Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 18, 2014 -> 03:58 PM) Okay, but that doesn't happen when they're still 35' away. It's a pretty interesting case though if what this story says actually happened. You've got a huge dude that just tried to steal your gun and beat you up. You, as the police, successfully fended him off. He runs, you pursue as is your duty. And when you say freeze, instead of freezing, he runs at you with the clear intent of trying to hurt you. Again, assuming this is true for the sake of the argument, what was the officers alternative other than to shoot? Hop into his car and drive away? Do we want them to do that? Wouldn't that just invite more attacks on police? A baton won't help. A taser might, but I don't think he had one on him. Mace? Maybe, that's not fool proof and you have to be somewhat accurate for it to work. I'm not sure what the answer is there. Back to reality, do we know where the officer was when he fired? Was he still at the car? Did he try and pursue for a little bit? I think that's a very important fact here. 35 feet away really discredits your fear of being killed/seriously hurt. If he had taken 5-10 steps after Brown, and was within 10-15 feet, that's a much more "acceptable" use of deadly force. Then you're at least seconds away from being attacked again.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Aug 18, 2014 -> 03:30 PM) Even if that's the truth nobody will believe it in that town. Yeah i'm pretty sure he's already been sentenced to life in prison. Check the first 5 pages of this thread.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Aug 18, 2014 -> 02:35 PM) I had a friend whose house was broken into... by a drunk teen who was sneaking his was back into the wrong house. Unfortunately, drunk teens are difficult to reason with. Fortunately, my friend didn't shoot the kid when he wouldn't leave the house. Like anything else, break-ins involve shades of grey. My personal opinion is that people are too quick to shoot first without attempting to assess the level of the threat. On Michael Brown: (1) to Jenks, if the police can afford a tank, they can afford to put cameras on dashboards. That is in everyone's best interest - both to protect from bad officers who abuse their authority, and to protect the city from frivolous lawsuits. (2) There's a reason that certain neighborhoods have bad relationships with the police. When I was a prosecutor, we received lots of drug complaints - all from one or two neighborhoods - that started with something along the lines of "Suspect failed to signal before changing lanes" or "Suspect riding bike without light." Naturally, those ended with an arrest for drug possession. Strangely, you didn't hear about those types of traffic spots in affluent areas. (3) There are amazing officers who act by the book and selflessly put their lives on the line every single day. But recognize that their are bad apples out there. And, as Jenks said, in a court of law, juries have a tendency to give an officer's testimony greater weight for no reason other than the uniform they are wearing. The point here is simple. Police outreach to communities is huge. As with the second example above, you have a bigger influence on the community when you are working to make things better rather than working to improve stats. There are multiple reasons for this though. 1) affluent areas just don't have the same number of cops patrolling and pulling people over for insignificant traffic violations, 2) although drugs are a problem in affluent areas, generally the people are about 1000 times smarter about it (i.e., don't do it in public places, don't drive with it, don't deal it, etc.) and 3), my CPD buddy who works in a gang unit will tell you in his experience pulling someone over in the real s***ty neighborhoods will uncover some felony level drug/drug amount or a gun like 75% or more of the time, versus 25% or less in affluent or even moderate neighborhoods. I mean it's like college towns. They pull people over between 12-3am on bulls*** pretenses to find drunk drivers. I got pulled over once for having a graduation tassel "obstructing" my view. It's just guilt by association. Instead of college, it's poor, crime-ridden areas known for drugs.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Aug 18, 2014 -> 02:33 PM) Did the toxicology report come out? If anything that should have calmed him down. Information from the med. examiners report has been "leaked." http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-na...-in-his-system/

She really makes my 6:30-7:00am Saturday/Sunday mornings at least tolerable.

He had pot in his body! Gang-banger thug. Case closed. Sigh.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 18, 2014 -> 01:52 PM) well in that hypothetical, that's exactly what's at question. Police can't immediately go to deadly force if they're assaulted. If the guy is resisting arrest and hits you a couple of times, that doesn't (necessarily, usually) justify deadly force. Again, it all depends on the circumstances. If you're alone and the guy is 6'3", 300 lbs? One punch might be enough if he knocks you on the ground and hovers over you.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 18, 2014 -> 01:31 PM) To me, this reads like you'd give carte blanche for deadly force any time there's a physical altercation. It depends on the severity of the altercation, but yeah, i'm much more willing to allow cops to defend themselves than to expect them to show some unnatural restraint in the name of protecting some moronic criminal. I mean what kind of person is going to punch a cop repeatedly to the point that a cop would fear for his/her life?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 18, 2014 -> 01:23 PM) Even if I intend to keep punching the cop, they can't just shoot me dead on the spot. They could use less-than-lethal weapons (tazers, mace) or otherwise physically restrain me. They could even go after me with a nightstick, depending on the details. But not every physical assault is life-threatening. There's no chance in hell i'd convict a cop for shooting a guy that's punching him in the face repeatedly, even if he had tazers or a mace on his belt. I'm not going to question that guys belief that he's about to die and needs to defend himself to the death. In that situation, if you're stupid enough to assault a cop like that, you deserve to be shot. Now if you're talking about a situation where there are like 3 cops and one assailant and the assailant happens to get a few punches in, I might be willing to say that deadly force isn't warranted. But it would depend on the circumstances and how strongly the officer thought his life was in danger.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 18, 2014 -> 01:16 PM) Force, sure, but there's a force continuum. Punching a cop in the face doesn't entitle them to shoot you. I think it depends if you're going to keep punching or if you punch the cop and then run away.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Aug 18, 2014 -> 01:13 PM) Would help if we knew more about the nature of the scuffle in/at the vehicle. If Brown was physically violent at that point, and then started coming at the cop again after the short chase, I think he has a reasonable need to use force. The problem is that doesn't extend into the future indefinitely. They had a skirmish, maybe for the gun or not, but I think it's evident that Brown did get away and the officer was no longer in danger. Even if he ran at him...I dunno, that to me doesn't seem like enough. But I guess he was a big dude and he didn't have much fear of fighting a cop the first time.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 18, 2014 -> 12:56 PM) Any of the multiple lawyers here have any knowledge of deadly force laws? Would the hypothetical scenario of Brown starting to run back towards the police officer from 35+ feet away even justify the use of deadly force? (720 ILCS 5/7-5) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-5) Sec. 7-5. Peace officer's use of force in making arrest. (a) A peace officer, or any person whom he has summoned or directed to assist him, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. He is justified in the use of any force which he reasonably believes to be necessary to effect the arrest and of any force which he reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest. However, he is justified in using force likely to cause death or great bodily harm only when he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or such other person, or when he reasonably believes both that: (1) Such force is necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by resistance or escape; and (2) The person to be arrested has committed or attempted a forcible felony which involves the infliction or threatened infliction of great bodily harm or is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon, or otherwise indicates that he will endanger human life or inflict great bodily harm unless arrested without delay. (b) A peace officer making an arrest pursuant to an invalid warrant is justified in the use of any force which he would be justified in using if the warrant were valid, unless he knows that the warrant is invalid. (Source: P.A. 84-1426.) It's based on an "objective reasonableness" looking at the totality of the circumstances. edit: that's Illinois statutory law. A seminal US Supreme Court case echoed the "great bodily harm or death" standard.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 18, 2014 -> 12:36 PM) fwiw it seems to be the organizations that have the worst track records of abuse that are the most intransigent when it comes to installing dash cams. Could be, but it's still a roadblock to getting them installed. I doubt Cook County or Chicago will be doing it anytime soon.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Aug 18, 2014 -> 12:31 PM) I would simply counter that when a majority of the country feels strongly that the cameras would make them feel safer, then it will happen, regardless of the cost. Would you put your 3 year old son or daughter in a daycare center that had 6 cameras taking constant footage or would you save $50-100 per month for a center without any cameras? I'd have to see some data that those cameras would keep people "safer." If anything the major impact is being able to see what happened after the fact. That's beneficial, sure, but I dunno that it's worth the cost, both short-term and long-term. And no, I probably would not pay more for it. Mine now doesn't have one. Most don't. 99% never have. And yet the world moves on. Our society sucks these days because we overreact to extremely rare crimes/events.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Aug 18, 2014 -> 12:02 PM) If he didn't make an effort to pat him down, that's going to come out. The old "made a motion like he was pulling out a gun" could be used as a mitigating factor in every shooting...is there anyone who can corroborate this besides the officer himself? Mini-cameras on the shoulders/collars of the officers are going to be the only solution. It's doubtful at this point any officer or "community witness" is either going to provide honest/truthful evidence. How would either side trust the other? Going back to this....this is why you don't f*** with cops. This is why you follow their instructions. At the end of the day, they will almost always have the "justified" argument on their side, whether it's right or wrong. I know that sucks for people who think the police are out to get them, and for people who are actual victims of police abuse, but you gotta win that battle in the civil courts, not by fighting the cops in the streets. I'm guessing the shoulder cameras are too costly at this point. And I wonder if the various municipalities will even want them when they become more affordable. Yes, it might save them from a lawsuit like this one, but how many more is it going to start?

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Aug 18, 2014 -> 12:10 PM) We would know what happened if the officer's car had a basic dashboard cam. What was the basic layout here? I always assumed, and I guess i'm not sure why, that the police vehicle was facing one way, and the shooting and everything happened behind it. Is that totally wrong? Or do we even know at this point?

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Aug 18, 2014 -> 12:04 PM) Right... I get that. I also get that both sides of this issue are extremely on edge. Your earlier post, however, seems to say that because of a single incident where a police office was shot at, the actions of police can now not be criticized. Further, your post is written is a way to make it seem like it's a battleground with police under constant fire. I have seen one incident of shots fired at officers (which is one too many, but also shouldn't rise to the level of no criticizing police). Again, I understand why the police are on edge, but the police arresting and threatening the media is almost always worthy of criticism. I don't think it's been once incident, certainly not with the molotov cocktails. And I don't think it "almost always" deserves criticism. Media members test boundaries all the time to get the scoop, the shot, the interview, whatever. They disregard instructions constantly. I'm not excusing poor police work, false arrests, etc. But to me the Gawker post is more about piling on than reporting useful information. The last 3-4 days if you read twitter and blogs, it's a constant stream of "omg! the police yelled at me!" type quotes from media members. OF COURSE media members are going to be upset because that just gets them more attention.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Aug 18, 2014 -> 11:45 AM) Once again, why is the officer using deadly force if Brown isn't armed....? You're telling me that you don't shoot him in the leg or knee or at least try before he gets closer? It's not like this guy is going to be "quick" or be able to fly at an officer at that size. And six shots or more? Unless he was crazed on meth or some type of drug, then it's going to be very difficult to explain this one. That's why I asked if he had been patted down (and thus the officer knew before shooting whether he was armed or not). For all we know Brown ran away, turned around, and then made a motion like he was pulling out a gun. A cop probably SHOULD aim to disarm/kill, and maybe he did that since there are numerous shots to the right hand/arm/shoulder. But in a split second if you really believe your life is in danger I don't think you can process that decision so quickly.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 18, 2014 -> 11:42 AM) I can't find a press report of that actually happening. Link? http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationw...0818-story.html

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Aug 18, 2014 -> 11:36 AM) Threatening to shoot reporters if cameras aren't turned off seems... very, very worthy of criticism. Not sure why that would be ridiculous. Given that cops are being shot at down there (with real bullets), it would seem reasonable to be pissed that media members aren't turning off gigantic flood lights in the area. Sure, it's not the nicest way to tell somebody to turn a light off, but I would have little patience in that situation as well. edit: oh and the molotov cocktails, and a reported "infiltration attempt" of a command post.

I'm sure the media is being 100% compliant. I get that the cops definitely went overboard for a while there, but now the criticism is getting a little ridiculous.

Head up to Fort Collins. Cool college town with a bunch of good breweries to try. New Belgium, O'Dells, and some smaller ones.

I don't remember where we were talking about data security and breaches with medical records, but here's a big whoops: http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/18/technology...hack/index.html Doesn't sound like they got medical data, just SS#'s and identifying info.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 18, 2014 -> 10:03 AM) A guy trying to "evade" is not going to be a threat to the police officer. A guy trying to charge directly at him doesn't sound like "evading" to me, a guy evading sounds like he's trying to "get away". Maybe you mean the same thing by the language there but it didn't sound like it. I was referring to the beginning, when there was some kind of fight or struggle at the car and then Brown ran away.

QUOTE (scs787 @ Aug 18, 2014 -> 09:40 AM) Was there any drugs found in his system? From what I've gathered he was shot in the arm a few times and STILL kept charging forward. Not sure what drug would allow this, if a drug is even needed depending on where at in the arm, or that what extent he was even charging forward. That could have happened in seconds though. I remember reading a psych report on shooting a few years ago and the natural instinct when shooting is to empty the clip. Cops have to be trained to not do that if possible.