Michael Brown


Courtney.cj.chen said:
Blues I understand the next to present another perspective. But to have such a stance on this opposing view is like presenting a analysis of the synopsis of any of the dumb and dumber movies or beavis and butthead shows. It's a sheer waste of your capabilities.
Click to expand...

Speaking of dumb and dumber, how about you and your LEO bf put your heads together and look up Missouri law 563.046 on legal uses of force by LEOs. After he reads it and tells you what it says, ask him if that law is constitutional. Or, you can save him the trouble of embarrassing himself in front of you and just refer him to Tennessee vs. Garner, a 1985 federal Supreme Court case that rendered TN's law, and all other states with similar laws on the books, unconstitutional. The pertinent part of that ruling as-regards the law the grand jurors were given the same day that Wilson testified goes like this:

Held:

The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Pp. 7-22. [SIZE=-1] [471 U.S. 1, 2][/SIZE]
Click to expand...

MO's law has been unconstitutional since before Darren Wilson was born, and for the entirety of the Assistant DA's career as an attorney who cited it for the GJ.

One can legitimately argue whether Michael Brown was "nondangerous" as he was fleeing from Darren Wilson having just assaulted him, but one cannot argue that citing the unaltered-since-the-Garner-ruling MO law making any fleeing suspect legal to shoot, whether a legitimate threat or not, didn't enure to Wilson's benefit as the jurors deliberated.

'Course, I'm not sure any of the dumbs and dumbers around here understands the implications of a DA citing a law that has been ruled unconstitutional for nearly 30 years now, that GJ members took into their deliberations. Let me break it down for you. It's called "fixing" the process. It's called prosecutorial misconduct. It's called governmental corruption.

Someone lacking the smarts to look into corruption in the very jurisdiction where they live is not qualified to judge my capabilities at all.

Mistakes are not mistakes when they serve an intended purpose.

Blues
 

I'm not going to bother. State all the case laws you want. But verdict by jury is often based on feelings as innate as mine. That boy committed a crime and the cop was doing his job. And the GJ agrees.
 
BluesStringer said:
I'm shocked, simply shocked that you believe corruption within your own DA's office is fine as long as it gets the results you decided on your own were correct long before the GJ ever convened to hear the case. SHOCKED I tells ya!

Good grief.
Click to expand...

What part of that law are you saying is unconstitutional? Tennessee v Garner prohibits using deadly force on a fleeing felon unless it can be articulated that a reasonable person would believe that if allowed to escape, said felon would more than likely endanger life or inflict serious injury. Basically if they are a potentially deadly risk to the public at large, they can be shot. You commit a triple homicide and run, expect to be shot. So I'm confused because unless I read a bad version of that law, pretty much reads the same. I'm even more confused though as to why you're discussing said law because forensic evidence has shown he did not shoot MB while running away in the back or while surrendering with hands in the air.
 
BluesStringer said:
'Course, I'm not sure any of the dumbs and dumbers around here understands the implications of a DA citing a law that has been ruled unconstitutional for nearly 30 years now...
Click to expand...

And right on schedule.....

AndeyHall said:
What part of that law are you saying is unconstitutional? Tennessee v Garner prohibits using deadly force on a fleeing felon unless it can be articulated that a reasonable person would believe that if allowed to escape, said felon would more than likely endanger life or inflict serious injury. Basically if they are a potentially deadly risk to the public at large, they can be shot. You commit a triple homicide and run, expect to be shot. So I'm confused because unless I read a bad version of that law, pretty much reads the same. I'm even more confused though as to why you're discussing said law because forensic evidence has shown he did not shoot MB while running away in the back or while surrendering with hands in the air.
Click to expand...
 
Held:

The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Pp. 7-22. [471 U.S. 1, 2]
Click to expand...
Your argument is blown by that one word. As you know, when a law states specific parts, and they are not separated by OR or some other word that denotes the law may be considered piecemeal, one disqualifying factor is all that is needed for the law not to apply. In this case it is also a fact that he was not fleeing when he was shot. As seen in the convenience store video we know for a fact that he did pose a threat of serious physical injury to others. Without diverting and obfuscating, can you please tell me which part of this I have wrong?
-
The above law is what gives the cops a right to defend themselves, and they receive training on when it does and does not apply. Since you would rather they not be able to defend themselves, your ire is understandable. Odd for a Christian man to have such hate for cops:
Titus 3:1-2 ~ Remind them to be subject to rulers and authorities, to obey, to be ready for every good work, to speak of evil of no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing all humility to all men.
Click to expand...
-
Regarding reading 1500 pages of testimony and evidence, sorry but I don't have time. I am in the middle of getting ready for finals taking 16 credit hours of classes. Commenting on here is a break from that. Was the Grand Jury a sham? If you say so, and it figures because McCullough is a Democrat. They always believe the end justifies the means. I also know that there are millions of race baiters across the country, including the President and Attorney General, looking for a way to pull victory out of the jaws of defeat. It is odd that non of them has reached the same conclusion as you and pushed the issue.
 
Courtney.cj.chen said:
The moment he assaulted that officer. He knew his life was going to change forever. He was probably thinking penitentiary time.
Click to expand...
My guess is that thinking played AT BEST, a VERY minimal role in his existence.

Acting on impulse can be dangerous.

LIVING on impulse is usually FATAL.
 
whodat2710 said:
Without diverting and obfuscating, can you please tell me which part of this I have wrong?
Click to expand...

As predicted, you didn't listen to the video. If you can't figure out the implications of telling a jury, grand or otherwise, that any fleeing suspect is subject to being shot to effect an arrest, you're beyond help. The grand jurors didn't have to consider whether or not Brown was "undangerous." The only instruction they got was that, according to Section 563.046 of MO law, a subject, any subject, attempting to flee could be stopped by gunfire, which is indeed what 563.046 says, but which they have failed to correct for all these years since Garner was decided by SCOTUS in 1985. And the attempt at the end, just as the jurors were going into deliberations, to correct that "mistake," was lame as all get-out. Listen to the whole video if you need more explanation than that.

And in a country ostensibly governed of, by and for The People, we represent the power, and we are the principality under which prosecutors, cops and all of government are subservient. It is Titus 3 and/or Romans 13 and/or any other Biblical mentions of submitting to worldly authorities that validates the notion that the founding of the United States of America was inspired by the Bible to give mankind His gifts of freedom and prosperity.

Next.

Blues
 
BluesStringer said:
As predicted, you didn't listen to the video. If you can't figure out the implications of telling a jury, grand or otherwise, that any fleeing suspect is subject to being shot to effect an arrest, you're beyond help. The grand jurors didn't have to consider whether or not Brown was "undangerous." The only instruction they got was that, according to Section 563.046 of MO law, a subject, any subject, attempting to flee could be stopped by gunfire, which is indeed what 563.046 says, but which they have failed to correct for all these years since Garner was decided by SCOTUS in 1985. And the attempt at the end, just as the jurors were going into deliberations, to correct that "mistake," was lame as all get-out. Listen to the whole video if you need more explanation than that.

And in a country ostensibly governed of, by and for The People, we represent the power, and we are the principality under which prosecutors, cops and all of government are subservient. It is Titus 3 and/or Romans 13 and/or any other Biblical mentions of submitting to worldly authorities that validates the notion that the founding of the United States of America was inspired by the Bible to give mankind His gifts of freedom and prosperity.

Next.

Blues
Click to expand...

No, not "next". You addressed (partially) one portion of my post. What, no multi-quote dissection on how stupid you think I am for not agreeing with you?
 
BluesStringer said:
And right on schedule.....
Click to expand...
You didn't answer the question however...the MO statute you are referring to states that deadly force can only be used on someone who an officer would reasonably believe would endanger life or inflict serious physical injury if not apprehended immediately, or someone who has committed a felony. But I'm guessing to them, if you've just committed or are committing a felony, then you apply to the former.
 
Courtney.cj.chen said:
I'm not going to bother. State all the case laws you want. But verdict by jury is often based on feelings as innate as mine. That boy committed a crime and the cop was doing his job. And the GJ agrees.
Click to expand...
Courtney, you are wasting your breath on someone who is so blind... he actually believes that 12 men and women, both black and white after viewing all the evidence, was a conspiracy.. that " the fix was already in " ... that all cops put on their bulletproof vest every day with the mind set that" I'm going to kill me a back kid today ".. because the fix is in... this guy is hardly a person of logical reasoning... so don't waste your time with him, I already have him on ignore and only get to laugh at his words when someone quotes him.... yeah its a conspiracy.... what a laugh, and the way these blacks act in their willful destruction is something that we all see as not happening ( yeah right )... these black folk, bring on every type of stereotypical idea of just who many black people are, lawless, opportunist looking to " burn this mother down" rob, and get over..
these stupid black people, want respect???? that's the biggest joke... we do not respect them...because of who they are, and what they represent to society.. Are all black bad? of course not, but the black we see o9n the front page of the news paper carrying out stolen property. and rioting and burning their own community. is where they bring in the loss of respect, who want to respect them? they don't even respect themselves or their own community or the citizens and property in it,,
 
Isn't it funny that most on this forum fight and call the anti gun liberal media liars when they report on how gun owners, CC'ers, OC'ers and pro gun groups are a bunch of blood thirsty people who get up and go out looking for someone they can shoot! But we have a few on this forum that will believe everything the same media misquotes, lies and twists the facts to fit their narrative when a cop is involved! There is VERY few times the MSM got anything right from the start. They always run with something when that is what they WANT the story to be! Every time there is a shooting MSM wants, hopes and prays that it will involve a cop or a CC'er who kills someone just for the heck of it!

These same ones who can not admit to anyone or themselves that "perhaps" they were mistaken and jumped to conclusions before ALL the facts were in, I hope they will be as understanding as some on here has been when some of us get something wrong. But I doubt it!

Some people can NEVER admit they could EVER be wrong on anything!!!! Perhaps it is because they are told by their "better" half how wrong they are every day!!! :sarcastic:
 
Blues (and others), in case you missed it, here is a letter from the protesters released after the GJ verdict was announce. These are the people you are aligning yourself with.
The Results Are In
-
An Open Letter from Protestors On The Grand Jury Decision (11.24.14)
-
In Ferguson, a wound bleeds. For 108 days, we have been in a state of prolonged and protracted grief. In that time, we have found community with one another, bonding together as family around the simple notion that our love for our community compels us to fight for our community. We have had no choice but to cling together in hope, faith, love, and indomitable determination to capture that ever-escaping reality of justice. After 108 days, that bleeding wound has been reopened, salt poured in, insult added to the deepest of injury. On August 9th, we found ourselves pushed into unknown territory, learning day by day, minute by minute, to lead and support a movement bigger than ourselves, the most important of our lifetime. We were indeed unprepared to begin with, and even in our maturation through these 108 days, we find ourselves reinjured, continually heartbroken, and robbed of even the remote possibility of judicial resolution. A life has been violently taken before it could barely begin. In this moment, we know, beyond any doubt, that no one will be held accountable within the confines of a system to which we were taught to pledge allegiance. The very hands with which we pledged that allegiance were not enough to save Mike in surrender. Once again, in our community, in our country, that pledge has returned to us void.
-
For 108 days, we have continuously been admonished that we should “let the system work,” and wait to see what the results are. The results are in.
-
And we still don’t have justice.
-
This fight for the dignity of our people, for the importance of our lives, for the protection of our children, is one that did not begin Michael’s murder and will not end with this announcement. The ‘system’ you have told us to rely on has kept us on the margins of society. This system has housed us in her worst homes, educated our children in her worst schools, locked up our men at disproportionate rates and shamed our women for receiving the support they need to be our mothers. This system you have admonished us to believe in has consistently, unfailingly, and unabashedly let us down and kicked us out, time and time again.
-
This same system in which you’ve told us to trust--this same system meant to serve and protect citizens-- has once again killed two more of our unarmed brothers: Walking up a staircase and shot down in cold blood, we fight for Akai Gurley; Playing with a toy after police had been warned that he held a bb gun and not a real gun at only twelve years old, we fight for Tamir Rice.
-
So you will likely ask yourself, now that the announcement has been made, why we will still take to the streets? Why we will still raise our voices to protect our community? Why will still cry tears of heartbreak and sing songs of determination? We will continue to struggle because without struggle, there is no progress. We will continue to disrupt life, because without disruption we fear for our lives.
-
We will continue because Assata reminds us daily that “it is our duty to fight for freedom. It is our duty to win. We must love and support one another. We have nothing to lose but our chains.”
-
Those chains have bound us-all of us- up for too long. And do not be mistaken- if one of us is bound, we all are. We are, altogether, bound up in a system that continues to treat some men better than others. A system that preserves some and disregards others. A system that protects the rights of some and does not guard the rights of all. And until this system is dismantled, until the status quo that deems us less valuable than others is no longer acceptable or profitable, we will struggle. We will fight. We will protest. Grief, even in its most righteous state, cannot last forever. No community can sustain itself this way. So we still continue to stand for progress, and stand alongside anyone who will make a personal investment in ending our grief and will take a personal stake in achieving justice. We march on with purpose. The work continues. This is not a moment but a movement. The movement lives.
-
This letter was written and signed by numerous protestors and supporters, too many to list. Permission is granted in advance for reproduction by all outlets.
Click to expand...
 
whodat2710 said:
Your argument is blown by that one word. As you know, when a law states specific parts, and they are not separates by OR or some other word that denotes the law may be considered piecemeal, one disqualifying factor is all that is needed for the law not to apply. In this case it is also a fact that he was not fleeing when he was shot. As seen in the convenience store video we know for a fact that he did pose a threat of serious physical injury to others. Without diverting and obfuscating, can you please tell me which part of this I have wrong?
-
The above law is what gives the cops a right to defend themselves, and they receive training on when it does and does not apply. Since you would rather they not be able to defend themselves, your ire is understandable. Odd for a Christian man to have such hate for cops:

-
Regarding reading 1500 pages of testimony and evidence, sorry but I don't have time. I am in the middle of getting ready for finals taking 16 credit hours of classes. Commenting on here is a break from that. Was the Grand Jury a sham? If you say so, and it figures because McCullough is a Democrat. They always believe the end justifies the means. I also know that there are millions of race baiters across the country, including the President and Attorney General, looking for a way to pull victory out of the jaws of defeat. It is odd that non of them has reached the same conclusion as you and pushed the issue.
Click to expand...

I would have to disagree. The DOJ is looking into this as a civil rights violation and that would include the possibility that they will use the SCOTUS ruling as just that. But the question the grand jury was first asked was to look at the evidence and see if they felt that DW had acted within the law. Juries will vote on things that may come in from outside even what is presented by the prosecutor or how he/she presents it.

As for Blues concern that MO's law was not changed to comply with the SCOTUS ruling, here is Florida's.
776.05 Law enforcement officers; use of force in making an arrest.—A law enforcement officer, or any person whom the officer has summoned or directed to assist him or her, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. The officer is justified in the use of any force:
(1) Which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or herself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest;
(2) When necessarily committed in retaking felons who have escaped; or
(3) When necessarily committed in arresting felons fleeing from justice. However, this subsection shall not constitute a defense in any civil action for damages brought for the wrongful use of deadly force unless the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by such flight and, when feasible, some warning had been given, and:
(a) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon poses a threat of death or serious physical harm to the officer or others; or
(b) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm to another person.
Click to expand...
 
Before the rant begins, I know this particular story is not directly related to MB or Ferguson. The relation (the relatives attitude) is merely the thug mentality that is pervasive, and creating problems everywhere, including Ferguson.
Link Removed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 191 (members: 0, guests: 191)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
49,544
Messages
611,260
Members
74,959
Latest member
defcon

Share this page

Back
Top