Michael Brown shooting II

[Mumbles]

Well it's my opinion that this will NEVER go to a criminal court, so I'm thinking that we know about how much we'll ever know.

That's my view as well - regardless of the merits of the case. But "It needs to be admitted into a court" is a bizarre standard of evidence for a message board for this one piece of evidence, especially since we've already accepted evidence that will likely never be presented, is all I'm saying

 

[casebro]

Well it's my opinion that this will NEVER go to a criminal court, so I'm thinking that we know about how much we'll ever know.

\

No criminal court, but I believe the Grand Jury proceedings will be made public. Because once they bring in a 'no true bill' finding, there will be no 'current investigation' to keep it secret.

And then we'll hear about the fractured eye socket, the bunch of witness who saw Brown 'charge', how many bullets were fired when- with witnesses to back up Wilson's side of the events.

Meantime, we re-join "Armchair CSI" here at the JREF channel.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Or Brown put his head down to charge.......

But Skeptic Tank said no one is still claiming this scenario!

You are so behind, and then when people tell you the audio of the shots were authenticated you insist on a definition of authenticated no one else finds necessary to place their bets on but you.

 

[Fudbucker]

That has not, as far as we can tell, been said under oath - and how can his *family* admit it, when we're also told that none of them were on the scene? Nor has anything but the family's autopsy report been presented, which will likely not be presented to the court, since the state has performed their own autopsy. And, frankly, given that the past two weeks have shown a great deal of illegal behavior from this same police department, their records are of no value.

So, nothing.

So there's no difference between a family admitting to a robbery their son is videotaped committing (and an accomplice admits to) and a recording that contains a person who hears multiple gunshots, while the person making the recording obliviously continues complimenting his girlfriend?

LOL, OK. You're obviously not biased here. Regardless, the recording proves nothing. It supports either side.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

"Baden, who also spoke at the news conference, said Brown, 18, was shot at least six times, including twice in the head. None of the bullets entered from the back, and three were recovered from Brown's body, he said."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...e-department-autopsy-brown-ferguson/14196559/

I see your problem, you keep quoting reporters.

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1408/18/ath.01.html
See that word ^ TRANSCRIPTS?

PURCELLS (with Baden standing next to him): And I want you guys to understand that when an autopsy is done, that we look at the body in an anatomical position. This is the anatomical position. This is not how we stand, how we walk, but medically speaking, we like to describe wounds this way. ...
And the other critical point that I want everyone to be very clear on is that this wound to the medial aspect of the right arm, just generally speaking, happened right about here indicate -- OK. So what Dr. Baden and I feel that occurred - and by the way this red mark is showing that same wound, this is not a separate wound. This is showing the same wound, in the same location in that arm, but you are looking at it from the back.

DR. CYRIL WECHT, FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST: Well, it confirms what had been reported earlier. I would point out, as I have already done so in previous discussions, that it was premature to have stated, as I read in the national newspapers this morning, that the shots were all from the front, because the arm can move in different directions. And when someone is running, then you may be struck in the back. And when you look at the body, as the professor pointed, out in a supine position, the anatomic position, then it would appear that shots were fired from the front.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Who do you believe is claiming there was "no shooting from behind." ?

Fudbucker is the latest person to repeat this gaffe.

Lots of posters are claiming brown was not shot from behind, which is consistent with the states autopsy, and badens autopsy.

But why don't you actually quote posters saying these things, instead of attacking made up straw-men ?

You just said it, you just made the very mistake we are trying to tell you you are making.


And that probably answers your other question, that yes, someone has pointed out a problem with your scenario.

 

[Unabogie]

\

No criminal court, but I believe the Grand Jury proceedings will be made public. Because once they bring in a 'no true bill' finding, there will be no 'current investigation' to keep it secret.

And then we'll hear about the fractured eye socket, the bunch of witness who saw Brown 'charge', how many bullets were fired when- with witnesses to back up Wilson's side of the events.

Meantime, we re-join "Armchair CSI" here at the JREF channel.

The irony...it's thick.

 

[Mumbles]

So there's no difference between a family admitting to a robbery their son is videotaped committing (and an accomplice admits to) and a recording that contains a person who hears multiple gunshots, while the person making the recording obliviously continues complimenting his girlfriend?

Again, he had no family there at the time, so they are necessarily stating hearsay. And that'll never be allowed in a court.

(Now, Dorian Johnson, his friend but not an accomplice, since he actually gave the cigarrelos Brown gave him back on the counter, is a reasonable person to listen to here.)

 

[Unabogie]

The link is to a New York Times article, which states the following:

"However, law enforcement officials say witnesses and forensic analysis have shown that Wilson did suffer an injury during the struggle in the car.

As Wilson got out of his car, the men were running away. The officer fired his weapon but did not hit anyone, according to law enforcement officials."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/20/u...er-as-holder-schedules-visit.html?ref=us&_r=1

I could not verify it with any other news source. Do you have another source that confirms this? Who were the Ferguson officials who confirmed this? Why are they leaking forensic reports?



And if we're going by this, then Wilson was assaulted by Brown, who injured him. The police can, under certain circumstances, legally shoot a fleeing suspect:

http://www.vox.com/2014/8/13/5994305/michael-brown-case-investigation-legal-police-kill-force-murder

But you have the witnesses as well, telling you the same thing, which can not be said for Wilson's alleged injuries. Those may be true, but the shooting from behind is as close to a confirmed fact as we have. No one disputes it except for people on the JREF.

Cops, yes. Witnesses, yes. So why should we start from a scenario in which this didn't happen? The obvious answer is that if you accept that the first six shots are from behind, the rest of Wilson's justifications melt away with that audio of the shooting. I think people know this, which is why there's so much effort to pretend the first six shots aren't what they are.

 

[Fudbucker]

But Skeptic Tank said no one is still claiming this scenario!

I don't know who's claiming what scenario. I gave you a scenario that fits the recordings. Brown charges, gets shot in the arm, Wilson pauses. Brown, much closer to Wilson, lowers his head, continues to charge, and is shot.

Badon has admitted the last two shots were the ones that hit Brown's head.

If anything, the recording HELPS Wilson: Brown charges, Wilson fires and hits Brown in the arm, Brown (much closer now (you can cover 30 feet in just a few seconds)) stumbles, charges again and is shot in the head.

You are so behind, and then when people tell you the audio of the shots were authenticated you insist on a definition of authenticated no one else finds necessary to place their bets on but you.

Except the head of communications for the company who hosted the conversation, can't confirm that the recording is a recording of the actual shooting.

Other that that, though, it's completely authentic.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Fudbucker is the latest person to repeat this gaffe.

You just said it, you just made the very mistake we are trying to tell you you are making.


And that probably answers your other question, that yes, someone has pointed out a problem with your scenario.

Please semantically parse the difference between shooting from behind and being shot from behind.

Fudbucker is saying he wasn't hit from behind, not shot at. Perhaps we should use 'Hit' and 'shot at' to differentiate.

 

[Unabogie]

If anything, the recording HELPS Wilson: Brown charges, Wilson fires and hits Brown in the arm, Brown (much closer now (you can cover 30 feet in just a few seconds)) stumbles, charges again and is shot in the head.

Unless you accept the undisputed fact that the first six shots were from behind. Then the recording is obviously devastating to Darren Wilson.

 

[Kestrel]

Meantime, we re-join "Armchair CSI" here at the JREF channel.

Clearly you are offended by those who use logic, evidence and reason instead of blindly trusting authority figures.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Unless you accept the undisputed fact that the first six shots were from behind. Then the recording is obviously devastating to Darren Wilson.

That you keep posting this lie ....

 

[Fudbucker]

But you have the witnesses as well, telling you the same thing, which can not be said for Wilson's alleged injuries. Those may be true, but the shooting from behind is as close to a confirmed fact as we have. No one disputes it except for people on the JREF.

Except he wasn't shot from behind! All the bullets entered from the front.

I would be much more confident in the Times article if there were some independent verification, or the Ferguson PD is on record with this forensic analysis. Instead, the story is just out there, unconfirmed by anyone at Ferguson PD, not picked up by any other news outlet. All sorts of red flags should be going up in your mind.

Cops, yes. Witnesses, yes. So why should we start from a scenario in which this didn't happen? The obvious answer is that if you accept that the first six shots are from behind, the rest of Wilson's justifications melt away with that audio of the shooting. I think people know this, which is why there's so much effort to pretend the first six shots aren't what they are.

Come on. This is skepticism 101. Eyewitness accounts are the worst evidence you can have. At least one of them said Brown was shot in the back.

What do we know for sure:

1. Brown had just robbed a store, and had weed in his system (and don't give me that Reefer Madness BS. Weed these days is potent as Hell and I have gotten extremely paranoid on more than one occasion after smoking a bowl).

2. Brown was not shot from behind.

3. Wilson has no history of using excessive force.

4. A recording at the time of the incident, that may or may not be an actual recording of the actual gunshots, and that also supports multiple scenarios.

What is logical to assume at this point? That a cop with no record of complaints or abuse of force just loses it and shoots a guy who just robbed a store and is now trying to peacefully surrender?

Sorry, but it doesn't wash.

And I have a good feeling Wilson got banged up pretty good and we'll be seeing pictures of that. If the guy actually sustained a fracture from Brown hitting him, that will be all she wrote.

 

[epepke]

II? What, they shot him again?

 

[bynmdsue]

Would Wilson ever resort to physical aggression? Why is everybody talking about Brown? Wilson is the perpetrator; he pulled the trigger. Why isn't anybody asking questions about him or digging through his past?

Here ya go...http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/darren-wilsons-first-job-was-on-a-troubled-police-force-disbanded-by-authorities/2014/08/23/1ac796f0-2a45-11e4-8593-da634b334390_story.html...broken home, dead mother, ex-wife, the whole bit.

 

[Unabogie]

Except he wasn't shot from behind! All the bullets entered from the front.

Did you not read any of the links we've been posting? This is false.

I would be much more confident in the Times article if there were some independent verification, or the Ferguson PD is on record with this forensic analysis. Instead, the story is just out there, unconfirmed by anyone at Ferguson PD, not picked up by any other news outlet. All sorts of red flags should be going up in your mind.

So in the face of evidence you don't like, it's SKEPTIC SHIELD UP, but all of this other stuff you know from similarly unsourced leaks? That stuff is fine?

Come on. This is skepticism 101. Eyewitness accounts are the worst evidence you can have. At least one of them said Brown was shot in the back.

Because he was being SHOT AT from THE BACK. If you see someone shooting at another person while that person runs away, and then this person jerks as if he was shot, then unless that's the end of it, you'd never know he wasn't. In Brown's case, he was shot four more times after this, so the witnesses would have no way of knowing which of the half dozen times Wilson shot Brown was from behind or after he surrendered.

What do we know for sure:

1. Brown had just robbed a store, and had weed in his system (and don't give me that Reefer Madness BS. Weed these days is potent as Hell and I have gotten extremely paranoid on more than one occasion after smoking a bowl).

That's just..the hypocrisy! And "weed these days" is what you get at the dispensary. Mike Brown probably didn't have a card like you apparently do. In other words, pure speculation on your part. You have no clue how much THC was in his system. You have no clue when he was last high. So a true "skeptic" would not consider this relevant.

2. Brown was not shot from behind.

Untue.

3. Wilson has no history of using excessive force.

'

Unknown. And irrelevant. Brown had no history of bulrushing a hail of bullets either, yet you think that fact is irrelevant.

4. A recording at the time of the incident, that may or may not be an actual recording of the actual gunshots, and that also supports multiple scenarios.

Not if he was shot at from behind. This negates the Josie scenario.

What is logical to assume at this point? That a cop with no record of complaints or abuse of force just loses it and shoots a guy who just robbed a store and is now trying to peacefully surrender?

Sorry, but it doesn't wash.

And I have a good feeling Wilson got banged up pretty good and we'll be seeing pictures of that. If the guy actually sustained a fracture from Brown hitting him, that will be all she wrote.

So you're perfectly willing to use unsourced and phony information like the orbital fracture that Jim Hoft just made up, but my New York Times link doesn't cut the muster? I think True Skeptics would call this cherry picking, but what do I know? I'm just getting the hang of it.

 

[Fudbucker]

Unless you accept the undisputed fact that the first six shots were from behind. Then the recording is obviously devastating to Darren Wilson.

So Wilson shoots six times, misses, then what? Corrects his aim, and lands the next six from the front? Is Brown still kneeling with his arms up all this time?

Remember, there's a three second pause AFTER the first shots (if we're going by the recording). Don't you think Brown would be running for his life by this time? Or on the ground at least? Your scenario supposes he's just standing there, statue-like, and then somehow gets shot through the eyebrow AND the top of the head.

What makes more sense is Brown charges Wilson, gets hit a few times from the front, (or pauses from getting shot multiple times), lowers his head to charge (or just stumbles from being shot) and gets the final one through the top of the head.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Just want to make sure SG has the chance to respond to this...

Can you let me know where (what post number) and how, please ?

I have re-read and I don't see anything that makes the scenario where all 10 of those shots are at brown, while brown is facing wilson, unworkable.

Since SG isn't going to let me know which post demolished my theory, maybe SG should retract her statement...