Darren Wilson's Side of the Story

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by icenine

I think Wilson was running toward Brown as he fired...no?

The witness in this report says that Brown fled, and Wilson pursued. He does not say that Wilson fired until after Brown stopped and turned around. He says that Brown took a step towards Wilson and then was shot. After that, he was staggering to keep his feet and more shots were fired.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/c...88ec79349.html

Other witness reports differ. But despite this witness's opinion that the shooting was 'murder,' I think that if this account is accepted Wilson is off the hook. Even one step towards the officer can be interpreted as aggression. Brown may already have been 'going down' when the last shots were fired, but the officer cannot be expected to evaluate the condition of a subject who is still on his feet, instantly and at a distance, and know with certainty that there is no further threat.

But I still reach a very different conclusion if we accept the reports that shots were fired at Brown while he was running away, with his back to the officer.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

...the officer cannot be expected to evaluate the condition of a subject who is still on his feet, instantly and at a distance, and know with certainty that there is no further threat.

Precisely. Which is why you keep shooting until the threat is neutralized.

Originally Posted by donquixote99

But I still reach a very different conclusion if we accept the reports that shots were fired at Brown while he was running away, with his back to the officer.

Yes. We accept that Wilson should have been a better shot.

David Klinger, an associate professor in the department of criminology and criminal justice at the University of Missouri–St Louis and a former officer with the Los Angeles police department, said there are two permissible circumstances in which an officer can use lethal force.

• Constitutionally, a police officer can shoot a suspect who is threatening the life of the officer, a fellow officer or a member of the public, said Klinger, a use-of-force expert. This is known as the “defence of life” standard.
  
  
• An officer can also shoot a fleeing suspect if the officer believes the suspect has committed a violent felony and his or her escape would pose a significant and serious threat, he said.

Brown just attacked an officer and was fleeing into society (discounting robbery). This shooting was GOLD from jump.

Ugly? To be sure. Desired? Hell no. Justified? 100%.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by Zeke

Precisely. Which is why you keep shooting until the threat is neutralized.



Yes. We accept that Wilson should have been a better shot.

David Klinger, an associate professor in the department of criminology and criminal justice at the University of Missouri–St Louis and a former officer with the Los Angeles police department, said there are two permissible circumstances in which an officer can use lethal force.

• Constitutionally, a police officer can shoot a suspect who is threatening the life of the officer, a fellow officer or a member of the public, said Klinger, a use-of-force expert. This is known as the “defence of life” standard.
  
  
• An officer can also shoot a fleeing suspect if the officer believes the suspect has committed a violent felony and his or her escape would pose a significant and serious threat, he said.

Brown just attacked an officer and was fleeing into society (discounting robbery). This shooting was GOLD from jump.

Ugly? To be sure. Desired? Hell no. Justified? 100%.

Zeke, if the shooting by Wilson was "GOLD" as you have justified it, why were there riots in Ferguson?

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Zeke

Precisely. Which is why you keep shooting until the threat is neutralized.



Yes. We accept that Wilson should have been a better shot.

David Klinger, an associate professor in the department of criminology and criminal justice at the University of Missouri–St Louis and a former officer with the Los Angeles police department, said there are two permissible circumstances in which an officer can use lethal force.

• Constitutionally, a police officer can shoot a suspect who is threatening the life of the officer, a fellow officer or a member of the public, said Klinger, a use-of-force expert. This is known as the “defence of life” standard.
  
  
• An officer can also shoot a fleeing suspect if the officer believes the suspect has committed a violent felony and his or her escape would pose a significant and serious threat, he said.

Brown just attacked an officer and was fleeing into society (discounting robbery). This shooting was GOLD from jump.

Ugly? To be sure. Desired? Hell no. Justified? 100%.

You seem mixed up. The shooting was ugly, undesired, GOLD, and Wilson should have been a better shot and plugged the guy in the back?

You need to make up your mind, Zeke.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Zeke

[*]An officer can also shoot a fleeing suspect if the officer believes the suspect has committed a violent felony and his or her escape would pose a significant and serious threat, he said.

That's terribly loose. It's pretty close to 'at will.' It doesn't even say 'reasonably believes.' It just says 'believes.'

I wonder what the statutory language is. I don't hold with this as law, as you have presented it. If that's the law, it needs to be revised.

And I do think Wilson was shooting at Brown as Brown fled. Otherwise, what makes him stop running and turn around, as all the witnesses have said he did?

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by BeamOn

Zeke, if the shooting by Wilson was "GOLD" as you have justified it, why were there riots in Ferguson?

Entitlement.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

You seem mixed up. The shooting was ugly, undesired, GOLD, and Wilson should have been a better shot and plugged the guy in the back?

You need to make up your mind, Zeke.

My mind is well secure.

The shoot was golden. Nothing wrong with doing so considering the circumstance.

It still sucks.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

That's terribly loose. It's pretty close to 'at will.' It doesn't even say 'reasonably believes.' It just says 'believes.'

I wonder what the statutory language is. I don't hold with this as law, as you have presented it. If that's the law, it needs to be revised.

And I do think Wilson was shooting at Brown as Brown fled. Otherwise, what makes him stop running and turn around, as all the witnesses have said he did?

You miss the point: even IF Wilson shot at Brown as he fled, it's 100% codified as a GOOD SHOOT.

[sheltiedave]

Continue until compliance.

So would Brown be complying if he stopped, verbally surrendered, and attempted to get to the ground? What did Wilson tell him to do? Or did Wilson exit the car, start shooting, stop, and then start again, until Brown was dead?

It sounds like once you get in a physical confrontation with a cop, there is no such thing as compliance until you are dead, if we are to go by the Brown situation.

I am glad of one thing....I don't have to worry about us ever donating to any police organization again. You guys are jobbers.

[icenine]

You have to hand it to the St. Louis prosecutor's leak friendly Grand Jury. Now there are black witnesses who back Wilson's story...but are too afraid to come out and say so because of fear.