Michael Brown Shooting

[Skeptic Ginger]

Just no. Your extreme bias is getting in the way. I can see that you're already prepared to invoke a conspiracy theory if the physical evidence doesn't "trip him up".

Btw, we don't know how close they were together when Wilson began firing.

According to the third hand account of Wilson's story, only a few feet for the final shot(s). The casings at the scene will tell us if that is correct.

As for "my extreme bias", I don't think so.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Skeptic Ginger:


If brown really was the gentle giant that some would have us believe, then the influence of drugs could account for his thuggish behavior in the store and subsequent bad ass behavior with a cop....


Hardly the least credible part of Wilson's story, if you want to give any credibility to the ' gentle giant ' story ...

Where did I ever say "gentle giant"? You really should stop conflating every version of the events you don't like. Be a little more careful who you are addressing with what.

 

[Kaosium]

I saw their pictures, and recently learned that it is impossible for them to be " thugs ".

Bill Sykes is a thug, Jayne Cobb is a thug, mafia footsoldiers are thugs.

Richard Sherman is not a thug, and he could play for the Packers even if he was as far as I'm concerned (thugs are people too!). From the little I know of them Rob Ford is a buffoon, Justin Beiber is a poseur. In my opinion anyone who called Richard Sherman a thug is on about the same level as those who think there's something sinister about poseurs and buffoons not being called thugs. That read like someone took an Onion article too seriously. My guess is the vast majority of the world could care less what Tupac Shakur thought about anything, and those who believe that because some people don't subscribe to the nonsense above they can infer anything about the person saying it ought to be embarrassed to say it in public lest they be ridiculed for their idiocy.

And yes, officers of the law who betray their commission are just thugs too as far as I'm concerned. The most dangerous kinds of thugs.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Only those two?

How about the side who is convinced it was 1st degree murder...

I'm not sure anyone in the thread is claiming 1st degree. Maybe I missed it.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Where did I ever say "gentle giant"? You really should stop conflating every version of the events you don't like. Be a little more careful who you are addressing with what.

Where did I say that was your claim?

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_cbafa12e-7305-5fd7-8e0e-3139f472d130.html


You are questioning whether Brown was stupid or suicidal; that if Wilson's account is true, and Brown was normally seen as a ' gentle giant ' then we have to account for Brown's belligerent behavior..

Couldn't drugs account for aberrant behavior ?

You need to give up on the top of the head kill shot as if it were a known fact.

 

[Brainster]

There are obviously two sides here. On the one hand are the people who are suspicious the shooting was truly justifiable and on the other hand the people who are convinced it was justifiable. One side seems to be primarily arguing while the other side seems to spend as much time taunting and ridiculing as arguing. That says something about the two different mindsets I think.

The idea that there is one side that is just suspicious about the shooting is absurd. Here's Skeptic Ginger:

But the physical evidence, if it wasn't tampered with, is going to trip Wilson up.

She didn't say that the physical evidence might trip up the cop, she said it would, and the only way it wouldn't is if it was tampered with. It's non-falsifiable.

 

[Distracted1]

But why is it plausible that the officer did the things he's claimed to have done? That story is just as illogical -- even if he was the most corrupt, bitter racist in law enforcement, for all he knew he was being recorded by five iphones from nearby houses (and in fact he was being recorded just seconds after the fact). It's crazy that Brown might have charged him, but just as crazy to think the officer just gunned down a surrendering non-threat just for the fun of it. You can be as cynical as you want about the attitudes of the police in the area, but there'd still be a fear of repercussions.

In other words, one of the two people involved completely lost their head, and did something crazy. So I don't know that it helps to ask, "But why would _________ do THAT?" It's not that kind of situation.

And we are back to post #7

 

[David Wong]

And we are back to post #7

Well we apparently never moved beyond it, if the argument is still, "Brown wouldn't attack the officer because that would be insane." That's a non-argument, one of the parties in this scenario did something insane, right?

It seems like that shouldn't even be one of the considerations when judging which scenario is most likely - people do crazy things. For example, I personally can't fathom a non-crazy situation in which the officer and the suspect wind up hand-fighting through the window of the cruiser. Either Brown did something nuts (reached in to punch a policeman) or the cop did (tried to arrest Brown through the window of his car?!?)

I mean the other guy with Brown insists the cop rolled up and just grabbed Brown and put him in a choke hold from inside the car, and that's so bizarre I can't even visualize it. What would be the point?

 

[Distracted1]

We are talking evidence based conclusions here:
Ferguson police beat a man and then charged him with 'destruction of property' for bloody uniforms
They beat the guy and the recording was later missing.

And elsewhere:
Video Allegedly Shows Cop Planting Evidence In Couple’s Car

Three Atlanta Police Officers Sentenced for Planting Evidence and Killing a 92-Year-Old Grandmother in Botched Raid

It happens. All I said was I hope they have an impeccable chain of evidence for the gun and Brown's body because I'd like to have confidence if they find Brown's DNA or prints on Wilson's gun that it was an honest finding.

As for referring back to my post, I do await that gun exam. I don't know if Brown struggled for the gun or not. If Wilson stuck it in his face, he may have.

Don't forget this one

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0e8_1408313026

Or is it still a logical fallacy to discredit an entire group based upon the actions of a few individuals?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Where did I say that was your claim?

Skeptic Ginger:If brown really was the gentle giant that some would have us believe, then the influence of drugs could account for his thuggish behavior in the store and subsequent bad ass behavior with a cop....

Couldn't drugs account for aberrant behavior ?

There is no evidence to base this fantasy on.

You need to give up on the top of the head kill shot as if it were a known fact.

It is known. I don't know what you're looking at but that was one of the more definitive autopsy findings.

 

[Distracted1]

Maybe Michael had heard about the "21-Foot Rule" and just wasn't good at judging distances.

It takes an average person 1 to 3 seconds to get thirty feet. ( google )

Averaging that out, 1.5 for a tall man full of adrenaline.,

One Mississippi..two.misi GOTCHA!

Maybe not entirely insane after all?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The idea that there is one side that is just suspicious about the shooting is absurd. Here's Skeptic Ginger:

She didn't say that the physical evidence might trip up the cop, she said it would, and the only way it wouldn't is if it was tampered with. It's non-falsifiable.

Wilson said he shot Brown in the forehead. The autopsy says the shot was in the top of the head.

The evidence is already tripping Wilson up if "Josie's" account is close to Wilson's.

 

[Distracted1]

There are obviously two sides here. On the one hand are the people who are suspicious the shooting was truly justifiable and on the other hand the people who are convinced it was justifiable. One side seems to be primarily arguing while the other side seems to spend as much time taunting and ridiculing as arguing. That says something about the two different mindsets I think.

I for one, have made up my mind to be skeptical of the claims that Officer Wilson decided to murder Mr. Brown in broad daylight in the middle of the street.

If I get snippy about it, I apologize. In my defense I can only point to the numerous posts that call me a racist for not being willing to join the lynch mob.

 

[Mike!]

Yes if you were talking seconds, no if you are talking minutes. Swelling would be worse after an hour, but it would begin within minutes.

I don't think he had "minutes" from between the time he possibly (There for your sake only, SG) punched the officer, and when he hit the pavement, face first. I'd bet much less than a minute myself. This stuff happens in seconds, not minutes.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well we apparently never moved beyond it, if the argument is still, "Brown wouldn't attack the officer because that would be insane." That's a non-argument, one of the parties in this scenario did something insane, right?

No, Wilson could have acted out of anger, making mistakes. That's not anything close to "insane".

I believe Brown could have fought the cop through the car window, also a mistake, reactive self defense and not insane.

What's insane is Brown charging at Wilson who had a gun drawn. It's much less likely that happened than Brown was giving up and getting down on the ground.

 

[Distracted1]

Ah. We're back to the "drug-fueled supernegro" stereotype.

Okay. We know what we're arguing against, then.

My feeling thus far is that you are even arguing against that when trying to cancel your subscription to AOL.

 

[Kaosium]

I'm not sure anyone in the thread is claiming 1st degree. Maybe I missed it.

I don't think anyone in the thread argued it, but the mother of Michael Brown did say:

"McSpadden said she doesn't understand why police didn't subdue her son with a club or Taser instead of shooting him, and she said the officer involved should be fired and prosecuted.

"I would like to see him go to jail with the death penalty," she said Sunday at the site of the shooting, fighting back tears."​

Some have attributed the same or a similar quote to the father as well. That would require a conviction of murder in the first degree.

 

[Modified]

Yes if you were talking seconds, no if you are talking minutes. Swelling would be worse after an hour, but it would begin within minutes.

When I was that age, I basically did not bruise at all. Even when I was hit by a car at 50 mph, I had no visible bruising, just some swelling where the bumper hit my lower leg. The only visible bruise I can remember was when I jumped a sled off a ramp and landed on my jaw. At that age I could have punched someone hard enough to break my hand and not had any damage visible on the surface, as long as I didn't scrape the skin.

 

[David Wong]

No, Wilson could have acted out of anger, making mistakes. That's not anything close to "insane".

I believe Brown could have fought the cop through the car window, also a mistake, reactive self defense and not insane.

What's insane is Brown charging at Wilson who had a gun drawn. It's much less likely that happened than Brown was giving up and getting down on the ground.

Then why does Wilson shoot him in that scenario?

 

[Distracted1]

No, Wilson could have acted out of anger, making mistakes. That's not anything close to "insane".

I believe Brown could have fought the cop through the car window, also a mistake, reactive self defense and not insane.

What's insane is Brown charging at Wilson who had a gun drawn. It's much less likely that happened than Brown was giving up and getting down on the ground.

You are saying that if evidence shows that there was an altercation through the window of the police vehicle it was Mr. Brownacting in self defense at that point!?