• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Michael Brown Shooting

Status
Not open for further replies.
Captain_Swoop said:
predictably the usual suspects among the rational thinkers and skeptical minds of the JREF members run around like headless chickens jumping to their usual conclusions on very little evidence.
Click to expand...

Yes, these hyped up cases often turn out different a few days later, but people just cannot seem to resist immediately jumping into the deep end on one side or the other.
 
Ranb said:
That depends upon who is providing details of the event.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/13/us/missouri-teen-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

It might be assaulting a police officer. This is where one of those personal video records some police officers wear might have come in handy.

Ranb
Click to expand...
That detail seems to be continually ignored. According to the police department the "unarmed teen" was actually the "assailant".

It wasn't a case of " walking while black". It was a case of " attacking a police officer and trying to steal his gun"

That is the claim of the department, anyway. Is there some reason I should credit the police officers claim less than that of the assailants companion?
 
Last edited:
Distracted1 said:
That detail seems to be continually ignored. According to the police department the "unarmed teen" was actually the "assailant".

It wasn't a case of " walking while black". It was a case of " attacking a police officer and trying to steal his gun"

That is the claim of the department, anyway. Is there some reason I should credit the police officers claim less than that of the assailants companion?
Click to expand...
The dead mans friend has made quite a detailed description of the event, which will be possible to compare with technical evidence and statements from other witnesses. The officers claims are equally detailed, i assume. So no, until there are any conclusions from that, no one should put less credit on either claim.
 
Distracted1 said:
That detail seems to be continually ignored. According to the police department the "unarmed teen" was actually the "assailant".

It wasn't a case of " walking while black". It was a case of " attacking a police officer and trying to steal his gun"

That is the claim of the department, anyway. Is there some reason I should credit the police officers claim less than that of the assailants companion?
Click to expand...

scratchy said:
The dead mans friend has made quite a detailed description of the event, which will be possible to compare with technical evidence and statements from other witnesses. The officers claims are equally detailed, i assume. So no, until there are any conclusions from that, no one should put less credit on either claim.
Click to expand...

It's not just one witness against the cop, there were multiple witnesses.

http://fox2now.com/2014/08/12/witness-claims-he-saw-what-happened-when-michael-brown-was-shot/
 
theprestige said:
It was wrong when it was done to Zimmerman, and it would be wrong to do it to this cop.
Click to expand...

I wrote my previous response on my phone, so I wanted to expand a little. First and foremost, the police work for the public. They are paid with our tax dollars, and what they do, they do with our consent as a society. When they act, it has to be not only with our consent, but with our informed consent. To allow it to be any different is to invite the police state that the conspiracy theorists fear.

When a cop kills anyone, we're entitled to know who did, and why. The why is important for obvious reasons, but the who is also important so we can investigate their history as police officers to see if that offers us any help in deciding if a killing is justified. When a cop kills an unarmed person, much less a teenager, it should outrage everyone unless it can be shown that the cop had no choice. There's almost never a reason for a cop (or anyone else, for that matter) to shoot someone who is not armed. It's an extraordinary claim. It requires extraordinary evidence. So how can it be official policy to not even disclose the name of the person who did it?
 
When we have both sides of the story, we can compare. Right now, we haven't heard from an important party.

For a scenario:

There could have been a struggle for the officer’s gun at the police car door. The officer’s gun could have become dislodged in that struggle. The officer then gets his backup gun and shoots Brown once. Brown runs away, the officer shoots him a few more times.

Why? Because a gun is still missing and Brown is running away and the officer thinks Brown has taken the gun.

In reality, the gun is just lost somewhere in the car or on the ground under the car.

Just a possible example that could explain what some saw and heard.
 
Unabogie said:
I wrote my previous response on my phone, so I wanted to expand a little. First and foremost, the police work for the public. They are paid with our tax dollars, and what they do, they do with our consent as a society. When they act, it has to be not only with our consent, but with our informed consent. To allow it to be any different is to invite the police state that the conspiracy theorists fear.

When a cop kills anyone, we're entitled to know who did, and why. The why is important for obvious reasons, but the who is also important so we can investigate their history as police officers to see if that offers us any help in deciding if a killing is justified. When a cop kills an unarmed person, much less a teenager, it should outrage everyone unless it can be shown that the cop had no choice. There's almost never a reason for a cop (or anyone else, for that matter) to shoot someone who is not armed. It's an extraordinary claim. It requires extraordinary evidence. So how can it be official policy to not even disclose the name of the person who did it?
Click to expand...

I'll add that if Michael Brown had been armed and shooting at the police, there would be no mystery about the identity of the cop who took him down. But we have to hide the cowardly cop who shot him in the back because it was so egregious. Go figure.
 
LTC8K6 said:
When we have both sides of the story, we can compare. Right now, we haven't heard from an important party.

For a scenario:

There could have been a struggle for the officer’s gun at the police car door. The officer’s gun could have become dislodged in that struggle. The officer then gets his backup gun and shoots Brown once. Brown runs away, the officer shoots him a few more times.

Why? Because a gun is still missing and Brown is running away and the officer thinks Brown has taken the gun.

In reality, the gun is just lost somewhere in the car or on the ground under the car.

Just a possible example that could explain what some saw and heard.
Click to expand...

We've heard the official story. There was no second gun. The officer claims brown assaulted him and then "went for" his gun. Hmm, where have we heard that one before?
 
Unabogie said:
We've heard the official story. There was no second gun. The officer claims brown assaulted him and then "went for" his gun. Hmm, where have we heard that one before?
Click to expand...

I didn't say there was a second gun. I just offered a possible scenario.

I don't know. I haven't heard the officer's story.

I would be surprised if the officer didn't have a BUG though.

I'm not sure what George Zimmerman has to do with this case.

I suppose he could have been there.
 
Ranb said:
That depends upon who is providing details of the event.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/13/us/missouri-teen-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

It might be assaulting a police officer. This is where one of those personal video records some police officers wear might have come in handy.

Ranb
Click to expand...
I'm well aware of that side of the story. I purposefully talked about the events leading up to that point.

Do you think a cop tells some young men to get out of the street and one of the men attacks the cop?

Or is it more likely the cop tried to arrest the men and what is the crime? Failure to respect the cop's authority, which immediately leads police to arrest people even when all they were doing wrong in the first place was jaywalking.

My point is police react this way all the time, they need better skills and/or anger management. If you think you have a right to arrest and/or shoot anyone who dares defy you, you shouldn't be a cop because it isn't often necessary to treat people that way.

I've had cops treat me that way when all I was was a bystander who had stopped to help. I stopped for an accident on the freeway. I was not a witness. I had done my duty helping. The cop wanted my driver's license and ordered me to drive off the freeway so he could keep asking me questions after I clearly said I had not seen a thing. I did not deserve to be treated that way.

I drove off with my lights off and got pulled over. I thanked the police and they ignored that and snipped back, "it's against the law". The attitude was completely unnecessary.

My son was attacked when he was about 5 by some irate father in a park. I called the police and when they arrived they acted like I was the criminal until other witnesses came up and confirmed what had happened.

This happens over and over, police are rude and belligerent to everyone as if anyone who speaks to them must be a criminal. They often don't bother with at least a semblance of courtesy.

Now that is not every cop. It's a subset, probably a small subset. If all the rest of them can be nice and courteous, why does that subset have to act like jerks with a gun? They should weed power-tripping cops out, they are a menace to society.
 
Last edited:
ravdin said:
I'll add that if Michael Brown had been armed and shooting at the police, there would be no mystery about the identity of the cop who took him down. But we have to hide the cowardly cop who shot him in the back because it was so egregious. Go figure.
Click to expand...

Man, you should write a report about what you saw there and clear it all up for us with the clairvoyance.
 
Monketey Ghost said:
Man, you should write a report about what you saw there and clear it all up for us with the clairvoyance.
Click to expand...
We know an unarmed young man is dead. We know the cop confronted the two for walking in the street.

Do you agree with that much?

Did you see the street? Was it even necessary for the cop to confront these two guys?

Does the dead guy have a record of assaults? I think we'd have heard that by now.

I'm listening to the kid that was with him now being interviewed and while you might expect him to give a different story than the cop, his version of events is very credible.

Cop goes to open the car door and the two kids are next to the door.
Cop gets mad they didn't get out of the way fast enough and the cop grabs one through the car window, then pulls his gun.

So, did the kid grab the gun at that point and it went off?
Did the cop fire accidentally?
Did the cop shoot purposefully?

Even if we don't know the answer to those questions, either the shot was fatal and the autopsy will show it, in which case why are the police holding that information back?

Or the kid was shot in the back fleeing.

Shooting a fleeing kid? Surely that was unnecessary even if the kid had tried to get the cop's gun.

I think we do have a fair amount of information here. Feel free to suggest another scenario that gives a rationale for shooting a fleeing kid.
 
LTC8K6 said:
I didn't say there was a second gun. I just offered a possible scenario.

I don't know. I haven't heard the officer's story.

I would be surprised if the officer didn't have a BUG though.

I'm not sure what George Zimmerman has to do with this case.

I suppose he could have been there.
Click to expand...

What's a "BUG"?
 
LTC8K6 said:
Captain_Swoop said:
predictably the usual suspects among the rational thinkers and skeptical minds of the JREF members run around like headless chickens jumping to their usual conclusions on very little evidence.
Click to expand...

Yes, these hyped up cases often turn out different a few days later, but people just cannot seem to resist immediately jumping into the deep end on one side or the other.
Click to expand...


Like many situations where somebody is tragically killed... somehow it seems like a gun takes an inordinate share of the blame.

It's not hard to imagine a scenario where a lunatic cop couldn't have done exactly the same with a blueberry-filled donut.
 
Why do we need testimonials from witnesses? There was a police car involved. Where's the dash cam?

And why are cops not required to wear cameras?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom