• 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.
newyorkguy said:
Then he listed some of the vicious comments he'd seen on a local blog. There was skepticism that this shooting was really justifiable. I was posting in this thread Friday when it suddenly went ballistic. Up until that point it was pretty moderate.
Click to expand...

By post #7 in this nearly 2000 post thread, the statement was made that ( and I paraphrase ) if, again "IF" the claims made initially of an officer essentially executing the victim were true, the officer should be charged with murder."

By post #23 it was a case of " walking while black leads to murder "

The skeptical position from what is essentially the beginning of the thread (several early posts were about unrelated issues) is one of examining whether or not a policeman " murdered " someone.
 
Last edited:
In such a charged atmosphere, I don't think a finding of "justified" is likely. Wilson will almost certainly have to stand trial for something. He'll likely be acquitted, but optics are important.

I thought the same thing during the OJ trial; even though the prosecution utterly botched its case, there really wasn't any doubt that he had done it. The jury, though, probably acquitted him for its own safety.
 
Ziggurat said:
An interesting column from Mark Steyn about the whole mess:
http://www.steynonline.com/6524/cigars-but-not-close
It's mostly not about the shooting itself (there's not a lot to say when so many critical facts remain unknown) but about general policing atmosphere and tactics. A small excerpt:

The most basic problem is that we will never know for certain what happened. Why? Because the Ferguson cruiser did not have a camera recording the incident. That's simply not credible. "Law" "enforcement" in Ferguson apparently has at its disposal tear gas, riot gear, armored vehicles and machine guns ...but not a dashcam. That's ridiculous. I remember a few years ago when my one-man police department in New Hampshire purchased a camera for its cruiser. It's about as cheap and basic a police expense as there is.​

I'm a big fan of not just dashboard cams, but also body-worn police cameras.
Click to expand...


While I agree that there should be vest cams, and there is no reasonable excuse not to have dash-cams in this day and age, I thought the other assets mentioned were county ones.

Not having recordings is just an obviously poor choice. So was the initial heavy handed response. I'm still trying to fully comprehend how the people making these choices could conceive them as good ones. I get that there may very well be a good ole boys, we want to cover up our misdeeds attitude there, but it's still kind of boggling. Hubris.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Yes, she's just claiming he reacted as if he was shot in the back. Totally different than claiming he was shot in the back.
Click to expand...

Yes, they are different claims. Despite your sarcasm. They aren't "totally different", but one of them can be true regardless of whether the shots actually hit their mark and the other can't. The one that can be true happens to be the claim that she actually made.

Because to claim she knew he was shot in the back, she would have to see the bullet travel from the gun and enter his body, amiright ? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Well no, to claim she knew he was shot in the back all she would have to do is claim she knew he was shot in the back. As it happened, she made no such proclamation of certainty.

Her report that his body "jerked" may be completely accurate. All that was inaccurate, in that case, was what she offered as a likely interpretation of what she saw. The sound of the gun shot could have been the actual cause of the "jerk".


TheL8Elvis said:
All I am saying is that you appear to be dismissing what amounts to a de fcato claim that Mitchell appeared to see Brown was shot from behind:

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/st-louis-official-reporters-arrested-ferguson-michael-brown
“The officer gets out of his vehicle,” Mitchell said, “and he pursues him,” continuing to shoot at Brown. “Michael’s body jerks as if he was hit,” Mitchell explained, “and then he put his hands up,” and the officer continued to shoot at Brown until the teenager collapsed “all the way down to the ground.”

I don't see anything contradictory in her statements, or similar that might impeach her claims. But ...

1) this is an internet forum, not a courtroom
2) we have not seen what she actually claimed in her statement(s) to the police

So, as far as I can tell, for all intents and purposes she claimed he was shot in the back. It appears he was not. What else did she misinterpret ?
Click to expand...

Do you think her stated level of certainty is irrelevant? You think "I saw X" is essentially equivalent to "I saw something that looked as if it were X"?

Judging whether or not a bullet struck its mark requires a lot more interpretation than judging whether or not somebody turns around and puts their hands up in surrender. We infer that bullets hit their target based seeing certain changes occur in the target, we don't actually physically witness it. So I'm not sure this lowers the credibility of what she reported actually seeing.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
An interesting column from Mark Steyn about the whole mess:
http://www.steynonline.com/6524/cigars-but-not-close
It's mostly not about the shooting itself (there's not a lot to say when so many critical facts remain unknown) but about general policing atmosphere and tactics. A small excerpt:

The most basic problem is that we will never know for certain what happened. Why? Because the Ferguson cruiser did not have a camera recording the incident. That's simply not credible. "Law" "enforcement" in Ferguson apparently has at its disposal tear gas, riot gear, armored vehicles and machine guns ...but not a dashcam. That's ridiculous. I remember a few years ago when my one-man police department in New Hampshire purchased a camera for its cruiser. It's about as cheap and basic a police expense as there is.​

I'm a big fan of not just dashboard cams, but also body-worn police cameras.
Click to expand...


Very true.

If you have an inept and quite possibly racist police force, then incidents will flare up, and conspiracy theories will flourish.
 
newyorkguy said:
I just assumed they'd find THC in his system. Why do you think he wanted the cigars? ;)
Click to expand...
FWIW, being a liberal, I have always considered the prohibition on most drugs to be a net harm to our society- and my fellow libs seem to agree with me for the most part.
I have experienced a reevaluation of the " why " behind that position, however, seems like for some we are just fellow travelers.
One of the primary reasons I would like to see drugs decriminalized is so the courts and jails could be less strained with nonviolent " offenders". To my thinking, this would free up the justice system to be able to lock up people behaving exactly as Mr. Brown is behaving in the convenience store video. Do you think that is ironic?

Anyway, sorry for the digression.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
You're not keeping up. Baden waived his standard 10K fee.

And it was Baden who said the report of all shots being from the front was a misrepresentation of their findings. It was Baden who said one shot could have been from the back, in today's news conference. He made a point of correcting that mistake the reporter made.
Click to expand...

You mean the one shot that grazed the arm?

It's a graze. I think by definition that means it could have been from either direction, yes?

You don't even need an autopsy or a picture.

Just say it was a grazing wound and it pretty much means you can't tell by looking at it, which way it was going.

If either autopsy could confirm it was from the back, we'd have heard it was from the back.
 
Ammonitida said:
Rand please stop with this nonsense about him being "unarmed". His size and fists are weapons. People are beaten to death with nothing but fists every year. Some people are killed with just one punch to the head. If the officer's medical report substantiates a physical assault perpetrated by Brown (and we have every reason to believe that it will), then Brown can not be called "unarmed".
Click to expand...
I'm hugely unimpressed by your private dictionary, redefining the meaning of "unarmed". Nonsense indeed.
 
jimbob said:
Very true.

If you have an inept and quite possibly racist police force, then incidents will flare up, and conspiracy theories will flourish.
Click to expand...

Yup, even if this incident turns out to be completely justified the previous bad actions of the force made the reaction all but inevitable.
 
newyorkguy said:
I think your putting the cart in front of the horse. When police shoot an unarmed eighteen year old six times and the officer is not charged with anything isn't it reasonable to be a little skeptical about THAT? Isn't it reasonable to be skeptical about the criminal justice system's ability (and willingness) to hold police officers responsible for misconduct?
Click to expand...

GWCarver said:
This is essentially a rerun of the Zimmerman case. The big difference is we don't have the police reports, including the statement(s) of the shooter, and that makes a huge difference. Without that information, it is hard to know much of anything at this point.
Click to expand...

I was thinking more along the lines of the Duke Lacrosse case.
 
newyorkguy said:
When police shoot an unarmed eighteen year old six times and the officer is not charged with anything isn't it reasonable to be a little skeptical about THAT?
Click to expand...
Skeptical of what? That the shooter was a cop? That someone was shot? That the victim was unarmed? That the victim was eighteen? That the shooter put six rounds into his/her target? That no charges were filed against the shooter? What would you recommend that we doubt, here?
newyorkguy said:
Isn't it reasonable to be skeptical about the criminal justice system's ability (and willingness) to hold police officers responsible for misconduct?
Click to expand...
In abstract, yes. To assert that this has to be the case here, no. If you counsel skepticism all around, I agree. Let's all just shut up and wait for the conclusion of the investigation, okay? Nah, that's no fun. Turning this individual case into an indictment of "the criminal justice system" is so much more profitable for looters and race hustlers like Jesse Jackson.
 
newyorkguy said:
I think your putting the cart in front of the horse. When police shoot an unarmed eighteen year old six times and the officer is not charged with anything isn't it reasonable to be a little skeptical about THAT? Isn't it reasonable to be skeptical about the criminal justice system's ability (and willingness) to hold police officers responsible for misconduct?
Click to expand...

Shouldn't we at least wait for the grand jury?

Or is that too sensible?

The GJ will decide if charges will proceed.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
You're not keeping up. Baden waived his standard 10K fee.
Click to expand...

Smart guy.. Charging the family a 10k fee would not have went over well, considering the circumstances..

I'm sure he will make up for it as time goes on; new business, speaking engagements, expert witness fees, etc..

And it was Baden who said the report of all shots being from the front was a misrepresentation of their findings. It was Baden who said one shot could have been from the back, in today's news conference. He made a point of correcting that mistake the reporter made.
Click to expand...

And it could have occurred during the original altercation in the vehicle.

It's not like misrepresentation is in short supply here...
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
An interesting column from Mark Steyn about the whole mess:
http://www.steynonline.com/6524/cigars-but-not-close
It's mostly not about the shooting itself (there's not a lot to say when so many critical facts remain unknown) but about general policing atmosphere and tactics. A small excerpt:

The most basic problem is that we will never know for certain what happened. Why? Because the Ferguson cruiser did not have a camera recording the incident. That's simply not credible. "Law" "enforcement" in Ferguson apparently has at its disposal tear gas, riot gear, armored vehicles and machine guns ...but not a dashcam. That's ridiculous. I remember a few years ago when my one-man police department in New Hampshire purchased a camera for its cruiser. It's about as cheap and basic a police expense as there is.​

I'm a big fan of not just dashboard cams, but also body-worn police cameras.
Click to expand...

I'm in favor of cameras. The more, the better.

One big problem with his analysis - Ferguson is a poor community. I'm fairly sure (and by "fairly sure" I mean 99.9% positive) that the armored vehicles, etc belong to St. Louis County.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom