- 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: Read this and explain to me how Darren Wilson is not charged with something
Posted on 11/20/14 at 4:01 pm to baybeefeetz
Posted on 11/20/14 at 4:01 pm to baybeefeetz
quote:
Read this and explain to me how Darren Wilson is not charged with something
Thanks for the link. It clearly outlines why he won't be charged under Missouri state law:
quote:
Under Missouri state law, police officers are granted authority to use deadly force “in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody” if “he reasonably believes” it is necessary “to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested has committed or attempted to commit a felony…or may otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.”
I think any sane person believes Brown was the instigator and assaulted the police officer in the car believing he was about to be arrested for his assault on the shop keeper minutes before.
This post was edited on 11/20/14 at 4:03 pm
0
Posted on 11/20/14 at 4:02 pm to Chappy
that article has one person saying 10-15 ft (maybe just 15) and one saying like 25 ft. fwiw, I think 10 and 25 ft are hugely different scenarios in terms of whether to shoot a guy coming at you. I'm way more trigger-ready if the guy is 10 ft than 25. 10ft is practically on you. 25 is a little further (for all of you without rulers handy)
Posted on 11/20/14 at 4:02 pm to baybeefeetz
Posted on 11/20/14 at 4:03 pm to Zach
what the frick does marxism have to do with this, and no, I don't read that site. I monitor twitter for stories about ferguson, and this one came up.
Posted on 11/20/14 at 4:04 pm to baybeefeetz
quote:
But multiple witnesses say they were at a distance and not at close range when the kill shots were fired. The alleged struggle over the weapon had ended after the first shot was fired, and nobody has said Wilson had reason to believe Brown had a weapon.
Missouri law is such that after Brown committed the felony of attacking the officer, police can shoot a person to effect an arrest. So, all the discussion of this and that is fun but irrelevant. I don't like the law, but there it is.
You could argue the law is unconstitutional. But that would probably end up being more important for a civil case or a Federal case (?) than the city's case against Wilson.
And you're of course ignoring some pretty key points of testimony in saying "the struggle had ended."
Posted on 11/20/14 at 4:05 pm to the808bass
no, I'm not ignoring anything. I'm saying that if more than one witness is credited, brown and johnson had run away after the first shot.
but thanks for your contribution, though and thanks to the guy who quoted the (not complete) quote from Missouri law. Obviously that illuminates the discussion.
I have watched a lot of cable news nad read some mainstream sites about this story. NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT THE LAW AND IT frickING PISSES ME OFF.
but thanks for your contribution, though and thanks to the guy who quoted the (not complete) quote from Missouri law. Obviously that illuminates the discussion.
I have watched a lot of cable news nad read some mainstream sites about this story. NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT THE LAW AND IT frickING PISSES ME OFF.
Posted on 11/20/14 at 4:06 pm to baybeefeetz
quote:
that article has one person saying 10-15 ft (maybe just 15) and one saying like 25 ft. fwiw, I think 10 and 25 ft are hugely different scenarios in terms of whether to shoot a guy coming at you. I'm way more trigger-ready if the guy is 10 ft than 25. 10ft is practically on you. 25 is a little further (for all of you without rulers handy)
Don't see that at all in the article
Ok now I see it. I didn't realize the article went below the big picture
Yeah the problem with these witnesses is that the distance ranges from 2-3 feet to 25 feet
that is why we shouldn't speculate on what is being told to the GJ
This post was edited on 11/20/14 at 4:11 pm
Posted on 11/20/14 at 4:06 pm to Holden Caulfield
quote:
I almost want to see him indicted so we can see what celebratory looting looks like.
This.
That announcement is little more than a starter's pistol, regardless of which way it goes.
Posted on 11/20/14 at 4:07 pm to Chappy
do a control f for feet.
I was approximately right. One person even said they were 35 feet away when the shooting started. Too close for comfort for me, but not sure it's shootin' distance.
I was approximately right. One person even said they were 35 feet away when the shooting started. Too close for comfort for me, but not sure it's shootin' distance.
Posted on 11/20/14 at 4:09 pm to baybeefeetz
quote:
what the frick does marxism have to do with this, and no, I don't read that site. I monitor twitter for stories about ferguson, and this one came up.
Don't get your panties in a wad. I simply checked your source. It's extreme left wing. Therefore, don't believe it. Next question?
Posted on 11/20/14 at 4:09 pm to baybeefeetz
So that gets us out of Garner.
I disagree, Garner is relevant in that a struggle ensued at the police vehicle ,in which the service firearm was discharged.
This brings relevant suspicion of "poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others" into play.
I disagree, Garner is relevant in that a struggle ensued at the police vehicle ,in which the service firearm was discharged.
This brings relevant suspicion of "poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others" into play.
This post was edited on 11/20/14 at 4:13 pm
Posted on 11/20/14 at 4:12 pm to Zach
Posted on 11/20/14 at 4:12 pm to baybeefeetz
quote:
But multiple witnesses say they were at a distance and not at close range when the kill shots were fired.
At what distance would you feel safe with a 6'4" 300 lb guy, possibly hopped up on drugs, rushing you from?
Pop pop pop.
Sorry, man, reasonably fearing of great bodily harm is valid justifiable use of deadly force.
Posted on 11/20/14 at 4:13 pm to OchoDedos
I hear you, but the constitutionality of a statute was at issue there anyone. At this level, as another poster said, we are dealing with the application of a statute that, may or may not be tested constitutionally, or maybe already has, as far as I know.
Posted on 11/20/14 at 4:15 pm to Meauxjeaux
No, I know. 35 feet is about 10 yards, so it's fairly close. I don't have an opinion on whether the shooting was justified, but looking at a collection of witness "statements" (not official), it seems like there's significant evidence that he was not coming at the cop.
The whole "arrest" "committing a felony" thing, you know, the law, obviously is key, though.
The whole "arrest" "committing a felony" thing, you know, the law, obviously is key, though.
Posted on 11/20/14 at 4:16 pm to baybeefeetz
I didn't read the article.. getting ready to leave.
But I'm in the camp that believes all of the forensic evidence points to Brown coming at Wilson.
That's good enough for me.
But I'm in the camp that believes all of the forensic evidence points to Brown coming at Wilson.
That's good enough for me.
Posted on 11/20/14 at 4:17 pm to baybeefeetz
quote:
one saying like 25 ft. fwiw, I think 10 and 25 ft
The difference between 10 and 25 feet is about 1 sec, FWIW. Standard closing speed is about 7 ft per half second. The average time it takes an officer to draw and fire two shots is 2.6 seconds. So I'd guess the crime scene reconstruction isn't going to make a big distinction between a threat at 25 feet and 10 feet.
LINK
Posted on 11/20/14 at 4:18 pm to the808bass
Thanks.
Posted on 11/20/14 at 4:19 pm to baybeefeetz
quote:
At this level, as another poster said, we are dealing with the application of a statute that, may or may not be tested constitutionally, or maybe already has, as far as I know.
Similar statute has been ruled unconstitutional in a case in TN I believe. But it would be a tough conviction/indictment on a law that is ruled unconstitutional after the fact (if even possible, not a lawyer).
Posted on 11/20/14 at 4:19 pm to the808bass
quote:
The difference between 10 and 25 feet is about 1 sec, FWIW. Standard closing speed is about 7 ft per half second. The average time it takes an officer to draw and fire two shots is 2.6 seconds. So I'd guess the crime scene reconstruction isn't going to make a big distinction between a threat at 25 feet and 10 feet.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News