I wouldn’t think so. I assume he either did so over his lawyer’s objection or they gave him some immunity.
Why?
Because they have their hands full with this case as it is, and risking further inflaming a lot of already-agitated people by prosecuting someone for being an accomplice to a $50 theft would be extremely counterproductive.
They already stated that they wouldn’t prosecute Johnson. He didn’t take the cigars, the cigars Brown handed to him he put back on the counter, and he left the store before Brown. There is really no crime there.
Because the cops have bigger fish to fry - both the rioters who are much more violent and stealing much more than Johnson did, and the accusations being thrown against one of their own. Maybe they thought letting that $50 theft slide was worth the price to avoid being seen as using the threat of criminal action to coerce a witness?
Yeah but wouldn’t you think that 5 cops could subdue a guy even if he had a knife? It’s not right to put a cop in danger like this but under the circumstances, I’m surprised they shot the kid. This whole deal doesn’t even seem like a issue anymore because of Fergusan though. I do think this kid was looking for attention and I feel the cops should have picked up on this. Again, why shoot to kill, why not at least shoot his leg? Or at least try to hit the kids leg. I 've handled guns in the military and I know once you have a lock on somebody, it’s not that hard to shoot a leg.
In a way this incident is more puzzling because in Fergusan the cop probably didn’t have much time to react. But in St Louis, these cops had had a lock on this kid, they had more than 1 cop there and with the mood of the city, that should have played a part too. I guess what I’m trying to say is, are these cops so desensitized that they only follow protocol and not a persons emotion.
I’m not trying to bash these cops and I wasn’t there but I think this could have been handled different.
The last two shots were head shots, yes? One in the front, one through the top of the head. We may reasonably conclude that they were the last two shots fired, because of the likelihood of fatality or, at least, incapacity. Any problem so far?
When the last shot was fired, Brown’s head was face-down in the direction of the officer. I find the implication that he was lowering his head for a spear-like head butt laughable. Because, well, he had already just been shot in the face. Conclusion: he was falling forward when the last shot was fired.
How then are we to conclude that the last shot was justified? How often, do we imagine, that someone falling onto his face with a wound to his forehead is going to leap up and assault somebody?
So many people are willing to believe “eye witness” testimony from people who may well have an agenda in their statements. If science accepted eye witness testimony on face value, there would be chapters in science textbooks on alien abductions.
Sounds reasonable.
Shot 5 hits him in the head and he begins to fall forward, unconscious. Shot 6 comes 0.8 seconds later along the same trajectory as shot 5 and hits the top of the head.
At what cost? A stabbed, possibly dead cop?
A cop wants to come home from work. Being dead is no fun. No job is worth dying for. You don’t “subdue” someone with a knife. You get him to put his knife down or you shoot him if he refuses to.
What do you think the interval of time was between the two shots?
Regardless of the outcome of this event, or where one’s beliefs and sympathies lie, I really wish you and others would stop Just Asking this (extremely stupid) Question that has been answered and re-answered many times already, here and in countless past threads. Police are not trained or authorized to shoot people in the leg. Period. The end. I’m not sure what war you fought in which you were ordered to shoot the enemy but not kill them, but it has no relevance at all to police shootings.
I don’t agree. With respect to copyright infringement, I think most people would draw a moral line between infringing for their own personal use and infringing to make a profit by selling the pirated works. I believe the vast majority of copyright infringement is when people limit their conduct to personal use, and they would argue that there’s a moral way to do that.
With respect to drunk driving, I think most people would label it morally wrong, but don’t agree that a vast number of people have done it. The numbers skew even more when taking into account the changing mores; those people old enough to be drivers in 1965 might now regard druink driving as a great moral wrong, but probably didn’t in the pre-MADD era.
I’m afraid I don’t agree it’s race. I think race simply becomes a visible proxy for wealth and social position. If Bill Cosby’s kids were caught joyriding in golf carts, I don’t think there’d be a wide-spread sense that their chronic criminality was revealed.
Then it’s race. Just like if race ‘becomes a visible proxy for intelligence and aggressiveness’, it’s still race.
Honest question:
But with officers covering, doesn’t it make sense to try non-lethal force? If you have 4 guys covering the guy with guns, what’s the harm in the fifth guy trying a taser?
Ok. Honest question: how do you know they had tasers?
Thank you for restating my post, I did not realize it required clarification, but I am appropriately grateful. But wherever did you arrive at the “0.8” figure? Case law?
At any rate, the question is whether or not the officer considered his shots or simply blazed away. He did not know he had shot Brown in the face, and he was falling forward, or was he already pulling the trigger?
Guess it might help if we had the sort of information available with a scene investigation, what with the photos with the circles and the arrows and the writing on the back that explains what they mean. But we don’t, and there are very good reasons for that, I am assured.
Covering the guy only works if you’re willing to pull the trigger if things go tits-up. If the guy’s just standing still but refusing to put down the weapon, your idea could work. But if he is running towards you with a knife, you don’t wait to find out if the taser works.
Yes, why not, as **BobLibDem **suggested, shoot him a little bit, then see if he is dead, then shoot him a little more?
Yes. Indeed. Why not? You make a very good point, though I think you meant it in a tone of sneering contempt.
You’re in the street, all alone. A 6’4" 300 pound guy just shoved your door shut on you as you tried to exit your car. Then he hit you in the face and wrestled with you. Now, he backs off and charges you. You have a gun. What do you do?