Michael Brown Shooting

[Distracted1]

[IMGw=200]http://i.imgur.com/d5l5lc5.png[/IMGw][IMGw=200]http://i.imgur.com/RKq96Ok.png[/IMGw]

Using the 20ft Google map scale comparing my street to Canfield Dr, mine is 22, Canfield is 28.

There, happy?

Makes absolutely no difference in my argument (as I already said). It's a residential street and no cop here in my world would ever care that someone was walking in the middle of a residential street unless there was a reason in addition to just being in the street.

Cops here don't hassle people for such minor things and the fact this cop did is consistent with what we've also found out about the antagonistic relationship between the cops and citizens in Ferguson.

An antagonistic relationship is often a two- way - street. Sometimes one that is somewhere between 20 and 28 feet wide

 

[Upchurch]

You realize that in your post you completely disregard concrete evidence of the very man involved in the shooting, ten minutes before it happened behaving badly, then go on tot say that because some other cops, at other times have behaved badly, officer Wilson ( the accused ) does not get the benefit of the doubt.

That seems logically inconsistent without attributing a degree of bias to the reasoning.

You misunderstand. My reference to other cops behaving badly is an argument against giving Wilson the benefit of the doubt merely on the basis that he is a cop. To do so amounts to an argument from authority, which is, of course, a logical fallacy.

Ultimately, Wilson is the one who violently killed another human being. Assuming Wilson doesn't contest that when he finally tells his tale, he has lost the presumption of innocence. It is entirely possible that it was in self defense, but it is now on Wilson to prove that.

Of course, that is working under the assumption that the law works the same for police as it does for everyone else.

 

[Distracted1]

I would add a third. The police were responding to a call about a clearly disturbed person, but made no attempt to deescalate the situation. They just got out of the car with guns drawn and barked orders.

The urge to post videos of other people acting badly as evidence that "X" is a member of group " A", and this video clearly shows another member of group "A " acting badly in a situation similar to the one under discussion is IMA non productive. I started down that road myself, but that way lay madness.

 

[davefoc]

I would add a third. The police were responding to a call about a clearly disturbed person, but made no attempt to deescalate the situation. They just got out of the car with guns drawn and barked orders.

Thank you. That was exactly my thinking which I failed to express completely. The cops have plenty of time to figure out how they're going to handle a disturbed individual. There are several of them so at least some of them can have their guns out to deal with situation if necessary while they wait to see if negotiation and tasers if necessary don't work.

I think it's also key that the victim didn't make a move that showed he intended a knife attack. Knife attacks either start from below and continue with an upward thrust or they start from above and continue with a downward thrust. At no time did the victim ever move quickly towards the cops.

This was a shooting with very little justification and I notice the police chief immediately came to the defense of his officers. One big problem is that sometimes popularity is more important to police chiefs than leadership. That appears to be a serious problem in that police department.

 

[davefoc]

The urge to post videos of other people acting badly as evidence that "X" is a member of group " A", and this video clearly shows another member of group "A " acting badly in a situation similar to the one under discussion is IMA non productive. I started down that road myself, but that way lay madness.

I posted a link to the video I think you are referring to.

In most instances I would agree with your point. In this instance the video made me rethink assumptions I had made about the likely behavior of police in shooting situations. The police acted with much less provocation than I would have expected and they failed to make any attempt to use non lethal weapons that I would have expected and the police chief rather than waiting for an investigation to make the facts clear immediately became a defender of his officer's actions. The was more than enough to make me reassess my previously expressed views of what probably happened because the video provided evidence that my guesses were based on false assumptions on my part.

 

[Mumbles]

Thank you. That was exactly my thinking which I failed to express completely. The cops have plenty of time to figure out how they're going to handle a disturbed individual. There are several of them so at least some of them can have their guns out to deal with situation if necessary while they wait to see if negotiation and tasers if necessary don't work.

I think it's also key that the victim didn't make a move that showed he intended a knife attack. Knife attacks either start from below and continue with an upward thrust or they start from above and continue with a downward thrust. At no time did the victim ever move quickly towards the cops.

This was a shooting with very little justification and I notice the police chief immediately came to the defense of his officers. One big problem is that sometimes popularity is more important to police chiefs than leadership. That appears to be a serious problem in that police department.

I'm not so sure. Cops should have training in how to identify and subdue a mentally ill person, but sadly too many don't. There are certainly cases where a cop will use wildly unnecessary force on someone who is disturbed, but if they have a knife and are yelling "kill me!", and you're only ten-fifteen feet away, which can be covered remarkably quickly if they should decide to attack you, *and* you have no idea how to calm them down...well, I'd hate to be the guy making that decision.

ETA: I think I've said before that Ferguson-area PD have been rolling through residential streets blasting at anyone outside shows me that they're capable of being wildly overreactive, but in this case, it could just be lack of training.

 

[Distracted1]

You misunderstand. My reference to other cops behaving badly is an argument against giving Wilson the benefit of the doubt merely on the basis that he is a cop. To do so amounts to an argument from authority, which is, of course, a logical fallacy.

Ultimately, Wilson is the one who violently killed another human being. Assuming Wilson doesn't contest that when he finally tells his tale, he has lost the presumption of innocence. It is entirely possible that it was in self defense, but it is now on Wilson to prove that.

Of course, that is working under the assumption that the law works the same for police as it does for everyone else.

The obligations police accept as part of their job makes the law a little different for them.

If I stopped Mr. Brown and attempted to instruct him as to where he should walk, and events unfolded in such a way leading to his death, I would not find it unreasonable to be arrested. I do not hold a public trust to apprehend criminals. ( AKA a certain person in a certain state with a panhandle ). I don't it to work exactly the same way for someone who's job description makes incidents like that very possible, so possible in fact that there are rules of conduct spelled out in the expectation that something like that can happen.

Even if Canada were to attack the US, I do not have the personal authority to go to war with them. It's important that we put some distinction between the people who hold that position and those who do not.

 

[casebro]

Darrien Johnson could go up on murder charges as being an accomplice to a crime (assault on officer Wilson) in which somebody got killed.

I think he had plenty of reason to lie about what happened. And it would have been an easy task to talk his friends into agreeing with his lies.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So the anti Wilson scenario here is that Wilson harassed a couple of kids for no particular reason although the theory that he did it because they were walking in the street is just a pretext he created to justify hassling them?

That might be some people's scenario, but in my case I don't think it was a pretext so much as an habitual antagonistic relationship. I suggest it is standard operating procedure for cops in Ferguson to see young black men as lawbreakers, and seeing these two in the middle of the street was viewed with that confirmation bias.

A cop in Bellevue where I live would have seen two kids walking in the middle of a residential street and not thought much about it. If the cop thought it was an obstructing traffic issue, he/she might have politely said, there's a sidewalk for a reason, or something like that.

Certainly an order, with profanities or not, to get out of the street is not something I would expect to see. I would think Wilson told them to get out of the street because that's how most of the police in Ferguson approach young black men, with an order. And the young men argued and didn't jump to it. That set up the next part of the scenario.

In the process Wilson brings his car into contact with Brown who pushes the door away which hits Wilson by accident. This pisses Wilson off who starts to grapple with Brown, but then decides to take a shot at Brown again for no particular reason.

Or pulls his gun, not to defend himself, but to make that young black man that isn't cooperating do so.

What is Wilson's motivation in all this? Is he just looking for the pretext to shoot a black kid? Is it some kind of wild coincidence that the black kid had just committed a strong arm robbery? But he's really a nice kid who would never assault a police officer?

No, he's pissed the two didn't immediately respect his authority and he's going to make sure they change that attitude.

Right now, I'll give you there aren't enough facts to preclude a lot of possibilities, but I have trouble seeing one that has Brown completely innocent in all this. What is Wilson's motivation? Why did he pick this moment to engage with this kid?

Innocent is not being put forth. More like stupid, should have kowtowed to the cop because look what happened when they didn't. But I can also understand why Brown was stupid and given Wilson was in the position of authority, it was Wilson's job to deal with a stupid kid, not kill him because he didn't kowtow.

If your kid misbehaves, the adult in the position of authority doesn't beat the crap out of the kid to get respect, the parent should know how to manage the situation without the child coming to harm.

Police are in the same position, they have a responsibility not to use excessive force for a reason. People are going to piss the cop off, they are going to mouth off, they are going to do stupid things.

Isn't there a pretty good chance that the kid who may have been pretty excited after just committing a robbery is attempting to evade the police and he's just gotten away with one use of force to get away with a crime, why isn't it likely that he just did the same thing again?

I don't see it that way. The store clerk was half Brown's size and unarmed. And I don't see Brown all hyped up after committing a robbery. He stole cigars, he bullied the clerk. There's not much adrenalin in doing that.

Ordering two men to do something and they ignored the order, then maybe finding out they were robbery suspects, that is at a minimum going to have pissed the cop off and probably gave him a little adrenalin. But getting the door pushed into his face (or punched) and pulling his gun, now you are talking about a surge of adrenalin if it hadn't already happened.

One person is scared and runs, one is pissed and shoots.

 

[Distracted1]

You misunderstand. My reference to other cops behaving badly is an argument against giving Wilson the benefit of the doubt merely on the basis that he is a cop. To do so amounts to an argument from authority, which is, of course, a logical fallacy.

Ultimately, Wilson is the one who violently killed another human being. Assuming Wilson doesn't contest that when he finally tells his tale, he has lost the presumption of innocence. It is entirely possible that it was in self defense, but it is now on Wilson to prove that.

Of course, that is working under the assumption that the law works the same for police as it does for everyone else.

Wether he is within the letter of the law when he kills someone, even when not in self defense, is actually unclear, and that is likely to be quite a contentious issue when and if there is a trial of officer Wilson.

 

[Distracted1]

Darrien Johnson could go up on murder charges as being an accomplice to a crime (assault on officer Wilson) in which somebody got killed.

I think he had plenty of reason to lie about what happened. And it would have been an easy task to talk his friends into agreeing with his lies.

Lest someone label that a racist statement, I have lied to the police to protect a freinds' criminal act, and I am not a member of a minority group.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

My guess as to what occurred has changed a bit since watching this video of another shooting:

http://www.newsweek.com/new-video-police-shooting-2nd-man-st-louis-emerges-266041

That is so disturbing.

You watch that and still doubt Wilson could have shot Brown unnecessarily?

 

[casebro]

THC is a known kabal of racists and any info from that site should be taken with a 55 gallon drum of salt. They make no attempt to disguise their bias.

Are we talking about the same site- http://theconservativetreehouse.com/ ? I can't seem to find the TLA (three letter acronym) THC in the name. Typographical Dyslexia maybe, CTH?

Anyway, are their screen shot biased? Is their ID if people biased? Is their diagram on a overhead view biased? Is there location of the Media "Witnesses" biased?

 

[Upchurch]

The obligations police accept as part of their job makes the law a little different for them

As I said.

However, do you agree that the fact that Wilson is a cop does not grant him the benefit of the doubt and that his actions should be evaluated as objectively as the judicial system is capable of? If not, why not?

 

[Mumbles]

That might be some people's scenario, but in my case I don't think it was a pretext so much as an habitual antagonistic relationship. I suggest it is standard operating procedure for cops in Ferguson to see young black men as lawbreakers, and seeing these two in the middle of the street was viewed with that confirmation bias.

A cop in Bellevue where I live would have seen two kids walking in the middle of a residential street and not thought much about it. If the cop thought it was an obstructing traffic issue, he/she might have politely said, there's a sidewalk for a reason, or something like that.

Certainly an order, with profanities or not, to get out of the street is not something I would expect to see. I would think Wilson told them to get out of the street because that's how most of the police in Ferguson approach young black men, with an order. And the young men argued and didn't jump to it. That set up the next part of the scenario.

Or pulls his gun, not to defend himself, but to make that young black man that isn't cooperating do so.

Unfortunately, that happens far too often. I've seen any number of such examples among people of any race, where a cop gives an order, and instead of giving a ticket when the person doesn't comply, they fly off the handle. Unfortunately, this gets worse for black people, but especially young men. Sometimes, it simply makes no sense - I have no idea what this guy in NYC was even supposed to do.

No, he's pissed the two didn't immediately respect his authority and he's going to make sure they change that attitude.

SOunds like about what Johnson said - except I think it's more likely Brown was hit by the opening door and pushed it off of him.

 

[Mumbles]

Darrien Johnson could go up on murder charges as being an accomplice to a crime (assault on officer Wilson) in which somebody got killed.

I think he had plenty of reason to lie about what happened. And it would have been an easy task to talk his friends into agreeing with his lies.

Considering that
1) Police know where he is, have interviewed him, and have not arrested him,
2) He's on camera clearly refusing to take part in mere shoplifting,

No.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Actually, in order for the scenario asserted by SG and Unabogie to work, Mr. Brown must be shot once from the front while still at the vehicle.

Not sure why you think that but it's not true at all.

There are four hits to the arm, two to the head, and, a volley of 6 shots, a pause, 4 more shots.

If Wilson was shooting at Brown fleeing, some of those shots to the arm could have been while Brown was turning around. And/or one could have been with Brown turned away from Wilson.

Wilson is closing on Brown, Brown is moving forward toward Wilson during the 3 second gap. Wilson fires one more shot, Brown tries to get down, one second later Wilson fires the last 3 shots.

The shots to the arm do not change the scenario Brown was trying to get on the ground (or was falling to the ground) when he was killed.

 

[casebro]

Didn't you guys ever see the show "Cops" where consistently, the officer tells somebody to put the weapon down, and they don't? They tell them a gazillion times, and they just don't follow orders. They are unreasonable, insane maybe, over some petty grievance. And won't do what the cop orders.

 

[Mike!]

Are we talking about the same site- http://theconservativetreehouse.com/ ? I can't seem to find the TLA (three letter acronym) THC in the name. Typographical Dyslexia maybe, CTH?

Anyway, are their screen shot biased? Is their ID if people biased? Is their diagram on a overhead view biased? Is there location of the Media "Witnesses" biased?

There you go, trotting out facts again. How dare you. Can't you see the word "conservative" right there in their name? It doesn't matter how much right (as in correct) there is in there, it's completely contaminated with conservative cooties, so of course it's all suspect, and should be completely disregarded as such, you silly ninny.

 

[BenBurch]

... What is Wilson's motivation in all this? ...

Testosterone and contempt.