- 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: St Louis: Unarmed teen shot and killed by police, riot in progress.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 8:29 am to Chicken
Posted on 8/18/14 at 8:29 am to Chicken
quote:
Have they released the toxicology report on Michael Brown?
No, only the DA will have that... I'd imagine the family will get a copy too.
But the recent autopsies won't have Tox with them.
Its usually 2-6 weeks for those results.
1
Posted on 8/18/14 at 8:30 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
I'm just analyzing it from a practitioner's standpoint - you have to argue to the jury that an unarmed man required six bullets to stop. Not armed with a knife, a club, crowbar - ANYTHING - he required six bullets to neutralize as a threat to the officer.
The first four were in the arm, apparently. The last two to the head.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 8:30 am to Lsut81
What I'm saying is marching a bunch of police officers into a crowd will turn the situation into "hands on". This is where it would get ugly.
We all know these people causing trouble are a lot of bark and little bite. I'm not saying what the right approach is but maybe letting them run their mouth and dispersing them is better than going in and having to fight a crowd. Also. A crowd of 100 with a handful of instigators could grow once the otherwise peaceful ones see a few of their fellow protestors taken down trying to fight cops. Any time someone resist arrest it's looks a lot worse than what it is.
We all know these people causing trouble are a lot of bark and little bite. I'm not saying what the right approach is but maybe letting them run their mouth and dispersing them is better than going in and having to fight a crowd. Also. A crowd of 100 with a handful of instigators could grow once the otherwise peaceful ones see a few of their fellow protestors taken down trying to fight cops. Any time someone resist arrest it's looks a lot worse than what it is.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 8:31 am to FelicianaTigerfan
quote:
We all know these people causing trouble are a lot of bark and little bite. I'm not saying what the right approach is but maybe letting them run their mouth and dispersing them is better than going in and having to fight a crowd. Also. A crowd of 100 with a handful of instigators could grow once the otherwise peaceful ones see a few of their fellow protestors taken down trying to fight cops. Any time someone resist arrest it's looks a lot worse than what it is.
You don't say?
Posted on 8/18/14 at 8:31 am to Lsut81
That could be crucial evidence against brown. If he was drugged up, would explain his behavior at the convenience store, the walking in middle of the street, the confrontation with the police, and his not going down easily when he walked toward officer.
This post was edited on 8/18/14 at 8:34 am
Posted on 8/18/14 at 8:31 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
I'm just analyzing it from a practitioner's standpoint - you have to argue to the jury that an unarmed man required six bullets to stop. Not armed with a knife, a club, crowbar - ANYTHING - he required six bullets to neutralize as a threat to the officer.
The amount of bullets is irrelevant IMO. CCW permit holders are tought to shoot until the threat is neautralized. Trayvon Martin only took 1 shot to be neutralized. He had no weapons either. That shoot was justified. This case may very well have the same outcome.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 8:32 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
you have to argue to the jury that an unarmed man required six bullets to stop. Not armed with a knife, a club, crowbar - ANYTHING - he required six bullets to neutralize as a threat to the officer.
Pretty easy to defend if the Tox comes back with him hopped up on something.
You show the prior video at the convenience store where he turned back to confront the clerk and then you lay out how it supposedly happened. Altercation with cop, cop fired and he began running... Turned around and came rushing at the cop and the cop fired to mitigate the danger. 5 shots inside of 2-3 seconds isn't difficult at all.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 8:33 am to Lsut81
quote:
I said I didn't see any way they could justify 5-7 additional shots, especially if they were in his back as he was running...
Hard to justify even 1 shot in the back of an unarmed subject running away, right?
However, you're correct - the evidence he was facing the officer and perhaps advancing starts to sway things in favor of the shooter - at least the first shot. Then it will be a matter of weighing the evidence as to the rest.
Timeline, subject movement, officer movement - and in particular, the sequence of shots will all figure into this - toxicology will, as well.
And the subject - do we have vitals? One of the witnesses described him as "Big Mike" - does this mean 6', 200#? 6'4", 265#? A lot of that will figure into the officer's defense.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 8:33 am to Chicken
quote:
That could be crucial evidence against brown. If he was drugged up, would explain his behavior at the convenience store, the walking the in middle of the street, the confrontation with the police, and his not going down easily when he walked toward officer.
Yup and if it shows he was, it will be called manipulated evidence
Posted on 8/18/14 at 8:33 am to schwag
quote:
The amount of bullets is irrelevant IMO.
Agreed. The time difference between 2 shots and 6 shots is measured in seconds.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 8:34 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
6'4", 265#
This is the ballpark.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 8:34 am to Langston
quote:
, it seems it's not excessive unless he shot after the threat ended so I'm curious to why.
It is kinda hard to shoot a body from straight in front and at a distance after it is neutralized.
This post was edited on 8/18/14 at 8:35 am
Posted on 8/18/14 at 8:34 am to the808bass
quote:
Yeah. The rabble rousers started early last night. And they tried to be tactical. They tried to set up an ambush situation, from some reports, and they attempted to rush the command center. It was organized. At least for a group of anarcho-communists.
From French
quote:
Antonio French @AntonioFrench · 21m
There is a small group of people who cannot be defined as protestors/demonstrators. They are more like fighters/rebels/insurgents. #Ferguson
Antonio French @AntonioFrench · 19m
Whenever police come to shut down West Florissant they are prepared to fight back. And they are getting more organized and coordinated.
Antonio French @AntonioFrench · 18m
After the shooting on Canfield last night, police could not not come in. The question was: come in soft or come in hard.
Antonio French @AntonioFrench · 16m
The decision to come in hard wasn't based on anything happening on W. Florissant. It was based on a group attacking their command center.
Antonio French @AntonioFrench · 14m
This thing has the potential to further escalate. Black leadership in STL has a chance to avoid that. We must reach out to these men today.
Someone should tell French you don't "reach out" to rebels/fighters/insurgents. This group needs to be turned over to the police and let that be the end of it. No one is against peaceful protest but in this situation the police/national guard with endangering innocent citizens to neutralize this small group.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 8:35 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
Hard to justify even 1 shot in the back of an unarmed subject running away, right?
Yes, but the initially claim by his accomplice was that the officer fired all of the shots while he was fleeing.
The initial statement from the cops said that the first shot came from within the vehicle.
quote:
And the subject - do we have vitals? One of the witnesses described him as "Big Mike" - does this mean 6', 200#? 6'4", 265#?
Supposedly 6'4 260 if I remember right... So yes, he could easily absorb a few shots, especially if he was hopped up on something.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 8:35 am to Lsut81
quote:
Yup and if it shows he was, it will be called manipulated evidence
Feigned outrage. No one will actually be surprised.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 8:37 am to the808bass
quote:
Yeah. The rabble rousers started early last night. And they tried to be tactical. They tried to set up an ambush situation, from some reports, and they attempted to rush the command center. It was organized. At least for a group of anarcho-communists.
Kinda lickin a little boot here eh??
Posted on 8/18/14 at 8:37 am to Lsut81
quote:
You show the prior video at the convenience store where he turned back to confront the clerk and then you lay out how it supposedly happened.
I'm not familiar with Missouri evidence law, but that's going to be tough to introduce. Again, I've only picked up snippets until today - I was out of pocket at military training - was this convenience store incident the same day or was it some time in the remote past?
Because the prosecution is going to fight like hell to keep that out - prejudicial, etc., but if the pattern of the encounter is similar enough, it might get in - just depends on Missouri evidence statutes and jurisprudence.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 8:37 am to undecided
quote:
Someone should tell French you don't "reach out" to rebels/fighters/insurgents. This group needs to be turned over to the police and let that be the end of it. No one is against peaceful protest but in this situation the police/national guard with endangering innocent citizens to neutralize this small group.
They're not even from around here. The statements that are being made leads me to believe that they've got a good handle on exactly what groups they're dealing with. I expect to see checkpoints into Ferguson tonight and roads closed.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 8:39 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
was this convenience store incident the same day or was it some time in the remote past?
You seriously need to go read some new stories before you come to this thread... You are asking shite that is days old and been discussed at length over and over and over again.
Posted on 8/18/14 at 8:39 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
I'm not familiar with Missouri evidence law, but that's going to be tough to introduce. Again, I've only picked up snippets until today - I was out of pocket at military training - was this convenience store incident the same day or was it some time in the remote past?
15 minutes before. If that.
The officer apparently said he was driving away from them when he recognized something that made him think they were involved in the robbery. Whether that was the description or the contraband isn't clear.
Page 550 of 826
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News