• 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.
Status
Not open for further replies.
So, according to "law enforcement officials", Wilson did, in fact, shoot at Brown while he ran away.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/art..._Fired_at_Michael_Brown_as_He_Ran_Away#rss-sm



So I thought the autopsy was some sort of death blow to the testimony from the witnesses who saw Wilson firing at Mike Brown's back. Seems that's exactly what happened. And we also know Wilson went running after Brown, since his body was found 35' from the SUV where everyone says Brown and Wilson scuffled. So why was Wilson firing at someone who was running away? Why did Wilson run far enough to meet up with Brown? Why, if brown was "charging" Wilson, was Brown's body not found close to the SUV? Why does this not fit in with exactly what the autopsy and the witnesses say?

Answer: it doesn't. But phony "skeptics" will pretend it does.


This is the most problematic part of the account so far, for Wilson. Firing at a charging suspect I can understand. Firing at a fleeing suspect, in a neighborhood with plenty of innocent bystanders? Not so much.
 
So, according to "law enforcement officials", Wilson did, in fact, shoot at Brown while he ran away.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/art..._Fired_at_Michael_Brown_as_He_Ran_Away#rss-sm



So I thought the autopsy was some sort of death blow to the testimony from the witnesses who saw Wilson firing at Mike Brown's back. Seems that's exactly what happened. And we also know Wilson went running after Brown, since his body was found 35' from the SUV where everyone says Brown and Wilson scuffled. So why was Wilson firing at someone who was running away? Why did Wilson run far enough to meet up with Brown? Why, if brown was "charging" Wilson, was Brown's body not found close to the SUV? Why does this not fit in with exactly what the autopsy and the witnesses say?

Answer: it doesn't. But phony "skeptics" will pretend it does.

Oh...Now you want to believe the police account?
 
What do ether of those things have to do with the shooting itself? Were the KKK or the chief's wife even present the day of the shooting?
I think you're the one running out of straws to cling to.

Not to mention that the Chief's Wife story was debunked the day it surfaced.

Damn, beaten to it.
 
This is the most problematic part of the account so far, for Wilson. Firing at a charging suspect I can understand. Firing at a fleeing suspect, in a neighborhood with plenty of innocent bystanders? Not so much.


But it's an account which may or may not be true. It's not "exactly what happened". We don't know yet.
 
I'm not sure what the charge would be for firing at a fleeing suspect and missing.

If you accept the idea that the suspect had just badly beaten the officer, I'm really not sure what the charge would be.

IOW, let's say that Wilson fires repeatedly at Brown as he runs away, but never hits him, and Brown is only caught later and charged with the beating.

What happens to Wilson for firing at Brown as he fled?

Also, What if there was no beating? What happens to Wilson for firing at a fleeing shoplifter and missing him?
 
Last edited:
So, according to "law enforcement officials", Wilson did, in fact, shoot at Brown while he ran away.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/art..._Fired_at_Michael_Brown_as_He_Ran_Away#rss-sm



So I thought the autopsy was some sort of death blow to the testimony from the witnesses who saw Wilson firing at Mike Brown's back. Seems that's exactly what happened. And we also know Wilson went running after Brown, since his body was found 35' from the SUV where everyone says Brown and Wilson scuffled. So why was Wilson firing at someone who was running away? Why did Wilson run far enough to meet up with Brown? Why, if brown was "charging" Wilson, was Brown's body not found close to the SUV? Why does this not fit in with exactly what the autopsy and the witnesses say?

Answer: it doesn't. But phony "skeptics" will pretend it does.

All irrelevant.

This dude stole some cigars. You can't allow lawlessness like that in civilized society.
 
So, according to "law enforcement officials", Wilson did, in fact, shoot at Brown while he ran away.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/art..._Fired_at_Michael_Brown_as_He_Ran_Away#rss-sm



So I thought the autopsy was some sort of death blow to the testimony from the witnesses who saw Wilson firing at Mike Brown's back. Seems that's exactly what happened. And we also know Wilson went running after Brown, since his body was found 35' from the SUV where everyone says Brown and Wilson scuffled. So why was Wilson firing at someone who was running away? Why did Wilson run far enough to meet up with Brown? Why, if brown was "charging" Wilson, was Brown's body not found close to the SUV? Why does this not fit in with exactly what the autopsy and the witnesses say?

Answer: it doesn't. But phony "skeptics" will pretend it does.

Good questions, some may have exculpatory answers but others probably indicative of the fact that Officer Wilson did not display good judgement or protocol in initiating that encounter in the way that he did. That may have been a warning shot he fired from behind, which is not often done due to the fact those bullets can miss the target but hit some innocent 100 yards away, or he may have been firing at a fleeing felony suspect that just attacked him. It may also have been an error on the part of the NYT or their source.

Regarding the highlighted portion, which witnesses have them scuffling 35' out or was that just a typo or brainfart? All that I have found (that claimed to see that part of the encounter) say something happened initially at the police vehicle, but I do not recall anyone saying that they actually met 35' out.
 
Brown and Wilson are both running away from the SUV.

They are both far away from the SUV when they both stop, but they are still 10 or so feet apart.

Brown can then run at Wilson, get within a few feet, and still be 35 feet away from the SUV when shot.

I don't see a problem with that part.
 
I'm not ready to buy into Wilson shooting at Michael while he was running/walking away. It just seems unlikely that anyone would stop after being shot at, exchange a few words, then charge someone who just fired a gun in his direction. There would be no question about whether or not the officer would shoot if he had already done so, and would be equivalent to a "suicide by cop".

Disclaimer: The above makes assumptions about things that are hearsay at this time. It is just speculation.
 
As they should. Like I've already said armed cops should not be shooting unarmed individuals. I don't care if they are being bull rushed, slammed into cars or incapacitated by the Jedi mind tricks. They only get to use that gun when someone else present has one and intends to use it against them.


No offense, but if someone is attempting to stab me to death and I cannot escape but I do have a gun, I'm shooting them.
 
Now there is an outcry about the Grand Jury Procedures being secret.
That's the way it is in most US jurisdictions, since Grand Juries handle a lot of raw data which would be inadmissible during a trial, and,if they decided not to indict, could damage the suspected individual's reputations.

I can understand a layman not being aware of this, but a couple of the people screaming about this were lawyers, and I have to put it down for them to sheer demogogary.
Fail.
 
No offense, but if someone is attempting to stab me to death and I cannot escape but I do have a gun, I'm shooting them.

Nope. You must carry an example of every sort of weapon you might face.

gun
knife
hatchet
brick
baseball bat
broken bottle
tire iron

etc.

Whatever the assailant has, you have to get out your version, and go at it.
 
I'm not ready to buy into Wilson shooting at Michael while he was running/walking away. It just seems unlikely that anyone would stop after being shot at, exchange a few words, then charge someone who just fired a gun in his direction. There would be no question about whether or not the officer would shoot if he had already done so, and would be equivalent to a "suicide by cop".

Disclaimer: The above makes assumptions about things that are hearsay at this time. It is just speculation.

If you take away the part about charging at Wilson then you have almost exactly what the witnesses said happened.
 
Well, if Wilson was indeed firing at Brown as he fled and Wilson pursued, and Brown was hit six or eight times, with all but one round from the front, then it means that Wilson fired a lot more than six or eight rounds.

Wilson must have fired more like 12 rounds. Several as Brown fled that mostly missed, maybe one that grazed Brown, and then the ones that entered from the front. Plus the one near the vehicle.

So we should have a lot more than 6 empties on the ground.

All three autopsies apparently agree about the rounds that struck Brown coming from the front.
 
Last edited:
Well, unless there's some sort of big leak, it seems like we are now waiting on the GJ to chime in, which is apparently about a month and a half away.


Honestly, at this point, the only place I trust for this situation to be dealt with is in the courts.

I've had enough of the mob mentality on all sides of this mess.
 
Well, if Wilson was indeed firing at Brown as he fled and Wilson pursued, and Brown was hit six or eight times, with all but one round from the front, then it means that Wilson fired a lot more than six or eight rounds.

Wilson must have fired more like 12 rounds. Several as Brown fled that mostly missed, maybe one that grazed brown, and then the ones that entered from the front. Plus the one near the vehicle.

So we should have a lot more than 6 empties on the ground.

And nine holes someplace else *. :eye-poppi
Them things don't evaporate as they travel, they hit something.

* Three bullets were removed from Michael Brown, for those keeping score at home.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom