Ferguson Megathread

[The UK in Exile]

Not if he shot at him whilst he was running.

Which is what we were discussing.

Section 2-a supports it, he assaulted an officer which is a felony. Thus enabling deadly force to be used under that law.

Actually its a misdemeanour.

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/re ... ssouri.htm

Assault in the Third Degree Against Certain Victims

A person is guilty of the crime of assault against a law enforcement officer, corrections officer, emergency personnel (such as a firefighter, emergency room personnel or emergency medical technician), highway worker, or probation and parole officer if he:

recklessly causes physical injury to the victim
purposely threatens the victim with immediate physical injury, or
knowingly causes or attempts to cause physical contact with the victim without the victim’s consent.

This assault crime also is a Class A misdemeanor and possible punishment is the same as a regular Class A misdemeanor, as described above.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

don't backpedal now.

i was not referring to the attack at the car but the later attack in which brown was shot.



Wikipedia + http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/08/13/us/ferguson-missouri-town-under-siege-after-police-shooting.html

so let me get this straight. You're running away from a cop, getting shot at, then finally decide to give up and turn around.. and you're shot. Somehow after you're shot or while being shot you decide to "give up even more" and move towards the cop???

He stumbles forward after he's been hit.

Complete and utter bullshit. A natural body reaction to being hit when surrendering would be to back away and/or turn around. Even assuming this didn't happen (turning around certainly didn't since he wasn't shot in the back), there is no stumbling that could potentially happen unless they're running at the cop. Going with your narrative, at most, he might have fallen forwards from the position he stopped at. That could only account for for a relatively small distance between blood stains, assuming all of the above was met, an absolute maximum of a distance equal to his height. I think it's pretty safe to assume the source that NY Times used took this possibility into account and the distance was greater than that, otherwise they would have mentioned this possibility. There's no reason for them not to. After all NY Times isn't the bastion of conservative reporting last I heard.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Snip

And what of attempting to steal an officers gun? Robbery? Attempted murder? What would that be?

[Cymrea]

If he was killed while running away the wounds would be in Brown's back. But the coroner's report shows Michael Brown died from gunshot wounds to the head and chest at close range. However else you want to spin the subjective narrative, that is the objective evidence.

which the physical evidence supported Brown's blood was some 25 feet behind where his body fell so at some point he did turn around and closed distance with the officer.

At close range, it is easily possible for those shots to exit the body and for blood to have travelled that direction for that distance. This is purely speculative, since I don't know the calibre of the weapon used by Wilson off hand. But if the evidence is simply that there was some of Brown's blood found 25 feet behind his body, this is a logical conclusion that could be drawn.

[The UK in Exile]

He stumbles forward after he's been hit.

Complete and utter bullshit. A natural body reaction to being hit when surrendering would be to back away and/or turn around. Even assuming this didn't happen (turning around certainly didn't since he wasn't shot in the back), there is no stumbling that could potentially happen unless they're running at the cop. Going with your narrative, at most, he might have fallen forwards from the position he stopped at. That could only account for for a relatively small distance between blood stains, assuming all of the above was met, an absolute maximum of a distance equal to his height. I think it's pretty safe to assume the source that NY Times used took this possibility into account and the distance was greater than that, otherwise they would have mentioned this possibility. There's no reason for them not to. After all NY Times isn't the bastion of conservative reporting last I heard.

So just to be clear, you find the idea that he ran for his life, then turned round and charged with lethal intent to be utterly plausible, but the idea that on being hit by bullets he might stumble towards his attacker to be ludicrous.

I've changed my mind, I'll take the blue pill. whatever fantasy world your living in I want in.

[Washington Resistance Army]

which the physical evidence supported Brown's blood was some 25 feet behind where his body fell so at some point he did turn around and closed distance with the officer.

At close range, it is easily possible for those shots to exit the body and for blood to have travelled that direction for that distance. This is purely speculative, since I don't know the calibre of the weapon used by Wilson off hand. But if the evidence is simply that there was some of Brown's blood found 25 feet behind his body, this is a logical conclusion that could be drawn.

Sig Sauer 229 .40 cal, fairly powerful and most likely could throw blood that far.

[Cymrea]

So just to be clear, you find the idea that he ran for his life, then turned round and charged with lethal intent to be utterly plausible, but the idea that on being hit by bullets he might stumble towards his attacker to be ludicrous.

I've changed my mind, I'll take the blue pill. whatever fantasy world your living in I want in.

The impact of a bullet on a human body at close range is pretty traumatic, but in my experience stumbling forward after being shot would generally require the target to have forward momentum prior to impact.

[Cymrea]

Sig Sauer 229 .40 cal, fairly powerful and most likely could throw blood that far.

I would agree that .40 calibre is sufficient to exit at close range, propel blood from the exit wound that distance, and also to knock a man off his feet. Forward momentum would, in my opinion, be required to stumble forward after being shot in the chest.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Complete and utter bullshit. A natural body reaction to being hit when surrendering would be to back away and/or turn around. Even assuming this didn't happen (turning around certainly didn't since he wasn't shot in the back), there is no stumbling that could potentially happen unless they're running at the cop. Going with your narrative, at most, he might have fallen forwards from the position he stopped at. That could only account for for a relatively small distance between blood stains, assuming all of the above was met, an absolute maximum of a distance equal to his height. I think it's pretty safe to assume the source that NY Times used took this possibility into account and the distance was greater than that, otherwise they would have mentioned this possibility. There's no reason for them not to. After all NY Times isn't the bastion of conservative reporting last I heard.

So just to be clear, you find the idea that he ran for his life, then turned round and charged with lethal intent to be utterly plausible, but the idea that on being hit by bullets he might stumble towards his attacker to be ludicrous.

I've changed my mind, I'll take the blue pill. whatever fantasy world your living in I want in.

If you're surrendering a natural reaction upon being hit is to either back away and/or turn around. Your narrative that, once stopped and facing the officer, Brown could have somehow unnaturally (and never being shot below his abdomen) stumbled forwards, and forwards, and forwards belongs to a fantasy world. That's not how it works. Assuming the natural instinct of turning around and/or backing away did not take place for whatever reason (let's just say he was killed before being able to), blood stains closing in could be explained by your "stumbling forward" at the very most by simply falling forwards from the position he had stopped at. Which would result in a distance of no more than his height.

[The UK in Exile]

Snip

And what of attempting to steal an officers gun? Robbery? Attempted murder? What would that be?

He didn't attempt to steal the officers gun. the officer drew his gun, at which point he grabbed it and pointed it away from him. The entire time it remained in the officers hand.

attempted murder? he knowingly and maliciously sought to kill Officer Wilson?

[Kelinfort]

Personally, I don't believe Wilson meant to kill Brown. However, I do believe that he did break protocol in his arrest and that led to Brown's death. There should have been at least a trial beyond the grand jury, but whether or not they should have found Wilson guilty is undecided.

The part that really angered me, however, was Wilson's interview. He didn't seem to try and console the family of Brown or even attempt to repair his image. If I were personally in that situation, I would extend my heartfelt sorrow to the family even if I was assaulted. Furthermore, I'd use the money my supporters gave me to start a fund for addressing inner city crime and police corruption.

That would go a long way to helping his image.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Sig Sauer 229 .40 cal, fairly powerful and most likely could throw blood that far.

I would agree that .40 calibre is sufficient to exit at close range, propel blood from the exit wound that distance, and also to knock a man off his feet. Forward momentum would, in my opinion, be required to stumble forward after being shot in the chest.

If you can take a number of those and keep moving forward you must have some decent speed behind you. That's pretty consistent with him approaching Wilson and whatnot.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

And what of attempting to steal an officers gun? Robbery? Attempted murder? What would that be?

He didn't attempt to steal the officers gun. the officer drew his gun, at which point he grabbed it and pointed it away from him.

tell me more about this crystal ball of yours

[Washington Resistance Army]

And what of attempting to steal an officers gun? Robbery? Attempted murder? What would that be?

He didn't attempt to steal the officers gun. the officer drew his gun, at which point he grabbed it and pointed it away from him. The entire time it remained in the officers hand.

attempted murder? he knowingly and maliciously sought to kill Officer Wilson?

Brown attempted to reach for Wilsons gun in the car no? That's when Browns hand got shot, they even found DNA in the damn car.

[The UK in Exile]

He didn't attempt to steal the officers gun. the officer drew his gun, at which point he grabbed it and pointed it away from him.

tell me more about this crystal ball of yours

Its called Interview report: Officer Darren Wilson.

[The UK in Exile]

He didn't attempt to steal the officers gun. the officer drew his gun, at which point he grabbed it and pointed it away from him. The entire time it remained in the officers hand.

attempted murder? he knowingly and maliciously sought to kill Officer Wilson?

Brown attempted to reach for Wilsons gun in the car no? That's when Browns hand got shot, they even found DNA in the damn car.

Because Wilson was pointing it at him.

[Cymrea]

Personally, I don't believe Wilson meant to kill Brown. However, I do believe that he did break protocol in his arrest and that led to Brown's death. There should have been at least a trial beyond the grand jury, but whether or not they should have found Wilson guilty is undecided.

The part that really angered me, however, was Wilson's interview. He didn't seem to try and console the family of Brown or even attempt to repair his image. If I were personally in that situation, I would extend my heartfelt sorrow to the family even if I was assaulted. Furthermore, I'd use the money my supporters gave me to start a fund for addressing inner city crime and police corruption.

That would go a long way to helping his image.

As far as I can tell, the grand jury decided only on whether there was evidence enough for a trial on the charge of murder. There may yet be further charges and suits pending. In fact, I'd bet good bacon on it.

[Dyakovo]

He was defending himself against someone running away from him. Seems legit. As was said multiple times, the testimony by Wilson and the police has been wildly inconsistant. Generally if one person can't keep a story straight you know they are either lying or are unsure. When the police can't keep their story straight it's a cover up. I mean who can forget the police announcing that Brown robbed a store only to have the store owner refute that and point out he never phoned in a robbery and released video proof that he was not robbed. Why in the hell should he have to prove he wasn't robbed in the first place? And why would the police say it was a robbery if no robbery had even been called in?

The evidence is conclusively behind Brown. I suggest ylh read all of it, it's quite interesting.

If the evidence was so in favor of Brown, how do you explain the Grand Jury's decision not to indict? Those jurors must have either been extremely racist or mentally incapable.

Or the prosecutor sabotaged the case.

[Avenio]

Not if he shot at him whilst he was running.

Which is what we were discussing.

Section 2-a supports it, he assaulted an officer which is a felony. Thus enabling deadly force to be used under that law.

Tennessee vs. Garner, 1984.

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may use deadly force to prevent escape only if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Section 2-a supports it, he assaulted an officer which is a felony. Thus enabling deadly force to be used under that law.

Tennessee vs. Garner, 1984.

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may use deadly force to prevent escape only if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

That also complies with Wilson's statements that he feared for his life.

[The UK in Exile]

Tennessee vs. Garner, 1984.

That also complies with Wilson's statements that he feared for his life.

I think you mean officer Wilson's statement complies with the legal decision.

[Washington Resistance Army]

That also complies with Wilson's statements that he feared for his life.

I think you mean officer Wilson's statement complies with the legal definition.

Same difference, I've been up for a long time but I'm enthralled by NSG and don't want to go to sleep.

[The UK in Exile]

I think you mean officer Wilson's statement complies with the legal definition.

Same difference, I've been up for a long time but I'm enthralled by NSG and don't want to go to sleep.

Not if the statement was crafted to meet the legal definition it isn't.

[Dyakovo]

all the more evidence he wasn't shot at from the back. If a cop really wanted to shoot someone running away from them and that someone started running away from essentially 0 feet, they wouldn't get to 150 feet.

what if i told you someone that is running away can turn around and attack?

I'd take the red pill please Morpheus.

So running away is threatening behaviour? presumably standing still is also threatening? or lying down?

Being black is threatening behaviour.
*nods*

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

I'd take the red pill please Morpheus.

So running away is threatening behaviour? presumably standing still is also threatening? or lying down?

Being black is threatening behaviour.
*nods*

great, just great debating there. completely not misconstruing my point (which I happened to have already clarified), oh no.