• 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.
It is rather amazing to me how many people, even public figures who should know better, do not understand why this officer has not been immediately arrested and placed on trial...

None of these people know any facts in evidence other than what has been released to the media, and on that one can only say that there was, in fact, a fatal police-involved shooting.

Other than that, no facts at all are in the public sphere.

Folks see "police shoot unarmed black teen-ager" and that's it. It must be a brutal murder with no justification.

Me, I wonder what's going to go down if/when the grand jury examines the actual evidence and concludes there is "no true bill"..... In other words, they don't indict.
I suspect more unrest will be the result.

My feeling is that the GJ was called to view the evidence and exonerate the officer in a way that is less likely to be called a white wash. I'm thinking it's been a good move, and is a better tactic than letting the evidence out one leak at a time. Plus it will preclude the Gov appointing a special prosecutor for an unjust case that can't be won in a court of law- Like Zimmerman's.

I suspect that by this time tomorrow much evidence will be made public.

Three critical pieces: Officer Wilson's report, Pics of officer injury, blood spatter evidence that shows Brown was farther away and came back at the officer, number of shell casings that match number of hits to Brown will prove no shots fired at his back. Add in a gaggle of eye witnesses that back the officer.

Meantime lets all get back to sniping at each other to bide the time away. Because sniping is what most of us seem to be here for.
 
It is rather amazing to me how many people, even public figures who should know better, do not understand why this officer has not been immediately arrested and placed on trial...

None of these people know any facts in evidence other than what has been released to the media, and on that one can only say that there was, in fact, a fatal police-involved shooting.

Other than that, no facts at all are in the public sphere.

Folks see "police shoot unarmed black teen-ager" and that's it. It must be a brutal murder with no justification.

Me, I wonder what's going to go down if/when the grand jury examines the actual evidence and concludes there is "no true bill"..... In other words, they don't indict.
I suspect more unrest will be the result.

Amazingly, some people want him to face trial, without even determining if there was a crime committed. People like that certainly are not skeptics, probably just trolls.
 
Funny, how the day before Eric Holder comes to town and the Grand Jury meets, Governor Nixon, who is a lawyer and former long time Attorney General, decides a "vigorous prosecution" of Wilson is needed to ensure justice for the Brown family.

This is still looking like a rerun of the Zimmerman railroad, but what is missing is the County Attorney "volunteering" to step aside, only to replaced by the Attorney General's favorite attack dog prosecutor. That step was necessary to cancel the Grand Jury and go straight to the fictitious "Information" and a Murder 2 indictment.

Of course, some like Judge Napolitano are wondering why a case is being presented to a Grand Jury in the middle of a riot, and that question is not easily answered, either, if one is interested in seeing justice done, IMO.
 
...no facts at all are in the public sphere.

Folks see "police shoot unarmed black teenager" and that's it. It must be a brutal murder with no justification.

/concur

I watch BBC news while I'm getting ready for work, and I have to say that the way this thing is described repeatedly just doesn't seem honest to me at all.

My assumption is that it's being reported in the most PC way possible so as not to pour fuel on the fire, but news isn't supposed to be pander quite the way that the BBC are.

over and over... "the killing of a black unarmed teenager by police"

I suppose one might say that these are the only facts, if you're going to assert that there are no other facts in the public sphere, but that isn't really true either.
 
I sort of don't agree with it, I was merely just pointing out that it is a reasonable position I can respect others taking.

I think I'm possibly the one person in the thread who feels that if Brown assaulted the officer (especially if this was to the point of skull damage as is rumored) and attempted to gain control of the officer's service weapon, then the officer had every right to believe an attempt had been made on his life, and that a person who would try to kill a cop was a danger to society in general if he escaped... and I would support him gunning down Michael Brown even if Brown had been running away the entire time.

Yes. It does appear that you are possibly the only person in this thread that holds that position.

.............

I'm ignorant when it comes to when officers can fire their guns...but I always felt it's not right shooting at someone's back. Am I wrong here?

Back on page 54, Cylinder provided a partial list of scenarios in which police officers can legally shoot a fleeing suspect in the back. Even the wildest speculation about this case that has occurred in the news and on the internet comes close to any of those legal conditions.

Again, disclaimer, I am not asserting that Brown was shot in the back, I was answering a question about a hypothetical.
 
It is rather amazing to me how many people, even public figures who should know better, do not understand why this officer has not been immediately arrested and placed on trial...

I don't agree with you. You're a police officer, you support Wilson. I understand that, if I was a police officer I'd probably support him too.

The community has the right to see some action taken. Last September in Charlotte NC in a very similar case, a cop fired twelve shots, killing an unarmed man running towards him, the officer was arrested within 48 hours. A presentation wasn't made to a Grand Jury until three months later. There were protests but no violence. There was a man who died in police custody in Staten Island a few weeks ago. There were protests but no violence. Why? I would say a big reason is people had some faith that NYPD would investigate and follow where the evidence led. And they have. That's missing in Ferguson.

Folks see "police shoot unarmed black teenager" and that's it. It must be a brutal murder with no justification.

That's nonsense. Cops shoot people everyday and you almost never get this kind of public reaction. Why is this case so different? What people are seeing is there is evidence in this case. The officer killed an unarmed man and witnesses alleged it was done execution-style. Eyewitness statements are evidence. People can attack those witnesses but if someone is willing to make a sworn statement that is evidence. Even some people in law enforcement agree: the way this is being handled almost guaranteed there would be mayhem in the streets. The military-style response, the arrest of news reporters, teargassing a film crew, the fact the local law enforcement made little effort to reach out to the community.
 
Does this right trump Wilson's right to due process?

You're twisting the meaning of my words by taking them out of context. Here's what you left out

Last September in Charlotte NC in a very similar case, a cop fired twelve shots, killing an unarmed man running towards him, the officer was arrested within 48 hours....[In Ferguson] the officer killed an unarmed man and witnesses alleged it was done execution-style.

If Wilson wasn't a police officer does anybody really believe he would not have already been arrested?
 
Me, I wonder what's going to go down if/when the grand jury examines the actual evidence and concludes there is "no true bill"..... In other words, they don't indict. I suspect more unrest will be the result.


You mean what happens when the racist grand jury no bills a guilty white racist police officer who shot a gentle black child on his way to cure cancer and then laughed while spitting on the body?
 
Last edited:
You're twisting the meaning of my words by taking them out of context. Here's what you left out



If Wilson wasn't a police officer does anybody really believe he would not have already been arrested?

I know this is probably against all likelihood to meet with success, but could you pretty please cite your sources?
 
"Some Action" = Grand jury.

I assume a press conference will be called in which a 'no bill' will be announced, and including the release of actual evidence that supports that. The crowd's reaction will depend on how the media presents it. "Cop who killed unarmed angel goes free" will mean more racial unrest. "Drug crazed thug's death ruled self defense" might help some protesters to decide to stay home.
 
"Drug crazed thug's death ruled self defense" might help some protesters to decide to stay home.

LOL!!! That's funny. You realize, of course, that these people are all reading from The Gospel Of St. Michael, right? No amount of counter-evidence will shake their faith.
 
I know two guys that survived AK round headshots - one from the low front that gouged a trough above the bridge of his nose into his hairline, he looks perpetually surprised as the scar looks like an exclamation mark, and the other took the round from the rear at a side-to-side angle. It shattered his jaw and took a big part of his tongue. He's disfigured and has a speech impediment, but he's alive.

I believe that the reason we see officers and on occasion armed civilians "overshoot" as judged from afar or the armchair is that no matter how many times they're instructed during training the average joe has been conditioned by popular fiction to believe that in the event they fire a weapon in defense and make a solid hit on their attacker they will observe the individual react dramatically, but no such reaction is likely.

I'd advise anyone interested in the subject matter to get a copy of the VHS or DVD Deadly Weapons, a tape originally intended to be instructional for LEO's. The video was created by Rich Davis, owner of Second Chance body armor and the inventor of soft body armor.

Among actual live fire testing of many different common pistol, revolver and rifle cartridges there is a section where Rich shows himself and his assistant (ex-S.F.P.D.) testing body armor the hard way - Rich shoots himself twice with a S. & W. model 629 .44 magnum while wearing one of his Deep Cover soft armor under shirt models - with no effect other than to rip up his t shirt, and Rick then proceeds to shoot Alex twice at point blank range with FAL in 7.62 NATO - an absolute full power rifle cartridge - once with Alex balancing on one foot w/ Alex wearing a vest specifically designed to stop such rounds, and the but strikes do not push him to the rear even while standing on one foot.
For a more lethal example, this video (warning, graphic violence) shows South African Police firing on striking miners up close using the local made Galil variant in 5.56 NATO, the R5

http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2012/aug/16/south-african-police-miners-lonmin

Notice that even with concentrated semi and full auto fire the shot miners are not blown backwards as popular fiction dictates.

I'l tell you from after action interviews with officers who've been through their first lethal force use one of the most common statements is that even though the autopsy shows multiple rounds fired impacted the target the officer in the moment didn't believe they had hit the target at all until the target drops. Even though (in the case of officers I had trained when they came on the job with out agency) they had been instructed that a living target most often shows no physical reaction to projectile impacts they expected otherwise.

FTR, one of the few benefits from surviving gunshot or other wounds is the opportunity to show off the evidence later - better than any tattoo, and much more expensive to acquire.

I think I have heard of this guy. However, its usually left out that when he shot himself with a .44 Magnum, he had a phone book under his armor as well. I do not believe for one second that someone can be shot with a .44 at close range with soft body armor and not be badly injured. The vest deforms too much and causes internal injuries. Also, I cannot believe for one second that any soft armor will stop a 7.62x51mm at anything but extreme ranges.

Any proof of this?

ETA: after re-reading its clear you weren't claiming soft body armor will stop 7.62 NATO. Actually there was a well done episode of Mythbusters that looked into whether being shot will make you fly off your feet, Hollywood style. Short answer: no.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom