Ferguson attorney: Brown family settlement $1.5 million

[Endus]

More than that. It showed Brown assaulted Wilson while Wilson was in his vehicle, breaking a facial bone near his eye, then showed, both through video and forensics that Brown grabbed Wilson's gun and pulled the trigger (finger prints and powder residue).

Which is irrelevant, because Brown wasn't shot during that struggle. He ran away. And THEN Wilson shot him.

Also showed the distance he was at while charging Wilson. He actively tried to murder the cop and was more than capable of doing so.

You can't get any of that from a medical report. And no, even if he were running towards the officer, an unarmed man isn't a lethal threat.

[Endus]

I think your level of lethal threat is unreasonable. Thankfully so do our laws.

What I'm describing with regards to the use of force spectrum is US law.

[alturic]

Which is irrelevant, because Brown wasn't shot during that struggle. He ran away. And THEN Wilson shot him.



You can't get any of that from a medical report. And no, even if he were running towards the officer, an unarmed man isn't a lethal threat.

Unfortunately you don't know any police officers. If you do, you would know why what Wilson (and any cop) did what he did.

[Saucexorzski]

Maybe not, but it was extremely cowardly and I should be able to expect more from people that knowingly sign up to protect citizens from potential danger.

i mean it be great if that what cops were there for but its been through the courts and sadly this is not at all the duty of cops.

- - - Updated - - -

What I'm describing is US law.

not really.

[perasite]

Which is irrelevant, because Brown wasn't shot during that struggle. He ran away. And THEN Wilson shot him.



You can't get any of that from a medical report. And no, even if he were running towards the officer, an unarmed man isn't a lethal threat.

Bull... seriously dude. You just make stuff up. An unarmed man who already tried to steal your gun IS IN FACT a lethal threat. A much larger person who is rushing you IS IN FACT a lethal threat.

[alturic]

What I'm describing with regards to the use of force spectrum is US law.

Apparently not since very, very few police are ever convicted from a jury.

[Ahhdurr]

Troll thread should be locked.

[Coconuter]

I've never argued that.

I've argued that cops shouldn't be escalating to lethal force without positively identifying a lethal threat, which was not present at the time Wilson fired, or in many of these other cases. Assuming that someone has a gun is not "positively identifying". An unarmed person acting aggressively is not a lethal threat. Etc.

There's more to the use of force spectrum than lethal force or "let yourself be shot stabbed or killed".

You can go to multi day defense courses designed for the basics of police/defense/response teams that go into civilian handling. I'm not sure how much they cost as the Navy paid for all my training, but, it may open your eyes a bit and give you some much needed perspective. If you think Wilson was excessive, you don't understand or didn't read what happened.

[Endus]

Bull... seriously dude. You just make stuff up. An unarmed man who already tried to steal your gun IS IN FACT a lethal threat. I much larger person who is rushing you IS IN FACT a lethal threat.

Both of those statements are not factually correct. An unarmed person is never considered a lethal threat, even if acting aggressively, or bigger than you. That he'd wrestled for the firearm was a prior incident, and not relevant to the moment of the shooting; if he'd been shot THEN, it would've been justified. But then circumstances changed, Brown ran off. That changes whether lethal force is justified, because Brown is no longer wrestling for the weapon.

[Ghostpanther]

Maybe not, but it was extremely cowardly and I should be able to expect more from people that knowingly sign up to protect citizens from potential danger.

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.

[alturic]

Both of those statements are not factually correct. An unarmed person is never considered a lethal threat, even if acting aggressively, or bigger than you. That he'd wrestled for the firearm was a prior incident, and not relevant to the moment of the shooting; if he'd been shot THEN, it would've been justified. But then circumstances changed, Brown ran off. That changes whether lethal force is justified, because Brown is no longer wrestling for the weapon.

Not true. /10

Also "probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others."

[the game]

Which is irrelevant, because Brown wasn't shot during that struggle. He ran away. And THEN Wilson shot him.



You can't get any of that from a medical report. And no, even if he were running towards the officer, an unarmed man isn't a lethal threat.

because people can't be killed by being punched in the head right?

[perasite]

Both of those statements are not factually correct. An unarmed person is never considered a lethal threat, even if acting aggressively, or bigger than you. That he'd wrestled for the firearm was a prior incident, and not relevant to the moment of the shooting; if he'd been shot THEN, it would've been justified. But then circumstances changed, Brown ran off. That changes whether lethal force is justified, because Brown is no longer wrestling for the weapon.

Wrong, that he wrestled for the firearm shows that he intended to kill the cop if given the opportunity. And a much larger unarmed person is DEFINITELY a lethal threat. If he is able to connect and the officer goes down, he can no longer defend himself. If he's rushing in for an attack, the officer absolutely has the right to defend his own life.

[Ghostpanther]

Both of those statements are not factually correct. An unarmed person is never considered a lethal threat, even if acting aggressively, or bigger than you. That he'd wrestled for the firearm was a prior incident, and not relevant to the moment of the shooting; if he'd been shot THEN, it would've been justified. But then circumstances changed, Brown ran off. That changes whether lethal force is justified, because Brown is no longer wrestling for the weapon.

That is not true. If a young unarmed 200 pound man jumps on a elderly lady and starts to beat the crap out of her, she would be justified to treat him as a lethal threat and shoot his ass.

[Machismo]

The story pushed by both sides did not add up. The timeline that Wilson claimed to be true was not possible given the evidence. The testimony by Brown's friend was also not possible, and was refuted by the medical examiner. At the end of the day, we still do not know exactly what happened, and we never will. The settlement was honestly to try and make this all go away. As for the shooting, I'm actually far more concerned with the actions of law enforcement in the days after it occurred. There were multiple instances of civil rights violations, stifling free press, and misuse of force. That was a part of the issue that deserved far more attention.

[Coconuter]

Which is irrelevant, because Brown wasn't shot during that struggle. He ran away. And THEN Wilson shot him.



You can't get any of that from a medical report. And no, even if he were running towards the officer, an unarmed man isn't a lethal threat.

Lethal threat has many meanings for one. Wilson shot him while he was being charged. Brown had demonstrated lethal threat (please look up what that entails, because you're getting it wrong).

Example: You take jiu jitsu, you'll learn how to break some bones. Using this, even if you'd argue is to stop the person, is considered lethal force. A police officer can now shoot you to stop you from using lethal force on somebody. It also goes into threats, capability, etc. Look at how many fist fights result in deaths as adults. It doesn't take much to kill somebody.

[Ghostpanther]

Their slogan is actually to protect and serve. Why are so many people in this thread defending lazy and incompetence from their police force.

Let me be clear, I don't give a damn about Michael w/e or his story . I'm only talking about the cops actions independently and how they should not be seen as the standard for cops

Which that slogan is only for public relations. Legally, try to sue them for getting to your home late when you are being attacked. :P

[zenkai]

Not true. /10

Also "probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others."

Not to mention lots of cased of officers being shot by an unarmed threat after they over powered the officer and took their weapon.

[Endus]

Not true. /10

If it weren't true, then police could kill literally anyone they wanted to, because, by your argument, even unarmed people pose a lethal threat and their behaviour doesn't matter, so the moment the officer suspects you of anything, they can legally kill you.

That's obviously ridiculous.

because people can't be killed by being punched in the head right?

That's not how lethal threats are defined. People can be killed by choking on a hot dog; that doesn't mean someone selling hotdogs is making lethal threats.

[Coconuter]

Which is irrelevant, because Brown wasn't shot during that struggle. He ran away. And THEN Wilson shot him.



You can't get any of that from a medical report. And no, even if he were running towards the officer, an unarmed man isn't a lethal threat.

Also, there was a video of him charging the officer that was submitted as evidence. So it's not a question of if he were.