• 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.
Unabogie said:
Seriously? Are you incapable of seeing spacial relationships? Darren Wilson was inside his car, with his hands holding Michael Brown's shirt. Wilson claims that at this time, he had his gun out and Brown attempted to grab it. He had to have had his gun out of the holster, since there's no other way Brown could have reached it. But Brown was either grabbing or punching Wilson, and Wilson grabbed his gun and shot him. There's no disagreement about this from any version of the story.
Click to expand...
I was seriously asking if there is an official release of what Officer Wilson claims, in as much detail as you describe.

BTW, you use the word hands ( plural) when describing the way in which this account has officer Wilson holding Mr. Browns shirt. Inconsistent with also holding, or going for his gun.
 
Distracted1 said:
It is an evidence supported conclusion that these witnesses were photographed talking together before making their statements.
Click to expand...
Without actually seeing the evidence, let's assume it's correct. It's evidence they were talking together before making their statements.

That's it, that's all. It's not evidence they colluded or changed their stories.

What do you think it's evidence of?
 
Distracted1 said:
In a hypothetical wherein you are accused of a capital crime. Wherein three witnesses provide "independent, corroborative testimony" against you, you would not find it relevant that the witnesses were photographed talking to each other before making their "independent" statements?
Click to expand...
If you want to go that route, it's a given the cop is going to lie and say he felt threatened whether he was or wasn't.

But no, I don't think it's evidence the witnesses colluded. There are little details these people would not necessarily have described the same way. If you are claiming they got their stories to match, or say they merely changed their memories listening to each other (we know memories are fungible like that), then you have to realize some of the small details would trip them up. But they don't. We not only have agreement in the witness accounts, the physical evidence also corroborates their accounts.

For example, they all report the shooting stopping, Brown trying to surrender and Wilson then delivering the final shots that dropped him. If they made that up, why does it match the audio?

If they made up the fact Brown was trying to surrender, regardless of how high his arms were raised, (because I think you have to put your arms down to get on the ground), the autopsy corroborates their stories, Brown was shot while his head was down and "bull-rushing" just doesn't fit any eye witness, let alone logic.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
Without actually seeing the evidence, let's assume it's correct. It's evidence they were talking together before making their statements.

That's it, that's all. It's not evidence they colluded or changed their stories.

What do you think it's evidence of?
Click to expand...

Exchanging cookie recipes perhaps?

Because there is no way they could have been talking about what just happened to a mutual friend,
or that one of them might get charged with murder for his part. Nuh-uh, cookies.
 
Distracted1 said:
Don't muddy the waters with 25 years worth of recordings of cops not behaving badly.

Conceded in advance that they know they are on camera. Yet, so do the criminals.
Click to expand...
And let's also not muddy the waters with decades of young black men acting like normal folk. :rolleyes:
 
Lerxst said:
Oh how different this case might be if there was only a dashcam in Wilson's SUV. <snip>
Click to expand...

It might not have been so different. First of all the dash cam would not have recorded the altercation alongside or in the SUV (if there was one). If you see the position of the SUV and Brown's body, the dash cam might've not have recorded the shooting either. It might just have footage of the adjacent houses while the incident takes place out of view.
 
WWBDD said:
:eye-poppi
Click to expand...
It surprises you they are all latching on to the ad hoc statements on one video after a right wing blog made a big deal that the statements on the video supposedly had key elements that proved all the witnesses were liars and there was some kind of smoking gun here Brown was charging at Wilson?

There is no smoking gun on that video, there is only a lot of reading between lines things that are not on the recording. But once one person suggested it, the rest of the sheeple latched on like it was gospel.

Tell me where on that recording anyone says Brown was charging Wilson, bull-rushing Wilson, running toward Wilson, or anything more aggressive than, "kept coming"? Kept coming only means kept coming in an aggressive manner if you ignore the fact it might also just be referring to surprise Brown had not yet dropped.
 
Last edited:
Distracted1 said:
I am not referring to the diagram, but to the statement of Dr. Baden that there were no gunshot wounds from the back, with the possible exception of a graze that could have come from either direction.
Click to expand...
That's interesting since HE NEVER SAID ANY SUCH THING!

He said that one shot could have come from the front or back, yes. But he also put his arms in various positions stating there were many possibilities of arm positions for all the shots.

But as long as you admit that ONE shot could have come from the back, how does that fit with the claim NO shots came from the back?
 
Last edited:
Unabogie said:
Agreed. I think this recording demolishes the "Josie" story, and I really hope Wilson told that lie to someone who wrote it down.
Click to expand...

I wondered about this. I thought the "Josie" story was that there was an altercation inside the car and the gun went off and then some time later Wilson gave chase and Brown charged but there didn't seem to be a significant pause between the first shot and the next shot. Is that what you are referring to. So what's the explanation and does it line up with the witness statements? Or am I just confused.
 
newyorkguy said:
It might not have been so different. First of all the dash cam would not have recorded the altercation alongside or in the SUV (if there was one). If you see the position of the SUV and Brown's body, the dash cam might've not have recorded the shooting either. It might just have footage of the adjacent houses while the incident takes place out of view.
Click to expand...

