Ferguson, MO

[BigAppleBucky]

Tiffany Mitchel eyewitness

Two witnesses told CNN on Wednesday that while Brown did appear to tussle with an officer before he was shot, he didn’t enter the police cruiser as authorities say he did.

The women’s accounts corroborate that of a previous witness, all three of whom said the officer fatally shot the unarmed teen.

Tiffany Mitchell told CNN she drove to Ferguson on Saturday to pick up an employee for work just in time to see Brown tussling at the window of a police vehicle.

She and the employee, Piaget Crenshaw, told CNN’s Don Lemon on Wednesday about Brown’s last moments.

“It looked as if Michael was pushing off and the cop was trying to pull him in,” Mitchell said.

Crenshaw, still in her building, watched the same events from her window. She later shot cell phone video of the aftermath, which CNN obtained from affiliate KMOV.

It looked like the two of them were arm wrestling, she said.

Neither woman, who gave their statements to St. Louis County police, say they saw Brown enter the vehicle.

Instead, a shot went off, then the teen broke free, and the officer got out of the vehicle in pursuit, the women said.

“I saw the police chase him … down the street and shoot him down,” Crenshaw said. Brown ran about 20 feet.

“Michael jerks his body, as if he’s been hit,” Mitchell said.

Then he faced the officer and put his hands in the air, but the officer kept firing, both women said. He sank to the pavement.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/14/us/ferguson-michael-brown-shooting-5-things/index.html?iref=allsearch

Very inflammatory whether true or not.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Bricker

Suppose he left, complying with the statute, and then returned. Would that be a defense?

I suspect it would depend on how “depart” was defined. How far must he go to be considered departed from the scene? If, for the purposes of argument, we define that as “two blocks away”, and he moves two blocks away and then returns again, yes, by that statute that would appear to be a defense. Though he’d have to repeat his actions at each command to disperse.

Edit: And if he left immediately it would appear to be an automatic defense.

[LibrarySpy]

The law you refer to requires that there be an unlawful assembly or a riot. Unlawful assemblies are defined by the same law. The guy was not participating in an unlawful assembly, as cited, and links were provided to you, nor was he “near” an unlawful assembly. I don’t see probable cause to arrest him.

If a statute is applied without probable cause, does that make it an illegal application?

[BigAppleBucky]

@Smapti

Asked and answered.

So - private dining.

[jayjay]

Wow. The Doper Fascist Society is coming out in droves for this one. Usual suspects and all, I guess.

[LibrarySpy]

By the way, unlawful assembly is not what happens when you’ve been given an order to disperse and you disobey it.

[BigAppleBucky]

@Shodan

The trouble being that looting and rioting only has two possible effects
[ol][li]If the kid was innocent, the message sent is “the police fucked me and my neighbors over. So I am going to fuck my neighbors over.”[/li][li]It makes it look less likely that the kid was innocent, since looters and rioters feel kinship for him and identify with him. It’s not fair, but it is human nature to think "if the kid was anything like the looters, he got what he deserved. "[/ol][/li]Regards,
Shodan

Not that I favor looting and rioting under any circumstances, but if there had not been a disturbance starting Sunday night you know darned well the FBI would not be involved and the probability of a cover-up of police wrongdoing (if any) would be higher.

The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

[Bricker]

@Revenant_Threshold

I suspect it would depend on how “depart” was defined. How far must he go to be considered departed from the scene? If, for the purposes of argument, we define that as “two blocks away”, and he moves two blocks away and then returns again, yes, by that statute that would appear to be a defense. Though he’d have to repeat his actions at each command to disperse.

Edit: And if he left immediately it would appear to be an automatic defense.

In *State v. Mast, *713 SW 2d 601 ( Mo Ct App 1986), which appears to be the only Missouri appellate discussion of the failure to disperse law, the court said:

Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, the evidence was sufficient to show that on Halloween night an unlawful assembly had gathered in Maywood, and defendant had been lawfully warned to disperse. After hearing the warning, **the defendant did as requested, **but after a short period of time, he returned to the gathering. This evidence is sufficient to sustain his conviction for failure to disperse. . . . By regrouping, **defendant in effect refused to obey the lawful command **of Callow to depart from the scene of the unlawful assembly.

It’s true that criminal law is construed strictly against the government. But your construction “construe[s] the statutory section in such a manner so as to vitiate the purpose of the statute.”

[Bricker]

@LibrarySpy

The law you refer to requires that there be an unlawful assembly or a riot. Unlawful assemblies are defined by the same law. The guy was not participating in an unlawful assembly, as cited, and links were provided to you, nor was he “near” an unlawful assembly. I don’t see probable cause to arrest him.

If a statute is applied without probable cause, does that make it an illegal application?

The unlawful dispersal law does not require participation in the unlawful assembly. It merely requires being present at the scene, and then failing to disperse upon being ordered to do so.

@State v. Mast

Whether a person knowingly fails or refuses to obey the dispersal order is a question of fact for the jury. To be guilty of the charge of refusal to disperse, a person must be at the scene of an unlawful assembly and know of the command to disperse, and still refuse to obey.

I agree that the question of whether there was an unlawful assembly at all is key. If there was, and if the McDonald’s was fairly considered part of the scene of such assembly, then there is probable cause.

If there was no unlawful assembly, or if there was an unlawful assembly but it was too far away for the Mc Donald’s to be part of the scene, then probable cause does not exist.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Bricker

It’s true that criminal law is construed strictly against the government. But your construction “construe[s] the statutory section in such a manner so as to vitiate the purpose of the statute.”

What a fun quote. “When the text of the statute doesn’t result in the purpose it was designed for, pretend it was”. Sounds like exactly the sort of lawmaking you love, eh,** Bricker**?

Anyway; that seems like a bad ruling to me. But of course it is the ruling. So, based on that interpretation of the statute, no, a person leaving the scene when commanded and then returning “after a short period of time” would not be able to use that as a defense that they had lawfully complied with the order.

[Bricker]

@Revenant_Threshold

What a fun quote. “When the text of the statute doesn’t result in the purpose it was designed for, pretend it was”. Sounds like exactly the sort of lawmaking you love, eh,** Bricker**?

Anyway; that seems like a bad ruling to me. But of course it is the ruling. So, based on that interpretation of the statute, no, a person leaving the scene when commanded and then returning “after a short period of time” would not be able to use that as a defense that they had lawfully complied with the order.

The text is being applied. Whether a person’s actions constitute refusal is a question of fact for the jury. Mast at 605. And that quote is also from Mast, at 603.

So your idea that someone could sit there and wait sixty seconds between each action and claim a defense is so etching the finer of fact would decide. But that record is legally sufficient for a jury to convict, and supports probable cause to believe the statute is being violated.

Why in the world does that ruling seem bad to you? It’s clearly giving effect to the statute, while your interpretation makes the statute a nullify.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Bricker

The text is being applied. Whether a person’s actions constitute refusal is a question of fact for the jury. Mast at 605. And that quote is also from Mast, at 603.

Construing the statutory section in such a manner so as to vitiate the purpose of the statute is a legally meaningless phrase. The purpose of the statute does not matter as a subject for deciding whether the law has been broken or not. No?

So your idea that someone could sit there and wait sixty seconds between each action and claim a defense is so etching the finer of fact would decide. But that record is legally sufficient for a jury to convict, and supports probable cause to believe the statute is being violated.

I’m sorry, I don’t understand what you mean by this. Could you dumb it down for me?

Why in the world does that ruling seem bad to you? It’s clearly giving effect to the statute, while your interpretation makes the statute a nullify.

It seems like a bad ruling because I don’t see the basis for claiming that “in effect” leaving and returning is a refusal to depart. The defendant departed. The defendant complied.

Edit: I have to go back and retype “statue” to add in that other t every time I type it. Ugh.

[Smapti]

@BigAppleBucky

Not that I favor looting and rioting under any circumstances, but if there had not been a disturbance starting Sunday night you know darned well the FBI would not be involved and the probability of a cover-up of police wrongdoing (if any) would be higher.

The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

I don’t recall any riots being necessary to prompt a larger investigation of the Martin affair.

[Leaper]

That’s because a civilian was the shooter. I’m sure you can imagine a difference, at the least in perception, when it’s a law enforcement officer. Hell, there was a non fatal shooting in New Orleans recently that was just never reported to the public.

[Bricker]

@Revenant_Threshold

Construing the statutory section in such a manner so as to vitiate the purpose of the statute is a legally meaningless phrase. The purpose of the statute does not matter as a subject for deciding whether the law has been broken or not. No?

No. Construing a statute to provide a meaningless or absurd result is generally disfavored. Granted, if the text is clear and unambiguous, a court cannot save it by liberally construing it’s commands. But in this case, what specifically constitutes “refusal” is not defined. A court can look to the purpose of the statute to determine what the legislature intended to effect.

I’m sorry, I don’t understand what you mean by this. Could you dumb it down for me?

If the case went to trial, the evidence is enough for a jury to conclude that delay was “refusal.” A jury’s decision to convict has to rest on evidence in the record.

Of course, a jury could also conclude that this was NOT refusal. But because there is evidence that would allow a jury to convict, the police can point to that same evidence and say, “See? We believed that, so we had probable cause.”

It seems like a bad ruling because I don’t see the basis for claiming that “in effect” leaving and returning is a refusal to depart. The defendant departed. The defendant complied.
q

Except the jury decided that this didn’t count as “complied.” Leaving and then returning wasn’t dispersing. And what dispersal is remains a question of fact for the jury.

[common_good]

My first post on this thread. I have nothing to say. Yet. Feel free to blindly throw stones in the dark. Does this relate at all to a thread I started, “Why I hate cops” ? It seems to, but you decide.

[Bricker]

Does anyone have any actual evidence as to the existence or lack of existence of an unlawful assembly at the time of the seizure at or close to the McDonald’s?

This is, I think, the key question.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Bricker

No. Construing a statute to provide a meaningless or absurd result is generally disfavored. Granted, if the text is clear and unambiguous, a court cannot save it by liberally construing it’s commands. But in this case, what specifically constitutes “refusal” is not defined. A court can look to the purpose of the statute to determine what the legislature intended to effect.

I’ll bear that first part in mind. As to the second, I can see how “refusal” could be interpreted in many ways. For example, refusal might take the form of a direct, spoken noncompliance - “I will not go.” It might take the form of taking no action at all. But I don’t see how “refusal” can be defined as “compliance”.

If the case went to trial, the evidence is enough for a jury to conclude that delay was “refusal.” A jury’s decision to convict has to rest on evidence in the record.

Of course, a jury could also conclude that this was NOT refusal. But because there is evidence that would allow a jury to convict, the police can point to that same evidence and say, “See? We believed that, so we had probable cause.”

Thanks for restating this for me.

I don’t see how the evidence is enough for a jury to conclude that this particular delay was refusal.

Except the jury decided that this didn’t count as “complied.” Leaving and then returning wasn’t dispersing. And what dispersal is remains a question of fact for the jury.

If dispersal remains a question of fact for the jury, then on what basis could a police officer decide that there is probable cause?

[madmonk28]

@Smapti

Yes.

Wow, thanks. That is a very telling answer.

[madmonk28]

Sorry to disappoint you Smapti, rather than firing on the protesters, the public servants are trying to find out why they are angry. Missouri Police Captain Meets With Protesters In Ferguson - TPM – Talking Points Memo

Maybe next time they’ll kill the people for you.