TexasCHLforum.com

From what I can gather, Brown had just held up a store. The witnesses that say he was holding his arms up and surrendering were in the store with Brown and obviously knew that he just robbed it. I don't know what happened next but Brown was shot. Doesn't sound like Brown was this nice pre-tech school student, more like a bully-thief. More to come before this is over but even Brown's family have confirmed that it was their son on the video robbing the store. What would the reports be if the store owner had shot Brown?

Good article:
http://www.lawofficer.com/article/lifel ... a-ferguson" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here's the type of thing I was talking about where you build rapport with the people in your community

http://www.newsy.com/videos/cop-busts-a ... AfvuF6t9Yw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

howdy wrote:Good article:
http://www.lawofficer.com/article/lifel ... a-ferguson" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Until I see facts, I will not indict the officer involved in the shooting nor the methods of the police dodging rocks and Molotov cocktails.

Video of the Strong Arm Robbery committed by Michael Brown before he tangled with the LEO. He was a very violent thug.


http://news.yahoo.com/turmoil-tear-gas- ... 36976.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well things just get more and more crazy.

This cat (18 and 300 lbs does not get the term kid from me) was lawless enough to rob a store for cigars (why?). Then crazy enough to attack a LEO in the police car and try to get the LEO's gun? Now I have no idea if the shooting was justified (IANAL) and I was not there, nor have I heard a definitive narrative. But an innocent college kids he was not.

rotor wrote:From what I can gather, Brown had just held up a store. The witnesses that say he was holding his arms up and surrendering were in the store with Brown and obviously knew that he just robbed it. I don't know what happened next but Brown was shot. Doesn't sound like Brown was this nice pre-tech school student, more like a bully-thief. More to come before this is over but even Brown's family have confirmed that it was their son on the video robbing the store. What would the reports be if the store owner had shot Brown?

That is totally not true. There are four witnesses (that I am aware of) that claimed Brown had his hands up when he was shot at least two more times. Only one of the four was in the store with him - Dorian Johnson. The other three were in the neighborhood, heard the commotion and came out to observe what was going on - Piaget Crenshaw, Tiffany Mitchell and one other woman whose name i don't know yet.

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=NineQJpY_uo[/youtube]
[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=_qo14KOcQxw[/youtube]
[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=AlMjhoYPmZ8[/youtube]

baldeagle wrote:

rotor wrote:From what I can gather, Brown had just held up a store. The witnesses that say he was holding his arms up and surrendering were in the store with Brown and obviously knew that he just robbed it. I don't know what happened next but Brown was shot. Doesn't sound like Brown was this nice pre-tech school student, more like a bully-thief. More to come before this is over but even Brown's family have confirmed that it was their son on the video robbing the store. What would the reports be if the store owner had shot Brown?

That is totally not true. There are four witnesses (that I am aware of) that claimed Brown had his hands up when he was shot at least two more times. Only one of the four was in the store with him - Dorian Johnson. The other three were in the neighborhood, heard the commotion and came out to observe what was going on - Piaget Crenshaw, Tiffany Mitchell and one other woman whose name i don't know yet.

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=NineQJpY_uo[/youtube]
[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=_qo14KOcQxw[/youtube]
[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=AlMjhoYPmZ8[/youtube]

I can't refute what the witnesses said but the youtube 1 appeared to me that the girls were led on by the reporter, youtube 2 I really couldn't interpret and youtube 3 was the man in the store with Brown during the robbery. All of this needs to play out a bit before we can draw conclusions. The only "truth" I can see is that Brown just robbed a store, and sometime after was shot and killed by the police. To listen to Dorian Johnson you would think the two were just innocent guys out on a stroll.

At the ill-timed press conference yesterday by Ferguson Police Chief Jackson, he announced both the identity of the LEO who shot Michael Brown, and that the named LEO did not know at the time that Brown was an identified suspect in a very recent convenience store robbery. Those sympathetic to Brown claim that he was unarmed at the time of the shooting.

Assuming for the time being that the LEO was unaware of Brown being suspected of the robbery at the time of the shooting, I would suggest that both the charge that Brown was an identified suspect in the robbery, and the claim that Brown was unarmed at the time of the shooting, are both irrelevant to the issue of whether or not Brown was lawfully shot.

I will further charge that the publication of Brown being suspected of committing a recent felony along with a video of the event, and the fact that Brown's supporters loudly and publicly claim him to have been unarmed, are also both simply intended to inflame public opinion in opposite directions.

I believe we will learn more and that jumping to conclusions in the absence of that learning is perhaps irresponsible.

Jim

rotor wrote:I can't refute what the witnesses said but the youtube 1 appeared to me that the girls were led on by the reporter, youtube 2 I really couldn't interpret and youtube 3 was the man in the store with Brown during the robbery. All of this needs to play out a bit before we can draw conclusions. The only "truth" I can see is that Brown just robbed a store, and sometime after was shot and killed by the police. To listen to Dorian Johnson you would think the two were just innocent guys out on a stroll.

Johnson clearly isn't revealing everything he knows about that day (he later admitted he was with Brown when the robbery occurred), but the description of the sequence of events is consistent throughout all four accounts.
1) There was some sort of altercation at the patrol car that involved the officer and Brown
2) A shot was fired from inside the patrol car
3) Brown began running away
4) The officer pursued, firing as he did
5) Brown turned around and put his hands up
6) The officer fired at least two more shots after Brown put his hands up

No matter how you slice that, it doesn't look good for the officer. Hopefully the forensics will reveal the truth, although that's by no means certain. One of the problems the officer has is that you cannot use lethal force on a fleeing suspect except under certain circumstances. Since the stop was for a minor violation (walking in the street), the justification for the use of lethal force appears not to exist, even for the period of time before Brown is described as having his hands in the air.

Only a thorough investigation can reveal what actually happened (hopefully), but the accounts of witnesses combined with the statements of the police chief (that the officer did not know he was a robbery suspect at the time of the encounter) make it appear likely that this officer has a steep hill to climb to be found justified for his actions.

b322da wrote:At the ill-timed press conference yesterday by Ferguson Police Chief Jackson, he announced both the identity of the LEO who shot Michael Brown, and that the named LEO did not know at the time that Brown was an identified suspect in a very recent convenience store robbery. Those sympathetic to Brown claim that he was unarmed at the time of the shooting.

Assuming for the time being that the LEO was unaware of Brown being suspected of the robbery at the time of the shooting, I would suggest that both the charge that Brown was an identified suspect in the robbery, and the claim that Brown was unarmed at the time of the shooting, are both irrelevant to the issue of whether or not Brown was lawfully shot.

I will further charge that the publication of Brown being suspected of committing a recent felony along with a video of the event, and the fact that Brown's supporters loudly and publicly claim him to have been unarmed, are also both simply intended to inflame public opinion in opposite directions.

I believe we will learn more and that jumping to conclusions in the absence of that learning is perhaps irresponsible.

Jim

The police chief has stated that Brown was unarmed.

A lot happened on that road we dont know. We dont know what was said, we dont know why the officer felt the need to react in the manner he did, we dont know if the thugs had a gun & handed it off before the LEO's arrived.

We do know that the robber had access to a gun, we know he would use physical violence, we also know that he didnt have respect for others. In regards to his buddy, the eye witness, we know he is dishonest & also a thug.

We do know that irresponsible, quick on the draw bullies dont usually make officer of the year. This policeman and his family are going through hell. The least we can do is give truth a chance.

Ferguson Officer Darren Wilson earned police honor before shooting

https://news.yahoo.com/photos-ferguson- ... 55893.html

I heard this on the news and finally found an article about it:

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/08/12/awesome- ... ring-riot/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jim Beaux wrote:A lot happened on that road we dont know. We dont know what was said, we dont know why the officer felt the need to react in the manner he did, we dont know if the thugs had a gun & handed it off before the LEO's arrived.

In order for this to be true, someone would have had to hand the gun to someone else in the presence of the officer. I've not seen anything indicating that that might even remotely be the case.

Jim Beaux wrote:We do know that the robber had access to a gun

How do we know this? I've seen no reports of that.

Jim Beaux wrote:, we know he would use physical violence, we also know that he didnt have respect for others. In regards to his buddy, the eye witness, we know he is dishonest & also a thug.

While all of that is true, there are three independent corroborating witnesses whose account agrees in every major element with his.

Jim Beaux wrote:We do know that irresponsible, quick on the draw bullies dont usually make officer of the year. This policeman and his family are going through heck. The least we can do is give truth a chance.

Ferguson Officer Darren Wilson earned police honor before shooting

https://news.yahoo.com/photos-ferguson- ... 55893.html

All of that is true as well. But the issues in this case are not whether or not Brown was a thug or whether or not Wilson was a stellar officer. The issue is was Officer Wilson's use of force justified given the circumstances of the incident. At this point that seems like it will be difficult to prove in the affirmative.

We absolutely have to wait for the investigation to play out, and neither Brown nor Wilson should be "convicted" of anything until the investigation is concluded, and, if warranted, charges are brought. Analyzing this from a CHL-use of lethal force-lawful behavior perspective however, I'm pretty certain that I would be in jail while the investigation proceeded. LEOs have a bit more leeway than we do (and I'm not sure I agree that they should have), and they get placed on administrative leave during the investigation, but it's going to be critically important that the investigation address the accounts of these witnesses and, if Officer Wilson is judged to have acted lawfully, the reasoning for the outcome be explained carefully and thoroughly to the community.

baldeagle wrote:

Jim Beaux wrote:A lot happened on that road we dont know. We dont know what was said, we dont know why the officer felt the need to react in the manner he did, we dont know if the thugs had a gun & handed it off before the LEO's arrived.

In order for this to be true, someone would have had to hand the gun to someone else in the presence of the officer. I've not seen anything indicating that that might even remotely be the case.

Jim Beaux wrote:We do know that the robber had access to a gun

How do we know this? I've seen no reports of that.

Jim Beaux wrote:, we know he would use physical violence, we also know that he didnt have respect for others. In regards to his buddy, the eye witness, we know he is dishonest & also a thug.

While all of that is true, there are three independent corroborating witnesses whose account agrees in every major element with his.

Jim Beaux wrote:We do know that irresponsible, quick on the draw bullies dont usually make officer of the year. This policeman and his family are going through heck. The least we can do is give truth a chance.

Ferguson Officer Darren Wilson earned police honor before shooting

https://news.yahoo.com/photos-ferguson- ... 55893.html

All of that is true as well. But the issues in this case are not whether or not Brown was a thug or whether or not Wilson was a stellar officer. The issue is was Officer Wilson's use of force justified given the circumstances of the incident. At this point that seems like it will be difficult to prove in the affirmative.

We absolutely have to wait for the investigation to play out, and neither Brown nor Wilson should be "convicted" of anything until the investigation is concluded, and, if warranted, charges are brought. Analyzing this from a CHL-use of lethal force-lawful behavior perspective however, I'm pretty certain that I would be in jail while the investigation proceeded. LEOs have a bit more leeway than we do (and I'm not sure I agree that they should have), and they get placed on administrative leave during the investigation, but it's going to be critically important that the investigation address the accounts of these witnesses and, if Officer Wilson is judged to have acted lawfully, the reasoning for the outcome be explained carefully and thoroughly to the community.

Youve countered numerous suggestions that we wait for the evidence with supposition on top of supposition - and regardless of your assurances to the contrary, it seems you have already decided on the guilt of the LEO. When those of us say wait for the facts, it cant be debated, it's the right thing to do.

BTW there is a picture of the thug with a wad of cash in his mouth and a pistol pointing at the camera.