Michael Brown Shooting

[stanfr]

How can someone so quickly revert from "rage" to "cold blood"?

I've tried looking for facts into the case.

How does someone die thirty five feet away? I suppose he could've taken a bullet (or bullets), ran, then collapsed. Was a shot fired from thirty five feet out? Why?

I agree the cop could've just been pissed and, seeing red, blew the guy away. It seems unnecessary to shoot a 300lb man who's already taken one (or more than one). He's not gonna get far.

Poor choice of words, I should have said 'in rage'--point was, he was no longer an objective threat at that point--but may have been a subjective one.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Granted that nobody likes the taste of crow. I'll willingly admit to being wrong if the coming reports show the cop wasn't justified in shooting.

Anyone wanna join that group, the potential "I was wrong" list? Sign up!

I won't have to eat crow, since I haven't picked a side, other than to suggest that we wait for the evidence. Perfect skeptic score!!!

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

One thing this thread clearly illustrates is, something black leaders have mentioned, within a certain segment of whites their hostility towards young black men is off the charts. The malevolence in this thread is disturbing -- though not surprising -- and the people expressing it seem to be doing so without really being aware their emotions are on display. In fact this is one of the most emotional threads I've seen in a long long time. There was even a furor in this thread last night when I referred to Brown as a teenager.

There are good reasons to suspect the shooting may have been unjustified. The fact Brown was unarmed, the fact he was apparently at some distance from the officer when the final shots were fired, the fact three witnesses have all given accounts that are relatively consistent and they're describing what was essentially an execution. Plus the fact the Ferguson PD has a troubled reputation.

The reaction around most of the country seems to be deeply troubled by what happened. Instead here we get post after post ridiculing any notion that there might be a problem with this. Some of the posters here I do consider them to be expressing what are basically racist opinions. I think most reasonable people would.

Okay, sure. Whatever.

 

[stanfr]

A corrupt local Police Dept?? Never!
One of the local dept's I used to deal with was disbanded for, among other things, ingesting all the drugs they confiscated...

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Here's another eyewitness who says Brown had his hands up, saying "don't shoot!"

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-ferguson-michael-brown-20140817-story.html



So she says he was on his knees with his hands up when he was shot in the head. Who wants to dismiss what she says here? Who thinks it's important that Mike Brown stole some cigarillos prior to this happening?

Oh, well since she said it, it must be true. The police can close their investigation.

Unlike the true believers, skeptics look at all the evidence. This statement, which carries no special weight, other than to be piece of evidence to be added to the pile, will be compared and contrasted with all the other evidence. I wonder what you will say if he doesn't have a hole in his head?

 

[newyorkguy]

If that's silly, you'll find this a barrel of laughs.

That must have been staged by...I don't know. Al Sharpton?

It is possible to hold those two viewpoints.

1. Wait for all the facts to come out.
2. Eyewitness accounts may be accurate.

You left one out:
Eyewitness accounts may be inaccurate.

Doesn't '2,' the use of the word "may," pretty clearly imply that?

Oh and by the way: Go Brewers!

Oh yeah.

 

[Ammonitida]

How'd you pack so much correctness into one sentence?

You're exactly right, the guy is using his size, his ability to intimidate, etc. to pull off a brazen robbery in broad daylight and openly defy the store owner to do anything about it. When he tries to, he makes it abundantly clear he's prepared to do more than just grab him by the neck and shove him into a shelf. Next up was probably getting decked, if he didn't concede Mr. Brown's "right" to exit the store with $50 worth of Swisher Sweets.

If that's not thuggery, what is?

There's this sense of entitlement/arrogance he displays in that video that gets me. In my opinion, Brown's crime is even more disturbing/heinous than if he were to have robbed the store at gunpoint while donning a skii mask. At least then, it would appear that Brown was aware that his conduct was despicable and criminal. Instead, he appears entitled and justified in his actions, as if he owned that store -- not the least bit worried that he was being recorded. That this happened just minutes prior to his confrontation with Wilson, changes the whole context of that encounter. It will certainly factor largely in this case if it makes it to trial.

The extreme left needs to stop downplaying it as "petty theft". It's embarrassing. You can be executed in cold blood while still being a lowlife scumbag (and yes, Brown was a scumbag). The two are not incompatible.

This kid will never be another "Trayvon Martin", who at least had the morals to pay for his items at that convenience store.

 

[newyorkguy]

...Unlike the true believers, skeptics look at all the evidence. This statement, which carries no special weight, other than to be piece of evidence to be added to the pile, will be compared and contrasted with all the other evidence.

Sure you do.

The other thing that bothers me is the reputation of the Ferguson Police Department. Most of the black residents have said the cops had a reputation for being confrontational in their dealings with blacks. <snip> This was when Ferguson police arrested the wrong man on a warrant search, beat him at the police station and then charged him with destroying government property after the officers discovered the man's blood had stained their uniforms. A complaint was made -- I think a lawsuit was filed -- and Ferguson PD has resisted being held accountable. <snip>
The officer who shot Brown has been with Ferguson PD reportedly about four years. Prior to that he worked as a police officer in neighboring Jennings for two years until it was disbanded because they got caught stealing grant money. <snip. It sounds to me like there might be a real problem with local police ethics in St. Louis County.

Okay, sure. Whatever.

Brilliant analysis.

 

[boooeee]

If that's silly, you'll find this a barrel of laughs.

This was the shooting of Manuel Orosco Longoria. The first round of "shots" you hear are non-lethal shots (tasers and beanbags, I believe). The last two are the fatal shots, which occurred a split second after he put his hands up.

Here is the dashcam video, which provides a different view of what happened.

http://www.azfamily.com/home/New-vi...hase-officer-involved-shooting-245093841.html

From the dashcam view, it looks like suicide by cop. Also important to note that this was after a 70 minute police chase in which innocent lives were at risk. They would have been at risk again if they allowed him to drive off.

 

[Cylinder]

Oh, well since she said it, it must be true. The police can close their investigation.

Unlike the true believers, skeptics look at all the evidence. This statement, which carries no special weight, other than to be piece of evidence to be added to the pile, will be compared and contrasted with all the other evidence. I wonder what you will say if he doesn't have a hole in his head?

The problem with the more wild stories floating around is that there is no real evidence released to contradict them, so an objective mind has to keep that possibility open. I agree that it is possible that Wilson shot Brown in the back 5 times as Wilson was either down on the pavement or in the act of surrendering.

An objective evaluation also has to consider that if Brown had five holes in his back with the MSP and DOJ looking over the investigation, they're would have already been an arrest made. One can argue a local agency cover-up in the realm of rationality. Under this set of political circumstances, it strains credibility that the MSP and DOJ are covering for FPD and Wilson. It's still in the realm of possibility, but on the very fringes.

If one works on the assumption that DOJ isn't covering up, then an objective approach is to evaluate statements based on this assumption. One objective evaluation is that those statements aren't credible.

That doesn't mean to say that Wilson's claims are golden. That just means the shot in the back 5 times-style versions aren't very likely with the information that can be gleaned at this point.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

If that's silly, you'll find this a barrel of laughs.

I agree that at a glance that video looks pretty awful, though I'm guessing what officers who were present would tell you they opened fire because he refused to comply and then began attempting to re-enter his vehicle, which could have either contained a deadly weapon or been used as one. He was given ample time to comply and lay face down on the ground, he refused, and then did those actions. As for any shots which happened in the final moment he put his hands up? Those shots were already committed to. That all happened in such a short span of time, those trigger pulls had already happened. Reaction time is what it is, and if you've already done something an officer or officers deemed threatening enough to shoot you over, it's probably too late for any surrendering.

I know it looks bad, but you'll note that this guy was maintaining an aggressive posture, and not availing himself of AMPLE opportunity to survive by simply complying with their directives. The car door he was making for was open, and it looked like some windows were too. If there was a weapon in that car on the seat, he could've had it shockingly fast if they didn't react.

