The Supreme Court ruling on shooting a fleeing unarmed suspect says if he presents harm to other officers or the public. He just resisted arrest and assaulted the officer. Sounds like in a few seconds judgement call the officer could easily make the case.
Yes Jim, I understand the ruling. My point is that this kid, unarmed, likely does not present an imminent danger to the community.
My threshold for what is acceptable in the shooting of a person known to be unarmed, is pretty high. I am responsible for teaching new police officers when it is acceptable, and my standards for lethal force are pretty high in that regard. I allow much more leeway in uncertain situations, as does the scotus.
In terms of this incident, if an unarmed subject is attacking a police officer, and has him on the ground and continues to attack rather than take that opportunity to flee, that person means serious harm to the officer and is no longer simply resisting or using defensive resistance/offense simply to defeat the officer's attempts to control or detain a subject. In that instance, the officer can escalate to deadly force, such as strikes to face/head, and if that does not work and the subject continues to attack, then lethal force.
I have no police report in front of me, but I still thought of some potential scenarios that would/could lead to lethal force, even if unjustified. I do not accept that a police officer would simply pull up and start shooting. I believe there was some type of struggle. Whether this was because of the "strong arm robbery"(I will get into that in a minute) or because the sidewalks in these neighborhoods are dangerous, forcing people to walk up the center of the street-which lead to the officer attempting to detain Brown.
I can envision the officer attempting to detain Brown because of the "robbery" but the Ferguson PD better not say that is the case if it is not. Dispatch traffic is public record, so if FPD say that the Officer calls out with possible robbery suspect, they get more legitimacy in releasing the video today.
I can also envision a scenario with the officer telling the subjects to get on the sidewalks, and Brown refusing or ignoring that order, prompting the officer to detain him. This scenario has less legitimacy in my opinion, and would indicate that the store footage of Brown was discovered in the last several days. So that leads us back to why is an officer wrestling with someone that is essentially jay-walking. If the large subject begins to get the upper hand on the Officer, I can envision that officer reaching for his gun, and Brown upon seeing that, may try to stop or get the gun so the officer does not shoot him.
With either scenario I described, the fact that Brown was involved in that "robbery" could explain why he would fight so hard, and at 6'4", he was no small guy, which increases the threat and level of force the officer can use. Not shooting him ten times, mind you, but a 6'4" guy beating an officer is not the same thing as a smaller person or a female.
As for the "robbery" I have mixed feelings. Robbery is the taking of property by force, or threats of force. This, to me, feels more like a shoplifting with a subsequent battery attached where he shoves the clerk that had the audacity to try and stop him. If the battery had occurred before hand, then it would seem more like a battery. I don't know MO law, though. Maybe the theft is not thought to occur until he has left the store, in which case, the battery could make this a robbery. Here, once you either secrete the item and move past the counter, it is shoplifting.
The fact that this guy feels he is allowed to simply walk into a store and steal, then use force on the clerk says a lot about his person, to me at least. A person that feels that entitled would not likely think too much of hitting a police officer, so the officer's side still has some merit, despite all the rulings made by activists and pundits who are now trying not to trip over each other as they back-peddle.
