Missouri Laws pertaining to lethal force needs reform. As for the current laws pertaining to this matter, it allows the police to abuse their authority. The St. Louis area has seen its fair share of excessive police force, including murders. The number of black teenage murders seem to be the “In Thing”. States and counties claim to spend millions on nonlethal enforcement, but few times are these methods made evident. When do they use pepper spray, tazers, stun guns or batons. The police seem to choose death of suspect or random encountered person, and it’s all done at their discretion.
See the Full text of “Blacks Law 6th”
Discretion. When applied to public functionaries, discretion means a power or right conferred upon them by law of acting officially in certain circumstances, according to the dictates of their own judgment and con- science, uncontrolled by the judgment or conscience of others. As applied to public officers connotes action taken in light of reason as applied to all facts and with view to rights of all parties to action while having regard for what is right and equitable under all circumstances and law. State v. Whitman, R.I., 431 A2d 1229, 1233. In criminal law and the law of torts, it means the capacity to distinguish between what is right and wrong, lawful or unlawful, wise or foolish, sufficiently to render one amenable and responsible for his acts So the choice or discretion of the police has been a pattern and practice of white police taking the lives of men of color. The subjugated Moorish young men are the victims of disenfranchisement and Jim Crow tactics taken by government officials and others in order to control the Moorish youth which is perceived as the “Black” you incidental to the stripping of name and heritage imposed upon their ancestors. The government’s militia or police force use legislatures to control the indigenous and former Moors enslaved in this continent. They continue doing it openly, with no fear from consequences and repercussions.
Below is the statue Missouri law enforcement use to justify the killing of a suspect.
Missouri Revised Statutes
Defense of Justification
August 28, 2014
Until December 31, 2016–Law enforcement officer’s use of force in making an arrest.
563.046. 1. A law enforcement officer need not retreat or desist from efforts to effect the arrest, or from efforts to prevent the escape from custody, of a person he reasonably believes to have committed an offense because of resistance or threatened resistance of the arrestee. In addition to the use of physical force authorized under other sections of this chapter, he is, subject to the provisions of subsections 2 and 3, justified in the use of such physical force as he reasonably believes is immediately necessary to effect the arrest or to prevent the escape from custody.
2. The use of any physical force in making an arrest is not justified under this section unless the arrest is lawful or the law enforcement officer reasonably believes the arrest is lawful.
3. A law enforcement officer in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody is justified in using deadly force only
(1) When such is authorized under other sections of this chapter; or
(2) When he reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested
(a) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony; or
(b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon; or
(c) May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.
4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.
(L. 1977 S.B. 60)
*This section was amended by S.B. 491, 2014, effective 1-01-17. Due to the delayed effective date, both versions of this section are printed here.
Yes go to the Missouri statue link above and you read it yourself, it states “reasonably believe”. So my first question is why does it seem like they all think it is reasonable to shoot to kill? It also states: “effect the arrest or escape from custody”. This is why you sometimes observe that police officers put cuffs on the dead so called suspects.
Why is it during the majority of the time, the choice one is given is the death of the suspect based on a random encounter, when the police have batman utility belts full of nonlethal gear? Grant money is used to pay for training and gear such as mace/pepper spray, stun guns, Tasers, batons. My questions is the grant money received from the government being used properly?
This is Michael Brown Jr. autopsy diagram:
A clear overkill of a young man they do not hunt and kill “deer” or other “game” like this.
The photos below involve the two incidents in St. Louis County and St. Louis City. One incident is famous and the other is not . Nevertheless both incidents involve the wrongful death of two young men murdered by police in St. Louis County and City streets.
Did you know that Michael Brown and Issac Holmes both had a cousin (family member) in common?
The media has slandered the name of young men with no remorse.
Were these young men really a threat?
Was murder by police the proper solution to the encounter and confrontation with them?
These are important questions to ask. There have been encounters where the so called suspects had no weapons. The end result was still the same in cases where the victims or suspects were children and the police were not held accountable for their actions.
People want to assume that the authorities don’t understand what they are doing to the disenfranchised males perceived to be black on the streets.
People want to assume that they do not understand their duties the masses. The People have a bona fide right to be mad at the fact that the protectors of the public are actually the number one enemy and threat to the public. The 5th Circuit found that: For generations, the institutions of slavery and involuntary servitude were defined by the race, color, and ancestry of those held in bondage. Slavery and involuntary servitude were enforced, both prior to and after the adoption of the 13th amendment to the Constitution of the United States, through widespread public and private violence directed at persons because of their race, color, or ancestry, or perceived race, color, or ancestry. Accordingly, eliminating racially motivated violence is an important means of eliminating, to the extent possible, the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery and involuntary servitude. See The United States Court Of Appeals for The Fifth Circuit in United States Of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Cannon; Brian Kerstetter; Michael Mclaughlin,No. 12-20514. In Jones, the Supreme Court explained that, pursuant to its powers under the Thirteenth Amendment, Congress can legislate to address not only practices that support the institution of slavery, but also “vestiges of slavery” and “the relic[s] of slavery.” 392 U.S. at 441 n.78, 443. See Neal v. Farmer, 9 Ga. 555, 1851 WL 1474, at *8 (stating that being “liable to beating . . . and every species of chastisement” were “incidents of slavery”); George M. Stroud, A Sketch of the Laws Relating to Slavery 31, 38 (2d ed. 1856) (listing among the “incidents” of slavery, “[t]he master may, at his discretion, inflict any punishment on the person of his slave”); Rutherglen, State Action, at 1399 (“the principal feature of the law of slavery was the ‘master’s justice’ over his slaves, who had virtually no legal protection from the master’s decision to discipline and punish”). See Judicial Notice