Michael Brown shooting II

[Mumbles]

What evidence is there that Wilson acted inappropriately? Could he have? Yes, but so what? What's the evidence? What is the specific accusation? Just 'maybe' and 'could have' are meaningless.

You know where this should be argued out? In a serious trial, with a strong prosecution, and a strong defense. But not a show trial in front of a Grand Jury, where the prosecutor presents defense "witnesses" that he fully knows to be lying and that never witnessed anything at all, which is what we got. The latter is completely unethical.

ETA: I fully understand that there is ambiguity in this case. It's not like Trayvon Martin, or John Crawford, or Eric Garner, which were all just clear miscarriages of justice. But this one deserves more of an examination than it got.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

You know where this should be argued out? In a serious trial, with a strong prosecution, and a strong defense.

If a crime had been committed (not counting St. Michael's robbery and assault on a police officer), that's exactly where it would have been "argued out".

But not a show trial in front of a Grand Jury, where the prosecutor presents defense "witnesses" that he fully knows to be lying and that never witnessed anything at all, which is what we got. The latter is completely unethical.

What about the pro-Brown "witnesses"? You know, the ones who booked themselves on Oprah within hours of the incident, to tell everyone what they "saw".

It's not like Trayvon Martin, or John Crawford, or Eric Garner, which were all just clear miscarriages of justice.

 

[tsig]

If a crime had been committed (not counting St. Michael's robbery and assault on a police officer), that's exactly where it would have been "argued out".



What about the pro-Brown "witnesses"? You know, the ones who booked themselves on Oprah within hours of the incident, to tell everyone what they "saw".

Clearly you have cracked the case, Brown martyred himself so his buds could be on TV.

 

[davefoc]

I don't think you understand the physical/mental dynamics of a gunfight and the training for that. Those last 3 shots were fired strictly from muscle memory in accordance with his training. They did not involve rational thought or analysis at all. Brain function does not allow that in very stressful life threatening situations.

EVERYONE who carries a firearm (that specifically includes police) train to stop the threat and they will keep firing until that threat is stopped. PERIOD.

1. You probably noticed that your claim is evidence free. If somehow you missed that I hope you won't mind me pointing that out.

2. German policemen in 2011 fired off a total of 85 shots. Somehow the Germans manage to control their muscle memory enough to not turn every police shooting into a shootout at the OK corral
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/...an-police-fired-just-85-bullets-total-in-2011

3. Is this video what you mean by muscle memory?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/20/kajieme-powell-shooting_n_5696546.html

What nonsense. Is police training supposed to turn cops into some sort of robots that blast away and keep blasting away at the slightest moment they feel at risk?

4. Íf your theory is that this blast away style of policing is somehow justified because it saves cops' lives, you might be wrong about that as well. Violence begets violence and cops blasting away can get other cops killed and it can reduce community trust which is an essential element of cop safety and an essential enabler for them to be able to do their job.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Clearly you have cracked the case, Brown martyred himself so his buds could be on TV.

I don't think he was that bright. After all, he was the Gentle Giant, not the Genius Giant.

 

[Reheat]

1. You probably noticed that your claim is evidence free. If somehow you missed that I hope you won't mind me pointing that out.

I don't particular post a freaking video every time I say something that is common knowledge among those who carry firearms. Pardon me for confusing you with someone who might understand that.

2. German policemen in 2011 fired off a total of 85 shots. Somehow the Germans manage to control their muscle memory enough to not turn every police shooting into a shootout at the OK corral
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/...an-police-fired-just-85-bullets-total-in-2011

Here we go again. So what if German police only fired 85 rounds. Small difference in sample size among other fallacies.

3. Is this video what you mean by muscle memory?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/20/kajieme-powell-shooting_n_5696546.html

I guess you've never heard of the Tueller Drill.

What nonsense. Is police training supposed to turn cops into some sort of robots that blast away and keep blasting away at the slightest moment they feel at risk?

Nice strawman you built there. Keep matches away from it...

4. Íf your theory is that this blast away style of policing is somehow justified because it saves cops' lives, you might be wrong about that as well. Violence begets violence and cops blasting away can get other cops killed and it can reduce community trust which is an essential element of cop safety and an essential enabler for them to be able to do their job.

Another strawman, but not quite as good as your first one. You might explain what "blasting away" is since you've brought it up. Well, if some communities accepted a little more responsibility for themselves and the criminals among them, that might improve cop safety and result in a safer community, as well.

 

[theprestige]

You know where this should be argued out? In a serious trial, with a strong prosecution, and a strong defense. But not a show trial in front of a Grand Jury, where the prosecutor presents defense "witnesses" that he fully knows to be lying and that never witnessed anything at all, which is what we got. The latter is completely unethical.

That's funny, because when twelve people were gathered together and walked through all the evidence, in depth, both for and against, they reached the conclusion that this should not be argued out in a trial.

 

[Mumbles]

That's funny, because when twelve people were gathered together and walked through all the evidence, in depth, both for and against, they reached the conclusion that this should not be argued out in a trial.

Actually, this isn't funny at all. If the prosecutor is glad to say, in interviews, that he acted in a completely unethical matter...that's a problem. And that's exactly what this prosecutor did, in this case.

 

[johnny karate]

That's funny, because when twelve people were gathered together and walked through all the evidence, in depth, both for and against, they reached the conclusion that this should not be argued out in a trial.

One of the jurors for whom you presume to speak on behalf apparently didn't get that memo:

In the suit, the juror contends that "the investigation of Wilson had a stronger focus on the victim (Brown) than in other cases presented to the grand jury." The juror also states in the lawsuit that explanation of the law was made in a "muddled and untimely manner" compared with other cases that were presented to the grand jurors, who began their service in May.

In Plaintiff's view, the current information available about the grand jurors' views is not entirely accurate — especially the implication that all grand jurors believed that there was no support for any charges," according to the lawsuit. "Moreover, the public characterization of the grand jurors' view of witnesses and evidence does not accord with Plaintiff's own.

 

[theprestige]

Actually, this isn't funny at all. If the prosecutor is glad to say, in interviews, that he acted in a completely unethical matter...that's a problem. And that's exactly what this prosecutor did, in this case.

Evidence?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

One of the jurors for whom you presume to speak on behalf apparently didn't get that memo:

Translation: All the other jurors evaluated the evidence and concluded that Wilson should not be indicted. I disagreed. The evidence did not match up with what I heard on Oprah. Therefore, the process was unfair.

 

[johnny karate]

Translation: All the other jurors evaluated the evidence and concluded that Wilson should not be indicted. I disagreed. The evidence did not match up with what I heard on Oprah. Therefore, the process was unfair.

I didn't say the process was unfair. I said the process was dissimilar to what theprestige described, at least according to one of the jurors.

But you'll have to forgive me, I haven't been posting much since before the holidays, and I forgot that things like factual accuracy and honest discussion don't matter much in this thread.

I'll leave you to your desperately contorted attempts to set yourself up for zingers and hilarious egg photos.

 

[tsig]

Translation: All the other jurors evaluated the evidence and concluded that Wilson should not be indicted. I disagreed. The evidence did not match up with what I heard on Oprah. Therefore, the process was unfair.

Translation: My shtick is running a bit thin so I'll hit the "offensive' key a bit harder.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I didn't say the process was unfair. I said the process was dissimilar to what theprestige described, at least according to one of the jurors.

I was referring to the juror, not you. Although it sounds like you are sympathetic to their cause.

 

[johnny karate]

I was referring to the juror, not you.

Then your point might have been better served to precede your "translation" with something the juror said and not something I said.

Although it sounds like you are sympathetic to their cause.

I'm not sure what "cause" that would be, but whatever. It's just fun to watch people contort themselves to still praise the grand jury while criticizing an individual juror.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

It's just fun to watch people contort themselves to still praise the grand jury while criticizing an individual juror.

Agreed. Hopefully someone will show up and do that!

 

[davefoc]

...


Here we go again. So what if German police only fired 85 rounds. Small difference in sample size among other fallacies.

So why is it that German police don't have the same "muscle memory" that causes them to blast away as soon as they've fired once? Or perhaps that isn't your claim? So what is your claim and how does it explain Wilson firing three more shots at the head of a guy without a gun or knife after the guy already has several bullets in him and in the most likely scenario is just falling towards the ground and is certainly falling towards the ground when he is hit by the bullet that goes through the top of his head?

Do you think all the American police that show restraint with their weapons even after they've fired once should be retrained so they can acquire this "muscle memory" that requires them to keep shooting as soon as they've fired once?

3. Is this video what you mean by muscle memory?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/20/kajieme-powell-shooting_n_5696546.html

I guess you've never heard of the Tueller Drill.

I hadn't before this thread but I had seen the Mythbuster's episode but I didn't remember the term from that show.

So how does the Tueller drill explain the shooting of a individual that was actually moving away from the police at the time the police let go their fusillade? Why were those cops even issued Tasers if this wasn't an appropriate time to use them? There are plenty of cops present to shoot the guy if something unexpected happens so the use of a Taser if it was even necessary at all seems like a far better choice.

Or are you so steeped in the lore of "muscle memory" that even cops shooting at an individual that was moving away from them represents a fair game target because their "muscle memory" is just too deeply ingrained to allow any conscious control of their gun?

ETA: My guess is that Wilson was a cowardly jerk that often used the color of his authority to act rudely and hassle people. I don't have much evidence to support that. There is the Arman video and at least one citizen that has come forward to describe a similar encounter with Wilson. In addition there is a long period in Wilson's career where the police decided not to keep records of complaints suggesting a long standing approach to policing in Ferguson in which the police were inadequately monitored for inappropriate behavior. I also think that Wilson is lying about the reason he drove back to confront Brown and Johnson. If it was his goal to arrest them in the safest way possible he would have moved forward and kept them under surveillance until backup arrived. His approach put himself unnecessarily in harms way, was against the common theory of policing that the safest way for everybody involved to arrest a a potentially difficult individual is with the use of overwhelming force and it made it more likely that the suspects would flee in a way that he couldn't do anything about except shoot them.

I also suspect that Wilson was a coward. He didn't mind hassling people when he thought there was no risk to himself but when he experienced personal risk he blasted away rather than attempt any other alternatives.

But as I have stated several times, in order for any of these theories to be useful in the prosecution of Wilson in a beyond a reasonable doubt situation the evidence would need to have been stronger. But I still think there is enough here that justifies a complete reexamination of the use of force by the Ferguson police, a complete reexamination of their policies for curtailing abuses by the police and potentially sanctions against Wilson for violations of police policy in this incident.

Reheat's ideas about "muscle memory" and the justification for almost any police shootings where there is the slightest evidence of the possible justification for it would be right in my opinion in a situation where timely backup for a policeman was unlikely. That wasn't the case in the Brown shooting and it was categorically not the case in the Powell shooting.

 

[mgidm86]

...

But as I have stated several times, in order for any of these theories to be useful in the prosecution of Wilson in a beyond a reasonable doubt situation the evidence would need to have been stronger. But I still think there is enough here that justifies a complete reexamination of the use of force by the Ferguson police, a complete reexamination of their policies for curtailing abuses by the police and potentially sanctions against Wilson for violations of police policy in this incident.

Reheat's ideas about "muscle memory" and the justification for almost any police shootings where there is the slightest evidence of the possible justification for it would be right in my opinion in a situation where timely backup for a policeman was unlikely. That wasn't the case in the Brown shooting and it was categorically not the case in the Powell shooting.

I think criminals are the ones who need to reexamine their use of force to other people, including the police. They need to profile themselves, therefore the police will not feel a need to do so.

I do not want police letting someone who they know just robbed a store, then attacked a cop while he's in his own car, to just walk away while the cop waits for backup. Yes, there are people in this thread who have argued this exact thing.

If I saw a guy attack a cop in his own car and I heard a gunshot, and the cop let the perpetrator continue walking up the street towards me, I'd be pretty pissed off.

 

[WildCat]

So how does the Tueller drill explain the shooting of a individual that was actually moving away from the police at the time the police let go their fusillade?

Did you watch a different video than the one you linked? Because in that video the suspect was moving towards the police knife in hand.

 

[plague311]

I think criminals are the ones who need to reexamine their use of force to other people, including the police. They need to profile themselves, therefore the police will not feel a need to do so.

I do not want police letting someone who they know just robbed a store, then attacked a cop while he's in his own car, to just walk away while the cop waits for backup. Yes, there are people in this thread who have argued this exact thing.

If I saw a guy attack a cop in his own car and I heard a gunshot, and the cop let the perpetrator continue walking up the street towards me, I'd be pretty pissed off.

Exactly. Throughout this thread people have implied that Wilson acted inappropriately because he didn't run like hell when this situation started. Some have openly stated that he should have just let Brown go, after Brown has shown a willingness to not only assault a police officer, but other members of the community. Some have said they should have just let him go and then went and found him later, because, somehow, that's the responsible thing to do. Let a violent individual with a willingness to attack be free in the community, and then just snag him up later. As if that's not the dumbest thing I've ever heard in my life. Someone even said Wilson should have locked himself inside of his car....LOCKED HIMSELF INSIDE OF HIS CAR!!!! Yup, that's what we should turn our cops into. Mind boggling.