Michael Brown shooting II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Skeptic Ginger said:
I'm pretty sure the evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion Brown was never inside the vehicle and the physical exchange took place through the car window with Wilson never having made it further than opening his door.
Click to expand...

Which evidence is this ? The witness statements that all agree there was a "tussle" ?

That "overwhelmingly supports the conclusion Brown was never inside the vehicle" ?

:confused::eek::eye-poppi

Skeptic Ginger said:
The police chief made some comments about a struggle inside the car that seemed to me to be a misunderstanding of a hastily stated or a second hand version of events that he got.
Click to expand...

Annnnnnnnnnd the hand-wave. :rolleyes:

Anonymous police sources quoted in NYT that wilson shot at a fleeing brown, rock-solid fact.

Police chief relays wilsons account of an altercation. Hand-wave away as just "comments" based on "a misunderstanding".

I bow to your ability to hand-wave away any piece of evidence or information that doesn't fit your narrative.

Belmar: Struggle over gun led to teen's shooting
"http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/crime/2014/08/10/ferguson-police-news-conference-michael-brown/13860601/"
Belmar said the incident started when Brown physically assaulted the police officer, pushing him into the officer's vehicle. He said there was a struggle inside the car, and at some point Brown reached for the officer's weapon. One shot was fired inside the vehicle.

Brown suffered fatal gunshot wounds outside of the vehicle, approximately 35 feet from the car. Belmar said multiple shell casings were found at the scene, and that Brown was shot more than once, but an exact number of shots fired has not yet been determined. All the shell casings came from the officer's weapon.

Belmar confirmed Brown was unarmed at the time of the shooting. He did not say what led to the struggle inside the officer's car.

Honestly, it's quite astounding that you can dismiss the facts given at a press-conference from the police chief as just "some comments"....

Hey, maybe it wasn't even Wilson ? Maybe the chief got that wrong too ?
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Let's try replacing wilson and brown and see how that argument works ...

The policecitizens in the area have a history of racism and corruptionviolence . That is the default position. One needs to show Wilson Brown was somehow exempt from the usual behavior of his peers, especially in case of the Jennings department scandalFerguson where Wilson learned how to be a cop Brown grew up.

Nothing like a few sweeping generalizations, eh ?
Click to expand...
The problem with your reversal is Brown was shot dead by Wilson, not the other way around. Like I said before, the starting points were not equal. Wilson was in a position of authority and had an obligation to not use excessive force.

Brown was being shot at. It makes no sense even with a racist thug to stop running and charge at the man 20-30 feet away shooting at him.

While it does make sense an emotionally charged cop would pull the trigger because he was either out of control with anger or he was incompetent at assessing a threat.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...016ef8-26f4-11e4-8593-da634b334390_story.html

The autopsy by St. Louis County chief medical examiner Mary Case, released to state prosecutors late Friday, found that Brown, 18, had six gunshot wounds to the head and chest and was shot from the front, the people said.

Apparently it was certain to St. Louis County chief medical examiner Mary Case.
Click to expand...
That's not an autopsy, that's the prosecutor/police/pro-Wilson side
two people familiar with the official county autopsy of Michael Brown said Monday.
Click to expand...
releasing a one or two sentence summary of the autopsy, the same way you erroneously keeping saying Baden found all the shots to be from the front.

In a brief interview with The Washington Post, Case declined to comment on specifics of her examination of Brown’s body
Click to expand...

When we see the actual autopsy, get back to me. But this is no more valid than the NYTs reporter misinterpreting the anatomical diagram.
 
