St. Louis Riots

[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.

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?

Did a quick search online. Found this:

Law enforcement officer's use of force in making an arrest.

563.046. 1. A law enforcement officer need not retreat or desist from efforts to effect the arrest, or from efforts to prevent the escape from custody, of a person he reasonably believes to have committed an offense because of resistance or threatened resistance of the arrestee. In addition to the use of physical force authorized under other sections of this chapter, he is, subject to the provisions of subsections 2 and 3, justified in the use of such physical force as he reasonably believes is immediately necessary to effect the arrest or to prevent the escape from custody.

2. The use of any physical force in making an arrest is not justified under this section unless the arrest is lawful or the law enforcement officer reasonably believes the arrest is lawful.

3. A law enforcement officer in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody is justified in using deadly force only

(1) When such is authorized under other sections of this chapter; or

(2) When he reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested

(a) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony; or

(b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon; or

(c) May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.

4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.

    (L. 1977 S.B. 60)

    Effective 1-1-79

source: http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/chapters/chap563.htm

I'm no lawyer, but it looks like so long as the officer believes the person being arrested may have committed a felony, deadly force is allowed (though obviously not preferred).

[BanzaiCat]

To clarify, "deadly force" means force that has the potential to kill someone, not that it actually would. A cop can shoot someone in the shoulder, or leg, or abdomen, and they might not die. It's still considered 'deadly force.' The provision in the law that LB posted indicates to a lay person that using deadly force to arrest someone might seem like a waste of time...if they die, they're not really arrestable, are they? That's because shooting someone and putting them on the ground means they're likely arrestable at that point.

I'm certain there has to be further provisions that state once the suspect is no longer a threat, the officer cannot continue to use deadly force. In other words, if they shoot a suspect in the leg and they go down, drop their weapon, and scream that they surrender, the cop can't keep shooting at them. I could be wrong, but I know that's the case in Texas. At least, it was.

Most cops are taught to shoot to stop, not kill, perpetrators. There's a world of difference in the two terms. 'Stop' indicates you shoot them, and if they stop what they're doing, you stop shooting them. If they keep doing it, or continue to be a threat, you shoot them again. And again. Until they stop. If they die, well, that's the breaks. They should not have been caught in a criminal act, and since they were, they should not have escalated it to the point where the officer had to draw their weapon in the first place.  If the cop has to shoot them six times to stop them, then that's it. If a seventh bullet is unnecessary, the cop WILL get raked over the investigative coals if they fire a seventh time and hit them.

*Edit: Again I am fairly certain of this. It's been a while but I think I'm remembering this stuff correctly.

[LongBlade]

Personally, I think the issue goes back to Brown breaking the officer's eye socket (or whatever the technical term is).

Someone capable of hitting you that hard, and an officer of the law to boot, is a clear danger. For him to turn around an appear to be intent on dealing more damage...the use of force would seem justified.

We still need to get all the facts to really know what happened before we can say for sure.

[BanzaiCat]

the officer's eye socket (or whatever the technical term is).

Orbit. :)

And yes, we certainly do need more info, but the news needs to get the cameras out of the idiots' faces and the reporters need to start gathering actual facts.

Hahahahahahaha, I almost typed that without smirking.

[Boggit]

+1 To both Longblade and Banzai_Cat :)

Most of my earlier questions were based on broad principle. BUT -

We simply haven't had the facts properly reported on TV, as they have been given here. We get the "officer shoots dead unarmed black man" with all the connotations implied, but not once have I heard - in multiple news reports - that the officer's eye socket was broken by Brown. In that context the officer was clearly acting in self-defence in the face of potentially deadly force. So, I have to ask, why hasn't the fact pattern been made more public, or is the media failing and creating hysteria on the street with half truths?

[LongBlade]

More info coming in to support the officer's claim. Two news organizations.

Darren Wilson, the Ferguson, Mo., police officer whose fatal shooting of Michael Brown touched off more than a week of demonstrations, suffered severe facial injuries, including an orbital (eye socket) fracture, and was nearly beaten unconscious by Brown moments before firing his gun, a source close to the department's top brass told FoxNews.com.

"The Assistant (Police) Chief took him to the hospital, his face all swollen on one side," said the insider. "He was beaten very severely."

The source claims that there is "solid proof" that there was a struggle between Brown and Wilson for the policeman's firearm, resulting in the gun going off – although it still remains unclear at this stage who pulled the trigger. Brown started to walk away according to the account, prompting Wilson to draw his gun and order him to freeze. Brown, the source said, raised his hands in the air, and turned around saying, "What, you're going to shoot me?"

At that point, the source told FoxNews.com, the 6 foot, 4 inch, 292-pound Brown charged Wilson, prompting the officer to fire at least six shots at him, including the fatal bullet that penetrated the top of Brown's skull, according to an independent autopsy conducted at the request of Brown's family.

source: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/20/missouri-cop-was-badly-beaten-before-shooting-michael-brown-says-source/

The Ferguson police officer who shot and killed an unarmed teenager suffered "a serious facial injury" in the altercation before firing the fatal shots, according to a source close to the officer who spoke to ABC News today.

source: http://abcnews.go.com/US/ferguson-shooting-grand-jury-decide-october-charge-cop/story?id=25047905

[BanzaiCat]

[Gusington]

^HAHAHA

<homer>
funny because it's true.
<homer>

[LongBlade]

As too often tragically happens, the popular conscious seems to get something wrong and something right, but not at the same time.

The second St. Louis shooting victim, Kajieme Powell, has largely gone unreported, eclipsed by Michael Brown's shooting.

While the crowds rage against the shooting of Brown, which increasingly appears to be justified, Powell's shooting may not be.

So the crowd, while expressing outrage, appears to have selected the wrong victim to support.

St. Louis Police Chief Sam Dotson said Tuesday that both of the officers opened fire on Powell when he came within a three or four feet of them holding a knife "in an overhand grip."

But the newly released cell phone footage undermines the statement, showing Powell approaching the cops, but not coming as close as was reported, with his hands at his side. The officers began shooting within 15 seconds of their arrival, hitting Powell with a barrage of bullets.

Video of the shooting is at the link:

source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/20/kajieme-powell-shooting_n_5696546.html

Something to keep an eye on...

[Swatter]

As too often tragically happens, the popular conscious seems to get something wrong and something right, but not at the same time.

The second St. Louis shooting victim, Kajieme Powell, has largely gone unreported, eclipsed by Michael Brown's shooting.

While the crowds rage against the shooting of Brown, which increasingly appears to be justified, Powell's shooting may not be.

So the crowd, while expressing outrage, appears to have selected the wrong victim to support.

St. Louis Police Chief Sam Dotson said Tuesday that both of the officers opened fire on Powell when he came within a three or four feet of them holding a knife "in an overhand grip."

But the newly released cell phone footage undermines the statement, showing Powell approaching the cops, but not coming as close as was reported, with his hands at his side. The officers began shooting within 15 seconds of their arrival, hitting Powell with a barrage of bullets.

Video of the shooting is at the link:

source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/20/kajieme-powell-shooting_n_5696546.html

Something to keep an eye on...

Unjustified? The Huffington Post isn't a place I would look for accurate information. Cleary the author's of that piece have an agenda. The guy was imbalanced, according to independent witnesses, was acting menacingly, and armed with a knife. Deadly force is justified at 25 feet for a suspect armed with a knife, the officers obviously waited until the suspect was much closer until firing.

For people who have no idea how police work is conducted, they will always believe what they want regardless of facts. In the case, the ample evidence (whether the initial reports were 100% correct or not) of justification. This is an easy one.

I don't care what Don Lemon thinks. He is supposed to be an anchor and he has been acting like a commentator, a highly opinionated commentator at that.

[Swatter]

So, I have to ask, why hasn't the fact pattern been made more public, or is the media failing and creating hysteria on the street with half truths?

The media in this country are terrified to report race related issues, especially if the issues pertain to black people and violence. In St. Louis, the local media are completely mortified. The local channels report everything the protesters claim, unfiltered and unchallenged. It is simply out of fear. Fear of being called racists, fear of further inflaming the mob.

Protesters get unfettered access to television to call for the officer to be charged with murder, for the DA to be removed from the case, and to conflate every other issue in the community with the Brown shooting. Whatever opinion a protester has, that's a valid opinion and worthy to be televised unfiltered. No opposing points of view. The anchors often echo the calls for "justice". Of course, justice in this context is charging Brown with murder, not even attempting to ascertain what the facts even are. I have yet to see a local anchor (after seeing hours and hours of coverage) even say the officer is innocent until proven guilty. They simply let the protesters imply the officer is a murderer without challenge dozens of times a day.

For people who don't live here, its par for the course on race issues around here. Furgeson and the surrounding area are high crime, high murder rate areas. All of that context magically disappears and the shooting of Mike Brown apparently occurred within a vacuum. All of the normal black on black murders are simply not news.

[LongBlade]

Unjustified? The Huffington Post isn't a place I would look for accurate information. Cleary the author's of that piece have an agenda. The guy was imbalanced, according to independent witnesses, was acting menacingly, and armed with a knife. Deadly force is justified at 25 feet for a suspect armed with a knife, the officers obviously waited until the suspect was much closer until firing.

For people who have no idea how police work is conducted, they will always believe what they want regardless of facts. In the case, the ample evidence (whether the initial reports were 100% correct or not) of justification. This is an easy one.

I don't care what Don Lemon thinks. He is supposed to be an anchor and he has been acting like a commentator, a highly opinionated commentator at that.

I believe I qualified each of my observations.

The video has not been forensically analyzed and, for better or worse, I do not have said tools to do so myself.

The suspect does appear to charge the officer, but I did not see an upraised arm appearing to attack with a knife. Perhaps forensic analysis will show otherwise, but from what I can see here, the video does not match the account given.

Should the man have charged?

Absolutely not.

Should deadly force have been used? I'm glad I'm not a civilian in that position because I'd be somewhat worried. Maybe right, maybe wrong. "Maybe" is thin ice.

[OJsDad]

So Holder goes to St Louis yesterday and instead of helping to make sure the investigation is done with any bias, he states he understands why

many black Americans do not trust police, recalling how he was repeatedly stopped by officers who seemed to target him because of his race

At the same time, you have those that have already convicted Wilson of murder calling for the district attorney to step down because his father was a police officer that we killed by someone who is black.

Wonder why some many people seem want to skip the investigation and the evidence go straight to the lynching.

[Barthheart]

For a police force that badly needs some good press these kind of actions are not going to help their case any....

http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/ctv-s-tom-walters-among-journalists-arrested-in-ferguson-1.1968102

CTV's Los Angeles Bureau Chief Tom Walters was among several journalists arrested Tuesday night in Ferguson, Missouri.

Walters was detained after trying to ask a question of Capt. Ron Johnson of the Missouri Highway Patrol. Walters's arrest was captured on video camera by CTV News cameraman Liam Hyland.

The veteran journalist was released Wednesday morning without being charged.

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/ctv-s-tom-walters-among-journalists-arrested-in-ferguson-1.1968102#ixzz3B1pQaCLW

[LongBlade]

For a police force that badly needs some good press these kind of actions are not going to help their case any....

http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/ctv-s-tom-walters-among-journalists-arrested-in-ferguson-1.1968102

CTV's Los Angeles Bureau Chief Tom Walters was among several journalists arrested Tuesday night in Ferguson, Missouri.

Walters was detained after trying to ask a question of Capt. Ron Johnson of the Missouri Highway Patrol. Walters's arrest was captured on video camera by CTV News cameraman Liam Hyland.

The veteran journalist was released Wednesday morning without being charged.

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/ctv-s-tom-walters-among-journalists-arrested-in-ferguson-1.1968102#ixzz3B1pQaCLW

Whoever said "there's no such thing as bad press" never worked this case.