Michael Brown shooting II

[eeyore1954]

As someone who is extremely familiar with marijuana and it's effects. I would personally have to say anyone that thinks pot would cause any form of violence is obviously completely unfamiliar with the drug. It causes a lot of things: Spontaneous naps, munchies, laughter, desire to watch horrible movies, and in the worst cases maybe a spinning head. I have never seen or heard of someone becoming violent from marijuana. Ridiculous.

You don't think the paranoia that can be associated with pot could cause a violent reaction in some people if they feel threatened. I do not think it is a ridiculous possibility.

 

[JohnnyG]

As someone who is extremely familiar with marijuana and it's effects. I would personally have to say anyone that thinks pot would cause any form of violence is obviously completely unfamiliar with the drug. It causes a lot of things: Spontaneous naps, munchies, laughter, desire to watch horrible movies, and in the worst cases maybe a spinning head. I have never seen or heard of someone becoming violent from marijuana. Ridiculous.

Your experience my be typical, but it is not necessarily the same for everyone.

http://learnaboutmarijuanawa.org/factsheets/aggression.htm

However, sometimes when marijuana is used it can cause fear, anxiety, panic or paranoia, which can result in an aggressive outburst. For most people, once the effects of the drug wear off, their behavior gradually improves.

 

[plague311]

You don't think the paranoia that can be associated with pot could cause a violent reaction in some people if they feel threatened. I do not think it is a ridiculous possibility.

Look, anything is possible, and I'm sure there's a one-off study somewhere that shows a few pot heads have become violent. However, Mr. Brown was showing absolutely 0 signs of being paranoid. He was walking down the middle of the street for starters. You don't walk down the middle of the street, and draw attention to yourself, if you're paranoid. You listen to what you're told, look around to see if people are following you, keep your head down and not make eye contact. Those are signs of paranoia. It just doesn't fit in this scenario. Plus, the whole theory behind the story is that they went to get the cigars in order to smoke pot. Do you have any idea how long it takes to roll a blunt while walking? Having pot in your system doesn't mean you're high, it stays in your system for 30 some odd days depending on body fat. For all we know he could have last smoked pot 2-3 weeks before that, or if he was a chubby guy over a month.

The marijuana means nothing in this case, nothing at all.

 

[plague311]

The problem I seem to be having with the pause in the recording is this, if Wilson was after killing a black guy, because he disrespected him or whatever the case, why would he even pause at all? There would be no reason at all to even bother. Keep going till the gun goes *click* and then start asking question and looking around. If he paused that means he had intentions of stopping, if he had intentions of stopping then something happened to change his mind. What was it that changed his mind?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

How do you know the recording device didn't move during the recording?

Are we sure that the microphone the individual was using wasn't moving?

The issue at hand is "the shooter didn't move", not "explain shooter's movement.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If the last four shots were all hits, one hit in the car, and the graze was from behind, that would work. I would guess the clothing will shed some light on it. I can't imagine how there could not be any residue if he was hit in the car.

If he wasn't hit from behind or in the car, MB must have turned around prior to the pause before the last four shots. We will have more info only when the rest of the autopsies results are release and the location of all the shell casings are reported.

The gun only needed to be a foot away from the arm and it is possible there would be no powder burns or stippling.

But I think it's most likely that Brown turned during the volley of six shots. I await more information and could very well change this assessment, and it's not the only explanation for the evidence we do have. But I do put it high on the list of how things happened.

Remember, I do put weight in the eye witness testimony. A number of people in the thread are simply setting that testimony aside as if it had no weight at all.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Here's your post.

Either he only shot once at Brown as Brown fled, or the six shots

I can see why it confused you if you didn't realize the one shot from the car was not the shot at Brown as he ran away.

Or more simply, perhaps there were two shots at the confrontation at the police car. I find it strange the video misses out on two shots, unless the both occur before the recording started.

Why would it be unusual that the first two shots were prior to the recording starting?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

We don't "know" a whole lot of anything right now, but...

We do have the police chiefs statement that Brown attacked Wilson.

We have Michael Brady saying he saw Brown punching Wilson:
http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/new-witnesss-crucial-info-in-brown-shooting-320756803662

"an altercation, some little tussling in the window ... little tussle in the window"
"his friend, he was actually like in front of the vehicle ... 5 feet away ..."

He also notes Wilson "shooting" at Brown fleeing. " "He was balled up, he was going down and he shot 4 or 5 shots at him"

He makes the punching gesture, Brown's arms were going through the window but "I honestly couldn't say" when asked if he saw Brown punch Wilson.

O'Donnell: "What did you mean by he was punching on him?" "I just assumed" as in he didn't actually see Brown hit Wilson.

I don't doubt there was an altercation, all the witnesses say so. But Brady really doesn't say he saw Brown punch Wilson.

He says Johnson wasn't in the tussle. So much for the bracelet.

He also describes a volley of shots as Brown was fleeing, not a single shot.

He does say he saw the final shots. And he also says Brown was doubled over and going down before those last shots. He also says Wilson was 20-25 feet away when he shot the final volley.

He didn't see Brown's hands go up but he was also running to a different view point during that time. That Brady doesn't say he saw Brown's hands up makes him sound very honest. That he says Wilson shot as Brown was already doubled over... I'm sorry people but there is some very credible evidence here between these witnesses and the autopsy, that Wilson shot at Brown who was already going down.


Brady's testimony seriously incriminates Wilson.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You don't think the paranoia that can be associated with pot could cause a violent reaction in some people if they feel threatened. I do not think it is a ridiculous possibility.

It's an extremely far fetched hypothesis.

 

[plague311]

Your experience my be typical, but it is not necessarily the same for everyone.

http://learnaboutmarijuanawa.org/factsheets/aggression.htm

No, it's not the same for everyone, however:

marijuana has never been definitively linked to more aggression or violence

That comes from this sourced article that directly addresses the effects of marijuana in relation to the Michael Brown shooting. This is getting slightly off topic, but there is no doubt in my mind that marijuana played absolutely and completely no part in this altercation. It's impossible to know if he was high at the time, marijuana has a sedating effect on people, he wasn't acting paranoid in any way.

I agree in that my experience is typical, but the entirety of my experience with marijuana isn't just me "roasting dubes in my mom's basement." I've been apart of studies, I've personally done a lot of research (by no means am I an expert) but I feel 99% positive that pot played no role, none at all. It's ludicrous to even bring it up.

 

[This is The End]

if Wilson was after killing a black guy, because he disrespected him or whatever the case, why would he even pause at all? There would be no reason at all to even bother. Keep going till the gun goes *click* and then start asking question and looking around.

You're assuming there is a thought process that occurs during heat of passion. There is usually no thought process at all. Just random rage. Neither the pause, or a lack of pause, would be inconsistent with heat of passion.

For everyone not following along: I am not saying that this was a heat of passion unjustified shooting. I am expounding upon a hypothetical possibility. No information about what I think actually occurred based on the evidence currently available should be read into this post.

 

[pakeha]

The problem I seem to be having with the pause in the recording is this, if Wilson was after killing a black guy, because he disrespected him or whatever the case, why would he even pause at all? There would be no reason at all to even bother. Keep going till the gun goes *click* and then start asking question and looking around. If he paused that means he had intentions of stopping, if he had intentions of stopping then something happened to change his mind. What was it that changed his mind?

A good question.

Here's your post.
I can see why it confused you if you didn't realize the one shot from the car was not the shot at Brown as he ran away.


Why would it be unusual that the first two shots were prior to the recording starting?

Ah, thanks for clearing up the number of shots.
Unusual was a bad choice of words, sorry. IMO it does lower the value of the recording since it doesn't cover the first shot.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Michael Bradys interview is worth focusing on.

http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/new-witnesss-crucial-info-in-brown-shooting-320756803662
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/55915749/ns/msnbc/t/last-word-lawrence-odonnell-thursday-august-st/

"an altercation, some little tussling in the window ... little tussle in the window"
"his friend, he was actually like in front of the vehicle ... 5 feet away ..."

He also notes Wilson "shooting" at Brown fleeing. " "He was balled up, he was going down and he shot 4 or 5 shots at him"

He makes the punching gesture, Brown's arms were going through the window but "I honestly couldn't say" when asked if he saw Brown punch Wilson.

O'Donnell: "What did you mean by he was punching on him?" "I just assumed" as in he didn't actually see Brown hit Wilson.

I don't doubt there was an altercation, all the witnesses say so. But Brady really doesn't say he saw Brown punch Wilson.

He saw brown make punching motions through the police car window.

O`DONNELL: Where were his hands?
BRADY: Most likely through the window.

I'm not sure what it means other than he saw brown punching wilson.

He says Johnson wasn't in the tussle. So much for the bracelet.

I see three options:
1) Johnson was lying when he said he got hit by the door
2) Brady is lying when he says "his friend, he was actually like in front of the vehicle ... 5 feet away ..."
3) Brady missed the beginning of the altercation.

Brady:I was actually in my bedroom, and I hear an altercation outside. I happened to look out the
window. I see an altercation, some kind of tussling in the window.

It seems he clearly missed the beginning of the altercation. It could easily be that point at which Johnson was involved, and he had already moved to the other side of the vehicle by the time brady started watching.

He also describes a volley of shots as Brown was fleeing, not a single shot.

Brady:And like I said, they both just take off from the vehicle after a little tussle in the window. And his friend runs behind a white two-door vehicle that was sitting off to the side. And the officer immediately just gets out the vehicle and he just started shooting. So, when he started shooting, he was actually taking large steps to him, to him...

Ambiguous as to number of shots.

Also: The company claims the echos prove that the shooter did not move more than 4 feet while these shots were fired.

He does say he saw the final shots. And he also says Brown was doubled over and going down before those last shots. He also says Wilson was 20-25 feet away when he shot the final volley.

He didn't see Brown's hands go up but he was also running to a different view point during that time. That Brady doesn't say he saw Brown's hands up makes him sound very honest. That he says Wilson shot as Brown was already doubled over... I'm sorry people but there is some very credible evidence here between these witnesses and the autopsy, that Wilson shot at Brown who was already going down.

I think one of the things that adds to his credibility is that the wasn't on grassy knoll, gathered with all the other witnesses. But his story is still inconsistent, and leaves questions.

The police seem confident of a shot fired at the car, but:
O`DONNELL: And did you hear a shot fired before Michael Brown ran away from the car?
BRADY: No, that`s what I didn`t hear. Because like I said, I was still in the window while it was going on.

He can't hear a shot through the window, but hears the altercation ?

Brady heard the altercation, but hasn't described what was said as he watched. No "I give up" which was supposed to happen right as the last 4 shots occurred ?

Brady:But the officer, before he went down, the officer lets out three or four more shots at him. That`s when he hit the ground.

Why was brown doubled over, hands around stomach ... he wasn't shot in the stomach ?

How does this work with the recording of the shots:
BRADY: When I gets outside, he was actually turned back around facing the officer.

6 shots fired he doesn't hear, then makes it to the door in that 3 second window , yet brown was already turned around facing wilson ? Then he hears 4 shots ? And he must have heard them, because how else does he come up with 4 or 5 ?

Brady's testimony seriously incriminates Wilson.

Not really.I think it's still very inconclusive.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

Ah, thanks for clearing up the number of shots.
Unusual was a bad choice of words, sorry. IMO it does lower the value of the recording since it doesn't cover the first shot.

Well there are only two shell casings unaccounted for on the audio and everyone agrees one of those was shot from the car.

You have at least 4 witnesses who report Wilson firing multiple shots as Brown ran. Multiple shots can't be that single missing casing.

The only way I can put the audio with the witnesses statements, the report of 12 casings and the autopsy is if that volley of six bullets were shot as Brown fled and as soon as the bullets started flying, Brown stopped and turned around to give up. Some of the shots in that volley of 6 hit Brown in the arm.

No other scenario fits. Of course people are just cherry picking the witness statements, discounting them altogether, or claiming any discrepancy impeaches the whole of each statement.

I look at the witness testimony differently. What are the things that are consistent between the stories? What is consistent with the physical evidence?

You expect witness stories to have some things wrong. You expect some inconsistency. But that is not a reason to take nothing the witnesses said into account.

There is only the single ad hoc statement on the video that doesn't say Brown was giving up. But that account doesn't say Brown was charging at or attacking Wilson. It only says Brown was moving toward Wilson. And that is consistent with getting down or falling down depending on what that person actually saw.

It's the pinnacle of confirmation bias to latch on to that one ad hoc statement and read all sorts of things into it including claiming it was the only honest statement of what a person saw because he wasn't being interviewed and hadn't heard any other witnesses at the time.

He also may not have had a clear view, might have meant something else, might be filling in things he didn't see because that's what some people do.

I think he did see the shooting. I think he was surprised Brown wasn't taken out by the volley of 6 shots. But I don't think he corroborated anything about Brown charging at or attacking Wilson. And given 4 other witnesses saw Brown going down before the last 4 shots, the autopsy and the audio recording corroborate those accounts. The one ad hoc recording does not contradict the four.

I found Brady and Mitchell to be very credible witnesses. But not only that, explain that kill shot to the top of the head if Brown was not going down already?

You really can't without some serious contortions like the far fetched 'paranoid on drugs charging like a bull', 'Wilson had a fractured eye socket', and 'all the witnesses matched up their stories as they congregated on the grassy knoll' scenarios.

 

[Kestrel]

The audio recording captured a group of six, a short pause, then a group of for shots. The two extra shell casings must have come from shots before or after the time captured by the audio recording. If before, it has to be far enough before to avoid an echo showing up on the audio.

We know Brown ran because his body was over 100 ft. from the SUV. The position of the cartridges should give us an idea where Wilson was when he fired. Did any of the witnesses described where Wilson was or his shooting stance?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Here is the transcript of the O'Donnell-Brady interview.

It does not say what has been claimed in the thread.

For example Brady clearly says his punching gesture did not mean he saw any punches thrown:

O`DONNELL: OK, through the window. And you just made sort of a punching gesture. Would you say -- could you tell from your angle if Michael Brown was punching?
BRADY: I really can`t tell. I just know -- I seen probably the cop`s arm
was probably doing the same thing. I just seen some arms going through the
window. That`s why I was doing this. But most likely I would say that
Mike Brown`s arms was through the window....

