Question for the Ferguson protestors: when is an officer allowed to defend him/herself with the use of deadly force?
Sometimes I think the answer is “never, unless the victim of the shooting is white.” The idea is that white police should err on the side of their own martyrdom if the victim is black.
There is no question that police sometimes act rashly and wrongly, killing people (black or white) who are not threats to them and whose actions have not justified the use of deadly force by the officer. When it has been determined that this has happened, the officer should be penalized severely.
But when a white officer kills a black person, the automatic and immediate assumption these days (without waiting for an investigation) seems to be that the white officer is guilty and the black person is innocent. Innocent, that is, no matter what the evidence is that the dead person had just committed a crime, or had assaulted the officer. And the white officer is guilty of a hate crime no matter if his/her prior record regarding racial matters has been exemplary, and there is not a scintilla of evidence of that person’s having harbored racist thoughts and certainly not of ever acting on them.
Evidence, you say? What’s reliable evidence? The distrust of the police among many people in many communities, especially black communities but not limited to them, is that evidence is routinely manufactured by the police. This came to awareness especially during the O.J. Simpson trial, when many black members of the jury, as well as much of the black public, discounted evidence in the trial because they believed that O.J. was being framed. Sometimes, of course, it is even true; but how often?
This type of thinking was also brought home to me in connection with the Martin/Zimmerman case, when I read comments to the effect that George Zimmerman (who was a quasi-security-officer rather than a policeman, not white but a “white Hispanic”) had faked his head injuries by banging his own head on the pavement after killing Trayvon Martin.
If people believe that sort of thing, there is no evidence that would convince them of that person’s innocence. Each fact can be explained or rationalized away, if the will to do so is strong enough.
So if it turns out in the Michael Brown case that stories such as this one are true, and Darren Wilson suffered serious facial injuries at the hands of Michael Brown before shooting him, it will not convince those who think Wilson guilty of murder that the killing of Brown was a justified use of deadly force. The arguments will kick in again: Wilson faked his own injuries, the police are lying about the injuries, and/or Wilson shouldn’t have shot Brown despite the injuries but should have fought it out with fists like a man (despite the size disparity or the fact that Brown might have been going after his gun).
The Missouri law (and laws of many other states) on police use of deadly force is pretty clear, however: officers are allowed to use deadly force in subduing an unarmed person under certain circumstances.
Here are the relevant portions of the Missouri statute:
A law enforcement officer in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody is justified in using deadly force only…
(2) When he reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested
(a) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony; or
(b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon; or
(c) May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.
Another way to put it, based on SCOTUS rulings, is that “police officers are allowed to use deadly force against a fleeing felon only if they have reason to believe the felon is dangerous.”
We don’t yet have enough facts about the Brown-Wilson confrontation to know whether their interaction justified Wilson’s use of deadly force under this statute. But there’s no question that it may indeed have been justified under it by Brown’s purported assault on Wilson causing facial injury (a felony), his alleged (and almost successful) attempt to get his weapon, and his supposed run towards the officer in the face of warnings. These acts would be indicative of his continued dangerousness. And if Brown indeed was coming towards Wilson with aggressive intent during his final run, he wasn’t “a fleeing felon” at all, he was in the midst of an intended assault on Wilson.
But my guess is that even if all of those things ultimately are proven, the protestors still will consider Brown an innocent and Wilson a guilty racist. There’s also little doubt in my mind that if both men had been white, the incident would have received some local coverage and not much else. I’m also fairly sure that both men might have been white under a similar scenario, because it is hardly unheard of for white men to commit robberies and resist arrest, or for white police to kill white suspects in shootings that are later disputed.
[ADDENDUM: Here’s a poll that indicates racial differences in the trust people place in police investigations of incidents such as the Brown killing:
The poll also finds that blacks have little confidence in the investigations into the shooting.
Seventy-six percent of blacks say they are not confident in the investigations, with 18 percent expressing confidence in the probes.
Fifty-two percent of whites, though, have confidence, with 33 percent saying they have little or none.
Not really a high level of trust in the police investigations for either race, is it?]
[ADDENDUM II: Then there are situations such as this this just-breaking story, which appears to be a case of “suicide by cop” in nearby St. Louis. Neither the race of the man who was killed nor the police who shot him has been announced yet. If it never is announced, I would guess they are either all black or all white.]
Imagine you are white and you possess a video which completely exonerates the police officer. What are the likely outcomes of you coming forward with it? Would you be concerned for your safety?
The policeman might also have a the ability to invoke both a common law and statutory right of self-defense.
Ask Chris Hayes or Don Lemon what he would do under the circumstances.
Racism is a reality.
BUT…
If we define racism as a behaviour that is not supported by logic, and shooting somebody who is assaulting you is a logic behaviour, racism should be found in other places.
For example: let’s imagine a black person who dresses and behaves in a non menacing way, and who is abused just because he’s black. Is this racism? Yeah, it is. Has the black community ever moved to denounce such a situation? No.
In general black community despises an educated black and considers him as a whitened one. However, they organize riots to protest when the black victim was a real threat, precisely when there was no racism involved but self-defense.
There’s racism. But let’s be honest: neither liberals nor blacks care about it, because caring really about racism means caring about how friendly and educated blacks are treated, and those ones are looked down both by liberal and other blacks.
Bottom line is that the protesters want society to defer to a specific variety of individual: the young “gangsta” male, preferably black but not necessarily limited to black, who believes himself untouchable by moral right and physical might. Apparently we’re going to have a better time that way than under the police.
“Apparently we’re going to have a better time that way than under the police.”
I am positive that such people exist, but they are very mistaken if they imagine they will prosper in such circumstances.
If our society gives in to this sort of insanity, police will refuse to protect the law abiding and refuse to arrest the lawbreaker and corruption will become the dominant norm. First anarchy and then tyranny will prevail.
Questions…as if they ever had any or would ever answer one.
The ability to be asked a question and to give an honest answer requires virtues these people don’t have and are not interested in.
They are interested in getting stuff (preferably money but goods and services will do) from other people, for the total price of nothing.
Events like this are a godsend to them. Democrats love it. Its chum for the base, free of charge. They can play it for a long time and to great benefit.
The little matter of the actual tragedy and broken eye bones, drugs, bully kids and the rest…
Did you say something?
The poll finds that, “Seventy-six percent of blacks say they are not confident in the investigations, with 18 percent expressing confidence in the probes.”
That would appear to be a fairly accurate picture of the percentage of blacks who have bought into the left’s narrative that the great majority of whites are irredeemably racist.
And as neo implies, the majority of that 76% of black Americans may never be persuaded otherwise no matter what whites do, especially as the left is not going to stop its propaganda.
A blowout fracture is a serious facial injury which is caused by a severe blow to the eye which is sufficient to break the bones surrounding the eye. A blow this severity to the eye would probably cause at least temporary blurring of the vision in the injured eye. Also, if the blow out fracture is displaced too much the injured person will probably have double vision because the injured eye will be moved out of its normal position into the space previously occupied by the displaced bone. At times the optic muscles become trapped in the fracture.
The injured policeman probably couldn’t see very well so once Brown turned around and started walking towards him the policeman probably couldn’t see well enough to judge his intentions accurately. If the policeman did sustain a blowout fracture as reported, that alone should be enough to exculpate him in a fair trial. At this point it is difficult to imagine how he could actually receive a fair trial.
A blowout fracture is a serious facial injury which is caused by a severe blow to the eye which is sufficient to break the bones surrounding the eye. A blow this severe to the eye would probably cause at least temporary blurring of the vision in the injured eye. Also, if the blow out fracture is displaced much the injured person will probably have double vision because the injured eye will be moved out of its normal position into the space previously occupied by the displaced bone. At times the optic muscles become trapped in the fracture.
The injured policeman probably couldn’t see very well so once Brown turned around and started walking or running towards him the policeman probably couldn’t see well enough to judge his intentions accurately. If the policeman did sustain a blowout fracture as reported, that alone should be enough to exculpate him in a fair trial. At this point it is difficult to imagine how he could actually receive a fair trial.
“That would appear to be a fairly accurate picture of the percentage of blacks who have bought into the left’s narrative that the great majority of whites are irredeemably racist … the majority of that 76% of black Americans may never be persuaded otherwise no matter what whites do, especially as the left is not going to stop its propaganda.”
And of course there is quite another danger in that a large number of whites (or anyway, non-blacks) may just throw up their hands and say “f**k it, if we’re racists no matter what, may as well BE racists!”
I wouldn’t go as far as to say that the KKK might be on the verge of a revival, but I would not in the least bit be surprised to learn of a quiet, red-state suburban dispersed and not exclusively white militia, self-organizing, in the wake of things like the knock-out game, of feral inner-city gangstas preying on vulnerable white households, random flash-mob attacks at state fairs and public events, and now the ongoing riots in suburban St. Louis.
I wouldn’t be surprised at all. The usual suspects will, of course, have the vapors and call this loose self-organization the new KKK.
Sgt. Mom: One problem – the KKK is a democrat invention I believe. As far as I am concerned all the Dems did was take off the costumes and they implemented a policy that instead of lynching blacks they would pen them in in ghettos, keep them poor, keep them dependent, keep them voting for Dems.
The plan has worked brilliantly.
No Dem white people will never go KKK, no more than Israel will ever go Hamas.
We may more and more ignore the blatherings about racism, but that’s a far cry from being racist.
correction, No non-Dem white people
“First anarchy and then tyranny will prevail.”
That may be the plan, but when TSHTF the plan will collapse. They (a rogue DC) will not be able to control the metro areas without scorched earth tactics, assuming the common foot soldier would follow orders, and in doing so they would deplete their potential reserves of cannon fodder. Plus, they will be stretched too thin to control flyover country or the hills and hollers of Appalachia, and then there is Texas. Millions upon millions would die and hunger would stalk the land. And Russia and China would act quickly to fill the vacuum. If the hard left wannabe tyrants haven’t figured this out, they are dumber than I imagined.
The blow-out fracture to which Illuminati refers above was reportedly sustained by Officer Wilson and is reported as “Breaking Report” with CT image by Gateway Pundit from two independent inside sources. For unknown reason I can’t post link.
Blow-out orbital fracture requires surgery. Occurs after violent blow to eye socket.
Don Carlos:
I had already linked to it in the post. In the paragraph that begins, “So if it turns out in the Michael Brown case that stories such as this one are true,” the link is on the words “this one.”
The answer is: “never”.
Think of those hard-left relatives you have mentioned. Could they be reasoned with? Could you ever get that ultimate and intellectually satisfying explanation you might have hoped for?
Even you, who I have been pressing for a year as the best possible person to shed some up close and personal light on that mentality, search your memory banks, gaze back in time at the dining table filled with talk, and come up … empty-handed.
Well, we may not ever understand the full reasoning process of the left nor of the hard core Brown supporters but we can ask ourselves under what circumstances they, those angry Stalinists, would have considered a “capitalist”, that is to say the private owner of some means of production, justified in defending his property, or even his family, against those who might wish to despoil them.
The answer is likewise: never.
How this works exactly, though is a bit hard to figure. Even David Horowitz, (as per your link the other day) as insightful as are his descriptions of the phenomenon of leftist or collectivist morality is in its psychology and practical workings, doesn’t quite get to laying out the syllogisms that people like me, or anyone who has read something roughly akin to say, an old Baltimore Catechism, expect to lie hidden somewhere waiting to be uncovered.
If A then B
A
Therefore B
But it doesn’t seem to be there.
I’m beginning to very seriously think – as opposed to merely entertaining the notion – that underneath it all, for most people, there just aren’t any such arguments, nor are any wanted.
Good Lord! We’re surrounded by pod people Neo! LOL
“How this works exactly, though is a bit hard to figure. Even David Horowitz, (as per your link the other day) as insightful as are his descriptions of the phenomenon of leftist or collectivist morality is in its psychology and practical workings, ”
strike “is” …?
I have a caffeine headache and can’t make this sentence work. Dinner calls …
parker @ 5:33,
I think you greatly underestimate the cunning and ruthlessness of the left. There’s no need to control the metro areas, nor flyover country. Control our transportation network’s main hubs and you control the distribution of food and fuel. The average grocery store has less than a week of supplies for its normal customer sales. Some estimates are as little as three days worth. Within a few weeks of ‘redirecting’ the food supply due to the ‘national emergency’ and the majority of Americans will no choice but to flock to the FEMA camps.
Establish martial law with a plausible crisis and much of our current military will back the ‘lawfully elected’ government. Under martial law, the President can unilaterally and legally suspend constitutional provisions, issue executive orders and act at will. And the military would have no legal basis for opposing him.
I’m not saying this will happen, I’m saying that, if a plausible crisis arises, there’s nothing to prevent it from happening. But you’re kidding yourself if you imagine that the hard core left is unaware of this and has not taken it into consideration.
Marxist, racist agitators are at work here. The solution is always to shoot to kill looters, everywhere every time.
GB,
I do think the far left has not figured out all the unintended consequences. The hateful horde gathering in Missouri is beyond their control. Human nature, in all of its many manifestations, is beyond their control. Where will the food come from? Chicago? Atlanta? Philadelphia? Boston? Who will plow the earth, sow the seed, nurture the crop, and harvest the food? Who will drive the semi trailers and trains? Who will pull the triggers millions of times? Gang bangers? The police? Homeland? The Pentegon? Why will the enforcers murder their brothers, sisters, and cousins? What will prevent the 3% that will resist from burning down the house with their families inside?
Your comments reveal you to be an intelligent person, like 99% who post here, but imo you give into despair. That is exactly what they want.
Something wrong with this picture?? 50-Years of the Great Society plus nearly 6-years of the Immaculation of The Bama and, yet, it is ALL about Victimhood. And, right up there with the ‘V’ word, is the Entitlement word. So, entitled victimhood. Rampant self-pity. ALL this horrific, lying crap after half-a-century of the Democrap Lib-Left getting their way.
Yep, something is vastly wrong with this picture.
Give the Devil an inch, and watch em take a mile.
I think parker is correct on how much chaos the Left won’t be able to control, even if they want to or planned it in advance.
GB’s scenario of emergency power sounds plausible to me, although I think the greater strategic plan utilizes the Left’s zombies. What people call moderate Democrats, like what people call moderate Muslims.
Actually, as Paul Cassell has stated over at Volokh Conspiracy, the Missouri law is unconstitutional on its face. They don’t limit the felonies to dangerous ones as the SCOTUS ruled. That could be a complicating factor. Guess who was the MO AG for 16 of the 29 years since the 1985 SCOTUS ruling? Jay Nixon
But it seems rather firm that the Brown stopped and turned toward the officer. So fleeing is no longer a critical element and the officer’s reasonable fear from Brown charging him becomes the determining factor.
parker,
You mistake realistic appraisal for despair. What evidence is there that the hard left would want to control the ‘hateful horde’? Much better to direct that hate against the ‘usual suspects’. Then let it burn itself out.
Farms, ranches and dairies are easily identified, and controlled. Finding enough truck drivers would not be a problem. The Bundy ranch fiasco demonstrated who would pull the triggers. In a martial law scenario with a plausible crisis, the military will move to stop armed rebellion.
The 3% that will resist are those who believe in America’s founding principles and will not kill the children of their enemy.
In order to fight an enemy you must first know your enemy well enough to understand what they are capable of.
Since Officer’s Wilson’s facial injuries establish that he was attacked by Brown, the Officer had every reason to suppose that Brown was a danger to the public. He had just robbed a store and then attacked a police officer. Given the circumstances, officer Wilson would have been justified shooting Brown as soon as he refused to comply. I suspect Brown bumrushed Wilson, after taunting the cop, when he realized that Wilson was prepared to shoot him if he didn’t allow himself to be arrested.
GB,
You were responding well past my bed time…. you are correct about knowing the enemy. IMO they are individually cowards who expect others to wade through the blood and gore to do their bidding. IMO many of those they wish to command will think first of the safety of themselves and their families if TSHTF. The level of chaos that I think will occur is far beyond their ability to control.
GB,
As a footnote I add that I am willing to burn their houses down and shoot any and all women and children fleeing the flames. No mercy, no quarter, and the devil take the hind most. This is what you chose to ignore, many of the 3% are cold hearted sobs when it comes to defending our own. We won’t saw off heads but we are more than capable of putting a 22LR in the head… why waste a centerfire cartridge?