Posted on 09/01/2014 6:11:58 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
We’ve now moved to a new stage of the racist reaction to the police killing of Michael Brown: the largely overt assertion that he deserved to be killed.
In the immediate aftermath of Brown, though unarmed, being shot “multiple times” after being stopped while walking in the middle of the street, the “ballad” being played in some quarters went like this: we don’t know all the facts so we shouldn’t rush to judgment.
But, once the Ferguson police released the video of Michael Brown purportedly snatching a box of cigars from the convenience store and intimidating its clerk, that advice was quickly replaced by that old standby: criminalizing the person who was killed.
Now, the slimers have simplified their defense of Brown’s killing. He was not an 18-year-old teenager, but a man-sized Black male 6’4” tall and well over 250 pounds was a threat to public safety. In other words: a “thug” – and therefore someone whom any White person should be able to execute with impunity.
(Excerpt) Read more at blackpressusa.com ...
And if Michael Brown had been shot dead by another black thug during an altercation or otherwise, the nation would never have heard about it, and Lee Daniels wouldn’t have bothered to write about it. The race hustlers like this author wouldn’t have cared in the least.
http://www.usadojo.com/articles/21-feet.htm
....So, you say to yourself, if there is no specified distance at which you can readily assume an armed assailant is too close and deadly force on your part is justified, how do you know when it’s okay to shoot? Just as with the use of deadly force against any threat, four factors must exist prior to your response with deadly force. 1) Opportunity: your assailant must have the opportunity to bring killing or crippling power to bear. This is the factor that is most affected by distance. A man with a knife can’t do you harm at fifty feet, but at contact distance he definitely can. How quickly he can close that distance and how quickly you can stop him has a direct affect on his opportunity to do you, or others, harm. 2) Ability: the assailant must have the ability to bring killing or crippling power to bear. Ability can exist in a number of forms such as weapons, overwhelming size, physical strength, force of numbers (in the case of more than one assailant) or special knowledge on either part. If the assailant has a gun or knife, that creates his ability. His size and/or strength can also create his ability to do you, or others, harm. If there is more than one assailant, together they stand a better chance of doing harm than when alone. Special knowledge is a two edged sword. You can have special knowledge of the assailant’s proven intent or skill; such as he’s a professional heavyweight boxer. That skill in heavyweight boxing is special knowledge that he possesses that makes him a greater threat. 3) Imminent jeopardy is the third factor and must exist prior to your deployment of deadly force. If the assailant does not present imminent jeopardy to you, or others, you cannot justify the use of deadly force. To some extent, “imminent” is controlled by distance. Again, that guy at fifty feet may not be presenting an imminent threat, but when he starts to move toward you, the threat he produces easily becomes imminent.
The fourth, and final, factor is preclusion. Any prudent person will normally make an attempt to escape or avoid the situation, which may lead to the use of deadly force. Police officers don’t have a requirement to retreat, and certainly conditions can exist wherein the police officer has no choice but to stand his ground. The duty to protect others may mandate that you face the threat without the option of running from it. The statement “preclusion is the fourth factor” truly means that avoiding the situation has been considered and is not a viable option. The officer must be able to articulate, along with all three other elements, why he didn’t, or couldn’t, avoid this deadly force confrontation. In the case of a man with a knife, bat, or other deadly contact weapon, once he (the bad guy) starts charging you (the police officer), his ability to close distance and deliver a killing or crippling injury is far greater than your ability to escape or stop his attack. If he is within the distance we typically train at with our handguns (twenty-five yards or seventy-five feet is usually the maximum distance), then preclusion is removed as soon as he begins his charge......
interesting but not a statute
- He had just committed strong-armed robbery and assaulted the store owner.
- He was either arrogant enough or crazy enough to draw attention to himself immediately after a robbery to walk down the middle of the street.
- And he had assaulted a cop in his own cruiser.
Sometimes the cop on point gets it right. I waited for facts to start coming out to pass judgement, but from the facts I have now seen, Brown was a walking crime wave that day. And all that went down in just the space of a few minutes. Lord knows what else would have happened if he had been given another half hour on the street.
No, I will repeat, supposedly the cop’s “protocol” was to pursue, this according to his girlfriend’s call in to the radio station.
This is the weak link. The cop was safe, Mikey had gone on. The cop didn’t have to pursue and was beyond the point of having to defend himself. The cop could have gotten backup and they could have arrested Mikey for robbery and assaulting a cop later. There was no immediacy to the situation at that particular second.
Yet, claims of “protocol” to pursue in an attempt to cover the cop getting out of the car, by himself, injured (supposedly, we have no actual information on that, just a rumor of eye socket injury later contradicted) to pursue.
Nonsensical.
common sense and training, preplanning for situations...so one can act with greater speed and act correctly...statutes don’t always tell one what to do, and neither does case law.
statutes use the word reasonable but don’t go into detail what is reasonable..but then you knew that, that is a split second decision made by the cop on the street facing all kinds of situations that arebeyond the ability to be statutized
But self defense as a defense to manslaughter is dictated by statute
The Rocketeer (1991)
If you don’t think a broken orb bone is a crushing blow try one on for size sometime.
So cops should never "pursue" perpetrators until they have backup?
Even if the perpetrators are still there, circling your squad like hyenas?
Sounds like the rantings of a bitter clinger...
If he was running away, wouldn’t at least one of the shots be in the back?
A Texas Patrolman stopped an Illegal Mexican in a car for a traffic violation about ten years ago. The policeman had at least 100 pounds on him, and yet the Mexican illegal got to the officers gun and killed kim. It was all on tape.
That's it in a nutshell.
If Brown had gone on to commit a more serious crime in which an innocent person was killed, then people would be screaming at the cops for not taking action when they should have.
The cop may not have known about the robbery, but he found out quickly that this was a dangerous person with some sort of chip on his shoulder, maybe on drugs. He knew that someone like that needed to be stopped then and there and not allowed to disappear while waiting for backup.
A smart criminal, after committing his crime, will do nothing to arouse the attention of police, least of all strutting down the center of a busy street. But Brown was a different sort of criminal, a confrontational thug.
He got what he deserved.
“the evidence has been hidden by the powers that be. Why?”
why not?
see how easy it is to answer a question with a question....
Evidence is before a grandjury.
I would speculate if there isn’t reason to indict a delay is to allow things to cool off.
This has been an off and on again claim for a long time. I think we are going to have to wait for a trial, if there ever is one, to find out for sure.
Maybe if the grand jury no bills it, the hospital reports will be released. But, the cop could have had a lot of damage and that will still not prevent the riots.
can you elaborate on that strategy ?
If I met you, would you tell me to get in your belluh ?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.