Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » General Discussion » Silence continues on the forum regarding Ferguson.

Silence continues on the forum regarding Ferguson.

+8
Markle
gatorfan
Hospital Bob
Vikingwoman
Sal
boards of FL
2seaoat
Joanimaroni
12 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Go down  Message [Page 4 of 8]

2seaoat



You are not familiar with the Supreme Court Case which overrides fleeing felon use of lethal force. If Michael Brown was a threat walking down the street then the officer could have pulled up and simply shot him dead during the struggle, and nobody would argue a bit about the shooting. However, the officer shot Michael in the squad. He retreated after being shot. He was shot in the street so sure as chit he was a danger to the public not walking on the sidewalk. Do not argue things you do not understand, or spit into the wind. The only justifiable reason to use lethal force was the officer was in immediate danger when Michael was fifty feet from the squad, or the public was in immediate danger.......that conclusion does not meet the Supreme Court standard. End of Story. Now if some additional facts and witnesses show he had a weapon, or he took the officer's shotgun, or he had a hand grenade and threatened to use the same....I am all ears to your crazy theories.

2seaoat



No, I think you're gravely wrong to say what happened in the car is irrelevant. Trying to take an officer's gun, if that's what happened, is very relevant and dangerous.

No, I know it piszes people off but I am seldom wrong on these issues. If Michel had taken the officers weapon and retreated the officer had a reasonable fear of his safety and the public safety......his shooting under the Supreme Court standard would be justifiable. Again, this would be an affirmative defense to murder charges. An officer who was pissed off because a person did not respond to his verbal instructions to get on the sidewalk, and grabs the decedent.......totally irrelevant to the Supreme Court Standard. Again, read and learn before going off half cocked.

Sal

Sal

Vikingwoman wrote:
2seaoat wrote:To date I am unaware of this case meeting the supreme court standard.

A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead...however...Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.

United States Supreme Court 1985

Prior to the officer attempting to pull Michael into his squad, he had not broke any law known by the officer.   In the struggle the officer shot Michael.  He was not a risk to the officer or the public running unarmed from just being shot.

NON LETHAL FORCE IS ACCEPTABLE.

Mo law
(2) When he reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested

(a) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony; or

(b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon; or

(c) May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.

4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.

This is essentially the "fleeing felon" rule that was widely used in the U.S. for many decades -- but the Supreme Court struck it down in the mid-1980s. Now, police officers are allowed to use deadly force against a fleeing felon only if they have reason to believe the felon is dangerous. Missouri may not have changed the text of its law to reflect the ruling, but the ruling still applies.

The officer failed to meet the old Mo law and certainly failed the Supreme Court Standard.   What happened in the car is irrelevant.   Did the officer believe he was in imminent danger from a fleeing Michael Brown, or another member of the public was in danger.

No, I think you're gravely wrong to say what happened in the car is irrelevant. Trying to take an officer's gun, if that's what happened, is very relevant and dangerous.

Let's explore this theory.

This suggests that this huge kid jumped through the window, entirely across the cop's body, to his holstered gun which would have been on the cop's right side.

Does this seem plausible?

Think about that for a few minutes.

Let's put this on top of "the kid bull rushed a cop who had already shot him" theory.

I'm smelling a bullshit sammy.

Vikingwoman



2seaoat wrote:You are not familiar with the Supreme Court Case which overrides fleeing felon use of lethal force.  If Michael Brown was a threat walking down the street then the officer could have pulled up and simply shot him dead during the struggle, and nobody would argue a bit about the shooting.  However, the officer shot Michael in the squad.   He retreated after being shot.  He was shot in the street so sure as chit he was a danger to the public not walking on the sidewalk.   Do not argue things you do not understand, or spit into the wind.  The only justifiable reason to use lethal force was the officer was in immediate danger when Michael was fifty feet from the squad, or the public was in immediate danger.......that conclusion does not meet the Supreme Court standard.  End of Story.   Now if some additional facts and witnesses show he had a weapon, or he took the officer's shotgun, or he had a hand grenade and threatened to use the same....I am all ears to your crazy theories.

Mo law
(2) When he reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested

(a) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony; or

This is your own case law,Seaoat. If Brown attempted to take his gun or battered the officer.. that is a felony. He doesn't have to have a weapon in order to be a fleeing felon. You don't know what you're talking about.

Vikingwoman



Sal wrote:
Vikingwoman wrote:
2seaoat wrote:To date I am unaware of this case meeting the supreme court standard.

A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead...however...Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.

United States Supreme Court 1985

Prior to the officer attempting to pull Michael into his squad, he had not broke any law known by the officer.   In the struggle the officer shot Michael.  He was not a risk to the officer or the public running unarmed from just being shot.

NON LETHAL FORCE IS ACCEPTABLE.

Mo law
(2) When he reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested

(a) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony; or

(b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon; or

(c) May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.

4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.

This is essentially the "fleeing felon" rule that was widely used in the U.S. for many decades -- but the Supreme Court struck it down in the mid-1980s. Now, police officers are allowed to use deadly force against a fleeing felon only if they have reason to believe the felon is dangerous. Missouri may not have changed the text of its law to reflect the ruling, but the ruling still applies.

The officer failed to meet the old Mo law and certainly failed the Supreme Court Standard.   What happened in the car is irrelevant.   Did the officer believe he was in imminent danger from a fleeing Michael Brown, or another member of the public was in danger.

No, I think you're gravely wrong to say what happened in the car is irrelevant. Trying to take an officer's gun, if that's what happened, is very relevant and dangerous.

Let's explore this theory.

This suggests that this huge kid jumped through the window, entirely across the cop's body, to his holstered gun which would have been on the cop's right side.

Does this seem plausible?

Think about that for a few minutes.

Let's put this on top of "the kid bull rushed a cop who had already shot him" theory.

I'm smelling a bullshit sammy.

When they started fighting the officer pulled out his gun. That is when he's saying the kid grabbed for it. The gun discharged or the was trigger pulled. The blood evidence is in the car.

Markle

Markle

Vikingwoman wrote:
2seaoat wrote:You are not familiar with the Supreme Court Case which overrides fleeing felon use of lethal force.  If Michael Brown was a threat walking down the street then the officer could have pulled up and simply shot him dead during the struggle, and nobody would argue a bit about the shooting.  However, the officer shot Michael in the squad.   He retreated after being shot.  He was shot in the street so sure as chit he was a danger to the public not walking on the sidewalk.   Do not argue things you do not understand, or spit into the wind.  The only justifiable reason to use lethal force was the officer was in immediate danger when Michael was fifty feet from the squad, or the public was in immediate danger.......that conclusion does not meet the Supreme Court standard.  End of Story.   Now if some additional facts and witnesses show he had a weapon, or he took the officer's shotgun, or he had a hand grenade and threatened to use the same....I am all ears to your crazy theories.

Mo law
(2) When he reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested

(a) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony; or

This is your own case law,Seaoat. If Brown attempted to take his gun or battered the officer.. that is a felony. He doesn't have to have a weapon in order to be a fleeing felon. You don't know what you're talking about.

2seaoat doesn't give a rip one way or the other. His only goal is to stir the pot. You could post that the grass is green and he'd call you a liar. He doesn't care a wit about this entire case other than to be on the side of whoever is agitating it the most and causing the most havoc.



Last edited by Markle on 10/22/2014, 10:15 pm; edited 1 time in total

2seaoat



This is your own case law,Seaoat. If Brown attempted to take his gun or battered the officer.. that is a felony. He doesn't have to have a weapon in order to be a fleeing felon. You don't know what you're talking about.



As usual I do. The Supreme Court case from 1985 makes the statue unconstitutional to the extent where an officer has no immediate threat to himself or the Public. Let me help you a bit. I did not give you case law when you quoted the MO statute.......it was MO statute which like statute which made a black man unable to marry a white woman invalid in light of the Loving case in Virginia. Those miscegenation laws stayed on the books but learned people understood the significance of the Supreme Court setting a new standard. Again, nothing personal. You are way over your head again. Read the Supreme Court case, and then come back and act like you always understood it....deju vue.

Markle

Markle

Sal wrote:
Vikingwoman wrote:
2seaoat wrote:To date I am unaware of this case meeting the supreme court standard.

A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead...however...Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.

United States Supreme Court 1985

Prior to the officer attempting to pull Michael into his squad, he had not broke any law known by the officer.   In the struggle the officer shot Michael.  He was not a risk to the officer or the public running unarmed from just being shot.

NON LETHAL FORCE IS ACCEPTABLE.

Mo law
(2) When he reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested

(a) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony; or

(b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon; or

(c) May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.

4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.

This is essentially the "fleeing felon" rule that was widely used in the U.S. for many decades -- but the Supreme Court struck it down in the mid-1980s. Now, police officers are allowed to use deadly force against a fleeing felon only if they have reason to believe the felon is dangerous. Missouri may not have changed the text of its law to reflect the ruling, but the ruling still applies.

