According to your linked article, the jury decided that Parker was not an imminent threat at the time Ersland fired an additional five rounds into Parker. The keyword here is “imminent threat”.
IIRC, moments before firing the final five rounds, Ersland had been in a life-or-death fire fight with Parker’s partner in crime. Parker’s partner fled from the store and escaped with their two other accomplices who had been waiting in the getaway car.
*Moments later, Mr. Ersland shot Mr. Parker five more times as he lay unconscious on the ground, say prosecutors who had a security surveillance video to bolster their case.
…The main question before the jury was whether Mr. Parker still represented a threat after the first shot. Under Oklahoma law, the right to use deadly force ends as soon as the menace has passed, said Randy Coyne, a law professor at the University of Oklahoma. Mr. Coyne said he agreed with the jury verdict, based on that law*.
So many of you are acting like this one shooting happened in a vacume. Ferguson police and St. Louis County police have a history of some pretty outrageous behavior.
Last year, a Lt. in the St. Louis County PD was fired after an investigation revealed that he had ordered the arrest of black people, saying that he wanted to "add more color to the cells.
The outrage that is boiling over is the result of years of resentment. There is an undertow of racism in the attitude: “the blacks are getting worked up over nothing again.” Or to quote one Ferguson cop caught on tape this week: “bring it on you fucking animals,” that is a peace officer talking to the community he serves.
No. Or at least, not necessarily. Did the clerk believe, reasonably believe, that his life was in imminent danger? No imminent danger means no right to respond with lethal force.
He may have been boinking Laura Jean. Joe Bob may have been fighting for this women’s honor (which is probably more than she ever did).
I contend otherwise; what is legal is also practical. As you would expect I also disagree that civilians should not use firearms. Instead I believe that responsible private ownership of firearms can give people with non-nefarious intentions the opportunity to prevent being gravely injured or killed. At this point we will likely need to agree to disagree and conclude our portion of the debate.
That all sounds highly suspect to me. If they were fighting over the handgun when it discharged, then Brown should have residue on his hands. And seriously? He taunted, then charged a police officer!? After fighting over his weapon? That would be some plutonium grade stupid.
Additionally, Brown would have had to have rushed the officer WHILE the officer was pointing his weapon at him. Sounds awfully convenient.
Since we’re sharing stories of when we did not get shot. Let me tell you about yesterday. Yesterday was hot as balls. Balls so hot even the dog wouldn’t lick them. Anyways I was almost out of milk and it was starting to cause some concern because what else am I going to put on my Fruit Loops right? It’s not like I’m going to pour ice tea on my Count Chocula like some tard.
So I head over to the my local grocer and as I’m walking down the dairy ailse this lady pulls up next to me with her cart and starts asking questions. Questions like I’m some kind of question askerer person or something. This lady was making me nervous as she kept persisiting with the questions.
So enventually I did asnwer her and I told her the strawberry jam was a couple of ailes over. Eventually I make it back home and proceeded to enjoy the hell out of a bowl of Frosted Flakes.
That was my point – smapti had emphasized that the only way an attacker could no longer be a threat is if he was dead. That article was intended to show that the law and common sense says otherwise.
Because the officer should be judged by his actions. Not the actions of others in the past. No more than any black man should be judged as an individual because of Uniform Crime Statitics or what happened in Chicago last weekend.
I didn’t say anything about the officer. I agree we don’t know what happened yet, but we can judge how the police handled the events after the shooting and we can judge the history of police action. If you have a large segment of the community that is enraged at the actions of public servants, maybe they have a reason to be mad.
In the first case, definitely. In the second case, possibly. Depends if he was continuing the attack after the first punch. If so, then yes. If not, then maybe, depends how clear it was that he was harmless.
And as for your final question, I was probably somewhere on the internet, being right.
A line really, really needs to be drawn between legitimate protest and the violence and looting that’s been going on. No matter how aggrieved someone is, rioting is not an acceptable response.
As for legitimate protest, as far as I can tell the shooting is being properly investigated, and there’s no actual cause for protest. If there turns out to be evidence that it was murder, but he’s not charged, then would be the time for (non-violent) protest.
Or, you know, doing something that actually works, like voting and becoming involved in local politics.
Now your complaint is he didn’t kill him quick enough? What the fuck is wrong with you? Do you actually have a position here, or are you just trolling?
Actually I think we all know the answer to the last question.
To be fair, unless something hits your spine or the good parts of your brain, you don’t necessarily fall instantly when shot.
We’re a pressurized system of tubes and pumps, but it takes time for the go-juice to drain out. Also, you can fire a semi-automatic pistol five times in a second if you’re good at it.
Too many people are willing to believe that an officer with 6 discipline free years on the force simply saw Brown and, for no reason at all, decided to murder him. The only reason I’ve seen offered as to why he might have done this is that cops are racists thugs.
It’s kind of hard to have an intelligent conversation when the thread heads in that direction.
My suggestion. Let both sides speak. Let the DOJ collect all the evidence, and publish the results. Then, and only then, let’s assign blame.