Michael Brown shooting II

[The Central Scrutinizer]

This story gives a fuller account of what is alleged to be Wilson's account. (see my pervious post about the leaks, if it is approved.) In it, Wilson and Brown struggle with the gun only after Wilson draws it on Brown.

If true, it derails some of the narrative that Brown tried to take Wilson's gun. Rather, Wilson draws the gun on Brown and Brown tries to prevent Wilson from shooting him.

Still many unknowns.

He could have prevented Wilson from shooting him by not attacking him. He could have prevented the whole thing by not committing a strong arm robbery.

 

[RandFan]

When someone's a danger to the community (e.g., a robbery suspect who goes for a cop's gun), the police can use lethal force, even when they're running away.[/edit]

Having just debated this topic, AIU, the perpetrator must have the immediate ability to harm others. If Brown were charging towardss people or if Brown were armed I think that would be justifiable. I'm not sure attacking a police officer is demonstrative of someone who is a present danger to the community.

 

[WildCat]

This story gives a fuller account of what is alleged to be Wilson's account. (see my pervious post about the leaks, if it is approved.) In it, Wilson and Brown struggle with the gun only after Wilson draws it on Brown.

If true, it derails some of the narrative that Brown tried to take Wilson's gun. Rather, Wilson draws the gun on Brown and Brown tries to prevent Wilson from shooting him.

Still many unknowns.

That story says Brown assaulted Wilson prior to the gun being drawn.

 

[Mike!]

This story gives a fuller account of what is alleged to be Wilson's account. (see my pervious post about the leaks, if it is approved.) In it, Wilson and Brown struggle with the gun only after Wilson draws it on Brown.

If true, it derails some of the narrative that Brown tried to take Wilson's gun. Rather, Wilson draws the gun on Brown and Brown tries to prevent Wilson from shooting him.
Still many unknowns.

AFTER being punched in the head by Brown.

 

[Fudbucker]

Just to be clear, you are arguing that he'd be justified in shooting an unarmed teenager in the back as he fled?

There was no way to for Wilson to know Brown was unarmed.

And yes, if Brown went for Wilson's gun (especially after just committing a robbery) Wilson would have been justified shooting Brown as he ran away:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner

 

[Upchurch]

hm.

Expert: My Michael Brown Autopsy Analysis Was Taken 'Out Of Context'

But Melinek told MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell on Wednesday that her comments had been taken "out of context" and that she believed the findings could be explained by other scenarios as well.

"What happens sometimes is when you get interviewed and you have a long conversation with a journalist, they're going to take things out of context," she said. "I made it very clear that we only have partial information here. We don't have the scene information. We don't have the police investigation. We don't have all the witness statements. And you can't interpret autopsy findings in a vacuum."

 

[Unabogie]

Eyewitnesses who independently corroborate the Officer Wilsons story, and whose story is corroborated by the forensic evidence. Yeah, that's pretty solid evidence when compared to friends of Michael Brown who told an unbelievable story about a racist officer who executed the gentle giant for walking while black.

Which eyewitnesses? What are their names? Oh? You don't even know the names of the witnesses who you've already decided are telling the truth? How is that accurately labeled "skepticism" in any way? By the way, the coroner says she was taken out of context.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/judy-melinek-ferguson-autopsy-report-msnbc

Judy Melinek, one of the forensic experts who was quoted by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on Tuesday about the Michael Brown autopsy report, is taking issue with how the newspaper portrayed her comments.

The key piece of Melinek's analysis, according to the Post-Dispatch's original report, was that the report of Brown's autopsy "supports the fact that this guy is reaching for the gun, if he has gunpowder particulate material in the wound. If he has his hand near the gun when it goes off, he’s going for the officer’s gun.”

That would be consistent with Ferguson, Mo., police officer Darren Wilson's version of events, as reported by the New York Times and others. Melinek was also paraphrased by the newspaper saying that the autopsy was inconsistent with witness accounts of Brown having his hands up in surrender when he was shot by Wilson.

But Melinek told MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell on Wednesday that her comments had been taken "out of context" and that she believed the findings could be explained by other scenarios as well.

So in fact, this report doesn't get us any further along than we were before, but you act like it's definitive. As for the other witnesses, you know full well there are multiple witnesses who dispute Darren Wilson's story (can he rightly be called an officer at this point?) and only one of them was his friend. The rest were just people witnessing what they considered a murder. That you choose to disbelieve all of them because "eyewitnesses are unreliable", but then immediately believe unnamed, unvetted witnesses who you've never even heard, is a problem, not a virtue.

No, just one standard - skepticism.

This is laughably false.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

hm.

Expert: My Michael Brown Autopsy Analysis Was Taken 'Out Of Context'

The key piece of Melinek's analysis, according to the Post-Dispatch's original report, was that the report of Brown's autopsy "supports the fact that this guy is reaching for the gun, if he has gunpowder particulate material in the wound. If he has his hand near the gun when it goes off, he’s going for the officer’s gun.”

This is weak sauce from her. All she really says is " she believed the findings could be explained by other scenarios as well."

She doesn't ever seem to actually deny that her autopsy results support Wilsons story.

 

[RandFan]

There was no way to for Wilson to know Brown was unarmed.

And yes, if Brown went for Wilson's gun (especially after just committing a robbery) Wilson would have been justified shooting Brown as he ran away:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner

I posted that earlier. I've read it a half dozen times. I might have missed something. It wouldn't be the first time.

Could you quote the text that demonstrate the claim that Wilson was a asonable threat to the officer?

• Brown was not armed.
• Wilson was armed and absent a weapon Brown could not take cover and return fire.
• If Brown was charging Wilson (at the moment it seems the most likely scenario but not the only possible scenario) then Wilson would have been justified.
• If Brown was fleeing and unable to pose a credible threat to the officer.
• If Brown was fleeing and he was not moving toward anyone then It seems questionable. I would need to know more.
• Legal scholars and experts in law enforcement might have data on such incidents and the data may show that such individuals are statistically likely to harm others. If that data exists then Wilson was justified.

Perhaps we ought not rush to judgement just yet.

Tennessee v. Garner

The Court of Appeals held that the killing of a fleeing suspect is a "seizure" for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment, and is therefore constitutional only when it is reasonable. The court then found that based on the facts in this case, the Tennessee statute failed to properly limit the use of deadly force by reference to the seriousness of the felony

On the basis of the facts found by the district court, Hymon had no reason to believe that Garner was armed or dangerous. White ordered the case to be remanded for determination of the liability of the other defendants.

If I had to geuss it would be that Wilson charged Brown. His head was down he could have had his arms outstreatched and the witnesses edited their memories as so often happens.

 

[Mumbles]

So wait, no more "Fatima"? Now eyewitnesses, who of course are not even named in your story, are suddenly solid evidence? Weird. It's almost as if you've got one standard for witnesses you like, and another for ones you don't. Isn't there a term for that?

You missed the real question. An anonymous source, that cites "seven or eight" anonymous witnesses? I have to ask, which is it? Seven, or eight?

Meanwhile, we have video of two people who, mere minutes after the shooting, recorded shouting at Wilson statements like "Why did you shoot him?" and "He had his hands up." Both of whom have been identified and given late interviews to the public.

 

[Upchurch]

He could have prevented Wilson from shooting him by not attacking him. He could have prevented the whole thing by not committing a strong arm robbery.

That story says Brown assaulted Wilson prior to the gun being drawn.

AFTER being punched in the head by Brown.

A story that the expert cite now says was taken out of context.

Regardless, if that is what actually happened (and remember that we don't know that it is), that means Wilson escalated the situation by drawing his weapon and bringing it into play in close quarters rather than putting some distance between them first. Recall that nothing restrained his right foot, which should have been very close to the SUV's accelerator.

There was no way to for Wilson to know Brown was unarmed.

And yes, if Brown went for Wilson's gun (especially after just committing a robbery) Wilson would have been justified shooting Brown as he ran away:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner

No way for him to know except that Brown never drew a firearm, even after being shot. Wilson had no reason yet given to believe that Brown posed a significant threat to the community.

 

[johnny karate]

You don't remember "Josie" earlier in the thread ?

​

That Josie.

The Josie who claimed Brown rushed Wilson at full speed, which zero witnesses corroborate, including the new star witness everyone has fallen in love with?

Remind me again, why do we accept third-hand accounts as valid evidence? And why do we conveniently ignore the parts of the third-hand account that are contradicted by other evidence?

That wasn't my claim , why are you asking me ? However, at this point, yes there is forensic evidence.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_e98a4ce0-c284-57c9-9882-3fb7df75fef6.html

No, that's not forensic evidence. That's what a newspaper reported as forensic evidence that everyone with a predetermined conclusion instantly believed.

Here, I'll let the actual forensic scientist explain it to you.

Not really any need to address this at this point, is there ?

Of course there is. Please proceed.

 

[johnny karate]

Whatever happened to that devastating recording that purportedly somehow proved brown was shot from behind ?

Seems that was totally not the case.

The forensic scientist you cited earlier seems to disagree:

The shot to the back of Brown’s upper arm, Melinek said, suggested he could have been shot from behind.

I hope that helps you in your quest for the unbiased truth.

 

[johnny karate]

The key piece of Melinek's analysis, according to the Post-Dispatch's original report, was that the report of Brown's autopsy "supports the fact that this guy is reaching for the gun, if he has gunpowder particulate material in the wound. If he has his hand near the gun when it goes off, he’s going for the officer’s gun.”

This is weak sauce from her. All she really says is " she believed the findings could be explained by other scenarios as well."

She doesn't ever seem to actually deny that her autopsy results support Wilsons story.

It's really strange that you embrace what you think her findings say but dismiss what she explains her findings say.

Don't you think the forensic scientist who made the report is the best judge of what that report actually says?

And walk me through the logic of this: How can inconclusive results be said to corroborative one particular narrative?

 

[WildCat]

A story that the expert cite now says was taken out of context.

Huh? That part was from Wilson's testimony, not some expert opinion.

Regardless, if that is what actually happened (and remember that we don't know that it is), that means Wilson escalated the situation by drawing his weapon and bringing it into play in close quarters rather than putting some distance between them first. Recall that nothing restrained his right foot, which should have been very close to the SUV's accelerator.

