Michael Brown Shooting

[Lerxst]

The lynch mob has been out for 8 days already.

Yes, and when I first heard of this story the day it happened none of it made sense. Now that we have more information, if you're keeping score it does seem that the Brown camp is falling behind here.

 

[casebro]

I think this needs to be put in perspective. I cannot contest that Michael Brown was literally a violent felon, however there's degrees of that too. Consider for a moment the story from last week where, without any valid justification at all, those officers arrested the reporters in the McDonalds. Here's an article from Leonard Pitts that I post simply to refresh everyone's memory:

It seems two reporters, Ryan Reilly of the Huffington Post and Wesley Lowery of the Washington Post, were working at a McDonald's, which has been used as a staging ground by reporters covering the ongoing unrest following the Aug. 9 police shooting of an unarmed African-American man. According to their accounts, the two were accosted by police, some in militaristic riot gear, demanding identification and ordering them out. These officers refused to provide their badge numbers or names or a reason for the order and grew angry when one of the men attempted to take a video.

Both reporters were arrested. Reilly says a cop intentionally banged his head against the glass on the way out of the restaurant, then gave him a facetious "apology."

The two were transported to a lockup. No mug shots were taken, no fingerprints collected, no paperwork done. After some minutes, they were released. The men were told they'd been arrested for "trespassing."

At a McDonald's. Where they were customers.

"Apparently, in America, in 2014," tweeted Lowery, "police can manhandle you, take you into custody, put you in cell and then open the door like it didn't happen."

​

These two officers wrongfully arrested two reporters, they used violence and the threat of it to do so, moreso than Michael Brown did to the store clerk. Should they be considered violent felons, or perhaps even jackbooted thugs? Their offense goes against a far more important principle than a couple boxes of cigars in my opinion. Should they be facing 5-10 years in prison for their actions? Has anyone referred to them as the armed violent thugs they behaved as?

I think there will be plenty of time for that when the trials of the two officers start. Though I believe those officers were county, not Ferguson.

eta- I guess you start a separate thread on it- "Police illegally rough up and detain two journalists"

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's an interesting call. If the caller has Wlison's story right:

Wilson got the call about the robbery (that should be checkable, and hopefully on some kind of recorded log, not one that is hand written) in between telling the victim to get out of the street and coming back. Wonder why the chief didn't know this important fact? But I'm not all that surprised and it's possible.

But if so, then Wilson really was sloppy in the initial stop. No call for back up, not parking far enough away to get out of the car and so on.

In the gun struggle, supposedly Brown had it "turned totally around against [Wilson's] hip" at one point. (That's checkable. I do hope they have an impeccable chain of evidence of both the gun and Brown's body.)

She claims both Brown and Johnson turned around. But Johnson said he ran behind a car. The witnesses say only Brown was in the street. The witnesses said Wilson was shooting before and after Brown turned.

According to Josie, Wilson didn't shoot until Brown ran toward him. Brown was "30-35 feet away" when he turned around. The one consistency with the autopsy is Wilson said Brown wasn't shot in the back. Wilson might have known he missed, or didn't shoot at the fleeing Brown.

Unfortunately she says she got the story from "his significant other". If that's not her way of hiding her identity, then the story is third hand. So, it'll be interesting to see what the officer's report at the time actually says.

The least credible thing here is Wilson's claim if true, that Brown taunted him and came at him. I know all the right-wingies on the thread want to see Brown as a belligerent gang-banger, but think about it, pushing a store clerk half your size is not equal to confronting a cop with his gun pulled. Young black men know full well cops shoot young black men. Brown would have had to have been suicidal if we are to believe from 30 feet away he expected to get to Wilson and attack.

Josie said Wilson said he believed Brown could have been crazed on drugs. Seems a tad after-the-fact imaginary and isn't consistent with only having pot on board.

Brown would have kept running if he thought he could get away. It's near-close to implausible that Brown would have done the things Wilson claimed. The story sounds totally fabricated after the fact.

But the physical evidence, if it wasn't tampered with, is going to trip Wilson up.

 

[Distracted1]

"Thug" is the new way of saying "the N-word" without actually saying "the N-word". That's been true for decades, and every time it's brought out, I'll point it out. The end.

In these very boards I have from time to time come across the phrase " jackbooted government thugs ".
I think you are little behind in your corrections.

 

[Distracted1]

That's an interesting call. If the caller has Wlison's story right:

Wilson got the call about the robbery (that should be checkable, and hopefully on some kind of recorded log, not one that is hand written) in between telling the victim to get out of the street and coming back. Wonder why the chief didn't know this important fact? But I'm not all that surprised and it's possible.

But if so, then Wilson really was sloppy in the initial stop. No call for back up, not parking far enough away to get out of the car and so on.

In the gun struggle, supposedly Brown had it "turned totally around against [Wilson's] hip" at one point. (That's checkable. I do hope they have an impeccable chain of evidence of both the gun and Brown's body.)

She claims both Brown and Johnson turned around. But Johnson said he ran behind a car. The witnesses say only Brown was in the street. The witnesses said Wilson was shooting before and after Brown turned.

According to Josie, Wilson didn't shoot until Brown ran toward him. Brown was "30-35 feet away" when he turned around. The one consistency with the autopsy is Wilson said Brown wasn't shot in the back. Wilson might have known he missed, or didn't shoot at the fleeing Brown.

Unfortunately she says she got the story from "his significant other". If that's not her way of hiding her identity, then the story is third hand. So, it'll be interesting to see what the officer's report at the time actually says.

The least credible thing here is Wilson's claim if true, that Brown taunted him and came at him. I know all the right-wingies on the thread want to see Brown as a belligerent gang-banger, but think about it, pushing a store clerk half your size is not equal to confronting a cop with his gun pulled. Young black men know full well cops shoot young black men. Brown would have had to have been suicidal if we are to believe from 30 feet away he expected to get to Wilson and attack.

Josie said Wilson said he believed Brown could have been crazed on drugs. Seems a tad after-the-fact imaginary and isn't consistent with only having pot on board.

Brown would have kept running if he thought he could get away. It's near-close to implausible that Brown would have done the things Wilson claimed. The story sounds totally fabricated after the fact.

But the physical evidence, if it wasn't tampered with, is going to trip Wilson up.

I have a feeling that the last bit about " if it wasn't tampered with " is something you are going to need to refer back to often in order to further your cause here.
Perhaps you should highlight it in red right now to make it easier on us all later.

 

[casebro]

.....
Josie said Wilson said he believed Brown could have been crazed on drugs. Seems a tad after-the-fact imaginary and isn't consistent with only having pot on board.
.....

Was the "....ONLY pot on board" in the report? Have ALL of the tox panels come back yet?

 

[David Wong]

Brown would have kept running if he thought he could get away. It's near-close to implausible that Brown would have done the things Wilson claimed. The story sounds totally fabricated after the fact.

But why is it plausible that the officer did the things he's claimed to have done? That story is just as illogical -- even if he was the most corrupt, bitter racist in law enforcement, for all he knew he was being recorded by five iphones from nearby houses (and in fact he was being recorded just seconds after the fact). It's crazy that Brown might have charged him, but just as crazy to think the officer just gunned down a surrendering non-threat just for the fun of it. You can be as cynical as you want about the attitudes of the police in the area, but there'd still be a fear of repercussions.

In other words, one of the two people involved completely lost their head, and did something crazy. So I don't know that it helps to ask, "But why would _________ do THAT?" It's not that kind of situation.

 

[Ammonitida]

That's an interesting call. If the caller has Wlison's story right:

Wilson got the call about the robbery (that should be checkable, and hopefully on some kind of recorded log, not one that is hand written) in between telling the victim to get out of the street and coming back. Wonder why the chief didn't know this important fact? But I'm not all that surprised and it's possible.

But if so, then Wilson really was sloppy in the initial stop. No call for back up, not parking far enough away to get out of the car and so on.

In the gun struggle, supposedly Brown had it "turned totally around against [Wilson's] hip" at one point. (That's checkable. I do hope they have an impeccable chain of evidence of both the gun and Brown's body.)

She claims both Brown and Johnson turned around. But Johnson said he ran behind a car. The witnesses say only Brown was in the street. The witnesses said Wilson was shooting before and after Brown turned.

According to Josie, Wilson didn't shoot until Brown ran toward him. Brown was "30-35 feet away" when he turned around. The one consistency with the autopsy is Wilson said Brown wasn't shot in the back. Wilson might have known he missed, or didn't shoot at the fleeing Brown.

Unfortunately she says she got the story from "his significant other". If that's not her way of hiding her identity, then the story is third hand. So, it'll be interesting to see what the officer's report at the time actually says.

The least credible thing here is Wilson's claim if true, that Brown taunted him and came at him. I know all the right-wingies on the thread want to see Brown as a belligerent gang-banger, but think about it, pushing a store clerk half your size is not equal to confronting a cop with his gun pulled. Young black men know full well cops shoot young black men. Brown would have had to have been suicidal if we are to believe from 30 feet away he expected to get to Wilson and attack.

Josie said Wilson said he believed Brown could have been crazed on drugs. Seems a tad after-the-fact imaginary and isn't consistent with only having pot on board.

Brown would have kept running if he thought he could get away. It's near-close to implausible that Brown would have done the things Wilson claimed. The story sounds totally fabricated after the fact.

But the physical evidence, if it wasn't tampered with, is going to trip Wilson up.

Just no. Your extreme bias is getting in the way. I can see that you're already prepared to invoke a conspiracy theory if the physical evidence doesn't "trip him up".

Btw, we don't know how close they were together when Wilson began firing.

 

[Distracted1]

I think this needs to be put in perspective. I cannot contest that Michael Brown was literally a violent felon, however there's degrees of that too. Consider for a moment the story from last week where, without any valid justification at all, those officers arrested the reporters in the McDonalds. Here's an article from Leonard Pitts that I post simply to refresh everyone's memory:

It seems two reporters, Ryan Reilly of the Huffington Post and Wesley Lowery of the Washington Post, were working at a McDonald's, which has been used as a staging ground by reporters covering the ongoing unrest following the Aug. 9 police shooting of an unarmed African-American man. According to their accounts, the two were accosted by police, some in militaristic riot gear, demanding identification and ordering them out. These officers refused to provide their badge numbers or names or a reason for the order and grew angry when one of the men attempted to take a video.

Both reporters were arrested. Reilly says a cop intentionally banged his head against the glass on the way out of the restaurant, then gave him a facetious "apology."

The two were transported to a lockup. No mug shots were taken, no fingerprints collected, no paperwork done. After some minutes, they were released. The men were told they'd been arrested for "trespassing."

At a McDonald's. Where they were customers.

"Apparently, in America, in 2014," tweeted Lowery, "police can manhandle you, take you into custody, put you in cell and then open the door like it didn't happen."

​

These two officers wrongfully arrested two reporters, they used violence and the threat of it to do so, moreso than Michael Brown did to the store clerk. Should they be considered violent felons, or perhaps even jackbooted thugs? Their offense goes against a far more important principle than a couple boxes of cigars in my opinion. Should they be facing 5-10 years in prison for their actions? Has anyone referred to them as the armed violent thugs they behaved as?

I saw their pictures, and recently learned that it is impossible for them to be " thugs ".

Does the reporter have a medical report detailing the damage to his forehead?
Is he pressing charges?

When LEOs tell us to get out of an area during a riot, should we comply? Or should we each require an explanation right then and there from each officer involved in whatever level of detail we require?

The cops did behave like ********, but when I get detained I am usually pretty happy that it ends with letting me go instead of bringing me before a judge.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but the fact that Brown died quickly after this punch took place means that there wouldn't be any bruising or swelling on his hand. Blood needs to keep flowing for those things to occur.

Steve S

Yes if you were talking seconds, no if you are talking minutes. Swelling would be worse after an hour, but it would begin within minutes.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Skeptic Ginger:

The least credible thing here is Wilson's claim if true, that Brown taunted him and came at him. I know all the right-wingies on the thread want to see Brown as a belligerent gang-banger, but think about it, pushing a store clerk half your size is not equal to confronting a cop with his gun pulled. Young black men know full well cops shoot young black men. Brown would have had to have been suicidal if we are to believe from 30 feet away he expected to get to Wilson and attack.

If brown really was the gentle giant that some would have us believe, then the influence of drugs could account for his thuggish behavior in the store and subsequent bad ass behavior with a cop....


Hardly the least credible part of Wilson's story, if you want to give any credibility to the ' gentle giant ' story ...

 

[Mumbles]

The lynch mob has been out for 8 days already.

I missed the part where the offending officer was tortured, killed, had his body set on fire, and was then chopped into pieces so that the mob could keep his body part as souvenirs. Please give us a link to that story.

Oh, it didn't happen? You're just tossing out the phrase "Lynch Mob" with absolutely no understanding of what it actually means?

Huh.

 

[newyorkguy]

I think only the True Believers^(tm) are still clinging to the "execution" story. Most everyone else has moved on.

Makes sense to me!

There are obviously two sides here. On the one hand are the people who are suspicious the shooting was truly justifiable and on the other hand the people who are convinced it was justifiable. One side seems to be primarily arguing while the other side seems to spend as much time taunting and ridiculing as arguing. That says something about the two different mindsets I think.

 

[Ammonitida]

I have a feeling that the last bit about " if it wasn't tampered with " is something you are going to need to refer back to often in order to further your cause here.
Perhaps you should highlight it in red right now to make it easier on us all later.

The guy robbed a store in broad daylight, without concealing his face or anything, and just walked out like nothing bad had happened. He was the very definition of a dumb criminal. It's not far-fetched at all to say that he would charge the officer, thinking he could best him in the same way that he did to the store clerk just minutes earlier. The arrogance and entitlement that he displayed in that robbery tells us that he was quite capable of it.

It's definitely more plausible than the lynch mob narrative that Wilson executed a man in cold blood with witnesses all around in broad daylight after he surrendered.

 

[Mumbles]

Skeptic Ginger:


If brown really was the gentle giant that some would have us believe, then the influence of drugs could account for his thuggish behavior in the store and subsequent bad ass behavior with a cop....


Hardly the least credible part of Wilson's story, if you want to give any credibility to the ' gentle giant ' story ...

Ah. We're back to the "drug-fueled supernegro" stereotype.

Okay. We know what we're arguing against, then.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

There are obviously two sides here. On the one hand are the people who are suspicious the shooting was truly justifiable and on the other hand the people who are convinced it was justifiable. One side seems to be primarily arguing while the other side seems to spend as much time taunting and ridiculing as arguing. That says something about the two different mindsets I think.

Only those two?

How about the side who is convinced it was 1st degree murder...

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I have a feeling that the last bit about " if it wasn't tampered with " is something you are going to need to refer back to often in order to further your cause here.
Perhaps you should highlight it in red right now to make it easier on us all later.

We are talking evidence based conclusions here:
Ferguson police beat a man and then charged him with 'destruction of property' for bloody uniforms

To make matters worse, they had the wrong man.
The booking officer had no other reason to hold Davis, who ended up in Ferguson only because he missed the exit for St. Charles and then pulled off the highway because the rain was so heavy he could not see to drive. The cop who had pulled up behind him must have run his license plate and assumed he was that other Henry Davis. Davis said the cop approached his vehicle, grabbed his cellphone from his hand, cuffed him and placed him in the back seat of the patrol car, without a word of explanation.
The police later said, in a civil court deposition, that there was no blood. And the camera recording the cell malfunctioned.
The contradictions between the complaint and the depositions apparently are what prompted the prosecutor to drop the “property damage” allegation. The prosecutor also dropped a felony charge of assault on an officer that had been lodged more than a year after the incident and shortly after Davis filed his civil suit.

They beat the guy and the recording was later missing.

And elsewhere:
Video Allegedly Shows Cop Planting Evidence In Couple’s Car

Three Atlanta Police Officers Sentenced for Planting Evidence and Killing a 92-Year-Old Grandmother in Botched Raid

It happens. All I said was I hope they have an impeccable chain of evidence for the gun and Brown's body because I'd like to have confidence if they find Brown's DNA or prints on Wilson's gun that it was an honest finding.

As for referring back to my post, I do await that gun exam. I don't know if Brown struggled for the gun or not. If Wilson stuck it in his face, he may have.

 

[GWCarver]

Young black men know full well cops shoot young black men. Brown would have had to have been suicidal if we are to believe from 30 feet away he expected to get to Wilson and attack.

Maybe Michael had heard about the "21-Foot Rule" and just wasn't good at judging distances.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

But why is it plausible that the officer did the things he's claimed to have done? That story is just as illogical -- even if he was the most corrupt, bitter racist in law enforcement, for all he knew he was being recorded by five iphones from nearby houses (and in fact he was being recorded just seconds after the fact). It's crazy that Brown might have charged him, but just as crazy to think the officer just gunned down a surrendering non-threat just for the fun of it. You can be as cynical as you want about the attitudes of the police in the area, but there'd still be a fear of repercussions.

In other words, one of the two people involved completely lost their head, and did something crazy. So I don't know that it helps to ask, "But why would _________ do THAT?" It's not that kind of situation.

I'm not sure this cop is going to turn out to be all that good with his story. Who knows? Being a cop doesn't make you perfectly evidence savvy in a spur of the moment situation like this one.

You'd would think he'd consider making a story that will match any potential videos, but he might not have.

As for, couldn't Brown have been equally stupid? Obviously he made a serious mistake not giving up at the car.

But then there are the witness accounts and the autopsy. That kill shot is not in the forehead.

 

[Ammonitida]

Maybe Michael had heard about the "21-Foot Rule" and just wasn't good at judging distances.

Ok, is there some hard evidence that proves that Wilson began firing when Brown was at least 30 feet away, or is that just more speculation?