If there was no time for MB to taunt OW, how was there time to say he didn't have a gun and was giving up?
Because taunting takes longer than saying, "Don't shoot, I don't have a gun."
I found an opinion piece by a previous officer. Despite him being on the force
the article written isn't one sided or anything. He takes a lot into account, but at the end basically says no concrete judgement can be made until more information is available.
If anyone wants to read it:
http://www.officer.com/article/11675120/ferguson-facts-and-force
Sorry, but the article is very one sided.
a police officer performing a lawful act, asking two males to get out of the street.
Asking or ordering with profanities? He is essentially saying the cop is legally allowed to treat people anyway he feels. I don't find that unbiased.
we know that Brown does not run away and is not shot in the back with his hands raised as his companion and another witness have claimed.
That's not what witnesses said. Mitchell said Brown jerked. All three said Brown turned around and tried to give up. I don't recall any of them saying Brown raised his hands and was shot in the back.
What we don’t know is what events transpired after Brown assaulted Wilson in the patrol car and the final shot caused Brown’s death.
Was Brown stationary or did he rush toward the officer? We don’t know.
Like every other Wilson supporter, the eye-witness accounts are simply set aside and it would appear Wilson's saying Brown was charging at him, even though that is as illogical as a Richard Wiseman illusion, is given equal weight to multiple eye witness accounts.
Michael Brown was a big man – even at 18 years old, he was 6’4” tall and 292 lbs. Officer Wilson looks nowhere near that size in the photos we’ve seen.
I don't think the description "nowhere near that size" is exactly neutral. Wilson looks nearly as tall as Brown and he's not thin. Is Brown bigger? Sure. Is nowhere near that size an exaggeration? I think so.
So the media’s notion that Brown was “an unarmed teenager” is a simplistic assessment because Brown was certainly physically capable of beating Officer Wilson unconscious or causing his death.
That presumes Brown would taunt a man who already shot at him saying, "you won't shoot" and charges at a man 20-30 feet away while he actually is shooting at him. So the author of the article is not giving an unbiased account. He's giving an account that gives Wilson, not just every benefit of the doubt, but every benefit of nullified multiple eyewitness accounts.
Michael Brown could have run 30 feet within this same two second period.
We addressed this and that's an exaggeration. But it doesn't matter. Look where Brown's body is relative to the SUV. Wilson may have closed the gap, but Wilson would have had to run twice the distance away in order to run 30 feet back toward the SUV.
He had multiple opportunities to comply with the officer’s lawful authority and failed to do so and was subsequently shot and killed.
And this is supposed to be an unbiased account?
If by that he means, Brown should have got the
on the sidewalk, yes. Shouldn't have shoved the door, struggled with Wilson and shouldn't have run, yes. But just as the author tells us again and again, "we don't know", he doesn't know if Brown was shot trying to surrender.
I think you might be confusing the difference between legally relevant, and relevant to a discussion on an online forum. While the video from the store is NOT relevant, legally, to the investigation of the death of Mr. Brown. It can be used as evidence to his mind set when discussing the confrontation that led to his shooting on an internet forum. They mean two completely different things, the video is relevant to our discussion, not the investigation. Mr. Brown, nor Officer Wilson, are being tried here today, on this forum. The situation is being discussed, however.
I'm not confusing anything. The video did not need to be released at the time it was because of any legal reason. The feds specifically asked them not to release the video. I think they know the law about release of information requests. Rationalizing that it had nothing to do with Ferguson police trying to bias public opinion is an unsupportable conclusion.
Not to mention, how did the press even know about the robbery being connected to the shooting?
It has been confirmed up thread that Officer Wilson definitely knew about the robbery as it was communicated by dispatch before any shots were fired. See the timestamps on Cylinder's posts above. It was absolutely known. We can now disregard that as it is fact.
Regardless of Cylinder's post, there were mixed reports from the chief in his first press conference that Wilson had not heard the report, and later reports that he had. I don't know if he did or didn't and I also don't think it's relative anyway.
