Michael Brown Shooting

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The cowardly gangsters in the area found out the police were taking a mostly passive approach and they could hide among the protesters, so they came in to cause trouble, which is really what they do on a daily basis anyway. The police are going to have to clear the streets to restore order, IMO, which is probably why the National Guard is being called in. I'm not sure putting soldiers on the mean streets of Ferguson is the right thing to do, but we'll just have to wait and see. There really aren't too many options here.

The "peaceful protestors" are their useful idiots.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Just to be clear, Johnson flat out said that Brown was shot in the back. Here's the video.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...7/?AID=10709313&PID=3753211&SID=19k4dx6tbbem7

But according to one poster in this thread, just because he said Brown was shot in the back doesn't mean he meant he was shot in the back.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

According to Antonio French, a St. Louis alderman who has been covering the issue on Twitter, those actions have nothing to do with the protests:

Antonio French @AntonioFrench · 3h

These people are not protestors. This is something different and it has little to do with #JusticeForMikeBrown.​

Then he signs off without saying what 'something different' means. Argh!

A coordinated activity like the Governor said suggests organization, is this gang-related then?

Don't know.

But as someone who lives in the area, I can tell you from previous experience that Antonio French isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

What is your point? Assuming he's not a complete moron I don't see why he would lie about this, knowing that the evidence would prove him wrong.

I wouldn't make that assumption.

 

[a_unique_person]

The "peaceful protestors" are their useful idiots.

So they have no right to protest?

 

[a_unique_person]

Johnson says the round struck Brown in the back. Struck.

He's very clear that Brown was hit in the back, and that's why he turned around to surrender and said "stop shooting...".

There's no getting around that video, imo.

Brown is large, in the video of him entering the shop, he holds his arms and hands the way many large people do, with the hands not parallel to the body, but at a tangent.

He could have been walking away and shot in the arm or hand, and have a bullet hole consisten with the autopsy. I'm not saying this is what happened, but people are offering a multitude of hypotheticals, this is one more.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbsiFFPPdW4

As for releasing the video, the Governor has this to say.

Washington: Missouri Governor Jay Nixon said the decision to release a video showing someone who is alleged to be shooting victim Michael Brown, in what police have called a robbery in a convenience store shortly before he was killed was ''not right'' and ''not helpful''.
Speaking on American television, Mr Nixon said his office was unaware that Ferguson police chief Thomas Jackson was going to release the video on Friday.
He said on ABC's This Week: ''We were certainly not happy with that being released, especially in the way that it was,'' Mr Nixon said. ''It appeared to cast aspersions on a young man that was gunned down in the street. It made emotions raw.''

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/missour...tv-footage-20140818-105bja.html#ixzz3AkJ2Dqe0
​

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

So they have no right to protest?

Who?

 

[a_unique_person]

Who?

The "useful idiots".

 

[Cain]

Some blogs have been linking this:

https://plus.google.com/+DanMcDermott/posts/Eu44gWTyC8Y

It's a transcript of an overheard conversation at the scene. Right-wingers seem to regard it as more legitimate because the people talking in the background didn't know they were being recorded, so one person "honestly" related his version of events. Of course, it's easy to just cherry-pick whatever witness report comports to what you already believe. More interestingly, it seems to independently corroborate what a self-described "friend" of the (wife?) of the officer said when providing the officer's version of the story to radio talk show.

The radio call-in happened on the 15th, and the woman on the line says that Brown went down after he was shot in the forehead, which is remarkable because it precedes the public release of an autopsy.

 

[pakeha]

This report has Johnson saying the shots were at close range.

The officer was face to face with a surrendering Brown and simply executed him.

And Brown was hit at the vehicle.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/eyewitness-michael-brown-fatal-shooting-missouri

Many interesting "statements" from that article.

“Everyone else’s mentality be on some nonsense, silliness,” Johnson said. “But Mike had his mind set on more than that, helping others ..."

About 20 minutes before the shooting, Johnson said he saw Brown walking down the street and decided to catch up with him. The two walked and talked. That’s when Johnson says they saw the police car rolling up to them.

Brown made it past the third car. Then, “blam!” the officer took his second shot, striking Brown in the back.

I wonder if Johnson knows at this point in time just how far he's been outed as a witness to those events?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The "useful idiots".

Of course they do.

 

[Wolrab]

My money would be on Johnson not even seeing the shooting, rather cowering behind a car as the gunshots rang out.
ETA: Taking cover, not cowering. Who the hell watches while gunshots are being fired? Especially if they think they might be meant for him?

 

[Giz]

So why are the bullet wounds on *Brown's* right?

When someone jerks a rigger strongly/rapidly it tends to pull the gun to the side. For a right handed person it tends to draw the muzzle/point of impact to the left ('left' from the point of view of the shooter, i.e. Brown's right).

Shots tending to impact further to Brown's right side than on center line (especially those shots from furthest away) would be expected (and perhaps support the officer claiming to be under pressure, i.e. from being rushed, rather than being able to calmly aim his shots).

 

[a_unique_person]

Of course they do.

Without being ridiculed?

 

[Wolrab]

Scrut's ridicule prevents them from protesting how exactly?

 

[The Greater Fool]

Without being ridiculed?

No. They have no right to do anything free of ridicule.

 

[William Parcher]

These people are not protestors. This is something different and it has little to do with #JusticeForMikeBrown.

Then he signs off without saying what 'something different' means. Argh!

A coordinated activity like the Governor said suggests organization, is this gang-related then?

He's talking about organized anarchists coming in from other places including out of state. I suspect that they brought the Molotov cocktails and are teaching the locals how to use them.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Without being ridiculed?

No.

 

[Distracted1]

Without being ridiculed?

Not to be too much of an ass, but do I not have as much right to ridicule a protestor as the protestor has to protest?

 

[marplots]

He's talking about organized anarchists coming in from other places including out of state. I suspect that they brought the Molotov cocktails and are teaching the locals how to use them.

Probably Russians.