Status
Not open for further replies.
By his own admission he's a fear driven killer.

Considering that the legal requirement for Self-Defence is "In fear for one's life" I'd say anyone that claimed self defence and wasn't a "fear driven killer" needs to be found guilty.
 
...

That's not saying that there isn't a problem, it's just saying that the problems are way more complex that just racist police.

I'm not sure that racist police are a significant problem at all with regard to shootings of civilians.

I tried to get a feel for this with some statistics that I described in an earlier post. It was true that blacks are shot by police at a higher per capita rate than white people but when I took into account the higher crime rates in black communities by using the difference in murder rates between white and black populations the rate that blacks were shot by police was roughly accounted for without assuming any racism.

However, if the Arman video is remotely typical of how the white police operate in Ferguson, then I could easily understand how the black population would see the police as a bunch of racist jerks.

The Democratic Party has a big stake in these kind of events. They use them as a way to reach out to the black community and tell them that they are the party that cares about them. Generally, Democratic Party partisans go along and will continue to promote the incidents even, as in this case, the evidence doesn't appear to support their claims.

Of course, the Republicans do the same kind of thing for their interest groups so this is not to say that Republicans have some sort of moral superiority over Democrats. Both parties are driven pretty much by the goal of getting elected and neither party is all that excited about truth.
 
I'm not sure that racist police are a significant problem at all with regard to shootings of civilians.

I tried to get a feel for this with some statistics that I described in an earlier post. It was true that blacks are shot by police at a higher per capita rate than white people but when I took into account the higher crime rates in black communities by using the difference in murder rates between white and black populations the rate that blacks were shot by police was roughly accounted for without assuming any racism.

However, if the Arman video is remotely typical of how the white police operate in Ferguson, then I could easily understand how the black population would see the police as a bunch of racist jerks.

The Democratic Party has a big stake in these kind of events. They use them as a way to reach out to the black community and tell them that they are the party that cares about them. Generally, Democratic Party partisans go along and will continue to promote the incidents even, as in this case, the evidence doesn't appear to support their claims.

Of course, the Republicans do the same kind of thing for their interest groups so this is not to say that Republicans have some sort of moral superiority over Democrats. Both parties are driven pretty much by the goal of getting elected and neither party is all that excited about truth.

I get the feeling that a lot of it is sort of self-reproducing cycle. Young black men grow up in an environment that tells them that they shouldn't trust authority or the police, and in communities where violence and crime are high, where they are told daily that they'll never amount to anything unless they are good at sports or music, because that's all society will allow a black to do to get rich, and the best way out is to join a gang and make money via crime. The trouble is that in doing so, they are more likely to end up having bad interactions with the police, which then in turn fuels the fires that the police have it in for young black men.

Add to that that the police mostly only see people at their worst, and they find that they are dealing with a lot of young black men, then naturally, they start to suspect every young black man. I used to know a lot of Kiwi cops though various ways, including having an uncle who was one, and have been told multiple times that as a Cop it becomes very hard not to see everyone as a criminal because those are the people you see day in and day out. So in the end, both sides end up creating a confirmation bias towards the other, and that bias just fuels it on in a never ending circle.
 
I get the feeling that a lot of it is sort of self-reproducing cycle. Young black men grow up in an environment that tells them that they shouldn't trust authority or the police, and in communities where violence and crime are high, where they are told daily that they'll never amount to anything unless they are good at sports or music, because that's all society will allow a black to do to get rich, and the best way out is to join a gang and make money via crime. The trouble is that in doing so, they are more likely to end up having bad interactions with the police, which then in turn fuels the fires that the police have it in for young black men.

Add to that that the police mostly only see people at their worst, and they find that they are dealing with a lot of young black men, then naturally, they start to suspect every young black man. I used to know a lot of Kiwi cops though various ways, including having an uncle who was one, and have been told multiple times that as a Cop it becomes very hard not to see everyone as a criminal because those are the people you see day in and day out. So in the end, both sides end up creating a confirmation bias towards the other, and that bias just fuels it on in a never ending circle.

It's a difficult issue that I've never been able to sort out. As I mentioned above police officers in the city where I live, Fullerton, beat the crap out of a peaceful, but mentally disturbed individual. Based on the video of the incident I had no doubt that a horrible crime had been committed. The main perpetrators lost their jobs, but all the officers involved were found not guilty in a trial. I have no idea what went down there, but if the victim had been black I, a white person, would have guessed that racism was an issue. As it is everybody was white, so no riots and no general sense by some racial group that they were screwed.

I think it is just very hard when you are a racial minority to distinguish between racism and non-racially motivated antagonistic behavior. I keep going back to the Arman video, was Wilson being a racist jerk there or just a jerk. Reasonably, Arman, might have assumed racist jerk when really Wilson was just being the same jerk that he often was.

And of course, it gets complicated, because Arman might have assumed that Wilson was a racist jerk because he was a white cop and so he initiated the whole thing just to get video of a racist jerk. I don't know. If that were so, did that excuse Wilson? I didn't think so, but others in this thread were willing to cut Wilson what I saw as an absurd amount of slack for his behavior.
 
Last edited:
Does anybody have any thoughts about this article?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/...killed-148-feet-away-from-Darren-Wilson-s-SUV

Video: Police lied. Mike Brown was killed 148 feet away from Darren Wilson's SUV


Of course the police were lying and anything Wilson says is totally self serving, nothing surprising about that. Until one officer, somewhere, will be willing to step across that thin blue line, they will always circle the wagons and cover each other. Same thing with doctors. If you (generic you) won't blow the whistle on a fellow officer, that officer will continue to get away with their bad actions. At least Wilson won't be in Ferguson any more.
 
Does anybody have any thoughts about this article?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/...killed-148-feet-away-from-Darren-Wilson-s-SUV

Video: Police lied. Mike Brown was killed 148 feet away from Darren Wilson's SUV

Seems like some early misstatements of fact. The SLCPD crime scene unit measured the scene that day [Vol. II; p 57] after the evidence had been photographed. The distance from the mark indicating the position of Wilson's driver-front tire and the final position of a baseline established from the position of Brown's head was 153 feet 9 inches [Vol. II; p 145]. That was recorded the same day of the shooting.
 
It appears that the police are claiming in the video that Wilson was 35 feet away from the SUV when he killed Brown. I didn't hear the police in the video claim that Brown's body was 35 feet from the SUV.

Ranb
 
If someone manages to run over a hundred feet when already dead, maybe shooting them some more is a good idea.
 
Sorry if this has been answered.

Is there a scenario that explains Brown's wounds and is consistent with the testimony of Wilson?

I've always had difficulty reconciling the two.
 
Does anybody have any thoughts about this article?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/...killed-148-feet-away-from-Darren-Wilson-s-SUV

Video: Police lied. Mike Brown was killed 148 feet away from Darren Wilson's SUV

I said it many times here and elsewhere - the police chief's shifting and lying only serves to confuse matters, and even worse, looks like a coverup to protect a corrupt cop. If Wilson's shooting was justified, they aren't doing him any favors at all. I believe it was the friday after the shooting - when he released the store video that he claimed was unrelated to the shooting, before backpeddling - that I said that I had no confidence in anything he said, and that he certainly should resign for his fumbling.
 
It appears that the police are claiming in the video that Wilson was 35 feet away from the SUV when he killed Brown. I didn't hear the police in the video claim that Brown's body was 35 feet from the SUV. Ranb

In the August 10, 2014 press conference, St. Louis County Police Chief John Belmar does say several times (at 1:19 and at 6:10 of the video linked below) that "the entire crime scene" is about thirty-five feet.

 
Sorry if this has been answered.

Is there a scenario that explains Brown's wounds and is consistent with the testimony of Wilson?

I've always had difficulty reconciling the two.

Consistent in that they are no glaring inconsistencies. The wounds (as is usual) don't really lend themselves to sequencing.

Most likely the initial wound was the one to Brown's right palm -- evidenced by Wilson's narrative of the struggle, the indications of a very close range GSW, the recovery of skin cells from the vehicle, descriptions of Brown holding his (presumably injured) hand close to his body and Mike Brown's bloody handprints of the back of the patrol vehicle. The last shot was the GSW to the top of the head which would have rendered Brown immediately unconscious and immobile. The other wounds are from an indeterminate distance and sequencing.

There is no indication of any would consistent with a trajectory generally from back-to-front where Brown is fully upright.
 
Sorry if this has been answered.

Is there a scenario that explains Brown's wounds and is consistent with the testimony of Wilson?

I've always had difficulty reconciling the two.

There have been about 5 walk throughs in the past 5-8 pages of this thread. It's one of those "been answered ad nauseam" situations. The tough part is to get most eye witness statements to line up with the physical evidence. The two reconcile just fine, along with a few other witnesses.

ETA: Too lazy to go through the pages, but if you search the thread for Phantom's tag you'll find them. He's laid it out by far better than anyone else, with details.
 
Last edited:
Does anybody have any thoughts about this article?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/...killed-148-feet-away-from-Darren-Wilson-s-SUV

Video: Police lied. Mike Brown was killed 148 feet away from Darren Wilson's SUV

I'd go for something lost in communication, Brown's body was 152' from the SUV, and he'd travelled another 49' before turning back towards Wilson. I suspect that the confusion is actually that the shooting started when Brown was 35' away, but as he came forward, Wilson moved backwards, extending that distance to the 49' (i.e. in the 7 seconds of shooting Wilson moved back 24' while Brown moved forwards 49'.) It is likely that early on there was confusion about where Wilson was when the shooting occurred, and an assumption that he was at the SUV would have resulted in the shooting starting when Brown was 35' from the SUV. Since Wilson wasn't at the SUV, but had run after Brown, the actually shooting was 152' from the vehicle.

Wonderful to see the first reason from the usual suspects is that the police deliberately lied about something that would be crazy to lie about rather than allowing the possibility that someone had misunderstood what they were told. Such Skepticism there.
 
Consistent in that they are no glaring inconsistencies. The wounds (as is usual) don't really lend themselves to sequencing.

Most likely the initial wound was the one to Brown's right palm -- evidenced by Wilson's narrative of the struggle, the indications of a very close range GSW, the recovery of skin cells from the vehicle, descriptions of Brown holding his (presumably injured) hand close to his body and Mike Brown's bloody handprints of the back of the patrol vehicle. The last shot was the GSW to the top of the head which would have rendered Brown immediately unconscious and immobile. The other wounds are from an indeterminate distance and sequencing.

There is no indication of any would consistent with a trajectory generally from back-to-front where Brown is fully upright.
With all due respect, this is as clear as mud. How does the scenario account for the shot to the top of the head. I can accept that the shot to the top of the head left brown unconscious and immobile but that is not what I asked.

Can you provide a blow by blow of events that reconciles the data with the claims by Wilson?
 
Sorry if this has been answered.

Is there a scenario that explains Brown's wounds and is consistent with the testimony of Wilson?

I've always had difficulty reconciling the two.

Wilson claims that Brown had his hand over the gun when the first shot was fired, this is consistent with the wound to the hand and lower arm od Brown, which is the only close contact wound.

Wilson that claims to have fired a second time, but was unsure if this shot hit. Brown did have a wound to the arm that was a graze, and this shot might have caused it, but it's impossible to tell.

These claims are consistent with the shell casings and blood evidence found at the scene.

Next Wilson claims that Brown ran and that he fired at him again. This is actually inconsistent with the evidence as there are no casings to support him having fired after exiting the vehicle and pursing Brown, nor are there unaccounted for rounds missing from his weapon.

Wilson then claims that Brown stopped, and turned towards him, bulking up and after a hop like step came at him head down at which point he fire a round of shots. The consistency here is an unknown as we don't know when Brown was hit, it is possible that he received the graze to this arm during this part. It is highly unlikely that Brown received any of the torso wound, and also unlikely that he was hit in the arm at this point, thought he may have received the through and through to his arm as well at this point. We know from the audio that Wilson fired 6 shots at this point.

Whenever the through and through occurred, it did so while Brown's hands were down because had they been up it would have rotated the upper arm, and the bullet would not have been able to enter the front upper arm and exit the back of the arm as was shown in the autopsy.

Wilson claims that Brown slowed, and then came on at him, during which time he paused his shooting, this is confirmed by the audio that places a 2 second pause between volleys.

Wilson then claims that Brown was coming at him and all he could see was the top of his head because he was bent over in the charge. This is consistent with the three bullets that struck Brown and travelled into his torso. One hit just below the clavicle and stopped at the 8th rib, one struck his forehead and travelled down to stop at the 5th rib, and the final shot entered the top of Brown's head, dropping him instantly. These shots could only have been made by a shooter directly inline with Brown's head and torso, so either Wilson was standing 10 feet above him, or Brown was bent at the waist with his head down, these are the only ways to explain these three bullets, particularly the one that struck his forehead.

The Audio tells us that Wilson fired 4 times in the second volley.

This is consistent with the 10 shells that were recovered where Wilson had been firing from.

There was one bullet left in the gun, making a total of 13, which is consistent with his weapon, 12 in the mag, 1 in the chamber.

So yes, Wilsons story is remarkably consistent with the physical evidence and the autopsy results.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom