St. Louis Riots

[LongBlade]

We have this plastered all over our newscreens in the UK. Couple of things I don't understand -

1) If this guy - Brown - was unarmed, why was lethal force used against him?

Was watching the news tonight and they were discussing this. Apparently the law in Missouri allows police to use lethal force in very loose terms. Typically it's employed only when someone's life is in danger or thought to be in danger. A 6'4" 300 lb man who has just shattered your face turns around and starts to approach for more? It's going to be tough to argue that the officer didn't fear for his life.

That won't calm the crowds, but evidence is gradually accumulating to indicate the officer was in the right.

2) Why did the authorities give out the name of the cop who shot this guy? He has not been charged with murder, or manslaughter (2nd degree homicide, or whatever). The other thing is the authorities have now made this cop, and his family a potential target for any enraged person who wants to take a pop at him. It seems nuts to me to make the disclosure at this stage in the interest of justice (towards the cop).

Any answers?

First, they ensured the officer was safe and wouldn't be harmed by angry protesters.

Why? It's pretty much a matter of public record. Withholding the name (it was felt) would perhaps calm the crowds - or at least not make it any worse.

[Boggit]

Well the answer to 1 is that most police forces, if not all, do not shot to incapacitate. If you fire your weapon it is to kill as that is the only sure way to stop an assailant, who might be hopped up on mind altering drugs. Plus shooting at someone's legs is much harder than shooting at the center of mass of the target.... unlike what you see in TV and movies.

Then surely it has to be the option of last resort, particularly if the assailant is unarmed? I appreciate the difficulty of accurate shooting with a handgun, but even so, should it not be attempted if the opportunity presents?

Intentional shooting to kill seems a disproportionate, almost irresponsible way of dealing with an unarmed person. If an police officer did that in the UK without acting proportionately to the danger he could find himself on a homicide charge (either murder, or manslaughter). Self defence is a defence to murder, but again it turns on the proportionality of force used.

I can understand it if an assailant has a lethal weapon, but in other cases it seems over the top. Does the concept of using reasonable force not apply in the US? If that is not the case, does it not encourage people at odds with the police (criminal or otherwise) to use lethal force as well to improve their own prospects of survival? If that is the case it's a bad spiral to be on.

[GDS_Starfury]

care to guess how many cops it takes to take down someone whacky on PCP?  or meth?  or crack?

[Boggit]

We have this plastered all over our newscreens in the UK. Couple of things I don't understand -

1) If this guy - Brown - was unarmed, why was lethal force used against him?

Was watching the news tonight and they were discussing this. Apparently the law in Missouri allows police to use lethal force in very loose terms. Typically it's employed only when someone's life is in danger or thought to be in danger. A 6'4" 300 lb man who has just shattered your face turns around and starts to approach for more? It's going to be tough to argue that the officer didn't fear for his life.

That won't calm the crowds, but evidence is gradually accumulating to indicate the officer was in the right.

2) Why did the authorities give out the name of the cop who shot this guy? He has not been charged with murder, or manslaughter (2nd degree homicide, or whatever). The other thing is the authorities have now made this cop, and his family a potential target for any enraged person who wants to take a pop at him. It seems nuts to me to make the disclosure at this stage in the interest of justice (towards the cop).

Any answers?

First, they ensured the officer was safe and wouldn't be harmed by angry protesters.

Why? It's pretty much a matter of public record. Withholding the name (it was felt) would perhaps calm the crowds - or at least not make it any worse.

On 1. I can see the point you make on self defence grounds. But you're right it's very loose. The officer might have risked getting badly beaten up, but not necessarily killed by an unarmed man. Being in fear for your life is a nebulous thing. Is the fear actually reasonable? The guy whilst large wasn't armed, which is a weaker argument. Would his night stick have been useless? Was he on his own without any back up to help? Did he have any hand to hand combat training? etc...

On 2. I can see the logic of convenience for the authorities, but unless this officer gets a new identity/relocation he and his family remain a target. Maybe not now, but maybe 6 months, a year or two later, when his protection is dropped for cost/risk reasons and an aggrieved family member comes looking for him with a gun?

[Boggit]

care to guess how many cops it takes to take down someone whacky on PCP?  or meth?  or crack?

No idea. Do you HAVE to kill them, or can it be done in a non-lethal way? This is the question people ask when you see this stuff on TV. Was there an alternative? Maybe there wasn't any other way on the facts, but the question is still a valid one.

[BanzaiCat]

A cop that discharges their weapon is almost always taken off the street and put on desk duty while Internal Affairs investigates. If the weapon is discharged into a person, there's a whole ton more that needs to be looked into, especially if the person dies as a result. Unless the cop draws and indiscriminately starts blowing people away, they're not going to be arrested or charged with anything. Criminally, anyway. There might be options, depending on the state law, for him to be brought to trial via civil means. I'm not quite sure, it's been a while since I've studied this stuff - one of my degrees is in Criminal Justice, though fat lot of good it does me nowadays.

The cop that did this and his family WILL be looked after by the department. There's a certain code among most cops that they look after their brothers and sisters on the force, especially in a situation like this where he was in the right but public sentiment is not. I guarantee he'll have patrol officers going out of their way to 'check in' on his house and family every so often, whether on or off duty, until this dies down.

Plus the cop is likely packing off duty - I never knew a cop that didn't have a weapon on them at all times whether they were in uniform or out. It surprised me, actually. They told me to get a handgun that would be comfortable and compact as I'd probably have it on me all the time when in 'comfortable' clothes, or it would need to fit into the glove box of my car. I remember the field training officer very clearly saying, "That Dirty Harry hand cannon shit is for the movies."

[BanzaiCat]

care to guess how many cops it takes to take down someone whacky on PCP?  or meth?  or crack?

No idea. Do you HAVE to kill them, or can it be done in a non-lethal way? This is the question people ask when you see this stuff on TV. Was there an alternative? Maybe there wasn't any other way on the facts, but the question is still a valid one.

Cops are trained in these kinds of scenarios. Think about this: you have about two or three seconds to make a decision if a guy that's assaulted you and others, robbed a store, and is not complying with verbal commands, and is STILL coming at you, do you discharge your weapon or do you keep talking to him in the hopes he doesn't put his fist through your skull?

I'm not trying to be a smartass - I'm serious. Any kind of threat to you as a cop, or someone else, can be met with deadly force if the cop thinks the individual is capable and willing to do just that. They only have a heartbeat or two to make that decision. If the cop felt their life was in danger, and it almost certainly was from the sound of the evidence thus far, deadly force was indeed justified.

Guys Brown's size can kill with their bare hands easily, or have the strength to wrestle a cop to the ground and take their weapon away. That can't happen.

[GDS_Starfury]

Guys Brown's size can kill with their bare hands easily, or have the strength to wrestle a cop to the ground and take their weapon away. That can't happen.

and thats why homie got shot dead.

[Boggit]

A cop that discharges their weapon is almost always taken off the street and put on desk duty while Internal Affairs investigates. If the weapon is discharged into a person, there's a whole ton more that needs to be looked into, especially if the person dies as a result. Unless the cop draws and indiscriminately starts blowing people away, they're not going to be arrested or charged with anything. Criminally, anyway. There might be options, depending on the state law, for him to be brought to trial via civil means. I'm not quite sure, it's been a while since I've studied this stuff - one of my degrees is in Criminal Justice, though fat lot of good it does me nowadays.

The cop that did this and his family WILL be looked after by the department. There's a certain code among most cops that they look after their brothers and sisters on the force, especially in a situation like this where he was in the right but public sentiment is not. I guarantee he'll have patrol officers going out of their way to 'check in' on his house and family every so often, whether on or off duty, until this dies down.

Plus the cop is likely packing off duty - I never knew a cop that didn't have a weapon on them at all times whether they were in uniform or out. It surprised me, actually. They told me to get a handgun that would be comfortable and compact as I'd probably have it on me all the time when in 'comfortable' clothes, or it would need to fit into the glove box of my car. I remember the field training officer very clearly saying, "That Dirty Harry hand cannon shit is for the movies."

That's fair enough. I didn't like the thought of the authorities giving this guys name out, and then later dropping any protection as things died down, and then something bad happening.

[Boggit]

care to guess how many cops it takes to take down someone whacky on PCP?  or meth?  or crack?

No idea. Do you HAVE to kill them, or can it be done in a non-lethal way? This is the question people ask when you see this stuff on TV. Was there an alternative? Maybe there wasn't any other way on the facts, but the question is still a valid one.

Cops are trained in these kinds of scenarios. Think about this: you have about two or three seconds to make a decision if a guy that's assaulted you and others, robbed a store, and is not complying with verbal commands, and is STILL coming at you, do you discharge your weapon or do you keep talking to him in the hopes he doesn't put his fist through your skull?

I'm not trying to be a smartass - I'm serious. Any kind of threat to you as a cop, or someone else, can be met with deadly force if the cop thinks the individual is capable and willing to do just that. They only have a heartbeat or two to make that decision. If the cop felt their life was in danger, and it almost certainly was from the sound of the evidence thus far, deadly force was indeed justified.

Guys Brown's size can kill with their bare hands easily, or have the strength to wrestle a cop to the ground and take their weapon away. That can't happen.

Don't worry. I take your comment on its merits, and you present a fair argument. I can understand the pressure to make the decision he did. Taking the fact pattern you give, were I in his place, I most probably would have done the same.

[Boggit]

Guys Brown's size can kill with their bare hands easily, or have the strength to wrestle a cop to the ground and take their weapon away. That can't happen.

and thats why homie got shot dead.

Indeed! Don't worry, I've got it now. O0

[TheCommandTent]

So this was a conversation on FB between a couple of my friends after the latest evidence came out in this case backing the actions of the officer

Friend #1 -I'm hoping that Officer Wilson supporters won't start rioting, burning, and looting in support of this brave hero.

Friend #2 - Nah, probably not going to happen.

Friend #3 - Amazing. Also. I'm ready for the pro officer rally. Haven't looted and burned in years

Friend #4 - Can we at least not burn and loot our own neighborhoods??

Friend #3 - Yeah--let's riot like we did after the O.J. verdict. Oh wait, we didn't. Never mind.

Friend #4 Not to mention more than a dozen witnesses confirm the officers story, but that doesnt matter. Eric (I get cops killed) Holder is going to be there tomorrow and will fix everything.

Friend #3 Can we start with Sharptins compound?

;D

[Swatter]

We have this plastered all over our newscreens in the UK. Couple of things I don't understand -

1) If this guy - Brown - was unarmed, why was lethal force used against him?

Was watching the news tonight and they were discussing this. Apparently the law in Missouri allows police to use lethal force in very loose terms. Typically it's employed only when someone's life is in danger or thought to be in danger. A 6'4" 300 lb man who has just shattered your face turns around and starts to approach for more? It's going to be tough to argue that the officer didn't fear for his life.

That won't calm the crowds, but evidence is gradually accumulating to indicate the officer was in the right.

2) Why did the authorities give out the name of the cop who shot this guy? He has not been charged with murder, or manslaughter (2nd degree homicide, or whatever). The other thing is the authorities have now made this cop, and his family a potential target for any enraged person who wants to take a pop at him. It seems nuts to me to make the disclosure at this stage in the interest of justice (towards the cop).

Any answers?

First, they ensured the officer was safe and wouldn't be harmed by angry protesters.

Why? It's pretty much a matter of public record. Withholding the name (it was felt) would perhaps calm the crowds - or at least not make it any worse.

On 1. I can see the point you make on self defence grounds. But you're right it's very loose. The officer might have risked getting badly beaten up, but not necessarily killed by an unarmed man. Being in fear for your life is a nebulous thing. Is the fear actually reasonable? The guy whilst large wasn't armed, which is a weaker argument. Would his night stick have been useless? Was he on his own without any back up to help? Did he have any hand to hand combat training? etc...

On 2. I can see the logic of convenience for the authorities, but unless this officer gets a new identity/relocation he and his family remain a target. Maybe not now, but maybe 6 months, a year or two later, when his protection is dropped for cost/risk reasons and an aggrieved family member comes looking for him with a gun?

Here is what is known:
-The thug robbed a market minutes before the shooting.
-The officer stopped the thug (Brown) initially for walking in the middle of a busy street. The officer claims he quickly figured out Brown was a suspect in the robbery.
-The officer made contact with Brown and a physical altercation occurred in which there was a struggle for the officer's weapon and a shot was fired within the police vehicle.
-The officer sustained injury to his face, perhaps a shattered eye socket.
-Brown then attempted to escape, officer pursued (standard procedure).
-This is where accounts differ. Some say Brown surrendered, some say he charged. The officer fired several rounds and killed Brown.

If Brown charged, lethal force was justified. Once there was a struggle for the weapon, any further aggressive acts would warrant deadly force.

Unless there is some excellent eyewitness testimony that clearly shows Brown was surrendering, this isn't a tough call. If there wasn't an earlier struggle for the officer's firearm, then the use of deadly force becomes much more murky.

[LongBlade]

On 1. I can see the point you make on self defence grounds. But you're right it's very loose.

Actually, it's even looser. According to the report, MO law allows them to use it simply in "accomplishing their duties" or something to that effect.

[Swatter]

On 1. I can see the point you make on self defence grounds. But you're right it's very loose.

Actually, it's even looser. According to the report, MO law allows them to use it simply in "accomplishing their duties" or something to that effect.

I don't believe that's true. The standard is that the officer must feel that he or someone else is in danger of severe harm. The use of deadly force laws in Missouri are pretty restrictive for police and citizens. Even as a citizen if someone is breaking into your house, you cannot use deadly force unless your life is directly threatened. In Missouri, you will be prosecuted for shooting first and asking questions later.

What report are you referring to?