Michael Brown shooting II

[Newtons Bit]

Well considering that the article make a shooting where the guy refused to come quietly, started a fight with the cops, then grabbed one of their guns a "bad shoot" and also seemed to be declaring the same about a robber who was running from the police while firing a gun at them, I'm not surprised either because it seems that in some people's opinion unless a cop is shot multiple times he's not allowed to shoot back, and probably not even then.

You should change that to "a known mentally ill man started a fight with cops who never identified themselves as cops..."

I'm from Albuquerque. Our police department here will kill people with the slightest excuse.

 

[Newtons Bit]

You then follow that up with a statement that equates to, "They've done other bad stuff, so obviously they've done something wrong in this case as well." It doesn't follow.

No, that's not what I was getting at. They've perjured themselves, and lied on police reports, and they've worked together to do it (that's an actual conspiracy, not a conspiracy theory). The moral of that story is: stop trusting what Ferguson PD says and demand physical evidence. They claim that Michael Brown grabbed Wilson's gun. And they claim they knew that when they were at the scene. And yet the easiest thing in the world to do to prove that would be to test Wilson's gun for fingerprints. And for some reason they don't. It's incredibly suspicious.

Your requirements for deadly harm are laughable. Banging head on the concrete? Get real. That could kill or knock someone unconscious immediately. If he had waited until it got to that point he'd assuredly be dead. It's obvious you just haven't kept up with the evidence in this case.

And more dishonesty... you have a mediocre argument, and pretend its a slam dunk but converting what I write into a straw man. I've never said that someone had to have great bodily harm inflicted on them before using deadly force. But they do have to have a reasonable fear of it. That's why someone like George Zimmerman could claim to have a reasonable fear of great bodily harm. Trayvon Martin's actions could easily cause great bodily harm. In Daren Wilson's case, that standard wasn't met. Brown was unarmed, and the two punches he delivered to Wilson before hand just caused light bruising. A normal person wouldn't see someone who had landed two punches and fled to be intending to cause great bodily harm or death moments later.

 

[Kestrel]

You should change that to "a known mentally ill man started a fight with cops who never identified themselves as cops..."

I'm from Albuquerque. Our police department here will kill people with the slightest excuse.

That tends to happen when you issue badges and guns to guys who have the temperament of high school bullies.

 

[Newtons Bit]

You seem to have forgotten the bit about said person having a gun, just because he's face down doesn't stop him firing it.

Did he actually do that? The officers claim Torres had Hilger's gun, and yet amazingly, there's no evidence of that actually happening.

The judge also wrote that "Detectives Brown and Hilger's testimony is inconsistent with the eyewitness's testimony and the physical evidence," and said evidence showed no prints from Torres on Hilger's gun. Earlier reports said Torres went for it as the detectives tried to serve an arrest warrant.

source: http://www.kob.com/article/stories/s3470016.shtml#.VM-K92jF8zQ

 

[Kestrel]

Did he actually do that? The officers claim Torres had Hilger's gun, and yet amazingly, there's no evidence of that actually happening.

source: http://www.kob.com/article/stories/s3470016.shtml#.VM-K92jF8zQ

In the Michael Brown case there is evidence that Brown was shot at close range inside the vehicle, but no actual evidence that Brown even touched the officers gun. But that doesn't matter once an officer says the magic words "he was going for my gun".

 

[Mumbles]

You seem to have forgotten the bit about said person having a gun, just because he's face down doesn't stop him firing it.

So, now we're at the point of unarmed men magically firing bullets at police officers...

 

[WildCat]

No, that's not what I was getting at. They've perjured themselves, and lied on police reports, and they've worked together to do it (that's an actual conspiracy, not a conspiracy theory). The moral of that story is: stop trusting what Ferguson PD says and demand physical evidence. They claim that Michael Brown grabbed Wilson's gun. And they claim they knew that when they were at the scene. And yet the easiest thing in the world to do to prove that would be to test Wilson's gun for fingerprints. And for some reason they don't. It's incredibly suspicious.

All of the evidence has been released, including the physical evidence which is consistent with Wilson's story and very inconsistent with the people repeating the "hands up don't shoot" nonsense.

As for fingerprints on the gun the fact is guns do not hold fingerprints well. In fact only about 5% of guns tested have fingerprints on them. So a lack of fingerprint is not evidence the gun wasn't touched.

They did, however, find Brown's DNA on the gun.

And more dishonesty... you have a mediocre argument, and pretend its a slam dunk but converting what I write into a straw man. I've never said that someone had to have great bodily harm inflicted on them before using deadly force. But they do have to have a reasonable fear of it. That's why someone like George Zimmerman could claim to have a reasonable fear of great bodily harm. Trayvon Martin's actions could easily cause great bodily harm. In Daren Wilson's case, that standard wasn't met. Brown was unarmed, and the two punches he delivered to Wilson before hand just caused light bruising. A normal person wouldn't see someone who had landed two punches and fled to be intending to cause great bodily harm or death moments later.

A person who was already shot at and who turns around and tries to close the distance, however, is someone who one can reasonably conclude intends to cause great bodily harm.

Have you even bothered looking at the physical evidence which supports the statements that Brown turned and came back at Wilson?

 

[Newtons Bit]

All of the evidence has been released, including the physical evidence which is consistent with Wilson's story and very inconsistent with the people repeating the "hands up don't shoot" nonsense.

Not all of them. There were some people whose testimony disagreed with Wilson while not being obviously false. Though it's very hard for a grand jury to take them seriously, as their testimony is corrupted by the lies of others. Presenting the people who were obviously lying to the grand jury is one of my biggest problems with how the prosecution handled the grand jury trial.

As for fingerprints on the gun the fact is guns do not hold fingerprints well. In fact only about 5% of guns tested have fingerprints on them. So a lack of fingerprint is not evidence the gun wasn't touched.

I think you should read through that article a bit more closely. The three factors that would lead to finger prints being unrecoverable on firearms (insufficient smooth surfaces, environment and handling) do not apply in the Wilson/Brown case.

The article also states that they should at least try to test the firearm for fingerprints, which the on scene detective claims was not performed.

They did, however, find Brown's DNA on the gun.

Not surprising.

A person who was already shot at and who turns around and tries to close the distance, however, is someone who one can reasonably conclude intends to cause great bodily harm.

I disagree with this. I don't think it is something that can be automatically concluded, particularly if the person being charged is a police officer with other tools at his disposal. But Wilson, like most of Ferguson PD, are cowboy cops. Why bother using less-lethal force if one can argue that lethal force is "reasonable"? Why even bother taking equipment like tasers, as Wilson chose not to, if it is okay to use lethal force on an unarmed assailant?

Have you even bothered looking at the physical evidence which supports the statements that Brown turned and came back at Wilson?

Of course he did. I don't doubt that. Brown was shot in the front, the only way that could happen is if he turned around and came back.

 

[plague311]

Not all of them. There were some people whose testimony disagreed with Wilson while not being obviously false. Though it's very hard for a grand jury to take them seriously, as their testimony is corrupted by the lies of others. Presenting the people who were obviously lying to the grand jury is one of my biggest problems with how the prosecution handled the grand jury trial.

I think your biggest problem is that Wilson didn't get arrested and have a trial. It doesn't matter that one wasn't warranted. You wanted a head on a platter and didn't get it.

I think you should read through that article a bit more closely. The three factors that would lead to finger prints being unrecoverable on firearms (insufficient smooth surfaces, environment and handling) do not apply in the Wilson/Brown case.

The article also states that they should at least try to test the firearm for fingerprints, which the on scene detective claims was not performed.

Finger printing is commonly used when the police are unsure who did the shooting. In this case, we already knew who did the shooting, it was Wilson. He openly confessed to it.

Not surprising.

How do you think the DNA got there? He was grabbing the gun when his hand was shot. Two shots were fired in the car, if Wilson had complete control of the gun then how did he miss at point blank range? He somehow only managed to hit Brown in the hand, strange that.

