Michael Brown Shooting

[Ladewig]

Bias: as in you reading something in my posts I've not said.

As far as Wilson knew at first, Brown and Johnson were doing nothing bad enough to warrant confronting them.

You are still doing it.
You are still using subjective vocabulary to describe the incident in a biased way.

It is possible that Wilson addressed the two people in a confrontational manner, but it is also possible that it was not a confrontational manner. I've been told by cops to not do something in a non-confrontational way. I am also aware that many LEOs are (or at least appear to be) confrontational.

Neutral language would be words like "addressed them" or "spoke to them."

Biased language would be "hassled them" or "confronted them"
Other biased language would be "made a polite request of them" or " suggested to them."

We may eventually learn that "confronted" was the best way to describe the encounter, but until we have evidence, the best you can is "spoke to them in an allegedly confrontational manner."

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I didn't think about Wilson retreating until I saw the cones near Brown's body. It was not that far upthread. I posted a pic and mentioned retreating.

It wasn't the number of cones, there's only three, but their positions.

It is however, as another poster said, difficult to see the brass in the pics.

The cones marked Brown's hat and the cigars. Is there one where they mark shell casings?

 

[Monketi Ghost]

It's strange to see such an effort to minimize the aggressive theft, which we KNOW occurred, while at the same time maximizing the imagined bad actions of the cop, when we simply don't know.
That's bias in its raw, pure form.

 

[Unabogie]

It's strange to see such an effort to minimize the aggressive theft, which we KNOW occurred, while at the same time maximizing the imagined bad actions of the cop, when we simply don't know.
That's bias in its raw, pure form.

And you honestly don't see the mirror image of this in the attempt to maximize the seriousness of a shoplifting incident compounded with a shove, into a "violent felon" who would easily "bumrush" an armed policeman (who was in the act of shooting him) in an attempt to murder the cop? You don't see how young black males are given almost superhuman powers to the point that their single step (even unarmed) is considered a serious threat to an armed police office standing 20-35 feet away? How they are still a threat after being shot five times?

 

[LTC8K6]

The cones marked Brown's hat and the cigars. Is there one where they mark shell casings?

There are three way down near the body, in addition to the three up near the SUV. Two may actually be beyond the body, but the pictures can fool you.

They are on the left side of the body, which would be the ejection port side.

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0jl8sMf4sLU/0.jpg

I have never been able to spot any others.

I have no idea what they are actually marking, though.

 

[LTC8K6]

And you honestly don't see the mirror image of this in the attempt to maximize the seriousness of a shoplifting incident compounded with a shove, into a "violent felon" who would easily "bumrush" an armed policeman (who was in the act of shooting him) in an attempt to murder the cop? You don't see how young black males are given almost superhuman powers to the point that their single step (even unarmed) is considered a serious threat to an armed police office standing 20-35 feet away? How they are still a threat after being shot five times?

If we agree that Wilson chased Brown, how in the world would they be far apart?

If Wilson is chasing Brown, and Brown stops and turns around, Wilson is going to get closer, isn't he? Wilson isn't going to stop instantly. Logically, Wilson would take a few more steps before stopping himself.

If those cones are marking brass, then a couple of them are past Brown's body.

If.

That could mean that Wilson himself was 35 feet or more away from the SUV at the time he fired those rounds.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Crap, if only it was someone else doing the interview. But here's Nancy Grace interviewing Purcell. If she would just shut up, my gawd, that egotistical woman is annoying.

Anyway, the one key point starts at about 3:50 seconds in. Purcell describes the apex wound. It enters at the apex and travels toward the face, back to front.

That's not a head down bull rushing.

I think that's been shown to be quite possible, to the satisfaction of all but one...

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=781&pictureid=8996[/qimg]

So, taking Mike's diagrams, you need to bend the head further to get the angle. Not only that, but if Purcell is accurate on the place on the skull model he's pointing to, the shooter would be above Brown shooting at a downward angle.

He said the other head shot had the same trajectory so it's unlikely the forehead down shot was when the head was at a significantly different position.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

And you honestly don't see the mirror image of this in the attempt to maximize the seriousness of a shoplifting incident compounded with a shove, into a "violent felon" who would easily "bumrush" an armed policeman (who was in the act of shooting him) in an attempt to murder the cop? You don't see how young black males are given almost superhuman powers to the point that their single step (even unarmed) is considered a serious threat to an armed police office standing 20-35 feet away? How they are still a threat after being shot five times?

You're doing it too.

It has been pointed out numerous times - theft and shoving the clerk is a felony. Continuing to refer to it as a minor crime is dishonest

You are also ignoring the original altercation at the car, which all the witnesses agree to, although they don't have any details as to what occurred.

At this point, we still don't know if brown was an actual threat to wilson.

So no ... there is no "mirror image"

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Could some of the gunshots be echoes?

Yes, CNN's analysis was 10 shots and one echo.

 

[NYCEMT86]

And you honestly don't see the mirror image of this in the attempt to maximize the seriousness of a shoplifting incident compounded with a shove, into a "violent felon" ... <snip>

Except that shove turned an easy misdemeanor crime into a violent felony as defined by Missouri law.

Missouri Revised Statutes

Chapter 569
Robbery, Arson, Burglary and Related Offenses
Section 569.030


Chapter definitions.
569.010. As used in this chapter the following terms mean:

(1) "Forcibly steals", a person "forcibly steals", and thereby commits robbery, when, in the course of stealing, as defined in section 570.030, he uses or threatens the immediate use of physical force upon another person for the purpose of: (a) Preventing or overcoming resistance to the taking of the property or to the retention thereof immediately after the taking; or

<Snip>


Robbery in the second degree.

569.030. 1. A person commits the crime of robbery in the second degree when he forcibly steals property.

2. Robbery in the second degree is a class B felony.

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/chapters/chap569.htm

Missouri defines violent crimes into murder, forceable rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.

http://www.mshp.dps.missouri.gov/MSHPWeb/SAC/crime_data_960grid.html

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Just thinking out loud..

Why would only one shot echo?

Did CNN say which one?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You're doing it too.

It has been pointed out numerous times - theft and shoving the clerk is a felony. Continuing to refer to it as a minor crime is dishonest

You are also ignoring the original altercation at the car, which all the witnesses agree to, although they don't have any details as to what occurred.

At this point, we still don't know if brown was an actual threat to wilson.

So no ... there is no "mirror image"

No, calling Brown a violent felon on a technicality is the dishonest position.

Given he had no criminal record, any judge in the country would let him plead that down to a misdemeanor.

It's one thing to say it's technically a felony. It's quite another to call this kid a violent felon. So who's being dishonest here?

 

[LTC8K6]

It enters at the apex and travels toward the face, back to front.

That makes no sense, though.

Top of head to face is not back to front. It is front to back.

If Brown were laying on his back, and I got up close, laid on the ground, and shot him in the top of the head at an upward angle, that would be top of head toward face.

If Brown were falling backwards, I could also duplicate the angle, and that would be considered back to front, since I would be behind Brown.

If I were standing above Brown, I could again duplicate the angle, top of head toward face.

The most sense in this case, is that the top of brown's head was almost facing the shooter, and that's how we get an angle from the top of the head towards the face.

 

[Unabogie]

If we agree that Wilson chased Brown, how in the world would they be far apart?

We do agree on this, since it's what all the witnesses saw. We also know that police admitted that Wilson started shooting as soon as he was out of the car.

If Wilson is chasing Brown, and Brown stops and turns around, Wilson is going to get closer, isn't he? Wilson isn't going to stop instantly. Logically, Wilson would take a few more steps before stopping himself.

No, we can't use logic, can we? After all, we've been assured that Brown wasn't using logic that day, since logic would dictate that a kid wouldn't rush a policeman holding a gun and shooting it at him. So now we must assume that Wilson was acting logically? Wilson could have run after Brown shooting. When Brown stopped 35 feet from the SUV, Wilson stopped, planted his feet, and took the more careful sounding shots we heard on the recording.

If those cones are marking brass, then a couple of them are past Brown's body.

That was your assertion. I have no idea what the cones were marking. We only know that according to that tape, Wilson fired 11 times at Brown, who was fleeing away from him.

That could mean that Wilson himself was 35 feet or more away from the SUV at the time he fired those rounds.

Oh, that's perfect. So now in your mind, you've invented a scenario in which, contra every witness, Wilson ran 35 feet from the SUV, Brown made it 70 feet, but turned around to make it almost back to Wilson where Wilson heroically fended off the attack? Note that in the recording we can hear how much time elapsed between volleys. And there's about TWO seconds between the first volley (where Wilson admits he was running after Brown) and the second vollet (where "Josie" claimed Brown taunted Wilson, turned, and started to "bumrush" him)

Can you see how Josie's (and Wilson's) story is demolished by this recording? If he claimed Brown stopped, turned, said something and challenged him, and then ran back towards him, this would take far longer than the two seconds it takes for Wilson to start firing again. If this tape is real (and I'm not sure if it is or not), the Wilson's story is toast. But don't worry, if you think about it some more I'm sure you can invent another scenario in which you can continue to believe what you already believe.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Just thinking out loud..

Why would only one shot echo?

Did CNN say which one?

I don't know. I counted 10 shots, some people think they hear 11.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/26/us/michael-brown-ferguson-shooting/

Forensic audio expert Paul Ginsberg analyzed the recording and said he detected at least 10 gunshots -- a cluster of six, followed by four.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

No, calling Brown a violent felon on a technicality is the dishonest position.

Just a "technicality"

Given he had no criminal record, any judge in the country would let him plead that down to a misdemeanor.

It's one thing to say it's technically a felony. It's quite another to call this kid a violent felon. So who's being dishonest here?

You.

 

[LTC8K6]

We do agree on this, since it's what all the witnesses saw. We also know that police admitted that Wilson started shooting as soon as he was out of the car.



No, we can't use logic, can we? After all, we've been assured that Brown wasn't using logic that day, since logic would dictate that a kid wouldn't rush a policeman holding a gun and shooting it at him. So now we must assume that Wilson was acting logically? Wilson could have run after Brown shooting. When Brown stopped 35 feet from the SUV, Wilson stopped, planted his feet, and took the more careful sounding shots we heard on the recording.



That was your assertion. I have no idea what the cones were marking. We only know that according to that tape, Wilson fired 11 times at Brown, who was fleeing away from him.



Oh, that's perfect. So now in your mind, you've invented a scenario in which, contra every witness, Wilson ran 35 feet from the SUV, Brown made it 70 feet, but turned around to make it almost back to Wilson where Wilson heroically fended off the attack? Note that in the recording we can hear how much time elapsed between volleys. And there's about TWO seconds between the first volley (where Wilson admits he was running after Brown) and the second vollet (where "Josie" claimed Brown taunted Wilson, turned, and started to "bumrush" him)

Can you see how Josie's (and Wilson's) story is demolished by this recording? If he claimed Brown stopped, turned, said something and challenged him, and then ran back towards him, this would take far longer than the two seconds it takes for Wilson to start firing again. If this tape is real (and I'm not sure if it is or not), the Wilson's story is toast. But don't worry, if you think about it some more I'm sure you can invent another scenario in which you can continue to believe what you already believe.

I have seen no indication that Wilson and Brown were ever 35 feet apart.
Nor did I post anything that would indicate it.

Brown's body was supposedly around 35 feet from the SUV.

There's no solid info on Wilson's distance from Brown as far as I know.

They could have been less than 10 feet apart the whole time.

For one thing, if Brown was 35 feet away from Wilson when Wilson killed him, then I would vote to convict Wilson for the shooting.

 

[LTC8K6]

Can you see how Josie's (and Wilson's) story is demolished by this recording? If he claimed Brown stopped, turned, said something and challenged him, and then ran back towards him, this would take far longer than the two seconds it takes for Wilson to start firing again. If this tape is real (and I'm not sure if it is or not), the Wilson's story is toast. But don't worry, if you think about it some more I'm sure you can invent another scenario in which you can continue to believe what you already believe.

Wasn't there good evidence that the Josie story was fake?

 

[Lerxst]

No, calling Brown a violent felon on a technicality is the dishonest position.

Given he had no criminal record, any judge in the country would let him plead that down to a misdemeanor.

It's one thing to say it's technically a felony. It's quite another to call this kid a violent felon. So who's being dishonest here?

You are. I notice you're now adding in "technicality" and once again moving the goalposts. You admit it's a felony but now claim with another expert opinion that "any judge in the country would let him plead that down to a misdemeanor".

 

[The Greater Fool]

It's strange to see such an effort to minimize the aggressive theft, which we KNOW occurred, while at the same time maximizing the imagined bad actions of the cop, when we simply don't know.
That's bias in its raw, pure form.

And you honestly don't see the mirror image of this in the attempt to maximize the seriousness of a shoplifting incident compounded with a shove, into a "violent felon" who would easily "bumrush" an armed policeman (who was in the act of shooting him) in an attempt to murder the cop? You don't see how young black males are given almost superhuman powers to the point that their single step (even unarmed) is considered a serious threat to an armed police office standing 20-35 feet away? How they are still a threat after being shot five times?

The narratives usually paint one side evil and the other side good. What would they look like if the worst of both, or the best of both were presented?

Worst of both narratives:

Michael Brown, buzzed on an adrenaline rush from his freshly committed felony along with the effects of the illegal drugs in his system, was a violent explosion about to blow. Officer Wilson, feeling the rush of power from assisting a citizen in a medical emergency, was looking to blow off tension by harassing a random citizen, preferably a minority youth. They crossed paths on in a residential neighborhood, in the middle of a street.

Officer Wilson, seeing the young minorities behaving as if they owned the road, by walking down the middle, decided he would take them down a peg or two. Michael Brown, seeing the police officer cruising by, squared his broad shoulders, preparing for battle. Officer Wilson stopped, and verbally berated the youths with torrents of profanity, turning red in the face, spewing spittle in his tirade. Michael Brown, prepared for the challenge, returned as good as he got, adding extravagant hand gestures. At an apparent stalemate, Officer Wilson moved on to oppress additional minorities, while Michael Brown mentally began working on his next nefarious felony. After a few seconds, Officer Wilson decided he had let these disrespectful punks off too easily, put his squad car in reverse, and set his sights on Michael Brown, while at the same time Michael Brown was fuming at being disrespected, and resolved to teach the officer a lesson.

At this point, things moved quickly. Officer Wilson reached out to grab Michael Brown, as Brown reached in for the officer. Both fought ferociously, both trying to gain control of the only lethal weapon available, Officer Wilson's sidearm. A shot rings out, Brown realizes the weapon is out of reach and retreats from the car. Officer Wilson, furious, jumps out to pursue, firing shots at Brown's back, but missing. Brown, realizing he drew the short straw, stopped, and raised his hands while turning toward the officer. Their eyes meet. Brown realizes the fatal mistake as Officer Wilson calmly and coldly applies the slight pressure necessary to end his life. Again, and again.

Best of both narratives:

Michael Brown, feeling good about himself, having just helped a storekeeper organize his wares, was off to perform more kind works. Officer Wilson, likewise satisfied at helping a citizen with a medical emergency was aglow with community spirit. The both are marveling at the beauty of nature on a residential street when they happen upon each other.

Officer Wilson, seeing the young men walking in the middle of the road, concerned for their safety, stops his patrol vehicle. Officer Wilson smiles, Michael Brown smiles in return. Officer Wilson suggest they would be safer if they were on the sidewalk, and Michael Brown agrees and thanks the officer for his concern. Satisfied that he has again helped society, Officer Wilson drives off, while Michael Brown tells his companion that the officer was right, and they would be safer on the sidewalk. After driving a few seconds, Officer Wilson realized he had not wished the young men a 'Good Day', and resolved to correct this. Officer Wilson steps out of his patrol car, but stumbles, only to be caught by Michael Brown. Unfortunately, it was a comedy of errors, the two kept slipping and tripping and bumping in to each other.

They chuckle at the image of what this must have looked like as Michael Brown steps away, and they both gain their balance and composure. Somehow the officer’s sidearm was out, and as he went to return it to its holster, it went off uncontrollably and inexplicably repeatedly, in the process hitting Michael Brown. Devastated, Officer Wilson stands stunned, while Brown's final gasp was "It's OK, everyone will understand."