Skip to comments.Ferguson is now a free speech zone
Posted on 08/14/2014 9:20:17 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The people of Ferguson, Missouri are still out on the streets. They're loud, and they're upset, but tonight they're not being intimidated by warrior cops. They're not being tear gassed. They're not being shot at with rubber bullets. They're simply doing what Americans do in hard times.
The decision today by Missouri Governor Jay Nixon to yank St. Louis County Police from security detail appears to be paying off. Since police shot and killed Michael Brown on Saturday, heavily armed officers locked down the neighborhood, intimidating peaceful protestors. Police aggression peaked on Wednesday night as the nation watched, as officers advanced on crowds of residents, asking them to turn off their cameras. Police even tear gassed an Al Jazeera news crew, and arrested two journalists for no reason.
The tone has shifted. Residents we spoke with on the ground today said they're finally able to do what they wanted to do in the first place: mourn the death of Michael Brown and let the country know that his death was senseless and unnecessary. The afternoon, marked by calm solidarity, has transformed into a boisterous parade. People from all over St. Louis and elsewhere are driving through this small strip of Ferguson, honking horns liberally, packed so full that passengers are hanging out of the windows.
Whenever hands are raised, just as Brown's were before he was fatally shot, the chant echoes through the street: "Hands up! / Don't shoot!"
We asked several people who've been present for the protests how the tone has changed since St. Louis County Police left Ferguson. In a word, it's peaceful. "They told us to go back to the house," a young man named Sosa told us. "We don't want to be in the house. We want to be on the streets."
The cops could easily win this battle if the Chief would show this picture at every press conference.
From everything I have read today, the person in your original picture is Michael Brown - but NOT the same one who was shot.
As to this picture, I have no idea who either is and really don’t care.
I am not defending the thug in your original picture, nor am I defending the MB who was shot. I come from 3 generations of NYPD, and until shown otherwise in a particular situation I lean to defending LEO’s.
A retired LEO friend of mine, on another forum, pulled that picture(your first one) after it having been proven to him it it was not the same person. He also apologized for not having done his own due diligence in ascertaining the veracity of the photo he shared.
Has it been confirmed Brown was shot in the back?
Pieces of the puzzle.
Where were Big Mike and friends returning from ?
Why was that officer heading to the apartment complex?
Why did the protesters FIRST attack the QT, then loot it, then burn it to the ground ?
After they burned it, why did they paint SNITCHES GET STITCHES on the rear wall ?
The answers to these questions help define the real situation which Mike and the officer found themselves in.
I’m thinking the same thing. If there’s one thing liberals and conservatives should agree on it’s that cops are out of control.
Big Mike punched the officer in the face.
What would happen to you if you punched a cop in the face, after slamming his door shut on him ?
Constitutionally, "police officers are allowed to shoot under two circumstances," says Klinger. The first circumstance is "to protect their life or the life of another innocent party" what departments call the "defense-of-life" standard. The second circumstance is to prevent a suspect from escaping, but only if the officer has probable cause to think the suspect's committed a serious violent felony.
Without knowing the full account that the officer who killed Michael Brown provided, it's impossible to know which of those standards he believes he met but it's more likely that he would say he feared for his life when Brown (according to his story) assaulted him in his car. In that case, the next question will be whether it was reasonable for him to be afraid of Brown.
The key to both of the legal standards is that it doesn't matter whether there is an actual threat when force is used. Instead, what matters is the officer's "objectively reasonable" belief that there is a threat.
Walter Katz, a California attorney who specializes in oversight of law enforcement agencies particularly during use-of-force investigations points out that it's hard to determine whether an officer's fear is reasonable because the decision to shoot is so fast. "Officer-involved shootings happen extremely quickly. Usually, the point from where the officer believes he has to use deadly force to the point where he uses deadly force where he pulls the trigger is about two seconds." That can make it much harder for investigators to decide whether or not the officer was reasonable in thinking he had to shoot.
That puts a lot of weight on an officer's immediate instincts in judging who's dangerous. And those immediate instincts are where implicit bias could creep in believing that a young black man is a threat, for example, even if he is unarmed.
But each use of deadly force does have to be evaluated separately to determine if it was justified. "The moment that you no longer present a threat, I need to stop shooting," said Klinger. According to the St. Louis County Police Department's account, the officer who killed Michael Brown fired one shot from inside the police car. But Brown was killed some 25 feet away, after several shots had been fired. To justify the shooting, the officer wouldn't just need to demonstrate that he feared for his life not just when Brown was by the car, but even after he started shooting and Brown started running away. The officer would need to establish that, right up until the last shot was fired, he felt Brown continued to pose a threat to him, whether he actually was or not.
"There's a difference between the moment you cease to be a threat and the moment I perceive that you ceased to be a threat," says Klinger. And Katz points out that if an officer has been assaulted and the suspect runs away, the officer's threat assessment is probably going to be shaped by having just been assaulted. But, Katz says, "one can't just say, 'Because I could use deadly force ten seconds ago, that means I can use deadly force again now.'"
I have no idea about any of that. That won’t define anything regarding the actual shooting.
I am more interested in the actual crime scene and what occurred at the time of the shooting.
I guess I will have to see the same proof your friend saw. Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit has been following this story very closely since he lives in St Louis. He has contacts that provide him information. Hoft has yet to pull the picture down from his site.
I have no idea. He fell face forward towards the police car.
OK. The cops had been called because of GUNFIRE at the complex.
Mike and friends were returning from a nearby convenience store.
A nearby convenience store (QT) had called the police because some ‘teens’ had shoplifted and ran.
Protesters painted SNITCHES GET STITCHES because they were mad at the QT employees for calling the police (was it Big Mike or one of his friends who shoplifted?????)
They looted it, then burned it to the ground, and painted that on the back wall as a warning. Mike getting killed was just convenient cover for their retribution on that QT.
From there it caught on as bruthas from nearby communities came driving in. Some because their cousins called them, some because they saw it on TV or the internet. Some came because they were opportunists, criminals, or anarchists. Probably some FBI guys in there too.
Brown was walking down the middle of the street with a friend. That friend’s attorney gave his client’s version to Laura Ingram on the Factor today. According to them, he was shot once in the back, he stopped turned around with his hands up, and the cop approached him as he unloaded what sounds like a full clip into Brown.
I’m thinking there’s more than a little truth to this account given the silence from the police dept.
It is the second of circumstances that seems appropriate in this case. I tend to believe the officer did wrong if he shot to kill a ‘distant’ suspect’. However, the second of circumstances would appear as a possibility in that ‘violent’ serious felony on a police officer had been committed. More than one shot can be arguable.
Is this the link you’re looking for? I haven’t seen French quoted anywhere else or heard of any other reporter asking him about the quote. Is it heresay or is it probable cause for a stop? Maybe someone should screen-grab this before it disappears?
Alderman Antonio French per CLTV, Chicago 7:00am, 8/11/14:
“He said a local QuikTrip gas station was looted and an ATM dragged out.
This QuikTrip is where things started yesterday with this case, based on various accounts, French said. Mike and his friend were accused of stealing gum from the store or some sort of cigarettes.
You could be right...Then again, it could have been a struggle for the gun right up until the fatal shot...Which appears to be a head shot...
“What would happen to you if you punched a cop in the face, after slamming his door shut on him ?”
What should happen to me would that I would be arrested and charged with assault.
If you punched me in the face I wouldn’t be justified in killing you as you were leaving. That would be murder... It’s no different with the cop.
Allegedly Brown was facing the officer with his hands up. The question is did the officer think Brown was going to charge him, especially since they had just had a scuffle in the patrol car and a round was fired. Tough decision under the circumstances with your adrenalin running sky high from the struggle inside the car with someone trying to take your gun away.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.