I disagree with this. I don't think it is something that can be automatically concluded, particularly if the person being charged is a police officer with other tools at his disposal. But Wilson, like most of Ferguson PD, are cowboy cops.

Which of course you have absolutely no evidence to support your assertion. Wilson had a clean record, and he was a awarded officer. You're just poisoning the well with the unsupported nonsense. Anything you can do to paint Wilson in a horrible light, right? Otherwise you might have to admit that this shooting was justified. Which you won't cause your head is buried in the sand.

Why bother using less-lethal force if one can argue that lethal force is "reasonable"? Why even bother taking equipment like tasers, as Wilson chose not to, if it is okay to use lethal force on an unarmed assailant?

First off, unarmed is a ******** word that means nothing. Brown was a big guy who showed he was willing to use violence to get what he wanted. Brown knew Wilson would shoot, as he's already been shot once. Wilson didn't just open fire, he instructed Brown multiple times to stop and get on the ground. Why didn't Brown listen? Why did he then move forward? Tasers aren't always successful, and pepper spray doesn't always work either. It must be nice to monday morning quarterback a situation that you wouldn't even know how to handle if you were put in that situation.

Of course he did. I don't doubt that. Brown was shot in the front, the only way that could happen is if he turned around and came back.

Yet you have nothing negative to say about the way Brown handled the situation. You can think of a thousand things that Wilson should have done, but not a damn thing to say about Brown at all. That's true skepticism right there.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

In the Michael Brown case there is evidence that Brown was shot at close range inside the vehicle, but no actual evidence that Brown even touched the officers gun. But that doesn't matter once an officer says the magic words "he was going for my gun".

Notice to all officers: Effective immediately, if a Gentle Giant punches you and tries to grab your gun, you are NOT allowed to defend yourself unless he actually touches your gun. Thank you for your understanding.

 

[Cylinder]

The moral of that story is: stop trusting what Ferguson PD says and demand physical evidence. They claim that Michael Brown grabbed Wilson's gun. And they claim they knew that when they were at the scene. And yet the easiest thing in the world to do to prove that would be to test Wilson's gun for fingerprints. And for some reason they don't. It's incredibly suspicious.

Actually examining the evidence reveals that the FPD didn't conduct the forensic examination of the physical evidence or direct the examination -- that's just another of the boogeyman memes.

Kind of executing that demand for objective evidence also reveals the choice between destructive testing for fingerprints or destructive testing for trace DNA.

MS. AIJZADEH: I kind of skipped over that, let's talk about that right now.

DETECTIVE: Sure.

MS. AIJZADEH: So when you were, were you told that there was a physical struggle over this weapon?

DETECTIVE: I was.

MS. AIJZADEH: And were you told that Michael Brown may have had his hands on the weapon?

DETECTIVE: Yes.

MS. AIJZADEH: So was there some discussion between you and other officers about swabbing versus fingerprinting?

DETECTIVE: There was.

MS. AIJZADEH: Okay. Have you all had a fingerprint expert testify before you before?

[All jurors indicate no.]

MS. AIJZADEH: On a surface like this firearm, how would you go about examining that. Do you want those firearm pictures again?

DETECTIVE: Just let me have one of then please, ma'am.

MS. AIJZADEH: How would you go about looking on that weapon for fingerprints?

DETECTIVE: Okay. Based on the information that I was told regarding the incident, I was informed that Darren Wilson while holding his firearm, his

department issue pistol, while he's holding it, there was a struggle between Hr. Brown and Mr. Wilson while the officer was seated in his police vehicle and

Mr. Brown was outside.

So it you take that and say okay, well, the officer is holding his gun, he never relinquished it, the gun was never taken away, however. we are wrestling

over this gun. Common sense would tell you that if I'm holding the handle of the gun here, then what opportunity or what else is the other person
struggling over. Probably this area of the gun.

The magazine was never released from the gun during the incident, it was never dropped or picked up. The officer never lost control of his gun.

If you have a violent event like that, you have to make a decision whether you are concerned about hopefully getting a DNA profile or the possibility of

retrieving latent fingerprint evidence.

MS. AIJZADEH: Let ne stop you really quick here. We are going to finish him up describing this because our doctor is here, but I'm going to let him finish this area about the fingerprint versus swabbing.

Now, I want to clarify that the things that you are talking about concerning a struggle over the gun, that is not from your firsthand knowledge, correct?

DETECTIVE: Absolutely not.

MS. AIJZADEH: That's information that cane to you from other sources?

DETECTIVE: Yes.

MS. AIJZADEH: And not Darren Wilson?

DETECTIVE: Correct.

MS. AIJZADEH: And then you are making some assumptions about where you might fingerprint based upon just common sense and your experience?

DETECTIVE: Yes.

MS. AIJZADEH: Okay. So this is not to say that this is how it happened, but this is based upon your experience and what you have been told at this point
where you night expect to find fingerprints?

DETECTIVE: Correct.

MS. AIJZADEH: Okay. You can then go ahead and talk about, you have to make kind of e decision between whether to swab for DNA or to look for fingerprints?

DETECTIVE: Correct.

MS. AIJZADEH: So why did you make a decision to swab tor DNA?

MS. AIJZADEH: Based on training and experience, and also based on the information that I was given, you're not going to have fine ridge detail during a violent encounter. It would be different if this gun was like this and someone just came up, other than the officer, and touched it.

When we process that, yes, you can get fine ridge detail. So the decision was made between myself and the crimes against person detective, homicide detective, that it would be better to swab the weapon.

Now, if you are going to swab it, then you need to swab all the relevant areas that could be touched by someone other than Darren Wilson.

MS. AIJZADEH: Because, of course, you know Darren Wilson has touched that gun?

DETECTIVE: Exactly, he was holding it.

MS. AIJZADEH: It would tell you nothing if his DNA is on it?

DETECTIVE: Absolutely not.

MS. AIJZADEH: We know he touched the gun?

DETECTIVE: Right, it is his gun.

MS. AIJZADEH: All right.

DETECTIVE: Once that decision is made and you swab, then you're going to have to swab those areas that were described earlier. If there was fingerprint
evidence, you are going to be swabbing through them, so that's why you need to make a decision whether you want to process this for fingerprints or do you
went to process this for DNA.

MS. AIJZADEH: And in processing this weapon for fingerprints, could you after that swab it for DNA?

DETECTIVE: No.

MS. AIJZADEH: So you had to pick one or the other?

DETECTIVE: Right.

MS. AIJZADEH: And based upon your information and consulting with the detective, crime scene detective, not crime scene, crimes against person
homicide detective, was a decision made to swab for DNA?

DETECTIVE: Yes, ma'am.

MS. AIJZADEH: And that's what you did?

DETECTIVE: Yes.

MS. AIJZADEH: Did you package those swabs in the regular manner?

DETECTIVE: I did.

MS. ALIZADBH: Do you have any questions about his processing this gun or about the gun itself or anything like that?

[snip]

GRAND JUROR: Once you swab the critical areas for DNA, is all of the DNA at that point removed from the object basically, it is rendered clean?

DETECTIVE: You might have a trace only because these are cotton swabs and when we swab something, we do two at one time. One for the prosecuting attorney's office, that's going to end up going to the lab and potentially s defense attorney so we keep one on file.

When you are holding these two cotton swabs, it you folks can picture Q-tips. okay. You are holding two of them together, unless you're going back and forth and completely swabbing every little spot on this thing, you're not going to remove all of the DNA, all right.

You're trying to get the most profile or profiles that you can by swabbing those areas back and forth. Kind of like painting a first cost, you're not going to paint, you're not going to cover everything with your first coat. The same thing applies when we're swabbing for DNA. So potentially could be DNA left on there, but we try to get the largest sample as we can.​

 

[Newtons Bit]

Cylinder, you know they can, and frequently do, test for both DNA and fingerprints, right?

 

[Cylinder]

Cylinder, you know they can, and frequently do, test for both DNA and fingerprints, right?

Not from the same area, no. If you're saying like a large object like an automobile - then yes - you print the door handle and DNA the steering wheel (or whatever). You can't print and swab the door handle because each degrades the other.

Why didn't the Missouri State Police or FBI notice this discrepancy?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Delete me!

 

[Newtons Bit]

Not from the same area, no. If you're saying like a large object like an automobile - then yes - you print the door handle and DNA the steering wheel (or whatever). You can't print and swab the door handle because each degrades the other.

Right, they typically swab for DNA in areas that don't hold fingerprints well, and then test for fingerprints in areas that do hold fingerprints to do. The slide, the area Brown would most likely have fingerprints on would be an area to test for fingerprints, while grooves and edges a good place to check for DNA. The article that Wildcat linked early has a comment about doing this very thing.

Why didn't the Missouri State Police or FBI notice this discrepancy?

What makes you think they didn't notice this?

 

[Cylinder]

Right, they typically swab for DNA in areas that don't hold fingerprints well, and then test for fingerprints in areas that do hold fingerprints to do. The slide, the area Brown would most likely have fingerprints on would be an area to test for fingerprints, while grooves and edges a good place to check for DNA. The article that Wildcat linked early has a comment about doing this very thing.

Read the bit I quoted. Wilson's hand was claimed to have covered the grip. That just kind of leaves the slide area for testing.

 

[rockinkt]

Cylinder, you know they can, and frequently do, test for both DNA and fingerprints, right?

Based on the quoted statement - can you give me your relevant experience and training that would qualify you to argue as to whether or not the detective in this case is not telling the truth or did not do the right thing regarding the DNA swab versus attempting to get a latent print?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Based on the quoted statement - can you give me your relevant experience and training that would qualify you to argue as to whether or not the detective in this case is not telling the truth or did not do the right thing regarding the DNA swab versus attempting to get a latent print?

Why would my experience be relevant? There are laboratories that say they can do both, at the same time, with firearms.

There are some misconceptions regarding fingerprint processing methods and DNA testing, especially when it comes to low-template samples. Fingerprint processing methods, unto themselves, do not interfere with DNA testing (not even cyanoacrylate fuming, also known as "superglue"), but collection of DNA samples may interfere with latent print recovery. Therefore, if fingerprints may be critical in the case, then developing them should be done prior to sampling for DNA.

ETA: hey look, here's another article that says do both.

 

[plague311]

Why would my experience be relevant? There are laboratories that say they can do both, at the same time, with firearms.



ETA: hey look, here's another article that says do both.

Which they can, no doubt. Do you not think certain circumstances or instances might cause that to be a problem?

 

[WildCat]

Not all of them. There were some people whose testimony disagreed with Wilson while not being obviously false. Though it's very hard for a grand jury to take them seriously, as their testimony is corrupted by the lies of others. Presenting the people who were obviously lying to the grand jury is one of my biggest problems with how the prosecution handled the grand jury trial.

Well if they barred everyone who was obviously lying who would testify for the prosecution?

I think you should read through that article a bit more closely. The three factors that would lead to finger prints being unrecoverable on firearms (insufficient smooth surfaces, environment and handling) do not apply in the Wilson/Brown case.

Insufficient smooth surfaces and handling certainly do apply, why don't they?

The article also states that they should at least try to test the firearm for fingerprints, which the on scene detective claims was not performed.

Why would they be testing it on the scene?

Not surprising.

Not surprising because Brown's hand was on the gun when he was shot.

I disagree with this. I don't think it is something that can be automatically concluded, particularly if the person being charged is a police officer with other tools at his disposal. But Wilson, like most of Ferguson PD, are cowboy cops. Why bother using less-lethal force if one can argue that lethal force is "reasonable"? Why even bother taking equipment like tasers, as Wilson chose not to, if it is okay to use lethal force on an unarmed assailant?

No cop working alone is going to use a taser against a subject who was already unresponsive to deadly force.

Of course he did. I don't doubt that. Brown was shot in the front, the only way that could happen is if he turned around and came back.

Why do you think he was coming back? To give Wilson a hug?