Last edited:
TheL8Elvis said:
Which evidence is this ? The witness statements that all agree there was a "tussle" ?
That "overwhelmingly supports the conclusion Brown was never inside the vehicle" ?
:confused::eek::eye-poppi
Annnnnnnnnnd the hand-wave. :rolleyes:
Anonymous police sources quoted in NYT that wilson shot at a fleeing brown, rock-solid fact.
Police chief relays wilsons account of an altercation. Hand-wave away as just "comments" based on "a misunderstanding".
I bow to your ability to hand-wave away any piece of evidence or information that doesn't fit your narrative.
Belmar: Struggle over gun led to teen's shooting
"http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/crime/2014/08/10/ferguson-police-news-conference-michael-brown/13860601/"
Belmar said the incident started when Brown physically assaulted the police officer, pushing him into the officer's vehicle. He said there was a struggle inside the car, and at some point Brown reached for the officer's weapon. One shot was fired inside the vehicle.
Brown suffered fatal gunshot wounds outside of the vehicle, approximately 35 feet from the car. Belmar said multiple shell casings were found at the scene, and that Brown was shot more than once, but an exact number of shots fired has not yet been determined. All the shell casings came from the officer's weapon.
Belmar confirmed Brown was unarmed at the time of the shooting. He did not say what led to the struggle inside the officer's car.
Honestly, it's quite astounding that you can dismiss the facts given at a press-conference from the police chief as just "some comments"....
Hey, maybe it wasn't even Wilson ? Maybe the chief got that wrong too ?
Click to expand...
That's a second hand report. Not an eye-witness account. And at this point just as people claim Johnson's story is altered to cover his behind, so would Wilson's be.
 
Last edited:
I think today "thug" has certain connotations which are not strictly necessary but which can really put someone deeply into the territory of deserving to be considered one.

I'd say the biggest thing is being someone who seeks to maintain a persona of physical intimidation. The kind of person who wants strangers who are seeing them for the first time to be worried about them. The kind of person you could end up being physically assaulted by within moments of first meeting them based on complete nonsense like looking at them the wrong way, accidentally bumping into them, maintaining eye contact too long, or saying the wrong thing. That's a thug.

That may not ALL be required to be a thug, but that's the sort of stuff which really firmly establishes it.

Someone who makes regular criminality and physical violence a part of their lifestyle. Someone who admires criminals, and glorifies criminality. Someone who enjoys the fact that polite society is frightened of them.

If people started to try to claim "thief" was a racial term used to refer to gypsies I would push back against it because although a much higher percentage of gypsies may be thieves than is the case in other groups, ultimately someone from any group can earn being called a "thief."

Just because the person who may pop into your mind when you hear "thug" most readily is a young black man with his pants hanging low or the person you might envision when hearing the term "terrorist" might be a middle eastern man, does not mean these terms are racist. It means these groups are engaging in that behavior a lot more often than other groups, but the terms are still completely applicable to other kinds of people under the right circumstances.

There are a lot of white thugs in Eastern Europe, and the football hooligans in the UK and elsewhere are also thugs. There was a time in US history where a very high percentage of the Italian American community were thugs. Let's hope in time the black community reduces its thug percentage as they did.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
No, you said there was no evidence Wilson was a jerk. You didn't say there was evidence which might be a mistaken observation.
Click to expand...

Not only have you failed to address the point, you're reduced to making things up.

I think if that was the case then the police chief giving the first news conference would have said, "fired a single warning shot".
Click to expand...

Well, there you go.

And I'm pretty sure most cops say it's against policy to fire warning shots, if you shoot the gun you shoot at the center mass, (aka to kill the suspect).
Click to expand...

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. While it may be standard policy to shoot the upper-body, the report is that Wilson fired a warning shot (which didn't hit anyone). Also, officers are not necessarily trained to shoot center-mass in order to kill the suspect, but to stop him (or her) because it's the easiest area to aim at and has the likeliest chance of hitting.

I don't need any magic bullets for my version. I don't even need the one shot hit from behind in my version of the most likely events.

I can explain how Brown was shot in the apex of his head with the trajectory toward the face very easily. The three witnesses that saw Brown try to give up and the one that saw Brown doubled over are telling the truth. Wilson fired at a man that was not a threat.
Click to expand...

So you're saying the six shots were not fired with Brown's back turned?
 
Back on topic, I think there's still some confusion regarding the Ferguson Grocery video. There's no statutory criterion to close that investigative report by virtue of its relevance to another investigation. An investigative report becomes inactive when any of the following conditions are met:
(a) A decision by the law enforcement agency not to pursue the case;

(b) Expiration of the time to file criminal charges pursuant to the applicable statute of limitations, or ten years after the commission of the offense; whichever date earliest occurs;

(c) Finality of the convictions of all persons convicted on the basis of the information contained in the investigative report, by exhaustion of or expiration of all rights of appeal of such persons;
​
It is fairly clear that sub (a) applies in this case - the incident being closed by the "extraordinary circumstance" of Brown's death. I suggest that when the shooting incident becomes inactive under the same criterion, we will find that those investigators also compiled investigative reports regarding the robbery and those were closed by virtue of being conducted in reference to an active investigation.
 
Cain said:
Not only have you failed to address the point, you're reduced to making things up.
Click to expand...
SG said:
Cain said:
....Does Wilson have a known temper problem?
Click to expand...
He has friends swearing he had no temper problem, one person who claims he was a jerk with an attitude when she encountered him, and a personal history that suggested becoming a cop was something he needed because he was becoming rowdy after a rough childhood.

So he most certainly could have, but we don't really know yet.

Do you have evidence he didn't?
Click to expand...
Good, I take it you concede then that Wilson could have had a temper problem and there are some indicators.


Cain said:
You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. While it may be standard policy to shoot the upper-body, the report is that Wilson fired a warning shot (which didn't hit anyone). Also, officers are not necessarily trained to shoot center-mass in order to kill the suspect, but to stop him (or her) because it's the easiest area to aim at and has the likeliest chance of hitting.
Click to expand...
Who said he fired a warning shot?

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/08/us/ferguson-brown-timeline/
Josie: "Michael takes off with his friend. They get to be about 35 feet away and Darren [Wilson], of course protocol is to pursue. So he stands up and yells, ‘Freeze!' Michael and his friend turn around and Michael starts taunting him. ‘Oh, what are you going to do about it? You're not gonna shoot me.'
Click to expand...


Cain said:
So you're saying the six shots were not fired with Brown's back turned?
Click to expand...
I've never said they were. I said when Wilson started firing, Brown stopped and turned around.

Are you saying he shot at Brown for the simple reason Brown was moving forward? Shouldn't Wilson be yelling at Brown to get on the ground? Did he shoot because he didn't like Brown taunting him?

The time frame makes it very hard to match up Wilson's story with the last recorded 10 shots.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
That's a second hand report. Not an eye-witness account. And at this point just as people claim Johnson's story is altered to cover his behind, so would Wilson's be.
Click to expand...

Right. I agree Johnson and Wilson may both have reasons to not be honest and cover their respective asses.

What I don't agree, however, is with your silly conspiracy theories.

There is no reason to believe that the version given by chief Belmar isn't an accurate summary of what Wilson claimed happened, and every reason to believe it is.

You don't get to simply hand-wave it away into oblivion because it's second hand.

Go ahead, be skeptical of it being 100% accurate, I am. But suggesting the chief "misunderstood" is laughable.

You are not being a skeptic at that point, you are just putting your fingers in your ears and yelling "lalalalalal"

Skeptic Ginger said:
Translation, Skeptic Ginger knows better than to accept second hand two sentence summaries of autopsies.

As for not liking the result, it has no impact one way or the other whether one shot hit him from behind or not.
Click to expand...

But you accept someanonymous sources in the NYT as fact, but not others. :confused:

Sure, maybe it was a conspiracy to mislead the public ... until we all get see the autopsy results. Because that would accomplish what, exactly ?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
The problem with your reversal is Brown was shot dead by Wilson, not the other way around. Like I said before, the starting points were not equal. Wilson was in a position of authority and had an obligation to not use excessive force.

Brown was being shot at. It makes no sense even with a racist thug to stop running and charge at the man 20-30 feet away shooting at him.

While it does make sense an emotionally charged cop would pull the trigger because he was either out of control with anger or he was incompetent at assessing a threat.
Click to expand...

