Michael Brown's death and civil unrest in north St. Louis

[Roose Seal]

That very well may be, however, that does not mean Brown's earlier actions are irrelevant. If Brown assaulted the shopkeeper and stole from the shop, that could provide motive for why Brown may have fought with the police officer to avoid arrest.

The word "motive" has no place when talking about the victim.

[Trebla]

That very well may be; however, that does not mean Brown's earlier actions are irrelevant. If Brown assaulted the shopkeeper and stole from the shop, that could provide motive for why Brown may have fought with the police officer to avoid arrest.

That's possible. But the jaywalking is exactly what the witnesses have stated. So it does backup their accounts.

Still, I feel almost like we know less about what happened. :ack:

[Queen Ayras Lord Commander]

That very well may be; however, that does not mean Brown's earlier actions are irrelevant. If Brown assaulted the shopkeeper and stole from the shop, that could provide motive for why Brown may have fought with the police officer to avoid arrest.

This isn't wrong, but what happened near or in the vehicle is different from what happened when the officer exited the vehicle. The allegation is he shot a fleeing UNARMED suspect in the back, then in the chest, then in the head. That's murder in every state.

[aceluby]

That very well may be; however, that does not mean Brown's earlier actions are irrelevant. If Brown assaulted the shopkeeper and stole from the shop, that could provide motive for why Brown may have fought with the police officer to avoid arrest.

That shouldn't matter. Even IF what the cop says is true about the confrontation, the fact is that the kid was shot while fleeing, put his hands in the air, and then was executed by the cop. How it escalated doesn't matter because the threat (if there was any in the first place, which there is no actual evidence of) was over by that point.

[Queen Ayras Lord Commander]

That's possible. But the jaywalking is exactly what the witnesses have stated. So it does backup their accounts.

Still, I feel almost like we know less about what happened. :ack:

That seems to be what people on the ground are saying.

[Davos OnionKing]

I disagree, because the two boys were not stopped for the robbery. They have nothing to do with each other. Not only that, but there is no way to confirm that he actually robbed the store because he's dead. He'll never get a trial for it, he'll never be able to provide evidence, he'll never be able to do anything about the media slant because he's dead. The only purpose it serves is to assassinate his character so the officer who killed him for no reason has a better chance of getting off, a la Zimmerman.

At this point I wouldn't even be surprised if the gentleman who robbed the store was not even the same person as the victim. All we have is a grainy photo of a large black man. This is hardly a positive identification until we hear otherwise. If there is other evidence please correct me on this, but so far that's all I have seen.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

This isn't wrong, but what happened near or in the vehicle is different from what happened when the officer exited the vehicle. The allegation is he shot a fleeing UNARMED suspect in the back, then in the chest, then in the head. That's murder in every state.

That's not necessarily the case. As Sturn pointed out a few pages back, the use of force, even potentially deadly force, can be justified under certain circumstances to prevent felon or suspected felon from fleeing.

I'm not saying that those circumstances are or are not met here - I don't think there's enough evidence to conclusively show either way.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

The word "motive" has no place when talking about the victim.

That's not true at all. Motives - or motivations - are often critical components of both sides of these stories - alleged perpetrator and alleged victim.

[The Notorious]

Inigima,

Lev advocated getting rid of the 4th amendment warrant requirement and going house to house to collect all firearms after the Connecticut school shooting last year. When I pointed out how hugely problematic it was from a civil liberties perspective he scoffed saying not everyone was so obsessed with their Constitutional rights as I was.

I still stand behind the idea of confiscation of illegal guns scot, not the legally owned ones, which is a crucial and important difference ..... But why have notice that you consistently and deliberately omitted that in this,what is it, fifth misrepresentation now. I do hope you cease misrepresenting what I wrote in the future. :-)

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Lev,

You advocated warrantless searches to find them. Our point of contention was not the legality or illegality of the weapons but of the searches. You scoffed at my concerns about the 4th amendment (I paraphrase as I believe that thread is long gone) claiming not everyone obsesses about Constitutional rights the way you [ser Scot] do.

I found the thread it's "Gun control 3" from 12/14/12:

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/78171-gun-control-3/page-5

[The Notorious]

The word "motive" has no place when talking about the victim.

I am not sure about that. Motive is very important, case in point, the prosecution in the zimmerman tried to prove that zimmerman has a racist and murderous motive to follow martin home. Here, the defense will try to use motive to explain the confrontation.

[Suttree]

You did say collect "all" firearms Scot.

[Relic]

Lev,

You advocated warrantless searches to find them. Our point of contention was not the legality or illegality of the weapons but of the searches. You scoffed at my concerns about the 4th amendment (I paraphrase as I believe that thread is long gone) claiming not everyone obsesses about Constitutional rights the way you [ser Scot] do.

whatever. move on and stop misquoting him every chance you get.

pretty please.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Relic,

I'm not.

[The Notorious]

Lev,

You advocated warrantless searches to find them. Our point of contention was not the legality or illegality of the weapons but of the searches. You scoffed at my concerns about the 4th amendment (I paraphrase as I believe that thread is long gone) claiming not everyone obsesses about Constitutional rights the way you [ser Scot] do.

Scot,

I have no problem with what you wrote above. But that is your pet peeves. I appreciate if you could include the correct terminology with regards to the illegality of the weapons themselves when you feel the need to make a snide but inaccurate remark about me in the future. :-)

I mean if i want to make a snide but accurate remark about you, i would say something like "hey scot do you still hang that confederate flag in the house?"

[Davos OnionKing]

I still stand behind the idea of confiscation of illegal guns scot, not the legally owned ones, which is a crucial and important difference ..... But why have notice that you consistently and deliberately omitted that in this,what is it, fifth misrepresentation now. I do hope you cease misrepresenting what I wrote in the future. :-)

Why don't both of you continue your endless debate in a separate thread and stop hijacking this one.

[The Notorious]

Davosonionking, listen there is always the ignore button. :-)

[Davos OnionKing]

Davosonionking, listen there is always the ignore button. :-)

There's also common courtesy. This thread wasn't started to debate gun ownership.

[Trebla]

There's also common courtesy. This thread wasn't started to debate gun ownership.

I agree.

[Queen Ayras Lord Commander]

That's not necessarily the case. As Sturn pointed out a few pages back, the use of force, even potentially deadly force, can be justified under certain circumstances to prevent felon or suspected felon from fleeing.

I'm not saying that those circumstances are or are not met here - I don't think there's enough evidence to conclusively show either way.

It cannot be used on an unarmed fleeing suspect. It especially can't be used on a surrendering suspect.