• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Alleged friend of the officer who shot Michael Brown calls into radio show...

Lethal force is only justified in defense of lethal force,
That simply isn't true.
Lethal force can usually be used to protect against and stop forcible felonies (like rape), and immanent great bodily harm.
And then we have different standards under castle doctrines.
So no, it isn't only justified in defense of lethal force.
OK perhaps I was being a little too simplistic. In any event, I think it's hard to claim that justification for lethal force existed based on that video. You don't get to kill someone for grabbing your shirt and shoving you. And the point that you don't get to impose lethal force to prevent somebody for making off with your cigars is a valid one.
 
no this is
View attachment 67171638
sorry, i couldn't resist

And this was a young Jeffrey Dahmer.

jeffrey-dahmer-4.jpg


Was there a point to the Martin picture?
 
Did you listen to the call to the radio show? I mean, did you listen to ALL OF IT? When asked how she knew this information, she replied that she had not been there, but was given that information by the officer's wife. That's right. She was fed this, and then she fed it to the radio station.

Yes, I was listening to the show as it was happening. Reports are now that a dozen people say that IS the officer's story.
 
OK perhaps I was being a little too simplistic. In any event, I think it's hard to claim that justification for lethal force existed based on that video. You don't get to kill someone for grabbing your shirt and shoving you. And the point that you don't get to impose lethal force to prevent somebody for making off with your cigars is a valid one.

What about for beating your eye socket in? Lethal?
 
OK perhaps I was being a little too simplistic. In any event, I think it's hard to claim that justification for lethal force existed based on that video. You don't get to kill someone for grabbing your shirt and shoving you. And the point that you don't get to impose lethal force to prevent somebody for making off with your cigars is a valid one.

You're right, you wouldn't use lethal force if those are the sole actions during this incident. However, there is plenty of other specifics out there that are alleged to have taken place that you are leaving out.
 
You're right, you wouldn't use lethal force if those are the sole actions during this incident. However, there is plenty of other specifics out there that are alleged to have taken place that you are leaving out.
Could you elaborate? I'm open to that.
 
Could you elaborate? I'm open to that.

Wilson's version (or at least whats been released about it) alleges that Brown went at him in his police car, gun discharged. Fled and Wilson pursued. Brown turned, taunted and charged him. A 6'4" 240 lb man charging you could constitute and justify the use of lethal force, especially if this individual had already tried for the officer weapon.

Now thats version of this evidence that is supposedly Wilson's account. If the evidence supports that version, than the shooting was certainly justified or at least in accordance with most use of force policies I've seen.

Is his version the truth, don't know. Are the other versions of the altercation the truth, with the exception that he was shot multiple times in the back...don't know. Frankly, none us do. Most is just speculation based on the versions of the incident that are out there.
 
Wilson's version (or at least whats been released about it) alleges that Brown went at him in his police car, gun discharged. Fled and Wilson pursued. Brown turned, taunted and charged him. A 6'4" 240 lb man charging you could constitute and justify the use of lethal force, especially if this individual had already tried for the officer weapon.

Now thats version of this evidence that is supposedly Wilson's account. If the evidence supports that version, than the shooting was certainly justified or at least in accordance with most use of force policies I've seen.

Is his version the truth, don't know. Are the other versions of the altercation the truth, with the exception that he was shot multiple times in the back...don't know. Frankly, none us do. Most is just speculation based on the versions of the incident that are out there.
Thanks for that, but I think we were talking about two different things. I was talking about the hypothetical someone posted asking what if the store owner had shot Brown, rather than Officer Wilson.
 
Thanks for that, but I think we were talking about two different things. I was talking about the hypothetical someone posted asking what if the store owner had shot Brown, rather than Officer Wilson.

My bad, thought it was in reference to the actual shooting.
 
In any event, I think it's hard to claim that justification for lethal force existed based on that video. You don't get to kill someone for grabbing your shirt and shoving you. And the point that you don't get to impose lethal force to prevent somebody for making off with your cigars is a valid one.
I think you are making claims while not knowing what all the evidence is.
Brown had already established himself as a lethal threat to the Officer, as he was combative and had tried to take his firearm.
Now the Officer is finale able to get out of his vehicle and orders them to stop. Instead, Brown turns around and starts coming toward the Officer.
His threat level hadn't changed in those few seconds. He was coming towards the Officer pointing a gun at him.
The Officer had every reason to start firing.
 
I think you are making claims while not knowing what all the evidence is.
Brown had already established himself as a lethal threat to the Officer, as he was combative and had tried to take his firearm.
Now the Officer is finale able to get out of his vehicle and orders them to stop. Instead, Brown turns around and starts coming toward the Officer.
His threat level hadn't changed in those few seconds. He was coming towards the Officer pointing a gun at him.
The Officer had every reason to start firing.
Im not talking about Officer Brown.
 
Let's put this one to bed. According to the police report, the officer says that Brown as 35 feet away when he turned around and began charging. He was shot 20 feet away. That is a 15 foot window.

Now, if Brown was bum-rushing the officer, he would begin running fast towards the officer, the officer would then determine that he was being bum rushed, he would then train his weapon on Brown and fire 8 shots (the total number of shots fired), all within the space of the amount of time it takes to run 15 feet. I can run 15 feet in about a second and a half.

Logically, the officers story is false, as there is no way he could see that he was being bum-rushed, then train his gun on Brown, and fire off 8 shots - All that plus the reaction time - in just a couple of seconds.
 
He's dangerous. Thats a lot of sugar - but he makes his own rules.




nothing screams thug more than that 2 litre bottle of hawaiian punch
 
Logically, the officers story is false, as there is no way he could see that he was being bum-rushed, then train his gun on Brown, and fire off 8 shots - All that plus the reaction time - in just a couple of seconds.

His gun was drawn so reaction time is minimal. Distances released thus far have been conflicting. Furthermore, you're basing a fifteen foot "sprint" on your capabilities. Are you nearly 300lbs? Conceivable that Brown slowed down has the shots made impact? Most with some training can get off 8 shots in 3-4 seconds.

Unless you've seen the crime scene information in the investigation, logically...you're just assuming.
 
Let's put this one to bed. According to the police report, the officer says that Brown as 35 feet away when he turned around and began charging. He was shot 20 feet away. That is a 15 foot window.

Now, if Brown was bum-rushing the officer, he would begin running fast towards the officer, the officer would then determine that he was being bum rushed, he would then train his weapon on Brown and fire 8 shots (the total number of shots fired), all within the space of the amount of time it takes to run 15 feet. I can run 15 feet in about a second and a half.

Logically, the officers story is false, as there is no way he could see that he was being bum-rushed, then train his gun on Brown, and fire off 8 shots - All that plus the reaction time - in just a couple of seconds.

Weren't the first gunshots close-range from INSIDE the police car while they were involved in a physical struggle? That would've been the shots to the arms/hands. The fatal ones would've come from a longer range as Mike Brown was charging the officer like a bull (head down - accounting for the gunshot to the top of the head).
 
Weren't the first gunshots close-range from INSIDE the police car while they were involved in a physical struggle? That would've been the shots to the arms/hands. The fatal ones would've come from a longer range as Mike Brown was charging the officer like a bull (head down - accounting for the gunshot to the top of the head).
Only one shot is reported as being fired in the vehicle.
 
Weren't the first gunshots close-range from INSIDE the police car while they were involved in a physical struggle? That would've been the shots to the arms/hands. The fatal ones would've come from a longer range as Mike Brown was charging the officer like a bull (head down - accounting for the gunshot to the top of the head).

There was no GSR on Brown's body or clothes so that would be impossible.
 
It's odd that people continually use 'bum rush' improperly.

The 'bum rush' is when cops, business owners, shop keepers, etc used to grab a begger, hobo, homeless person and throw them out of their business or building. They would grab the person and physically throw them out into the street or alley. Bouncers do it.

That is not what is being described by people re: this event.
 
There was no GSR on Brown's body or clothes so that would be impossible.
Where do you get this information that there was no GSR on the clothing? I ask because Dr.Baden and the Prof. did not examine the clothing.
 
It's odd that people continually use 'bum rush' improperly.

The 'bum rush' is when cops, business owners, shop keepers, etc used to grab a begger, hobo, homeless person and throw them out of their business or building. They would grab the person and physically throw them out into the street or alley. Bouncers do it.

That is not what is being described by people re: this event.
Brown was running towards the Officer as the Officer was shooting at him. That is an eyewitness account.
The hearsay evidence, supposedly confirmed by Official sources, and reportedly by 12 other witnesses accounts, was that it was a bum-rush.
That is charging with head down.
That would explain exactly what the the Private autopsy indicated, just as Brown falling forward during his run, as the Officer continued to shoot.

The point being, while it is hearsay evidence of the Officer's account, bum-rush is exactly what has been described.
 
Back
Top Bottom