Generally a really, really easy way to avoid being shot to death by cops is to not be a felon, and if you insist on being a felon... accept when you've been caught and don't resist arrest.

Also, when one officer opens fire the others will typically support him, assuming he's seen something which justified it, and knowing that hesitation could prove fatal. These are the kinds of protocols which ensure police officers come home to their families every night. In a job where they are constantly exposing themselves to the worst, most violent elements of our society, they cannot afford to give too much benefit of the doubt to criminals in situations that can go badly for the officer in the blink of an eye. If you want evidence of this, watch some videos of officers losing control of the situation, and how dangerous that can be:

Man attacks police officer in front of his own daughter
NY State cop shot and killed with his own gun
Monk saves police officer after she is overpowered and has her gun taken
Two officers killed by man who retrieved gun from his vehicle after having put his hands up in the air in surrender (highly relevant, but very hard to watch)

And I could keep linking such things all day.

These are the sorts of incidents which have led to police being hyper vigilant, and not granting a lot of leeway. A citizen's primary tool for surviving an encounter with police is compliance. A cop's primary tools for surviving an encounter with citizens they don't know, don't know the mental state of, don't know the desperation level of, and don't know the armed or unarmed status of... are vigilance, cynicism, and use of force.

Remember events can look very different with hindsight, watching from the safety of a comfy computer chair when it's on video and there is zero possibility of you losing your life. Very different from being an officer who is several yards closer than the camera man was, who is making split second decisions, whose heart is racing, and whose life is on the line.

We ask these people to keep our community's safe and voluntarily engage with the worst, most dangerous people society has to offer. That does and should carry some benefit of the doubt with it.

If he had no personal stake in this, I would agree. As it is however, he has his career and possibly his freedom hinging on this. If he did just shoot Brown in a blind rage, the odds of his admitting this now are close to zero. Do you agree?
If you do, his testimony can have next to no weight. Regardless of the actual events, his testimony would be along these lines.

I do agree. Though it's worth pointing out that officers have fessed up to mistakes which resulted in someone's death before. It's not unheard of for an officer to admit their mistake, but simply try to explain why the situation set the stage for that mistake. Lying is not automatic or universal. So I guess maybe I don't agree with "close to zero" but I'd agree with "low."

I'll be looking at this as how well his account, the physical evidence, and witness accounts all fit together. And I'll be giving Officer Wilson the benefit of the doubt, even more so after the release of the video of Brown's thuggery. He'll be getting even more benefit of the doubt if evidence of serious injuries to him come out.

 

[Lorentz]

The man had just attacked the officer, apparently out of nowhere ( from the policeman's viewpoint ) , attempting to do him harm, and get his gun. That made him a violent, dangerous ,felon.
By definition, a violent felon is a danger to others.

I think you're pushing "danger to others" to the point of absurdity here. Yes, someone who has committed a crime and has used violence may use it again against some other person. A retired schoolteacher may also decide for no reason to bludgeon a nearby kindergartner to death.

It's about the degree of violence and the degree of danger. Brown was not armed and had not killed or (to our knowledge) tried to kill anyone. End of story.

 

[Lorentz]

If you won't remove the quotation marks from the word thug after seeing this...

[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/ZRLVOv3.gif[/qimg]

I have to start wondering if you know what the word means.

Well, obviously it means a professional assassin and worshipper of Kali (praise her name!).
Thuggee

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The problem with the more wild stories floating around is that there is no real evidence released to contradict them, so an objective mind has to keep that possibility open. I agree that it is possible that Wilson shot Brown in the back 5 times as Wilson was either down on the pavement or in the act of surrendering.

An objective evaluation also has to consider that if Brown had five holes in his back with the MSP and DOJ looking over the investigation, they're would have already been an arrest made. One can argue a local agency cover-up in the realm of rationality. Under this set of political circumstances, it strains credibility that the MSP and DOJ are covering for FPD and Wilson. It's still in the realm of possibility, but on the very fringes.

If one works on the assumption that DOJ isn't covering up, then an objective approach is to evaluate statements based on this assumption. One objective evaluation is that those statements aren't credible.

That doesn't mean to say that Wilson's claims are golden. That just means the shot in the back 5 times-style versions aren't very likely with the information that can be gleaned at this point.

Exactly. Like I said upthread, the police and DA hold their cards close to their vest (which, as a citizen, I appreciate), so as not to compromise the investigation.

Anyone can go on Oprah and claim that Brown was on his knees begging for his life, and the gullible will gobble it up.

"Didn't you see that girl on Oprah? She said they shot him in the head! She must be telling the truth, because the police haven't denied it!!11!!1!!"

"Well, why don't we wait for the autopsy to see if there is a hole in his head?"

"Racist!!!!"

 

[Skeptic Tank]

I think you're pushing "danger to others" to the point of absurdity here. Yes, someone who has committed a crime and has used violence may use it again against some other person. A retired schoolteacher may also decide for no reason to bludgeon a nearby kindergartner to death.

It's about the degree of violence and the degree of danger. Brown was not armed and had not killed or (to our knowledge) tried to kill anyone. End of story.

Not quite the end of the story, sorry.

Put yourself in Officer Wilson's shoes. We don't know for a certainty if he knew Brown and Johnson were the robbers, if he merely suspected they might be, or if he was entirely unaware of the robbery. It seems like that information is still being hashed out and we're getting mixed messages on it. But if he wasn't aware, Brown's reaction to a mere jaywalking stop would've seemed even more bizarre and made him seem even less predictable... furthermore:

You're Officer Wilson, this guy just physically attacked you in your own cruiser and tried to get ahold of your gun in the process. You've never had a perp do anything so brazen and unpredictably violent and volatile before. From your perspective, while you are injured and terrified, do you believe Brown has made an attempt on your life? Yes or no?

Do you know for a fact he's unarmed simply because he hasn't produced a firearm or other weapon of his own thus far?

Do you know for a fact his friend isn't armed with a pistol, and taking aim at you right now from another direction?

Just imagine the terror of a situation like that. Someone has beaten you about the head and nearly got control of your service pistol. As far as you're concerned, you just barely prevented your own demise... there are still two perps, you don't know if they're armed, and you certainly don't consider the situation neutralized yet.

And based on what you do next, millions may be ready to bury you under the prison.

Seem fair?

I'm going to need to see something pretty damning before I grab my pitchfork and join the mob.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I won't have to eat crow, since I haven't picked a side, other than to suggest that we wait for the evidence.

Uh huh... You haven't picked a side; you just repeatedly dismiss the evidence in support of one of the sides.

 

[GWCarver]

Uh huh... You haven't picked a side; you just repeatedly dismiss the evidence in support of one of the sides.

Just out of curiosity, what evidence being dismissed is going to withstand the test of time?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Uh huh... You haven't picked a side; you just repeatedly dismiss the evidence in support of one of the sides.

Example?

I haven't dismissed anything. I've merely suggested that there may be contrary evidence that we haven't heard (in fact, I'd bank on it). Also, I've suggested that eyewitnesses sometimes don't remember things accurately, and sometimes flat out lie.

It's amazing that this is even questioned on a skeptics forum.

 

[johnny karate]

Uh huh... You haven't picked a side; you just repeatedly dismiss the evidence in support of one of the sides.

I think more to the point, the standard for evidence that is mocked, dismissed, or otherwise hand-waved into irrelevance is very one-sided.

People arguing that the shooting was justified have attempted to introduce hearsay and unidentified people in a Youtube video as evidence.

And this elicited nary a peep from our resident Crusaders for Skeptical Thought.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

I won't have to eat crow, since I haven't picked a side, other than to suggest that we wait for the evidence. Perfect skeptic score!!!

Those who've been careful not to jump to conclusions have been great skeptics. And that's saying something, considering the highly charged atmosphere.

I notice precious few have taken me up on the challenge.