Originally posted by Tzeentch
My interpretation of your position is that you think Wilson was legally justified in shooting Brown.
Thank you for dropping the petty antics. I like where this conversation is going, now.
To directly address your question and concern, here:
I put a very specific condition on that (that = "Wilson was legally justified in shooting Brown"😉 being true, though:
Originally posted by dadudemon
The use of a firearm is justified, by most police departments, if an officer determines that the use of lethal force is necessary to prevent serious bodily harm (or death) to him/herself or others. If Wilson was treated for an assault, there is your justification (still waiting on those medical records that show Wilson was beaten...).
So let us entertain a different outcome.
What if it is shown the Wilson was NOT harmed in any way (and he was not seen by a medical professional and there is no medical records)? Then my position is that Wilson was NOT justified in using lethal force.
Edit - I should also point out that Brown trying to grab Wilson's gun also necessitates deadly force, if Wilson's story is to be justified. But, I rejected that argument because Brown started to flee AFTER that confrontation so lethal force was no longer justified UNLESS Brown turned around and started to approach Wilson, again (because serious bodily harm is still a concern if and only if Wilson was assaulted as he claims...need that medical proof).
Originally posted by Tzeentch
That Brown was shot from a distance disqualifies that notion, as you've already concluded.
No it doesn't because of this:
Originally posted by dadudemon
Edit - I should also point out that Brown trying to grab Wilson's gun also necessitates deadly force, if Wilson's story is to be justified. But, I rejected that argument because Brown started to flee AFTER that confrontation so lethal force was no longer justified UNLESS Brown turned around and started to approach Wilson, again (because serious bodily harm is still a concern if and only if Wilson was assaulted as he claims...need that medical proof).
So there are important pieces of information to consider.
There are 2 situations I talked about.
1. Confrontation in the car.
2. Confrontation outside the car.
For #1 to be justified, there are 2 scenarios that could make this happen:
1.a: The use of lethal force is justified if Wilson's assertion that Brown was trying to get Wilson's gun has to be true.
1.b. The use of lethal force is justified if Wilson's asseration that Brown was beating him in his car is true.
1.a. Cannot really be reasonably proven unless prints show up on Wilson's gun (or holster) that belong to Brown.
1.b. can be reasonably proven if there is a medical record showing that Wilson was assaulted, hence my conditional statement regarding this point.
In neither 1.a. or 1.b. am I entertaining corruption from Wilson where he put Brown's prints on his holster/gun to make 1.a. true or if Wilson harmed himself to make 1.b. true because we should have at lest one eyewitness saying that. It is still a possibility but extremely unlikely.
To address #2, the confrontation outside the car is dependent upon either 1.a. being true or 1.b. being true if and only if Brown did turn around and start to approach Wilson, again, as he and some eye witnesses allege. If neither 1.a. or 1.b. are true or are reasonably proven to be untrue, then #2 cannot be even considered because the justification of lethal force must have come from #1, first.
Do you see how my position is too complex and conditional to be boiled down to a simple once sentence point?
Originally posted by Tzeentch
Can you please reiterate your answer to the question?
I do not understand what you want me to do, here.
Originally posted by dadudemonWhat does Cincinnati have to do with Ferguson?
I think this point deserves its own post.One of my problems with what Wilson did was firing warning shots. I conceded that point based on Cincinnati's Police Code of Conduct stating that warning shots can be used. I was wrong about that so I gave up that avenue of argument.
Originally posted by Mindset
What does Cincinnati have to do with Ferguson?
Most of those codes of conducts are fairly uniform when it comes to the use of deadly force:
Check out this interview:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=229274032
"O'DONNELL: Again, with the caveat this is a checkpoint, and there may be rules about how you engage people who are not cooperative at that - in that setting for ordinary street police people. Different rules in every state, but the general rule is if you reasonably suspect your life or somebody else's life or physical well-being is endangered, you can use deadly physical force to stop or to prevent an attack on you or a third person."
Edit - I long since gave up looking for a rules of engagement or code of conduct for Ferguson. I gave that up when this story first broke because I could not find it. So, basically, you can only infer what their Code of Conduct is going to be. If you have it, that would be awesome.
Originally posted by dadudemonWhy do I care what the guy who played Robin has to say?
Most of those codes of conducts are fairly uniform when it comes to the use of deadly force:Check out this interview:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=229274032
"O'DONNELL: Again, with the caveat this is a checkpoint, and there may be rules about how you engage people who are not cooperative at that - in that setting for ordinary street police people. Different rules in every state, [b]but the general rule is if you reasonably suspect your life or somebody else's life or physical well-being is endangered, you can use deadly physical force to stop or to prevent an attack on you or a third person.
"Edit - I long since gave up looking for a rules of engagement or code of conduct for Ferguson. I gave that up when this story first broke because I could not find it. So, basically, you can only infer what their Code of Conduct is going to be. If you have it, that would be awesome. [/B]
Originally posted by dadudemonI think you'd be onto something if Brown had been shot at close-range. A case could be made that Wilson was forced to shoot Brown out of self-defense because Brown was all over him and drawing mace, the baton or the taser weren't reasonable options.
No it doesn't because of this:So there are important pieces of information to consider.
There are 2 situations I talked about.
1. Confrontation in the car.
2. Confrontation outside the car.
For #1 to be justified, there are 2 scenarios that could make this happen:
1.a: The use of lethal force is justified if Wilson's assertion that Brown was trying to get Wilson's gun has to be true.
1.b. The use of lethal force is justified if Wilson's asseration that Brown was beating him in his car is true.
1.a. Cannot really be reasonably proven unless prints show up on Wilson's gun (or holster) that belong to Brown.
1.b. can be reasonably proven if there is a medical record showing that Wilson was assaulted, hence my conditional statement regarding this point.
In neither 1.a. or 1.b. am I entertaining corruption from Wilson where he put Brown's prints on his holster/gun to make 1.a. true or if Wilson harmed himself to make 1.b. true because we should have at lest one eyewitness saying that. It is still a possibility but extremely unlikely.
To address #2, the confrontation outside the car is dependent upon either 1.a. being true or 1.b. being true if and only if Brown did turn around and start to approach Wilson, again, as he and some eye witnesses allege. If neither 1.a. or 1.b. are true or are reasonably proven to be untrue, then #2 cannot be even considered because the justification of lethal force must have come from #1, first.
Do you see how my position is too complex and conditional to be boiled down to a simple once sentence point?
I do not understand what you want me to do, here.
However Brown being shot from a distance, which the autopsy notes as being the most likely scenario due to the gun residue, makes the possible assault basically irrelevant. That Brown was shot from afar means that even if Brown had assaulted Wilson at some point, at the time of being shot he was no longer presenting an immediate threat to Wilson, meaning that drawing a less-lethal weapon would have been reasonable.
Originally posted by Tzeentch
I think you'd be onto something if Brown had been shot at close-range.
Apparently, Brown fell down, dead, 3 feet from Wilson.
I'm not sure what counts as close-range but I thought it was less than 10 feet.
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/2014/08/19/inside-private-autopsy-michael-brown
Despite the source, 1-2 feet seems enough to avoid GPR on the entrance of the wounds.
"Yes, the flesh around the bullet holes of entrance were clear. There was no gunshot residue, no stippling, no powders present around the entrance wounds, which indicates that the muzzle end of the weapon was a foot or two away at the time of discharge. It wasn't a close contact. It wasn't very close, as would have to be the case if they were fighting inside of a car."
So it was greater than 1-2 feet, it would appear. Since his body fell 3 feet from Wilson, that seems to be greater than 3 feet, for sure, but probably less than 10. Unless Wilson was dead-on sprinting but I do not think even Wilson's story stated that.
Originally posted by Tzeentch
However Brown being shot from a distance, which the autopsy notes as being the most likely scenario due to the gun residue, makes the possible assault basically irrelevant. That Brown was shot from afar means that even if Brown had assaulted Wilson at some point, at the time of being shot he was no longer presenting an immediate threat to Wilson, meaning that drawing a less-lethal weapon would have been reasonable.
Your conclusion, here, directly contradicts Wilson's and more than a dozen other people's eye-witness accounts of what took place.
Regardless, you and I mostly agree on your conclusion: Wilson should have used a less-lethal option, at this point (taser) if he had it. But I'm pretty sure that once the gun is drawn and the gun drawing is justified, police are not trained to holster their weapons and attempt less lethal forces. This is where my point, earlier, comes in that Brown was pretty much dead the moment he assaulted Wilson.
I'm still waiting on the proof that Wilson was actually assaulted, though, before I conclude that Brown should have been shot, for sure. If Wilson was not assaulted, pretty much everything about Wilson's story sucks and it comes off as Wilson fidgeting around in his car and accidentally firing his gun. lol
Regardless, what did Wilson actually do? He messed with Brown in his car, apparently. What actually happened?
Being a member of the Black community, I will say the riots are pointless and does nothing to support getting justice for M.B. death. Black folks we have to do better then that. That's not to say that non Black folks should use racist remarks to lash out at us. To every race and nationality you have individuals within it that does horrific and ignorant acts. If we all are held accountable for those few, then we would all be guilty of those acts. Unfortunately in some cases we are judged by the acts of others, which only points out evidence of the ignorant thinkers I mentioned above, before casting judgement on other races and nationalities. One should correct the flaws in themselves and there own race. In doing so, a person will see that judging a person by there character and not the there skin color, will clear up any misconceptions you may have about a particular person, nationality, or race.
20 x Michael Brown vs. a white Marine. Did anyone else hear or seen this report? I only knew about it through a yahoo comment. Media is very lacking in reporting on white victims.
http://www.infowars.com/white-marine-beaten-by-black-mob-in-michael-brown-revenge-attack/
A white lifeguard was attacked by 3 black men. ROCKS are involved...
http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2014/08/25/family-thinks-otterbein-assault-may-have-been-hate-crime/
Originally posted by vansonbee
20 x Michael Brown vs. a white Marine. Did anyone else hear or seen this report? I only knew about it through a yahoo comment. Media is very lacking in reporting on white victims.
http://www.infowars.com/white-marine-beaten-by-black-mob-in-michael-brown-revenge-attack/A white lifeguard was attacked by 3 black men. ROCKS are involved...
http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2014/08/25/family-thinks-otterbein-assault-may-have-been-hate-crime/
40 years ago, it was 20 white men and 1 black dude.
Boy, how times have changed.