• 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.
OnlyTellsTruths said:
Why are you imagining that all were when he was "charging"? Didn't the police state that there were shots fired in 3 separate time-frames in one of their press releases?

AFAIR they said there was:

1: One in the car.

2: An unknown number as the suspect fled. (We have since found from the Baden autopsy that only one of those was possibly a hit; unless of course the suspect was fleeing backwards (backpedaling) which no-one claims.)

3: An unknown number as the suspect returned aggressively. (We have since found from the autopsy that the majority, or all, of the hits were here.)


Also, that police statement correlates closely with one of the primary witnesses. That witness said one shot in the car, then some shots while the suspect fled (the witness interpreted one of these as a hit and that it made the suspect jump but that was likely the witness misreading the suspect flinch around in the fear that being shot at produces), and then the lethal volley of shots when the suspect turned around.


Both "sides" seem to agree on that basic grouping (though the actions of the suspect after he turned around are not agreed upon).

What is not as clear and agreed upon by the police and the witnesses are the exact facts on which the police officer was basing the right to shoot. I believe the police have claimed a punch to the face and a reach for the weapon, correct me if I am wrong.

I suspect more details than we have about those two facts, and potentially others, are being presented to the grand jury.

Also, they are openly, clearly, and specifically not claiming that the theft of the cigars or the jaywalking are part of that right to shoot.
Click to expand...
Given the new evidence (if it is validated and it looks like it will be since location and time of the recording are probably going to be verifiable) a different scenario emerges. (Some hear 11 shots on the audio, some think it is 10 and one sound is an echo.)

The shot from the car did hit Brown in the hand or arm. There are no powder burns because the gun was a couple feet away.

Brown runs and Wilson fires 6 shots (heard as a volley on the recording) while Brown is fleeing. Brown's arm is hit.

Brown stops, turns around, tries to surrender. He's moving forward because he's trying to get down on the ground.

Wilson fires 4 more shots (heard as the second volley on the recording), hitting Brown in the top of his head which is exposed as he bends over trying to get on the ground.


Now it may turn out there was a different sequence of events. Most witnesses say Wilson was firing at the fleeing Brown.

The one witness with a different account gives a bit of a confused statement:
Eyewitness: 'But him and the police was both in the truck, then he ran – the police got out and ran after him'
Eyewitness: 'Then the next thing I know he doubled back toward him cus - the police had his gun drawn already on him'
Man 1: 'Oh, the police got his gun'
Eyewitness: 'The police kept dumpin on him, and I’m thinking the police kept missing – he like – be like – but he kept coming toward him
(crosstalk)'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ered-Officer-Darren-Wilson.html#ixzz3BW7wD3KQ
Click to expand...
That could be interpreted as Wilson not shooting until Brown turned around. Then shooting 6 shots, pausing for a couple seconds and shooting 4 more.

But three other witnesses who were closer to the scene and saw the altercation from the struggle through the car window until Brown was killed say Wilson was shooting as Brown fled.

The audio of the gunshots, the fatal shots hitting the top of the head and 3 eye witnesses with a clear view of the shooting point toward the first scenario.

One witness who saw things from further away and we don't know at what point he saw the events might suggest Wilson only fired after Brown turned around.

It that's true, Wilson still has a serious problem. He stopped shooting, then shot Brown in the top of the head.

Getting down or falling down both are more likely and make more sense that an 18 yr old with no criminal record except he stole cigars and shoved a store clerk would suddenly 'bullrush' a cop who was shooting at him.

Of course if you're a racist and think Tiffany Mitchell was lying because she's black, and you think Brown, being black, must have been a hot head that would attack a cop shooting at him, then you are likely to fit that one witness's unclear account to suit your narrative.


Oh, and now the audio and the autopsy match the three witnesses. All said Wilson stopped shooting before shooting again and killing Brown.
 
Last edited:
I don't dismiss what the eyewitness believe to be what they saw. I just know perceptions may not agree with reality. Brains are funny that way.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
You mean this one where the car has no problem whatsoever getting around the people in the street?
[imgw=400]http://i.imgur.com/qLGxHsS.jpg[/imgw]

The width of a small sedan is about 5 feet. That makes the lane about 10 feet wide. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

[IMGw=400]http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/m532/abitofmystuff/Howwide_zps4f8da2ad.jpg[/IMGw]

5x5 = 25+ ( before you point out that the vehicles are overlapping, note that I keyed on the front of the vehicle with room to spare.. )

Nice way to manipulate the perspective to suit your purposes..
That's just dishonest.. The sort of thing you expect from Woos....

[IMGw=400]http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/m532/abitofmystuff/RW1BigJim1a_zpseec7e14d.jpg[/IMGw]

Did we miss where you explained why the width of the street matters?





We have already shown that four crown Viks would fit - over 25 feet..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wolrab said:
I don't dismiss what the eyewitness believe to be what they saw. I just know perceptions may not agree with reality. Brains are funny that way.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Knowing it is how we wound up on a skeptic's forum.
Long live uncertainty! In the end well probably have to go with the cop's account of what happened and unless evidence contradicts him, he walks.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Monketey Ghost said:
And how is it in the public's best interest for the officers we pay to patrol our streets to ignore said traffic violations? That's what I don't get. Of course the cop had a right, and a responsibility, to tell people to get out of the road.
Click to expand...
Because it's a total waste of taxpayer money to go around hassling kids in the middle of a narrow residential street.

Because that kind of hassling over such minor things contributes to the wider antagonistic relationship that the police and citizens in Ferguson have. It's bad policing and it's not just liberals saying that.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
You mean this one where the car has no problem whatsoever getting around the people in the street?
[imgw=400]http://i.imgur.com/qLGxHsS.jpg[/imgw]

The width of a small sedan is about 5 feet. That makes the lane about 10 feet wide. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Does it ? I really can't believe you keep coming back to this....

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Someone please tell me how a 20 vs 28 foot wide street makes a difference. Because they are both still narrow residential streets, not some busy heavily trafficked boulevard.

I can't believe anyone looking at those pictures thinks someone walking in that street calls for a cop harassing them.

Oh wait, I forgot about the racism colored glasses. Now I get it.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
Someone please tell me how a 20 vs 28 foot wide street makes a difference. Because they are both still narrow residential streets, not some busy heavily trafficked boulevard.
Click to expand...

You have got to be kidding! You are the one who insisted a narrower street was somehow a factor...
Please tell us why the width of the street makes any difference at all?
I can't believe anyone looking at those pictures thinks someone walking in that street calls for a cop harassing them.
Click to expand...

It doesn't.. The cop has sworn to uphold the laws that include restrictions on walking in the middle of a street.


I can't believe anyone thinks walking in the middle of the street is a right, that is worth being killed over...
 
Last edited:
For anyone interested, here is a scope depiction of the gun shot audio..




I wonder why the latter shots are somewhat quieter than the earlier ones. Maybe the guy doing the recording repositioned the mike after the first round, even though he did not seem to be reacting to the sound of the shots...
 
Skeptical Greg said:
You have got to be kidding! You are the one who insisted a narrower street was somehow a factor...

Please tell us why the width of the street makes any difference at all?
Click to expand...

It wasn't Septic Ginger who first brought up the width of the street. Another poster claimed it was wide and heavily trafficked, but in fact it's just two lanes wide with no shoulders or on street parking.

And here is some news for you. Cops sometimes hassel people with little or no cause. In a town like Furgeson where 40% of town revenues come from fines levied on the residents, it would be routine.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
You mean this one where the car has no problem whatsoever getting around the people in the street?
Click to expand...

A police officer's role is different from just some random motorist moving through the environment, his role is to enforce the law and maintain order. Admonishing some punk, thug felons to use the sidewalk rather than create a hazard and an obstruction by walking down the street is well within an officer's duties.

If he silently just navigated around them, they would take that as them winning the challenge they had thrown down to the society around them. Walking down the middle of the street or blasting loud, ear-shattering music are both done as challenges. "Who wants some?" - some young males are spoiling for a fight, and a chance to try to assert their dominance.
 
Kestrel said:
It wasn't Septic Ginger who first brought up the width of the street. Another poster claimed it was wide and heavily trafficked, but in fact it's just two lanes wide with no shoulders or on street parking.
Click to expand...

Yes, and then SG went on about how narrow the street was, and how that meant everyone should be walking in it, and not on the sidewalk. Because it was just like the road in front of her house everyone walks in the middle of.
Therefore wilson was a racist cop just hassling brown and johnson.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10187093&postcount=4001

Kestrel said:
And here is some news for you. Cops sometimes hassel people with little or no cause. In a town like Furgeson where 40% of town revenues come from fines levied on the residents, it would be routine.
Click to expand...

OK, and ?

ETA: And really, the most baffling part is why she can't just admit she was wrong about the width of the street after being shown half a dozen ways that it is wider than 20 feet.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
Because it's a total waste of taxpayer money to go around hassling kids in the middle of a narrow residential street.

Because that kind of hassling over such minor things contributes to the wider antagonistic relationship that the police and citizens in Ferguson have. It's bad policing and it's not just liberals saying that.
Click to expand...

In your opinion...and its interesting how you have no problem overstating the actions of the police while simultaneously understating the actions of Brown and Johnson. Wilson was "hassling" them while Brown and Johnson were doing nothing wrong. It is quite clear you are hopelessly biased.

So let's take your argument at face value and accept that bad policing is, as you state here, hassling kids (Brown nor Johnson are/were kids) for walking down the middle of narrow residential streets (you just finally admitted that the width of the street doesn't matter). This must mean that letting adults (that should know better) get away with "minor crimes" like robbery, assault, and blocking traffic is "good policing". Because yes you also argued that the robbery was a minor theft and shove of the store clerk.
 
The narrower the street, the less space to maneuver, so you should not be walking on it.
The wider the street, the faster cars go, making it unsafe to walk down the middle.
If only the was an alternative that allowed someone to walk down the sides of the road. Hell, they could even be made of concrete squares (interesting fact I learned recently: If the squares are the same length and width, the diagonal from opposing corners is shorter.) . Don't anyone steal my idea as I am going to patent it!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom