Ferguson attorney: Brown family settlement $1.5 million

[niil945]

Not a lethal threat.

Because if unarmed people were considered a lethal threat, then any assault of any kind whatsoever would justify use of lethal force, and that's obviously untrue.

You're playing games with labels and classifications that are often applied after the fact. Michael Brown tried to take a firearm from a police officer after assaulting him. That instantly put him in the category of the cop using any and all means to prevent it from happening, including lethal force.

[Endus]

You're playing games with labels and classifications that are often applied after the fact. Michael Brown tried to take a firearm from a police officer after assaulting him. That instantly put him in the category of the cop using any and all means to prevent it from happening, including lethal force.

That's not how use of force continuums work.

By running away, Brown had de-escalated the situation and no longer posed the threat he had posed while wrestling for the gun. If your argument worked, then if Brown had been surrendering, Wilson would have been justified in shooting him, by your argument. Which is obviously not true.

[Toogoodman]

There was a lot of reasonable contesting of that Grand Jury procedure. And while I do agree it's likely an actual court case would have cleared Wilson, it does not mean that departmental policy was what it should have been, which is where "wrongful death" comes into play; civil cases aren't tied to a slavish interpretation of what policy is, and can rule based on what policy should be, and to a lesser standard of evidence (what a reasonable person would think, not "beyond a reasonable doubt").

The DOJ investigation into the department which condemned their policy procedures would likely have weighed heavily.

Which is exactly why the settled, because they didn't want a more vague interpretation costing them millions of dollars

[Jokkie]

I served in the US military as a 19D for almost 6 years, and spent about 2.5 of those years in the middle East. We were taught to shoot to disable before shoot to kill. The RoE had changed Midway thru our first tour in 07 and stayed that way until I left. Shooting legs running towards you do not shift left or right very much which is why they are the preferred method of disabling if the situation allows for it.

- - - Updated - - -



Yeah you're right better to just dump 4 or 5 in the chest and be done with it. Da fuq

Lol, yup. If I'm pulling a gun, its because its a life or death situation. I ain't going home in a body bag.

Also, lol@military ROE. What a joke.

[niil945]

That's not how use of force continuums work.

By running away, Brown had de-escalated the situation and no longer posed the threat he had posed while wrestling for the gun. If your argument worked, then if Brown had been surrendering, Wilson would have been justified in shooting him, by your argument. Which is obviously not true.

We're ignoring that he turned back around and was running at the car when shot now are we?

[Coconuter]

While I'm paraphrasing, it's only to be more succinct;

The unlawful police misconduct and court practices described above have generated great distrust of Ferguson law enforcement, especially among African Americans. As described below, other FPD practices further contribute to distrust, including FPD’s failure to hold officers accountable for misconduct, failure to implement community policing principles, and the lack of diversity within FPD. Together, these practices severely damaged the relationship betweenAfrican Americans and the Ferguson Police Department long before Michael Brown’s shooting death in August 2014. This divide has made policing in Ferguson less effective, more difficult, and more likely to discriminate.

Considering I'm pulling from "the meat", and you're citing the concluding paragraph which was more about whether Ferguson could correct the issues rather than the issues, maybe you should take your own advice.

You're defending being wrong on so many posts it hurts my head. You don't even address, you just redirect every time you're shown to be wrong. This last ditch effort is just grabbing at straws.

[Egitel]

The police in the US are not responsible for protecting the citizens. Their job is to enforce the law. They can not be held liable for not protecting a citizen. This was a decision made by the Supreme Court here years ago. But I have to keep reminding this to posters here on this forum.

Then can "To Serve & Protect" be considered false advertising and grounds for a lawsuit?

In all seriousness, you're arguing semantics. Why do laws exist if not to protect the citizenry? Therefore, if a police officer's job is to enforce said laws, by extension, their job is to protect citizens. That said, I'm aware of the ruling you're referring to, and it's not really relevant here.The ruling simply states that police don't have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm AKA, they can't be sued for not preventing injury or death. It does not mean that their primary job is not directly tied to protecting the citizenry from those who would do them harm, or that police sign up for the job somehow thinking they won't be doing just that.

[ohiostate124]

I served in the US military as a 19D for almost 6 years, and spent about 2.5 of those years in the middle East. We were taught to shoot to disable before shoot to kill. The RoE had changed Midway thru our first tour in 07 and stayed that way until I left. Shooting legs running towards you do not shift left or right very much which is why they are the preferred method of disabling if the situation allows for it.

- - - Updated - - -



Yeah you're right better to just dump 4 or 5 in the chest and be done with it. Da fuq

Still calling bullshit. I don't believe for a second that you were taught to shoot to wound in the US military.

[niil945]

And that's fine, I guess, but you don't belong in a career where you may he responsible for the lives of others such as a police officer.

Good thing you don't actually make those decisions for everyone and general procedure, as someone who served as a 95B, even as military police is not to attempt to perform incapacitating shots over shooting center mass.

[the game]

We're ignoring that he turned back around and was running at the car when shot now are we?

He clearly wanted to give Darren Wilson a hug as an apology.

[Toogoodman]

Lol, yup. If I'm pulling a gun, its because its a life or death situation. I ain't going home in a body bag.

Also, lol@military ROE. What a joke.

RoE keeps our boys out of international prison, and US military prison.

[GreenJesus]

I think Wilson saved many lives by shooting Brown. Brown won't beat up/shoot any clerks in the future, join a gang, or rape and kill his future girlfriends. Wilson served the community that day. Wilson's eye nearly got punched out of its socket and had bruises all over his face, had his gun nearly stolen and you (Endus) think Brown was a "non-lethal" force.. Yeh okay.

[niil945]

Still calling bullshit. I don't believe for a second that you were taught to shoot to wound in the US military.

Yep, no idea what he's talking about. He may have received instruction specific to a region he was deployed to that differs from standard procedure, but I've never heard of it happening. And it certainly wasn't what they trained us to do as MP's in 1998 when I went through my initial training or any subsequent training I received.

[Endus]

We're ignoring that he turned back around and was running at the car when shot now are we?

Nope. I've pretty clearly stated that I think Wilson would have been cleared at trial. I do think force was justifed, just not lethal force. If Wilson had used a tazer or a beanbag gun, I'd be fine with that.

Not so if Brown hadn't turned around.

[Sesshou]

It's pretty telling that people are rushing to the thread to defend Wilson's actions, when this wrongful death settlement is pretty much a tacit admission that he acted inappropriately.

I would have expected someone like you that usually seems pretty informed to realize that an insurance company settling a case is not a tacit admission of anything. It is simply a financial calculation. Insurance companies settle cases all the time which are completely winnable because fighting the claims are also costly plus there is a chance that they could lose (also a case like this has bad optics). It is merely a financial calculation that paying them off is cheaper than fighting it in court.

Insurance companies don't give a shit who is right who is wrong. They care about how much it is going to cost them.

[GreenJesus]

Nope. I've pretty clearly stated that I think Wilson would have been cleared at trial. I do think force was justifed, just not lethal force. If Wilson had used a tazer or a beanbag gun, I'd be fine with that.

Not so if Brown hadn't turned around.

If he used a tazer, Brown could still hit him or steal his gun and kill him.. Tazer's don't always work.. are you that dumb?

[alturic]

While it is sad that a person had to lose their life and the family has to deal with it the officer involved also has to deal with the fact that he had to take a life and that will probably weigh on him the rest of his life because a person threatened his personal safety. Is the cops life less important because he swore to serve and protect his community?

Why is the cop always blamed when something happens to such a "upstanding" citizen? Yes some cops are not the most stand-up guys out there but all in all they cant all be bad.

While I would have previously said "so true", sadly it's not always the reason anymore.

[Endus]

If he used a tazer, Brown could still hit him or steal his gun and kill him.. Tazer's don't always work.. are you that dumb?

So tazers are completely ineffective and no police officer should ever use one? Is that seriously your argument?

[FurryRedVixen]

Actually no.. wrongful death is a civil action, not so much criminal. It also has lesser degree of culpability. This has no bearing on the criminal side of things, but those incapable of knowing or even understanding the whole hands up do not shoot was a lie and that this man had assaulted a police officer, in his squad car, should know things are going to go the direction they did.

Wow Endus, you really are going that direction with your anti law enforcement everything is bad thing? Tazers are effective but only at roughly 3 meters to 4, any further or closer and the prongs could not spool out or it looses its effective punching power and would just get stuck in clothing or bounce off of thicker materials (jackets, leather etc). Sprays are also not that effective when closer then 1-2 meters due to hitting yourself with the vapors and spray back. (plus there has been situations where they can be damaging to life threating to certain peoples).

[GreenJesus]

So tazers are completely ineffective and no police officer should ever use one? Is that seriously your argument?

My argument is that a tazer is used in a situation where someone is being aggressive or non-compliant, but not literally trying to kill you. If someone was going to kill you, would you take a 50-50 risk of dying? I personally wouldn't leave my life up to a 50-50. Even if the cop didn't die, if he let Brown take the gun and run away, Brown could kill others with it knowing his thug behavior.