it should be noted that -- shoddy retroactive justifications aside -- jaywalking and petty theft are not, and should not be, capital offenses in any country, much less one that claims to be about the rule of law. efforts to paint Mike Brown as a criminal have yielded no fruit considering the lack of criminal record, and the video people keep showing to proclaim his guilt of theft was never pursued by the owner of the shop he supposedly stole from (http://fox2now.com/2014/08/15/store-owners-talk-about-surveillance-released/).
Not one person, at all, is saying Michael Brown deserved to die for jaywalking or robbery. Do you even know what petty theft is? Or do you assume it means "theft by a sympathetic suspect"? Those who justify his death do so under the claims that he assaulted a police officer. The "petty theft" (actually robbery, which is using force or threat of force to steal) has only been cited as justification for the cop to approach Brown.
Why should there be repercussions if he was right to do so?
Do you know what a grand jury is? Do you realize that before "any ordinary citizen" faces "a jury trial of their peers" there is a grand jury hearing? That grand jury is who decides if there will actually be a criminal trial. They look at the case the prosecution presents, and determine if it is sufficient to bring the defendant up on charges. The cop does NOT get to defend himself before a grand jury, the prosecution simply tells the grand jury, why the prosecutors think the cop should be charged, and then the grand jury decides whether or not there is enough evidence.
Do you even realize how stupid this statement is? You are literally saying "It's a pity we cannot punish this man without evidence, just the affirmations of a bunch of locals." But what I have heard, considerable forensic evidence disputes the prejudicial accounts of eyewitnesses, such as their contentions that he was shot in the back, when the family's own autopsy revealed all the bullets entered his body from the front. Even setting aside the notion of malice, it is pretty much impossible for the human eye to discern exactly at what point in a shooting the bullets entered the body. They might be able to make educated guesses based on the physical movements of said body, but those are only guesses. Maybe the subject falls down, but I have fallen down many times, without ever once having a bullet enter my body. If Brown was facing away from the cop when the cop started shooting (as you suggest eyewitnesses claim), he must have turned back to face him before actually being struck. This, all by itself is plenty of reason for justification of the shooting. If he was surrendering, he should have frozen or stopped moving. Even in Hollywood a cop pointing a gun at a fleeing suspect says "Freeze" or "Stop" never, "Turn and face me." Commanding a prisoner to turn around only happens once the suspect has stopped and is determined to no long be resisting. Turning to face the cop once the shooting stops is interpreted as an attack, because there is no sensible reason for facing a gun out of fear. People in fear for their lives flinch AWAY from the threat. People looking for trouble or expressing defiance turn towards him. And turning towards him with arms up COULD be a surrender, and COULD just as easily be a threat or prelude to attack, especially from a man suspected of (and in hindsight, known to have committed) physical violence earlier that day.
THAT is where Brown's recent criminal activity comes into play. He was not suspected of mere petty theft, he was suspected in a robbery, in which he matched the distinctive description of the perpetrator, and no serious attempt has been made to contend that he is NOT the robber caught on video tape. So when a very large male, who matches the description of a violent offender (and yes, robbers are violent offenders, no matter how small the value of their theft), turns toward a cop and raises his arms, he'd be really, really lucky to NOT get shot. Especially if he had previously attempted to seize the gun from the cop in his car, as forensic evidence indicates did happen.
The actions you think a cop should take with his life on the line are not germane. What matters in jurisprudence and criminal proceedings is A. What are the rules, and B. Were they followed. If you think the circumstances under which cops are permitted the use of deadly force, that is something to take up in its own right, as a separate issue. You do not get to say "I don't like the outcome of this confrontation. Even though the cop followed the rules, he should still be punished, because I am sympathetic to black people, regardless of their circumstances."
If you take issue with that characterization of your argument, show what precise, explicit rules the cop broke. Actually, written down procedures, applicable in his state and department, not rules you, in your invincible & oft-demonstrated ignorance, imagine should exist.
“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” GK Chesteron
Inde muagdhe Aes Sedai misain ye!
Deus Vult!
*MySmiley*
