Mike Brown: Trayvon Part 2

[Kaos]

Brown family attorney Daryl Parks said the call comes after an independent autopsy shows the unarmed teenager was shot six times, including twice in the head.

"Why would he be shot in the very top of his head, a 6-foot-4 man?" Parks asked. "It makes no sense."

I've purposely avoided this topic.  Haven't read the stuff here until today. Haven't watched the news about it.  Essentially I don't care.

BUT..

This guy is a moron. 

If they're struggling for a gun, falling into the car, he could have been at any angle.  Trying to wrest the gun away from the officer and pushing his hand upward?  Charging him from a crouch?  It makes tons of sense. 

A thug, who in the "family released" photo is flashing a fucking gang sign (which will incite all his thug gangster friends and rally them to come to his support as his family clearly knows), a punk ass fuck who robbed a store and was in the process of making his escape and surely thought the cop was coming for him due to that reason, an uneducated scum sewer dweller gets shot by an officer of the law.  That's the story.

Bury his ass.  Shoot anybody who "riots" to support his thug ass in the top of the head and above the eye.  That will put a welcome end to this ridiculous shit.

[Townhallsavoy]

I'm reading that most of the witnesses are claiming that Brown yelled for the cop to stop shooting.  I'm assuming that if a cop has determined that lethal force is necessary, the perp yelling "stop" doesn't necessarily mean much if the cop feels his life is in danger. 

Sort of like if I'm on the street and someone tries to mug me or hurt me and I pull out a gun which the criminal attempts to take from me.  If I begin firing shots and he yells "Please no," I'm not going to stop the last few bullets from coming out of the gun. 

[WiregrassTiger]

I'm reading that most of the witnesses are claiming that Brown yelled for the cop to stop shooting.  I'm assuming that if a cop has determined that lethal force is necessary, the perp yelling "stop" doesn't necessarily mean much if the cop feels his life is in danger. 

Sort of like if I'm on the street and someone tries to mug me or hurt me and I pull out a gun which the criminal attempts to take from me.  If I begin firing shots and he yells "Please no," I'm not going to stop the last few bullets from coming out of the gun.

I'll bet you've heard this a bunch of times.

[Vandy Vol]

Maybe the lawyers can opine, but could the robbery be used in court?

Depends on why they're trying to introduce it.

You can't bring in the robbery as evidence that Mike Brown is a violent person.  You have to prove the facts that are involved with this particular instance.  You can't bring in evidence of previous acts and say, "Well look here...he was violent against this cashier, therefore it's more likely that he was violent with this cop."

However, as Token mentioned, the robbery could be brought in to try to show Brown's state of mind during the encounter with the cop.  If he robbed a store, then that illegal act is likely to affect how he interacted with police in this instance.  It would be up to the jury to determine whether this lends any more credibility to the cop's story.

Whether the evidence can be brought in to show Brown's state of mind will also depend on the other evidence that is available, as the judge may determine that the evidence pertaining to the robbery would be more unfairly prejudicial than probative.  If ballistic evidence and eye witness testimony show that Brown was, in fact, surrendering and posed no threat, then his state of mind is irrelevant; although the robbery evidence could show his state of mind, his state of mind would serve no purpose other than to prejudice the jury due to the existence of the other evidence that shows he surrendered or posed no threat.

[GH2001]

Depends on why they're trying to introduce it.

You can't bring in the robbery as evidence that Mike Brown is a violent person.  You have to prove the facts that are involved with this particular instance.  You can't bring in evidence of previous acts and say, "Well look here...he was violent against this cashier, therefore it's more likely that he was violent with this cop."

However, as Token mentioned, the robbery could be brought in to try to show Brown's state of mind during the encounter with the cop.  If he robbed a store, then that illegal act is likely to affect how he interacted with police in this instance.  It would be up to the jury to determine whether this lends any more credibility to the cop's story.

Whether the evidence can be brought in to show Brown's state of mind will also depend on the other evidence that is available, as the judge may determine that the evidence pertaining to the robbery would be more unfairly prejudicial than probative.  If ballistic evidence and eye witness testimony show that Brown was, in fact, surrendering and posed no threat, then his state of mind is irrelevant; although the robbery evidence could show his state of mind, his state of mind would serve no purpose other than to prejudice the jury due to the existence of the other evidence that shows he surrendered or posed no threat.

In other words, dude was paranoid about the cop. Got himself in a tizzy.

Actually makes perfect sense to me. And I think token, chizad and kaos all kind of touched on that theory.

[Vandy Vol]

Pretty funny (and accurate) take on the entire situation:

[Townhallsavoy]

The issue I have with John Oliver's piece is that he starts immediately by claiming that the robbery video has absolutely nothing to do with what happened afterwards and should not be taken into account.  He then goes on use clip after clip to portray the Ferguson police department in a bad light yet in a similar manner, none of which is relevant to the case.  That inmate whose blood got onto a police officer's uniform?  Irrelevant.  How many blacks on the police force?  Irrelevant.

If the robbery video is irrelevant, then so is everything else.  All that matters is the letter of the law stating whether or not a police office can use lethal force in the scenario that occurred. 

Also, aren't these contradicting?

You can't bring in the robbery as evidence that Mike Brown is a violent person.  You have to prove the facts that are involved with this particular instance.  You can't bring in evidence of previous acts and say, "Well look here...he was violent against this cashier, therefore it's more likely that he was violent with this cop."

However, as Token mentioned, the robbery could be brought in to try to show Brown's state of mind during the encounter with the cop.  If he robbed a store, then that illegal act is likely to affect how he interacted with police in this instance.  It would be up to the jury to determine whether this lends any more credibility to the cop's story.

You can't use the robbery video as evidence to claim he would be violent with a cop but you could use the robbery video to say that his state of mind would influence him to be violent with a cop.  Am I misunderstanding your point?

[AUTailgatingRules]

If he can "bow up" on the convenience store clerk, is it not reasonable to believe he could "bow up" on the officer?

[WiregrassTiger]

I believe that the robbery has a lot to do with the shooting. I've read that the chief said that the officer didn't know about the robbery and I've read that the officer did know about the robbery and that he saw the thugs with cigars.

Whether the officer knew of the robbery, Michael Brown did. And he probably didn't want to go to jail.

My thoughts are that he really didn't believe that the cop would shoot him. He thought he didn't have the balls to do it, as he taunted him and ran toward him.

[AUJarhead]

This whole incident is a good example of what can happen when keeping it real goes wrong.

[GH2001]

If he can "bow up" on the convenience store clerk, is it not reasonable to believe he could "bow up" on the officer?

Indicates to me that if he had the state of mind at the time to rob a store and assault someone in it, he probably had the state of mind to assault someone else too. For something just as important or less.

[Vandy Vol]

The issue I have with John Oliver's piece is that he starts immediately by claiming that the robbery video has absolutely nothing to do with what happened afterwards and should not be taken into account.

The video doesn't have anything to do with the incident in question.  And it is relatively improper for the police to release a video that is not related to this incident, as it does nothing but expose potential jurors to evidence that could otherwise be excluded in a criminal or civil trial.

The only potential relation that the video would have to this incident is in regard to Mike Brown's state of mind, and again, that's for a court of law to determine, not for the police department to prematurely release in a response to this incident, not in response to questions about the robbery.

He then goes on use clip after clip to portray the Ferguson police department in a bad light yet in a similar manner, none of which is relevant to the case.  That inmate whose blood got onto a police officer's uniform?  Irrelevant.  How many blacks on the police force?  Irrelevant.

True, but he's also using those clips in response to people saying there are no race issues in Ferguson.  He never once stated that because cops have treated blacks poorly previously, then they did so in this case.  He was making fun of the mayor for saying something that was patently false.

You can't use the robbery video as evidence to claim he would be violent with a cop but you could use the robbery video to say that his state of mind would influence him to be violent with a cop.  Am I misunderstanding your point?

You can't bring in evidence of a separate incident in order to show that the person has a history of doing something.  Just because I hit someone once before does not mean I will hit someone else in the future.  It's prejudicial to try to paint me as a "habitual hitter" with a propensity to hit people just because it's happened previously.  You judge an incident based on the facts involved in the incident, not facts from previous incidents.  And before everyone starts arguing and whining about how unfair that is, I'm just pointing out what the rules of evidence state.  You don't have to like it for it to be true.

However, if the previous incident of me hitting someone can somehow affect my state of mind in this instance, then it can be brought in.  In Brown's case, he robbed a store and had not been confronted by police about it yet.  Thus, it's reasonable to assume that if a police officer were to approach him, his state of mind would be that the officer was there to address the robbery.

If, on the other hand, Brown had robbed this store years ago, had been arrested, and had already served his sentence or had the charges dropped, then the robbery would be completely irrelevant to this case.  It's not reasonable for Brown to assume that the police are there to ask him about a robbery that has already been addressed, so it's not reasonable to assume that his state of mind was affected by the previous robbery.  A person's state of mind when the incident took place is relevant to the incident, and so evidence relating to his state of mind can be introduced, even if that evidence consists of prior acts.

[Vandy Vol]

Indicates to me that if he had the state of mind at the time to rob a store and assault someone in it, he probably had the state of mind to assault someone else too. For something just as important or less.

You're misusing the term "state of mind" as it pertains to evidence.

You're saying that because Brown has previously assaulted someone, he has the propensity to assault people.  You can not bring forth evidence of prior acts to show that someone has a propensity to do something.  It's prejudicial because it's forcing the jury to focus on what someone has done previously, and not what they did or didn't do in the present case.

"State of mind" refers to what the person was thinking or what emotional state they were in at the time that the current incident occurred.  Trying to show that Brown is a habitual assaulter does not prove what his state of mind was.  If you can show that the previous robbery affected his state of mind, then it's admissible.  But it's not admissible if you're just trying to show that he has a propensity for assaulting people, because you have to specifically prove what he did in this instance, not what he did in prior instances.

[Vandy Vol]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_404

(a) Character Evidence.

(1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a person’s character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait.

. . .

(b) Crimes, Wrongs, or Other Acts.

(1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.

(2) Permitted Uses; Notice in a Criminal Case. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.

[CCTAU]

It's become nothing but a Blackfest up there. Anybody brought in has to be black. The head state trooper apologizing to the family talking about his own black son.. The black president and atty general.

This cop is done for. It doesn't matter what the evidence says.

This is now a race battle and it seems the blacks are currently winning.


Out president has emboldened race whores to play the card before truth.

We need leaders who put truth above race!

[Townhallsavoy]

True, but he's also using those clips in response to people saying there are no race issues in Ferguson.  He never once stated that because cops have treated blacks poorly previously, then they did so in this case.  He was making fun of the mayor for saying something that was patently false.

But he was doing more than just making fun much like most of the media has been doing.  He was trying to sway public opinion.  Now granted, yes, the police office was wrong to release the robbery video.  Outside of the court of law however, they were attempting to expose the people of Ferguson and the people in the media who have incited riots and looting and more violence.  Without that video, the media was going full on with the innocent, little, sweet teenager going out for milk and cookies angle. 

You can't bring in evidence of a separate incident in order to show that the person has a history of doing something.  Just because I hit someone once before does not mean I will hit someone else in the future.  It's prejudicial to try to paint me as a "habitual hitter" with a propensity to hit people just because it's happened previously.  You judge an incident based on the facts involved in the incident, not facts from previous incidents.  And before everyone starts arguing and whining about how unfair that is, I'm just pointing out what the rules of evidence state.  You don't have to like it for it to be true.

However, if the previous incident of me hitting someone can somehow affect my state of mind in this instance, then it can be brought in.  In Brown's case, he robbed a store and had not been confronted by police about it yet.  Thus, it's reasonable to assume that if a police officer were to approach him, his state of mind would be that the officer was there to address the robbery.

If, on the other hand, Brown had robbed this store years ago, had been arrested, and had already served his sentence or had the charges dropped, then the robbery would be completely irrelevant to this case.  It's not reasonable for Brown to assume that the police are there to ask him about a robbery that has already been addressed, so it's not reasonable to assume that his state of mind was affected by the previous robbery.  A person's state of mind when the incident took place is relevant to the incident, and so evidence relating to his state of mind can be introduced, even if that evidence consists of prior acts.

That makes more sense but then it also makes the video of the robbery relevant to the case.  Instead of brushing off - like John Oliver did - it should be a main point of conversation.  We now have evidence that his state of mind could have been altered and may have influenced his ability to interact with a police officer making a routine request to not walk in the middle of a roadway.  Does his propensity to robbing convenience stores and choking store clerks matter to this case?  No.  Does the fact that he had just minutes prior committed a crime matter to this case?  Definitely.

[Townhallsavoy]

It's become nothing but a Blackfest up there. Anybody brought in has to be black. The he'd state trooper apologizing to the family talking about his own black son.. The black president and atty general.

This cop is done for. It doesn't matter what the evidence says.

This is now a race battle and it seems the blacks are currently winning.


Out president has emboldened race wholes to play the card before truth.

We need leaders who put truth above race!

That's not true.  None of it.  I thought the same thing in the Trayvon Martin case as it carried many of the same elements. 

But Zimmerman got off scott-free.  Holder's digging, Obama's "son" comment, and the whole African American community in an uproar didn't affect the trial one iota. 

[CCTAU]

That's not true.  None of it.  I thought the same thing in the Trayvon Martin case as it carried many of the same elements. 

But Zimmerman got off scott-free.  Holder's digging, Obama's "son" comment, and the whole African American community in an uproar didn't affect the trial one iota.

You are clueless then. This is a lot different than Trayvon. The race whoring by the state to placate the rioters is much more evident than it ever was with Trayvon.

At least in the Trayvon case they didn't try to import black leaders to quell the uprising.

Have you even listened to the head state trooper?

Zimmerman got off because he was innocent of murder. And the good folks of Ferguson are not gonna let that happen.

[GH2001]

You're misusing the term "state of mind" as it pertains to evidence.

You're saying that because Brown has previously assaulted someone, he has the propensity to assault people.  You can not bring forth evidence of prior acts to show that someone has a propensity to do something.  It's prejudicial because it's forcing the jury to focus on what someone has done previously, and not what they did or didn't do in the present case.

"State of mind" refers to what the person was thinking or what emotional state they were in at the time that the current incident occurred.  Trying to show that Brown is a habitual assaulter does not prove what his state of mind was.  If you can show that the previous robbery affected his state of mind, then it's admissible.  But it's not admissible if you're just trying to show that he has a propensity for assaulting people, because you have to specifically prove what he did in this instance, not what he did in prior instances.

Not saying its evidence. But I am saying he was apparently capable of it since there was a precedent. Thats all. Which is the total opposite picture that was being painted last week - that there was NO WAY Brown could have assaulted someone. Well, yes there is. Because he has.

[chityeah]

Ooops....http://www.ijreview.com/2014/08/168698-eyewitness-recalls-important-detail-background-video-mins-ferguson-shooting/