To Indict Or Not To Indict - You Be The Jury

Post Reply New Topic

Yes, based on what I know, Wilson should have been trying to *arrest* Brown, not kill him. He had back up on the way. It seems like it would have been a simple matter to keep sight of Brown until backup arrived, then arrested him without the use of deadly force.

So a person who has just received multiple gunshot wounds is really a threat to physically overcome a police officer, who, in addition to being able to retreat to a safe distance in his vehicle (which should always be preferable to ending someone's life unnecessarily) is equipped with an array of non-lethal weapons?

Police procedure should never, ever be justification for outrageous behavior on the part of the police. Is it police procedure to kill people unnecessarily? Is it police procedure to use piss-poor judgement? Is all police behavior excusable if its found in some police manual, even though its the police themselves who write police procedure?

What's hilarious is in the aftermath of excessive force incidents, all of the self-proclaimed experts manage to come out and exaggerate and overstate the severity of the situation and inflate it and over-dramatize it into an life-or-death "him or me" situation where someone of course just had to die, and better the 'thug' than the white guy / cop.

If his "tunnel vision" account is accurate then perhaps manslaughter - he wasn't in control as he should have been. I don't know enough about the law to make definitive calls. It doesn't seem there is much evidence to convict for murder so those charges would seem quite pointless.

Yes, based on what I know, Wilson should have been trying to *arrest* Brown, not kill him. He had back up on the way. It seems like it would have been a simple matter to keep sight of Brown until backup arrived, then arrested him without the use of deadly force.



So a person who has just received multiple gunshot wounds is really a threat to physically overcome a police officer, who, in addition to being able to retreat to a safe distance in his vehicle (which should always be preferable to ending someone's life unnecessarily) is equipped with an array of non-lethal weapons?



Police procedure should never, ever be justification for outrageous behavior on the part of the police. Is it police procedure to kill people unnecessarily? Is it police procedure to use piss-poor judgement? Is all police behavior excusable if its found in some police manual, even though its the police themselves who write police procedure?

What's hilarious is in the aftermath of excessive force incidents, all of the self-proclaimed experts manage to come out and exaggerate and overstate the severity of the situation and inflate it and over-dramatize it into an life-or-death "him or me" situation where someone of course just had to die, and better the 'thug' than the white guy / cop.

He could have protected himself by driving away and arresting Brown later once backup had arrived. I've never seen anyone offer anything to contradict this self-apparent fact.

From the ABC interview of Wilson: "At that time I gave myself another mental check: Can I shoot this guy? You know, legally, can I?" Really? You claim you feared for your life but this statement implies that you wouldn't have shot if you didn't feel legally justified, and thus allowed yourself to die? You had time to conduct a legal analysis of the situation, and yet had no time to a) retreat b) diffuse the situation before someone had to die c) think it through between the first shot and the twelfth? Really? It doesn't add up. You asked yourself "can I shoot this guy"? What does that mean, that you *wanted* to shoot him? Because maybe you chose your words poorly in the interview but it sure sounds that way.

I don't think there is ever justification to shoot an unarmed person. Well, maybe ok for females, but for me, any man that shoots another man who is unarmed is weak and spineless. Fight for your life. Or escape and make apprehension at a safer time, with assistance. There is no justification or cower behind macho pride. Humanity trumps macho pride. The police are familiar with the suspect. Avoid confrontation until it is safer. Issue a warrant. They know who he is and where he lives. Warrants are issued on people everyday, even in Ferguson Missouri. None of this had to happen over a box of cigarillos. The Sheriff knocks on doors in my apt building all the time serving warrants. When you make assumptions about how people are going to react to a situation you treat those people as if they have already lived up to your assumptions they will pick up on that and react accordlingly. I was not there to hear the tone of the officers voive,. Isn't it conceivably possible that the officer used words and actions in a way that were completely disrespectful and humiliating to the suspect? We were not there. We don't know. We just assume the big black kid, because he is a big black kid, reacted aggressively and violent without cause. There are many intangibles. Police are too quick to make assumptions and act on those assumptions.

the worlds you call those who do tells me right away you are likely a gym person with strong muscles who likes to fight. and you feel everyone should be held to unfair fights you enjoy a advantage in..

Everyone thinks they're an expert, all whilst talking about an opinion rather than the reality.

I would bet most people on the 'net and news don't even know the rules governing self-defense in their state for citizens (police included, but they have extra bits added due to their job).

How can someone even talk about self-defense insofar as a criminal case is concerned without even knowing what constitutes self-defense where the case resides?

Philosophical and moral arguments relating to self-defense don't even factor into the case being discussed here, as they've already been done and put into codified law. You can do them, but you can't judge this case by them regarding criminal liability.

He ordered Brown to surrender. Brown was far enough away to not be a threat. I don't see anything wrong with that. Brown ran towards Wilson -- Wilson just ordered him to surrender. If Brown hadn't have attacked and surrendered, then the backup would have arrived.

Brown was far larger than Wilson in mass.

Most of the witnesses, and indeed Wilson's testimony itself, indicate Brown was walking towards Wilson, not running. Read the witness reports or you're as bad as the people who say Brown had surrendered.

Most of the witnesses, and indeed Wilson's testimony itself, indicate Brown was walking towards Wilson, not running. Read the witness reports or you're as bad as the people who say Brown had surrendered.

Some of the bullet trajectories are downward like Brown was lurched over, or in the position of a charging football player as one witness stated. For example, see below the position of the shot to the top of the head. So, there had to be more to it then Brown merely walking towards the officer, otherwise how could the officer hit Brown in such a position in the head, and angled downward towards the ground ?

"One of the bullets entered the top of Mr. Brown’s skull, suggesting his head was bent forward when it struck him and caused a fatal injury ... It was likely the last of bullets to hit him, he said".
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/1 ... hael-Brown

... otherwise how could the officer hit Brown in such a position in the head, and angled downward towards the ground ?

That seems exactly what the vast majority of people who are being fired at would do in such a situation.

and if brown went and assualted someone else while wilson was running away?
cops have a duty to enforce the law not run away. should they run away from active shooters? or a mugging? should they swat every possible crime?

also most cops are trained to unload their mags into the target, reload and check the threat.
others are taught 2 shots in the chest and if still a threat one in the head.