BRADY: Well, like I said, when I first looked out the window and saw that,
that`s just what I assumed that he was punching on him. You know, because that`s not normal for anybody to be, you know, at the cop`s window, so I just assumed.

But it doesn't matter. No one denies there was an altercation at the car.

BRADY: No, actually, he was -- the officer was already shooting. He was already shooting. That`s why when he immediately gets out the car, he just started shooting in his shooting position.

This is the devastating (for Wilson) part:

BRADY: When I gets outside, he [Brown] was actually turned back around facing the officer. Like I said, I thought he was hit obviously because he's turned around and he was going down, he was bent over with his hands over his stomach and he was going down on his knees. Like I said, it didn't look like he was giving up. You know, it just looked like he was going to go down and just bleed to death. But the officer, before he went down, the officer lets out three or four more shots at him. That`s when he hit the ground.

If Brady were colluding with the other witnesses he might have said he saw Brown surrendering. But he says he didn't see that. He saw Brown going down and then Wilson let loose the last volley of 4 shots.

And this:

O`DONNELL: When you came to the door and you saw Michael Brown beginning to go down, did it seem like he was -- he was in any way threatening the police officer as he was going down?
BRADY: No, no. Like I said, he was already 20, 25 feet away. So it didn't look like at all that he was trying to charge at him or anything like that.

It matches Tiffany Mitchell's testimony.

 

[plague311]

*snip*Why was brown doubled over, hands around stomach ... he wasn't shot in the stomach ?

I think that doubling over would be a natural reaction for an arm hit. I've seen a ton of broken arms, and elbows in my time. The first thing all or at least most of them do is grab the limb, cradle it, and double over. Most drop to their knees and kind of rock back and forth. I'm sure there's a trillion videos on youtube. Check out any skateboarder that breaks his elbow, you'll see what I mean. I don't see anything weird about that.

 

[Mumbles]

Of course that's why they did it. But then this shows they weren't complying with a FOIA request and were instead "trying the case in the media". The complaint is that they did this on the same day they felt compelled to finally released the identity of Darren Wilson, after giving him a week to move away and scrub his Facebook page of anything that would make him look bad. They also did not release the incident report or any medical records that could make Wilson look bad. In other words, this release was intended to sway public opinion in a one sided way, and considering the very public anger that surrounds the case, only succeeded in making people angrier.

For reference, Goldie Taylor reported this the day the video was released - namely, that nobody had specifically filed a request for it to be released to the public. Other reporters have since found the same (for example here - granted, Huffington Post is not, IMO, the best of sources, but I think it's reasonable to point to here.).

In other words, the chief's claim that they were flooded with requests for the tape was a lie. Yet another reason to give his version of events no credibility.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

For reference, Goldie Taylor reported this the day the video was released - namely, that nobody had specifically filed a request for it to be released to the public. Other reporters have since found the same (for example here - granted, Huffington Post is not, IMO, the best of sources, but I think it's reasonable to point to here.).

In other words, the chief's claim that they were flooded with requests for the tape was a lie. Yet another reason to give his version of events no credibility.

It appears the story comes entirely from here:
http://theblot.com/exclusive-fergus...about-michael-brown-surveillance-tape-7725621

It's a very strange article. They assert (bolding mine):
However, a review of open records requests sent to the Ferguson Police Department found that no news organization, reporter or individual specifically sought the release of the surveillance tape before police distributed it on Aug. 15.

Yet they link to the log sent to them by ferguson, And they were flooded for requests for all information regarding Michael brown.

I guess they are making the argument that when jackson said:
“We got a lot of Freedom of Information requests for this tape, and at some point it was just determined we had to release it. We didn’t have good cause, any other reason not to release it under FOI.”
it was a lie because it wasn't for this tape specifically.

That seems to me to be some serious hair splitting. In context “We got a lot of Freedom of Information requests for this tape" is true, if "this tape" falls into the category of documents required to be released under Missouri sunshine law 610.203

If someone can point to the law that exempts the cigar robbery recording from being released, that would answer the question of whether it should have been released or not.

 

[Kestrel]

I think that doubling over would be a natural reaction for an arm hit. I've seen a ton of broken arms, and elbows in my time. The first thing all or at least most of them do is grab the limb, cradle it, and double over. Most drop to their knees and kind of rock back and forth. I'm sure there's a trillion videos on youtube. Check out any skateboarder that breaks his elbow, you'll see what I mean. I don't see anything weird about that.

The effects of shock from breaking an arm or being hit by gunfire are not localized to the site of the injury. The same can be said about the effects of blood loss. Either one could cause a victim to feal light headed.