Status
Not open for further replies.
He had already been shot. I would have expected to see Michael Brown's all over that area.

:confused:

His blood being "all over that area" doesn't at all address:

What do witnesses have to do with the physical evidence that shows Michael Brown's blood ~20' east of his final position which was face down headed west?
Or does the physical evidence give us a clue as to which witnesses are the most reliable? ;)

ETA: This Washington Post link gives an excellent map of the scene.

KatieG - are you claiming Brown did not head back toward wilson ? If you aren't claiming that, what scenario is your post intended to support ?
 
:confused:

His blood being "all over that area" doesn't at all address:



KatieG - are you claiming Brown did not head back toward wilson ? If you aren't claiming that, what scenario is your post intended to support ?

That Michael Brown was, in fact, a "Thing" like creature, and his blood could move around independently after it left his body... :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Does this not point to a couple of hits in the first volley, and then Michael Brown stumbling/ falling forward during the second volley, given the angle of the last shots?

Yes, though it's not definite that he had to be stumbling, the shots that dropped him were highly likely to be the last ones fired.

A couple of other questions:
What distance were the various witnesses fromm the scene, and what implications does that have been the timing of what they saw, against what they heard?

I've not seen a good map that designates the positions of the witnesses like I've seen for the physical evidence, I'd be delighted if someone could post one. What I've relied upon are the witnesses whose accounts match the physical evidence best.

What impact would the shots at the SUV have on the hearing of both?

Set off two M-80s in your car with the window open (be careful--don't hurt yourself and be advised it will make a mess) and you'd get an idea of what it sounds like. A firecracker explosion and gunfire sound very similar because it's essentially the same thing.
 
That Michael Brown was, in fact, a "Thing" like creature, and his blood could move around independently after it left his body... :rolleyes:

Didn't see the originial post, but no, I wasn't claiming he didn't turn back to Wilson. He was being shot so I would have expected his blood all over that area.
 
I still see a lot of hindsight-aided armchair quarterbacking of Wilson's actions. I wish people would do less of that, especially when we're talking about a "victim" who had robbed a store, assaulted a clerk, assaulted and battered the officer, tried to take his gun, presumably would've murdered the officer with his own gun had he been successful, etc.

If this is the sort of person you are going this forcefully "to bat" for then it really makes me wonder just who exactly some people believe police DO have a right to defend themselves against.

But anyway... when people talk about things like "he should've dodged him like a matador" - setting aside how silly that is in and of itself, and when people talk about things like "well he wasn't necessarily a threat just because he was coming back toward him and ignoring commands" I just need to point something out that most people don't seem to be considering:

Every moment Wilson hadn't yet subdued and neutralized the threat posed by Michael Brown, he was in greater and greater danger.

Again, let's not cloud ourselves with hindsight here. Put yourself in Wilson's position at that moment.

You're alone. You expect backup, but it's not here.

So far, all the aggression and threat has come from this suspect, but where is the other guy? He had a friend who has now sort of disappeared, but he was there next to him not long ago. Is he readying to attack you from behind? Does he have a pistol? Does he have a knife?

They said they were almost to their destination... is this all taking place right next to one of their friends' homes? If they are the kind of guys who would attack a police officer so forcefully and unexpectedly and try to take your firearm then you have to assume Dorian Johnson is prepared to do violence, and you have to assume any and all friends they may have nearby are too.

Is Johnson off getting his own "backup" from the destination they said they'd almost reached?

While you are keeping Brown in your sights and dealing with him... is Johnson arriving with two large angry friends from behind you, sneaking up with weapons?

Obviously, I'm not claiming Wilson was able to think about all these things literally in this kind of detail but these are the kind of (very real) possibilities and threats that a cop has to have in the back of his mind. Or at least those who set police procedure must have in the back of their minds when they're establishing protocols.

The protocol is to gain compliance and neutralize Brown who has proven himself to be a potentially deadly threat to the officer as fast as possible. He has already shown he is entirely prepared to do forceful bursts of violence on Officer Wilson, now he's wounded and even more angry but he's a big guy and he's definitely not looking like he's out of commission.

It is reasonable for an officer who wants to go home alive at the end of this shift, to put Michael Brown down and use as many bullets as he has to in order to see him drop to the ground, and to give him no further patience or additional chances once he's continuing to approach and stubbornly refusing to comply with directives.

There is no more serious situation a person can be in with relation to the police than when they have already been shot by an officer multiple times and are still alive and being given a chance to still live and still comply. Brown getting that chance indicates a remarkable level of generosity on Officer Wilson's part, and a willingness to increase his own risk in the hopes of being able to spare Brown's life (again, every moment he's giving Brown to finally comply is a moment Johnson could be readying an attack from behind.) That Brown would continue to act in a threatening manner and still attempt to attack Wilson in that most serious of situations says everything we need to know about him.

Brown's failure to avail himself of that generously given chance, and Brown's total refusal to stop being an ongoing threat completely validates Wilson's decision to neutralize him with additional gunfire.
 
Last edited:
TL;DR

It's all speculation. The facts/evidence that matter are a bunch of shell casings, some blood stains, and a dead body. Whatever was going on in Michael Brown's brain at that point is unknown to any of us.
 
The act of sending it to the GJ certainly wasn't irregular (aside from the fact that a less public case may never have even gotten that far) What was irregular was the way the prosecutor basically acted as Wilson's defense counsel in the proceedings. Makes one take pause....
This case on the other hand has the huge advantage of having video of the incident, no avoiding that.

Please provide the evidence for the hilited. Thanks in advance.
 
TL;DR

It's all speculation. The facts/evidence that matter are a bunch of shell casings, some blood stains, and a dead body. Whatever was going on in Michael Brown's brain at that point is unknown to any of us.

Okay, perhaps Brown wanted to give Wilson a hug, apologize for the earlier violence, and then turn around to voluntarily be cuffed and take a seat in the back of Wilson's cruiser.

However, since Brown didn't want to spoil the surprise by indicating his desire to surrender verbally, and instead charged toward Wilson... we must forgive Wilson mistaking this for ongoing aggression, and we must understand why Wilson resumed fire.
 
Is that meant to be an impressive trait or accomplishment?

7 billion plus and counting. We're just organisms and there's nothing magical or divine about us granting some sort of inherent, universal worth.

Some of those 7 billion make the world a worse place by making the streets less safe, intimidating and victimizing others, etc. Brown was one such.

We have no shortage of human beings and we'll be just fine without Michael Brown in the species anymore. In fact, we're better off.
No, we are not.

There is a reason that humanity has come to view cruel and unusual punishment as evil. There is a reason that humanity has come to the realization that the punishment must be commensurate with the crime. It has to do with the understanding that societies that value the life of even criminals are by far the best societies with the least amount of crime, incarceration rates and have higher levels of well being.

"A society is ultimately judged by how it treats its weakest and most vulnerable members." --Dostoevsky
 
Strikes me as odd that someone would bend over at a 45 degree angle with their face parallel to the ground and charge someone 10-15 feet away. Not that it didn't happen that way. I've never seen a football player charge with body and head both parallel to the ground for 10 feet. But that's anecdotal, I honestly don't know.

90 degrees and 25-35 feet
Thank you. I've heard that there is a computer reenactment. I'll try to find it. If anyone has a link it would be appreciated.
 
No, we are not.

There is a reason that humanity has come to view cruel and unusual punishment as evil. There is a reason that humanity has come to the realization that the punishment must be commensurate with the crime. It has to do with the understanding that societies that value the life of even criminals are by far the best societies with the least amount of crime, incarceration rates and have higher levels of well being.

"A society is ultimately judged by how it treats its weakest and most vulnerable members." --Dostoevsky

Sure, but Michael Brown refused to submit to our society's designated punishments for his crimes.

He was apparently committed to resolving things out there on the street one on one with Officer Wilson, one way or the other.

Our society says that a strong-armed robber and cop assaulter should not be killed for their crimes but it also makes allowance for the fact that before the appropriate punishment can be administered, the criminal must be safely brought into custody.

If the criminal refuses to be safely brought into custody and refuses in such a way that the Officer trying to put them in custody is in very real danger of losing his own life, our society has said that the Officer has the right to do what is necessary to neutralize that threat.

Quite reasonably so.
 
Interestingly this page kills dead the claim that Wilson didn't know anything about the robbery and was lying when he claimed that was why he returned and stopped them a second time. Not only did he clearly know about the robbery, he asked if they needed help, and he did, as he claimed in his GJ testimony, call in that he had the two of them. I doubt that will convince any of the lynch mob however.

I know, I had trouble believing Wilson never knew when Chief Belmar first said it (before he corrected himself) as that made perfect sense explaining why Wilson would go back.

Those police ought to have an opening in their communications department, they really screwed up on this one. At first I can understand that 'no one expects the Spanish Inquisition' and they weren't quite prepared for a full-on adversarial media onslaught. However, after a few days it ought to have dawned on them that saying almost nothing (and getting some of those few things wrong!) was not helping and when it's already there in your face every day you damn well better learn to expect the Spanish Inquisition!
 
Last edited:
I know, I had trouble believing Wilson never knew when Chief Belmar first said it (before he corrected himself) as that made perfect sense in explaining why Wilson would go back.

Those police ought to have an opening in their communications department, they really screwed up on this one. At first I can understand that 'no one expects the Spanish Inquisition' and they weren't quite prepared for a full-on adversarial media onslaught. However, after a few days it ought to have dawned on them that saying almost nothing (and getting some of those few things wrong!) was not helping and when it's already there in your face every day you damn well better expect to face the Spanish Inquisition!

Wasn't Belmar always careful to say "initial encounter" though?

So was it just a case of not being perceptive enough about a misconception taking hold in the minds of those he was giving the press conference to?
 
Sure, but Michael Brown refused to submit to our society's designated punishments for his crimes.

He was apparently committed to resolving things out there on the street one on one with Officer Wilson, one way or the other.

Our society says that a strong-armed robber and cop assaulter should not be killed for their crimes but it also makes allowance for the fact that before the appropriate punishment can be administered, the criminal must be safely brought into custody.

If the criminal refuses to be safely brought into custody and refuses in such a way that the Officer trying to put them in custody is in very real danger of losing his own life, our society has said that the Officer has the right to do what is necessary to neutralize that threat.

Quite reasonably so.
None of this is responsive to the point being made. Brown was a human being. You wanted to know what was special about that fact. I told you. Now, unlike most people, I don't know what happened. I know that Brown had acted in a vile and anti-social fashion. I know that it is certainly in the realm of possibility that Wilson acted entirely appropriately and that Brown's death is his own fault.

None of that changes the fact that Brown was a human being. Humans, good and bad, are the way they are for many cultural and genetic variables. It is possible for us to feel remorse, to recognize when we have made mistakes and to seek to change. It is also possible to recognize that we, ourselves, are not perfect and it is our capacity for forgiveness and belief in redemption that makes us civil. Not our ability to punish, to kill, or to hold each other in contempt.
 
TL;DR
It's all speculation. The facts/evidence that matter are a bunch of shell casings, some blood stains, and a dead body. Whatever was going on in Michael Brown's brain at that point is unknown to any of us.

That's your problem.

What he wrote made perfect sense.
 
No, we are not.

There is a reason that humanity has come to view cruel and unusual punishment as evil. There is a reason that humanity has come to the realization that the punishment must be commensurate with the crime. It has to do with the understanding that societies that value the life of even criminals are by far the best societies with the least amount of crime, incarceration rates and have higher levels of well being.

"A society is ultimately judged by how it treats its weakest and most vulnerable members." --Dostoevsky

Totally right.

Haven't seen any cruel and unusual punishment in this case though.
 
Sure, but Michael Brown refused to submit to our society's designated punishments for his crimes.

He was apparently committed to resolving things out there on the street one on one with Officer Wilson, one way or the other.

Our society says that a strong-armed robber and cop assaulter should not be killed for their crimes but it also makes allowance for the fact that before the appropriate punishment can be administered, the criminal must be safely brought into custody.

If the criminal refuses to be safely brought into custody and refuses in such a way that the Officer trying to put them in custody is in very real danger of losing his own life, our society has said that the Officer has the right to do what is necessary to neutralize that threat.

Quite reasonably so.

You can't possibly know what Michael Brown was thinking. Just because you post something, doesn't make it true. Continuing to repeat the same thing also doesn't make it true.
 
Totally right.

Haven't seen any cruel and unusual punishment in this case though.
The post was in response to the notion that we are better off without Brown being alive. I've made no claims about cruel and unusual punishment. I've only tried to explain why it's in our best interest to treat every human being with civility. If one argues that Wilson had no choice but to shoot Brown and if the evidence supports that argument then fine. What I take exception with is dehumanizing Brown in order to justify his death. Nothing that Brown did justifies his death. Only the right of Officer Wilson to live and not be assaulted can be used as justification.

It is the better angels of our nature to see Brown as a human being and not some evil thing that mankind is better off without.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom