Michael Brown Shooting

Missouri's Standard for Use of Deadly Force While Making an Arrest Is Absurdly Lax

|

In the wake of the police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri last weekend, one of the key questions is whether the killing was legal under Missouri law. 

Crucials details of the incident, in which officer Darren Wilson shot and killed Brown, who was unarmed, are still unclear. 

But we can take a look at what the state has to say about when an officer can use deadly force by police while making an arrest.

Basically, the rules say that an officer has to "reasonably believe" that such force is necessary immediately in order to proceed with the arrest and also that the person either committed a felony or is a threat.

Here's the legalese:

3. A law enforcement officer in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody is justified in using deadly force only

(1) When such is authorized under other sections of this chapter; or

(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.

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

(Via Sean Davis.)

So, the suspect doesn't have to be armed, and doesn't even have to present an immediate threat. Instead, if an officer believes that there's no other way to make the arrest happen, and also believes that the suspect has attempted to commit a felony, the officer is justified in using deadly force. If a cop wants to arrest someone, and has a "reasonable" belief that the person has even tried to commit a felony, he or she is allowed to kill.

That seems like a rather lax standard, and one that would give a pass to practically any arresting officer who could plausibly claim to have believed that the suspect had attempted or committed a felony offense. 

Update: At RealClearPolicy, Robert VerBruggen points out that although Missouri may not have updated the text of its law, an 80s Supreme Court ruling narrows the reasons an officer may use lethal force considerably, allowing deadly force only if the felon is believed dangerous. 

NEXT: Obama Taking Brief Vacation Break, 'Please Delete This Email' Writes White House Official, The Sexbots Are Coming: P.M. Links

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It may in fact be illegally lax. The Supreme Court ruling on the subject, Tennessee v. Garner, says there has to be a “significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.” There’s no way a blanket authorization of deadly force against anyone who may have attempted a felony (it doesn’t even say “violent felony” – it could be counterfeiting!) passes that test.

    1. Have you seen the video of this guy robbing the little shopkeeper? He’s bigger than my refrigerator, a thief, a robber and a bully. This is not the guy to hang your ‘police are brutes’ hat on. With all of the real and sympathetic instances of police gone wild out there why the heck would anyone want to hold this guy up as the example?

      Maybe it’s because that little baby burned in a swat raid or the grandmother shot dead during a swat raid didn’t have friends and family who used it as an excuse to loot, pillage and burn.

      1. The only problem, Cap’n, is that the cop who shot him wasn’t trying to arrest him for the robbery. The only possible defense is:

        May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.

        Which is probably unconstitutionally lax, as noted above. Whether it applies in this case depends entirely on the details of the encounter.

        1. Maybe the cop didn’t know the Gentle Giant had just committed a strong arm robbery, but the Gentle Giant knew that he did and so did his accomplice.

          1. So the policeman used his telepathy and that’s how he knew lethal force was justified?

        2. I think you are missing the point. The PD confirmed that Brown assaulted the officer in a struggle for his weapon inside the vehicle. That has been confirmed and the officer has the bruises to prove it. Therefore, Brown committed a felony when assaulting the police officer. The situation falls under paragraph (2) section (a) above.

          1. “The PD confirmed that Brown assaulted the officer in a struggle for his weapon inside the vehicle. That has been confirmed and the officer has the bruises to prove it. ”
            Of course he does. And he totally didn’t get his buddies to bruise him to cover.

            1. Unless you have evidence that this happened, it’s just conjecture borne of your biases against the police.

      2. The writer of this article needs to learn how to read state code. The law plainly states that a law enforcement officer making and arrest or preventing an escape from custody is justified (subject to rebuttal) only under the following conditions:
        1. When and if specified in another law section, or
        2. When the officer has “Reasonable belief” that using deadly force is “imminently necessary”, and,
        a. That person has or is attempting to commit a felony, or
        b. Attempting escape by using a deadly weapon, or
        c. Is otherwise endangering someone’s life or causing serious injury without delay.
        The Supreme Court of the United States has stated all or any use of force by law enforcement must be objectively reasonable, and further that the threat to the officer or another person must be imminent (immediate) to cause death or serious bodily harm (See, Tennessee v Garner, 471 US 1, 1985; Scott v Harris, 550 US 372, 2007).

        1. An objectively reasonable belief is probable cause; that is facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been, is about to be, or is being committed. An imminent threat is one that is right there in your face with the means readily available to complete the threat (real or perceived) with virtually no time to reasonably do anything else. For deadly force to be justified, the threat must be able to cause death or serious harm.
          So if a person walks into a bank with his hand in his pocket and tells the employees he will shoot them if they don’t give him the money (a bank robbery), can a law enforcement officer use deadly force if the person robbing the bank makes a sudden move perceived as a threat or if he fails to comply immediately with the officer’s orders?
          The short answer is yes because the police have an objectively reasonable belief that this person poses an imminent threat to them or someone else (the bank employees and the public). If the person makes a quick move like he is drawing a gun from his pocket and the police shoot him? The short answer is yes.
          Why? Because most reasonable people would interpret a person’s lack of following lawful orders and sudden movement as an imminent threat. They (the police) might become dead or seriously injured if they did not use deadly force.
          In this case the bank robber was shot and had no weapon-or maybe he did.

    2. lets not get confused here- its pretty simple – the cop shot this person because he resisted arrest and was a physical threat to him.
      That is a justifiable homicide and even more so because he is a police officer who are often considered targets for punks on the street.
      Don’t get rapped up in the BS legalese.

      1. The officer had many different options available to him in regards to taking down Michael Brown.

        The police in Ferguson carry pepper spray and tazers, as well as their sidearm.

        This police officer went for the gun first, and killed Brown because he knew the law was on his side.

        Even if we agree that what Brown did was something that could easily get you killed, the officer was quite obviously ready to kill well before he ascertained that Brown was an actual credible threat.

        You DO NOT shoot an unarmed person unless it is the only possible way to stay alive. There were other options. He chose to kill him. It’s wrong. End of fucking story.

        And wrapped has a W, asshole.

        1. And you know this how?
          Police officers can carry a lot of stuff on their duty belt-if this was a uniformed officer-and if they can get to it to use when the stuff hits the fan. As the media reported the struggle was over the officer’s side arm while he was pushed down into his patrol car. Look at the pictures of the deceased. Look at him manhandle a store clerk just a few minutes before.
          Tell me you would have the wherewithal to calmly choose some other option off of your duty belt when the struggle is over taking your firearm.

        2. I usually don’t post because I assume everyone knows you are full of shit and just needs one person to tell you, but….

          1. Shut the fuck up, Tulpa.

        3. Don’t judge the officer or Brown from the confines of your couch. You have no idea what the officer was going through at that time. I can tell you that in those situations you do not have time to assess the situation and if your life is at stake then you will respond accordingly.

          Additionally, it is confirmed that Brown assaulted the police officer and tried to take his weapon. However, we do not know who went for the gun first.

          And the “unarmed” word is a red herring because-as the law stand in Mizzou-he doesn’t necessarily have to be armed to pose a threat.

  2. Jesus Christ another Michael Brown thread? You’d think the cop shot Lou Reed or something.

    1. He was a question in a Reason-Rupe poll!

      1. And what did the millennialS say ?

        1. 66% say they want him reanimated
          71% say that he should be left in the gound

    2. Oh, you shouldn’t do that
      Don’t you know, you’ll stain the carpet?

  3. That is absurd. Deadly force if the perp attempted to commit a felon? Not even actually committed a felony, or even one that involved the physical harm of another. Just attempts to commit any felony. Wow.

    1. Incredibly so – a felony in the US is any crime that comes attached with a year or more of *possible* (not minimum) jail time.

    2. I bet insider trading is a felony. Maybe bouncing checks above a certain dollar figure?

      1. Martha Stewart can testify to that.

        1. But would you trust the testimony of a convicted felon?

        2. Just to clarify, Martha Stewart was not convicted of insider trading. She was convicted of “obstruction of justice” in the insider trading case which was eventually dismissed.

          1. Yep, I reminded someone of this just the other day. What I did fail to remind them of is that insider trading, being a victimless crime, shouldn’t be illegal in the first place.

      2. Knowingly bouncing a check, followed by failure to resolve is the same as theft.

        So I think anything about $500 check bounce in most states can technically be a felony.

        1. Depends on the state. Generally in theft the difference between a felony and a misdemeanor is a dollar amount, which means the difference between permanently being stripped of your guaranteed second amendment right or not for writing a bad check is $1.

          In South Carolina bigamy is a felony. Can’t have those serial marriers toting weapons you know, they might shoot themselves once they realize what they’ve done to themselves.

    3. Yeah you know that whole language thing, like attempts to commit murder; likes attempts to commit rape; like attempts to commit armed robbery. You know, the “perp” didn’t actually finish the murder or the rape or the robbery when the cops showed up-so they should like stand by and wait until the “perp” gets done what he was going to do so the cops don’t get beat up in a semantics war with guys like you.

  4. 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…

    As long as the state agent followed his own beliefs, everything looks kosher, reasonably speaking.

  5. So as a mere serf if I “reasonably believed” someone was particularly felonious and I knew that I couldn’t physically kidnap them without shooting them, I’d be with in my rights to kill. Got it.

  6. IOW: Bad law = good shoot

    Fuck.

  7. (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.

    It will be interesting to see the prosecutor jump through hoops to drum up justification to satisfy at least one of those conditions.

    Since we already know the cop didn’t stop the guy because he was known or suspected of committing a felony (and, as far as I can tell, the ‘robbery’ was taking a box of cigars? That’s not even a felony) and wasn’t attempting to escape by using a weapon (he was unarmed).

    And there was no reason to suspect the man was a danger to others.

    1. But he didn’t pay tax on the box of cigars. NYC choke rule applies.

    2. Well, he was black. That’s probable cause, right? According to a number of commenters on this site it seems to be.

    3. Judge: Prosecution, call your first witness.

      Prosecutor: I call Officer FYTW to the stand.

      Witness: I reasonably believed. Then everyone went home safe.

      Judge: Case dismissed.

      1. Officer FYTW

        Good handle.

        1. Trying to see if I can get a similar license plate

    4. taking a box of cigars? That’s not even a felony

      Doesn’t that depend on the price of the cigars? I thought the difference between petty theft and grand larceny was the price of the stolen goods.

      1. Are they perhaps, communist cigars?

      2. The theft turned into a robbery when the Gentle Giant took the property by the use of force, threats, or intimidation. When you tell the clerk that confronts you about stealing store property and you tell him you’re going to kick his ass, then shove him, then offer to do it again if he gets in your way-that is robbery. Actually, any one of those elements makes it robbery.

    5. taking a box of cigars? That’s not even a felony

      I think it turned into a felony when he assaulted the store owner/clerk.

    6. I think the surveillance videos suggest Brown was a danger to others. If he behaved like that towards the police officer, it’s simple self-defense.

      1. agreed and the dislike/distrust of police exhibited here by many posters on this site has clouded their judgment.
        There is such thing as a justifiable homicide if one’s life is in danger- if a 300+ pound man is resisting arrest and trying to take a gun away – that seems to easily fit that description.

    7. He’s bigger than my refrigerator, attacked a cop who just asked him to get off the street and onto the sidewalk and tried to take the cops gun.

      Hell, just casually sauntering in front of traffic and telling drivers to piss off is good enough reason to shoot the bastard to begin with.

      1. tried to take the cops gun.

        Do you always take the uncorroborated word of someone accused of murder?

        1. I think in this case, yes I do and he is not accused of murder by the authorities just people like you.
          I guess you always take the side of the “innocent witness” who wouldn’t have any reason at all to not “shade the truth a bit”

          They already tried to paint brown as Gentle when he obviously strong armed the convientience store clerk, and paint him as a little teenager not a 6ft 4 300 lbs man.

          1. The reason he isn’t accused of murder is because the law allows him to murder people for very nearly any reason.

            When a civilian would be charged with murder and be rotting in prison, a cop should be, as well.

  8. Not to rain on the parade, but “reasonable belief” is a good standard even if it’s not enforced justly for police shootings. Peter writes as though a cop believing something makes it justified, but that’s not what the reasonable person entails. It’s one of the best and most Hayekian aspects of the common law and the western legal system as a whole.

    1. How can it be a good standard if it’s not enforced justly?

      1. If the problem is enforcement, it doesn’t much matter what the law is.

    2. Gonna disagree here.

      All the cop needs to do to use deadly force is “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.”

      It doesn’t specify what type of felony, or even require him to reasonably believe that a felony was committed. I’d call it criminally lax, but, “the law is the law.”

      1. I’m not defending all the bs felonies that are on the books, just the legal standard of reasonable doubt.

        Peter writes

        So, the suspect doesn’t have to be armed, and doesn’t even have to present an immediate threat. Instead, if an officer believes that there’s no other way to make the arrest happen, and also believes that the suspect has attempted to commit a felony, the officer is justified in using deadly force.

        That’s false. An officer believing something is unequivocally not the same thing as an officer reasonably believing something. That’s not just legal jargon, it’s a meaningful term that’s at the heart of why the reasoning of western law has been a good thing for civilization for a long time. There’s a lot loaded into that one word.

        In this case, it’s very difficult to imagine how an officer would argue that a reasonable person might believe he needs to use deadly force to arrest an unarmed felon. It’s not as though he can legally whip out his gun and aerate someone who stole a license plate because the cop is fool enough to believe there’s no other way to arrest him.

        1. didn’t mean “reasonable doubt” in the first line.

        2. Sure, but reasonable belief should be adjudicated by a jury – which will never happen in cases such as these.

          Though honestly – I don?t think if this were tried, most juries would likely vote not-guilty under the belief that if the officer said he believed it, who are they to question the officer considering every day is fraught with danger/etc/etc/etc.

          Not that I think this is a good thing, but almost everything in the US legal system means little if juries do not do their jobs.

          Just like ?innocent, until proven guilty? – how many juries really believe that and decide based solely upon whether the government fully proved their case?

          My guess – about the same number who would be willing to second guess a police officer?s stated beliefs under the idea that those beliefs weren?t reasonable.

          I wish it weren?t this way – but I do believe it is.

    3. Oh, I don’t think the reasonable belief is the problem. Just the incredibly lax things as to what needs to be believed.

      If a known counterfeiter is fleeing on foot, and you’re too fat to catch up, this law says you’re justified in shooting him.

    4. “Reasonable belief” is a fine standard but it should be a belief that the person is dangerous, not that he may at some point in the past have imported mahogany without submitting the correct paperwork.

      1. Let’s say you’re a 5’9″ 150 pound cop, and you’re trying to arrest a 6’4″ 300 pound suspect. The suspect tells you to go stuff it and walks away.

        So what do you think should happen next?

        1. If you’re a 5’9″ 150 pound cop then you need to have a better plan than shooting every 300# perp in the back that doesn’t respect your authoriti.

          1. I didn’t ask what “plans” rogue cops should adopt. I’m asking what policy you think we should adopt as a society when someone who is to be arrested simply ignores the cop and non-violently walks away. It’s a simple enough question.

            (NB: One policy I think we should adopt no matter what is that cops are required to wear cameras and record 100% of the time; same with police interrogations.)

        2. Call for backup. Be sure to tell the backup which way he went. Nothing violent or deadly about that. The situation would diffuse itself if cops weren’t so hell-bent on using their fancy toys (guns, tasers, nightsticks) on citizens.

          1. So he calls for backup. Instead of one officer on the scene, you now have two, while the suspect has walked away leisurely. What should the two officers do next?

            1. “…the suspect has walked away leisurely.”
              You failed to mention the cop was a paraplegic and incapable of following the suspect. Derp.

              How about one of the cops throws his baton down the sidewalk to trip the 300 pounder. The Blue Knight did it.

              1. You use sarcasm to avoid the question. The question remains: what is a cop supposed to do when a suspect in a violent felony refuses to be arrested and walks away.

                SCOTUS says that the cops have a legal right to use deadly force in that case. The reasoning is that the violent felon is likely a danger to others.

                What alternative policy do you propose?

                1. NOT using deadly force. There are alternatives to using deadly force, and most police forces carry the fuckers around with them on duty.

                  Unpleasant force is far superior to deadly force insofar as keeping people alive. Less good on the possible heart stopping and eye buring angle, but that’s the price you pay sometimes.

        3. So what do you think should happen next?

          If the suspect is wearing a suicide vest and has just shot up a bus full of nuns and orphans while shouting “Presbyterians Rule! Woot!”, then shoot him down.

          If the suspect was jaywalking, let him go.

          1. Well, in this case, the suspect just robbed a store and attacked a police officer, two violent felonies.

            What should happen next?

  9. Three Felonies a Day

    Good news! You’re all targets!

  10. I have reasonable belief that every police officer can inflict serious injury on me.

    1. That’s not belief, it’s fact! Feel better?

  11. Hi, I was told yesterday by rand Paul that big government was the ultimate problem to a rampage committed by the local police force and that having some other police authority come in would only substitute one jack-booted thug by another. But, yet, it seems like what is happening in ferguson is the replacement of the municipal authorities with the highway patrol, who have been acting professionally and with a great deal of empathy (http://online.wsj.com/articles/ even-keeled commander I reread my Murray rothbard this morning and, according to him, I can only expect tyranny and repression from the government and not a police chief so comfortable with the people that he has been spending most of his time taking selfies with protesters.

    Help, I feel like this… https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=G6o881n35GU. Can you guys recommend a Cato position paper for me? I am filled with libertarian dogma doubt.

    1. I reread my Murray rothbard this morning and, according to him, I can only expect tyranny and repression from the government and not a police chief so comfortable with the people that he has been spending most of his time taking selfies with protesters.

      Just because the cops’ PR is working today doesn’t mean that the government isn’t still tyrannical and oppressive.

      1. I don’t know. Remember when Obama snapped that selfie with David Ortiz? How can a person who snaps selfies be tyrannical and oppressive? Obama and the police chief both seem so friendly that it’s hard to imagine them being bad people. Only a crazy government-hating libertarian who doesn’t want to pay his fair share or liberate Iraqis could think such a thing.

        If that doesn’t convince you, close your eyes and repeat the power phrase plurality of voters for a half hour or until you feel cleansed of your doubts.

        1. Plus, how can a person who wants to be associated with Big Papi be someone to fear?

    2. been spending most of his time taking selfies with protesters.

      I find this funny, regardless of how awful the situation is. I’ll admit it, I’d laugh.

    3. And yet, if you had even bothered to read the article, you’d see that this shooting probably was entirely legal according to the State’s own standards.

  12. I smell Mary Stack. Run!

  13. (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

    Damn, so does “I’m too fat to chase this guy so I shot him” count?

  14. So much of this does have to do with Race.

    The sad reality for Blacks.
    Here in the Metro NY Area, white couples that want to adopt will actually pay some $20k, $30k to the white mother that is giving up their child for adoption.

    Black babies, they pretty much give those away for Free.

    When you look at something like this, I can imagine the feelings among blacks about themselves.

    1. And those white Barbies, right?

    2. Wait so me and my wife could be making an extra 20-30k year?

    3. Police (and public union) corruption impacts everyone. Unfortunately, the CNN big-gov’t cronies don’t read Reason and have a vested interest in promoting the “race” issue.

      Obviously, you are a similar Troll – “Black babies…for free”

  15. Is it me or is this story bringing out racism worse than the Zimmerman thing did? I don’t think that I’ve read a single comment thread in an article about this anywhere that made it more than 40 deep without some thinly veiled or blatantly obvious racist remark. It’s disgusting and it’s serving to make the crux of the problem all but invisible. Now that Brown is an official Bad Guy I only expect this to get worse. I’m sure that Ferguson’s finest are all thrilled.

  16. Actually on topic: I work with a bunch of racists.

    I haven’t heard one thing about this from my co-workers that wasn’t race related. Aparently it’s okay for a black cop to shoot a white boy in the back, but not the other way around. And of course, the ever popular “He was just a N****r thug.” Just on and on and on about bullshit reasons he deserves to be dead.

    When I try and explain that something you do NOT do is shoot an unarmed person with a gun, in almost any circumstance, and if anybody besides a cop or politician had done this they’d be rotting in prison as we speak, I get all kinds of hell.

    So, other than us, it seems there are two kinds of people. The race baiters, and the deservists. Either it happened because he was black, or it happened because he was a thug. Either way, he deserved it. It sickens me, literally makes me sick to my fucking stomach.

    1. Leaving the race issue aside, there are plenty of circumstances where you can justifiably shoot an unarmed person.

      For example, if you are a 95-lb woman being assaulted by a 250-lb attacker..

      Here’s just one example:
      http://gunssavelives.net/self-…..arged-her/

      Several more here: http://gunssavelives.net/category/self-defense

      1. I’m emoting a bit, to be fair, but this was not a case of “needs to be shot and killed”. The police officer, who should be a well oiled machine designed to bring in suspects alive, shot him to death for no good reason.

        In any circumstance where I can say for certain that I would face a murder charge, a police officer should face a murder charge.

        1. “In any circumstance where I can say for certain that I would face a murder charge, a police officer should face a murder charge.”

          In fact, police are allowed to use deadly force under many more circumstances. For example, if they reasonably suspect you of having committed a violent felony and you run away, they can use deadly force to stop you.

          SCOTUS has affirmed that this is constitutional, and pretty much the same rule applies in most other countries.

          1. My point is actually that, despite all of the legal reasoning behind it, it should never have gotten to that point.

    2. he deserved it because he didn’t respect his Authoritah!

  17. That sweetlittle 18 year old he just robbed strong arm they call it as far as he was concerned the Cop was after him DUH If he had to he world have killed the cop he lost.

  18. OK, the first question that springs to my mind is, WHEN WAS THIS STANDARD PUT IN PLACE?

    I think the answer might be quite interesting.

    1. Click through to the statute. Most of them have a listing at the end of the bills that were passed to enact or amend them.

      This one was passed in 2007, and amended in 2010. Now, that 2007 law may have just been some restating of previous law; you’d have to look at the bill (which should be online) to be sure.

  19. Just out of curiosity, does anyone know if the convenience store that was robbed is the same store as the gas station that was torched in the ruits?

  20. They sure as hell don’t teach cops in the academy how to avoid jail time, they teach them how not to cost the department money in 4th Amendment litigation — by following Tennessee v. Garner.

  21. “I was too fat from eating all the donuts to catch him so I just shot him, there was no other way!”

  22. Immediately submit or die is the law of the land, right?

    1. It’s getting that way.

  23. The law contains a little, call it a conundrum:

    use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest

    How exactly do you arrest a dead guy? Is it even possible to (successfully) use deadly force to “effect an arrest”?

    Deadly force should never be authorized for the purpose of arresting someone. It should only be authorized for the purpose of killing someone. Because that’s its effect.

    And that means it can only be used, by cops or anyone else, in defense of yourself or others.

    1. Clicked too soon:

      IF someone just needs arresting, but doesn’t need killing, then deadly force is just the wrong tool for the job.

  24. I suspect that Missouri’s standard isn’t any more lax than that used in other states. In Texas, at least, a cop can legally shoot an unarmed perp in the back if he or she tries to flee or escape custody.

    1. Cite, please.

  25. since Wilson apparently didn’t know or have reason to believe that Brown had committed a felony, I don’t see how this statute matters.

    1. If he struggled with the cop or struck him, I’d bet they would call that a felony. A cop can beat the shit out of you, but if you fight back you’re liable to end up dead or have the book thrown at you as a minimum – even if you are in fear for your life.

  26. Is this a plausible scenario for what happened.
    1. Brown committed a robbery (he is 6 ft, 4 300+ pounds so a weapon wasn’t necessary)
    2.He was stopped for being in the street (and matching the description of the robbery suspect)
    3 Brown resisted arrest because of the robbery and tried to get gun away from the cop.
    3. Brown being significantly larger that the cop posed an imminent threat to the cop and was shot for being so.

    If this is the case, and it appears to be so then it was a justifiable shooting by the cop.

    If the black residents of this community do not like having police around then the cops should leave and let these people try to sort things out on their own.
    The community will spiral into anarchy, all businesses will leave, and it will rapidly turn into Detroit or worse.
    Or if the residents of this community don’t like being in america they should move to Liberia and see what a wonderful place that is.

    1. Would have been hard for him to get the gun away if the officer had drawn his tazer or pepper spray.

      This officer WANTED to shoot him. If he hadn’t wanted to, he would have used one of his non-lethal weapons.

      1. Who is paying you to write this shit? Seriously? I’m for hire too.

        1. Fuck off, Tulpa.

  27. I’m sorry I have lost a lot of sympathy for Michael Brown,
    How can I sympathize with that shitstain of a town in Missouri if these fucking thugs are looting and burning private businesses??? These same businesses are very likely paying a ton of taxes which are supporting these welfare maggots that refuse to protest peacefully and confirm our worst suspicions of them.
    I hate the militarization of the police forces and how they shot him in the back was unjustified but I certainly do not support what these thugs are doing.

  28. Cry me a river. Brown (believeably) acted to endanger the life a someone who just wanted to have dinner with his wife and kids. I’ve had dogs to dodge pepper spray and charge again. A gun provides greater safety to the receiver of an attack, especially from a large male.

  29. I’m just waiting for one of the knee-jerkers here that were so sure Brown was shot in the back, to admit they were wrong.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.