|
Cenodoxus posted:I've wondered this as well. The Wikipedia article has conflicting times - one says 12:01, another says shortly after 2:00. I would love to know the true timeline. It's easier to link the two when they're only a few minutes apart, and harder to link things together when you've got a span of at least 2 hours. The Wikipedia timeline on the shooting has changed based on this article it seems, from 2pm to 12pm.
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 20:20 |
|
|
Untagged posted:Don't know if you realize what that word means in the context of one person speaking for a group. FYI quote:It was already posted earlier that it was confirmed to be him and they admitted to taking the cigars through the attorney statement to police. means something different from quote:It was already posted earlier that it was confirmed to be him and he admitted that they took the cigars through the attorney statement to police. in English. I wouldn't bring up a grammar issue except it is important that Mike Brown cannot share his side of the story or admit to anything.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:The Wikipedia timeline on the shooting has changed based on this article it seems, from 2pm to 12pm. Based on an eyewitness on twitter, it was noon (tweets showing up 1pm EST, which would be 12pm central) https://twitter.com/7im/timelines/499639344613695488
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Any competent prosecutor ought to be able to get any mention of the robbery banned from being mentioned to the jury, for the record. I don't agree. He is in the process of fleeing from the scene of an (apparent) crime, so it bears relevance on Brown's behavior and his actions. Someone that has just committed a crime will react differently to a police encounter than someone merely walking in the middle of the road. What happened in and around the police officer's vehicle is going to be the basis of the officer's defense it would seem. Personally, I don't think it has any bearing on the fulcrum of any case against the officer, which is the (apparent) shots on him as he is running away, and more importantly the (apparent) shots on him with Brown stopped, facing the officer, and holding his hands in the air. Those two issues don't have any relevance to whether a crime was committed by Brown earlier. The initial contact, however, does.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
^^^^^ But if the cop in question did not know about the robbery, which the presser pretty much clarified was the case, the argument would still stand that it's not relevant ^^^^^Cuntpunch posted:And ultimately in the eyes of the law, isn't is illegal to escalate violence? Your argument can be easily turned around to put all the blame on Brown. He escalated the violence by attempting to wrest control of the gun from the cop. He escalated further by resisting arrest and fleeing in a populated area, endangering the public around him. I think the thread right now is still focused on the robbery and the timeline in general at the moment rather than what you're referring to.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
Cuntpunch posted:The point here being is that we're applying some double-standard here because a cop is involved. The official line from the PD is that Michael Brown was attempting to gain control of the officer's firearm, which a police officer is lawfully allowed to carry. If this happened, then he is the one who escalated the level of violence, not the cop.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Based on an eyewitness on twitter, it was noon (tweets showing up 1pm EST, which would be 12pm central) https://twitter.com/7im/timelines/499639344613695488 loving hell, Twitter is more useful than the professional media these days.  12:05 PM - 9 Aug 2014
Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Aug 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
Haha watching the video versus the stills the cops choose is night and day.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
zen death robot posted:Holy poo poo. I want to meet the team of lawyers and feds that scared the poo poo out of that man to make him have a press conference to say that. I can't imagine how this happened. What leverage would they have? Connecting the shooting to the robbery demolishes anything the feds have against the county cops, as far as PR goes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
Arkane posted:I don't agree. He is in the process of fleeing from the scene of an (apparent) crime, so it bears relevance on Brown's behavior and his actions. Someone that has just committed a crime will react differently to a police encounter than someone merely walking in the middle of the road. What happened in and around the police officer's vehicle is going to be the basis of the officer's defense it would seem. I think you're mistaken on what the test is. It's not if the evidence is relevant. Tt has to be relevant enough to outweigh its likely prejudicial effect. Here, while it may have some relevance that relevance is very low, because it doesn't really support any obvious defense for the officer (the only one is really that he legitimately believed the victim was a danger to the lives of others, and I don't see how you make the robbery support that when the officer didn't know about it).. Given that he was shot in the back, you can't support a "he was threatening me" claim, so it's out for that. And it's obviously highly prejudicial to paint the victim as a criminal. So although I think you can argue it has a tiny amount of relevance, I don't think that gets the evidence into a courtroom given how prejudicial it is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I think you're mistaken on what the test is. It's not if the evidence is relevant. Tt has to be relevant enough to outweigh its likely prejudicial effect. Here, while it may have some relevance that relevance is very low, because it doesn't really support any obvious defense for the officer (the only one is really that he legitimately believed the victim was a danger to the lives of others, and I don't see how you make the robbery support that when the officer didn't know about it).. Given that he was shot in the back, you can't support a "he was threatening me" claim, so it's out for that. And it's obviously highly prejudicial to paint the victim as a criminal. Although you don't need to get a video admitted as evidence to prejudice a jury. Do you imagine there will be a venue shift outside of the St Louis area?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:The Wikipedia timeline on the shooting has changed based on this article it seems, from 2pm to 12pm. WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Based on an eyewitness on twitter, it was noon (tweets showing up 1pm EST, which would be 12pm central) https://twitter.com/7im/timelines/499639344613695488 This clears things up, thanks. In light of the timeline change, it does seem plausible that Brown could have been a bit on edge, having just allegedly robbed the convenience store. That's what I mean when I say it adds some credibility to the notion that Brown could have escalated the situation if he did assault the officer. Does not in any way excuse the officer from shooting him in the back, in my opinion, especially since it was announced by the PD that the stop was unrelated to the robbery, so there probably wasn't any knowledge on the officer's part at the time that Brown was the robbery suspect.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
Michael Arlowe posted:The official line from the PD is that Michael Brown was attempting to gain control of the officer's firearm, which a police officer is lawfully allowed to carry. If this happened, then he is the one who escalated the level of violence, not the cop. This is the stupidest, emptiest argument. Brown could have been reaching out to shake the officer's hand and OH NO HE WAS REACHING FOR A WEAPON. What Brown was or was not reaching for is totally pointless since there's no video evidence and no witnesses would have been close enough to make educated claims about the truth. Of course the officer will say he was(it covers him from a murder charge) but of course Brown's side is that he wasn't. What we do know with nearly absolute certainty is that at some point Brown fled, unarmed. He obviously never had control of a firearm or other weapon. He was clearly attempting to flee the situation. The law also makes pretty clear one's obligations in these circumstances. Even if a burglar breaks into your home, armed, once he has fled you aren't allowed to chase him through the neighborhood shooting at him. Double-standard. As soon as Brown attempted to flee, there was no reason to apply lethal force. Doubly so when after being hit once or twice(depending on witness), he attempted to surrender and was then shot possibly another half-dozen times while clearly defenseless, wounded, and without resistance.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The FBI and federal prosecutors get involved if they think the locals are covering this up (and given the local prosecutor has been complaining about the replacement of the local police, that is a real issue), and they do not like to lose. Yeah, the FBI has a real hard on for marching out as many officials with newspapers covering their faces into court houses as possible. Given the huge reaction against protesters and creating a big enough shitshow of a third rate murder cover up as possible to interrupt Eric Holder's vacation that is probably why the police chief looked nearly in tears at that press conference.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I think you're mistaken on what the test is. It's not if the evidence is relevant. Tt has to be relevant enough to outweigh its likely prejudicial effect. Here, while it may have some relevance that relevance is very low, because it doesn't really support any obvious defense for the officer (the only one is really that he legitimately believed the victim was a danger to the lives of others, and I don't see how you make the robbery support that when the officer didn't know about it).. Given that he was shot in the back, you can't support a "he was threatening me" claim, so it's out for that. And it's obviously highly prejudicial to paint the victim as a criminal. Precisely, the only people who care about this narrative have preconceived opinions. E: I'm not sure you can convince him anyway, he has some interesting opinions. Spacman fucked around with this message at 21:18 on Aug 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
Cuntpunch posted:This is the stupidest, emptiest argument. Brown could have been reaching out to shake the officer's hand and OH NO HE WAS REACHING FOR A WEAPON. What Brown was or was not reaching for is totally pointless since there's no video evidence and no witnesses would have been close enough to make educated claims about the truth. Of course the officer will say he was(it covers him from a murder charge) but of course Brown's side is that he wasn't. This is correct. Even if Brown had grabbed for the gun (which remains unconfirmed), that would only escalate the situation while he is trying to take the weapon. As soon as he backed off, he has deescalated the situation and it is no longer justifiable to kill him. If a private homeowner had shot an unarmed burglar while he was running away, people would be braying for his head and the police would have him in a cell before the night ended. But because a cop did it (someone who's supposed to be held to a higher ethical standard than private citizens precisely because of the power he holds in society), it's suddenly permissible to try and justify it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
I am making all the photos available for free on Wikimedia. If you want un-photoshopped or full resolution PM me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
Cuntpunch posted:And ultimately in the eyes of the law, isn't is illegal to escalate violence? 563.031. 1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person, unless: In your hypothetical, particulars about the attacker and target would dictate whether pulling a knife is justified. For example, if the attacker is much larger than the target, drawing a weapon might be reasonably considered necessary. Firing at a fleeing or surrendering person isn't reasonable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Although you don't need to get a video admitted as evidence to prejudice a jury. Do you imagine there will be a venue shift outside of the St Louis area? Yeah, I can't imagine either side would want to try this nearby and this is pretty much the exact sort of case a venue shift is for, where the entire community knows about the event.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:This is correct. Even if Brown had grabbed for the gun (which remains unconfirmed), that would only escalate the situation while he is trying to take the weapon. As soon as he backed off, he has deescalated the situation and it is no longer justifiable to kill him. Those questions matter in a civil suit while trying to establish qualified immunity. In the case of a criminal complaint against the officer, the issue is whether that narrative establishes reasonable doubt as to whether the officer believed his actions to be justified. Stated more plainly: can the prosecutor prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the officer didn't believe Brown was a threat to the community?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Yeah, I can't imagine either side would want to try this nearby and this is pretty much the exact sort of case a venue shift is for, where the entire community knows about the event. How frequently are venue shifts given at the state's request? I was under the impression that it was essentially never.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
Neo Duckberg posted:I am making all the photos available for free on Wikimedia. If you want un-photoshopped or full resolution PM me. Many thanks, I appreciate you going the extra mile in relation to this and I am sure others do too. Ignore the individuals who denigrated your efforts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
zen death robot posted:I've never seen a QT with a counter that wasn't dead center of the store. Kind of irrelevant but I think that might be a different place since it happened way earlier in the day. The robbery wasn't at the Quick Trip that was looted.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:How frequently are venue shifts given at the state's request? I was under the impression that it was essentially never. Can't wait for the overwhelmingly white jury of women.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Those questions matter in a civil suit while trying to establish qualified immunity. In the case of a criminal complaint against the officer, the issue is whether that narrative establishes reasonable doubt as to whether the officer believed his actions to be justified. Stated more plainly: can the prosecutor prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the officer didn't believe Brown was a threat to the community? You can't prove a negative. The defense needs to prove that the officer could reasonably presume that Brown (who, it should be reminded, was unarmed and not suspected by the officer of having committed any crimes before their meeting) was a threat when he was fleeing. It's not the prosecution's job to prove that the officer was wrong. It's the defense's job to prove that the officer was right, or at least had reasonable suspicion to believe that he was right. An unarmed person maybe grabbing at your holster and then fleeing is not a threat to any reasonable person.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
eatenmyeyes posted:563.031. 1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person, unless: You're missing the second clause: quote:
You aren't allowed to use deadly force(generally considered things like blades and firearms) as part of your lawful application of physical force. The first specific exclusion of this section is that you're allowed to use deadly force in response to deadly force. Which means that if you're the one to pull a serious weapon, you're now the aggressor.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I think you're mistaken on what the test is. It's not if the evidence is relevant. Tt has to be relevant enough to outweigh its likely prejudicial effect. Here, while it may have some relevance that relevance is very low, because it doesn't really support any obvious defense for the officer (the only one is really that he legitimately believed the victim was a danger to the lives of others, and I don't see how you make the robbery support that when the officer didn't know about it).. Given that he was shot in the back, you can't support a "he was threatening me" claim, so it's out for that. And it's obviously highly prejudicial to paint the victim as a criminal. I agree. Federal Rule of Evidence 404(a)(2)(A) - Character Evidence; Exceptions for a Defendant or Victim in a Criminal Case posted:A defendant may offer evidence of the defendant’s pertinent trait, and if the evidence is admitted, the prosecutor may offer evidence to rebut it. FRE 404(b)(1)- Crimes, Wrongs, or Other Acts posted:Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character. Sure, it's relevant, but this is exactly the kind of prejudice the law tries to keep out. Evidence of the robbery should be inadmissible to prove that he acted violently in the confrontation with the cop. EDIT: also relevant FRE 405 - Methods of Proving Character posted:(a) By Reputation or Opinion. When evidence of a person’s character or character trait is admissible, it may be proved by testimony about the person’s reputation or by testimony in the form of an opinion. On cross-examination of the character witness, the court may allow an inquiry into relevant specific instances of the person’s conduct. beefart fucked around with this message at 21:45 on Aug 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:You can't prove a negative. The defense needs to prove that the officer could reasonably presume that Brown (who, it should be reminded, was unarmed and not suspected by the officer of having committed any crimes before their meeting) was a threat when he was fleeing. It's not the prosecution's job to prove that the officer was wrong. It's the defense's job to prove that the officer was right, or at least had reasonable suspicion to believe that he was right. That's nice, but completely wrong. Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 563 Defense of Justification posted:5. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section. If a defendant asserts that his or her use of force is described under subdivision (2) of subsection 2 of this section, the burden shall then be on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not reasonably believe that the use of such force was necessary to defend against what he or she reasonably believed was the use or imminent use of unlawful force.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:You can't prove a negative. The defense needs to prove that the officer could reasonably presume that Brown (who, it should be reminded, was unarmed and not suspected by the officer of having committed any crimes before their meeting) was a threat when he was fleeing. It's not the prosecution's job to prove that the officer was wrong. It's the defense's job to prove that the officer was right, or at least had reasonable suspicion to believe that he was right. Particularly when that justification, 'grabbing for the firearm', is complete bullshit on par with carrying a 'drop weapon' to leave on the body. That is the thing you claim when you have nothing else to claim. No weapons, drugs, priors, calls, issues, warrants... Nothing. I killed him because he went for my gun.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
considering this is the same department that, after arresting the wrong guy, charged him anyways with, "getting blood on police uniforms" (because they beat him up), i find it laughable to believe them for one second that Mike Brown tried to grab the officer's gun
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
Cuntpunch posted:You're missing the second clause: 2. A person may not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless: (1) He or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself, or herself or her unborn child, or another against death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony;
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
Tweak posted:considering this is the same department that, after arresting the wrong guy, charged him anyways with, "getting blood on police uniforms" (because they beat him up), i find it laughable to believe them for one second that Mike Brown tried to grab the officer's gun He absolutely did not do that. You have to justify shooting a random dude on the street though... So he did.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
Also:quote:3. A law enforcement officer in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody is justified in using deadly force only Again, the defense burden is only to "inject" the issue. The state must prove the defendant did not reasonably believe force was necessary beyond a reasonable doubt. It's really, really hard to prosecute a cop for an on duty shooting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
DARPA posted:http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/14/us/ferguson-dashcams/ Because Lockheed Martin doesn't make dash- or body-cams.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:How frequently are venue shifts given at the state's request? I was under the impression that it was essentially never. I don't think the cop wants to be tried locally either, unless he thinks he can get away with trying to strike every black juror.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I don't think the cop wants to be tried locally either, unless he thinks he can get away with trying to strike every black juror. Wow, you think the police officer will be charged with something? How about you concentrate on getting the killer charged before you start picking a jury. Jesus.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
So this is a thing during CNN Don Lemon's report. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgM7ZspHgeQ
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I don't think the cop wants to be tried locally either, unless he thinks he can get away with trying to strike every black juror. The county DA has been sued multiple times for illegally striking black jurors so there's that. But here's my bet: Local DA/State Charges: Local DA's grand jury will not indite. USDA/Federal Charges: Charges will not be filed because strict wording of federal laws means there will not be enough evidence to convict.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
eatenmyeyes posted:2. A person may not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless: The hinging here is that reasonable belief in the need of deadly force pretty much requires an imminent threat to your life. Without some obvious application of deadly force, such as a weapon, this clause could literally turn any general fistfight into a shooting match because "well he hit me really hard and I thought I might die so I had to kill him first." Unless some giant 200 pound MMA fighter is wailing on you shouting "I AM GOING TO loving KILL YOU" you're going to have a hard time explaining why you need to kill an unarmed person in self-defense.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 20:20 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The county DA has been sued multiple times for illegally striking black jurors so there's that. There are federal criminal laws that are strictly worded?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 21:45
|
|