It's pretty much the job description of a police officer to escalate the situation, not run away whenever a suspect resists.

 

[Fudbucker]

I posted that earlier. I've read it a half dozen times. I might have missed something. It wouldn't be the first time.

Could you quote the text that demonstrate the claim that Wilson was a asonable threat to the officer?

• Brown was not armed.
• Wilson was armed and absent a weapon Brown could not take cover and return fire.
• If Brown was charging Wilson (at the moment it seems the most likely scenario but not the only possible scenario) then Wilson would have been justified.
• If Brown was fleeing and unable to pose a credible threat to the officer.
• If Brown was fleeing and he was not moving toward anyone then It seems questionable. I would need to know more.
• Legal scholars and experts in law enforcement might have data on such incidents and the data may show that such individuals are statistically likely to harm others. If that data exists then Wilson was justified.

Perhaps we ought not rush to judgement just yet.




If I had to geuss it would be that Wilson charged Brown. His head was down he could have had his arms outstreatched and the witnesses edited their memories as so often happens.

Wilson had no idea if Brown was armed or not. All he knew was that he had just been attacked, and Brown went for his gun. Wilson said he feared for his life. Plus, Brown and Johnson matched the description of an alert that had just gone out about a robbery (Johnson's clothing matched the description, and Brown had cigars in his hand).

Robbing a store, attacking a cop and going for his piece makes you a danger to the community.

If we're to believe Wilson's account of things. It's a moot point anyway. Brown wasn't shot in the back.

 

[Wolrab]

A story that the expert cite now says was taken out of context.

Regardless, if that is what actually happened (and remember that we don't know that it is), that means Wilson escalated the situation by drawing his weapon and bringing it into play in close quarters rather than putting some distance between them first. Recall that nothing restrained his right foot, which should have been very close to the SUV's accelerator.
No way for him to know except that Brown never drew a firearm, even after being shot. Wilson had no reason yet given to believe that Brown posed a significant threat to the community.

Unless he can also turn the key (if the engine was off), and shift into gearwith his right foot, you may have a point. His hands were probably a little busy just then.

 

[Upchurch]

It's pretty much the job description of a police officer to escalate the situation, not run away whenever a suspect resists.

A suspect for what? Not the robbery, assuming you take the police chief at his word. The police don't make mistakes, do they?

Say, you don't suppose it might make sense to be skeptical of the Ferguson Police? From time to time?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Which eyewitnesses? What are their names? Oh? You don't even know the names of the witnesses who you've already decided are telling the truth? How is that accurately labeled "skepticism" in any way?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...4-11e4-bd61-346aee66ba29_story.html?TID=SM_FB

Seven or eight African American eyewitnesses have provided testimony consistent with Wilson’s account, but none have spoken publicly out of fear for their safety, The Post’s sources said.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_ab6e1e03-c49a-5c7f-8786-b0e88ec79349.html

Among the recollections of the witness, who agreed to an interview on the condition that his name not be used, were:

• After an initial scuffle in the car, the officer did not fire until Brown turned back toward him.

It's as skeptical as believing every other media report of what a witness said that you must be basing your beliefs about the case on.

By the way, the coroner says she was taken out of context.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/judy-melinek-ferguson-autopsy-report-msnbc

By the way, the coroner confirmed that the wounds were consistent with Wilsons story. How is that out of context ??

So in fact, this report doesn't get us any further along than we were before, but you act like it's definitive. As for the other witnesses, you know full well there are multiple witnesses who dispute Darren Wilson's story

Yes, there were. Multiple witnesses who knew mike brown, multiple witnesses who spoke together before they ever spoke to the police.

And apparently, at least 7 or 8 witnesses who reported seeing an event consistent with officer wilsons story.

(can he rightly be called an officer at this point?)

Yes, why wouldn't he be ?

and only one of them was his friend.

False.

The rest were just people witnessing what they considered a murder. That you choose to disbelieve all of them because "eyewitnesses are unreliable", but then immediately believe unnamed, unvetted witnesses who you've never even heard, is a problem, not a virtue.

This is laughably false.

Because you say so.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

The Josie who claimed Brown rushed Wilson at full speed, which zero witnesses corroborate, including the new star witness everyone has fallen in love with?

So you do recall, then. Why feign ignorance ?

Remind me again, why do we accept third-hand accounts as valid evidence? And why do we conveniently ignore the parts of the third-hand account that are contradicted by other evidence?

Who accepted it as "valid evidence" (whatever that means) ? All we did was discuss it at the time, as the only possible account of wilsons, so we discussed whether it aligned with the other info we had.

No, that's not forensic evidence. That's what a newspaper reported as forensic evidence that everyone with a predetermined conclusion instantly believed.

Here, I'll let the actual forensic scientist explain it to you.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_e98a4ce0-c284-57c9-9882-3fb7df75fef6.html

That's opinions of 2 forensic pathologist that the newspaper reported. What specific claims did the newspaper make about her statements are incorrect due to being out of context ?

What about the claims of Dr. Michael Graham ? Are they out of context as well ?