- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Report: Autopsy analysis shows Michael Brown may have gone for Wilson’s gun
Posted on 10/22/14 at 11:59 am to Ace Midnight
Posted on 10/22/14 at 11:59 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
I still don't think we have enough facts to conclusively say either way. Brown was unarmed. That fact isn't going away. Ditto for the fact there was at least some amount of distance between them. However, based on what we know transpired before, no jury will convict Wilson, and no grand jury is likely to even indict him.
You are missing peace officer protocol. If you are engaged in a deadly force encounter (someone trying to disarm you) you have to use deadly force to stop the threat. If they disengage and retreat, no you CAN NOT USE DEADLY FORCE, however, if the perp returns to confront you YOU MUST USE DEADLY FORCE to stop the threat. If he attempted to disarm you you have to treat any further engagement as another attempt to disarm you. Officer can not wait for the perp to get his hands on the weapon to act. He comes back at you (aggressive and without hesitation/ or even steadily and does not halt) you shoot until the theat stops. Don't read anything into the amount of bullets fired. Semi handguns can pull off 8-10 rounds in a heartbeat.
4
Posted on 10/22/14 at 12:04 pm to 91TIGER
Furthermore, under Missouri law, if Michael Brown committed a felony, Officer Wilson could shoot him while he was fleeing.
Don't see how a grand jury brings back an indictment with that law.
quote:
reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest and also reasonable believes that the person to be arrested has committed or attempted to commit a felony.
Don't see how a grand jury brings back an indictment with that law.
Posted on 10/22/14 at 12:05 pm to 91TIGER
It has gone from...
"Hands up dont shoot"
to.....
"Pants up, dont loot"
"Hands up dont shoot"
to.....
"Pants up, dont loot"
Posted on 10/22/14 at 12:06 pm to 91TIGER
I'm pretty certain that if there was any and I mean any wrong doing by this Officer he would have already been charged. We all know that their are those looking into this that would have hanged the guy already if justified even if it was questionable. IMHO the facts have come clear that this officer has told the truth 100%. Brown just picked the wrong time to bully a cop. You don't get shot in the forehead at close range while running away. Even the Feds can't find a charge to put on him.
So get ready there is gonna be rioting and looting and I'd suggest every white person in and near St.Louis to pack your pistol.
So get ready there is gonna be rioting and looting and I'd suggest every white person in and near St.Louis to pack your pistol.
This post was edited on 10/22/14 at 12:07 pm
Posted on 10/22/14 at 12:24 pm to 91TIGER
quote:
You are missing peace officer protocol.
No, I'm not. If Wilson's account is 100% supported by the evidence, he's completely cleared, rightfully so. I'm sure his version comports with policy, protocol and legalities - at least as far as I am aware of it and them.
The problem comes in this factual discussion. Surely you don't agree that it would have been reasonable to shoot Brown if he was surrendering, do you?
The challenge for those wanting the officer prosecuted is that - save a few eyewitness statements - the objective evidence supports the officer's version at this time.
In fact, unless something else comes out - here is THE BEST I can come up with (I am an attorney after all, maybe not the best choice for criminal defense, though
) - the one most favorable to Brown: "Officer called him over to the car, so he went. Officer asked for ID, so Michael reached for his wallet. Officer grabbed him and they scuffled a little bit through the window. The officer went for his gun, so Michael, fearing for his life, fought for control over the gun. The gun discharged, either by Officer Wilson on purpose, or accidentally during the scuffle. Once the weapon fired, Michael, in a panic, ran away. The officer got out and ordered Michael to stop. Michael complied, turned around and was shot and killed."
Okay - having said that - this is purely conjecture - it's the best story I can come up with that comports with what we know of the objective evidence. Heck, this might be exactly how it went down.
This is not demonstrated by the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, so the officer walks on murder, manslaughter, the shooting, everything.
The officer's version is obviously going to be his best case, and I won't rehash it here. It's very possible it happened that way, because the objective evidence doesn't refute it.
A possible "middle ground" scenario is that, after the fight in the window, Wilson gets out, yells "FREEZE!" (Brown knew what that meant, and there had already been a shot fired) - Brown turns around and starts to go to ground - Wilson, peering through 1 good eye, perhaps, at this point, misinterprets this as coming towards him.
Obviously would be tough to prove, but even if you could, I'm not sure it's manslaughter - I mean they had just been in a serious fight, which Wilson was on the worse end, and Brown had gone for his gun.
That's why I'm not seeing charges sticking to Wilson. I can't conclusively say that Wilson was not enraged to the point of murder after the fight - that would be human nature and is certainly possible - there's just no proof of it.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News