Good point.
 
newyorkguy said:
It might not have been so different. First of all the dash cam would not have recorded the altercation alongside or in the SUV (if there was one). If you see the position of the SUV and Brown's body, the dash cam might've not have recorded the shooting either. It might just have footage of the adjacent houses while the incident takes place out of view.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. A dash cam would only record video of what's ahead of the vehicle. At best, you'd have an official audio recording of the events, and maybe a crowd reaction, if anyone is standing in front of the vehicle. Of course, a body cam is an altogether different story.
 
Last edited:
casebro said:
Exchanging cookie recipes perhaps?

Because there is no way they could have been talking about what just happened to a mutual friend,
or that one of them might get charged with murder for his part. Nuh-uh, cookies.
Click to expand...
I take it you made no effort to read the post?
 
Lerxst said:
Oh how different this case might be if there was only a dashcam in Wilson's SUV.

....
Click to expand...

newyorkguy said:
It might not have been so different. First of all the dash cam would not have recorded the altercation alongside or in the SUV (if there was one). If you see the position of the SUV and Brown's body, the dash cam might've not have recorded the shooting either. It might just have footage of the adjacent houses while the incident takes place out of view.
Click to expand...

Brainster said:
Good point.
Click to expand...

Yes, but I think even if there had been clear video of the event everybody that watched it would have seen what they wanted to see and I'm not sure that it would have changed many minds. There is a strong tendency for some people to excuse just about any transgression by police as long as the victim is somebody they don't care much about. I thought that the video I posted a link to was a clear case of an inappropriate police shooting. Other people saw the same video and could find reasons to defend the police actions. I think the only defense of the police action is that it was based on panic by somebody that probably shouldn't be a police officer, so I wouldn't be clambering for jail time for the police officer but I think dismissal from the department would be appropriate. As it is, it looks like the police department is circling the wagons and nothing is going to happen. This kind of inaction supports the notion that the people of Ferguson needed to do something extreme to get something done about the problem. Unfortunately, the riots and looting have done harm to Ferguson that the town will not soon recover from.
 
davefoc said:
I wondered about this. I thought the "Josie" story was that there was an altercation inside the car and the gun went off and then some time later Wilson gave chase and Brown charged but there didn't seem to be a significant pause between the first shot and the next shot. Is that what you are referring to. So what's the explanation and does it line up with the witness statements? Or am I just confused.
Click to expand...

There's three sets of shots. One in the car, some more while giving chase, then four more which are likely the fatal shots. Josie claimed that between sets two and three, Brown stopped and taunted Wilson and then charged him. The tape makes that impossible since there is not enough time for this to have occurred.
 
Skeptic Tank said:
We have video of Michael Brown committing strong-arm robbery. A violent felony, and an action which requires one to be a thug (you cannot do it without being one.) Period.
Click to expand...


Nope. Not "period". Not everything is always black and white. There are clearly different levels of "violent felony strong-arm robbery". The way you post is completely binary, as if he had punched the clerk and took everything in the register. Except in real life he took a $3 box of cigars and shoved the clerk and intimidated him.

Both are bad behavior**, but both are not just as bad as each other. Would both be considered "strong arm robbery"? Quite likely. But the latter would be infinitely more likely to be pled (yeah I just spent 90 seconds googling whether to put pleaded, pled, or plead) down to a misdemeanor with a very small stint of community service. The former? Not so much.

And yet you make it binary. Anyone who has read this thread knows why you want to do that.


**I'm not going to use the word "thug" because that has been commandeered as a racist word. A white kid stealing a box of cigars and forcing his way past security would be much less likely to be called a thug by the average person in the USA.


Also, punching the clerk cold and shoving the clerk when he prevents you from leaving are not the same thing. Had the clerk not prevented him from leaving it would have just been very armature shoplifting. I am not excusing the shove, or admonishing the clerk for trying to stop the shoplifter from leaving the store (I used the word shoplifter there because at that moment in time it had not escalated yet).

For instance, let us assume the store was more crowded. Let us assume that the clerk was not 100% positive which person just grabbed the box of cigars. As far as I am aware he would not have a legal right to confine all persons to his store, but yet he blocks the doorway anyway. As far as I am aware random person would quite likely have justification to try and push the clerk out of the way to leave in that scenario. Even if that isn't the best hypothetical there are situations where you would be legally justified to push your way past someone. But are there situations where you would be legally justified to punch a teller? Not anywhere near as likely. Thus treating all strong arm robberies the same is quite telling of a position.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
And let's also not muddy the waters with decades of young black men acting like normal folk. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Be careful, you are bordering on painting yourself into a corner that no longer allows you to use " typical cops " behavior to conclude anything about officer Wilson. That would leave you with concrete evidence only of Mr. Browns' behavior that day.

After all this effort, do you really wish to be there?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom