• 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.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Autopsy. Entry wound determined to be fatal was to the top of the head, exit wound through the eye, re-entry wound on the upper chest. A 5' something cop cannot shoot a standing man in that fashion. He was down at the time of the killing shot.

I saw Brown's attorney claiming that there was an exit wound through the eye, but that does not appear to be what Professor Parcells said in his press conference:

"We've got one that entered just above the right eyebrow..."
 
Nobody is dismissing your version out of hand. It's just that you're not including the alternate version. Which is roughly, Brown running from the car, Wilson firing and missing Brown but the shots whizzing past Brown convince him that he should give up. Brown turns around to face Wilson and starts to tell Wilson that he is unarmed and to stop shooting him before Wilson shoots him again.

And, yes, this is based on what the witnesses said.

I think we're all in agreement about Wilson shooting in a blind panic. But was it still excessive?
The " blind panic " claim would need to present with a little more evidence before all of us accept it as proven.
 
SNIP

These two officers wrongfully arrested two reporters, they used violence and the threat of it to do so, moreso than Michael Brown did to the store clerk. Should they be considered violent felons, or perhaps even jackbooted thugs? Their offense goes against a far more important principle than a couple boxes of cigars in my opinion. Should they be facing 5-10 years in prison for their actions? Has anyone referred to them as the armed violent thugs they behaved as?

Yes, yes, and yes. (I might have missed an additional 'yes' in there.)

People can, and indeed do, use factual labels in order to build a narrative and either enhance or deny perspective. Some could (and do) call Brown a 'violent felon' in order to disparage his character so as to imply he deserved what he got regardless of the facts of the actual shooting. Others could (and do) call him a teenager in order to marginalize his agency in all the events. Others use them as possible explanations for state of mind and establish range of likely actions based on past actions. In short, there are valid and invalid uses of even factual labels. Some people are even using 'black', 'white', and 'cop' in these same ways. So people trying to build one narrative will get push back by people using factual labels to either deconstruct that narrative, or build one of their own. It's not all poisoning the well and ad hom or the like, but some of it is. We have to do the hard thing and actually take the arguments on their own merit, and not dismiss them because there are invalid similar arguments.

I'd call the police who arrested the reporters in the McDonalds many impolite things, thugs included. I've seen police in total called all that and worse. Hell, I saw someone unironically using the argument, 'I can't lock someone in my basement, so why can the police?' They didn't get the joke. There are a few people I have as Facebook friends who are constantly posting anti-police things. Some are fair complaints, but most are ******* insane (yes I need to trim my list). I suggest that people who believe that the police are generally all thugs, bullies, dumb, and racist go out and become police to change that. Somehow, they don't support that suggestion. But these invalid complaints about the police in total don't excuse the actual institutional problems that too many departments have, nor the large criminal justice issues this nation faces.

Of course the reason there isn't as much discussion on these police is because next to no one is defending them. We don't have people calling them gentle giants, or great family men, or the like to excuse their bad behavior. We have had I think one poster here defend their actions and try to minimize them. I disagree with that, but it's also not going to generate much discussion.

EDIT: The point I was making at any rate was that one could object to the way a label is being used, but to object because some don't consider a factual label factual is pointless.
 
Last edited:
Autopsy. Entry wound determined to be fatal was to the top of the head, exit wound through the eye, re-entry wound on the upper chest. A 5' something cop cannot shoot a standing man in that fashion. He was down at the time of the killing shot.

Do you have access to better (or more) information outside the NYT piece posted to this thread? That gave the impression that Dr. Baden didn't think that sort of conclusion could be drawn. It sounds like you're first referring to the wound that Dr. Baden was quoted as saying this about:

"One of the bullets entered the top of Mr. Brown’s skull, suggesting his head was bent forward when it struck him and caused a fatal injury, according to Dr. Michael M. Baden, the former chief medical examiner for the City of New York, who flew to Missouri on Sunday at the family’s request to conduct the separate autopsy. It was likely the last of bullets to hit him, he said.​

I got the impression that was one of the head shots and this was the other:

"One of the bullets shattered Mr. Brown’s right eye, traveled through his face, exited his jaw and re-entered his collarbone. The last two shots in the head would have stopped him in his tracks and were likely the last fired."​

Is it possible you conflated the two wounds? Or did the NYT maybe do so and you have access to better information? As I recall you have contacts in the media, thus why I ask. Is there reason to believe the abrasion did not happen during the struggle near the vehicle door?
 
Though Bader seems to be telling all as soon as he acquires it. (can they gag him?)

But all we know of the tox reprot is that he was positive for pot. What else was he positive for?

Beats me. If I had to guess as to what else he might test positive, it would be for something like "gone postal". The kid just seems to have lost it, and with the parents lawyered up, we might never find out if anything in his personal life was responsible for it.
 
Yes, yes, and yes. (I might have missed an additional 'yes' in there.)

People can, and indeed do, use factual labels in order to build a narrative and either enhance or deny perspective. Some could (and do) call Brown a 'violent felon' in order to disparage his character so as to imply he deserved what he got regardless of the facts of the actual shooting. Others could (and do) call him a teenager in order to marginalize his agency in all the events. Others use them as possible explanations for state of mind and establish range of likely actions based on past actions. In short, there are valid and invalid uses of even factual labels. Some people are even using 'black', 'white', and 'cop' in these same ways. So people trying to build one narrative will get push back by people using factual labels to either deconstruct that narrative, or build one of their own. It's not all poisoning the well and ad hom or the like, but some of it is. We have to do the hard thing and actually take the arguments on their own merit, and not dismiss them because there are invalid similar arguments.

I'd call the police who arrested the reporters in the McDonalds many impolite things, thugs included. I've seen police in total called all that and worse. Hell, I saw someone unironically using the argument, 'I can't lock someone in my basement, so why can the police?' They didn't get the joke. There are a few people I have as Facebook friends who are constantly posting anti-police things. Some are fair complaints, but most are ******* insane (yes I need to trim my list). I suggest that people who believe that the police are generally all thugs, bullies, dumb, and racist go out and become police to change that. Somehow, they don't support that suggestion. But these invalid complaints about the police in total don't excuse the actual institutional problems that too many departments have, nor the large criminal justice issues this nation faces.

Of course the reason there isn't as much discussion on these police is because next to no one is defending them. We don't have people calling them gentle giants, or great family men, or the like to excuse their bad behavior. We have had I think one poster here defend their actions and try to minimize them. I disagree with that, but it's also not going to generate much discussion.

EDIT: The point I was making at any rate was that one could object to the way a label is being used, but to object because some don't consider a factual label factual is pointless.
It's not generating much discussion here simply because the thrust of this thread is the shooting, it's causes and circumstances.
In another thread I would be happily discussing it.
I am not " defending " the actions of those LEOs, BTW, I am trying to excercise Skepticism with regards to the claims made against them, as I am trying to excercise skepticism to those made against the officer involved in the shooting.
 
..........
I suggest that people who believe that the police are generally all thugs, bullies, dumb, and racist go out and become police to change that. Somehow, they don't support that suggestion.

At the risk of venturing too far off topic, it is understandable that type A personalities with the desire to wield deadly power over their fellow human beings might be attracted to a career in law enforcement, whereas the would be peace makers might be a little apprehensive about joining a group dominated by the former...
 
Yeah Greg, I've always thought they should 'draft' cops. EVERYBODY has to do two years at age 18.
 
At the risk of venturing too far off topic, it is understandable that type A personalities with the desire to wield deadly power over their fellow human beings might be attracted to a career in law enforcement, whereas the would be peace makers might be a little apprehensive about joining a group dominated by the former...
Venturing in that direction is unhelpful because it takes us into the realm of " those people behave like this" and " those people behave like that ". Ugly.

This is a thread about a particular incident, and two particular people, on one particular afternoon.
The other topics are worthy of discussion, but not ( I think ) here.
 
Ok, perhaps not blind panic but panicky shall we say? Especially after Brown tried to take his gun away?
Panicky is hitting the gas pedal and driving away quickly to get far away from Brown and his neighborhood.

ETA: How is this for a panic reaction?

An aggressive dog came up to me and bit my ankle and then ran away. It hurt and I panicked. So I ran after the dog and yelled "Heel".

Is that valid panic?
 
Last edited:
Lessee if i can columnise some thoughts, maybe we can all make a flow chart:

Theory***** Evidence to prove/disprove:

Shot at fleeing kid***** only 6 empties

Execution style***** 'vertical' scrapes to face indicate forward motion,
lack of residue on head

Officer grabbed kid/ kid attacked***** officer has bruised face, Brown no throat damage

Innocent little angel****** Tox screen positve for rage-ers

Go ahead quote or cut and paste you own. Maybe somebody with better k'board skil can sort it out/ Spread sheet?
 
Last edited:
If someone tried to take my gun (if I had one on me) I might panic and get the hell out of there far away from that person. I'm not a cop.
 
At the risk of venturing too far off topic, it is understandable that type A personalities with the desire to wield deadly power over their fellow human beings might be attracted to a career in law enforcement, whereas the would be peace makers might be a little apprehensive about joining a group dominated by the former...


I think it is kind of related actually.

Thinking about the complaints that many anti-police people have, how does one change them? Are their complaints really because of the type-A personality? I know part of my own motivation to try to join a police force was because I thought I could do the job (my back and knee joints disagreed) in a just manner and therefore was obligated to. What way do they think they will get better police officers? Now there are many possible mechanisms to get that. I'm for evidence based best practices being advanced throughout the country, pysch requirements, training, anti-corruption measures, recording, oversight, and the like. Is that what motivates people to keep on with the '**** the police' posts, and continued talking about how all police are asses, pricks, power-tripping, racist, race-traitor, violent, jack-booted thugs?

Generally, no. In my experience they want the police to have less power and to leave them alone. Now I am very much for checks and limits on police power, but I still want speeders to get 'hassled'. Many of these people don't want the police to have much if any power, and it's generally because they buy into some parallel power structure. Some are idealistic (sometimes naive in my view), but many are simply parallel power structures they feel they have more input or power over. It's something they feel more connected with. That could be a homeowner's association, or private security firm, or criminal organization. The problem is though as corrupt, incompetent, and inefficient as the police can be, it absolutely pales in comparison to almost all these parallel power structures. The same things that tend to make people feel they have a stronger connection and more control over them are the very things that make them susceptible to massive corruption. 'Strong men' might have more a connection to the local populace, but also no checks or balance.

So my suggestion that they themselves become involved in the police forces, or in oversight/planning thereof, is made to make them think about the power structure, how it works, and how they actually are connected to it. Police aren't raised on some island training facility. They aren't a class, or a title gained through birthright. They're people from the same pool as the general population (or at least they should be!). However, the people I'm making the suggestion to never seem to realize that some of the same things that make them unsuited for becoming a police officer are some of the same things that make what they do feel connected with open to abuse as well. They never see their own connection to the police forces. This is something the police can, and need, to address in many places. They're part of the community, and if the idea that they're apart from or above it takes hold in either the force or the community there will be problems. Big ones.
 
I don't know if I could hit a moving target with a pistol if I have an adrenaline rush. I have no training in that. I'm not a cop.

If Brown rushed me I might freeze in fear even with a gun. I'm not a cop.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom