My theory as to why Michael Brown's body lay in the street for at least 5 hours

[CatWoman]

That was a warning to the community.

It said "this could be you".

[Cleita]

1. I also think it was deliberate disrespect shown to a person of color.

They were saying he wasn't important enough to treat him any differently than road kill on the highway.

[CatWoman]

2. yep

[PatSeg]

127. Yes

Though I'm not sure it was a conscious act, more like a general disregard for black males in the community, not worthy of the respect one would show a white person.

[Ed Suspicious]

223. I think this is key. It wasn't a direct fuck you to the community, rather an subconscious,

deeply ingrained disregard. Many would likely recoil at the suggestion they are racist. Yhey likely don't even consider the possibility. It just happens.

[PatSeg]

226. Yes, just an extension

of their day-to-day attitude towards "those people".

[BaggersRDumb]

155. all of the above

Just remember, all right wingers hate all minorities and are deathly afraid of them

[BlueCaliDem]

3. That's exactly what it was.

You can't convince me that in a small town like Ferguson, they couldn't get an ambulance or the coroner there in four hours! It doesn't make sense.

They were clearly using Michael Brown's body as a warning to all Black residents - "Look how tough we are! This could be YOU!"

Subliminal messaging is incredibly effective to get a message across.

[Lurks Often]

4. No, it's called processing a crime scene properly

and not moving the body to potentially disturb, damage or destroy evidence.

[CatWoman]

5. um

I lost my niece to a senseless shooting a few years ago.

She certainly didn't lie in the street, UNCOVERED, for over 5 hours.

[Lurks Often]

12. And every crime scene is different and processed accordingly.

[CatWoman]

22. very true

my niece was killed at night.

again, she still didn't lie on the street, UNCOVERED, for over 5 hours.

[Lurks Often]

26. I'm sorry for your loss, but that doesn't make you

an expert on police procedure. You are speculating without any actual facts to support your argument.

[bklyncowgirl]

36. Are you a law enforcement professional?

Let's face it, my expertise is limited to reading police procedurals and watching crime shows. I would say that of most of the people on this board and the public in general. If you have special qualifications which make you an expert then please let us aware of them or I will simply have to assume that you are just another keyboard cop speculating off the top of his or her head.

[Lurks Often]

42. I have had some law enforcement training and education

enough to realize I didn't want to go down that career path.

[Tommymac]

72. You are wrong. Not normal for a crime scene body to lie uncovered for that long.

Just doesn't happen.

Except when there is evidence to be hidden. Such as blood spatter patterns on the pavement. That are wiped away when a body bleeds out all over them for 5 hours.

Maybe you should reconsider that career path thing...you seem to have a very inventive mind and a good grasp of truthiness.

[cleduc]

179. I looked up a few shootings and deaths on google randomly

The quickest shooting death I saw was 2 hrs 45 mins from the time they found the body to removal

Whitney Houston (not a shooting) at 9 hrs was the longest I saw

I saw a number at 3-4 hours.

Two significant things would slow down the processing of this crime scene over some that I saw:
1. They called in the St Louis County police to process a Ferguson police crime scene
(ie lots of chatter between the two, additional time to respond, etc)
2. There were a lot of shots fired and most were outside of the vehicle - bullets not easily found stuck in a 2x4 in someone's basement.

So I'm not buying the 5 hours taken to process this crime scene as automatically sinister because they took a while.

[cui bono]

206. How about how long it took to cover those bodies?

And were ambulances called?

[cleduc]

207. I didn't look at how long it took to cover the bodies

I did look at EMS for Brown. The police logs show them being called at 12:04 - right after the shooting. And there is video of them attending to Brown, checking his pulse, etc.

The outstanding question I have is why EMS did not arrive sooner than they did. They arrived fairly shortly/minutes after the shooting - it wasn't hours later. But when they arrived, police tape was already up all around the crime scene so it was more than a couple of minutes. The EMS guy walked to Brown - no jogging or rushing.

It's possible EMS were told it was kind of a formality because Brown was dead and his brains on the road. That was apparent to a number of the bystanders who shot the crime scene videos. They yelled out at the EMS guy "he's dead!" or something to that effect.

[LovingA2andMI]

137. "Some law enforcement training and education"

Then who are YOU to tell ANYONE about law enforcement policies and procedures when processing a dead body at a crimescene, LURKS OFTEN? By the way, your "name" is truly interesting, which is why we decided to shout it a bit

[Lurks Often]

140. Do some reading and educate yourself

http://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/investigations/crime-scene/guides/death-investigation/pages/document-body.aspx

[LovingA2andMI]

144. YOU FAILED TO ANSWER ..... the question.

Last edited Wed Aug 20, 2014, 04:24 PM - Edit history (1)

It's either Have you had A Little, A Lot or Plenty in your Law Enforcement Training?

For some reason, you can't answer this direct question with a DIRECT answer.

A Link is not the answer.

Informing us to "Do Some Reading and Educate" Ourselves" is not the answer.

The level of YOUR law enforcement training is the answer.

Until this answer is given, everyone need to take your opinions with a HUGE GRAIN OF SALT.

Have a lovely afternoon.

[CatWoman]

242. ..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025438085

[Shivering Jemmy]

192. Working security at the Tastyfreeze doesn't count.

[Lurks Often]

208. Ah yes, cheap, ignorant personal attacks

those always further the conversation in a positive direction.

[MADem]

230. Just answer the question you've been asked--you're inviting comment by being coy.

And frankly, the more you're coy about your level of expertise, the less people will think you have any at all.

That's not a slam, that's just human nature. Nothing cheap or ignorant about it.

How hard is it to tell people exactly how much "experience" you've had?

If your experience is limited to "I've read a few books on the subject," just say so.

[Lurks Often]

232. You get the answer because you asked politely

I completed US Army Military Police training and a use of force course taught by nationally recognized trainer, expert witness and part time police officer Massad Ayoob which included range time on what as of 1995 was a police handgun qualification course.

Plus an accumulation of knowledge from a variety of sources including books, hearing about prior criminal cases, occasional talks with police officers that I knew and a minor in criminal justice which included riding along twice a week with officers in a suburban police department for a semester.

[MADem]

234. Were you an MP/MAA with the attendant MOS/NEC or was this a collateral assignment?

Were you ever assigned to a military police unit on an installation with a civilian population, and did you have an opportunity to utilize the training you received?

I really do think that the Ferguson PD mishandled this case terribly. The custom in my neck of the woods is to utilize a screen or a tent to shield bodies from public view--this is something that has been imported from UK which was common when I lived there--it not only preserved the scene in the event of rain, it also served to avoid offended sensibilities.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-20851775

http://www.tents4work.co.uk/forensics

http://www.forensicmag.com/articles/2012/12/shield-your-crime-scene

For scenes where you want to protect access from more than one direction, you can use a privacy shield. These shields are also about 4' high, but they cover 360 degrees around the body. They also fold up to fit in your vehicle.

Whenever you are dealing with major cases, you need to fully protect the scene on all sides and from above. The best way to do this is with a free-standing tent. The tent should be one that sets up quickly, is easily transported in your cruiser or crime scene vehicle, is self-supporting at the four corners (no center pole), and includes side panels that offer protection to the officers inside doing their job.

Investing in this type of tent is worthwhile because it can also be used for other purposes. For example, it can be used for any scene when you need protection from the elements. If you know it’s going to start raining or snowing, you can set up the tent to protect key evidence. Also, if you have a case that will take a long time to process, such as a body that needs to be excavated, you can use the tent for protection while the work proceeds.

[Lurks Often]

235. National Guard tasked with the Combat Support mission

although we got dragged to one of the Army bases in Panama to do garrison work in 1995 when the active duty MP's were pulling duty in Cuba watching the Cuban boat refugees.

As for covering/shielding the body that seems to vary, there was at least one poster that related a story about a motorcycle accident when the dead driver was left on the ground uncovered for hours because there was discrepancies in witness testimony.

The Ferguson police aren't handling this especially well, how much of that is the police chief, what the town's lawyers are allowing him to say, what the prosecutor is allowing to be said and maybe even what HIPAA laws are preventing from being released at this time.

Combine that with the media vultures more interested in ratings and the latest "breaking news" and it is a giant mess.

[MADem]

237. HIPAA is supposed to preserve privacy for a half century after death, but in reality, privacy

pretty much dies when the individual does, owing to family members and friends speaking publicly about medical conditions (e.g. Robin Williams and his Parkinsons disease).

I do think leaving the body on display, surrounded by balconied apartments, was, at the least, insensitive. When one considers that those people in those buildings were the teen's neighbors, classmates, friends, and relatives, it bordered on cruelty.

Perhaps, instead of providing police departments with militarized equipment courtesy of DOD, the federal government can put aside an expenditure to provide PDs with pop up tents and screens for just this kind of thing--the better for police to be more sensitive to the communities they serve. Also, when there's no focus for people's attention, like the body of one's neighbor, one might be less inclined to remain at the scene, focused on a tent.

[Lurks Often]

238. HIPAA becomes somewhat of a gray area when a criminal investigation

DOD already paid for the equipment, it's surplus to the military's needs and offered free to police departments:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/08/14/the-pentagon-gave-nearly-half-a-billion-dollars-of-military-gear-to-local-law-enforcement-last-year/

Most of it is relatively un-alarming such as generators, office equipment etc

As for covering up the body, the best link I could find suggests it is up to the lead homicide investigator or some senior to him, don't know what MO's is:
http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/police/policy/mpdpolicy_10-100_10-100

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/08/21/cnn-host-calls-out-ferguson-mayor-for-referring-to-michael-browns-body-as-an-it/ indicates that Brown's body was covered up at least part of the time and that some of the delay was caused by having the St Louis County Sheriff's department called in to investigate.

I understand the desire to cover the body, but the link to the Minneapolis PD certainly seems to suggest that doing so and then having to remove it one or more times, increases the chances of evidence being damaged or destroyed.

[MADem]

241. That's why one of those pop up tents would have been perfect.

It would have shielded the view and they could have continued to investigate around the corpse.

[CatWoman]

60. no

but I bet he/she stayed in a Holiday Inn Express.

[Cooley Hurd]

168. .

[CatWoman]

171. ...

[heaven05]

113. You know a white victim

even if shot for the same crime would not lay in the streets for four hours. At the least the body would have been covered. This has been the model of racist killers/murderers since 'bitter fruit' days. Leave them hanging as a message to 'others', this could be you. I can't imagine, for the life of me, who you think your answers are fooling.

[Ecumenist]

138. BULLSHIT!! I have had the unfortunate experience to happen across the body of a minister

who was shot in the head crossing the street because he was a BLACK MAN by a disturbed white man who had decided that we were the reason that America had troubles and although it had been about 10 minutes since he was shot, his upper body was COVERED....the area was TAPED OFF and HIS BODY WAS COVERED.....BY THE POLICE!! I also, when I was QUITE a bit younger was riding in a car in LA and came to an intersection where a man had been shot and killed because he was holding someone hostage and threatening to kill them...GUESS WHAT??!! THEY.......COVERED.......HIS.......BODY within 30 minutes to an hour of the shooting. So, your comments are BULLSHIT. My brother, who is LEO was disgusted and horrified to learn about that boy lying in the street after bleeding to death FOR MORE THAN 4 HOURS!! He said that it was completely against protocol....NOW WHAT?

[Lurks Often]

142. Here's a guide to crime scene protocol

http://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/investigations/crime-scene/guides/death-investigation/pages/document-body.aspx

Covering the body isn't mentioned one way or the other

[Ecumenist]

150. Can you tell me HOW MANY HOMICIDES you've investigated? HOW MANY murders of UNARMED

TEENAGERS have you investigated, dear LURKS? You have "SOME" edjumacation in criminal justice, or something of the like and SUDDENLY, you know it all, huh? I have a brother who's a COP and his workmates OFTEN come by to say hello or spending time dinners, bbq's holidays and EACH AND EVERYONE of them ARE DISGUSTED at how this happened and has been "HANDLED". How much time have you spent working as a LEO, a HOMICIDE investigator in particular?

[sabrina 1]

161. Why did Michael Brown receive no medical attention? Is that police protocol also?

[Ecumenist]

184. Sabrina, Lurks has a bootleg Palinesque sorta kinda legal education and apparently, they are also

a medical savant too. How dare you question their standing and opinion...omnipotent donchaknow?

[sabrina 1]

199. I understand, thought I might get an answer to my question, but that might be beyond the

pay grade of someone who only has 'some' legal experience.

It is unconscionable that Michael Brown was left on the street uncovered, with no medical attention for over four hours. I am thinking of his mother and father and how, on top of their terrible loss, to have to deal with that also. There just are no words!

[Ecumenist]

202. Lurks seems to be one of the trolls who are determined to somehow justify the out and out

slaughter--LYNCHING of this boy. They have given me some link about how an ambulance just happened by and promounced him dead without rendering ANY kind of aid. Since they seemed to be so all knowing about police procedure, I asked them how many homicide cases they investigated, my brother and his partner, both LEO in HOMICIDE were sitting right there. NO REPLY...of course... I aslo pointed out that the point I was making about the fact the police NEVER called 911 for that kid and that EMT's cannot pronounce death, ONLY a licenced doctor can do that. NO REPLY. I am so sick of this 'ish , people who are supposed to be members of a progressive site who tacitly rationalise BALD FACED RACISM and MURDER of UNARMED Teens..SMDH

[Lurks Often]

210. Kansas City, MO guidelines for when a victim is treated or not by EMT's

Starts at page 50: http://www.kcmo.org/idc/groups/ems/documents/citymanagersoffice/emsprotocols2011.pdf

I think we can safely presume that this is a statewide EMS protocol

[Lurks Often]

209. According to the link the EMT's did check Michael Brown

http://www.wfmynews2.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/18/timeline-michael-brown-ferguson/14260205/

[snooper2]

215. see the video I just posted twice down below, I think the dude with medical kit

has some kind of medical training-

[Matariki]

219. And you are not?

It seems you are just flame baiting.

[cvoogt]

204. Indeed

Why, just four miles down the road Kajieme Powell was shot and once he stopped moving (within 15-30 seconds) the peace officers proceeded to cuff him - cuff a dead man - and move his body around.

[snooper2]

130. He wasn't uncovered for 5 hours, more like 10-12 minutes FYI

[MindPilot]

141. In a Chris Hayes interview last night,

two men he was speaking with said it was neighbors who covered the body.

[snooper2]

214. That's why all the speculation and random people just saying things isn't "evidence"

Here is video that started a few minutes after it happened-

In the last few seconds of the video a cop is covering the body...

Unless neighbors where uniforms and badges

&bpctr=1408630803

[rhett o rick]

158. And what's your source? nm

[snooper2]

212. Um, the video everyone should have watched by now

This video started a few minutes after it happened, if you watch the whole thing you can see where emergency services are showing up a couple minutes in, in the last few seconds you see a cop covering the body-

&bpctr=1408630803

[global1]

7. So Are There Any Photos Of The Processing Of The Crime Scene?......

I'm sure that somebody in the crowd would have taken a pic of that.

[Lurks Often]

13. Is there any proof that they didn't process the crime scene?

[mahina]

28. Can't prove a negative

But you know that.

[Lurks Often]

47. Yup

There is a lot of missing information and I would want to read the autopsy reports before making a decision right now. I prefer to look at the physical evidence, instead of statements from those involved or witnesses, who consciously or not may have attitudes and beliefs that could impact how they viewed what happened.

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

64. Who are you? ...

And then what is YOUR proof that they did?

I can agree with most of your statements, in general, proof, contamination, etc, but the way you tap out words make you appear as a heartless, person. Sorry I meant to say bastard, no offense intended.

Repeat this over and over while looking at a, well, any person, unarmed, shot 6 times. Unarmed, shot six times, no matter what he did or didn't do, unarmed, overkill. I don't do that while hunting.

RESPECT.

Your family member... Shot... Murdered... Left uncovered... Dream about it while you glory in your experience.

At very least argue that they just should have shot him in the shoulder or leg. Incapitating him.
But arguing about respect? Respect over a person in a crime scene. I received a stern warning once about the comment I want to say to you, so I won't. But I hope your dinner includes killer stuff from the wrong end of our bodies.

[Lurks Often]

66. Aren't you cute

I have had law enforcement training, I have had use of force training by a nationally recognized expert on the subject who has been teaching when and when not to shoot for more the 30 years.

What you've shown is that the best you can manage is implied name calling without even the courage to call me what you really want simply because who might get a hide on an internet forum.

So you'll understand that I view your opinion is meaningless.

[Gemini Cat]

100. Wow, isn't that special.

I guess wilson didn't have the same expert as you did.
Cool story, however.

[heaven05]

116. you're no expert

and you're making a fool of yourself trying to appear as such.

[LovingA2andMI]

139. Which one is it?

"I have had law enforcement training" or "I have had use of force training by a nationally recognized expert on the subject who has been teaching when and when not to shoot for more the 30 years" or this one.... "I have had some law enforcement training and education enough to realize I didn't want to go down that career path."

Make your mind up. You had a Little, Some or Plenty of use of force type of training. In this thread, you hit the past, present and past-tense....the the question could be simply addressed by either you DID or DID NOT have FORMAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING.

Beating around the bush is not a good look, LURKS OFTEN.

[Lurks Often]

143. And what qualifications do you have?

Apparently none since you have resorted to making it personal instead of doing research to actually prove me wrong.

http://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/investigations/crime-scene/guides/death-investigation/pages/document-body.aspx

[LovingA2andMI]

146. Deflecting is NOT THE ANSWER

You started with "I had a little law enforcement training and decided to take a different direction"...Yaya, yaya, yaya as a reason for the O.P. to disregard their opinion about why Mike Brown laid on the ground dead for HOURS on end.

The point is MIKE BROWN did not have to lay on the ground for hours on end. The scene could have been processed and the body moved in no less than 2 hours. To have a body lay on the ground for 5 hours in beyond ridiculous, and justifies the dog and pony show called the Ferguson Police Department.

However, your A Lot, A Little or Plenty Law Enforcement Training should have told you that already. We should've not had too.


Again, HAVE A GREAT AFTERNOON and you did not answer the question you started with your all over the board statements on this thread.

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

172. Copy...

Your post,

Lurks Often (2,815 posts)
42. I have had some law enforcement training and education
enough to realize I didn't want to go down that career path.



Please adopt a dog from a shelter
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

[CatWoman]

67. what you said

[Tommymac]

80. @N_E_1 for Tennis ... Read this link. Try door #2

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025416337

[snooper2]

131. There is a video that is 10 minutes long that started about 2 minutes after it happened

At the end of that video you can see them covering the body-

[global1]

157. I Saw That Too....

They are only covering the body. BUT - Was there a forensic team called in to layout the scene? To check the trajectory of the bullets? Recover any bullets if they didn't hit Brown? Check out the police car Wilson was in and take fingerprints on the window and the side of the door? To check for powder residue in the car (as I did hear that maybe one shot was fired in the car)? Take measurements from the car to where Brown's body came to lie? Impound the Wilson's gun? Collect the cigarellos that Brown was supposed to have taken, etc.

I saw them cover the body. I did not see any photos of a forensic team; a coroner or an ambulance that may have moved the body.
One would think with all the people gathered at the scene that someone would have recorded some of this by taking pictures.

I think even a forensics team takes pictures of the scene. I have not seen any of this surface.

[Cooley Hurd]

8. But they didn't even allow a nurse who came upon the scene to even CHECK him!

Crime scene or not, they should've allowed a medical professional to attend to him.

[Lurks Often]

14. As was stated in another thread

he was had a gunshot wound to the top of the head and there was brain matter on the street.

[Cooley Hurd]

17. As there was with James Brady after the assassination attempt...

They didn't just let him LIE there. They took him to a hospital and ultimately were able to save his life.

[Lurks Often]

39. I don't recall that James Brady had brain matter all over the street

he took a relatively low powered 22 bullet to the head that remained inside the skull, not a 9mm or .40 caliber hollowpoint that are the 2 most common police issue calibers these days.

[Jerry442]

51. Do you even listen to yourself when you talk?

A man is lying on the street with multiple gunshot wounds. For hours, no one gives him medical attention or even attempts to cover him. On what planet is this acceptable?

[Lurks Often]

71. So what medical attention to you give to someone with

their brains all over the pavement?

[Horse with no Name]

79. Technically that patient is alive until someone declares him dead or rigor mortis has set in

there was nobody legally qualified to declare him dead at the scene. Lifesaving protocol should have been initiated regardless of appearances. They weren't qualified to make that call.

[Tommymac]

81. +1

[Cooley Hurd]

169. ...another +1

[immoderate]

201. Yes, but being "technically" alive is not as much fun as the real thing.

--imm

[stone space]

105. Jury Results. I'll just say that I was in the minority on this one.

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

Mail Message



On Wed Aug 20, 2014, 02:10 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

So what medical attention to you give to someone with
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5417963

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

No comments added by alerter

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Aug 20, 2014, 02:16 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: As always, my policy is to leave comments alone. If somebody doesn't like what is posted, then they should reply to it with specific objections. Or perhaps, if undeserving of comment, it should be left to speak for itself as the end of an unproductive thread.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I won't interfere with this 'serial' lurker; let the blather continue.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[otohara]

106. His Death Was Ruled A Homicide

even though it was just some low powered bullet.

A 12 year old was killed with a BB gun yesterday.
Gosh how does that happen mr gun expert?
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/08/20/oklahoma-12-year-old-dies-from-b-b-gun-shot-to-the-head/

[ManiacJoe]

117. You seem confused.

Yes, a BB gun can kill someone.

Yes, a .22 can kill someone. A shot to the head usually does not result in an exit wound thus keeping the brains inside the skull, scrambled as they will be.

A 9mm or .40 SW to the head will have both entry and exit holes with brain matter and blood spilling out.

[Ecumenist]

166. Hey Genius...YOU HAVE NO IDEA what the hell you're talking about....People survive DEVASTATING

brain injuries all the time, even when they leave behind BRAIN MATTER. You claim that there was NO CHANCE that he would survive because of the hollow point, huh? Well, check this cat out....in the 19th century, there was a guy named PHINEAS GAGE who SURVIVED having a STEEL TAMPING ROD, B-L-A-S-T-E-D through his skull, through his brain and out the other side. He lost brain matter on the initial accident and then, about 30 minutes later, after the arrival f a doctor, he started to vomit and the force of the vomitting did something, that according to you, should have GUARANTEED his demise. " Mr. G. got up and vomited; the effort of vomiting {{PRESSED OUT ABOUT A HALF A TEACUPFUL OF THE BRAIN, WHICH FELL UPON THE FLOOR}}" He survived another 12 years, Lurks...

Evidently, you don't know SQUAT about people who catastrophic brain injury...MANY of them LOSE brain matter, and although they have lingering and sometimes, horrific disabilities afterward, THEY SURVIVE, because SOMEONE GAVE A SHIT and rendered aid. AHAD AHMED lost HALF his brain at 14 years old from being shot in the head during a robbery at a convenience store in DAYTON OHIO. SOMEONE GAVE A FUCK and got him to help ASAP. He's lost the ENTIRE RIGHT HAEMISPHERE but HE'S ALIVE.... See how that works? Leave pontificating on things you know something about....BUT today's comments only serve to show that you don't know "so much no how" about much. Stop while you're ahead. my dear.

[Cooley Hurd]

167. What do you think was coming from the bullet hole in his head...

...cream cheese?

[valerief]

74. James Brady = white. Duh. Totally different. nt

[WinkyDink]

174. Which is why JFK WASN'T taken to a hospital, right?

[Iron Man]

10. Can't they process a crime scene with the body covered up?

[Lurks Often]

21. You risk disturbing evidence

[Tommymac]

85. Like bleeding out for 5 hours destroying pavement blood spatters doesn't.

Sheesh.

[HooptieWagon]

91. Saving a life more important than preserving a crime scene.

But then you would have been aware of that, had you REALLY attended police academy.

[WinkyDink]

175. OMG, this is so ignorant. Bodies are covered ALL THE TIME, FGS.

[rbrnmw]

236. I have serious doubts about your CJ training.

I doubt that you could pass Intro to Criminal Justice. Who is this professional you took a to shoot or not to shoot class from? Who was your forensics/criminology professor/s?

[Patiod]

86. The only crime scene I've seen, the body was covered

Was driving through Phoenix on the 10, and there was a body which was covered, but a foot was sticking out.

We turned on the news, and they said someone had murdered 1-2 people, was chased down and shot in a shoot-out with police, and gawkers were currently slowing traffic on the 10 (I'm not a Phoenician, but damn every time I've ever been there 10 is tied up)

THAT guy, who had murdered people and been in a real shoot-out, got covered up.

edit: The point being that NOTHING that the Furguson police have done throughout all this has been done right.

[Octafish]

11. That also explains why the nurse couldn't approach to give First Aid.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/16/1322270/-Nurse-On-Site-Was-Not-Allowed-to-Tend-Mike-Brown

Must. Preserve. Crime. Scene.

[leftstreet]

19. Holy Ouch, Batman!

This is how people make a stolen cigar equivalent to a stolen life. There is nothing more sacred in the capitalist world than property. And there is nothing less valuable than unclaimed, damaged property.

Well there's a mouthful of truth

[Octafish]

34. Every human being represents an infinite miracle.

"Every second we live is a new and unique moment for the universe, a moment that never was before and will never be again.

And what do we teach children in school? We teach them that two and two make four and that Paris is the capital of France.

When will we also teach them: Do you know what you are?

You are a Marvel. You are Unique. In all the world there is no other child exactly like you.

In the millions of years that have passed there has never been another child like you.

And look at your body what a wonder it is! Your legs, your arms, your cunning fingers, the way you move!

You may become a Shakespeare, a Michelangelo, a Beethoven. You have the capacity for anything.

Yes, you are a marvel. And when you grow up, can you then harm another who is, like you, a marvel?

You must cherish one another. You must work. We all must work to make this world worthy of children."

-- Pablo Casals

[SammyWinstonJack]

76. That is beautiful!

[woo me with science]

229. Thank you.

This deserves an OP. I had never seen it before.

[The Magistrate]

159. You A Special Little Snowflake, Fella, Ain'tcha....

[arcane1]

160. "They die." Yeah right. Sure they do. Talk is cheap.

You do realize that killing is wrong too, right? If I stole $1 from you and you kill me, it's your ass that goes to jail

[leftstreet]

162. 'If anyone tries to steal from me, they die.'

Thank you, Mr von Mises

[arcane1]

164. Limp internet tough guys are coming out of the woodwork this week.

[leftstreet]

165. Yep

[BaggersRDumb]

178. DId some tough talking rightwing moron say something like "steal from me and you die"

i have one of those little cuties on another board

People who say that are very very very afraid, put up a cardboard cut out, life size, of Denzel in baggy pants outside their house and they will freak out and blow holes in the thing.

They do believe that if you are Black and you steal you do deserve to die.

They do believe that, so when WE decided that is what we are dealing with, we will be halfway there

[GeorgeGist]

15. No, it's call dis R-E-S-P-E-C-T.

THEY didn't even bother to cover him.

[Lurks Often]

25. Believe what you like

What I see is a bunch of people speculating wildly, often on things they know nothing about, trying reinforce a decision they made long before there is enough FACTS. Both sides, the police & the family, have inherent desire to put forth the story that fits what they think happened.

[Lex]

43. Actually you're speculating wildly too. What do you actually know?

No more than anyone else. How do you know they were processing the scene? You don't. So stop speculating.

[Lurks Often]

49. It is standard police procedure in every major crime, especially a shooting,

to process the crime scene, so no, I am not speculating.

[Lex]

50. You don't know if it happened in THIS case.

So stop speculating.

[Lurks Often]

70. You're reaching

so unless you have proof they didn't follow the standard procedure, stop wasting everybody's time.

And if they did fail to follow proper procedure without a damn good reason, then Brown's family deserves an extremely large check.

[Lex]

73. Unless you have proof they did follow standard procedure

stop wasting everyone's time. Don't you understand? YOU DON'T KNOW what did or didn't happen either. That's a fact.

[Tommymac]

88. @ Lex See my post #80. 'Splains a lot. eom

[Lex]

120. Yes it does.

[heaven05]

124. I read about apologists like

you earlier today on this forum. Like a large check will mitigate the travesty of this MURDER and consequent disrespect of the victim of that murder.

[Horse with no Name]

82. Until that person was declared dead

he should have been taken to a hospital.
Quit pretending that bodies are left ying all over the fucking place to process the crime scene because they are not.
Turn off CSI.

[Tommymac]

89. +1

[Lurks Often]

123. Only we don't know when he was declared dead or by whom

I certainly haven't see that information come out yet.

And maybe you should do some research:

http://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/investigations/crime-scene/guides/death-investigation/pages/document-body.aspx

Took me all of 30 seconds to find a reputable link that covers crime scene investigations involving a dead body. Guess I knew a bit more then you thought I did.

[Horse with no Name]

191. I have been a nurse for a quarter of a century

part of it was in trauma. I know what is done with a person who has been shot and I am intimately familiar with who can--and who cannot--pronounce someone dead and what the protocol to do so in and out of a hospital is.

I know that people with half of their head blown off can survive. Not a life I would want but it happens. It isn't a call that I am allowed to make.

I know that there was a major breech of protocol. Nobody at that crime scene was qualified to pronounce him dead.
The very SECOND that man went unconscious and hit the pavement, life saving protocols should have been implemented.

[Lurks Often]

213. MO law appears to be different then where you live

The relevant part is at page 50, I think it is safe to say that MO law applies statewide and the protocol for Kansas City, MO is the same for St Louis County:

http://www.kcmo.org/idc/groups/ems/documents/citymanagersoffice/emsprotocols2011.pdf

and an ambulance was on scene within 3 minutes of the shooting according to this link:

http://www.wfmynews2.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/18/timeline-michael-brown-ferguson/14260205/

[Tribalceltic]

23. I see let the body decompose

in the summer heat for 5 hours. Yes, that should help "preserve" the crime scene.



This was a clear warning to the community. We can shoot you for any reason and get away with it.

Intimidation. Just like mirrored sunglasses, overburdened weapons belts, body armor, and attitudes.

[lame54]

24. and yet they didn't investigate properly

[VanGoghRocks]

29. Are you a cop?

[SwankyXomb]

102. Probably just a cop apologist. n/t

[VanGoghRocks]

104. I noticed crickets in response to my question, all of which triggered some vague memories

that cops are legally required to divulge their professional affiliation when asked. (I may be mis-remembering that bit, though.)

[JoeyT]

134. Are you talking about the old entrapment urban legend?

They weren't ever really required to divulge their professional affiliation, even back when entrapment was considered against the rules rather than good solid police work.

[VanGoghRocks]

151. Oh, snap! Your awesome sarcasm aside, I think there is some sort of rule\law that says that

a law enforcement officer, when asked whether he or she is a law enforcement officer, cannot lie and say "No" (some arcane wrinkle on the 5th Amerndment right against self-incrimination, IIRC).

[JTFrog]

195. No.

That is a myth.

Cops are allowed to lie about anything. They’re trained to do it. They’re supposed to do it. They’re gonna do it. And there is no rule or law anywhere that says they can't lie while performing their duties.

Rules and laws are only for us peons.

[Recursion]

216. And that myth leads to hundreds of arrests every year

Which is probably why it's promoted over and over again...

[CherokeeDem]

30. Yes... it is called proper crime scene protocol....

However, they should have at least brought units in to block the view of the body or screens in to do the same. Covering the body is not proper procedure until the ME arrives and then evidence is collected. Sometimes before the body is moved and sometimes after being wrapped properly, evidence can be taken at the morgue.

In a small town, the coroner should have been there in a reasonable amount of time. It does not appear to be what occurred here.

To leave anybody, regardless of the crime committed on view is despicable. I think we can assume, had the police officer been the one to die, his body would have been treated differently.

[exboyfil]

37. At the end of one of the videos

A cop is using a sheet to cover Brown. Maybe they removed it later? There are portable screens available for this type of eventuality and they should have been employed in this (I know no money for screens or cameras but plenty for a APC).

http://www.forensicmag.com/articles/2007/12/protecting-your-crime-scene

[VanGoghRocks]

38. Had the police officer been the one to die, I think it's safe to assume the Ferguson PD would have

gone full-tilt Lidice or Soweto:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lidice

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soweto_uprising

[shraby]

41. After all the talk about the cop shooting in self defense, the scene is now a

"crime scene"? That's what it was, but usually no one wants to call it that.
Leaving the body out in the hot sun for hours is criminal in itself. That will destroy evidence also. Dead bodies change in the heat.

[avebury]

45. Based upon your statement, the shooter should not have been

allowed to drive away from the scene of his crime with a patrol car that should have been processed at the scene of the crime. Chain of custody on the vehicle was broken and we will never know if the vehicle was tampered in anyway.

Just like Michael Brown's body should have been removed from the scene by a county coroner in an official medical examiner vehicle and not stuffed in a police department SUV. We may never know if the police tampered with the body at all because they should not have been the ones to remove it from the scene.

There is a whole lot of things that the police did that was outside of proper police procedures.

[Lurks Often]

58. I heard it was a white SUV with no markings whatsoever, not a police vehicle

what defines an "official medical examiner vehicle".

I'm not saying Brown was guilty or that Wilson is guilty, I simply want more information before coming to a conclusion, I am certainly not going to make a decision based on reporters and news media more interested in ratings and being the first with more "breaking news" though.

[Tommymac]

90. Right.

[Lurks Often]

95. So you have nothing useful to offer?

Maybe like credible proof of who the reported white suv belongs to?

[Tommymac]

99. No I am following Your lead.

[heaven05]

119. you're like that famous

babbling brook and babbling and babbling and babbling...................

[Lurks Often]

125. Thank you, I always love personal attacks

I find them amusing and the sign of someone unable to actually discuss things

[heaven05]

129. You are NOT open to

discussion or truth. Your mind was made up with your first post. Please stop playing like some kind of 'fair and impartial'(expert) when you evidently are not. You are interested in justifying the disrespect done to this individual that lay dead in the street for 4-5 hrs. No excuse. I have seen this all day from 'fair and impartial' "experts". All I have perused from them and you is BULLSHIT and you and those others are wrong in your so called analysis(s).

[Lurks Often]

132. I'm certainly open to discussion

as long as it is from someone willing to actually discuss things, provide credible sources and doesn't resort to personal attacks. You aren't one of those people, you made up your mind a long time ago and aren't willing to listen or discuss things with anybody that doesn't completely agree with you.

Here is a guide to crime scene investigations from a credible source:

http://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/investigations/crime-scene/guides/death-investigation/pages/document-body.aspx

[heaven05]

180. It's not that as you say

it's the fact that a dead body laying in the street for 4-5 hours means nothing to you. Your inability to feel anything for this young black male laying dead in the street for that length of time is indicative, to me, of a cold, cold person. Just my take. Nothing really personal, just the fact that ice cubes that call themselves human are not my cup of tea. I have had personal experience with the motives alleged in this crime as perpetrated by this 'peace officer'. Good day to you.

The link look interesting. I shall explore

thank you

[Ecumenist]

181. I'm waiting for you to discuss and give you your vaunted opinion on when someone with a brain

injury is worthy of first aid and attempts to save their life. You made the assinine comment about the fact that brain matter ejected onto the pavement equals CERTAIN death but I've yet to hear ANYTHING from you.... oh yeah,,,reply #39, for your edification...

[Lurks Often]

182. Waaaaaaaa

You've already made up your mind and nothing will change it, so I'm not going to waste my time.

[Ecumenist]

185. Is it that I've made up my mind or that you're admitting that you don't know what the fuck

you're talking about? You made a statement that due to the fact that most cops ammunition issue is large calibre and that there was brain matter on the pavement, there was NO NEED TO RENDER AID....I was bemused and KNEW that you were talking nonsense because that comment COMPLETELY showed your ignorance on the medical knowledge OR perhaps, you had the assistance of some world renown neurolobiologist? Hmmm...

[Lurks Often]

186. Oops, bad news for you

According to the link: http://www.wfmynews2.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/18/timeline-michael-brown-ferguson/14260205/

Three minutes after the shooting, a second officer, a supervisor and ambulance in the area responded to the call and the ambulance personnel assessed Brown.

[Ecumenist]

187. Sure so EVERYONE else is lying, including the NURSE that begged them to let them ASSESS the

boy, seconds after he was shot FOR NO REASON..... Evidently, you have investigated numerous homicides, too, right? See, I don't look at this as a joke, as a game, as a competition. I, along with most of the good people here on DU, cannot figure out why the hell you are making comments that are HEARTLESS and fucking stupid. You still didn't answer my questions, how do you explain the COUNTLESS people who've survived DEVASTATING brain injuries, (Yes, they lost both GRAY & WHITE matter)...and BTW, I was declared CLINICALLY dead for 45 minutes, and yet, I'M HERE SPEAKING BY PROXY TO A POSER.
Second, HOW MANY HOMICIDES have you attended and investigated? Don't worry, take your time, I'll wait.

[Lurks Often]

189. I provided the link that shows the ambulance crew

was at the scene and examined Brown. Brown was dead at the scene.

Believe what ever you want.

[Ecumenist]

190. One more time, HOW MANY HOMICIDES HAVE YOU INVESTIGATED, LURKER? See, you're talking to the

wrong one regarding just pronouncing someone dead...AND BTW, THE COPS did NOT call 911....There was NO ATTEMPT to render aid because AS I SAID BEFORE, these cops DID NOT call 911, PER protocol for people they shoot. Police dod NOT shoot someone just for shits and grins and DO NOT want people to die, if they can prevent it. The only reason they wouldn't is if the victim was considered to be a continuing danger, (like the bank Robbers in LA a couple of years ago) or they were laden with explosives, etc, as my brother and his partner have told me. They're here for dinner right now and are cracking up at your supposed criminal justice knowledge. They want to know how many cases you've worked on, since you claim all of this ostensibly occult knowledge? How much medical knowledge do you have regarding working on people in the field vs JUST looking at the scene or taking a pulse and PRONOUNCING them. Once again, I WAS CLINICALLY DEAD FOR 45 MINUTES 16 YEARS AGO, lost my ENTIRE blood volume 2X, the doctor DID NOT expect me to live, let alone recover but they worked on me..... JUST a few questions, ALMIGHTY LURKS.... Try to answer and not deflect, it's it's possible. Oh and one more thing....ONLY A LICENCED DOCTOR can PRONOUNCE someone dead...NOT an EMT. So, the crap you gave me, is just that...CRAP.

[Sivafae]

93. I'm with you.

However, my guts tells me that whatever the protocol for collecting evidence, 5 hours seems like a mighty long time for such a straight forward scene. They know what killed him, and they didn't have much to collect. It seems to me that whatever the case, a ME and/cororner should be there within the hour, especially when it comes to the collection of evidence.

But I'm with you, i need more information before I come to any such conclusion. And even if there is a plausible explanation, to be a witness must have been excruciating.

[msanthrope]

75. Utter and outrageous nonsense. As a criminal defense

attorney, I will tell you that leaving a body like that in the street is unconscionable, unnecessary, and disgusting.

[happyslug]

114. You were a lot shorter then I was, but straight to the point, I went on and on.

After the Officer had "Secure" the person he shot, he should of at a minimum treat the wounds. In Vietnam 25% of all deaths were the result of the lost of blood between a Soldier being shot and getting medical treatment. This death rate dropped drastically in the recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for the Army gave each soldier a package of newly developed blood clotting medication, which you can now pick up in most sporting goods stores. That package did more to reduce the death rate of soldier then the increase armor they wore into combat.

Today, we have small packages of blood stopping that the Officer SHOULD have on him. Such packages should be standard issue to police officers (Not only for use on people Police Officers shoot but the Police Officer themselves). Training on the use of such packages should be standard procedure (and best done as part of the training on the firing range, i.e. Shoot at a target, then training on wounds, so that the Officer gets trained that shooting a weapon leads to treatment of wounds).

[msanthrope]

148. That quickclot and celox stuff is amazing. I've seen it used.

And you are right...cops need to be better trained as to the consequences of their actions. They need to see the impact of what they do.

[heaven05]

126. I'm glad you showed up

[msanthrope]

149. I've been sick about this.....just sick. nt

[COLGATE4]

228. +1

[Marrah_G]

78. Why were there no portable curtains put around the body while processing it

Also why did it take them so long to get the crime scene folks out there? This was not a hugely complicated crime scene.

[Nativechef]

94. If that were the case

then why was the officer involved allowed to leave with his patrol unit, especially if there was a scuffle in the vehicle? Wouldn't that not be a corroborating piece of evidence, especially if a round from the officers hand gun was discharged? Has the officers service weapon been checked into evidence? I see quiet a few SOP's that were not followed. If he was as severely wounded as the claims have been made than why was he not taken to the local hospital by ambulance? Insurance purposes require that any and all injuries that require more than roadside treatment be transported by ambulance in order for that claim to be processed and I'd say a "shattered" eye socket definitely constitute a sever injury as well as a possible concussion. I'm not one of those "wait and see" type people when clearly the chain of evidence is tainted from the start.

[happyslug]

97. Leaving a person to die????

The law is quite simple, ONLY A DOCTOR CAN MAKE A RULING IF SOMEONE IS DEAD. Until a doctor makes such a ruling, you can PRESUME someone is dead but you still have to treat the victim as if he or she was still alive. i.e. SEEK TREATMENT FOR THE VICTIM. In simple English, the body should have been taken to the Hospital as soon as the person was arrested. This is true even if the head was blown off the body.

Furthermore, first aid MUST to provided by the person who did the injury to prevent further harm. i.e. the Officer should have treated the wounds as soon as the body was secure (i.e. handcuff the victim THEN tried to stop the bleeding). One report said a Nurse was in the area and tried to treat the body was was DENIED access. That is GROSS incompetency and someone will have to pay, probably the municipality in some civil suit.

Now, the officer who DENIED the nurse access AND did not provide first aid himself should be held liable for the criminal death of the victim through failure to give such aid. This is separate from the concept of the actual shooting, you shoot someone, you have to at least go through the motions of giving him First Aid so he may live.

When I was in Basic Training, we were told ONLY A DOCTOR COULD RULE SOMEONE WAS DEAD, if we had no response after giving CPR for one hour, we could then and only then ASSUME the person was dead, but we had to give CPR for at least one hour and if they were any signs of life continue after one hour. Thus, such information is while known to anyone who has had any type of Military Training and such should be part of Police Training. Thus the lake of First Aid is Criminal by itself. Through I just see Civil Litigation being the result.

[Ms. Toad]

135. What law, please?

I am not disputing that they should have checked for signs of life, and allowed trained medical personnel to do as they are trained to do. But I am not aware of a law which says,

ONLY A DOCTOR CAN MAKE A RULING IF SOMEONE IS DEAD. Until a doctor makes such a ruling, you can PRESUME someone is dead but you still have to treat the victim as if he or she was still alive. i.e. SEEK TREATMENT FOR THE VICTIM.

[happyslug]

152. This is a Common Law Rule

Even the Florida Attorney General found it was the law for Law Enforcement Officers, both under the Florida "Good Samaritan Law" and the Common Law to provide such assistance EVEN IF THE OFFICER WAS NOT THE PERSON WHO DID THE INJURY:

http://www.myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/Opinions/85E4F114E318503185256570006E05B3

The Police Chief Magazine goes into details on the duty to protect someone in custody:

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=341&issue_id=72004

Under the Common Law, a person is responsible to anyone harmed by the bullets he or she fired, AND to take care of and minimize the damage done by such gun fire. This is the Common Law Rule found by the Florida Attorney General and it applies not only to you and me but Police Officers.

Now, the Florida Attorney General also determined that the Common Law Rule required Law Enforcement Officer to provide assistance to anyone such law enforcement officer found in need of aid, but that is NOT the rule for non law enforcement officers.

The Common Law rule was simple ANYONE who PUT ANYONE ELSE into danger had to do what he or she could to minimize that danger. On the other hand if you did NOT put that person in danger you did not HAVE to do anything (unless it was someone you had a duty to protect, for example a parent and a child, a baby sitter and the children she is watching, Hotel and their guests, a Saloon and their customers, any "Common Carriers, train, plane etc, and their passengers and others exceptions to the general rule).

Thus under the Common Law, the officers once the shooting has stopped, had a duty to minimize the affect of such shooting. i.e. provide First Aid and seek medical attention for the Victim. They shot him, they had a duty to minimize the affect of such shooting.


Now, if your question is NOT what the officers should do, but the determination of death, that is covered by the Uniform Determination of Death Act:

UNIFORM DETERMINATION OF DEATH ACT
' 1. [Determination of Death]. An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, is dead. A determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.


' 2. [Uniformity of Construction and Application]. This Act shall be applied and construed to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law with respect to the subject of this Act among states enacting it.

' 3. [Short Title]. This Act may be cited as the Uniform Determination of Death Act.

http://www.uniformlaws.org/shared/docs/determination%20of%20death/udda80.pdf

http://uniformlaws.org/Act.aspx?title=Determination%20of%20Death%20Act

The Uniform Determination of Death Act has been adopted in Missouri:

http://uniformlaws.org/Act.aspx?title=Determination%20of%20Death%20Act

The Phase "accepted medical standards" is phase indicating a DOCTOR for who else can provide Accepted Medical Standards?

For the actual Statute:

12 R.S.Mo. § 194.005 R.S.Mo. (2014)

§ 194.005. Death, legal definition


For all legal purposes, the occurrence of human death shall be determined in accordance with the usual and customary standards of medical practice, provided that death shall not be determined to have occurred unless the following minimal conditions have been met:

(1) When respiration and circulation are not artificially maintained, there is an irreversible cessation of spontaneous respiration and circulation; or

(2) When respiration and circulation are artificially maintained, and there is a total and irreversible cessation of all brain function, including the brain stem and that such determination is made by a licensed physician.

Notice again, the decision to defer to a Doctor.

[Ms. Toad]

183. You've cobbled together a lot of pieces of law that don't really say what you think they say.

The Florida opinion you're citing is responding to the question of whether the Good Samaritan law protects police officers when they provide aid to ill, injured, and distressed persons because of a duty to aid imposed on them as police officers. It doesn't address, except to note tangentially, that Florida officers have a duty - even when off duty to provide aid to ill, injured, and distressed persons. Missouri officers almost certainly have the same duty.

But that wasn't what you said - you said (1) ONLY A DOCTOR CAN MAKE A RULING IF SOMEONE IS DEAD. AND (2) Until a doctor makes such a ruling, you can PRESUME someone is dead but you still have to treat the victim as if he or she was still alive. i.e. SEEK TREATMENT FOR THE VICTIM.

As to the first - the statute you quoted only requires a doctor to determine death when you are talking about brain death (e.g. breathing and circulation are maintained by a machine, and the family wants to donate the organs or otherwise terminate the artificial respiration and circulation). Otherwise that statute does not require a doctor to make a ruling of death. It is a standard canon of statutory construction that in a series of related provisions, if something is mentioned in one and omitted in another, the omission was intentional. Here, a licensed physician is expressly required to determine death in the second option, but not the first. That means that requirement was intentionally left out because the drafters of the legislation did not intend to require a doctor to determine death in the first instance.

Going a step farther, your quotes say nothing about officers being required to treat a presumed dead victim as alive until a doctor has ruled death has occurred. So while the police would have had a duty to aid an ill, injured, or distressed persons, there is no duty to provide such aid to a dead person merely because a doctor has not yet declared death. (And it is clear, from the autopsy, that the second head shot was almost instantaneously fatal.)

(As an aside, not worth beating to death here, the tort law - which you are referring to as common law - does not work the way you are trying to apply it. There is no affirmative duty to act merely because your actions put someone else in peril. If you're interested. I can explain it - but it isn't relevant to the claims you made about how simple the law was.)

That doesn't mean that I believe the police acted appropriately - I just disagree with your assertion that the law is clear that they had a simple legal duty to act as if he was alive until a doctor declared him dead. If I was the parents' attorney, as part of my claims against the state, I would assert that the police acted negligently in not calling for an ambulance immediately, in not informing dispatch that a nurse was on the scene, and in not allowing dispatch to work with the nurse to take the necessary steps to determine if Brown was still alive - and providing appropriate treatment if he was. It would probably not be a winning claim, because one element of negligence is the "but for" test - "but for" the state's failure the harm (his death) would not have occurred. Given what the autopsy reports say - he would not have survived the final shot even with medical assistance.

[happyslug]

194. If you read the report of the Attorney General she mentions the COMMON LAW.

Read the opinion carefully, here I edited it down for you:

Dear Mr. Berg:

You have asked for my opinion on the following questions:

1. Does a law enforcement officer have a legal duty to provide aid to ill, injured, and distressed persons, who are not in police custody, during an emergency?.....

1. and 2. A law enforcement officer, including a police officer, has a legal duty to provide aid to ill, injured, and distressed persons who are not in police custody during an emergency whether the law enforcement officer is on-duty or acting in a law enforcement capacity off-duty. Thus, the Good Samaritan Act does not apply to such officers...

You have asked that this office reconsider the conclusion expressed in AGO 78-140 that a municipal police officer has a common law duty to render aid to ill, injured, or distressed persons during an emergency. .....

Generally, in the absence of a contractual, special professional, or trustee relationship or a statutory requirement, a person is not under a legal duty to assist or care for the injured when the injury is not due to the fault of the person sought to be charged.....


In AGO 78-140 this office considered a Florida appellate court holding that a sheriff's officer is charged with the common law duty to render aid in emergencies to the ill, the injured, or the distressed, and concluded that in view of this holding municipal police officers are under a legal duty to provide such aid.

In Webster v. State, the district court held that the right of officers of the sheriff's department to enter and to investigate in an emergency situation, without an accompanying intent to seize or arrest, "is inherent in the very nature of their duties as peace officers and derives from the common law." Thus, no search warrant was required to legalize an entry by police for the purpose of rendering aid to an injured or distressed person, "their duty certainly being to effect a rescue or to render aid to someone whom they had reasonable belief was in dire peril." The Webster court declared that it is part of the nature and duty of a police officer, derived from the common law duties of a peace officer, to render aid in emergency situations. Subsequent Florida court decisions have upheld warrantless searches and seizures based on this common law duty of police officers.

A "peace officer" is generally defined to "include[s] sheriffs and their deputies, constables, marshals, members of the police force of cities, and other officers whose duty is to enforce and preserve the public peace."[8] (e.s.)

Thus, the common law duty to render aid to an ill, injured, or distressed person would appear to apply to all law enforcement officers whose duty it is to enforce and preserve the public peace not just police or sheriff's officers.

Sorry, the Attorney General opinion is based on the COMMON LAW RULE THAT PEACE OFFICERS MUST AID PEOPLE. The opinion was on how that DUTY was affected by the Good Samaritan Laws, and the point of the opinion the Good Samaritan law had no affect on the duty of the Police, for that duty was preexisting.


Since we are dealing with Missouri, so I looked up the Missori Attorny Generals opinion on this matter and found this gem written by then Attormey General John Ashcroft in 1982:

We do not perceive your first question to be limited to prisoners who are serving a sentence; we believe your question extends to persons who are arrested by county or city law enforcement agencies and who need medical attention prior to incarceration.

Although we find no Missouri appellate cases in point, it is logically inconsistent for the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment to attach only after confinement commences. Therefore, we believe the duty to provide necessary medical attention arises the moment the person comes into police custody and extends until his discharge.

http://ago.mo.gov/opinions/1982/21-82.htm

In most states the Opinion of the Attorney General is viewed as the law until a Judge rules otherwise in an actual case. In most cases the opinion of the Attorney General is upheld not overruled. The reason Ashcroft had a hard timing finding a case on point was this is one of those common law rules that everyone accepts on its face.

[Ms. Toad]

196. I've been an attorney for years,

I have drafted appellate court decisions on tort law, and I currently teach tort law (the common law being referred to).

You are not correctly interpreting what you are reading. Aside from which, common law from one jurisdition (Florida) has little bearing on common law in another jurisdiction (Missouri.)

[happyslug]

197. I avoid tort law, it is NOT in my practice.

Since you teach Tort law you understand the concept of Strict Liability. That concept came out of gunpowder explosions in the 1600s and 1700s, later expanded in the 1800s to steam locomotives and other dangerous pieces of equipment. One of those Strict Liability test was always you are responsible for any bullet you fire. That was even true in the days of Bows and Arrows, the shooting of the arrow is held to strict liability for what the arrow hit.

You can NOT fire a bullet and then see it hit someone and do nothing. The LAW has NEVER permitted that even at the height of the Three evil sisters of the Common Law in the late 1800s to the mid 1900s (The three sisters, were "assumption of the risk, contributory negligence and the fellow servant rule".

I regret citing Florida, but it was the first one I came across and decided it was good enough for a discussion forma. The shooter had a DUTY to the person he shot and that included the duty to provide FIRST AID and to get medical care for that person and to continue such First Aid till a doctor takes over OR a Doctor determines someone is dead.

You added you cite after I added Ashcroft findings to my previous cite, but like him I could NOT find a case on point, for most such cases are decided prior trial and thus not a reported case:

We do not perceive your first question to be limited to prisoners who are serving a sentence; we believe your question extends to persons who are arrested by county or city law enforcement agencies and who need medical attention prior to incarceration.

Although we find no Missouri appellate cases in point, it is logically inconsistent for the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment to attach only after confinement commences. Therefore, we believe the duty to provide necessary medical attention arises the moment the person comes into police custody and extends until his discharge.

http://ago.mo.gov/opinions/1982/21-82.htm

[Ms. Toad]

205. Generally speaking, there is not strict liability for bullets (or arrows, for that matter).

Strict liability arises when you engage in an ultra-hazardous activity, the danger of which cannot be limited by the exercise of due care. Firing bullets or arrows doesn't fall in that category because both can be done safely.

That has been one of my problems with your argument - you have asserted that there is an absolute duty to act to mitigate the harm caused by the bullet just because he fired it, and that is just not the law (absent a Missouri quirk). The affirmative duty to act to save someone from peril you placed them in only arises if you negligently placed them in peril.

Taking it outside of the emotions attached to this case - if you injure someone but their life could be saved by acting promptly, your duty to act promptly to save their life depends on the circumstances surrounding the injury. If the injury was caused by your negligence, you have a duty to act promptly to save their life. On the other hand, if you injured them in self defense (without negligence) you can sit and watch them die if you feel like it.

So whether Wilson had a negligence related affirmative duty to provide care for the harm his bullets caused depends on whether he fired his gun negligently.

Further - even if Wilson had a duty to act because he shot Brown, to be negligent the failure to act must be the actual cause of the harm. So assuming that Wilson had a duty to provide first aid after the shooting was over, the failure to provide first aid was not the actual ("but for&quot cause of the death because the the head wound was irreversibly mortal according to the autopsy report, so there would be no negligence associated with not providing emergency care.

But that's mostly an academic argument - beyond anything practical (which is why I didn't initially include it).

There almost certainly is a duty to provide (or obtain) emergency care as long as Brown is alive - which arises solely out of the fact that he was an on duty police officer (Missouri may or may not take the same stance as Florida that off duty police have a duty to provide or obtain medical care). My point, primarily, was that unless you knew of a quirk in Missouri law, the law is not simple - and it doesn't require providing emergency care to people who are actually dead (as Brown almost certainly was) merely because a doctor has not yet declared it.

As a practical matter, though, I believe he absolutely should have called an ambulance immediately, informed dispatch they had a nurse on the scene, and had dispatch work with the nurse to assess and (if not futile) treat Mr. Brown. He almost certainly violated department protocols by failing to call the shooting in immediately, and by not calling an ambulance. But I don't think it would be a winning tort claim - just because all the medical care in the world apparently would not have saved him. But it would have been the right thing to do.

[happyslug]

222. Strict Liability applies to how they are USED..

Most cases involving Strict liability and any types of weapons have been against makers of those weapons not users of those weapons, it is the USE that is held to Strict Liability NOT the manufacturing of such weapons. Cases DENYING Strict Liability of MAKERS of weapons:

Finally, as to strict liability for an ultra hazardous activity, the court held that as a matter of law, the manufacture and distribution of a firearm, even an assault weapon, is not inherently dangerous.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17214429197270120189&q=%22Strict+Liability%22+%2Bshooter&hl=en&as_sdt=6,39

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4146105566330191972&q=Strict+Liability+Bullet&hl=en&as_sdt=6,39

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16376469269120388660&q=%22Strict+Liability%22+%2Bshooter&hl=en&as_sdt=6,39

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3958048948750023929&q=%22Strict+Liability%22+%2Bshooter&hl=en&as_sdt=6,39


While the MAKERS of Weapons or other danger in use items are NOT held to a Strict Liability standard, HOW that item is used can be. For example, Strict Liability can be imposed on waters held by a dam that leaks water into abandon mines, on the ground that such storage of water is not a "Normal" use of the land:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9028240854527628109&q=%22Strict+Liability%22+%2Bshooter&hl=en&as_sdt=6,39

In a case out of California the court ruled when a victim was hit by shotgun pellets that TWO other people fired, it did NOT matter which fired the shotgun pellets, both were liable:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7084631840002460993&q=%22Strict+Liability%22+%2Bfirearm+%2Bkilling+%2Bhunting&hl=en&as_sdt=6,39

In Virginia the law is clear, if you shoot someone you are held to a STRICT LIABILITY STANDARD:
'

Defendant contends the trial court found him guilty by imposing erroneously a standard of strict liability. Conceding the court properly could disregard his testimony of firing at a deer 75 yards away, defendant argues there was, nonetheless, no evidence of actions by him that would support a finding of criminal negligence, unless the court relied improperly on a theory of strict liability. We disagree.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=677993720739719986&q=%22Strict+Liability%22+%2Bfirearm+%2Bkilling+%2Bhunting&hl=en&as_sdt=6,39

Vermont as a strange history on this issue, till 1990 they fully embraced Strict Liablity for any involuntary Murder case, which includes hunting accidents:

The common thread running through the foregoing cases is this; upon characterizing a defendant's act as unlawful, and determining that it caused the victim's death, the defendant could be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter. These cases approached the crime of involuntary manslaughter as one of strict liability. See State v. Stanislaw, 153 Vt. 517, 522, 573 A.2d 286, 290 (1990) (observing that "our common law precedents" do not specify what intent is required, if any, with respect to the crime of involuntary manslaughter).

Then Vermont adopted a different rule, when the Vermont Supreme Court upheld a conviction of a hunter who killed another hunter in what was clearly a hunting Accident:

In the context of involuntary manslaughter, a defendant's criminal liability does not hinge on whether his otherwise blameworthy act can be described as violating a common law or statutory offense.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11076043217348089932&q=%22Strict+Liability%22+%2Bfirearm+%2Bkilling+%2Bhunting&hl=en&as_sdt=6,39

In a related case the Vermont Surpreme Court ruled only the shooter was held to this standard, not other people in his hunting party:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10999575998474695071&q=%22Strict+Liability%22+%2Bfirearm+%2Bkilling+%2Bhunting&hl=en&as_sdt=6,39

The problem is most cases involving USE of weapons never go above the Local Courts, you take your conviction, involuntary manslaughter for we are NOT talking about any intent to do any harm, get some sort of short or suspended sentence and get on with your life.

The above cases were exceptions to those rules and thus rare. Even Vermont, while technically dropping the concept of strict liability, made up a rule so close to strict liability to be almost indistinguishable.

This is complicated by ruling of the the US Supreme Court on the use of deadly force by Police Officers:

Whenever an officer restrains the freedom of a person to walk away, he has seized that person. United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S. 873, 878 (1975). While it is not always clear just when minimal police interference becomes a seizure, see United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U. S. 544 (1980), there can be no question that apprehension by the use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment.....

The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, non-dangerous suspect by shooting him dead. The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against such fleeing suspects.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5843997099226288287&q=%22Strict+Liability%22+%2Bfirearm+%2Bkilling&hl=en&as_sdt=6,39

Thus you have a situation where USE of a weapon comes under Strict Liability rules, but most of the cases you find involved making such weapons and court finding that such making of weapons is NOT Inherently dangerous and thus NOT subject to Strict Liability.

It is the USE of weapons that I am discussing. It is drilled home to anyone who gets a weapon. The Military drills it home over and over again, telling soldiers if anyone is killed by they use of weapons, other then in military situations, you will go to prison. Hunting and Shooting Clubs mention this to members, the club does all it can to make itself safe, but if someone is shot, the person who fired the weapon will go to jail. Most Police Departments tell this to their officers, they can ONLY use their weapons to prevent harm.

[Ms. Toad]

233. If you have to examine the use, it is not strict liability.

The essence of strict liability is that it imposes liability no matter what the defendant can prove about his actions. If you are examining how the defendant acted, in order to decide whether he is liable, you are no longer talking about strict liability. You may be talking about negligence, intentional torts, or criminal acts - in which liability depends (with few exceptions as noted below) on the mental state or carefulness of the defendant

The California case is a tort case, and has to do with multiple tortfeasors, each of whom behaved negligently (i.e. not strict liability) to cause a harm that could only have been caused by one of them, but cannot specifically be attributed to either one. In that case, in the majority of jurisdictions, it is up to the tortfeasors to establish that it was not their negligence which caused the harm, and if they can't, then they are jointly and severally liable. It is a burden shifting mechanism - which applies after a determination that both acted negligently (i.e. not strict liability - but liability based on the wrongfulness of their actions). In other words, you have to find the defendant acted badly BEFORE the liability would be shared, and when liablity depends on bad acts, it is not strict.

As to the rest, you are mingling tort law with criminal law. Strict liability in criminal matters is very rare - statutory rape being one of the few exceptions. The rest, including all forms of homicide, require a particular mens rea (frame of mind) and are thus NOT strict liability crimes. Even in felony murder, the closest to a strict liability homicide, the mens rea for the resulting death is not absent - it is inferred from the mens rea required to commit the underlying offense.

You are misreading the Virginia case. The appellate court expressly rejected the defendant's contention that the only way he could have been convicted was if the lower court (improperly) used a strict liability standard, rather than the proper standard of negligence:

The trial court decided the defendant's version of the tragedy was "incredible" and found the Commonwealth had established beyond a reasonable doubt that Gooden was guilty of criminal negligence.

. . .

In this case, the defendant either failed to look, or if he looked, he failed to do so with requisite caution within the distance he should have known was the range of the weapon he was discharging. Together, the failure to identify adequately and the subsequent shooting constitute the reckless and unlawful conduct]. The act of hunting was not inherently unlawful; rather the shooting was an improper performance of a lawful act. Reasonably inferred from all the circumstances is that defendant fired blindly and wildly from a position on the easement, perhaps at movement or a flash of color on the knoll, in utter disregard of the safety of others.

Accordingly, we cannot say that the trial court's finding of conduct so gross, wanton, and culpable as to show a reckless disregard of human life was plainly wrong or without evidence to support it. Thus, the judgment of conviction {of criminal negligence} will be Affirmed.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=677993720739719986&q=%22Strict+Liability%22+%2Bfirearm+%2Bkilling+%2Bhunting&hl=en&as_sdt=6,39

Similarly, the Tennessee v. Garner case you are citing does not establish strict liability. In that case Tennessee, by statute, authorized the use of deadly force in circumstances when the use of deadly force was not consistent with the Fourth Amendment. Tennessee tried to override the Constitution by declaring that the police could use deadly force even if it was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court smacked Tennessee down, and said you can't override the constitution by statute.

If it had created strict liability the court would have said that police could never fire bullets at fleeing subjects. It didn't. It said (repeated earlier standards) that whether or not police could fire bullets at fleeing subjects depended on the circumstances. Any time that liability depends on the circumstances, it is not strict liability.

You seem confused about the concept of strict liability. Here's a decent description of the difference between strict liability and negligence:

There are many possible standards lawmakers might choose from, but the two most prominent are negligence rules, under which defendants pay for harms caused by their unreasonable activity, and strict liability rules, under which defendants pay for all of the harms caused by their activities, whether or not that activity was reasonable

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/bridge/LawEconomics/neg-liab.htm

When you have to examine whether a defendant's behavior was reasonable - (i.e. in the Tennessee v. Garner case, i.e. you have to examine whether firing bullets reasonable in order "to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others," - or in the Virginia case you have to examine whether the conduct was "gross, wanton, and culpable as to show a reckless disregard of human life" you are not talking about strict liability - you are talking about negligence or intentionality.)

What people who train gun owners say really isn't how legal standards are determined. I am glad to hear that they emphasize how serious their responsibilities are - but the liability described in the statements you are attributing to them exceeds their actual legal liability.

[happyslug]

239. "Strict Liability" vs "Strict Rule of Extraordinary Care".

Last edited Thu Aug 21, 2014, 10:08 PM - Edit history (4)

Strict Liability was a product of that rewrite of the Common Law of the 1800s, the laws governing firearms is much older.

Prior to the 1800s (and continuing to today), firearms were subject to the "strict rule of accountability for the want of extraordinary care in the use of firearms" and this rule survived into the 20th century (it is in the following cite, made by Pennsylvania Superior Court in 1914). Thus the discharge of firearms was a separate rule from the raising cases of Strict Liability for it was much older:

Argument is not necessary to show that loaded firearms are dangerous and that a rifle having the capacity to inflict injury at a distance of a mile or a mile and a half from the place where it is discharged is more than ordinarily dangerous. The person using such a weapon is bound to a high degree of care to prevent injuries to others. All the cases hold a strict rule of accountability for the want of extraordinary care in the use of firearms.

Knasiak v. Rambo, 57 Pa. Super. 8

In 1978 the Pennsylvania Superior Court expanded on the above:

Argument is not necessary to show that loaded firearms are dangerous and that a rifle having the capacity to inflict injury at a distance of a mile or a mile and a half from the place where it is discharged is more than ordinarily dangerous. The person using such a weapon is bound to a high degree of care to prevent injuries to others. All the cases hold a strict rule of accountability for the want of extraordinary care in the use of firearms. The law on the subject was thus stated in Welch v. Durand, 36 Conn. 182: "Shooting at mark is lawful but not necessary and may be dangerous and the law requires extraordinary care to prevent injury to others; and if the act is done where there are objects from which the balls may glance the act is wanton, without due care and grossly negligent." In the same case it was held that it is immaterial that the injury was unintentional and that the ball glanced from the intended object. The same rule is supported in Moebus v. Becker, 46 N.J.L. 41; Bullock v. Babcock, 3 Wend. 391; Benson v. Ross, [143 Mich. 452] 106 N.W.Repr. (Mich.) 1120; Sherman & Redfield on Negligence, sec. 686; Hankins v. Watkins, 77 Hun, 360 [28 N.Y.S. 867].

Everette v. New Kensington, 262 Pa. Super. 28

The Pennsylvania Cases all follow a 1869 (the year BEFORE the first Strict Liability case) Connecticut Supreme Court Ruling that set a "strict rule of accountability for the want of extraordinary care" as the test for Firearms.

Just such a case was decided in the 21st of Henry VII, which is cited approvingly in the 3d of Wendell, in the case of Bullock v. Babcock, in these words: "Where in shooting at butts the archer's arrow glanced and struck another, it was holden to be a trespass." (Year Book, 21 H. VII, 28 a.) Other similar cases are there cited. That case of Bullock v. Babcock was an action of trespass where an arrow was discharged at a basket and accidentally hit the plaintiff. The injury was unintentional, but the shooting, at the time and place, was grossly negligent and careless.

Welch v. Durand, 36 Conn. 182

Thus the courts had two different rules regarding these areas, firearms and its "Strict Rule of extraordinary care" and "Strict Liability". The Firearm cases follows earlier Bow and Arrow cases going back to the Middle Ages, Strict Liability only dates from 1870.

This dual set of very similar rulings can explain Vermont's confusion as it "abandon" Strict Liability in firearm cases after 1990 after using that term for decades. Vermont had adopted the term "Strict Liability" for what other states were calling "Strict Rule of extraordinary care" for in practical terms both were the same thing.

Oliver Wendell Holmes made the comment that the Common Law was not a product of logic but experience. Given that situation the Common Law can be inconsistent and contradictory. Thus the House of Lords in 1870 did not cite earlier firearm cases but made a ruling that building a dam on one's own property that leads to flooding of a mine, the dam owner was liable for the damage done to the mine even if he never had any intention of flooding the mine.

Side note: The House of Lords was the Appellant "Court" of Great Britain till 1876, when a Reform Law was passed restricting issue of appeal to the "Law Lords" of the House of Lords. These "Law Lords" all became Justices of the UK Supreme Court when that was established in 2005, finally taking the House of Lords out of the Judicial system of the United Kingdom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lords_of_Appeal_in_Ordinary

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_functions_of_the_House_of_Lords#Historical_development

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Kingdom

I bring this up for it was NOT the Law Lords that invented Strict Liability but the House of Lords as a whole. The House of Lords as a whole was the Final Court of Appeal in the United Kingdom in 1870, the Law Lords only taking over the function of appeals after 1876. Thus the debate in the House of Lords could give us a picture of what they wanted Strict Liability to be, but I can not find any on the net. Furthermore the lack of references to earlier decisions may reflect that the House of Lords wanting to get to a vote of the matter just decided NOT to cite any.

In simple terms, what is the difference between "Strict Liability" and "Strict Rule of extraordinary care"? Maybe it is me and that I have had several cases involving "Penalties" and "Liquidated Damages" for Contract Breech. The Courts do NOT care what you call such "fees", but do their approximate the costs of the Breech (and thus a legal "Liquidated Damages&quot or a punishment for breaching the contract (and thus an "Illegal Penalty&quot . Words can be important, but the differences between those two concepts, "Strict Liability" and "Strict Rule of extraordinary care" is not that wide, if a gap truly exists.

As I said before I do NOT do Tort Law and thus the Doctrine of Strict Liability is not in my practice. On the other hand I did run across a law review that advocated Abolishing the Doctrine of Strict Liability on the grounds "normal" negligence is sufficient and then cite several well known Strict Liability cases that could as easily been decided on negligence grounds. In short, the author points out the lack of difference between Strict Liability and case involving the use of items that required extraordinarily care in their use:

Copyright (c) 2008 Buffalo Law Review
Buffalo Law Review

April, 2008

56 Buffalo L. Rev. 245

https://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=9caa3f7527d161ef32064f2561328b9f&csvc=le&cform=&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLzVzk-zSkAz&_md5=1270403878a879b612ca29dbe1545433

[Ms. Toad]

240. Again - you are misstating the concept of strict liability.

If you can escape liability by being careful enough, it is not strict liability.

The person using such a weapon is bound to a high degree of care to prevent injuries to others. All the cases hold a strict rule of accountability for the want of extraordinary care in the use of firearms.

In other words, if you use a firearm with extraordinary care and something bad happens, you are not liable. No strict liabiilty.

"Shooting at mark is lawful but not necessary and may be dangerous and the law requires extraordinary care to prevent injury to others; and if the act is done where there are objects from which the balls may glance the act is wanton, without due care and grossly negligent." In the same case it was held that it is immaterial that the injury was unintentional and that the ball glanced from the intended object.

In other words, if you use a firearm with extraordinary care (or with due care and not in a wanton or grossly negligent manner) and something bad happens you are not liable, because whether you are liable depends on whether you were careful enough. Intent as to consequences has nothing to do with (is immaterial to) whether you were careful enough. Again, no strict liability.

The injury was unintentional, but the shooting, at the time and place, was grossly negligent and careless.

Again, if you are not grossly negligent and careless, and something bad happens, you are not liable. No strict liability.

It is not a matter of word choice - it is a matter of two distinct concepts: whether how careful you are matters (negligence) or not (strict liability). In strict liability cases, you can take the utmost precautions in the world - better precautions than anyone else has ever done before - but if something bad happens you are still liable. That what strict liability means. In negligence cases, on the other hand, if you are careful enough - no matter how horrendous the disaster you cause is - you are not liable. In every single tort case you have cited there is a description of how careful you have to be - which means it is negligence, not strict liability. What is "careful enough" depends on who you are, what you are doing, and issues of land possession which aren't relevant here. What the cases you are citing say - essentially - is that if you are using a gun you have to be extraordinarily careful.

All the legal history in the world is not going to change the basic conceptual distinction between strict liability and negligence. What activities fall in which category may change. For example, aviation used to be a strict liability act. Over time, as flying became more routine, it was dropped from the list of acts which are so dangerous that we impose liability merely for engaging in them. Generally, the law doesn't like strict liability and is moving activities out of that category, rather than in - because, making someone liable no matter what is often unfair and - eventually - the category you are trying to put firing a gun in may be eliminated entirely. That's where the law review article suggests -eliminating strict liability entirely and replacing it with a negligence. I'm surprised you would cite that, though, because it is the opposite of what you are arguing - which is that an expanded category of acts that create strict liability category including firing a gun.

[Lurks Often]

211. Incorrect

An ambulance was on site within 3 minutes of the shooting according to this link:

http://www.wfmynews2.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/18/timeline-michael-brown-ferguson/14260205/

and according to this link, MO EMT's do not have to transport or provide medical treatment to someone that is obviously dead, see page 50 for a detailed description of what meets the standard of obviously dead:

http://www.kcmo.org/idc/groups/ems/documents/citymanagersoffice/emsprotocols2011.pdf

It seems reasonably that what applies to Kansas City, MO EMT's is a statewide standard

[happyslug]

225. Missouri Law says otherwise.

Death is defined by Missouri law as: follows:

12 R.S.Mo. § 194.005 R.S.Mo. (2014)

§ 194.005. Death, legal definition


For all legal purposes, the occurrence of human death shall be determined in accordance with the usual and customary standards of medical practice, provided that death shall not be determined to have occurred unless the following minimal conditions have been met:

(1) When respiration and circulation are not artificially maintained, there is an irreversible cessation of spontaneous respiration and circulation; or

(2) When respiration and circulation are artificially maintained, and there is a total and irreversible cessation of all brain function, including the brain stem and that such determination is made by a licensed physician.

The Key Phase is "For all legal purposes, the occurrence of human death shall be determined in accordance with the usual and customary standards of medical practice".

Thus what is "Medical Practice"? Generally that means a Doctor has determined someone is dead NOT an EMT worker, nurse of someone walking down the street.

Now, on Page 50 of the policy book you cite, there is a statement of Policy as to what is "DOA" the key phase is "If there is any doubt..resuscitation should be initiated.....

The wounds were not one would bleed to death on within three minutes IF FIRST AID WAS GIVEN IMMEDIATELY AFTER the shooting. Only one shot would have been fatal in and by itself (the one to the eye), but would NOT have lead to someone NOT breathing or blood circulating. Michael Brown would have been dead by Medical Standards, but NOT the Standards in the Policy Books (i.e. Michael Brown's body would be still breathing and blood circulating). The body should have been treated as still alive and taken to a hospital and get a Doctor to determine Michael Brown was dead.



http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/us/michael-brown-autopsy-shows-he-was-shot-at-least-6-times.html?_r=0

[Lurks Often]

227. Believe what you wish

I gave you the documentation that states otherwise, if you choose not to believe go right ahead.

[happyslug]

231. I READ the documentation, such documents must be read strictly and carefully

Thus why I quoted what I did. Death is related to breathing and bleeding, if both are occurring the EMT must assume the person is alive. That is on page 50 of the Policy Book.

[Katashi_itto]

110. BS. It was the same deal when after they lynched someone they left the body up.

[indie9197]

115. If that was the case...

Why did they move the police cruiser? Wasn't there good evidence in its location? Also, shouldnt officer Wilson have been part of the crime scene and stayed there to have his injuries and other evidence on his body photographed ? Any photos of his injuries are tainted evidence at this point.

[sabrina 1]

154. No, it's not. See second shooting in nearby town where the body was removed in the NORMAL amount of

time it takes to process the scene. THAT excuse won't fly. Heard it and wondered if they think we are all stupid.

[WinkyDink]

173. I would think trying to SAVE SOMEONE would come first!!!!!! You speak as though a coroner had been

called!

[RoccoR5955]

200. Yeah, and the crime scene is SUPPOSED to be processed ASAP!

FIVE HOURS is NOT ASAP!

I do have experience with this, and at ANY crime scene, the sooner inspectors, coroners, and the like get there to investigate the scene, the better. Evidence is better preserved if it is gathered in less time.

It was definitely a message to the community.

[gollygee]

218. Oh yeah, leaving it out in the elements

and allowing wind and sun (to bad it didn't rain!) to affect it for a few hours is the proper way to process a crime scene. Right-o.

[leftstreet]

6. More like time to CYA n/t

[Iron Man]

9. That's exactly what it was.

[gordianot]

16. That along with a long lecture what did you do?

Followed by frenzied calls to legal council. I think this kid was murdered because a cop was trying to fill a quota. After it happened the Police tried to sort out what happened and may have forgotten and left that kids body in the street for his mother to see. Either way unintended or deliberate the consequences are horrible.

[gordianot]

32. How this is framed is the posters right especially on DU.

If this officer is ever prosecuted I have a closing argument.

"Animals run over in the street are afforded more dignity"

[gordianot]

59. Emotions as they occur in humans are facts.

The body undergoes actual physiological changes. Often those emotions observations result in laws and other codes of conduct. Here you go fact that body was left in the street for people to see. Doing what human organisms do people viewed that body many feeling utter disgust and physiological shock with what they saw in the street. There was no one apparently on the scene who could offer information as to what happened. In the absence of information the human mind fills in the blanks. Speculation, emotional response, cognitive dissonance with natural body functions are what human organisms do. So may I say what happened to this 18 year old makes me sick and suspicious.

Please pardon my linguistic constructs

[MineralMan]

20. Heads on pikes used to be how they gave that warning.

[MohRokTah]

27. Yep, it's what they did back when they lynched black men.

They left the body hanging. They even hung notes on the body warning against anybody taking the body down.

In Ferguson, those notes read "Police Line Do Not Cross".

[VanGoghRocks]

31. They didn't even have the decency to put up fucking privacy screens. (Those

wouldn't disturb any evidence.) They may not have been 'warning' the community so much as simply displaying their utter and absolute contempt for its humanity.

Shameful and disgusting, there are no other words for it.

[hexola]

35. I thought there were pictures with barriers setup around the body?

Not sure when they went up...

[Quayblue]

44. I was wondering why they didn't use those screens

no reason for that man to be lying out there like that

[VanGoghRocks]

96. Mass disrespect to his loved ones and, to a lesser extent, the

entire African-American community. That much is obvious. What is not so obvious is the motive(s) behind that disrespect, conscious or otherwise.

[polly7]

103. Did you see his father trying to get to him and being

blocked off and guided back? I think that's what I saw, and I'm sure I heard Michael's mother was there, too. How long did they stand there looking on. seeing not one single person even pretend to offer help or concern. I don't know how completely devastating that must have been for them, but it made my stomach sick.

[Quayblue]

121. This is part of why people are angry

I was driving east on I-84 the other day and I saw a deer carcass, and my mind kept going back to how Mr. Brown was laid out in the street.

Like roadkill.

[underpants]

33. The crack staff of the Ferguson PD was busy

With a cigar theft a few blocks away



I think you are on to something CatWoman

[Horse with no Name]

46. Like a public hanging

without the noose...where they left the victim in the town square as a warning

[HipChick]

54. All they did is replace a hangmans noose with a gun

[GliderGuider]

61. Or a lynching... nt

[rock]

48. Why else?

I fear you have hit the nail on the head. CatWoman.

[840high]

52. You don't move the body in a

crime scene till processed.

[Xithras]

53. Many years ago I witnessed a young man die in a motorcycle accident.

There was some disagreement among the witnesses about what happened. Everyone agreed that the bike was behind a pickup that was slowing for a yellow stoplight, that the biker cut into the bicycle lane to illegally pass the truck and run the light and then clipped the front of a car waiting for the light on the cross-street, sending the rider head-first into the stoplight pole. He died instantly.

The witnesses disagreed on a few key points though. Some (including me) put the blame entirely on the rider. He swung wide as he passed the truck on the right and clipped the front of the stopped car that was waiting for the light on the cross-street. Several others claimed that the car had actually pulled forward before its light turned green, blocking the bikers path in an attempt to jump the light and causing the collision. And one witness even claimed that the truck had "swerved right", forcing the biker to swing wide and causing the collision.

The intersection was closed and the bikers body lay there for over four hours while the forensic people did their work to figure out what really happened. Because there were conflicting stories, they had to do a more comprehensive investigation. The final position and orientation of the body were part of that investigation, so the body became "evidence". The coroner had to stand by and couldn't even touch the body until the investigation was done.

I would imagine that the situation with Brown was much the same. His body became "evidence", and they treated it like they would any other piece of evidence. Nothing was moved until the investigation was complete.

[vanlassie]

62. Except the police car which was also a crime scene...

[ReRe]

55. I can't deny...

... that something like that did run through my mind this past week.

[Triana]

56. That was my thought on the matter. Same as when the 'strange fruit'

was left hanging from the trees...as a warning to the rest.

Disgusting. But that was my first thought on the matter when I heard the body had been left in the road for 4-5 hours.

[Travis_0004]

57. They should have instantly put the body in the SUV and driven to the coroner

Then we could all complain about not preserving evidence by moving the body so quickly.

[Tatiana]

63. That's exactly why the body lay there so long.

I don't care what anyone says about disturbing crime scenes. I am from Chicago and I have witnessed shootings before. The ambulance is almost always called immediately, if only to pronounce the victim dead on the scene. Homicide comes out, takes the pictures and I have seen many officers spread out to interview potential witnesses. Granted, it's a major city, but no body has just lay in the street for more than an hour. And, once when a mother arrived, the officers were sympathetic and tried to calm her down.

The utter lack of civility or empathy by the officers on the scene is what is so striking. They literally do not give two you-know-whats about Michael Brown's body laying there, his grieving family, or the fact that the entire neighborhood is witnessing the young man lying there in a pool of his own blood. They aren't bothered at all.

So, yes. I definitely think it was a message they were sending to all the community residents. Probably to keep their mouths shut about what they saw. Tiffany (I think that was her name) expressed some fear about telling what she saw, but she said she knew she had to get the truth out there. I'm sure there are other people who were not brave enough to go on camera, but who can corroborate the fact that the officer was not in imminent danger when he fired those fatal shots at Michael Brown.

[GliderGuider]

65. Does anyone know if a coroner visited the scene?

I haven't heard that one did, and I really wonder why not.

[TheKentuckian]

68. Same reason as the Romans crucified people. Same reason the Saudis do so now even post execution.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

69. Heads on pikes in the Elizabethan era.

Same warning to others.

[malaise]

77. A modern day lynching

Vicariously many of these racists are attacking Obama.

[Tommymac]

92. Spot On. Like leaving the body hanging for days to warn those uppity black folks.

KKK was good at that.

[Amonester]

83. This, and now, the (little) Grand (white) Jury will delay their ? until mid-October...

How is this not Apartheid, MO style?

[Hoyt]

84. Agree. Even if they had to "process the crime scene," there are screens that can be placed

around the body. If it wasn't deliberate disrespect/intimidation, it was darn sure thoughtless and callous.

[onecent]

87. Isn't there some kind of a law regarding

leaving a dead person and taking off???
It is very very sad. This should not have happened to this young boy. I am so sick
of this god damn racial crap I could puke. Why are people so mean about something
they cannot control anyway....Or why are people so mean?

[Boom Sound 416]

98. Jesus Fucking Christ

[Generic Other]

101. I am so sorry that this is the reality for so many

The Ferguson community will take years to heal if at all.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

107. They treated the parents of Travon Martin like they were asking them, "Is this dead cat yours?"

[Gemini Cat]

108. Completely agree.

That was my first thought.
k and r

[dballance]

109. The same way lynchings in the South used to hang for a long time.

In the South, black men who were lynched used to hang for some time as an example to others.

[B Calm]

111. I like to think it was because they were throughly investigating. I seen

them take all day to pick up bodies after highway accidents.

[WinkyDink]

176. Bwahahahaha! Yeah, okay: "thoroughly investigating."

[Enthusiast]

112. Good theory.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[Hoyt]

118. I'll bet my rear if it were Wilson down, they would have put up screens or had police

stand to block the view. Have seen it before.

Truth is, they just didn't care.

[lumberjack_jeff]

122. I find that theory hard to dispute.

Covering the body is basically an instinctive sign of respect... or at least discomfort.

At least they didn't tie him to the hood of the police cruiser, I suppose.

[Ecumenist]

133. Catwoman, as a black woman, that's EXACTLY what it was meant for It's the same thing

as when people would be lynched and the bodies left up swinging in the trees to ROT to send a signal....and racists call us SAVAGE...HORRIFIC!!

[CatWoman]

145. nother black woman here

and it is so sickening to have the one poster throwing grenades in this thread trying to justify the unjustifiable

[Ecumenist]

147. AMEN, Catwoman and they have the collosal nerve to make these comments while admitting

that they have "BOOTLEG" knowledge, probably correspondence knowledge....SMDH

[bench scientist]

136. exactly it's intimidation of a whole community. nt

[SummerSnow]

153. The 5 hours were spent creating their lies.

[WinkyDink]

170. Racism would be my guess.

[Vattel]

177. That sort of speculation is fun, but not that useful.

[gollygee]

188. Certainly there's some historical context to suggest that

When the KKK killed African Americans, they sometimes kept the body out for a while to enhance the terrorism effect of the killing.

It's tricky because there is some potential that they couldn't disturb the scene - but it seems like a very long time for that. It also could have started out being a crime scene thing and then someone could have decided to leave his body out longer for malicious reasons.

The fact that there's no way to prove the intent doesn't mean it isn't very possible you're right. People shouldn't just dismiss you as they have in this thread.

[Kablooie]

193. They didn't know at the time it would be world news so you may be right.

They wanted as many people as possible to see the result of disobeying the police.

[elias49]

198. Without a doubt. n/t

[Rex]

203. Yes that is exactly what it is.

And NO call to 911 or for help of any kind. He let that kid bleed out right in front of the entire world and the world took notice.

[wolfie001]

217. CatWoman is 100% correct.

The unattended body lying there for 5 hours was for intimidation reasons. Clueless police, fascist Replugs. Everyone of em. Lots of concern trolling on this thread but all of that is RedState BS. They can F'Off!

[myrna minx]

220. After listening to one by-standers' heartbreaking observations as

Last edited Thu Aug 21, 2014, 12:25 PM - Edit history (1)

she video taped the Michael's body laying in the street, I can't help but agree. This woman is in such shock - it's so heartbreaking to hear. The witnesses in this community will be haunted by this for a long time - and it does seem like a warning.

[Chakaconcarne]

221. I'm sorry but I don't agree that it was a warning...

Incompetence or other, but not a warning. Let's not let our imaginations or emotions get the better of our reasoning. It's speculation, gives fuel to the other side and doesn't help any.

[CatWoman]

243. what ever

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025438085

[MurrayDelph]

224. Now, I just thought it was

because they were too busy thinking

"Oh, shit! I fucked up! What do I do now?"

to pay attention to reality of what it was they had done.