• 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.
Is it just me, or does anyone else here think that there is a ****-ton of evidence that hasn't been released yet? Shell casings, locations of everything, injuries to Wilson and Brown, etc...
Indeed, and understandable.

As has been said many times. it is not unusual to withhold information from the public during an ongoing investigation..

One of the reasons is that it cuts down on witnesses suddenly coming forward with information they didn't have until it was made public...

It's useful to have un-released information when questioning witnesses; it cuts down on confirmation bias...

" I know I heard seven shots ... Doesn't that match the number of shell casings they said they found ? "



I don't understand why this is difficult to grasp...
 
Last edited:
It might be that people in an exciting circumstance are notoriously unreliable witnesses regardless of race.

But surely you see how this skepticism is only going one direction. Michael Brady says Brown was punching at the cop. No one who supports Wilson here is doubting that part of his testimony, are they? No, they've completely accepted this, and will hear nothing further to refute it. If the store clerk gives his testimony about the cigarillos, no one will doubt that testimony simply because it's eyewitness testimony. It will be given complete credence, especially if it paints Brown in a bad light or confirms that Brown was robbing the store of those cigarettes. The only testimony that seems to get this treatment is the ones that say Darren Wilson shot Michael Brown after Brown had surrendered with his hands up. That's not skepticism, that's cherry picking.
 
Is it just me, or is there something weird about people who have decided to reject any eyewitness testimony as being inherently suspect, just because of the color/social status of the people who saw the shooting?


Who do you believe is doing this? What makes you say they are doing this?
 
Why would he run towards Wilson, and what evidence do we have that he did? Last time I checked, all of the eyewitness testimony said that Wilson had been chasing and shooting at Brown until Brown stopped, turned around, and put his hands in the air, and Wilson advanced on him and shot him, and continued to pump shots into him until he was on the ground.

Supposing a consistent trail of blood drops are found behind the body, it's possible that Brown could have run away, stopped, put his hands into the air. Then, in that moment, Officer Wilson decides to murder the young man. Wilson starts shooting so, in self-defense, Brown runs toward Wilson.

The unofficial police officer scenario is that Wilson fired, perhaps not intending to strike Brown. Brown stops, turns around, maybe even holds his hands up in the air. Then Brown decides, "You're not gonna shoot me," and "bum-rushes" Wilson.

Between the two, the second scenario sounds more plausible. If a still person takes gunfire, I'd expect the victim to twist, turn, duck, and or run away. (Away, not toward). That's not decision but an instinct. It's much more difficult to twist, turn, duck and dodge after one has gathered forward momentum.

Now, why on earth would Brown decide to rush a cop? Is that something that sounds ridiculous or stupid? As mentioned already, stealing cheap cigars fits the bill for stupid. It also seems impulsive. Just walk into a store that likely has video cameras, no mask, openly grab some cigars, and make a bigger scene with a show of force?

Between the two, we already know Brown's the one who has behaved stupidly and unlawfully. While it's possible Wilson's behavior is far more criminal, I think it's less likely.
 
I note it is always the people on the other side of the political divide who are "unbalanced and not skeptical".

I am convinced a lot of people here made up their minds five minutes after first hearing of the event ,basing on a political ideology,and simply filter out anything that disagrees with that ideology.

Maybe so. A few of us have already signed up for a ready admission that we were wrong. Precious few, but there are open minds to be found in this thread on this contentious issue.

I'm still keeping an open mind about what really happened. I must admit that hearing eyewitness testimony about someone getting shot in the back with their hands up seemed like a cold-blooded police murder. Can we safely say that (the highlighted portion) wasn't true?

I ask myself if this was Brown's first theft, especially considering the company he was keeping. He certainly seemed comfortable using his size to threaten others with violence.

We haven't seen any reports of Big Mike back in school, pounding lunch money out of smaller classmates. Maybe this was Brown's first foray into violent crime.

Why would he run towards Wilson, and what evidence do we have that he did? Last time I checked, all of the eyewitness testimony said that Wilson had been chasing and shooting at Brown until Brown stopped, turned around, and put his hands in the air, and Wilson advanced on him and shot him, and continued to pump shots into him until he was on the ground.
Why would he rob a convenience store? Who knows.

^^^This...and why would Wilson plug six shots into Brown's right side, instead of his center of gravity? There's a lot we don't know.

Is it just me, or does anyone else here think that there is a ****-ton of evidence that hasn't been released yet? Shell casings, locations of everything, injuries to Wilson and Brown, etc...

Absolutely. But that's on the FPD, who have done everything they can to resist releasing information. The police chief even claimed he didn't even know the number of times Brown was shot. They are instead engaging in selective leaks to favorable outlets like right wing blogs and Fox News in order to get a version of the story out there that's favorable to Wilson. The only things we have publicly are the autopsy and the word of multiple witnesses who were there.

Is it just me, or is there something weird about people who have decided to reject any eyewitness testimony as being inherently suspect, just because of the color/social status of the people who saw the shooting?

I'd like to see more evidence released, but I don't think FPD has been in charge of this investigation from day one. I believe St. Louis County is in charge now?
 
Absolutely. But that's on the FPD, who have done everything they can to resist releasing information.

What exactly is it they have done to "resist" releasing information ?

Evidence required.

The police chief even claimed he didn't even know the number of times Brown was shot.

You've brought this up a number of times. The chief had incomplete information at the time of the press conference and admitted it.
Why is this so important ? How does it affect whether the shooting was good or not ?


They are instead engaging in selective leaks to favorable outlets like right wing blogs and Fox News in order to get a version of the story out there that's favorable to Wilson.

Who is "they" ? In this context, it looks like you mean "the FPD".

Are you really proposing a conspiracy where the FPD are leaking info to only right wing outlets ? Who then is leaking things to ABC and the rest ?

The only things we have publicly are the autopsy and the word of multiple witnesses who were there.

Is it just me, or is there something weird about people who have decided to reject any eyewitness testimony as being inherently suspect, just because of the color/social status of the people who saw the shooting?

Based on your posts in this thread, I think a lot of it is "just you"
 
But surely you see how this skepticism is only going one direction. Michael Brady says Brown was punching at the cop. No one who supports Wilson here is doubting that part of his testimony, are they? No, they've completely accepted this, and will hear nothing further to refute it. If the store clerk gives his testimony about the cigarillos, no one will doubt that testimony simply because it's eyewitness testimony. It will be given complete credence, especially if it paints Brown in a bad light or confirms that Brown was robbing the store of those cigarettes. The only testimony that seems to get this treatment is the ones that say Darren Wilson shot Michael Brown after Brown had surrendered with his hands up. That's not skepticism, that's cherry picking.

I'll say that thus far it looks like the officer may have had justification but I'm not giving particular credence to anyone's stories. Happy?
 
Last edited:
I'll say that thus far it looks like the office may have had justification but I'm not giving particular credence to anyone's stories. Happy?

It's not about me being happy. I'm pretty well convinced that the law is written such that Wilson won't be charged and so we're not going to be getting much more information than we have now, which means this thing will never be "settled" and there will be no consensus, ever. I'm just noting that engaging in cherry picking of witness interviews is wholly inconsistent with being the Uber Skeptics some people have claimed themselves to be.
 
Is it just me, or is there something weird about people who have decided to reject any eyewitness testimony as being inherently suspect, just because of the color/social status of the people who saw the shooting?

Eye-witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. And while it's annoying for people to claim the mantle of "true skepticism," the broad skeptic movement has long prided itself on doubting witnesses more than the general public. People claim to see UFOs, or witnessed medical miracles.

One of my first encounters with academic take on the unreliability of eye-witness was in The Transcendental Temptation by Paul Kurtz, who mentions a couple university studies. One involved a woman(?) in a public setting, maybe a park, when a man comes by, then races off. The woman yells, "He took my radio!" Witnesses claimed they saw the radio in the man's hands. At least one person claimed to even identify the radio's brand. Of course, no radio was stolen because the victim never had a radio in the first place. People naturally fill in the gaps. We're also notoriously susceptible to suggestion. When people crowd around the scene afterward, their stories might converge not because they all saw the same thing, but because they talked about it.

While hostility to race can certainly cause people to make false assumptions -- "the black guy started it" -- let me ask you this: do you think people in that neighborhood are inclined to be antagonistic toward the police?
 
Well, I am on the side of not charging Wilson, or charging him with much less than a murder charge.

I believe he will be charged with murder due to political pressure, though.

I don't think charging him with manslaughter will do anything but enrage people.
 
Waiting until today to release the police incident report.

See story in Time magazine - apologies for no link.


http://time.com/3159680/ferguson-michael-brown-shooting-police-report/

The incident report, filed by the St. Louis County police department,

That "they" is not the FPD.

Let's see what else the article says:

And it will be for some time, according to Brian Schellman, a spokesman for the St. Louis County police department. Schellman told TIME that the department does not intend to release the “investigative” component of the incident report, the part that details Wilson’s version of events.

Schellman said that under the Missouri State “Sunshine” Law, the department was not required to release the information during a pending investigation. As a result, Wilson’s account of what happens will remain confidential unless it is presented by a prosecutor, Schellman said.


Doesn't look like either resisting or a conspiracy to me...
 
I'm sorry, do you have Scrut on ignore?

No. I've in fact criticized some of his behavior in this very thread.

That doesn't mean he's doing what you've accuse him of. What makes you say this is what he's doing? Being dismissive of the eyewitness stories, yes. Being snarky and on a high horse? Yes. Dismissing eyewitnesses because of their race (do we even know the race of more than Johnson?), or social class? No.

For a minute I thought you were going after people like myself, Mattus, LTC8K6, and Kestral, who have all talked about possible reasons these witnesses might be mistaken or lying, and the mechanisms that make eyewitness testimony unreliable. None of us have given undo weight to the rumored counter-witnesses reports. Besides that, we don't know the race or social class of the count witness reports either.
 
Indeed, and understandable. As has been said many times. it is not unusual to withhold information from the public during an ongoing investigation. One of the reasons is that it cuts down on witnesses suddenly coming forward with information they didn't have until it was made public... It's useful to have un-released information when questioning witnesses; it cuts down on confirmation bias... " I know I heard seven shots ... Doesn't that match the number of shell casings they said they found ? "
I don't understand why this is difficult to grasp...

Because there's something here you're not seeing. Normally the police do release information like the number of shots fired, the number of times the victim was hit. Normally they release it right away.

The danger in not releasing basic information is that it sets a dangerous precedent. It allows police departments to hide misconduct from public scrutiny. In a free society law enforcement is supposed to share pertinent information about public incidents. Only they sometimes don't, they sometimes withhold information. Sometimes when the only reasonable explanation seems to be, to protect themselves.

This is why we've had Freedom of Information laws passed, to force the authorities to release information they have no reasonable grounds for withholding. That these laws were necessary speaks volumes.
 
It's not about me being happy. I'm pretty well convinced that the law is written such that Wilson won't be charged and so we're not going to be getting much more information than we have now, which means this thing will never be "settled" and there will be no consensus, ever. I'm just noting that engaging in cherry picking of witness interviews is wholly inconsistent with being the Uber Skeptics some people have claimed themselves to be.

Now it's the law? Let's make a shorter list: what don't you have a problem/criticism about?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom