Source: https://frederickleatherman.wordpress.com/category/police-shooting/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 02:43:06+00:00

Document:
What did Robert McCulloch know and when did he know it?
Mr. McCulloch said the grand jury was able to sort out whose testimony to believe, and acknowledged that witnesses he did not believe to be truthful had come before the jurors. Mr. McCulloch said that one female witness, who provided testimony that appeared to bolster Officer Wilson’s account of events, “clearly wasn’t present” when the shooting occurred.
In her testimony, the woman whom Mr. McCullough appeared to cite, acknowledged a history of feelings that “others consider to be racist,” gave various reasons for being near the shooting, and described extensive memory problems from a head injury in a car crash. Asked whether he believed the grand jury had given credence to the woman’s testimony, Mr. McCulloch said, “none whatsoever,” and added that the grand jury also heard from other witnesses whose testimony was also in doubt. “It went both directions,” he said.
There is a huge difference between knowing Sandra McElroy committed perjury when she testified before the grand jury and doubting the credibility of other witnesses who also testified.
I am going to be very specific. No ethical prosecutor would ever consider putting a witness before the grand jury if they knew the witness was going to lie. Furthermore, an ethical prosecutor, who found out that a major witness had committed perjury, would inform the grand jury that the witness had lied and instruct them to disregard her testimony. If the ethical prosecutor discovered that the witness had lied after the grand jury decided not to indict, he would summon a new grand jury and present the case to them without the lying witness.
McCulloch’s excuse that falsehoods went both ways basically cancelling each other out, therefore, no harm no foul is unacceptable. McElroy is the only witness who backed up every material claim Darren Wilson made. Her influence is baked into the grand jury’s decision not to charge Wilson and cannot be carved out by claiming other witnesses lied. He does not know that. He believes it because he wants to believe it and he wants to believe it because Darren Wilson is a member of his tribe. They are on the same team. Wilson is a white cop and he’s a white prosecutor who works with white cops disproportionally prosecuting black defendants.
The foul stink of racist driven corruption is suffocating.
Governor Nixon needs to appoint a special prosecutor immediately.
The waiting continues as we are being told that the grand jury did not reach a decision yesterday regarding whether they should indict Darren Wilson.
I won’t bother to speculate about what is going on because I have already decided that the process is illegitimate.
Meanwhile, most of you have been following Shaun King’s fine work analyzing the Michael Brown shooting. Here is his latest, Video: Police lied. Mike Brown was killed 148 feet away from Darren Wilson’s SUV.
FYI: Here is an excerpt from a book by George Lakoff titled, The Strict Father Is at the Core of Conservative Ideology and Values.
For a pleasant change of pace, check out this article by Paul Bibeau titled, Should We Defund The Pentagon And Give That Money To Canadian Musicians?
For the following reasons, I do not believe the official police version of the shooting death of Vonderrit Myers.
A police officer cannot stop someone he suspects of committing a crime, unless his suspicion is reasonable. That is, a mere hunch is not sufficient unless it is based on an articulable set of objective facts and circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to suspect that a crime is being committed, was committed or is about to be committed. See: Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).
Race does not qualify as a reasonable suspicion. An investigative stop based on race alone is racial profiling, a Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment civil rights violation.
An arrest must be supported by probable cause or reasonable grounds to believe that a person committed a crime.
Acting suspiciously is an opinion, not an articulable objective fact or circumstance.
Therefore, I see a police officer violating the civil rights of Vonderrit Myers and two others that ended when he shot and killed him.
A shot to the head killed an 18-year-old teenager shot to death Wednesday during an encounter with an off-duty police officer, the medical examiner said Thursday.
Preliminary autopsy results showed that Vonderrit Myers Jr. was shot from six to seven times in the lower extremities, said Dr. Michael Graham. The fatal shot entered the right cheek and was recovered in the body, Graham said.
Sen. Jamilah Nasheed had suggested at a press conference earlier Thursday that the teen had been shot in the back of the head, but the autopsy did not find any gunshots to the back of Myers’ head.
I also have a difficult time believing that the officer waited for Myers to fire three shots, attempt to unjam his gun and fire more shots before he drew his own gun and squeezed off 17 shots.
That sounds like a movie script, not a real-life event.
Many cops carry difficult-to-trace firearms acquired under questionable circumstances for the sole purpose of throwing them down on people they arrest or kill.
I have yet to hear whether any gunshot residue was found on Meyer’s hands and clothing.
I do not believe the official police version of this shooting, given the attempted unlawful stop, the absence of evidence that any gunshot residue was found on Myers’s hands and clothes, and information from witnesses that Myers was armed with only a sandwich, including the shopkeeper from whom he purchased it a few minutes before the encounter.
If you like what we do, please take a moment to make a donation.
More trouble in St.Louis last night.
An off-duty police officer shot and killed an 18-year-old black male in St.Louis last night. According to the police chief, the young man fired 3 shots at the officer during a chase. The officer returned fire squeezing off 17 shots.
A gun was recovered at the scene and a ballistics investigation confirmed that it had been fired three times.
Hopefully, the victim’s hands were bagged at the scene and the ME will check for the presence of gunshot residue on them before washing the body prior to the autopsy.
The gun should be checked for prints.
*Many cops carry difficult-to-trace firearms acquired under questionable circumstances for the sole purpose of throwing them down on people they arrest or kill.
Please consider making a donation, if you like what we do.
In this bizarre country where up is down and down is up, open-carry enthusiasts in Beavercreek, OH demonstrated inside a Walmart against a white police officer for shooting and killing twenty-two-year-old John Crawford III inside the Walmart on August 5th. They openly carried their weapons as they strolled through the store.
Crawford, who is black, was carrying an unloaded toy pellet gun that he apparently intended to purchase when the officer, who responded to a 911 call from a Walmart customer reporting a man with an unboxed AR-15 waving it around and pointing it at people, confronted and shot him to death. A state grand jury refused to indict the officer, however, a federal grand jury is now investigating whether to indict him for violating Crawford’s civil rights.
About 40 open-carry activists protested the Aug. 5 police shooting of 22-year-old John Crawford III at the Beavercreek retailer after a grand jury declined last month to charge the officer who killed him.
According to attorney Michael Wright, who represents Crawford’s father, he watched a store video that shows Crawford walking around the store with the unpackaged toy rifle that he picked up in the toy department and carrying it in his left hand as he was holding a cell phone to his ear with his while speaking the mother of his two children.
Crawford’s father and Wright said the video showed Crawford carrying the BB gun in his left hand, pointed at the floor, except when he momentarily swung the rifle to his shoulder.
Although there were other shoppers in the store, no one else called 911.
Check out the video at the beginning of this post and share your thoughts.
We have yet another tragic incident to consider in which a police officer shoots and kills a mentally ill person.
A man calls 911 saying his family needs help. His wife is scared of their schizophrenic son, armed with a screwdriver. One, then two, then three law enforcement officers — all from different agencies — arrive. After the situation calms somewhat, according to the family, a tussle ensues.
In a case this week out of Boiling Spring Lakes, North Carolina, one officer responded by firing his gun, killing 18-year-old Keith Vidal, who was mentally ill.
The shooter is Byron Vassey, a detective with the Southport (NC), Police Department, which has placed him on administrative leave pending an investigation of the shooting.
Determining whether the force used to effect a particular seizure is “reasonable” under the Fourth Amendment requires a careful balancing of ” `the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests’ ” against the countervailing governmental interests at stake. Id., at 8, quoting United States v. Place, 462 U. S. 696, 703 (1983). Our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence has long recognized that the right to make an arrest or investigatory stop necessarily carries with it the right to use some degree of physical coercion or threat thereof to effect it. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S., at 22-27. Because “[t]he test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application,” Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U. S. 520, 559 (1979), however, its proper application requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. See Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U. S., at 8-9 (the question is “whether the totality of the circumstances justifie[s] a particular sort of . . . seizure”).
The “reasonableness” of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. See Terry v. Ohio, supra, at 20-22. The Fourth Amendment is not violated by an arrest based on probable cause, even though the wrong person is arrested, Hill v. California, 401 U. S. 797 (1971), nor by the mistaken execution of a valid search warrant on the wrong premises, Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U. S. 79 (1987). With respect to a claim of excessive force, the same standard of reasonableness at the moment applies: “Not every push or shove, even if it may later seem unnecessary in the peace of a judge’s chambers,” Johnson v. Glick, 481 F. 2d, at 1033, violates the Fourth Amendment. The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments — in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving — about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.
As in other Fourth Amendment contexts, however, the “reasonableness” inquiry in an excessive force case is an objective one: the question is whether the officers’ actions are “objectively reasonable” in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation. See Scott v. United States, 436 U. S. 128, 137-139 (1978); see also Terry v. Ohio, supra, at 21 (in analyzing the reasonableness of a particular search or seizure, “it is imperative that the facts be judged against an objective standard”). An officer’s evil intentions will not make a Fourth Amendment violation out of an objectively reasonable use of force; nor will an officer’s good intentions make an objectively unreasonable use of force constitutional. See Scott v. United States, supra, at 138, citing United States v. Robinson, 414 U. S. 218 (1973).
The North Carolina Bureau of Investigation is investigating this shooting.
This is our 846th post in 26 months.
I absolute hate begging, but if beg I must . . .
We have been asking for donations for a week now, but have received only 4 donations totaling less than $50. We get hundreds of visitors and several thousand page views per day.
Takes a lot of time and effort to post articles every day and run a blog.
We also have bills to pay and we cannot continue to do this without your support.
You are currently browsing the archives for the Police shooting category.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.