened and he was making sure nothing was missing before buying it? Was he planning to rob the store with it? Was he taking a selfie? Was he sending a pic to someone saying; "Is this the one you wanted?" Too many unanswered questions.

I certainly would expect the police to explain the nature of their contact with Brown. The eyewitness accounts are compelling and paint a bad picture.

Upon what do you base your assertion that he was buying it when killed? The report stated: The rifle does not look like a BB gun, it looks like a real gun. Also, that rifle comes in a closed box - why was it out of the box prior to him purchasing it? What action was he undertaking that the witness interpreted as "loading" it? What was it about the event that prompted people to call the police? This is not a case of a person who picked up a Daisy BB gun and was shot on sight. Nor is it an active shooter situation. It's more nuanced than either, and requires more investigation. I agree that the video should be released, and that all police shootings whoud be investigated by another agency other than the agency involved.

The pictures released show a person (that police allege to be Brown) assaulting the store employee. That would make it felony robbery, not misdemeanor shoplifting. Not jaywalking. Of course shoplifting does not deserve deadly force but you're making the mistake of linking A to C without considering B. And you don't even know, for sure, what A is. That's the same mistake people make when they say someone was arrested © for speeding (A) - when in actuality they were arrested for something they did while being investigated for speeding (B), such as refusing to sign the ticket, or trying to drive away from the stop prior to it's actual termination. So, yes, a shoplifter (A) CAN be shot ©, yet, if he tries to stab the officer who comes to invesitgate the shoplifting report (B). Let's all take a moment to remember that we only have scant details here, so nobody should be using any details to make absolute statements of unerring truth about what actually happened. Nobody should be judging the behaviour of any involved person at this time, whether supporting or decrying, as the information available to us is in a state of flux. Specifically, this statement: Implying that the officer had no reason to shoot Brown because he was only "jay walking" is unsound given that it is based upon information that is both incomplete and changing. The current information is that the officer was investigating Brown as a felony robbery suspect. Could that have motivated Brown to avoid contact with the officer, or to use force to terminate the contact? Myabe, maybe not. Could that version of events change? Maybe, maybe not. We don't know. Let the investigation run its course before you pick a side. I have no strong opinion as I have no solid information.

I've heard it's inadmissible too - but I'm not sure if it's different in different states. It is still allowed as an investigative tool, though, and it's trusted enough that if you pass with flying colors then that's definitely going to heavily influence the outcome of the investigation. The way I see it, he had little gain and a lot to lose by submitting to the test. Just like speaking to the police at all. Anything you say can be used against you, but they are not compelled to volunteer to the jury the parts of your testimony that worked in your favor.

Definitely nowhere near enough information to come close to a decision. Just sit back and let it run its course. If she was over 18 then Childrens Services would not be involved, right? Also, she is his daughter, so could there ever be such a thing as a consensual relationship at any age? I actually think the "I'll polygraph if she does" is a perfectly fair offer.

The more recent news article just above your post states that teh girl denied anything improper happened. Now, that doesn't mean NOTHING happened - it could mean that she is intimidated by him and has been scared into silence. But is also could mean that nothing improper happened. Again though, there woud have to be evidence to actually charge him, no? An arrest is easier to justify, but charges are not files on a he-said-she-said basis. Are they?

More details, but no revelations: http://theadvocate.com/news/9965583-123/sons-of-guns-star-arrested

That why I am confused that he has been charged *and* the "victim" returned to his home. Those two things should not go hand-in-hand. - If they think he did it they should charge him and keep the girl away from him. - If they don't think he did it then give the girl back and don't charge him.