which means Mr. Brown was probably on his knees, since the autopsy report says he was 77 inches tall, which is 6 foot 7.
Well, I was a math major, and I think 77 inches is 6 foot 5 inches tall.............. let's see, 6X12 =72, +5 =77 - yep, 6 foot 5 inches....
Keep trying gina, you're getting closer...... 
which means Mr. Brown was probably on his knees, since the autopsy report says he was 77 inches tall, which is 6 foot 7.
Well, I was a math major, and I think 77 inches is 6 foot 5 inches tall.............. let's see, 6X12 =72, +5 =77 - yep, 6 foot 5 inches....
Keep trying gina, you're getting closer......
LMFAO
yeah...that was funny. 😛
Shouldn't a cop be sure that he sees a weapon before he decides to shoot? If the victim did assault the officer and go for his gun, it's clear the victim failed to get the gun. In which case, the cop had possession of his own gun versus a perp trying to punch him. If the cop successfully secured his gun, why not use pepper spray or a billy club? Its not lawful to respond to a punch with gunfire. In most states, that's excessive force.
This makes little sense. In the case where a cop believes the perp has a weapon (which is not this case) he shoots only if he believes he sees it. Do you mean he must be sure there IS a weapon? That's an impossible standard that will either get cops killed or cause them to avoid confrontational situations, the very thing they are paid to get involved in. There are reasons the police when arresting or even questioning someone tells the person to put his hands where the cop can see them. The police have no chocie but to treat sudden moves as threats.
As for the second point you say he didn't get the gun so the cop had no reason to shoot? Should he have waited until Brown actually got the gun to shoot? Oh wait then he would not have been able to. Bottom line he believed under the circumstances his life was in danger and the evidence supports that belief as being reasonable. That's why he wasn't indicted not because of endemic racism or generalized police brutality or anything like that.
The sentiment seems to be that attacking the police like a wild animal if you get irritated is OK, and express outrage when something goes terribly wrong with that scenario.
In the meantime, the officer is expected to possess split-second extraterrestrial powers in handling the situation.
Dream on.
Your ignorance and lack of respect only speaks about yourselves, not my posts. My view does indeed make sense, and it isn't a dream scenario. Alloak, have you ever been charged with assault and gone through the legal process to know what is real and what is a "dream"? I have. And I can tell you from personal experience that a judge certainly does expect everyone, especially an officer, to react in a split-second within the law, or else you will be prosecuted. And what is reasonable to you or me, may not be reasonable in the court of law. In the Ferguson case, it went in favor of the cop, but don't be fooled into thinking that it would go that way all the time. It could have just as easily gone the other way.
And you are wrong about my sentiment. In no way do I excuse Mike Brown's behavior. Had he not committed a crime, none of this would've happened. My sentiment is that a cop should only shoot to kill in an absolute last resort, after all other options were exhausted. I simply wonder what happened after the cop successfully wrangled his gun back into his own possession. But twist away if that's the only way you know how to make a point.
Your ignorance and lack of respect only speaks about yourselves, not my posts. My view does indeed make sense, and it isn't a dream scenario. Alloak, have you ever been charged with assault and gone through the legal process to know what is real and what is a "dream"? I have. And I can tell you from personal experience that a judge certainly does expect everyone, especially an officer, to react in a split-second within the law, or else you will be prosecuted. And what is reasonable to you or me, may not be reasonable in the court of law. In the Ferguson case, it went in favor of the cop, but don't be fooled into thinking that it would go that way all the time. It could have just as easily gone the other way.
And you are wrong about my sentiment. In no way do I excuse Mike Brown's behavior. Had he not committed a crime, none of this would've happened. My sentiment is that a cop should only shoot to kill in an absolute last resort, after all other options were exhausted. I simply wonder what happened after the cop successfully wrangled his gun back into his own possession. But twist away if that's the only way you know how to make a point.
I based my comments on what I'm reading and hearing from dozens of individuals, some of them very powerful people. The sentiment seems to be that Brown and Garner bear no responsibility for what happened, that it's a police problem. Like they were both out collecting for the Red Cross or something.
And the bottom line is this. If they hadn't resisted arrest they would both be alive today.
Yes, that's true. As is the statement "if the NY officer didn't use an improper choke hold, and left his neck alone, Garner would be alive today." It's banned by the NYPD for this exact reason. It is not such a simplistic issue as one side is all right or all wrong. Garner should not have resisted, otherwise he'd be alive. But if that cop wasn't so overly aggressive and followed proper procedure, Garner would be alive. Both statements are equally true, and it's irresponsible to fully excuse the officer. I'm not saying he should be charged with murder, but aggravated assault (which is excessive force) fits perfectly.
I'm not so sure an "improper choke hold" was employed. Yes I realize we've all seen the video and are now all instant experts on the term choke hold, but, the officer, his lawyer and the police union all say he did what the police academy trains them to do.
These comments of course are buried in all the stories titled "Officer not guilty of illegal Choke Hold Death"
Usually when controversial cases go through the legal process I believe the people must move on. Now that the Missouri Attorney General has stated that the Grand Jury was misled by the DA I think the people are right to peacefully protest and demand a fair hearing.
The legality of the chokehold will soon be determined.
As none of us were on either grand jury, any comments about whether the officers should have or have not been charged are based on pure speculation. The grand jury in Ferguson heard testimony for 9 weeks. Most of us spent 9 minutes reading news reports.
We the people still have a right to know what goes on in our world, otherwise we just become pawns believing whatever we are told. Complacency can lead to enslavement, injustice to one can effect others later, that is why we need to know.
In the Ferguson case the statements from the parole officer are consistent with the forensic and autopsy findings, yet many have not even gotten that information. They just think a white cop killed an unarmed black man without justification.
Any time a police officer kills someone, it can be accidental death, or a deliberate death. If it is a deliberate homicide we need to know why that happened. In the Ferguson case the officer says he feared for his life, okay at the car that seems consistent with the powder burns on the trigger finger and palm of Mr. Brown, but all the other shots estimated to have been fired 2-35 feet away raise questions. The amount of bullets fired into him raise questions. That bullet into the top of his head, when he stands 6 foot 7 inches raises questions.
There are many issues in the case. The character of Mike Brown, he had just robbed a convenience store, had prior arrests with the law, should we just say okay, well he deserved what he got, or do we look at intent of the officer and the decedent, and humanity issues? It's not a simple case.
[Edited on 12/5/2014 by gina]
6 foot five inches, gina - 6 foot 5 inches......I know you can do it................
6 foot five inches, gina - 6 foot 5 inches......I know you can do it................
apparently not.
6 foot five inches, gina - 6 foot 5 inches......I know you can do it................
apparently not.
When I realized he wasn't 7 feet tall, I thought 6 foot 7 but fine 6 foot 5. That's tall. How did the officer put a bullet in the top of Mike Brown's head unless Brown was down on his knees, and the head shot is the shot that reportedly killed him going thru his brain down into his clavicle. All the other shots all down Mike Brown's arm to me look like retribution for the altercation at the car where Brown tried to take the officer's gun. If you just want to kill someone, shoot them in the stomach they will bleed to death, to fire all those rounds all down his arm that makes no sense if he was trying to make him stop running. He was enough of a marksman to hit him in the eye socket, with that level of skill, he could have shot him in the legs and he would have stop running.
[Edited on 12/6/2014 by gina]
There has been another shooting just outside Ferguson. This time an officer killed an armed 18 year old. (9 mm weapon) at The Mobil Gas Station, 6800 block of North Hanley Road, Berkley,Missouri. (Deceased: Antonio Martin).
Tuesday night’s shooting in Berkeley — which sits due west of Ferguson, Mo., about five miles from where Brown was killed — left dead a man identified by family members as Antonio Martin, 18. Hundreds of people soon gathered at the scene, and four were arrested and charged with assaulting police officers.
“You couldn’t even compare this with Ferguson or the Garner case in New York,”Hoskins said at a news conference. “The video shows the deceased pointed a gun that has been recovered.”
The victim’s mother, Toni Martin, told reporters at the scene that her son had not been carrying a gun and was just walking to visit his girlfriend at the time of the shooting. And the Rev. Osagyefo Sekou -- who has been heavily involved in the demonstrations since Brown’s death in August — remained critical of police. According to St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar, the Berkeley officer was responding to a call about a larceny when he encountered the two men in the parking lot. As the officer spoke with one of the men, the other walked several steps away and produced a weapon that he pointed at the officer, Belmar said.
At that point, the officer drew his weapon and stepped backward, firing three shots – one of which struck the suspect, Belmar said. Police said they do not believe that the suspect fired his weapon.
Belmar also played and released surveillance video from the gas station, which appeared to depict a verbal confrontation between an officer and several people. The blurry video, shot from a distance, contains no audio and ends when it appears that one of the men raises his arm at the officer.
By 11:40 p.m., Ferguson protest regular Tony Rice was on the scene, tweeting updates, pictures and videos as officers began to process the scene, and as Martin’s mother arrived.
At 12:43 a.m., Derek Robinson – a pastor who manages a group text with thousands of local and media contacts – blasted an alert to his list: “There was just an unarmed young man killed at the Mobile station on Hanley and 170; We need bodies now!”
http://news.yahoo.com/police-officer-missouri-shot-killed-man-pulled-gun-084531706.html
More than 50 police officers, some in riot gear, responded. Video showed some wrestling with protesters. Belmar said officers used pepper spray but not tear gas. Four people were arrested on charges of assaulting officers. Belmar said three explosive devices, perhaps fireworks, were tossed near gas pumps, and some protesters threw rocks and bricks. One officer hit by a brick was treated for facial cuts, and another was treated for a leg injury sustained as he retreated from an explosive.
Belmar said Martin had a criminal record that included three assault charges and others for armed robbery, armed criminal action and unlawful use of a weapon.
Some protesters questioned why the officer couldn't use pepper spray or a stun gun.
"Frankly, that's unreasonable," Belmar said. "When we had somebody pointing a gun at a police officer, there's not a lot of time." Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon commended Berkeley police.
REMARKS: Will update as info becomes available.
[Edited on 12/24/2014 by gina]
The gun recovered at the scene of the shooting at Berkley,Missouri was a 9 mm with five rounds in the magazine and chamber. The chief offered his condolences to the victim’s family calling this a tragedy. “There is no reason for the family of this young man to see the rest of this video,” said Belmar. He also said the officer possessed a body camera that he received following roll-call but the device was inoperable at the time. He also noted that the officer’s dash cam was not activated.
St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar provided the following account at a 7 a.m. news conference.
•The officer, in full uniform and driving a marked car, responded to a call about a theft. Belmar said it's not yet clear if the theft happened at the Mobil, or elsewhere.
•The officer stepped out of his car to talk to two individuals. Martin pulled a 9 mm Hi-Point pistol and pointed it at the officer across the hood of the car.
•The officer fired his weapon. Belmar said there were at least three shots. One struck Martin, one cannot be accounted for, and one went into the tire of the police car as the officer was falling backward. [WHY WAS THE OFFICER FALLING BACKWARD, WAS HE HIT?]
•The second individual fled the scene. Belmar said police are looking to talk to him. Two bystanders also witnessed the shooting
•Belmar briefed St. Louis County prosecutor Bob McCulloch around 3:30 a.m. An assistant prosecutor has been assigned to the case.
•A crowd of about 200 to 300 gathered at the gas station. Belmar said some in the crowd threw rocks and explosive devices. Four people were arrested for assault on a law enforcement officer. Two police officers were injured
Presss Conference Berkley Mayor Theodore Haskins The conference was held at the Berkeley City Hall located at 8425 Airport Road.
http://kplr11.com/2014/12/24/berkeley-mayor-holds-press-conference-we-are-different-from-the-city-of-ferguson/
“We are different from the City of Ferguson.” Hoskins says there is a jump to the conclusion that all policemen are guilty. “And we all know 80-95% of our policemen serve our community well. So jumping to conclusion without investigating is not acceptable. And I have some fine officers.”
The majority of officers in Berkeley are African American and so is the city’s staff. “Our police officers are more sensitive and it’s because of the black and white relationship and because they interact with a majority of black policemen. So you get a better understanding which is why I think we’re different from the city of Ferguson,” said Hoskins. “We don’t have major crime in this city. This is unique.” The mayor says there are 31 officers in Berkeley. Of those officers, 18 of them are African American. According to Hoskins, it does not appear that the police officer initiated this shooting.
REMARKS: Berkley wants people to know they are NOT Ferguson. It will be interesting what the media, and the protesters (NYC and Ferguson) do to try to twist the facts to use for their own agendas.
[Edited on 12/24/2014 by gina]
It's not over in Ferguson.
Ferguson prosecutor Bob McCulloch admitted that he presented evidence he knew to be false to the grand jury considering charges against Darren Wilson. In an interview with radio station KTRS on Friday, McCulloch said that he decided to present witnesses that were “clearly not telling the truth” to the grand jury. Specifically, McCulloch acknowledged he permitted a woman who “clearly wasn’t present when this occurred” to testify as an eyewitness to the grand jury for several hours.
Your ignorance and lack of respect only speaks about yourselves, not my posts. My view does indeed make sense, and it isn't a dream scenario. Alloak, have you ever been charged with assault and gone through the legal process to know what is real and what is a "dream"? I have. And I can tell you from personal experience that a judge certainly does expect everyone, especially an officer, to react in a split-second within the law, or else you will be prosecuted. And what is reasonable to you or me, may not be reasonable in the court of law. In the Ferguson case, it went in favor of the cop, but don't be fooled into thinking that it would go that way all the time. It could have just as easily gone the other way.
And you are wrong about my sentiment. In no way do I excuse Mike Brown's behavior. Had he not committed a crime, none of this would've happened. My sentiment is that a cop should only shoot to kill in an absolute last resort, after all other options were exhausted. I simply wonder what happened after the cop successfully wrangled his gun back into his own possession. But twist away if that's the only way you know how to make a point.
There are two things that matter here.
1. Did the officer who shot Mike Brown act within the bounds of self-defense and therefore in a justified manner.
2. Is the fact that the officer shot Mike Brown indicative of imdemic racism and/or police brutality.
The answer to the second question is definitely no. All the riots all the national attention is caused by the lie that Mike Brown was killed because of an out of control police force. That doesn't mean things can't be made even better. Community-Police relations should continually be improved. But the rioting and attacks on the police verbally and otherwise are totally unjustified and should have been actively discouraged by our political leadership, not encouraged.
The answer to the first question depends on the legal standard that justifies the use of deadly force by a police officer. You would like the standard to be "If the officer is totally certain his life is in danger and has exhausted all other possibilities (including presumably the possibility of retreat)" If this is not your view I apologize but that's what it appears to be. That is NOT however the legal standard. While I don't know the exact wording of the statute in Missouri, it is almost definitely something along the lines of "A Polie Officer may use deadly force against a suspect if he reasonably believes his life or the life of others is in danger or if he or another is reasonably perceived to be at risk of serious bodily injury."
The question of fact is "reasonably". A Grand Jury investigated this question of fact and determined that the officer reasonably feared his gun would be taken away. That alone is sufficient to justify the shooting. It is always reasonable for an officer to believe that if a perp gets his gun, he will be shot with it. That is what the grand jury found. Even if some of us believe otherwise, it is incumbent on our leadership to ask the "community" to accept the judgment of a grand jury and not to assume bias, racism or anything else led to a decision they don't like.
The FBI has concluded it's own internal probe of the Ferguson shooting, and did not find civil rights violations in the death of Mike Brown, by Police officer Darren Wilson. I think you know how well that decision will be received, not just in Ferguson, but here in NY where certain groups want to link all the police shootings together to say there is a pattern of racial profiling and police brutality against black men.
http://lasvegassun.com/news/2015/jan/21/source-fbi-completes-federal-probe-ferguson-shooti/
HOWEVER, they want to take a look at the Eric Garner case.
http://www.wgal.com/national/fbi-agents-take-fresh-look-at-garner-case/30825620