Uhm, none of that means you weren't making sweeping generalizations. Because you were.

You have no specific evidence of any incidents, racism, misconduct, etc on wilsons part while he was on the Jennings police force.

Therefor the default position, as you put it, is Wilson is innocent of wrongdoing unless you have some evidence. Which you don't.

So kindly put your broad brush away and stick to the facts, please.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Uhm, none of that means you weren't making sweeping generalizations. Because you were.

You have no specific evidence of any incidents, racism, misconduct, etc on wilsons part while he was on the Jennings police force.

Therefor the default position, as you put it, is Wilson is innocent of wrongdoing unless you have some evidence. Which you don't.

So kindly put your broad brush away and stick to the facts, please.
Click to expand...

Funny that doesn't seem to apply to Brown...
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Good, I take it you concede then that Wilson could have had a temper problem and there are some indicators.
Click to expand...

I'll concede it's entirely possible. But I won't concede that ludicrous woman's story is evidence of anything, until there is some minimal amount of vetting of her story.

Skeptic Ginger said:
Who said he fired a warning shot?
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/08/us/ferguson-brown-timeline/

I've never said they were. I said when Wilson started firing, Brown stopped and turned around.
Click to expand...

If wilson is firing, and brown is turning around, doesn't that make wilson firing at browns back ?

Skeptic Ginger said:
Are you saying he shot at Brown for the simple reason Brown was moving forward? Shouldn't Wilson be yelling at Brown to get on the ground? Did he shoot because he didn't like Brown taunting him?

The time frame makes it very hard to match up Wilson's story with the last recorded 10 shots.
Click to expand...

I will say that, yes, it's quite possible he shot at Brown for the simple reason Brown was moving forward (towards him).
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Right. I agree Johnson and Wilson may both have reasons to not be honest and cover their respective asses.

What I don't agree, however, is with your silly conspiracy theories.

There is no reason to believe that the version given by chief Belmar isn't an accurate summary of what Wilson claimed happened, and every reason to believe it is.

You don't get to simply hand-wave it away into oblivion because it's second hand.
Click to expand...
It has zero to do with any conspiracy (though you'd be stretching it to say cops don't cover for each other).

He's repeating what he heard, but it's not what he saw. Second hand accounts are by their nature going to be altered by the filters of the person the account was told to. You know, like the game of telephone.

So you have two possibilities: Wilson was ginning up the struggle or Belmar was repeating what he thought he was being told happened.

What's odd is for any witness to make up seeing a struggle through the window.

It doesn't make sense to me that Johnson would make that particular detail up. I can see him saying something like Brown never got past the open door. But who would make up that the struggle was going on through a window? Even if Mitchell and Crenshaw weren't sure and went with what Johnson said, why would Johnson add such an odd detail?

TheL8Elvis said:
But you accept someanonymous sources in the NYT as fact, but not others. :confused:

Sure, maybe it was a conspiracy to mislead the public ... until we all get see the autopsy results. Because that would accomplish what, exactly ?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure which anonymous NYT source you are talking about but yes, if the NYTs says they got a leak from one of their White House connections that would have more cred than, Wilson's friend said.


Why the false dichotomy it must be true or a purposeful lie? In the case of the NYT reporter, Baden said the reporter misunderstood the anatomical diagram. Just like many other people did.

As for this summary, you have people in this thread swearing the autopsy showed 6 shots from the front, when that wasn't the case. You have said it's more likely. It's not unusual for someone to be saying the same thing about the state's autopsy when we may find that the autopsy also did not conclude if that one shot was from the front or the back?

But all this is a continued red herring because the conclusion Wilson shot at Brown who was not posing a threat doesn't depend on that shot being from the back. And despite Josie's third hand account, the initial police reports had Wilson firing at Brown as he fled.

Obviously Brown turned around. If he wasn't being shot at there was no reason not to keep on running. If he truly thought Brown wouldn't shoot, why not keep on running?

How does it make any sense Brown would stop and turn around unless he was afraid of being shot?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom