That newsmax.com article is fascinating. The first three facts in their list have no relevance to the legitimacy of the shooting. They are clearly trying to paint Michael Brown as a bad person who deserved to die, and they aren't even being subtle about it. The fact that he had just stolen something has absolutely no relevance to the question of whether Darren Wilson acted correctly when he fired his gun.
One thing I have never seen anyone bring up on either side is the question of why Officer Wilson, believing his life to be in danger while sitting in his car, did not simply drive down the street to eliminate the danger, then reassess the situation from safety.
Wilson may well have been in danger, even mortal danger. He still did the wrong thing by responding with lethal force when he could have removed himself from that danger. As a result, he ended up killing one of the people he was sworn to protect.
OK, so why aren't they trained that way? Unless a criminal represents an imminent threat to the public, the police should prioritize safety above getting their man.
> The fact that he had just stolen something has absolutely no relevance to the question of whether Darren Wilson acted correctly when he fired his gun.
The fact that his physical description, the event of the strong-armed robbery, and the report of the stolen item, was brought-cast - which led to the events that followed - is not relevant?
How is it relevant? The question is whether Darren Wilson was justified in using lethal force. The standards for the use of lethal force by police do not, to my knowledge, contain any mention of previous criminal activity by the suspect.
The typical standard in the US is that lethal force is only justified when the person represents an immediate danger to others. I personally think it should go a bit farther than this and also explicitly state that lethal force must be the last resort, i.e. that the person must not only present a danger to others, but that lethal force must be the only way to stop it. Either way, the fact that Michael Brown had just stolen stuff doesn't come into it.
The points in the article dispel the myth of the "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" story. It obviously did not go that way at all (e.g., such as not even being shot in the back of the head).
The earlier events might, or might not, be relevant to the use of deadly force in a court of law, but they are relevant to my point of the narrative, of the story told to the public - the original comment you are relying to.
And yes, garbing at a cop's gun, trying to wrestle it away from him, and then later charging at him like a bull - is justifiable use of deadly force. And the previous events can be used to show the mindset of the individuals.
These things happen quickly, and there is no restart of the game.
They may be relevant to your point of the narrative, but my point is that the key question is whether Wilson was justified in his use of deadly force, and the earlier events are not relative to that. That is why the portion of my comment which you quoted says "...has absolutely no relevance to the question of whether Darren Wilson acted correctly...." (Emphasis added.)
Grabbing at a cop's gun may justify deadly force, but it wouldn't have happened if Wilson hadn't drawn it in the first place. It is the drawing of the gun which is the key event here. If he had simply stomped on the gas pedal instead then this whole controversy would have stopped before it started.
> It is the drawing of the gun which is the key event here. If he had simply stomped on the gas pedal instead then this whole controversy would have stopped before it started.
5. Wilson said when he tried to open his car door, Brown slammed it back shut, then punched Wilson in the face.
6. Fearing another punch could knock him out, Wilson drew his gun, he told the grand jury, and Brown grabbed the gun, saying "you are too much of a pussy to shoot me."
Like I said, these things happen quickly, there is really not much time to think and analyze. When you feel that your life is in danger, you just respond. Some people get tunnel vision, others don't even form memories.
Some other things that would have prevented this - is every single action that Michael Brown took.
The fact that Brown could have prevented his death by changing any of his actions is true, but irrelevant.
Imagine you insult a person's mother, and in response he gets upset and shoots you. I say, if you hadn't mouthed off then you wouldn't have gotten killed. Is this true? Absolutely. Does it make your death justified? Not in the least.
The fact that these things happen quickly and that you "just respond" is not an excuse for using deadly force when it's not necessary. Police are supposed to be the ones protecting us, not the ones getting us killed. That he killed Michael Brown when he didn't need to is an abject failure on his part. Maybe it was a failure caused by a lack of time to think and a failure caused by an innate response, but it's still a failure. I also have to wonder why Wilson got so close when opening his door in the first place, to someone he knew might be dangerous. If he felt at a disadvantage because he was seated in his car, why not stop some distance away, get out, and confront the suspect on a better footing?
You don't get to engineer a dangerous situation, then use deadly force to eliminate the danger and call it good. The fact that the other person participated somewhat still doesn't justify it. If Wilson had taken more care before he was in the middle of a fight then he wouldn't have been in the position to "just respond" with deadly force in the first place.
One thing I have never seen anyone bring up on either side is the question of why Officer Wilson, believing his life to be in danger while sitting in his car, did not simply drive down the street to eliminate the danger, then reassess the situation from safety.
Wilson may well have been in danger, even mortal danger. He still did the wrong thing by responding with lethal force when he could have removed himself from that danger. As a result, he ended up killing one of the people he was sworn to protect.