The officer failed to meet the old Mo law and certainly failed the Supreme Court Standard.   What happened in the car is irrelevant.   Did the officer believe he was in imminent danger from a fleeing Michael Brown, or another member of the public was in danger.

No, I think you're gravely wrong to say what happened in the car is irrelevant. Trying to take an officer's gun, if that's what happened, is very relevant and dangerous.

Let's explore this theory.

This suggests that this huge kid jumped through the window, entirely across the cop's body, to his holstered gun which would have been on the cop's right side.

Does this seem plausible?

Think about that for a few minutes.

Let's put this on top of "the kid bull rushed a cop who had already shot him" theory.

I'm smelling a bullshit sammy.

He's not a kid, he's a huge man and he was totally stoned. But that wouldn't cause anyone to do anything aggressive....

Vikingwoman



2seaoat wrote:No, I think you're gravely wrong to say what happened in the car is irrelevant. Trying to take an officer's gun, if that's what happened, is very relevant and dangerous.  

No, I know it piszes people off but I am seldom wrong on these issues.  If Michel had taken the officers weapon and retreated the officer had a reasonable fear of his safety and the public safety......his shooting under the Supreme Court standard would be justifiable.  Again, this would be an affirmative defense to murder charges.  An officer who was pissed off because a person did not respond to his verbal instructions to get on the sidewalk, and grabs the decedent.......totally irrelevant to the Supreme Court Standard.  Again, read and learn before going off half cocked.

Again, you're repeating what the other kid is saying. That's not what the officer is saying. There was a struggle and the gun went off. Just because the kid ran doesn't mean the officer couldn't shoot someone who was fleeing after committing a felony. You're ignoring that. The struggle was totally relevant to the shooting. You're wrong about that.

2seaoat



2seaoat doesn't care. His only goal is to stir the pot.

I try to teach here......however some concepts require higher levels of intelligence and I could certainly understand you playing your role to your employers not getting the concept of the Supreme Court declaring parts of fleeing felon statutes unconstitutional, but you do have the innate intelligence to understand the Supreme Court Case and what it means in this case. Correcting conceptual misconceptions is easy when dealing with higher level concept which people have innate intelligence. Sometimes it is a tedious task of folks leaving the reservation and creating their own paradigms which have nothing to do with the law or the Supreme Court cases. When I try to correct those misconceptions....I am accused of stirring the pot or not knowing what I am talking about. Yep.

Vikingwoman



A 1989 supreme court case, Graham v Connor, established an “objectively reasonable” standard, which applies in cases where a law enforcement officer stands accused of using excessive force. Klinger said “reasonableness” is based on how a “reasonable” officer at the scene would have responded and that the “use of force must be proportional to the threat”.

The standard is not based on the threat that existed, but the threat the officer believed existed.

Because the decisions are often made in split seconds and under extreme pressure, there can be a disparity between the threat a suspect actually posed at the time and what the officer perceived. For example, Klinger said, giving a somewhat improbable scenario as an example, that an officer could under that standard be found to have been justified in shooting a man wielding a hatchet against a young boy, even if it is later discovered that the hatchet was fake and the man was just role-playing with his son.

It's not what you decide Seaoat and your insults of lesser intelligence don't faze me. We've been down this road to many times. We actually don't know what transpired in the car but it sure the hell has everything to do w/ the shooting.

2seaoat



Again, you're repeating what the other kid is saying. That's not what the officer is saying. There was a struggle and the gun went off. Just because the kid ran doesn't mean the officer couldn't shoot someone who was fleeing after committing a felony. You're ignoring that. The struggle was totally relevant to the shooting. You're wrong about that.

I already gave you the entire officers version that during the struggle Michael grabbed for his gun and he shot him. Given. Now every witness saw michael run from the squad and get about fifty feet away in the middle of the street. All the witnesses testified to continuous gunfire from the police officer. That gunfire and the fatal shot can only be justified by testimony that Michael had a weapon, or was running at the officer.......no witness has reported the same, and certainly the defense lawyers for the officer are familiar with the Supreme court case so now we have these second hand stories that from fifty feet away the decedent was a threat. I am being patient, but really, either read the Supreme Court case and understand what you clearly did not understand in your previous posts, or simply make chit up and call it the law.

2seaoat



It's not what you decide Seaoat and your insults of lesser intelligence don't faze me. We've been down this road to many times. We actually don't know what transpired in the car but it sure the hell has everything to do w/ the shooting.

Nope, and yes you have attempted to pretend you understand the law. You rarely get ANYTHING right, and when I try to teach you, you react like your ego was hurt. Anybody can go back on this thread and see how wrong you were from the beginning. The law is determined by a court. The facts and evidence will be weighed by a jury. You have misstated the law from the beginning and ignored my guidance in regard to the Supreme Court.

The Doctor who gave the interview on lawrence Odonnell which refutes about everything which the St Louis Dispatch claimed she said that it was a possibility that he was not reaching for the gun. She admits she does not have sufficient data to say that Michael was running away because she does not know what bullets hit the decedent. I do not have all the witness statements. So we have listened to people saying all this speculation which the coroner has refuted tonight. Nice try. Get the law wrong and the facts wrong. The lady had no idea how far Michael was away from the Police officer and has no idea how low Michael was bent over. White wash!















2seaoat



The article in the dispatch said one unnamed source, which was either the state or the defense......the Washington Post called the SA and they said it was not them, so the unnamed source is coming from the shooters lawyer......why not just credit the source, but instead the white wash is beginning. The Justice Department has issued statements that attempts are being made to influence this case......why.

Joanimaroni

Joanimaroni

It has been established that Brown physically assaulted the officer. We now know Brown, like the officer stated previously, grabbed the officer's gun while reaching in the vehicle.

2seaoat



Second autopsy folks say clearly like the State's doctor that there is no evidence that Michael was going for the gun. Only that his thumb lined up with the barrel of the gun when one of the two shots in the car were fired. Experts are tearing the St. Louis Dispatch white wash apart. Downward trajectory on the fatal shots and NO witnesses as to charging.....accept the planted story by defense lawyers in the St. Louis Dispatch. The Justice Department needs to get all over this mess. The feds need to get to St. Louis and the Governor needs to appoint a special prosecutor. Rotten.

2seaoat



It has been established that Brown physically assaulted the officer. We now know Brown, like the officer stated previously, grabbed the officer's gun while reaching in the vehicle.


Not a defense to murder. To reach the level of an affirmative defense, the shooter had to be at risk or believe he was at risk, or the public was at risk. Simply look at the distance of the body from the squad car. Just saying it does not make it so. There must be a trial. If that is not good enough, listen to the REAL eyewitnesses. You give a fake St. Louis dispatch story which the State and others say could only have come from the defense lawyer, and the Justice Department is all over these clear lies being published from the defense lawyers. Ethics go out the door to get a white wash......kinda like Florida State police providing the defense attorney of Winston the police reports.......this is not difficult.....whitewash.

2seaoat



The kid had high levels of pot in his system, and Mr. Markle thinks this makes a person more aggressive. If he had high levels of alcohol, I would agree. Certainly it may have impacted his judgment when the officer grabbed him. However, the body was a good distance from the officers car. The shooter will have to take the stand why he was in fear for himself or the public.

A wet dream for a legit prosecutor......but hell it is clear now this is a whitewash. From the start to the defense putting their story in the dispatch and claiming it was anybody other than the defense. Justice requires certain protocols and when the SA invites the shooter to the Grand Jury room, do not expect justice.

Vikingwoman



2seaoat wrote:Again, you're repeating what the other kid is saying. That's not what the officer is saying. There was a struggle and the gun went off. Just because the kid ran doesn't mean the officer couldn't shoot someone who was fleeing after committing a felony. You're ignoring that. The struggle was totally relevant to the shooting. You're wrong about that.

I already gave you the entire officers version that during the struggle Michael grabbed for his gun and he shot him.   Given.   Now every witness saw michael run from the squad and get about fifty feet away in the middle of the street.  All the witnesses testified to continuous gunfire from the police officer.  That gunfire and the fatal shot can only be justified by testimony that Michael had a weapon, or was running at the officer.......no witness has reported the same, and certainly the defense lawyers for the officer are familiar with the Supreme court case so now we have these second hand stories that from fifty feet away the decedent was a threat.  I am being patient, but really, either read the Supreme Court case and understand what you clearly did not understand in your previous posts, or simply make chit up and call it the law.

LOL! I've already said he was shot to many times,however, you are still ignoring the fact that it is what the officer perceives-not you. There is a witness who is saying he wasn't sure if Michael was falling forward or coming at the officer. You think you have all this sewn up when you really don't know what happened just like me. All I'm saying at this point is he had a right to shoot him when he was fleeing as he committed a crime of assaulting him and possibly trying to take his weapon. It doesn't matter what you have determined in your mind.

Vikingwoman



"Because Wilson is white and Brown was black, the case has ignited intense debate over how police interact with African American men. But more than a half-dozen unnamed black witnesses have provided testimony to a St. Louis County grand jury that largely supports Wilson’s account of events of Aug. 9, according to several people familiar with the investigation who spoke with The Washington Post.

Some of the physical evidence — including blood spatter analysis, shell casings and ballistics tests — also supports Wilson’s account of the shooting, The Post’s sources said, which casts Brown as an aggressor who threatened the officer’s life. The sources spoke on the condition of anonymity because they are prohibited from publicly discussing the case."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/new-evidence-supports-officers-account-of-shooting-in-ferguson/2014/10/22/cf38c7b4-5964-11e4-bd61-346aee66ba29_story.html

2seaoat



You still do not understand the standard. You have just confirmed the same. First, you did not even know about the Supreme Court case and the fleeing felon statutes, and now you misstate the standard. You read and cut and paste but lack the comprehension. It does not matter a bit what I think. The law is clear. You were wrong at the beginning of the thread and remain so. Nothing new as I said earlier. You have no education or understanding of legal concepts. You have practical interactions which you continue to think allows you to create a conceptual paradigm. You have 1-1000 of the requisite reading to even venture into some of these discussions, but I always give you an A+ for gumption, but you would not last a minute in my class. The Socratic method is brutal on those who lack comprehension. I have no tolerance for ignorance couched in arrogance. My arrogance is time tested,and understandably irritating. I make no apologies. Learn to read before opening your mouth about things you do not understand. I know....I am a prick............but sometimes the truth requires the same.

2seaoat



according to several people familiar with the investigation who spoke with The Washington Post.

You must not be watching TV tonight. The Justice Department is upset from the leaks. There have been queries to the SA office which unconditionally state that it either came from us or the defense, and it did not come from us.

The entire article was provided as an source not named when it could only be the SA or Defense. So the Defense gives its version of the evidence after being given access to the grand jury room, and you think you have the facts. The only thing which has been established is the secret Grand Jury system has been compromised and not ONE witness has been identified which conflicts with the published witnesses who are consistent and damning to the officer.

In regard to the autopsy, the DR. who performed and reported the autopsy clearly stated on the O'donnel show that she cannot say with any certainty that Michael grabbed the gun.....only that his thumb was lined up with the barrel of the gun in the car. The most important thing which came out was the underarm wound which glanced against Michael cannot be determined what direction, and that half the shots fired missed Michael, so that his turning around and raising his hands most certainly could have happened as witnesses described and NOTHING in the autopsy refutes the same. The Chronicle is the pawn in this as they are being spoon fed the defense version which the Justice Department is all over. Can you say white wash. Special prosecutor needs to immediately be appointed by the Governor. The leaks justify an immediate appointment. When nobody in America invites a defendant into the grand jury room, do not be surprised when evidence is bastardized and slanted and the state can do nothing to give balance or refute.......but really why would willing partners in this whitewash want to do the same.

cool1

cool1

The truth will come out eventually in court which is where it should take place, And the thugs running around destroying other peoples property over this , They to are Thugs .
People thought OJ was guilty but you didn't see white people running destroying shit . People need to grow up , This morning there was another shooting don't know what went on yet on Chasevile street , But this is becoming an every night thing here . I think Adults need a curfew they act worse than teenagers . Rolling Eyes

Guest


Guest

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/forensic-expert-says-michael-brown-autopsy

This is ironic... the defense council stating that the leaked autopsy documents have not even been released to him... and calls for media restraint prior to the grand jury finding and the release of evidence in the judicial venue. Then read the tone of the article.

I find it biased and inflammatory... particularly the repeated reference to the cop as a killer. A trial isn't the objective imo.

Vikingwoman



2seaoat wrote:It has been established that Brown physically assaulted the officer. We now know Brown, like the officer stated previously, grabbed the officer's gun while reaching in the vehicle.


Not a defense to murder.  To reach the level of an affirmative defense, the shooter had to be at risk or believe he was at risk, or the public was at risk.  Simply look at the distance of the body from the squad car.  Just saying it does not make it so.  There must be a trial.  If that is not good enough, listen to the REAL eyewitnesses.   You give a fake St. Louis dispatch story which the State and others say could only have come from the defense lawyer, and the Justice Department is all over these clear lies being published from the defense lawyers.   Ethics go out the door to get a white wash......kinda like Florida State police providing the defense attorney of Winston the police reports.......this is not difficult.....whitewash.

This kid was 6'4 and 300 lbs and had just gotten in a scuffle w/ the officer, his gun went off and he ran and you want to tell me the officer was not at risk? Are you on crack?

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 4 of 8]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Pensacola Discussion Forum » General Discussion » Silence continues on the forum regarding Ferguson.

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum