Michael Brown shooting II

[TheL8Elvis]

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?

What was inconclusive when she stated the autopsy results corroborated wilsons story ?

 

[plague311]

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


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

This ^.

Upchurch, can you please provide me with some sort of...anything that would justify a police officer running away from an individual is, now, KNOWN to be a threat? That would be the most useless police officer in the history of said occupation. So he just lets the person go that has assaulted a store owner (whether or not the store owner called is completely irrelevant to the fact that it happened), attacked a police officer, and then what? He's supposed to head out, call for backup, wait for someone else to arrive and then track down a violent individual that could have gone anywhere and attacked anyone in that time frame? His job is to protect and serve, and that would fly directly in the face of everything police officers are meant to stand for.

Let's be rational here, had he done that and someone else got killed or hurt you would be calling for his head. He'd be instantly fired, and labeled as one of the worst peace officers in the history of peace officering...if that's a word.

 

[Cylinder]

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

This is begging the question. If the results were "inconclusive" then no conclusion could be supported over another.

The narrative purported to be Wilson's claims that Brown struggled for his firearm. The autopsy provides very strong evidence that Brown's hand -- specifically his right palm nearest the thumb -- was in contact with a firearm when it was fired. (Without seeing the ballistic report one cannot say Wilson's firearm with accuracy.) This corroborates (i.e. supports) that purported narrative.

The forensic specialist contracted by the Post-Dispatch to review the autopsy report correctly asserts that fact alone is not dispositive regarding motive -- there are other possible explanations for Brown's hand being injured by a firearm that was in contact with it at the time it was fired -- but it certainly corroborates what is claimed to be Wilson's narrative. Very strongly, in fact.

 

[marplots]

Upchurch, can you please provide me with some sort of...anything that would justify a police officer running away from an individual is, now, KNOWN to be a threat?

Waiting for backup would be a good reason. Letting the situation calm down another. "Running away" doesn't have to mean not keeping the suspect in view. It could mean locking yourself in your vehicle.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

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

Even Barney Fife didn't run away.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

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

Wow, still hung up on that? We've known for sometime now that the police chief was mistaken.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

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?

Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson -- hours after documents came out labeling the 18-year-old Brown as the "primary suspect" in the store theft -- told reporters the "robbery does not relate to the initial contact between the officer and Michael Brown."

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_52c40b84-ad90-5f9a-973c-70d628d0be04.html

The officer who shot Ferguson teen Michael Brown stopped Brown and another teen because they were walking in the street, not because of a robbery a few minutes earlier, Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson said Friday afternoon.

Jackson said the officer was aware cigars had been taken in the robbery of a store nearby, but did not know when he encountered Brown and Dorian Johnson that they might be suspects. He stopped them because they were walking in the street, Jackson said.

But Jackson told the Post-Dispatch that the officer, Darren Wilson, saw cigars in Brown's hand and realized he might be the robber.
The Chief may be lying. But how would you ever know, unless he tells you , or we hear Wilson say he did not know about the robbery and didn't think Brown was involved.

 

[casebro]

So whey didn't the famous pathology team speak about powder burns/residue on the had wound? Lying by omission? Ulterior motive to maintain a controversy perhaps? Like the other media whores ?

 

[Upchurch]

Upchurch, can you please provide me with some sort of...anything that would justify a police officer running away from an individual is, now, KNOWN to be a threat?

As per the Ferguson Police Chief, Brown was not a known by Wilson to be threat. Even if Wilson was fully informed, Brown was not a lethal threat, imminent or otherwise.

Let's be rational here, had he done that and someone else got killed or hurt you would be calling for his head. He'd be instantly fired, and labeled as one of the worst peace officers in the history of peace officering...if that's a word.

I thought you wanted to be rational. Why, then, are you making so many unsupportable assumptions and claims?

If the Ferguson Police Chief is to be believed*, Wilson was escalating jay-walking to the point of a gun fight. I'd say that would make Wilson one of the worst peace officers in the history of peace officering.

Of course, I don't think the Ferguson Police Chief, or even the rest of the department, has earned the benefit of the doubt and should be taken for granted without supporting their claims with solid evidence. The fact of the matter is, Wilson killed Brown. The presumption of innocence on that count is gone. What remains is for Wilson to prove that it was in self defense. The evidence leaked so far does not, imho, resolve that question one way or the other yet.


* and if so, which version? The one Wilson supporters like? The one Brown supporters like?

 

[Mike!]

So whey didn't the famous pathology team speak about powder burns/residue on the had wound? Lying by omission? Ulterior motive to maintain a controversy perhaps? Like the other media whores ?

That would seem the most logical conclusion.

 

[Upchurch]

Wow, still hung up on that? We've known for sometime now that the police chief was mistaken.

That was in response to WildCat and his previous claim that no one ever said that Wilson was aware of the robbery or that it played a factor in the exchange.

The point is that there is wisdom in having a bit of skepticism with the police and not taking their claims as anything other than just that: claims. That should be especially true with this particular police force and their track record.

 

[RandFan]

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).

According to the chief of police Wilson was not aware of the robbery.

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

This is simply asserted.

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

A moot point as I never said Brown was shot in the back.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/28/us/ferguson-police-chief/

Ferguson police chief expected to step down, officials say

(CNN) -- The police chief in Ferguson, Missouri, is expected to step down as part of the effort by city officials to reform the police department, according to government officials familiar with the ongoing discussions between local, state and federal officials.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_154af199-5bf0-51f0-bb01-edd51c7e76fd.html

FERGUSON • Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson said late Tuesday that he has no plans to resign, despite a CNN report to the contrary.

“It’s absolutely not true. Nobody has asked me to resign, nor have I been fired,” Jackson said.

He added: “If I do resign, it will be my own choice.”

 

[plague311]

Waiting for backup would be a good reason.

Are you serious? Provide any reason why he would need to wait for backup to ask someone about cigarellos he stole in a robbery. If the need to do what you're describing happened with regularity it would be a MASSIVE waste of resources on all levels.

Letting the situation calm down another

The situation was over in less than 4 minutes, maybe even closer to 2. Can you provide any evidence that he even had enough time to allow the situation to calm down? Was there enough time to figure out what was happening and remove himself from the situation? Be honest.

"Running away" doesn't have to mean not keeping the suspect in view.

How do you keep a suspect in view locked in your car? The moment he jumps a fence, or enters a back yard, or goes in an apartment building, or....anything that is away from the street you're instantly cut off from view. It's irrational to think something like that would be realistic. You're looking at this in hindsight, not as it happens, and even with that benefit it's not realistic.

It could mean locking yourself in your vehicle.

Locking yourself in your vehicle.....have you, ever in your life, seen a police officer lock himself in his squad car when he was faced with a suspect in a robbery? Just the mere suggestion is ludicrous on its face. Once again, you would want this guys head if he did something like this, and a member of the public was hurt as a result. He's armed and trained to handle those EXACT situations without locking himself in the car and waiting for help. It's his job, and the job of every police officer. Hell, in some states it's even considered a right.

 

[Mumbles]

So whey didn't the famous pathology team speak about powder burns/residue on the had wound? Lying by omission? Ulterior motive to maintain a controversy perhaps? Like the other media whores ?

This is probably the silliest of all of the talking points to come out of what is supposedly Wilson's story.

Let's assume that what is supposedly Wilson's story is true. Brown punches Wilson through his car window, Wilson responds by pulling his car and pointing it at Brown. Obviously, Brown would try to grab the gun, since he'd rather not be shot.

Let's say that Johnson was right. Wilson grabs Brown, pulls Brown towards the car, and then pulls his gun and aims it at Brown. Obviously, Brown would try to grab the gun, since he'd rather not be shot.

Well, we already knew that Wilson shot at Brown while he was sitting in his car, fighting with Brown who was standing just outside of his car window. So, this tells us exactly nothing.

 

[Distracted1]

This is probably the silliest of all of the talking points to come out of what is supposedly Wilson's story.

Let's assume that what is supposedly Wilson's story is true. Brown punches Wilson through his car window, Wilson responds by pulling his car and pointing it at Brown. Obviously, Brown would try to grab the gun, since he'd rather not be shot.

Let's say that Johnson was right. Wilson grabs Brown, pulls Brown towards the car, and then pulls his gun and aims it at Brown. Obviously, Brown would try to grab the gun, since he'd rather not be shot.

Well, we already knew that Wilson shot at Brown while he was sitting in his car, fighting with Brown who was standing just outside of his car window. So, this tells us exactly nothing.

I have been asserting that the only logical thing for a person to do when engaging in a physical conflict with an armed opponent is "go for the gun" since the beginning of this debate. I have taken no small amount of criticism for that position, as well.

 

[WildCat]

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?

Yes, it was the robbery. The chief corrected his remarks later, and if the leaks are to be believed the officer said he backed up because he got the call about the robbery suspects and they matched. Which would be a stupid thing to lie about, since the dispatch is recorded, so I think it is likely true.

Then it was the guy who assaulted a police officer.

 

[WildCat]

That was in response to WildCat and his previous claim that no one ever said that Wilson was aware of the robbery or that it played a factor in the exchange.

Not sure what you're referring to here. This is how I've always understood it.
1. Wilson sees Brown and friend walking in the middle of the street, tells them to get off the road (friend says they're almost home) and starts to drive away.
2. Call comes in about the robbery, Brown and friend match the description and Wilson backs up to confront the now robbery suspects.

So Wilson was unaware of the robbery in the initial contact, then moments later became aware.

Comprende?

 

[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.

From your linked story...

Later, Wilson drove himself to the police station and was taken to the hospital by other officers. Wilson said he had bruises on the left and right sides of his face and scratches on his neck, the source said. He had no broken bones.

Scratches?
Did Brown scratch his neck in the struggle?
Wouldn't there be some of Wilson's DNA under Browns fingernails IF he scratched him in the struggle?
That's not news I'd expect to see leaked, but it would be something the Grand Jury would likely hear about, isn't it?

 

[plague311]

*snip* Brown was not known by Wilson to be threat. Even if Wilson was fully informed, Brown was not a lethal threat, imminent or otherwise.

[Wilson]was not aware that Brown was a suspect in the earlier robbery at the time of his initial contact

He didn't know he was a part of it at the initial contact; however, you were already passed that. You were talking about how he should have accelerated and fled from Brown's physical attack. That is where I am disagreeing, no cop should ever retreat after someone has shown themselves to be a threat. The shots were fired after the confrontation had started at the vehicle, as they were in the vehicle at the time, which would give me reason to believe that the gun wasn't pulled until threat and imminent harm had already been established. They were fighting, that's a threat. Wilson had been struck, threat established.

I thought you wanted to be rational. Why, then, are you making so many unsupportable assumptions and claims?

I'm sorry, but I feel you are making an unsupported claim constantly, by repeating that Wilson didn't know at the INITIAL contact that Brown was a suspect, and implying that it means he didn't know at any point in time.

Jackson told NBC News that while Wilson initially stopped Brown for walking in the street and blocking traffic, "at some point" during the encounter Wilson saw cigars in Brown's hands and thought he might be a suspect in the robbery

That implies that while he might not have known right away, he probably figured it out. Some have even implied that he saw the cigars and that is why he went back to speak with them.

If the Ferguson Police Chief is to be believed*, Wilson was escalating jay-walking to the point of a gun fight. I'd say that would make Wilson one of the worst peace officers in the history of peace officering.

That's quite the hyperbole there, in that you're implying Wilson was alone in any and all escalations during that event. Brown had opportunities to follow the instructions given to him, and avoid any confrontation at all. The only thing he had to do was get out of the street, and there would have been no problems. He actively made the choice to escalate it at that point. You're right, we still don't know what happened during the fight, or where it went from there, but you're jumping to the conclusion that Brown was completely innocent already.

*snip your opinion* The fact of the matter is, Wilson killed Brown. The presumption of innocence on that count is gone. What remains is for Wilson to prove that it was in self defense. The evidence leaked so far does not, imho, resolve that question one way or the other yet.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. First it has to be proven that there was a crime at all. There is no presumption of innocence until there is an actual criminal count, which there isn't, and you are already requiring Wilson to prove himself innocent. Which I believe flies in the face of our judicial system. It is on the grand jury to rule if there was a crime, then it would be on the prosecutor to prove that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to 12 jurors.