It shouldn't be any great shock that the police initiated the incident. I mean, that's kinda what policemen do. They stop people who come to their attention for one reason or another.
It only becomes a "tussle", however, when the other person decides not to cooperate.
Attempting to pull away from a police officer gives the police officer reason to believe that you're a person who's seeking to avoid interaction with the police and the police officer has know way of knowing if that's simply because you're a bolshie malcontent, because you've got pockets full of drugs and a gun stuck down your trousers or because they've interrupted you in the middle of a spree killing.
Also, when the person in question "attempts to surrender" after wrestling with a cop and then running off down the street, it's rather difficult to take that point seriously.
But the justification that the police officer gave for shooting was that the kid tried to grab his gun which seems hugely unlikely if eyewitness reports are correct. The eyewitnesses state that at no point was Brown inside the police vehicle but instead was pulling away. The policeman however reported remained inside the vehicle until after the first shot. Had the policeman said he was worried Brown had a gun or was involved in the commission of a crime then I might have more sympathy with your arguments.
I also think that the justification for the initial altercation, namely that Brown and his friend didn't get out of the street and onto the pavement is a flimsy excuse for the policeman to start grabbing people through the windows of their vehicles, particularly since there's no evidence that Brown was attempting to run at that point.
I don't think that trying to pull away from someone grabbing at you is enough evidence to justify the first shot and Brown only started running in fear for his life once the policeman had already shot him once. Your last paragraph is particularly troubling. That a policeman should be entitled to shoot anyone offering to surrender because he was previously running away is quite frankly monstrous especially since the policeman had apparently already shot Brown a second time.
It shouldn't be any great shock that the police initiated the incident. I mean, that's kinda what policemen do. They stop people who come to their attention for one reason or another.
It only becomes a "tussle", however, when the other person decides not to cooperate.
Attempting to pull away from a police officer gives the police officer reason to believe that you're a person who's seeking to avoid interaction with the police and the police officer has know way of knowing if that's simply because you're a bolshie malcontent, because you've got pockets full of drugs and a gun stuck down your trousers or because they've interrupted you in the middle of a spree killing.
Also, when the person in question "attempts to surrender" after wrestling with a cop and then running off down the street, it's rather difficult to take that point seriously.
Firstly I want to say I reserve judgement on what happened until more information comes out BUT
A police officer should only be laying hands on you if he is arresting you or restraining you for a lawful reason. Neither of which seem likely if the officer is seated in a patrol car holding onto you through a window - you are going to naturally pull away, especially if there is an environment of mistrust between police and public.
So unless the two eye witnesses are wrong and the actual events more like the police officer's account, the officer should not have hands on Brown at all.
After that, what was the distance between patrol car and body? If right next to each other perhaps the PO did fear for his life so continued to shoot 5/6 times. If some distance, then Brown was most likely surrendering at which point he should have been arrested not shot, or fleeing. Fleeing the law isn't generally an executionable offence.
Too many unknowns & a lack of confirmed facts for me to have a firm opinion at the moment though.
If that is what he was doing, because not every single witness account backs that up.
(Just for the record, I know very little about this and I'm not defending anybody, but thought it's worth pointing out that there are very different accounts about what happened here.)
As far as I can tell it's only the police official version that differs from this. Multiple eyewitness accounts including the two that have been reported in the media have Brown surrendering before being shot dead.
If that is what he was doing, because not every single witness account backs that up.
(Just for the record, I know very little about this and I'm not defending anybody, but thought it's worth pointing out that there are very different accounts about what happened here.)
yes. we need to hear the police officers version as well which will be given some time soon i guess....they were doing their job and when it comes down to it some bodys version will be probably be different to what actually happened.
Your last paragraph is particularly troubling. That a policeman should be entitled to shoot anyone offering to surrender because he was previously running away is quite frankly monstrous especially since the policeman had apparently already shot Brown a second time.
Mitchell then saw Brown break away from the officer’s grip and run down the street from the police vehicle.
“The officer gets out of his vehicle,” Mitchell said, “and he pursues him,” continuing to shoot at Brown. “Michael’s body jerks as if he was hit,” Mitchell explained, “and then he put his hands up,” and the officer continued to shoot at Brown until Brown collapsed “all the way down to the ground.”
To me that sounds like he was fleeing until he was shot and then he tried to surrender (assuming his arms weren't raised as a result of the bullet impact).
Just like Mark Duggan, you can't expect to chance your luck with armed police and then, at the very last second, suddenly decide to capitulate and hope that the armed police realise you've had a change of heart.
That's simply not realistic.
To me that sounds like he was fleeing until he was shot and then he tried to surrender (assuming his arms weren't raised as a result of the bullet impact).
Just like Mark Duggan, you can't expect to chance your luck with armed police and then, at the very last second, suddenly decide to capitulate and hope that the armed police realise you've had a change of heart.
That's simply not realistic.
It bloody should be. To 'chance you luck' is not as I understand it an execution able offence and shooting someone in the back and continuing to shoot once the person has offered to surrender is not a proportionate response particularly given why this started in the first place.
It bloody should be. To 'chance you luck' is not as I understand it an execution able offence and shooting someone in the back and continuing to shoot once the person has offered to surrender is not a proportionate response particularly given why this started in the first place.
Police are not entitled to act with impunity.
You don't get executed for chancing your luck.
You get dealt with on the basis of whatever you might have been up to before you decided to capitulate.
In the case of Mark Duggan, he was carrying an illegal firearm so he was dealt with in a manner commensurate with the threat such a person presents.
The cops in this case will likely assert that they believed this guy to present a substantial threat in order to justify the shooting and dead people can't argue.
You get dealt with on the basis of whatever you might have been up to before you decided to capitulate.
In the case of Mark Duggan, he was carrying an illegal firearm so he was dealt with in a manner commensurate with the threat such a person presents.
The cops in this case will likely assert that they believed this guy to present a substantial threat in order to justify the shooting and dead people can't argue.
But surely when you decide to capitulate you should get dealt with on that basis. You seem to be suggesting that surrendering is irrelevant if the police decide they want to kill you,
Bear in mind also that he was running away according to witnesses, I'm struggling to see how someone running is posing a substantial threat. If a guy who has been shot twice according to one eyewitness report has his hands in the air you don't continue shooting, it doesn't matter what he's done previously.
It bought today's story was really positive. It seems someone sensible has intervened and they are trying to improve community relations.
Also the vigils across the US are quite moving. In the UK most people don't care if the police gun down a black youth. It makes me happy to see how far the US has come from that stance.
Also positive us the media reaction with some reporters covering the demonstrations and experiencing the polices reaction. In the Uk the press's largely just print whatever the police say initially no matter how questionable it is.
It bought today's story was really positive. It seems someone sensible has intervened and they are trying to improve community relations.
Also the vigils across the US are quite moving. In the UK most people don't care if the police gun down a black youth. It makes me happy to see how far the US has come from that stance.
Also positive us the media reaction with some reporters covering the demonstrations and experiencing the polices reaction. In the Uk the press's largely just print whatever the police say initially no matter how questionable it is.
Yes this is not just a few black people rioting and looting. It's progressed to peaceful protests taking place nationally around the States with all races taking part.
I think the riot we had in the UK was just an excuse by chavs to go nuts and steal things. The protest in the States is much more than this.
But surely when you decide to capitulate you should get dealt with on that basis. You seem to be suggesting that surrendering is irrelevant if the police decide they want to kill you,
Bear in mind also that he was running away according to witnesses, I'm struggling to see how someone running is posing a substantial threat. If a guy who has been shot twice according to one eyewitness report has his hands in the air you don't continue shooting, it doesn't matter what he's done previously.
No, I'm suggesting that if you're doing something that could reasonably be considered to present a threat great enough to warrant a deadly response you shouldn't expect the police to realise that you've suddenly decided to stop doing it and act accordingly.
And, let's face it, when you're dead it's going to be difficult to refute whatever justification the cops provide for their actions.
Which, again, brings us back to the fact that choosing to tussle with, or run away from, armed cops is an incredibly foolish thing to do, especially if you haven't done anything wrong.
In the UK most people don't care if the police gun down a black youth.
That seems like an incredibly divisive thing to say.
If anything, I'd suggest that people don't care when a criminal scumbag is shot but they DO care when an innocent person is shot and it has absolutely f**k-all to do with race.
No, I'm suggesting that if you're doing something that could reasonably be considered to present a threat great enough to warrant a deadly response you shouldn't expect the police to realise that you've suddenly changed your mind and act accordingly.
And, let's face it, when you're dead it's going to be difficult to refute whatever justification the cops provide for their actions.
Which, again, brings us back to the fact that choosing to tussle with, or run away from, armed cops is an incredibly foolish thing to do, especially if you haven't done anything wrong.
Your last paragraph is what the protestors are protesting about. It's become a foolish thing to do as the police are liable to shoot you dead! So it's good you know why they are protesting!
That seems like an incredibly divisive thing to say..
no the fact is divisive mentioning it is just realistic.
This young man was shot under dubious circumstances. Witness's contradicted the polices statement. Riots followed insensitive policing.
Outcome in US the president calls for a review of the circumstances by the justice department. The FBI is investigating. The police force which carried out the insensitive policing are under review and a concerted effort is made to improve community relations.
Same happened in UK a few summers ago. Outcome - nada.
What is divisive is ignoring the source of the problems and just waiting for the next incident.
No, I'm suggesting that if you're doing something that could reasonably be considered to present a threat great enough to warrant a deadly response you shouldn't expect the police to realise that you've suddenly decided to stop doing it and act accordingly.
And, let's face it, when you're dead it's going to be difficult to refute whatever justification the cops provide for their actions.
Which, again, brings us back to the fact that choosing to tussle with, or run away from, armed cops is an incredibly foolish thing to do, especially if you haven't done anything wrong.
How is running away 'a threat great enough to warrant a deadly response':o:o
No, I'm suggesting that if you're doing something that could reasonably be considered to present a threat great enough to warrant a deadly response you shouldn't expect the police to realise that you've suddenly decided to stop doing it and act accordingly.
And, let's face it, when you're dead it's going to be difficult to refute whatever justification the cops provide for their actions.
Which, again, brings us back to the fact that choosing to tussle with, or run away from, armed cops is an incredibly foolish thing to do, especially if you haven't done anything wrong.
I think it's hard to disagree with this stance as a perspective of how you should behave as a member of the public. If you're innocent and the police approach you anyway, surely the best reaction is to politely respond to their requests and enquiries, and to neither run away or ignore them. Even if you suspect the police are picking on you for racially aggravated reasons, it's hardly a fantastic idea to take issue with them there and then.
The police should be responsible for a proportionate response in developing circumstances though, and whilst I'm normally highly sympathetic with those who get judged on life or death decisions they had only seconds to make, I think the standards need to be higher in who is able to make those judgments. Only those who have shown themselves to be the best in managing these decisions should be able to make them.
I think Si's point is that, rightly or wrongly, if an armed police officer gets hold of you, even if you think you've done nothing wrong, the best course of action is to stay calm, comply, and hopefully the situation will get sorted quickly. You most probably won't end up dead or even come to any harm.
On the other hand if you resist and fail to escape, you're potentially giving the officer justification to use force. At best you're going to be restrained, at worst you're going to have pissed off some arse hole who will use it as an excuse to use force and isn't particularly well restrained in that department.
The point being that most police officers aren't in the business of needlessly hurting people, but all are capable of making mistakes and could quite easily mistaken you for somebody else. The most likely outcome of compliance is small inconvenience.
Everybody has rights and responsibilities, just because you feel somebody else is failing to uphold theirs, doesn't mean you should forget about yours.
why is this a race issue? police in america also kill white people and that doesnt start riots
I think part of the issue is that you have an almost exclusively white police force policing an area where over two thirds are black in a part of the USA that historically has had major issues with racism.
So while you are right in that the police shoot white people too, there is going to be questions in the Ferguson community as to whether race did play a part.
It appears he was suspected to be involved in a robbery just minutes before. Now being a suspect in a robbery isn't justification for shooting somebody, but if that person then struggles with you as you try to detain them, there could well be reasonable grounds to believe you're in danger. Like the above poster says however, we don't know the full circumstances.
Dorian Johnson is one of the witnesses who stated that Brown had his hands up to surrender before being shot. Oddly enough he failed to mention his involvement in a robbery.
It appears he was suspected to be involved in a robbery just minutes before. Now being a suspect in a robbery isn't justification for shooting somebody, but if that person then struggles with you as you try to detain them, there could well be reasonable grounds to believe you're in danger. Like the above poster says however, we don't know the full circumstances.
Dorian Johnson is one of the witnesses who stated that Brown had his hands up to surrender before being shot. Oddly enough he failed to mention his involvement in a robbery.
So someone attacks an officer of the law and gets shot in self defense, the noble people of the community decide it is a good idea to riot... i mean protest
Only difference I see between here and the London riots are the police are doing a good job, and there hasn't example of serious incompetence like there was in London, they have contained it to one suburb.
They are upholding the law and doing a good job of it.
Comments
But the justification that the police officer gave for shooting was that the kid tried to grab his gun which seems hugely unlikely if eyewitness reports are correct. The eyewitnesses state that at no point was Brown inside the police vehicle but instead was pulling away. The policeman however reported remained inside the vehicle until after the first shot. Had the policeman said he was worried Brown had a gun or was involved in the commission of a crime then I might have more sympathy with your arguments.
I also think that the justification for the initial altercation, namely that Brown and his friend didn't get out of the street and onto the pavement is a flimsy excuse for the policeman to start grabbing people through the windows of their vehicles, particularly since there's no evidence that Brown was attempting to run at that point.
I don't think that trying to pull away from someone grabbing at you is enough evidence to justify the first shot and Brown only started running in fear for his life once the policeman had already shot him once. Your last paragraph is particularly troubling. That a policeman should be entitled to shoot anyone offering to surrender because he was previously running away is quite frankly monstrous especially since the policeman had apparently already shot Brown a second time.
Firstly I want to say I reserve judgement on what happened until more information comes out BUT
A police officer should only be laying hands on you if he is arresting you or restraining you for a lawful reason. Neither of which seem likely if the officer is seated in a patrol car holding onto you through a window - you are going to naturally pull away, especially if there is an environment of mistrust between police and public.
So unless the two eye witnesses are wrong and the actual events more like the police officer's account, the officer should not have hands on Brown at all.
After that, what was the distance between patrol car and body? If right next to each other perhaps the PO did fear for his life so continued to shoot 5/6 times. If some distance, then Brown was most likely surrendering at which point he should have been arrested not shot, or fleeing. Fleeing the law isn't generally an executionable offence.
Too many unknowns & a lack of confirmed facts for me to have a firm opinion at the moment though.
As far as I can tell it's only the police official version that differs from this. Multiple eyewitness accounts including the two that have been reported in the media have Brown surrendering before being shot dead.
yes. we need to hear the police officers version as well which will be given some time soon i guess....they were doing their job and when it comes down to it some bodys version will be probably be different to what actually happened.
To me that sounds like he was fleeing until he was shot and then he tried to surrender (assuming his arms weren't raised as a result of the bullet impact).
Just like Mark Duggan, you can't expect to chance your luck with armed police and then, at the very last second, suddenly decide to capitulate and hope that the armed police realise you've had a change of heart.
That's simply not realistic.
It bloody should be. To 'chance you luck' is not as I understand it an execution able offence and shooting someone in the back and continuing to shoot once the person has offered to surrender is not a proportionate response particularly given why this started in the first place.
Police are not entitled to act with impunity.
You don't get executed for chancing your luck.
You get dealt with on the basis of whatever you might have been up to before you decided to capitulate.
In the case of Mark Duggan, he was carrying an illegal firearm so he was dealt with in a manner commensurate with the threat such a person presents.
The cops in this case will likely assert that they believed this guy to present a substantial threat in order to justify the shooting and dead people can't argue.
But surely when you decide to capitulate you should get dealt with on that basis. You seem to be suggesting that surrendering is irrelevant if the police decide they want to kill you,
Bear in mind also that he was running away according to witnesses, I'm struggling to see how someone running is posing a substantial threat. If a guy who has been shot twice according to one eyewitness report has his hands in the air you don't continue shooting, it doesn't matter what he's done previously.
Also the vigils across the US are quite moving. In the UK most people don't care if the police gun down a black youth. It makes me happy to see how far the US has come from that stance.
Also positive us the media reaction with some reporters covering the demonstrations and experiencing the polices reaction. In the Uk the press's largely just print whatever the police say initially no matter how questionable it is.
Yes this is not just a few black people rioting and looting. It's progressed to peaceful protests taking place nationally around the States with all races taking part.
I think the riot we had in the UK was just an excuse by chavs to go nuts and steal things. The protest in the States is much more than this.
No, I'm suggesting that if you're doing something that could reasonably be considered to present a threat great enough to warrant a deadly response you shouldn't expect the police to realise that you've suddenly decided to stop doing it and act accordingly.
And, let's face it, when you're dead it's going to be difficult to refute whatever justification the cops provide for their actions.
Which, again, brings us back to the fact that choosing to tussle with, or run away from, armed cops is an incredibly foolish thing to do, especially if you haven't done anything wrong.
That seems like an incredibly divisive thing to say.
If anything, I'd suggest that people don't care when a criminal scumbag is shot but they DO care when an innocent person is shot and it has absolutely f**k-all to do with race.
Your last paragraph is what the protestors are protesting about. It's become a foolish thing to do as the police are liable to shoot you dead! So it's good you know why they are protesting!
This young man was shot under dubious circumstances. Witness's contradicted the polices statement. Riots followed insensitive policing.
Outcome in US the president calls for a review of the circumstances by the justice department. The FBI is investigating. The police force which carried out the insensitive policing are under review and a concerted effort is made to improve community relations.
Same happened in UK a few summers ago. Outcome - nada.
What is divisive is ignoring the source of the problems and just waiting for the next incident.
How is running away 'a threat great enough to warrant a deadly response':o:o
I think it's hard to disagree with this stance as a perspective of how you should behave as a member of the public. If you're innocent and the police approach you anyway, surely the best reaction is to politely respond to their requests and enquiries, and to neither run away or ignore them. Even if you suspect the police are picking on you for racially aggravated reasons, it's hardly a fantastic idea to take issue with them there and then.
The police should be responsible for a proportionate response in developing circumstances though, and whilst I'm normally highly sympathetic with those who get judged on life or death decisions they had only seconds to make, I think the standards need to be higher in who is able to make those judgments. Only those who have shown themselves to be the best in managing these decisions should be able to make them.
On the other hand if you resist and fail to escape, you're potentially giving the officer justification to use force. At best you're going to be restrained, at worst you're going to have pissed off some arse hole who will use it as an excuse to use force and isn't particularly well restrained in that department.
The point being that most police officers aren't in the business of needlessly hurting people, but all are capable of making mistakes and could quite easily mistaken you for somebody else. The most likely outcome of compliance is small inconvenience.
Everybody has rights and responsibilities, just because you feel somebody else is failing to uphold theirs, doesn't mean you should forget about yours.
I think part of the issue is that you have an almost exclusively white police force policing an area where over two thirds are black in a part of the USA that historically has had major issues with racism.
So while you are right in that the police shoot white people too, there is going to be questions in the Ferguson community as to whether race did play a part.
not according to the shop CCTV pictures released
and we know NOTHING about the circumstances
Dorian Johnson is one of the witnesses who stated that Brown had his hands up to surrender before being shot. Oddly enough he failed to mention his involvement in a robbery.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-28806313
They kill one black person every 28 hours. They also kill them for stupid reasons such as when they've surrendered or if they're holding a toy gun.
He stole cigars.
Oh is that it? In that case they should just have let him flee then, no need to try and grab hold of him.
Only difference I see between here and the London riots are the police are doing a good job, and there hasn't example of serious incompetence like there was in London, they have contained it to one suburb.
They are upholding the law and doing a good job of it.