Michael Brown shooting II

Status
Not open for further replies.
I had already read it was corrected... I was hoping someone could link me either to the discussion here about the correction or whatever article they originally got the information from.
 
davefoc said:
The jibe was creative; that counts for something. Plus WC now has 54,689 posts, many of them advocating the right of center view on a left of center forum, so I suspect he isn't all that sensitive.

For some reason the link you posted isn't working for me but I think it was to Daily Kos article I linked to just a few posts prior to the link you posted. There was a brief discussion of the issue that followed. PhantomWolf provided what I thought was the best answer if you are trying to limit your reading on this:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10350385#post10350385

But if you feel a need to get the pulse of the more anti-Wilson posters you might want to just read through a bit more of the thread following my link. The anti-Wilson posts are sprinkled throughout.

my post:
Click to expand...

Thanks!
 
Here's the relevant part...

MS. ALIZADEH said:
Previously in the very beginning of this process I printed out a statute for you that was, the statute in Missouri for the use of force to affect an arrest.
So if you all want to get those out. What we have discovered, and we have been going along with this, doing our research, is that the statute in the State of Missouri does not comply with the case law.

This doesn't sound probably unfamiliar to you that the law is codified in a written form in books and they're called statutes, but courts' interpret those statutes. And so the statute for the use of force to affect an arrest in the State of Missouri does not comply with Missouri Supreme, I'm sorry, United States Supreme Court cases.

And so what Sheila has come up with is a statement of the law as to when an officer can use force to affect an arrest, that does track our Missouri Statute, but also takes into consideration what the Supreme Court says, okay. So the statute I gave you, if you want to fold that in half just so that you know don't necessarily rely on that because there is a portion of that that doesn't comply with the law. And then the thing that Sheila is giving you, that statement about use of force to affect an arrest, is that what you called it, is that the title.

MS . WHIRLEY: of force in making an arrest, yes.

MS. ALIZADEH: That does correctly state what when he can use deadly force in affecting an arrest, okay.

I don't want you to get confused and don't rely on that copy or that printout of the statute that I've given you a long time ago.

MS. WHIRLEY: Did you have a question?

GRAND JUROR: So we're to disregard this.

MS. ALIZADEH: It is not entirely, I don't know, Law enforcement officers use the law is on when an officer can use force and incorrect or inaccurate, but there is something in it that's not correct, ignore it totally.

GRAND JUROR: It is because of the federal?

MS. WHIRLEY: Of a Supreme Court case and we must follow Supreme Court of the United States. It is Tennessee v. Garner, not that that matters much to you.

GRAND JUROR: The Supreme Court, federal Supreme Court overrides Missouri statutes.

MS. ALIZADEH: As far as you need to know, just don't worry about that.

GRAND JUROR: All right.

MS. ALIZADEH: Just disregard that statute .

MS. WHIRLEY: We don't want to get into a law class.

That's that one and is that all you want to say on that?

MS. ALIZADEH: Yeah, I wanted to point that out.
Click to expand...
 
WildCat said:
This is a basic failure of comprehension. The body was 150' from the SUV, some people are assuming that Wilson never left the SUV and shot him from 50 yards away, a ridiculous scenario. KatieG and Mumbles should know this information by now, yet here we have them immediately, without a shred of critical thought, jump in and declare the police liars.

KatieG and Mumbles, have either of you even bothered to look at the evidence, or what Wilson's story actually was? These things are kind of important, details matter.
Click to expand...

No, I just breeze into various threads and post so I can get my post count up. :rolleyes:

Actually, yes I have been following this case since it hit the internet radar. I've seen the videos, the computer generated re-enactment, all types of articles from various sources, my diabetes related forum has a section on current events, so it's discussed their. I can't work so I spend a lot of time on the net. Does that qualify me to discuss this topic? Please kill the patronizing tone, it's very unbecoming.

If you (generic you) approach an incident with the idea that the police are always right, sometimes you can reach the wrong conclusion.
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
There were 2 contacts Wilson made with Brown and Johnson. The first one he told them to get out of the middle of the street, that's what that point of the transcript was about. He started to drive away, then realized they matched the description of the robbers and went back for the second contact, and it's the second one where the stuff went down.
Click to expand...

That's where he made his first mistake.
 
bobdroege7 said:
Something is wrong about your use of statistics: something about uniform priors, however I am not a statistician and I avoid the Holiday Inn express.
Click to expand...

I prefer to not stay at Holiday In Express myself. I only have a layman's background in statistics (I am a HUGE baseball fan, however. Things like WAR and VORP really gets the blood flowing, dontcha know! :D )
 
KatieG said:
That's where he made his first mistake.
Click to expand...

I think you're referring to the decision by Wilson (assuming Wilson's statement is true on this) to return to Brown & Johnson and confront them.

I agree with you. That seemed to be a significant error. It's confused but at the point in time he turns back to confront them I believe he knows they are suspects in a robbery. Why did he need to confront them before backup had arrived? I don't know of a good explanation for that. Confronting two probable robbers alone without a compelling reason to do so seems like a violation of the most standard police procedures to me. First, it seems like he shouldn't do it for his own safety, but secondly it could lead to something like what probably happened where he finds himself alone with little choice but to fire his weapon to save himself.

But as has been noted above, we don't know what happened just before and during that second interaction. Everybody involved is dead or has such strong reasons to lie that we are only left with guessing about what happened. I don't believe Johnson or Wilson and I'm not sure what that means about what really happened.
 
I see this thread is moving very quickly. Enough so I cannot keep pace. I have just one more thing to say:

I personally don;t like Michael Brown's mother a whole lot. She seems...."fake"....if you know what I mean.
 
WildCat said:
This is a basic failure of comprehension. The body was 150' from the SUV, some people are assuming that Wilson never left the SUV and shot him from 50 yards away, a ridiculous scenario. KatieG and Mumbles should know this information by now, yet here we have them immediately, without a shred of critical thought, jump in and declare the police liars.

KatieG and Mumbles, have either of you even bothered to look at the evidence, or what Wilson's story actually was? These things are kind of important, details matter.
Click to expand...

You're seriously still calling me out?
 
davefoc said:
I agree with you. That seemed to be a significant error. It's confused but at the point in time he turns back to confront them I believe he knows they are suspects in a robbery. Why did he need to confront them before backup had arrived? I don't know of a good explanation for that. Confronting two probable robbers alone without a compelling reason to do so seems like a violation of the most standard police procedures to me. First, it seems like he shouldn't do it for his own safety, but secondly it could lead to something like what probably happened where he finds himself alone with little choice but to fire his weapon to save himself.
Click to expand...

I disagree here, it's a cops job to deal with the situation. If they called in backup every time they had to do their job, it'd be a mess.
 
PhantomWolf said:
I disagree here, it's a cops job to deal with the situation. If they called in backup every time they had to do their job, it'd be a mess.
Click to expand...

Not really. Cops call for backup, even for routine traffic stops. Usually, a cop will receive a message over the radio about a burglary in progress, and the dispatcher will tell which units to go there. Usually, the dispatcher will send multiple units, and there is no need for a cop to call for back-up, as back-up is already on its way. Usually the units assigned a particular task will call for more back-up if things start to really go south.
 
Last edited:
davefoc said:
I am not quite sure what you are saying with regard to the release of the video. The problem with the release of the video was the way it was done. It looked like the police department was attempting to smear Brown as a way of indicating that the shooting was justified.
Click to expand...

I think the main problem with 'the way it was done' was the fact it took six days for it to come out officially which allowed the Canfield Urban Legend narrative to take hold. How else does a fact highly germane to this incident like that Michael Brown had just committed a felony on camera become an attempt to 'smear' as opposed to what it actually is which is indeed evidence that the shooting was justified?

Just because True Believers rebut actual (and highly relevant) evidence as a smear doesn't mean it's actually a smear, there might be something wrong with the perspective of the True Believers. Now had the police released evidence of Michael Brown kicking a puppy six months before I would agree that's most likely an attempt to smear, but not a felony theft from ten minutes before the shooting. At that point I think the rational mind should look askance at those peddling the rebuttal that it was a 'smear.'

It was a stupid thing to have done IMO. If they were going to release evidence they needed to release the evidence that provided information about the events related to the shooting including that video.
Click to expand...

The video was released as the result of FOI requests, I think it was a grave error to wait that long, they should have included it immediately in the facts of the case they were presenting to the press. That there had been an incident at the Ferguson Market shortly before was already public as of August 10th due to this Youtube. As you can see that guy is still peddling the Canfield Urban Legend and downplaying the theft of the cigarillos, trying to pretend that jaywalking was the cause of this incident and that the theft had nothing to do with it. What's also interesting is how he knows that the Ferguson Market didn't call police which offers a hint as to the subsequent odd behavior of the owners of that establishment. He could have found that out by asking them nicely, or perhaps he asked not so nicely...

At any rate, if you weren't following the issue at the time, that information holed below the waterline the narrative of St. Michael the jaywalker blown away by an out-of-control cop which had festered in the information void and become a movement with believers by the time it was officially released. At that juncture the ones who'd already sold out body and soul (literally in the case of the ones who went there to protest) to the original narrative are unlikely to be dissuaded and when presented with evidence contradicting their belief may well rationalize it away by blaming a police smear, but that's just indicative in my mind of the importance of not letting a narrative like the original fester in an information void like they did by not immediately releasing the evidence that Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson had just left the scene of a felony.

But I'm not sure there was a way to accomplish what I am saying. Clearly nobody was going to believe the police department if they released a bunch of self serving statements.
Click to expand...

Hard evidence of a felony being committed just prior to the shooting would have served the truth well and may have precluded some people (especially media) from becoming invested in a false narrative.

The only thing that might have worked would have been an objective overview of the case released within the first couple of weeks but that kind of thing might have hindered the investigation in the long run. I don't think cops should be allowed to keep their jobs that invoke their right against self incrimination, but that is the way it is today. Would things have been better if a statement by Wilson had been released immediately? My guess is yes, but legally there was no way to compel him to make a statement early on as I understand it.
Click to expand...

I don't believe a statement from Wilson was necessary, they should have done a better job of presenting the facts of the case to the public.
 
Gallstones said:
I would speculate that when one's attention is so heavily occupied with surviving that level of imminent threat one's mind doesn't think of every option that a reflecting mind not under threat would come up with.
Also, to put the vehicle in gear would require that he remove one hand/arm from defending his person.
Click to expand...

I agree that it's much easier in hindsight, however I was also referring to the post-shooting interview I linked (if not that post then another the same day) in which he's explaining how he's rooting around with his right arm for something and I wondered why he didn't consider moving the vehicle, even in hindsight.
 
davefoc said:
I think you're referring to the decision by Wilson (assuming Wilson's statement is true on this) to return to Brown & Johnson and confront them.

I agree with you. That seemed to be a significant error. It's confused but at the point in time he turns back to confront them I believe he knows they are suspects in a robbery. Why did he need to confront them before backup had arrived? I don't know of a good explanation for that. Confronting two probable robbers alone without a compelling reason to do so seems like a violation of the most standard police procedures to me. First, it seems like he shouldn't do it for his own safety, but secondly it could lead to something like what probably happened where he finds himself alone with little choice but to fire his weapon to save himself.

But as has been noted above, we don't know what happened just before and during that second interaction. Everybody involved is dead or has such strong reasons to lie that we are only left with guessing about what happened. I don't believe Johnson or Wilson and I'm not sure what that means about what really happened.
Click to expand...

Cause they cursed at him, that's why. The guy is human, he was p'd off...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom