Andrew Brown Shooting (US)

J.O. Farmer

Manic Moran wrote: »

What were they going to knock on? It seems he didn't leave the car still long enough for them to knock on the door.

They should have only raided by appointment at a mutually convenient time so he could have the kettle on.

Sure between law enforcement and all the white supremacist groups who want to raid he'd need to fit them in.

Overheal

Manic Moran wrote: »

What were they going to knock on? It seems he didn't leave the car still long enough for them to knock on the door.

The function is the same, they raided the individual without warning, or announcing themselves properly as a proper authority. Hoping that someone will see the guy in jeans and the guy in kakhis and the guy in tactical black pants are all really each a uniform part of the Sherrifs office and didn't just buy readily available attire and are not just MS-13 trying to do a hit or something. If I have 3 seconds to choose how to respond in this situation why would the first thought on my mind be that people acting in this way are unmistakably law enforcement and acting with good hearted intent? The act doesn't scream "we are the police" they roll up looking like an Al Qaeda patrol.

Potential-Monke

It's too soon to assume all that. We've seen 1 body camera, which did not capture everything, and would not have captured all audio (because of shouting, noises, etc). Too soon to call it imo, but him driving at the cops does indeed give them reason to shoot. Will need more footage.

Overheal

A Black councilman protested Andrew Brown Jr. shooting. Police urinated on his property to retaliate, he says.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/05/18/gabriel-adkins-police-urinating-property/

Last month, Elizabeth City, N.C., councilman Gabriel Adkins held back tears as he delivered a speech to his colleagues hours after police fatally shot Andrew Brown Jr., saying that he feared he might be next.

“As a Black man sitting here tonight, I’m afraid,” Adkins said referencing Brown, a 42-year old Black man whose attorneys have said was unarmed when police shot him outside his home. “I’m afraid that I may be the next one, you know.”

Now, after joining protesters demanding that video of the shooting be released, he claims police are targeting him. Twice last week, Adkins said, surveillance video at a funeral home he owns showed a police officer in uniform urinating on his property.

“I’m completely furious that any member of the sheriff department would think these acts are acceptable,” Adkins told The Washington Post in an email. “This is a funeral home. A place where we house family’s loved ones. I have lost all trust and respect for our sheriff department.”

Adkins posted a video of the incident on Facebook. The news was first reported by the News & Observer.

The Pasquotank County Sheriff’s Office did not immediately respond to a message from The Washington Post late on Monday.

Deputies shot Brown outside his home on April 21. The sheriff’s office said deputies were executing arrest warrants for Brown on drug charges, but have yet to say whether Brown was armed, complying or fleeing.

Prosecutors have said the shooting was justified because Brown hit officers with his car before they fired. But Brown’s family and attorneys said a 20-second “snippet” of body-cam footage they reviewed shows an “execution,” and an autopsy commissioned by the family revealed Brown was shot five times, including once in the back of the head.

Three officers involved in the shooting have been suspended as the State Bureau of Investigation conducts an inquiry.

Adkins, an Elizabeth City native who is serving his second term on the council, owns a funeral home, a catering business, and an income tax and financial services company.

Black residents of Elizabeth City, N.C., thought police violence happened in other places. Then it came to their town.

In the weeks since police fatally shot Brown, he has organized and attended protests and demanded the full video of Brown’s shooting be released by the sheriff’s office.

Now, Adkins says that advocacy has led to retaliation by police. Adkins said that security video shows one officer urinating on the property of his funeral home on Friday; that video, which he hasn’t released, is still being processed, he said.

Video from a security camera recorded on Saturday and posted to Facebook shows a police cruiser with blinking lights parking in front of a shed and a garage he uses to store his hearses, Adkins said. Then, an officer in uniform walks to the middle of both structures, turning his back to the camera before he appears to urinate. After several seconds, the one-minute clip shows, the officer walks back to the patrol car before leaving.

“Since this case with Andrew Brown, I’ve been out protesting,” Adkins told the News & Observer. “I really feel like they are retaliating back against me. Maybe they didn’t know I had surveillance, but it’s a funeral home.”

Adkins also told the News & Observer that the sheriff’s department had previously provided escorts for his funeral home, but hasn’t responded to his past two requests. He said he is seeking legal representation and plans to press charges.

“I’m just getting real worried I might be the next target, or they’re trying to set me up,” Adkins said. “On top of it being a crime.”

Based on the gang-like UOF in the Andrew Brown shooting, and the Police Department's apparent culture if these allegations are true, then, it looks like there's another rotten tree in the state of North Carolina.

biko

Brown death deemed justified.

I don't think it looks serious enough to warrant shooting but then I wasn't there. Neither were anyone else in this thread.

This is an arrest surrounding felony drug charges,” Pasquotank Chief Deputy Daniel Fogg said in a video statement following the incident. “Mr. Brown was a convicted felon with a history of resisting arrest. Our training and our policies indicate under such circumstances, there is a high risk of danger.”

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1394751010938183684?s=20
We'll see who is first to complain about my linking to a tweet from Jack Posobiec.

Overheal

biko wrote: »

Brown death deemed justified.

I don't think it looks serious enough to warrant shooting but then I wasn't there. Neither were anyone else in this thread.


https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1394751010938183684?s=20
We'll see who is first to complain about my linking to a tweet from Jack Posobiec.

Just parroting the DA who said it was “justified”

It is “justified” under the state law. The state law doesn’t account for officers being the ones to force a lethal encounter.

The DA is playing word games and the headlines are running with it.

tipptom

Overheal wrote: »

Just parroting the DA who said it was “justified”

It is “justified” under the state law. The state law doesn’t account for officers being the ones to force a lethal encounter.

The DA is playing word games and the headlines are running with it.

The lethal encounter occured when one dangerous drug dealer criminal with a history of resisting arrest decided he would once more resist arrest and drive a powerful vehicle at whoever was in his way.

Overheal

tipptom wrote: »

The lethal encounter occured when one dangerous drug dealer criminal with a history of resisting arrest decided he would once more resist arrest and drive a powerful vehicle at whoever was in his way.

The lethal encounter occurred when the killers showed up with rifles and pointed them at the guy. Pretending they don’t play a crucial role in how this apparent arrest transpired is farcical.

BattleCorp

Overheal wrote: »

The lethal encounter occurred when the killers showed up with rifles and pointed them at the guy. Pretending they don’t play a crucial role in how this apparent arrest transpired is farcical.

Cops are allowed to show up with rifles pointed at a suspect. A suspect isn't allowed to drive at cops who have rifles pointed at him. There is a difference.

Overheal

BattleCorp wrote: »

Cops are allowed to show up with rifles pointed at a suspect. A suspect isn't allowed to drive at cops who have rifles pointed at him. There is a difference.

I’m aware of what they’ve been “allowed” to do. I’m arguing that it shouldn’t be. And in states like Virginia that now live under new use of force law these cops would be indicted for murder. These are gang tactics.

BattleCorp

Overheal wrote: »

I’m aware of what they’ve been “allowed” to do. I’m arguing that it shouldn’t be. And in states like Virginia that now live under new use of force law these cops would be indicted for murder. These are gang tactics.

How should they have enacted the arrest so? The element of surprise is often essential when arresting a dangerous suspect. It's why cops mostly do raids on houses here in Ireland at 6am, when the suspect is likely to be asleep.

Overheal

BattleCorp wrote: »

How should they have enacted the arrest so? The element of surprise is often essential when arresting a dangerous suspect. It's why cops mostly do raids on houses here in Ireland at 6am, when the suspect is likely to be asleep.

You find another way than the way that killed Andrew Brown and Breonna Taylor.

BattleCorp

Overheal wrote: »

You find another way than the way that killed Andrew Brown and Breonna Taylor.

So no suggestions then.

tipptom

Overheal wrote: »

The lethal encounter occurred when the killers showed up with rifles and pointed them at the guy. Pretending they don’t play a crucial role in how this apparent arrest transpired is farcical.

Pointing them at a violent drug dealer with a history of resisting arrest was where this would have stopped until he decided to once again decided to resist arrest by driving his vehicle at them,then it became lethal.

Overheal

BattleCorp wrote: »

So no suggestions then.

Not from my armchair, no, respectfully I leave it up to the Police to figure out how to navigate it, except that clearly the legal landscape they are navigating is flawed in their favor.

Take for instance, the new UOF code in the State of Virginia, as compared to the old one, which is going to be incredibly similar, if not identical, to the UOF used in this shooting by this legal jurisdiction,

VA's old UOF:

An officer may use deadly force only when the officer reasonably believes that the action is:

a. In defense of human life, including the officer’s life, or

b. In defense of any person in immediate danger of serious physical injury, or

c. In the apprehension of a fleeing felon, when:

1. The officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a felony and poses a significant immediate threat of serious physical injury or death to the officer or to other persons, and

2. The officer has identified himself as a police officer, and given notice of his intention to arrest (time and circumstances permitting), and

3. All other reasonable means of apprehension have been exhausted before deadly force is used.

VA's new UOF:

A. A law-enforcement officer shall not use deadly force against a person unless:

1. The law-enforcement officer reasonably believes that deadly force is immediately necessary to protect the law-enforcement officer or another person, other than the subject of the use of deadly force, from the threat of serious bodily injury or death;

2. If feasible, the law-enforcement officer has provided a warning to the subject of the deadly force that he will use deadly force;

3. The law-enforcement officer's actions are reasonable, given the totality of the circumstances; and

4. All other options have been exhausted or do not reasonably lend themselves to the circumstances.

B. In determining if a law-enforcement officer's use of deadly force is proper, the following factors shall be considered:

1. The reasonableness of the law-enforcement officer's belief and actions from the perspective of a reasonable law-enforcement officer on the scene at the time of the incident; and

2. The totality of the circumstances, including (i) the amount of time available to the law-enforcement officer to make a decision; (ii) whether the subject of the use of deadly force (a) possessed or appeared to possess a deadly weapon and (b) refused to comply with the law-enforcement officer's lawful order to surrender an object believed to be a deadly weapon prior to the law-enforcement officer using deadly force; (iii) whether the law-enforcement officer engaged in de-escalation measures prior to the use of deadly force, including taking cover, waiting for backup, trying to calm the subject prior to the use of force, or using non-deadly force prior to the use of deadly force; (iv) whether any conduct by the law-enforcement officer prior to the use of deadly force intentionally increased the risk of a confrontation resulting in deadly force being used; and (v) the seriousness of the suspected crime.

So to rebut your point: no, I don't have armchair solutions, yet regardless of that fact, the reality is police in Virginia are currently training to figure out just that. It's for the better. The police tactics used in this case were effectively outlawed already in the State of Virginia and it could be a case study for the country moving forward.

Manic Moran

So I’m looking at the photos from today’s shootout in the Netherlands, and note that their tactical folks seem happy enough to wear jeans with body armor that says “police” on them. I guess it’s like thinking one can reasonably assume that a bunch of armed men going about in daylight publicly claiming to be police are, in fact, police.



I am also less convinced than you are as to whether or not such an arrest would have been unlawful under the new VA laws. It was an arrest, confrontation was inevitable.

Overheal

Manic Moran wrote: »

So I’m looking at the photos from today’s shootout in the Netherlands, and note that their tactical folks seem happy enough to wear jeans with body armor that says “police” on them. I guess it’s like thinking one can reasonably assume that a bunch of armed men going about in daylight publicly claiming to be police are, in fact, police.



I am also less convinced than you are as to whether or not such an arrest would have been unlawful under the new VA laws.

Do the photos shout "Police you're under arrest" and have sirens on in the background?

If not you haven't properly rebutted my point.

Are there any MS-13 type gangs operating in the Netherlands, incidentally? 3 percenter militias? Do the Netherland Police use the weapons and tactics used in the Andrew Brown shooting?

I am also less convinced than you are as to whether or not such an arrest would have been unlawful under the new VA laws. It was an arrest, confrontation was inevitable.

Which is why the Virginia law change is so great: it puts the entire matter before a jury more often than never. Less than a month after the law passed an officer was arrested under the statute for killing a driver who sped off from him in a parking lot, which the officer said was a threat to his life. Very many parallels to this case. A jury will decide if the shooting was justified, and the taxpayer will fungibly pay all of his legal expenses.

Note that even though the officer in that case was wanted for murder, other police didn't show up to his house pointing rifles, despite clear knowledge that the officer possessed deadly weapons. So, evidently, there are other options yes.

tipptom

Overheal wrote: »

Do the photos shout "Police you're under arrest" and have sirens on in the background?

If not you haven't properly rebutted my point.

Are there any MS-13 type gangs operating in the Netherlands, incidentally? 3 percenter militias? Do the Netherland Police use the weapons and tactics used in the Andrew Brown shooting?



Which is why the Virginia law change is so great: it puts the entire matter before a jury more often than never. Less than a month after the law passed an officer was arrested under the statute for killing a driver who sped off from him in a parking lot, which the officer said was a threat to his life. Very many parallels to this case. A jury will decide if the shooting was justified, and the taxpayer will fungibly pay all of his legal expenses.

Note that even though the officer in that case was wanted for murder, other police didn't show up to his house pointing rifles, despite clear knowledge that the officer possessed deadly weapons. So, evidently, there are other options yes.

So your defence of him resisting arrest and trying to run over police officers is that he thought these people there to arrest him were 3 percenters??

Overheal

tipptom wrote: »

So your defence of him resisting arrest and trying to run over police officers is that he thought these people there to arrest him were 3 percenters??

I posit he wasn't trying to run them over, he was trying to flee, as the car's path clearly demonstrated.

A growing number of US states recognize the right of a motorist to act in defense of their own life, even if that means making vehicle contact with a pedestrian. And in this case, the actual physical content is minimal.

The attackers didn't declare an arrest. The situation clearly provided them the opportunity, they attacked at a moment of their own choosing.

Overheal

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm not sure I see the correlation.

A bunch of guys show up in a fully marked vehicle with "SHERIFF" marked on the side. They all jump off, shouting "stop" and are wearing "SHERIFF" on their armor, clearly visible. As someone already convicted of over two dozen charges, it is not a huge leap to think that they are, in fact, actually police, and not Antifa or some right wing militia taking a personal interest in you.

Well would you look at that, Manic Moran - someone clearly identified as SHERRIFF - but who also has a 3 percenters badge on. Was he simply trying to place the Capitol Police under arrest??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToME6LM6Fes

Now while I ordinarily respectfully disagree with you on many topics in this case I think your viewpoint is utterly rubbished under the reality of things.

tipptom

Overheal wrote: »

I posit he wasn't trying to run them over, he was trying to flee, as the car's path clearly demonstrated.

A growing number of US states recognize the right of a motorist to act in defense of their own life, even if that means making vehicle contact with a pedestrian. And in this case, the actual physical content is minimal.

The attackers didn't declare an arrest. The situation clearly provided them the opportunity, they attacked at a moment of their own choosing.

So you are actually saying he didnt know it was the police and that he thought it could be 3percenters and thats why he launched his car at the officers?

Thats a bizaare defence of his actions

Overheal

tipptom wrote: »

So you are actually saying he didnt know it was the police and that he thought it could be 3percenters and thats why he launched his car at the officers?

Thats a bizaare defence of his actions

I'm saying he had no reason to automagically know that he was being attacked by police or an armed gang. They didn't announce themselves or used sirens, they showed up with guns yelling Stop Stop etc.

We for sure have seen evidence of 3 percenters who don Sherriff regalia as part of their activity.

Considering Fox News perpetually gins up the country on fears of gang warfare, leftist gangs, MS-13, etc. we are supposed to immediately assume a truck full of armed goons is law enforcement and means us no harm down the barrel of 5+ semi-automatic rifles? You had 3 seconds to process that situation as it erupted, as well.

We had the Ahmaud Arbery shooting as well: 2 Good Old boys chasing a man down the street in a pickup truck, and their neighbor. Another similarity to this case. Arbery's story was back in the news again recently for developments in the federal crimes the defendants are now charged with.

They were acting more like the McMichaels than they were peace officers. The McMichaels similarly yelled "Stop we just want to talk" then proceeded to kill him. What assurances would Brown have on hand to know who his attackers were or what their real intention was? No idea, so drive tf away.

Manic Moran

Overheal wrote: »

Well would you look at that, Manic Moran - someone clearly identified as SHERRIFF - but who also has a 3 percenters badge on. Was he simply trying to place the Capitol Police under arrest??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToME6LM6Fes

Now while I ordinarily respectfully disagree with you on many topics in this case I think your viewpoint is utterly rubbished under the reality of things.

What was that phrase? In the 'totality of the circumstances'? Wearing a MAGA hat, partaking in fighting against fully uniformed police, is anyone going to remotely confuse him with a group of officers acting under the color of a law enforcement agency?

A half-dozen guys rolling up in a marked car has a reasonable expectation of actually being police.

Overheal

Manic Moran wrote: »

What was that phrase? In the 'totality of the circumstances'? Wearing a MAGA hat, partaking in fighting against fully uniformed police, is anyone going to remotely confuse him with a group of officers acting under the color of a law enforcement agency?

A half-dozen guys rolling up in a marked car has a reasonable expectation of actually being police.

Rolling up in a pickup truck, decked out with rifles. That's hardly standard issue policing and if you had be rank activities that are definitely the police and definitely not criminals, rolling up to places in trucks and body armor pointing rifles at people and swarming their cars isn't automatically associated strictly with lawful police activity and would rank fairly low down on that list.

In a similar situation, I think most people would instinctively flee. This police tactic relies on a couple things, like the assumption that everyone they target in these situations, that wants to live, is going to have the neural gumption to neither Fight nor Flight. I think the assumption that 100% of people that want to live in these situations will all just **** themselves and freeze in place is reckless. But that's the result police expect - or you die. And it's "fully justified" of course, under current law in most jurisdictions.

Thankfully, we both support consideration for the totality of circumstances. Current law does not. That's my position: change that. It's when you use limited circumference of circumstance that you end up justifying lethal force, and excusing lethal action because the shirt they wore said Sherriff and so did the car (not that cops ever do illegal things with police property). It's under that same limited view I present you the Capitol Police resisting arrest from a uniformed Sherriff. My point exactly.

hawley

The most important thing that comes from the footage is that he was in no way threatening the police with his vehicle. He was just trying to leave the scene. It is completely unjustifiable. This will damage the reputation of the police force and will reduce the trust of minorities in the police. I'm tired of this.

BattleCorp

hawley wrote: »

The most important thing that comes from the footage is that he was in no way threatening the police with his vehicle. He was just trying to leave the scene. It is completely unjustifiable. This will damage the reputation of the police force and will reduce the trust of minorities in the police. I'm tired of this.

The act of fleeing put the cops in danger of being run over by Brown's car.

By the way, you shouldn't flee when you are being arrested.

Overheal

BattleCorp wrote: »

The act of fleeing put the cops in danger of being run over by Brown's car.

By the way, you shouldn't flee when you are being arrested.

It helps to know you are being arrested and not executed.

BattleCorp

hawley wrote: »

The most important thing that comes from the footage is that he was in no way threatening the police with his vehicle. He was just trying to leave the scene. It is completely unjustifiable. This will damage the reputation of the police force and will reduce the trust of minorities in the police. I'm tired of this.

Have a look at the video clip in the link below. Brown was trying to flee for sure but he almost hit the cop. Look at 1.43 on the clip. Bit disingenuous to say he posed no threat to the cops.

https://edition.cnn.com/videos/us/2021/05/18/andrew-brown-shooting-video-nc-district-attorney-presser-vpx.cnn/video/playlists/top-news-videos/

Overheal

BattleCorp wrote: »

Have a look at the video clip in the link below. Brown was trying to flee for sure but he almost hit the cop. Look at 1.43 on the clip. Bit disingenuous to say he posed no threat to the cops.

https://edition.cnn.com/videos/us/2021/05/18/andrew-brown-shooting-video-nc-district-attorney-presser-vpx.cnn/video/playlists/top-news-videos/

You know what he meant though. Brown was just attempting to flee. Their fanning out made it difficult to do so without risk. He posed only as much danger to officers as they put themselves in.

BattleCorp

Overheal wrote: »

It helps to know you are being arrested and not executed.

They were cops. The vehicle was marked as a cop vehicle. The guys had badges on their arms etc.

Again what we have here is a black person acting the boll1x and contributing towards their death. Obey the law and do what you're told and you'll likely survive your encounter. Act the boll1x and resist arrest and try flee while almost knocking over a cop only increases the chance of you ending up 6 feet under. By the way, if Andrew Brown was white, I'd expect the cops to act the same.

Suggesting that Brown thought he was being executed as a reason for fleeing is boll1x. So should every black person resist arrest and flee whenever they see a cop and use the excuse that they thought they were being executed as their reason for fleeing?

I'm also amazed with how psychic people are to be able to tell that Brown was fleeing because he thought he was going to be executed and not because he didn't want to get arrested.