General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Was it legal for Darren Wilson to shoot Michael Brown? [View all]Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)The one inside of the car, and the second one as Michael Brown was fleeing. At that point the answer is that everything after that was not justified in any way, shape, or form.
At that point Michael Brown turned around and raised his hands in surrender. Every civilized nation considers that a surrender. It is the instinctive and internationally recognized sign of surrender. We may not be able to speak to a foreign combatant, but they know that by raising their hands, they are surrendering. It is instinctive, like grabbing your throat when you are choking.
If Officer Wilson had ceased fire at that point and taken Michael Brown into custody, even holding him at gunpoint on the ground until back up arrived and handcuffed the young man. The claim of excessive force would have fallen on deaf ears. But it did not stop there did it? All the witnesses say that same thing. Police Officer Darren Wilson continued to fire, at a man who was not fleeing, and was holding his hands up in the international sign of surrender.
At that point, the use of force ceased to be justifiable in any stretch of the imagination. At that point, it moved into murder. If our soldiers on a battlefield in a far away land shot a man who was holding his hands up that soldier would be guilty of murder. That is in a warzone, so you can't tell me that the police have a different standard, because if you do you admit the police are completely out of control.
The first two shots can be viewed as justified. Every shot after that was murder.