Michael Brown shooting II

[plague311]

I'm not sure if this has been posted, or if it will be by the time the lag subsides, but this showed up while I was wandering around the intertubes today. Some highlights are the medical examiner report which states that he couldn't have had his hands up (I knew I'd heard it was in there somewhere!) and:

A new account of the events surrounding the shooting of Michael Brown has just been released by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Their source says that Michael Brown kept charging Officer Wilson. One of the Brown family’s lawyers tells the paper that Wilson’s version of events is absurd.

and a huge eyeroll to this stupidity:

An autopsy report obtained by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch shows that Brown had THC, the mind altering chemical in marijuana, in his system at the time of his death.

OH NOZ!11!1!!!1!ELEVENTYONE!11!!!! The marijuanas!!1!!!111

I can't believe they even bother to bring it up. Anyway, I can't see text at the post-dispatch. I'm assuming you have to register or something, and frankly I don't wanna. I saw the intro paragraph referred to Brown pressing the gun against Wilson's hip. The Brown family attorney is crying ********.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://theconservativetreehouse.com...discussion-thread-in-anticipation-of-no-bill/

The Treehouse has a nice round up of the latest news releases on the case.

They are biased towards Wilson, but the media links are also there.

 

[Mike!]

More breaking news, including Wilson's account and the official autopsy report...

http://fox2now.com/2014/10/22/source-gives-darren-wilsons-account-of-michael-brown-shooting/

 

[Cylinder]

SIAP, the Michael Brown autopsy report has been leaked to the Post-Dispatch in anticipation of the no true bill announcement.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Looks like I am correct again. You'll recall in the original thread that all the "witnesses" who were booked on Oprah testified that St Michael had his hands in the air, was shot in the back while running away, and/or was begging for his life. I, and others, suggested that perhaps there were other witnesses who hadn't booked a spot on Oprah, and just might tell things a little differently.

For the non-skeptics/true bleevers, it looks like your chickens have come home to roost.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/new-evidence-supports-officers-account-of-shooting-in-ferguson/2014/10/22/cf38c7b4-5964-11e4-bd61-346aee66ba29_story.html?TID=SM_FB

Seven or eight African American eyewitnesses have provided testimony consistent with Wilson’s account, but none of them have spoken publicly out of fear for their safety, The Washington Post’s sources said.

Scrambled or fried?

 

[Monketi Ghost]

I feel bad for the folks who honestly believed in Brown's innocence but this puts a pretty big damper on the nutty white cop shots innocent black teen theory.

 

[Lerxst]

Looks like Mr Crump is going to earn his money on this one,

 

[Unabogie]

Looks like I am correct again. You'll recall in the original thread that all the "witnesses" who were booked on Oprah testified that St Michael had his hands in the air, was shot in the back while running away, and/or was begging for his life. I, and others, suggested that perhaps there were other witnesses who hadn't booked a spot on Oprah, and just might tell things a little differently.

For the non-skeptics/true bleevers, it looks like your chickens have come home to roost.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/new-evidence-supports-officers-account-of-shooting-in-ferguson/2014/10/22/cf38c7b4-5964-11e4-bd61-346aee66ba29_story.html?TID=SM_FB

Seven or eight African American eyewitnesses have provided testimony consistent with Wilson’s account, but none of them have spoken publicly out of fear for their safety, The Washington Post’s sources said.

Scrambled or fried?

So wait, no more "Fatima"? Now eyewitnesses, who of course are not even named in your story, are suddenly solid evidence? Weird. It's almost as if you've got one standard for witnesses you like, and another for ones you don't. Isn't there a term for that?

 

[Mike!]

Looks like I am correct again. You'll recall in the original thread that all the "witnesses" who were booked on Oprah testified that St Michael had his hands in the air, was shot in the back while running away, and/or was begging for his life. I, and others, suggested that perhaps there were other witnesses who hadn't booked a spot on Oprah, and just might tell things a little differently.

For the non-skeptics/true bleevers, it looks like your chickens have come home to roost.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/new-evidence-supports-officers-account-of-shooting-in-ferguson/2014/10/22/cf38c7b4-5964-11e4-bd61-346aee66ba29_story.html?TID=SM_FB



Scrambled or fried?

From the linked article,

Benjamin L. Crump, a lawyer for the Brown family, said Brown’s family and supporters will not be persuaded by the autopsy report or eyewitness statements that back Wilson’s account of the incident.

“The family has not believed anything the police or this medical examiner has said,” Crump said. “They have their witnesses. We have seven witnesses that we know about that say the opposite.”

Looks like nothing short of Wilson behind bars (Awaiting execution), guilty or not, will give them satisfaction.

 

[Fudbucker]

You started off good, but then got lost a bit towards the end. Forensic evidence shows he was shot inside the car, but it does not determine whether he initiated the attack or was acting in self defense or what prompted his being partially inside the car. Further, it matters what happened after they disengaged from the confrontation in the car.

Self defense? From what, Wilson trying to pull him through through the window? Please, Brown was 6 foot 4 and 300 pounds. Wilson had injuries to his face and neck. Brown had just robbed a convenience store. We might never know who attacked who, but we can certainly say, with high probability, that the guy who just robbed the store was more likely to initiate a confrontation with the cop with no disciplinary record.

Remember, to bring this to trial, the prosecutor would have to convince 12 people that's there's no reasonable doubt that Brown was acting in self-defense when he went for Wilson's gun. Not only can we reasonably doubt that, we can assert that there's a high probability the exact opposite happened- Brown, who just robbed a store, attacked Wilson, went for the gun, and was shot in the process.

Life isn't D&D and this wasn't an encounter that only concludes once one side or the other is defeated. Any threat Wilson might have felt inside the car does not necessarily carry over once the immediate threat has been removed.

If Brown went for Wilson's gun, Wilson could be justified in shooting him in the back as he's running away. When someone's a danger to the community (e.g., a robbery suspect who goes for a cop's gun), the police can use lethal force, even when they're running away.

Again, I think there is a bigger issue that is being overlooked in all the finger pointing. Namely, systemic racism in the justice and law enforcement systems and distrust of the police among the black community.

That's a big issue, but so is the rush to judgement against Wilson by the Ferguson community.

Edited by LashL: 

Edited for moderated thread.

 

[Quad4_72]

Looks like I am correct again. You'll recall in the original thread that all the "witnesses" who were booked on Oprah testified that St Michael had his hands in the air, was shot in the back while running away, and/or was begging for his life. I, and others, suggested that perhaps there were other witnesses who hadn't booked a spot on Oprah, and just might tell things a little differently.

For the non-skeptics/true bleevers, it looks like your chickens have come home to roost.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...4-11e4-bd61-346aee66ba29_story.html?TID=SM_FB



Scrambled or fried?

So since the autopsy report contradicts the eyewitnesses, does that mean they are all a bunch of liars? I would think so....

 

[TheL8Elvis]

What have we been told about Wilson's story? Cite, please.

You don't remember "Josie" earlier in the thread ?

I believe it was nitpicked earlier that it wasn't really the forehead, therefor everything she said is wrong.

I agree that knowing the last/lethal shot was to the forehead provides her credibility.

Brown may have taunted or said something to Wilson, as "josies" story claims. I think Brown came towards wilson. Wilson felt threatened and fired 6 rounds. Brown stopped, maybe sort-of put his hands up, then stumbled or stepped forward toward Wilson and wilson fired off the last 4 rounds. The last 2 of which hit in the forehead/top of the head as he fell forward. And landed just a few feet away.

There is still room to argue that shooting wasn't necessary, but on a very different level than shooting him from behind, from 30 or 40 feet away, etc.

We still have plenty of missing facts that will be filled in. But until then, it's a plausible scenario to me that fits the witness statements we know, "josie", the random non-witness statements we overhear, and the audio recording.

That Josie.

There's forensic evidence to corroborate this witness's claim that Brown's hands weren't in the air? Cite, please.

That wasn't my claim , why are you asking me ? However, at this point, yes there is forensic evidence.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_e98a4ce0-c284-57c9-9882-3fb7df75fef6.html

I have no idea if this witness offered accurate testimony, and neither do you. All any of us can do is piece together all of the evidence to best determine a narrative of events.

And up until this eye witness testimony was made known, it was asserted over and over again how unreliable eye witness testimony is. I'm happy to offer cites, if you like.

So just out of curiosity, what makes this eye witness testimony more reliable than any of the others? I'm just trying to get a handle on the standards of evidence the skeptics in this thread are applying, because it seems to vary depending on how much they like the evidence.

Not really any need to address this at this point, is there ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Whatever happened to that devastating recording that purportedly somehow proved brown was shot from behind ?

Seems that was totally not the case.

 

[Cylinder]

The real autopsy bombshell is wound 11 on page 8. The wound is between Brown's right thumb and palm. The exterior examination did not reveal the stippling from burning powder that would be expected in a close-range gunshot wound.

Later in the document, though, the supplemental microscopic examination reveals that particulates consistent with gunshot residue was found within the wound track of the right hand -- very strongly implying that Brown's right hand was in contact with the muzzle of Wilson's firearm when it was discharged.

 

[Upchurch]

If Brown went for Wilson's gun, Wilson could be justified in shooting him in the back as he's running away.

Just to be clear, you are arguing that he'd be justified in shooting an unarmed teenager in the back as he fled?

Is there a law that says a cop has free reign to shoot a person if they try to take his gun, regardless of the circumstances?

That's a big issue, but so is the rush to judgement against Wilson by the Ferguson community.

As are the Ferguson police response to protests and news reporters or even the rush to judgement by posters in this thread, for and against Wilson.

Even now, the evidence is still ambiguous and not quite the slam dunk some seem to think it is. The only thing it shows is that Brown was shot in the car. It is still equally plausible that Wilson did something just as stupid as trying to pull Brown into the car as it is for the 300 lbs. Brown to do something stupid like attempt to dive through a car window, across Wilson's body, and attempt to grab Wilson's holstered gun which may or may not have been wedged between Wilson and the center console or under a seatbelt.

Neither scenario is very rational, but those are the two versions we've been given.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

So wait, no more "Fatima"? Now eyewitnesses, who of course are not even named in your story, are suddenly solid evidence? Weird.

Eyewitnesses who independently corroborate the Officer Wilsons story, and whose story is corroborated by the forensic evidence. Yeah, that's pretty solid evidence when compared to friends of Michael Brown who told an unbelievable story about a racist officer who executed the gentle giant for walking while black.

It's almost as if you've got one standard for witnesses you like, and another for ones you don't. Isn't there a term for that?

No, just one standard - skepticism.

 

[Wolrab]

So wait, no more "Fatima"? Now eyewitnesses, who of course are not even named in your story, are suddenly solid evidence? Weird. It's almost as if you've got one standard for witnesses you like, and another for ones you don't. Isn't there a term for that?

Not everybody at Fatima saw what they were expected to see.

The first more vocal witnesses all knew Brown or Johnson and were seen milling around each other and could easily have reinforced their stories or saw what they expected to see, cop shoots Brown for no reason. Johnson was never a good witness as his initial story changed drastically and he was involved with Brown's earlier .... antics.

Now, with the physical evidence and other witness testimony (not an Oprah circus) , their stories seem more biased than ever.

The initial rush to judgement in this thread was all based on those first witnesses and absolutely nothing else.

 

[Upchurch]

The DOJ is not amused:

Justice Department condemns Ferguson leaks as effort to sway opinion

St. Louis County prosecutor’s office spokesman Ed Magee said his office probably wouldn’t investigate the leaks because prosecutors could not force journalists to divulge their sources and because the information could be coming from federal officials in Washington.

“There’s really nothing to investigate,” Magee said Wednesday. “We don’t have control over anybody leaking anything. All we can control is people in our office and the grand jury, and it’s not coming from us or the grand jury.”

He said that “you can tell by the information they have” that the leaks are not coming from the grand jury or the prosecutor’s office, citing reports using sourcing language such as “officials briefed on the investigation.”

[...]

A Justice Department spokeswoman responded in a statement to the Los Angeles Times: “The department considers the selective release of information in this investigation to be irresponsible and highly troubling. Since the release of the convenience-store footage, there seems to be an inappropriate effort to influence public opinion about this case.”

 

[Upchurch]

It is still equally plausible that Wilson did something just as stupid as trying to pull Brown into the car as it is for the 300 lbs. Brown to do something stupid like attempt to dive through a car window, across Wilson's body, and attempt to grab Wilson's holstered gun which may or may not have been wedged between Wilson and the center console or under a seatbelt.

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.

 

[Distracted1]

Just to be clear, you are arguing that he'd be justified in shooting an unarmed teenager in the back as he fled?

Is there a law that says a cop has free reign to shoot a person if they try to take his gun, regardless of the circumstances?



As are the Ferguson police response to protests and news reporters or even the rush to judgement by posters in this thread, for and against Wilson.

Even now, the evidence is still ambiguous and not quite the slam dunk some seem to think it is. The only thing it shows is that Brown was shot in the car. It is still equally plausible that Wilson did something just as stupid as trying to pull Brown into the car as it is for the 300 lbs. Brown to do something stupid like attempt to dive through a car window, across Wilson's body, and attempt to grab Wilson's holstered gun which may or may not have been wedged between Wilson and the center console or under a seatbelt.

Neither scenario is very rational, but those are the two versions we've been given.

Actually, the report as I read it indicates that Mr.Brown began punching officer Wilson not making an immediate move for his gun.
The officer claims that it was while he was under assault that he went for his gun, which Mr. Brown quite rationally ( at that point ) tried to get from him.

As to the equal plausibility of each possibility, to me they begin to separate when one considers that Mr. Brown was robbing and assaulting someone just ten minutes prior to this confrontation, an was quite possibly (tox report) impaired at the time of conflict.