quote:

(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;

Nonsense posted:

So this is a thing during CNN Don Lemon's report.

Joementum posted:

This also happened.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OhJntqxDdQ

Cuntpunch posted:

...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."

evilweasel posted:

There are federal criminal laws that are strictly worded?

Joementum posted:

This also happened.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OhJntqxDdQ

Joementum posted:

This also happened.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OhJntqxDdQ

quote:

Jackson, speaking at an afternoon news conference, said he wanted to respond to questions raised about the timing of the release of the tape.

"This robbery does not relate to the initial contact between the officer and Michael Brown," he said, adding that the "strong-arm" (unarmed) robbery occurred about 10 minutes before the stop that led to the fatal shooting.

"It had nothing to do with the stop," Jackson said.

Asked why Officer Wilson stopped Brown, the police chief said because Brown and his friend "were walking down the middle of the street blocking traffic."

Jackson said he had gotten numerous Freedom of Information Act requests from the media to release the video. "I had to release it," he said.

"I had been sitting on it and too many people put in FOIA requests for it and I had to release it," he said.

"We needed to release that at the same time we released the name of the officer," he said.

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

Well, he's right. We did arrest Hussein, not shoot him in the back when he was running away.

e: Black man not eloquent on live tv

FactsAreUseless posted:

Does this count as an official police statement confirming that Brown was shot for jaywalking?

Somberbrero posted:

If NPR reports on it I expect to hear "Wilson stopped Brown after confirming that the offender was engaged in reckless crossing of the roadway."

Their coverage has been seriously lovely and I don't understand why. It got a little better on the DR show today, despite none of the guests I heard having the slightest understanding of St. Louis.

quote:

Relatives of Michael Brown and attorneys representing the family held a news conference this afternoon, reiterating their charge that the release of the video purporting to show a robbery "was strategic and aimed at destroying the character" of the victim.

Anthony Gray, and attorney for the family, said the video was part of a "sideshow" to distract from the circumstances of the shooting.

He said the family's message was "do not take the bait."

"Don't take that to riot; don't take that to loot. The family has made clear that it doesn't want that," he said.

Eric Davis, a cousin of Brown's questioned whether the man in the robbery video was indeed his relative, but Daryl Parks, another attorney for the family, acknowledged that "It appears to be him.

"I wouldn't say that he robbed the store, but it does look like him," Parks said.

Despite the distractions, he said, "We continue to believe that the most important thing that happened that day in the middle of the street was that officers killed Mike."

Toxic Fart Syndrome posted:

So, what, exactly? If they had shot Saddam in his spider hole as he surrendered, maybe there would be a point to this, but he was executed after a lengthy trial where he was convicted of crimes against humanity.

beefart posted:

I agree.



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

FactsAreUseless posted:

Which show have you been listening to? Morning Edition's coverage has been all about community reaction, militarization of the police, and this morning they ran a StoryCorps segment by a black man who had been beaten and almost killed by police back in the late 2000s.

Rhesus Pieces posted:

Arkane posted:

I still disagree: if the crime occurred, Brown was still fleeing from that crime as he still had the items in his possession (and one could basically put up a map showing the store's location and Brown's destination showing him en route).

Popular Thug Drink posted:

Ah yes, a teenager who smokes blunts had a blunt in his pocket. This means he was fleeing the scene of a crime.

Arkane posted:

I would also reiterate for people that didn't read my first post that this isn't a defense of the police officer shooting Brown while he apparently had his hands in the air surrendering. There's really no defense for that, if that indeed went down.

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

Evil_Greven posted:

That verifies it for sure, then. Thanks.

loving hell, Twitter is more useful than the professional media these days.
12:05 PM - 9 Aug 2014

quote:

m a r v a l a c e ‏@_amourlace 12:13 PM - 9 Aug 2014
@TheePharoah why did they shoot him?

quote:

Bruh. ‏@TheePharoah 12:14 PM - 9 Aug 2014
@_amourlace no reason! He was running!

quote:

DIGITAL ERA ‏@SLIKK_DARKO 12:59 PM - 9 Aug 2014
@TheePharoah nah u gone be cool, u just ain't gone forget that, so the boys shot him?

quote:

Bruh. ‏@TheePharoah 1:00 PM - 9 Aug 2014
@SLIKK_DARKO yeah man. 7 times i think

quote:

DIGITAL ERA ‏@SLIKK_DARKO 1:00 PM - 9 Aug 2014
@TheePharoah daaaamn wtf? They hella fuckin dirty man

quote:

DIGITAL ERA ‏@SLIKK_DARKO 1:00 PM - 9 Aug 2014
@TheePharoah from behind ?

quote:

Bruh. ‏@TheePharoah 1:01 PM - 9 Aug 2014
@SLIKK_DARKO the first two was, the next 5 werent, he turned around

Arkane posted:

The Nate Silver of Missouri.

Rhesus Pieces posted:

Buckwheat Sings posted:

He's a pollster?

Buckwheat Sings posted:

He's a pollster?

Arkane posted:

I still disagree: if the crime occurred, Brown was still fleeing from that crime as he still had the items in his possession (and one could basically put up a map showing the store's location and Brown's destination showing him en route). The fact that Brown could conceivably be fleeing from the scene of a crime directly correlates to what Brown's motive might have been in the altercation.

evilweasel posted:

The issue is, I don't see any conceivable motive that, given the uncontested facts in the case, would be relevant.

Arkane posted:

I still disagree: if the crime occurred, Brown was still fleeing from that crime as he still had the items in his possession (and one could basically put up a map showing the store's location and Brown's destination showing him en route). The fact that Brown could conceivably be fleeing from the scene of a crime directly correlates to what Brown's motive might have been in the altercation. I think it would be absolutely vital to the officer's defense, and I cannot imagine a judge throwing it out on the grounds that it is prejudicial (which is designed to prevent unrelated misdeeds from spoiling the mind of the jury and isn't designed as a cudgel to cut the legs out of someone's defense). To me, the argument that it is prejudicial holds little water and is vastly outweighed by the direct connection between the robbery events and the confrontation (which were separated by only a few minutes).

I guess we'll see who ends up being right, but I think it is a virtual certainty that it will be allowed in as part of his defense.

I would also reiterate for people that didn't read my first post that this isn't a defense of the police officer shooting Brown while he apparently had his hands in the air surrendering. There's really no defense for that, if that indeed went down.

FactsAreUseless posted:

That's not how it works. For most Americans, you're either a criminal or not. It's a blanket thing. If Brown was a criminal, he was a threat. It might seem ridiculous but that's what makes these allegations so important to the police department. Sure, this won't ever come up in court, but Wilson also won't ever face trial.

FactsAreUseless posted:

That's not how it works. For most Americans, you're either a criminal or not. It's a blanket thing. If Brown was a criminal, he was a threat. It might seem ridiculous but that's what makes these allegations so important to the police department. Sure, this won't ever come up in court, but Wilson also won't ever face trial.

KernelSlanders posted:

Why do people keep talking about the USDA? Is there some other federal agency that goes by USDA other than the one that I deal with for animal husbandry regulations that could plausibly have some bearing on this case?

beefart posted:

Sure they can spin it that way but the fact remains, and it has been reiterated multiple times by the guys own employer, that the two incidents were unrelated. True, he may have committed a robbery and assaulted a store clerk, but the officer didn't know that when the shooting went down. It's factually impossible for the officer's intent to have been "to stop a bad dude who just robbed somebody," so it's completely irrelevant to what happened afterwards. If the prosecutor is worth his salt he'll address the robbery in a motion in limine during pre-trial and prevent it from coming into evidence.

Plus, I don't think this falls under the FRE 405(b) exception for specific instances of prior bad character where it is an essential part of the claim or defense, but I could be wrong (maybe evilweasel or another lawgoon can shed some light; I know it applies to negligent hiring cases and one other situation that I'm blanking on). If it's not covered by that, he's going to have to use only reputation or opinion evidence to undermine Brown's character, and the account of the robbery would be kept out on those grounds.

KernelSlanders posted:

Why do people keep talking about the USDA? Is there some other federal agency that goes by USDA other than the one that I deal with for animal husbandry regulations that could plausibly have some bearing on this case?

Vermain posted:

I must admit some skepticism over the idea that anyone who thinks it's particularly relevant whether Brown actually committed the grievous crime of shoplifting is going to be thus convinced that he didn't deserve to be murdered by the police in the presence of compelling evidence that he was innocent.

Zwiftef posted:

Honestly, the additional information makes it sound like the cop was racially profiling them.