The Ferguson, MO Police Shooting

[Tom Servo]

Timothy McVeigh and JFK aren't the topic here, folks.

[Justice06RR]

I usually try to avoid these type of topics because of the possible inaccuracy of the information we receive from the media, and also the sensitivity of the subject to those who are affected. But after reading a few articles on it, specifically from TTAG (http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...issouri-shoot/) I'll chime in:

If the account above is true, it seems that the officer shot Brown in self-defense if Brown was charging the officer. This is after Brown alledgedly assaulted the officer already. Of course this would all have to be dissected and proven in court now, but that is another problem in itself.

The rest of the rioting and looting that's happening deserves an aggressive police response. Rioting and looting is different from a peaceful protest. Rioting (disturbing the peace) and looting (stealing) are both against the law, so the police have to respond however they can--by militarized means if necessary. I'm not saying I'm for the militarization of police, but they have to do what they have to do to accomplish their job and also protect themselves.

[OuTcAsT]

Given the response from the White House yesterday, I will not be surprised to see the NG troops "federalized" soon. Thus, removing the State from the equation.

[zincwarrior]

Let me ask another question. Assuming Brown did not put his hands up and was fleeing the LEO after he attacked him is that justification for shooting the suspect?

If he is not a threat to the officer or others thats murder. Legally, police do not have the right to shoot a suspect who is not posing an immediate threat to them or others. Evading police is not a legal grounds for shooting, absent those factors.

[45_auto]

Originally Posted by zincwarrior

If he is not a threat to the officer or others thats murder. Legally, police do not have the right to shoot a suspect who is not posing an immediate threat to them or others.

Where are you located? Every jurisdiction in the United States that I'm aware of allows the use of deadly force to apprehend someone who has committed a dangerous felony. No immediate threat is required.

http://nationalparalegal.edu/public_...UseofForce.asp

According to the more modern views, deadly force can only be used if the police officer has reason to believe that the suspect had committed a dangerous felony. If the police officer had reason to believe that the suspect committed a felony involving the risk of physical harm or death to others such as murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, rape or burglary, he could use deadly force to effectuate an arrest.

It is important to remember that a police officer is allowed to use force based on reasonable belief. Therefore, if a police officer reasonably believes that a suspect whom he is trying to arrest has committed a rape, the police officer may use deadly force, and that deadly force will be considered justified even if it turns out that the officer’s reasonable belief was wrong. See Bursack v. Davis, 225 N.W. 738 (Wis. 1929).

[zincwarrior]

Where are you located? Every jurisdiction in the United States that I'm aware of allows the use of deadly force to apprehend someone who has committed a dangerous felony. No immediate threat is required.

What dangerous felony had he committed again?

EDIT: IN Texas its a different standard:

B.Parameters for Use of Deadly Force:
1.Officers may use deadly force only when the officer reasonably believes that the action is in defense of human life, including the officer’s own life, or in defense of any person in imminent danger of serious physical injury.
2.Officers are not authorized to fire their weapons in order to subdue an escaping suspect who presents no immediate threat of death or serious injury.
3.System Police policy C-3 requires an arresting officer to identify themselves as a police officer and to state their purpose before effecting an arrest. The officer should communicate this in a clear, audible voice.
4.When possible, before using a firearm, officers shall identify themselves and their intent to fire.
5.An officer may also use a firearm under the following circumstances:
a.During range practice and qualification or competitive sporting events.
b.To destroy an animal that represents a threat to public safety, or as a humanitarian measure where the animal is seriously injured. The officer will obtain a supervisor’s permission before taking such action.
6.Officers shall adhere to the following restrictions when their weapon is exhibited:
a.Except for maintenance or during training, officers shall not draw or exhibit their firearm unless circumstances create reasonable cause to believe that it may be necessary to use the weapon in conformance with this policy.
b.Warning shots are prohibited.
c.Officers shall not fire their weapons at or from a moving vehicle except in defense of life.
d.Firearms shall not be discharged when it appears that an innocent person may be injured.

http://www.utexas.edu/police/manual/a12.html

[JimDandy]

From what I've been told, Tennessee v Garner is the case that ruled on the issue, and a threat is required, but they didn't specify immediate.

Does anyone here think that if Hannibal Lecter was stopped on the street (and real) coming out of a McDonalds (and thus full) an officer couldn't shoot him if he tried to run away to avoid capture?

[zincwarrior]

Irrelevant. This guys was not Hannibal Lector, nor was he committing a felony under the scenario noted.

[JimDandy]

Given the response from the White House yesterday, I will not be surprised to see the NG troops "federalized" soon. Thus, removing the State from the equation.

At that point we'll also see the NG go away. Eisenhower could use the NG for the Little Rock Nine because the Governor was using them for a cross purpose against the law. Federalized Guard can't be used for law enforcement unless the Governor/State and its subsidiaries are unable and/or unwilling to uphold the law themselves. How does one make the argument that the Governor isn't upholding the law by giving the NG the same basic role the President would?

Irrelevant. This guys was not Hannibal Lector, nor was he committing a felony under the scenario noted.

Pointing out the possible lack of a need for "immediate" threat is irrelevant after it's discussion has begun? When someone questions one of your claims with a reason, it might be better to respond to the reason than dismiss the whole thing as irrelevant. Again, if for no other reason than you brought it up in the first place.

What dangerous felony had he committed again?

Again, as I read Tennessee v Garner it doesn't say he has to have actually committed it beyond any reasonable doubt. Probable Cause to have committed one is what is required. Right now I assume we've got probable cause to believe he assaulted an officer and tried to steal his sidearm. Or do you think if the two of them were standing on the sidewalk right now, and the Officer made the same statement Brown wouldn't be arrested on the spot?

An Arrest is a seizure. Apprehension by Deadly Force is the ultimate seizure. Not all arrests may be carried out through Deadly Force. An arrest for assault, battery, firearms theft, all sound like (and I'll quote the Supreme Court here)

probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

That doesn't even say the person seized has to have done anything prior. Just that they're very likely going to.

[lilguy]

I live in Chicago, shootings happen all the time. Usually in the minority neighborhoods. It barely registers more than a few days and then on to the next event. Those that make hay from racial animus live for these events. Keeps the pot stirred and the troops fire up. As long as they are kept believing they are victims of a racists society, they are excused from the responsibility many of the rest of us take for granted.
IF this young man was involved in a robbery at a convince store just prior to his confrontation with police, it's not a stretch to reach the conclusion that if he had been playing nice in the neighborhood he would be alive today. We will have to see how this finally plays out. It SEEMS the victim has some culpability in his own demise, but that fact is lost on the looters and rioters.

[gc70]

Originally Posted by zincwarrior

What dangerous felony had he committed again?

A violent assault on a law enforcement officer is a felony under Missouri law.

Missouri Revised Statutes 565-082.1: A person commits the crime of assault of a law enforcement officer ... if such person: (2) Knowingly causes or attempts to cause physical injury to a law enforcement officer ... by means other than a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument;

[motorhead0922]

What is the cop on the left holding in his right hand?

[kilimanjaro]

Pepper or paintball gun.

[JimDandy]

Felony is not the dividing line. A felony in and of itself is not enough, as laid out in that Tennessee v Garner case linked above I had hoped Frank, Spats or one of the others who do this sort of thing for a living would have weighed in by now in case there's anything that further defines things after Garner, but Garner itself deals with this. There has to be a threat. Embezzling a million bucks is probably a felony everywhere. But if you think somebody did that and they run away, that's not enough to seize them with Deadly Force.

A violent assault does probably constitute

probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

however.

[Madcap_Magician]

Originally Posted by motorhead0922

What is the cop on the left holding in his right hand?

Pepperball gun. The officer on the right is holding a shotgun configured for less-lethal use- typically a shotgun with orange furniture is dedicated to beanbag/rubber shot rounds.

[BarryLee]

I was bored last night and watched some of CNN’s coverage of these events. It was so transparent as the “reporters” kept pushing their own personal agendas and making inaccurate statements instead of simply reporting the events as they occurred.

They continually referred to Police Officers who were wearing basic helmets and bullet proof vest as Militarized-Police. The interesting thing is many of the reporters wore some of the same gear and traveled with armed security. As stated before the issue isn’t the gear, but how the gear is used. While I realize it was a small percentage of the overall group throwing objects there was still a real risk to the Officers safety and the gear was appropriate.

[Tom Servo]

Rioting and looting is different from a peaceful protest. Rioting (disturbing the peace) and looting (stealing) are both against the law, so the police have to respond however they can--by militarized means if necessary

Yes they are, but the police are responding to the looters by punishing peaceful protesters and journalists. That's the first problem.

The second is the way they're responding. I have yet to see the faces of any of the responding officers. Everybody's in facemasks and ninja gear, waving around military equipment. That has an effect on perception, and it can be perceived as a threat.

I wonder if a few local cops known to the community might have been more reassuring, and if that wouldn't have been a much better course.

[BarryLee]

I wonder if a few local cops known to the community might have been more reassuring, and if that wouldn't have been a much better course.

They actually did this earlier in the evening and it seemed to work. However, as the night wore on the crowd got more rowdy and the Police geared up. I suspect the trouble makers are a combination of local criminals and a suspicious number of young white men many with their own gas masks. I suspect as this drags on some professional radicals like the WTO protestors and various anarchist are making their way to town.

[Jim567]

Just released,if its true,supposedly from the dept - the policeman has a broken eye socket from being assaulted in the incident.

[Tom Servo]

However, as the night wore on the crowd got more rowdy and the Police geared up.

It depends on how we define rowdy.

An agitated and angry crowd is a fickle thing, and it's easily provoked. A visible show of force (potential or real) is going to do just that. A line of guys dressed like soldiers and pointing rifles at folks is going to be perceived as a challenge. Members of the crowd are going to perceive their presence as an escalation.

The police responded to a few bad actors with indiscriminate force against everybody. That doesn't make things calmer.

[zincwarrior]

Quote:
Rioting and looting is different from a peaceful protest. Rioting (disturbing the peace) and looting (stealing) are both against the law, so the police have to respond however they can--by militarized means if necessary

Yes they are, but the police are responding to the looters by punishing peaceful protesters and journalists. That's the first problem.

The second is the way they're responding. I have yet to see the faces of any of the responding officers. Everybody's in facemasks and ninja gear, waving around military equipment. That has an effect on perception, and it can be perceived as a threat.

I wonder if a few local cops known to the community might have been more reassuring, and if that wouldn't have been a much better course.

These are good points.

[BarryLee]

The police responded to a few bad actors with indiscriminate force against everybody. That doesn't make things calmer.

I don’t totally disagree, but the police are in a difficult spot. The few nights they didn’t respond innocent people had their businesses looted and burned. When they do respond some innocent people get tear gassed. The best thing is to end these continued nightly protest before someone on one side or the other overreacts and things blow up. The protesters have made their point and gained attention, so let the process play out.

[Tom Servo]

The few nights they didn’t respond innocent people had their businesses looted and burned. When they do respond some innocent people get tear gassed.

But I won't take that trade. Under no circumstances can we justify gassing or tazing people who aren't breaking the law.

[zincwarrior]

But I won't take that trade. Under no circumstances can we justify gassing or tazing people who aren't breaking the law.
__________________

Then you don't want to be near me after I've been to Lupe Tortillas...

On topic, I'd proffer there's a major difference between tazing and tear gas to disperse a crowd.

In reality there hass to be a balance. You can't have lawlessness occurring where innocents are in fear of harm.

A protest is one thing. But if a riot occurs thats a completely separate thing, and is itself infringing on the protesting.

[JimDandy]

But I won't take that trade. Under no circumstances can we justify gassing or tazing people who aren't breaking the law.

Tazing maybe, gassing not so much. If you don't want to get tear-gassed don't march next to the guy throwing rocks. If the guy next to you wasn't throwing rocks, and bends down to pick one up, it's time to go elsewhere.