Silence continues on the forum regarding Ferguson.

2seaoat wrote: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.

Sal wrote:This country has a long and sordid history of seeing young black men as criminals by virtue of them being young black men, and it's very apparent that many have not managed to put that history behind them where it belongs.

What you see in threads like this one are people willing to accept any narrative, regardless of how ridiculous, to fit incidents like these into their world perspective of white people in danger of being attacked by young black males.

"Trayvon Martin was a thug who beat a heroic man over the head with a sidewalk just for innocently stalking and provoking a confrontation."

"Michael Brown was a thug who bull-rushed a heroic man who had already shot him multiple times."

Certainly it is going to take time to rid ourselves of these corrosive public perceptions, but we must demand better from our criminal justice system.

2seaoat wrote: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.

cool1 wrote: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 .

Vikingwoman wrote:

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.

2seaoat wrote:Yeah, that video showed him being gentle as a kitten as he bullied his way around that convenience store owner.

So sad this young man has been misunderstood. Rolling Eyes

The video was released because it taints a jury pool.  It is not relevant to this trial and would be excluded in a motion in Limine......but like the leaked grand jury information this is a white wash.  The only issue is was deadly force used correctly in this case.   I think this kid needed an attitude adjustment, and if he lived in some places I had lived, he would have gotten an appropriate beat down when back up arrived and he was arrested and transported.  However, to use deadly force on a wounded retreating street walker........the answer is obvious......there can never be a trial and every dishonest and corrupt method to avoid that trial will be engaged.  I am outraged the governor has not appointed a special prosecutor and sat a new grand jury in light of the St. Louis dispatch article and the mounting evidence that the defense team has broken every ethical rule.  The Justice department is investigating, but the governor needs to immediately act.

2seaoat wrote:Why would the video be excluded....it shows Brown's behaviour just prior to assaulting the officer.

It is not relevant to whether the shooting was justifiable.  The officer knew nothing about the alleged theft of cigars from the convenience store.   The law is very clear that prejudicial evidence which does not go to the ultimate issue of guilt will not be introduced into evidence.  The Prosecutor will make a motion in limine and it will be granted.  Relevant evidence which confirms the officers fear of the decedent as he was running away will be allowed to be introduced.

So as an example the stealing of crab legs and any video of the same by your protected athlete, will not be admissible in his sexual assault trial.  You can argue it show his dishonesty, but that is prejudicial and does not go to the ultimate issue of did the perp sexually batter the victim.

But....but the video showed that the big thug advanced on the smaller clerk in the video so that shows he advanced on the police officer....nope, the evidence is uncontradicted that Michael struggled with the officer in the car and the officer felt threatened and fired two shots.  No problem because the confrontation and shooting in the car is a given.......the ultimate issue of did the officer have the right to use deadly force outside the car has to be determined by the evidence at the scene and not prejudiced by the prior video.

2seaoat wrote:You have no clue what happened in that car.

Actually I have listened to four witness statements which said the officer grabbed Michael from the car and a scuffle between the officer and Michael began, and two gun shots happened in the car with Michael's thumb being shot at the end of the thumb and the doctor who performed the autopsy stating on O'donnel's show last night that there was NO evidence Michael was grabbing the gun, but only that his hand was in a position in the car to receive a bullet directly at the end of his thumb.

What happen in the car has very little relevance unless the officer saw that Michael was armed, or Michael had taken a weapon.   None of that was true.  An unarmed man who got in a scuffle with a police officer was shot at multiple times while he was running and wounded.  The witnesses said he turned and put his hands up and was fatally shot.   The only relevant standard is would a reasonable officer in a similar situation believe his life was at risk or the public was at risk to use deadly force.  I think at trial there will be many expert law enforcement officers who will testify to that standard and the training of officers in that situation.  I would suggest that the experts will testify that this shooting was a breach of the standard.

You have no idea who I am and what degrees I have......I have given you enough to repeatedly hang yourself.