Missouri Police Officer guns down unarmed 18 year old

[spidey07]

Here in NC you can't... You can't use your firearm to prevent theft unless the perpetrator is threatening you with a weapon, physical harm, etc. You can't use a firearm to stop an individual walking out of your house with your shit... But you can shoot them through the window or door as they attempt to break in. Seems like a disconnect there in the statutes in NC. Most states don't allow firearm owners to protect property like Texas does.

That said, the rules can be a bit different for business owners in their place of business. The shop owner or clerk in most states would have a right to use his weapon after being manhandled like that.

I suggest you relearn castle doctrine laws in you state. Best to be aware of you states laws.

 

[WackyDan]

so lets get this straight there have been no verifiable witnesses...for or against.....

It is like this whole thread and the video.......people seeing what is not there...people hoping for things that are not there.....

We just need to sit back and chill.......here is why....

The ramifications of whatever way the grand jury decides is just to great......
That's why the government is there.....
Because if this whole thing goes south you very well could have riots in quite a few places in this country......

For that matter the Police will be in fear of there lives......we do not want this to go south...

We want Justice......only a fool would ask somebody to define justice...

If the fact bear out that the officer is innocent then so be it........

If the facts bear out that Brown was killed...then so be it......

Iether way we do not want to give idiots a reason to riot and tear our lives apart......

Most of us here don't disagree, but some are getting emotionally invested while claiming they are not.

The problem is the idea of "justice" as spun by most of the media outlets, the mob mentality of the public, etc means that the officer has to be found guilty of murder. I was flipping channels and stopped on CNN tonight for kicks and was amazed at the amount of spin they were achieving the was pro-Brown narrative. They were even interviewing Van Jones. Van Jones. Truly credible human being... Yes that is sarcasm.

That there is a movement to tamper/circumvent the established judicial process that ensures due process for the accused is what bothers me the most about this whole cluster fuck.

 

[soundforbjt]

Most of us here don't disagree, but some are getting emotionally invested while claiming they are not.

The problem is the idea of "justice" as spun by most of the media outlets, the mob mentality of the public, etc means that the officer has to be found guilty of murder. I was flipping channels and stopped on CNN tonight for kicks and was amazed at the amount of spin they were achieving the was pro-Brown narrative. They were even interviewing Van Jones. Van Jones. Truly credible human being... Yes that is sarcasm.

That there is a movement to tamper/circumvent the established judicial process that ensures due process for the accused is what bothers me the most about this whole cluster fuck.

And, if you had stopped on Faux News you would've heard just the opposite.

 

[WackyDan]

I suggest you relearn castle doctrine laws in you state. Best to be aware of you states laws.

Spidey.. with all due respect, I'm plenty familiar. You should know that. 😉

 

[cubby1223]

And, if you had stopped on Faux News you would've heard just the opposite.

What is this Faux News you speak of? Never heard of it.

 

[cubby1223]

Man the racists are out in force on this thread.. wow..

It's because we love you so much!

 

[soundforbjt]

What is this Faux News you speak of? Never heard of it.

I'm sure it's watched religiously by many in this thread, you may know of it as Fox News...😉

 

[Riparian]

Lol! Your lack of reading comprehension skills sheds some light on your capability as an admin and now I understand your pm's perfectly.

Had either of you idiots bothered to read what was posted with regards to MO law, you would have seen the many restrictions there are with regards to when force can be used. Can you point to the specifics of the law that would have applied in this case? Be careful, read slowly and read the restrictions completely, I don't want you two to make even bigger fools of yourselves.


Oh and by all means bffix show me where I've been pwned seeing as how you have me on ignore! Lol! Fucking tool!

It's posts like these that make you seem biased and way too emotionally invested. Your statement that HumblePie responded to was this:

Lol the old it's ok to break the law because someone else did argument. No, sorry, the clerk has zero rights in forcibly stopping anyone. I have no idea where you came up with that.

He then posted MO's statute showing when force is allowed. You made a blanket statement that the clerk does not have any right to forcibly stop someone, yet, it can be argued that the clerk reasonably believed that he needed to use force to stop someone who he reasonably believed to have committed larceny. You can also argue that the clerk did not have a reasonable belief there was larceny if you lean on the side that there wasn't theft. As of right now, we don't really know what exactly happened in the store. Whatever it was, it was enough for a bystander to believe it was a robbery (whether that belief was wrong will probably be established if they ever subpoena the store clerk).

Anyways, you previously asked what the point of this thread is? It should be a place where news is posted and people can civilly discuss the case as it unfolds. Realistically, no one should have already decided to be in favor or against Brown or Wilson because there just isn't enough information out there as of yet. And before you ask why I haven't responded to the Wilson supporters, it's probably because many of them are my ignore list since their post histories are often ridiculous (i.e., spidey). You at least seem somewhat reasonable but just too invested like JediYoda and Oldgamer.

 

[ivwshane]

It's posts like these that make you seem biased and way too emotionally invested. Your statement that HumblePie responded to was this:



He then posted MO's statute showing when force is allowed. You made a blanket statement that the clerk does not have any right to forcibly stop someone, yet, it can be argued that the clerk reasonably believed that he needed to use force to stop someone who he reasonably believed to have committed larceny. You can also argue that the clerk did not have a reasonable belief there was larceny if you lean on the side that there wasn't theft. As of right now, we don't really know what exactly happened in the store. Whatever it was, it was enough for a bystander to believe it was a robbery (whether that belief was wrong will probably be established if they ever subpoena the store clerk).

Anyways, you previously asked what the point of this thread is? It should be a place where news is posted and people can civilly discuss the case as it unfolds. Realistically, no one should have already decided to be in favor or against Brown or Wilson because there just isn't enough information out there as of yet. And before you ask why I haven't responded to the Wilson supporters, it's probably because many of them are my ignore list since their post histories are often ridiculous (i.e., spidey). You at least seem somewhat reasonable but just too invested like JediYoda and Oldgamer.

Did you read the law? What part of the law applied to the clerk?

I don't have a dog in this fight but I'm not going to let people make shit up. If I've made shit up, I have asked to show where I did, no one has accepted the challenge.

Anyways, you previously asked what the point of this thread is? It should be a place where news is posted and people can civilly discuss the case as it unfolds. Realistically, no one should have already decided to be in favor or against Brown or Wilson because there just isn't enough information out there as of yet.

I agree and I've said as much😉

 

[Riparian]

Did you read the law? What part of the law applied to the clerk?

I don't have a dog in this fight but I'm not going to let people make shit up. If I've made shit up, I have asked to show where I did, no one has accepted the challenge.



I agree and I've said as much😉

The law applies depending upon how one views what was seen on the video footage. If the person feels that the video footage showed a theft, then the clerk is allowed to use reasonable force to stop what the clerk reasonable believes to be theft. On the other hand, if the person viewing the footage feels that the clerk could not reasonably believe that a theft was occurring (which could very well be the case since we'll never know until the clerk is subpoenaed to testify to what occurred at the market), then the clerk could not use force. That's all the law really says so it entirely depends on what really happened at the market.

 

[ivwshane]

The law applies depending upon how one views what was seen on the video footage. If the person feels that the video footage showed a theft, then the clerk is allowed to use reasonable force to stop what the clerk reasonable believes to be theft. On the other hand, if the person viewing the footage feels that the clerk could not reasonably believe that a theft was occurring (which could very well be the case since we'll never know until the clerk is subpoenaed to testify to what occurred at the market), then the clerk could not use force. That's all the law really says so it entirely depends on what really happened at the market.

Where, in the link provided, does it say someone, not authorized by the police, whose perp is not a danger to any other person including the clerk is allowed to use force?

Now it is possible I missed that provision, I am reading it on a phone after all, but unless you can point to the specific sub section that would give the clerk the authority to use force, I don't see it.

I've asked three times now. We have the law, it should be easy to point out and quote the paragraph.

 

[Riparian]

Where, in the link provided, does it say someone, not authorized by the police, whose perp is not a danger to any other person including the clerk is allowed to use force?

Now it is possible I missed that provision, I am reading it on a phone after all, but unless you can point to the specific sub section that would give the clerk the authority to use force, I don't see it.

I've asked three times now. We have the law, it should be easy to point out and quote the paragraph.

Here's the relevant statute:

Use of physical force in defense of property.
563.041. 1. A person may, subject to the limitations of subsection 2, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage or tampering in any degree.

2. A person may use deadly force under circumstances described in subsection 1 only when such use of deadly force is authorized under other sections of this chapter.

3. The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of physical restraint as protective force provided that the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the restraint as soon as it is reasonable to do so.

4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.

(L. 1977 S.B. 60, A.L. 2007 S.B. 62 & 41)

This specific section is about the use of force for the defense of property. Subsection 1 is really the only section that applies to this situation as deadly force was not used (so no subsection 2) and since Brown wasn't ultimately restrained by the clerk, subsection 3 doesn't apply. So, here we are, examining subsection 1.

Subsection 1 states that a person (the clerk) may use non-deadly physical force upon another person (Brown) if the clerk reasonably believes that Brown is committing or attempting to commit stealing, property damage, or tampering in any degree and the clerk reasonably believes that force is necessary to prevent the theft. I've essentially broken it down to the most lay terms I can. "Reasonableness" is a legal term that is generally decided by the fact finder (jury or judge) once all of the facts are presented.

To really put this debate to an end, I'm going to provide you with 1st year Criminal Law textbook excerpt that even provides an example:

Defense of Property
All jurisdictions allow individuals to use force in defense of property under certain specified circumstances. Property can be real or personal. Real property is land and anything permanently attached to it. This includes a home. However, defense of the home is discussed in Chapter 5, Section 3.3 "Defense of Habitation". Personal property is any movable object.

In the majority of states, the defendant can use force only to defend real or personal property if the defendant has an objectively reasonable belief that an imminent threat of damage, destruction, or theft will occur. [3] The Model Penal Code provides “the use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary: (a) to prevent or terminate an unlawful entry or other trespass upon land or a trespass against or the unlawful carrying away of tangible, movable property” (Model Penal Code §3.06(1) (a)). Thus if the defendant has a subjective belief that force is immediately necessary to protect real or personal property, force is appropriate under the Model Penal Code.

The amount of force that a defendant may legally use to protect real or personal property is reasonable force, under the circumstances. [4] The defendant can also chase someone who steals personal property and take the item back. [5] The Model Penal Code provides “the use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary…to retake tangible movable property” (Model Penal Code §3.06(1) (b)). In general, the Model Penal Code and most states do not authorize the use of deadly force to protect property (other than the home) under any circumstances. [6]

Example of Defense of Property
Kelsey sees Keith, her stepbrother, approaching her brand new car with a key in his hand. It appears that Keith is about to scrape the paint on the door of the car with this key. Kelsey tackles Keith to prevent him from vandalizing the car. Kelsey has probably used reasonable force under the circumstances and can claim defense of property as a defense to battery. If Keith testifies that he was simply going to hand Kelsey the key, which she left in the house, the attack could still be justified if the trier of fact determines that it was objectively reasonable for Kelsey to believe Keith was about to damage her property. In jurisdictions that follow the Model Penal Code, Kelsey can probably use defense of property as a defense to battery because it is clear Kelsey believed that force was immediately necessary to protect her personal property in this situation. Of course, if Kelsey pulls out a gun and shoots Keith, she could not claim defense of property because deadly force is never justifiable to protect real or personal property from harm.

Here's a link to the textbook itself:

http://catalog.flatworldknowledge.com/bookhub/reader/4373?e=storm_1.0-ch05_s03

And just for added emphasis, here's the Model Penal Code's section on Defense of Property that many states base their penal codes on:

§ 3.06. Use of Force for Protection of Property.
(1) Use of Force Justifiable for Protection of Property. Subject to the provisions
of this Section and of Section 3.09, the use of force upon or toward the person of
another is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately
necessary:
(a) to prevent or terminate an unlawful entry or other trespass upon land or a
trespass against or the unlawful carrying away of tangible, movable property,
provided that such land or movable property is, or is believed by the actor to
be, in his possession or in the possession of another person for whose
protection he acts; or
(b) to effect an entry or re-entry upon land or to retake tangible movable
property, provided that the actor believes that he or the person by whose
authority he acts or a person from whom he or such other person derives title
was unlawfully dispossessed of such land or movable property and is entitled
to possession, and provided, further, that:
(i) the force is used immediately or on fresh pursuit after such
dispossession; or
(ii) the actor believes that the person against whom he uses force has no
claim of right to the possession of the property and, in the case of land, the
circumstances, as the actor believes them to be, are of such urgency that it
would be an exceptional hardship to postpone the entry or re-entry until a
court order is obtained.

Here's a link to the Model Penal Code in PDF format:

http://wps.prenhall.com/wps/media/objects/13023/13335893/downloadables/model_penal_code_sel_sec2.pdf

The Model Penal Code is more lax than MO's defense of property law. MO's law requires objective reasonableness, which is judged by a reasonable person standard (finder of fact in a trial). The Model Penal Code only requires a subjective belief, which just means that the person using force to defend the property himself or herself believes that force is necessary to defend his or her property.

Really, there's not much to contend here. This is a pretty simple law. As I said in my previous posts, it entirely depends on how one interprets what happened in the video surveillance footage. Of course, the easiest way would be for the clerk to just come out and say what happened (and I realize that the owners of the store have made a vague statement through their lawyer, so we'll only have the full story if the owners / clerk are subpoenaed to testify). The law has nothing to do with authorization by the police or whether the perpetrator is a danger to any other person. Those are defense of other laws and maybe deputization regulations for your authorization by the police statement?

Anyways, hopefully this satisfied your request for an explanation of the law. If we could do it Socratically, I would, since that's how most 1Ls learn it. If you want to get into a true brain twister of a law, we can talk about the Rule Against Perpetuities in property law.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Lol! Your lack of reading comprehension skills sheds some light on your capability as an admin and now I understand your pm's perfectly.

Had either of you idiots bothered to read what was posted with regards to MO law, you would have seen the many restrictions there are with regards to when force can be used. Can you point to the specifics of the law that would have applied in this case? Be careful, read slowly and read the restrictions completely, I don't want you two to make even bigger fools of yourselves.


Oh and by all means bffix show me where I've been pwned seeing as how you have me on ignore! Lol! Fucking tool!

Why aren't you banned?

 

[HomerJS]

Most of us here don't disagree, but some are getting emotionally invested while claiming they are not.

The problem is the idea of "justice" as spun by most of the media outlets, the mob mentality of the public, etc means that the officer has to be found guilty of murder. I was flipping channels and stopped on CNN tonight for kicks and was amazed at the amount of spin they were achieving the was pro-Brown narrative. They were even interviewing Van Jones. Van Jones. Truly credible human being... Yes that is sarcasm.

That there is a movement to tamper/circumvent the established judicial process that ensures due process for the accused is what bothers me the most about this whole cluster fuck.

I'll take Van Jones any day over Sean Hannity

 

[JEDI]

I suggest you relearn castle doctrine laws in you state. Best to be aware of you states laws.

contact the nra in your state.
they often offer self defense law seminiars

 

[JEDI]

btw- why didn't the cop's car have audio or video?

 

[xBiffx]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/25/critics-see-racial-double-standard-in-coverage-of-/

Roles reversed. I don't remember hearing about rioting. Weird.

 

[waggy]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/25/critics-see-racial-double-standard-in-coverage-of-/

Roles reversed. I don't remember hearing about rioting. Weird.

only times whites make the news big time is if its a pretty white female shot or kidnapped. if it is its all over the news.

A white male getting shot? meh. not newsworthy.

a black male killed by a black male? meh not newsworthy

black male killed by White cop? they will look into it.

 

[Attic]

That there is a movement to tamper/circumvent the established judicial process that ensures due process for the accused is what bothers me the most about this whole cluster fuck.

That's where the continuing danger of this lurks.

Of course the flip side is folks thinking the existing established judicial system is corrupt.


An eerie look inside Sharpton, this taken from when he was supporting Mrs Magnum who made false accusations of rape against players from the Duke Lacrosse Team. An incident with heavy racial lines that gripped the nation.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2006/04/19/al-sharpton-on-duke-rape-arrests/

SHARPTON: First of all, they better be prepared to see if she is the only witness. You don't know what other people are going to testify. You don't know what other evidence they have. So let's not get ready to discredit the girl until we see the whole passage. That's what happened with Louima. We had more than Louima, so let's not assume just discrediting the girl will work this time.
O'REILLY: Let me be clear. Your stance is let the system work.
SHARPTON: My stance is that Reverend Bob of the NAACP and others down there are advising a lot of the community what happened, we're in touch with them and we're going to work and advise through them. We'll do whatever is necessary or not necessary.
O'REILLY: All right, but you don't know yet, You, Al Sharpton, don't know what happened.

Bolded and underlined what I found most interesting/scary. Make of it what you will, it is important and it's in play in the Brown incident. The advising was done through inciting via biased information we know now to be false. Willfully blind to the truth best describes these actions.

This mentality I view as a slipperly slope and one that has consistently been abused for nefarious reasons by Sharpton and his ilk not to pursue Justice, but to pursue a narrative and a preset agenda. This is what gets things in trouble and where truth becomes less important than the push for a narrative drawn on racial lines in these cases. This is what breaks down justice it certainly doesn't serve it. Sharpton and his ilk pervert the word Justice with their actions, and they leave destruction in their wake.

Should have learned by now. But there is a new face of racism, and it benefits those who use it (black/white/oarnge brown) by an unwillingness of the nation to call it for what it is.

 

[HumblePie]

Here in NC you can't... You can't use your firearm to prevent theft unless the perpetrator is threatening you with a weapon, physical harm, etc. You can't use a firearm to stop an individual walking out of your house with your shit... But you can shoot them through the window or door as they attempt to break in. Seems like a disconnect there in the statutes in NC. Most states don't allow firearm owners to protect property like Texas does.

That said, the rules can be a bit different for business owners in their place of business. The shop owner or clerk in most states would have a right to use his weapon after being manhandled like that.

Uhh you might want to go read chapter 14 of North Carolinas statues for use of force. Even in North Carolina you can use "reasonable" force to stop a theft or burglary in progress. You can use deadly force to stop a theft or burglary if certain conditions are met such as the burglar presenting themself as an imminent threat to cause death or grave bodily harm. Or if they have broken into your home, vehicle, OR place of business. Also, brandishing is considered a reasonable use of force to stop a theft or burglary in progress in most states. I think kommiefornia is the only one that doesn't allow that. That doesn't mean you can shoot, but you can certainly use a firearm to threaten to shoot.

Nothing I stated was wrong. All 50 states allow anyone to use some level of force to stop a theft or burglary in progress. Some states only allow what is called "reasonable" or "detention" use of force for the purpose of stopping a burglary only. Some states, like Texas, allow for use of deadly force right off the bat without escalation requirements.

 

[HumblePie]

Also, I had a feeling ivwshane was going to double down on stupid when I corrected him in my previous post before I left work last night. Come in this morning and got a nice laugh out of it too.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

That's where the continuing danger of this lurks.

Of course the flip side is folks thinking the existing established judicial system is corrupt.


An eerie look inside Sharpton, this taken from when he was supporting Mrs Magnum who made false accusations of rape against players from the Duke Lacrosse Team. An incident with heavy racial lines that gripped the nation.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2006/04/19/al-sharpton-on-duke-rape-arrests/
Bolded and underlined what I found most interesting/scary. Make of it wha8t you will, it is important and it's in play in the Brown incident. The advising was done through inciting via biased information we know now to be false. Willfully blind to the truth best describes these actions.

This mentality I view as a slipperly slope and one that has consistently been abused for nefarious reasons by Sharpton and his ilk not to pursue Justice, but to pursue a narrative and a preset agenda. This is what gets things in trouble and where truth becomes less important than the push for a narrative drawn on racial lines in these cases. This is what breaks down justice.

I'm not even sure what Sharpton said.

 

[HumblePie]

Where, in the link provided, does it say someone, not authorized by the police, whose perp is not a danger to any other person including the clerk is allowed to use force?

Now it is possible I missed that provision, I am reading it on a phone after all, but unless you can point to the specific sub section that would give the clerk the authority to use force, I don't see it.

I've asked three times now. We have the law, it should be easy to point out and quote the paragraph.

Seriously man? I not only provided the link, I busted it out of into this thread and broke it down for you. Then you have the audacity to state I lack reading comprehension skills? You further double down on stupid when others all point out the exact same thing to you as you continue to make a fool of yourself.

As for your previous post of challenging others about you making up shit, I JUST proved you made up shit and called you out on it. You made up shit stating that the clerk has no right to stop Brown during his burglary attempt. That right there is wrong and complete made up shit. I proved you wrong and in the the words of another poster, PWNED you on it.

Are you going to man up or triple down on stupid?

 

[xBiffx]

btw- why didn't the cop's car have audio or video?

They (FPD) just ordered the units and they have yet to be installed. Too bad it was too late in this case. At least they had realized a deficiency and are correcting it, but again, too late for this one.

 

[Attic]

Where, in the link provided, does it say someone, not authorized by the police, whose perp is not a danger to any other person including the clerk is allowed to use force?

Now it is possible I missed that provision, I am reading it on a phone after all, but unless you can point to the specific sub section that would give the clerk the authority to use force, I don't see it.

I've asked three times now. We have the law, it should be easy to point out and quote the paragraph.

This is missing the forest for the trees. Appears intentional at this point.

Brown wont' be charged in that incident. The law isn't telling us a lot about Brown. What is revealing is how Brown treated the clerk after he either paid or didn't pay for his merchandise.

If he paid for the merchandise is this less revealing or shocking for how Brown treats other people he has an issue with?

The forest:

Grips him around the neck, throws him into a shelf, then charges. We don't have to break down law to absurd levels to know that what we see here is a man with disregard for others and common decency. With robbery, complete disregard for the law.

I never saw what looked like Brown paying for what he has in his hands there. The robbery isn't being contested by involved lawyers for Brown or Johnson, they appear to admit it was a robbery and focus on how (obviously) this doesn't justify a shooting in and of itself later with Wilson.