Mad World NewsMissouri Law Renders Officer That Shot Mike Brown Off The Hook

Mad World NewsMissouri Law Renders Officer That Shot Mike Brown Off The Hook

Missouri Law Renders Officer That Shot Mike Brown Off The Hook

in News, Politics / by Robert Rich / on August 20, 2014 at 9:57 am /

There has been much speculation as to the accurate version of the events leading up to the death of Mike Brown including the officer’s actions and their relative legalities. As many people have said that the officer, who has since been revealed as Darren Wilson, would have to prove he was acting in self-defense, this may not necessarily be true.
According to Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University Law School, Professor John F. Banzhaf III, there is a Missouri statute that allows for officers to shoot a fleeing criminal that they know to have just committed a felony.
Banzhaf further explained that because of this statute, self-defense, although the main stream media would like you to believe different, isn’t Wilson’s only defense. It seems that either narrative, as there are currently two, Wilson has a defense in which would render him off the hook from any wrongdoing. According to eurweb:

Section 563.046 authorizes a law enforcement officer to use “deadly force” “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 . . . has committed or attempted to commit a felony.

As the community, as well as Liberal Brown sympathizers, would be the first to tell you, the deceased was shot in the back (despite this being disproven) disqualifying the use of the self-defense argument. Now, if Wilson knew that Brown had just committed the robbery in which recent news has come to validate, then the officer was legally allowed to use deadly force if he could not “effect the arrest” without shooting Brown.

The other depiction claims that Brown was charging at the officer meaning that he had the right to protect his own life.
Basically what’s happening here is that if for some reason Brown’s attorneys were able to prove that their client was shot in the back, Wilson would have legal justification in his actions. However, the other argument with this lies in the story that Wilson did not know Brown had just committed a robbery prior to approaching him.
If this was the case, and for some reason they were able to prove he was shot in the back, Wilson would not be able to provide legal justification for shooting him, right? It has since come out that Brown punched Wilson in the eye as the altercation went physical, which, as we all know, is a felony in and of itself. Seeing that current reports demonstrate Wilson was hit so hard it fractured his eye socket, either way he’s covered under the statute and safe from both Liberal lies.
There is one problem as Banzhaf pointed out, being that the law seems to contradict a “decision by the U.S. Supreme Court which limited the circumstances under which an officer may use deadly force to stop a fleeing suspect.”
As that is a conversation to happen at a later time amongst legal professionals it would appear that in the mean time, Wilson is virtually off the hook. The only question is; which defense will Wilson use to prove his innocence and the justification for Brown’s killing?