• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Michael Brown Shooting

Status
Not open for further replies.
LTC8K6 said:
Well, an injury to Wilson is being reported by the NYT, and the NYT article seems to indicate that there are witnesses who favor Wilson's purported account. It seems like Brown may have turned and raised his hands, but then lowered them and charged...
Click to expand...

I don' think the Times account quite says that:

Officer Wilson’s firearm went off inside the car, Mr. Brown ran away, the officer got out of his car and began firing toward Mr. Brown, and then Mr. Brown stopped, turned around and faced the officer. But on the crucial moments that followed, the accounts differ sharply, officials say. Some witnesses say that Mr. Brown, 18, moved toward Officer Wilson, possibly in a threatening manner, when the officer shot him dead. But others say that Mr. Brown was not moving and may even have had his hands up when he was killed.
Click to expand...
 
sir drinks-a-lot said:
I'm sure it is not PC, and I'm sure it will make heads explode, but it is interesting to consider what would have became of Michael Brown if he hadn't been killed in this incident. There are rumors that he was about to start classes for HVAC or something similar, but it seems very likely to me at least that he was on a path to more and more trouble with the law.
Click to expand...


Totally irrevelent.
 
Unabogie said:
Wait, I thought eyewitnesses don't count, since they lie, are biased, and don't remember so good?
Click to expand...

I wasn't vouching for them.

There has been a dispute as to whether they exist. Whether any witnesses support the cop.

The NYT seems to have confirmed that they exist.

There was a tweet by a reporter earlier, claiming that there were more than a dozen, but she did not back it up, and the debate has raged since.
 
newyorkguy said:
I don' think the Times account quite says that:
Click to expand...

So the Times didn't say he "charged"? And we're still left with only the publicly named witnesses who are all in agreement that Brown was shot while his hands were up, while anonymous sources in the FPD say they have super sekret witnesses who back up Wilson?
 
newyorkguy said:
I don' think the Times account quite says that:
Click to expand...

You have to read the part that says it:

According to his account to the Ferguson police, Officer Wilson said that Mr. Brown had lowered his arms and moved toward him, law enforcement officials said. Fearing that the teenager was going to attack him, the officer decided to use deadly force. Some witnesses have backed up that account. Others, however — including Mr. Johnson — have said that Mr. Brown did not move toward the officer before the final shots were fired.
Click to expand...
 
There seem to be two kinds of witnesses. Those who gave opinions to the press, and those who gave sworn statements to the official investigators.

Which kind do you think deserve more credence?

I'm going to go read that NYT article. But it is interesting that they found witnesses for the cop, and no other news source has. And I could see how easy it would be for a biased witness to umm 'forget' the 'charge', and leave in the 'turn with hands up' part.
 
sir drinks-a-lot said:
I'm sure it is not PC, and I'm sure it will make heads explode, but it is interesting to consider what would have became of Michael Brown if he hadn't been killed in this incident. There are rumors that he was about to start classes for HVAC or something similar, but it seems very likely to me at least that he was on a path to more and more trouble with the law.
Click to expand...
just meaningless speculation. Now we will never know. He may have looked (at a very quick glance) like he was on a path to "more and more trouble" but some bad behavior by a teenager may not be a good predictor the future. I know from experience.
 
Do you think the NYT witnesses are the same ones that gave statements to the cops? Jurors are not supposed to discuss things except in official circumstances, and I don't think cops swear anybody to secrecy, but still...

Or do the cops have others who did see clearly what went on in the car? Maybe from the opposite side from the NYT folks. And who gave statements without time or opportunity to become affected by the media or peer pressure.
 
marplots said:
It's not rocket science. Other countries seem to manage it. There are Limeys here, we should ask them what they think of that video and how their officers handle a bit of fisticuffs.
Click to expand...

Friday nights in large towns can be quite lively, indeed, and body armour is now standard uniform - even the PCSO in our village is issued with a stab-proof vest (I doubt she's ever had cause to need it though).

The police in town centres where there is a drinking problem will almost certainly have to deal with large drunk men attacking them (possibly with bottles).

They are issued with extendable batons and (IIRC) CS gas or pepper spray - I don't know about tasers.

The UK experience was why I was wondering whether shooting was appropriate even if the officer was being attacked (which seems probable).

As Giz (and others) have pointed out, it is immaterial whether Brown had committed crimes before the confrontation with the officer. All that matters is whether this confrontation had been handled correctly.
 
casebro said:
There seem to be two kinds of witnesses. Those who gave opinions to the press, and those who gave sworn statements to the official investigators.

Which kind do you think deserve more credence?
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Non-skeptics will say "Wow, did you see that girl and her lawyer on Oprah?? Guilty!!!11!!!"

I've always wondered - why would a witness need an attorney?
 
casebro said:
There seem to be two kinds of witnesses. Those who gave opinions to the press, and those who gave sworn statements to the official investigators.

Which kind do you think deserve more credence?
Click to expand...

A couple of thoughts come to mind:

1) How do you know the witnesses claiming Brown was in the act of surrendering have not provided statements to the police? If they haven't, I would consider that gross incompetence on the part of the investigators. And assuming they have, would that make them that much more credible in your mind?

2) Shouldn't we wait until the witness statements are actually released until we judge their credence? I keep hearing about these witnesses who support Wilson's version of events, and I can't help but notice that I have yet to see what his version of events actually is, let alone the statements from witnesses who supposedly corroborate it.
 
For what it's worth (e.g. maybe nothing), Fox News has now run with the orbital fracture story. According to "a source close to the department's top brass".

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/2...en-before-shooting-michael-brown-says-source/

Darren Wilson, the Ferguson, Mo., police officer whose fatal shooting of Michael Brown touched off more than a week of demonstrations, suffered severe facial injuries, including an orbital (eye socket) fracture, and was nearly beaten unconscious by Brown moments before firing his gun, a source close to the department's top brass told FoxNews.com.
Click to expand...
 
jimbob said:
As Giz (and others) have pointed out, it is immaterial whether Brown had committed crimes before the confrontation with the officer.
Click to expand...

Sure, if he robbed a convenience store 10 years ago, I'd say it doesn't matter. But he robbed one 10 minutes ago. Could go toward motive or state of mind.
 
trustbutverify said:
That beating was the rangers fault because he doesn't know how to handle a "bit of fisticuffs"?
Click to expand...

Laying fault is for the courtroom. What we ought to be more interested in is in the immediate outcome. On the scale of human tragedy, "fisticuffs" ranks rather lower than someone getting shot.

I think we'd agree that there's no available mechanism to remove malicious and violent actors from the world. If there were, I'd be all for it. The real question is how best to respond to minimize overall risk. I don't think adding guns helps much.

If the park ranger had been armed, he would have been justified in shooting his assailant. Why? Because having a weapon there for the bad guy to grab raises the stakes. And yes, maybe he doesn't get beat up in that scenario (no way to really tell), but at the cost of shooting the other guy? Is that the best option?

The reason UK policing came up is because I assume, being unarmed, the coppers there face physical confrontation some other way. And the question was: How do they manage it?
 
johnny karate said:
1) How do you know the witnesses claiming Brown was in the act of surrendering have not provided statements to the police? If they haven't, I would consider that gross incompetence on the part of the investigators.
Click to expand...

So investigators are incompetent if witnesses will book an appearance on Oprah but won't talk to them? Wow.

http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2014/08/grand_jury_begins_hearing_evidence_in_michael_brown_case_today.php

The location of the grand-jury proceedings is secret, as are the names of the members, so the public will not be able to attend. Magee says these members were chosen by a judge and have been on the job for about two months.

Magee says that there is no timeline for the grand jury. He says the plan is to begin tomorrow, which again is contingent on witnesses appearing.

"We won't know until people show up," he said. "Then once the grand jury starts, we will make no further comments about the proceedings."
Click to expand...

It's easy to go on Oprah and tell her what you saw. It's a little more difficult in front of the prosecutor. You kind of have to tell the truth there.
 
" a source close to the department's top brass told FoxNews.com. "

Could it be that same friend of Mrs. Wilson is a Mrs. Lieutenant Doe? Or do you think Fox has a better source? Still seems anonymous.
 
ProBonoShill said:
I was pointing out the ridiculous hyperbole in your post, try using a coherent argument next time.
Click to expand...

What hyperbole? The original hypothetical posed by Cain was ridiculous, I was just pointing out how ridiculous it was. Now please respond to my question, which you seem unwilling or unable to do:
Can one pose a hypothetical in which we have a black cop and white suspect, and expect the same reaction from the press and community? That's what Can and Skeptic Tank were arguing...read the post I was responding too (apparently you haven't) and respond to my question: does context matter?
A coherent 'yes' or 'no' would be a good start.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom