Michael Brown Shooting

[dudalb]

It's strange to see such an effort to minimize the aggressive theft, which we KNOW occurred, while at the same time maximizing the imagined bad actions of the cop, when we simply don't know.
That's bias in its raw, pure form.

Bias driven by a political agenda.
When it comes to making mincemeat of rational thought and logic,Religon aint got nothing over Political Ideologies.
I love the way worshippers at the church of St Michael;s use the word "shove" for what Brown did.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Please be careful about the size of your pictures. Your picture size may be changed by using [imgw=400]yourimagehere.jpg[/imgw]

400 is the value used in the recent edits, but any value may be used.

Thank you.

Posted By: Loss Leader

I would have but it's dang hard to find the code to resize pictures. Can you make it easier to find for those of us that don't have the code memorized?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm not reading anything into what you said. You are quite clear and unambiguous.

You don't get to tell us what Wilson was thinking, nor could you possibly know. You also don't get to decide what he should have let go and what he shouldn't have. Your judgment of and label of this situation as "lousy policing" is based on nothing but your personal opinion, one that seems to be heavily weighted against law enforcement in general. In other words, there doesn't seem to be any possible choice that Wilson could have made here other than to drive on by and say nothing.

So please then, if I'm being dishonest, tell us what "good policing" is, in your expert opinion.

I pointed out specifically where you misstated my position and I also gave you an example of good policing.

You'll have to re-read my post if you want your question answered again.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.latimes.com/nation/natio...ichael-brown-video-20140816-premiumvideo.html

A new video. Not much in it. It does show that an ambulance was on scene quickly to check on Brown, and that Brown's body was covered quickly.

 

[Ranb]

....You don't see how young black males are given almost superhuman powers to the point that their single step (even unarmed) is considered a serious threat to an armed police office standing 20-35 feet away? How they are still a threat after being shot five times?

Read about the Niihua incident. Shigenori Nishikaichi was holding Kealoha Kanahele hostage. When her husband Benehakaka Kanahele tried to intervene, Nishikaichi shot him in the groin, stomach and upper leg. This did not stop Kanahele as he picked the shooter up, hurled him into a stone wall then cut his throat. Still a threat after being shot.

Being shot several times is not the same as immediately incapacitated.

Ranb

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

You're doing it too.

It has been pointed out numerous times - theft and shoving the clerk is a felony. Continuing to refer to it as a minor crime is dishonest

Here's the thing, though: while I have no problem admitting that Brown's actions in the convenient store put him on the wrong side of the "violent felon" line, legally speaking, there's still a rather large difference of degree between what he did to the shopkeeper and the alleged bull-rushing of an armed police officer who has already discharged his weapon in Brown's direction.

The first action, to me, in no way comes close to proving that Brown was capable of the alleged second action, yet some people here appear to consider these two actions to be equally aggressive.

It would be like using the fact that I once punched my sister in the arm to claim I'm capable of beating another person half to death.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://articles.latimes.com/1996-07-13/sports/sp-24826_1_police-officer

.357 magnum in the chest and out the back, and she kept on going long enough to kill her attacker and almost get to her house.

"The first thing I see when I step out of my car is the barrel of a .357 magnum," she said.

Lim, who had been on the job for two years and off probation only four months, went for a standard two-hand hold on her weapon and had barely began to utter, "Police officer, drop the gun," when the 15-year-old gang member fired a single shot into her chest.

"It knocked me back a little bit," she said. "If you were to take a large javelin, heat it up about 1,000 degrees and shove it through your chest, that's about what it felt like. A real burning sensation."

The suspect then disappeared behind Lim's truck. Lim went after him and as she reached the back of the truck the youth again came at her, pointing his gun. Lim fired three shots into her assailant's chest and neck and he fell to the ground.

"As he's going down, he fires off the rest of his rounds at me, basically in the air," she said.

Thinking the suspect wasn't alone, Lim headed back around the driver's side of the car to the front. "I'm thinking there's someone else here, so I knew I had to get into the house."

Lim made it only as far as the bottom of her driveway before she fell.

The bullet, a hollow-tipped magnum load, fragmented and nicked nearly every organ in her torso: her stomach, her intestines, her liver. It shattered her spleen, cracked a rib and put a hole in the base of her heart before exiting out her back.

"The only thing it missed was my lung and kidney," she said.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You are. I notice you're now adding in "technicality" and once again moving the goalposts. You admit it's a felony but now claim with another expert opinion that "any judge in the country would let him plead that down to a misdemeanor".

No goalposts were moved. I honestly can't have a discussion with you when you misread so much of what I post.

 

[Lerxst]

I pointed out specifically where you misstated my position and I also gave you an example of good policing.

You'll have to re-read my post if you want your question answered again.

Okay I have to admit it was a rhetorical question. Since we've established then that you believe that good policing consists of arbitrarily enforcing laws based on a whim, can you provide your qualifications that make you an authority on the subject? I apologize if your statement is merely opinion and conjecture but you never seem to use those words.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Here's the thing, though: while I have no problem admitting that Brown's actions in the convenient store put him on the wrong side of the "violent felon" line, legally speaking, there's still a rather large difference of degree between what he did to the shopkeeper and the alleged bull-rushing of an armed police officer who has already discharged his weapon in Brown's direction.

The first action, to me, in no way comes close to proving that Brown was capable of the alleged second action.

Exactly. And there's a big difference between committing a crime that can technically be called a felony assault because the cigars were stolen at the same time and having the description, a violent felon, accurately apply to a person.

 

[carlitos]

And you honestly don't see the mirror image of this in the attempt to maximize the seriousness of a shoplifting incident compounded with a shove, into a "violent felon"

Shoplifting? How about assault? He committed a violent felony on the last day of his life. He's a violent felon.

No, calling Brown a violent felon on a technicality is the dishonest position.

Given he had no criminal record, any judge in the country would let him plead that down to a misdemeanor.

It's one thing to say it's technically a felony. It's quite another to call this kid a violent felon. So who's being dishonest here?

You are.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Agreed with the last sentence, but you left out the leak that there is proof that Brown touched Wilson's side arm. I take that to mean there are either finger prints or DNA on that pistol. If that is true, does that change the narrative?

Leak there is proof? Does that rank above or below, there is a rumor?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's strange to see such an effort to minimize [exaggerate] the aggressive theft, which we KNOW occurred, while at the same time maximizing the imagined bad actions of the cop, when we simply don't know.
That's bias in its raw, pure form.

ftfy

 

[Unabogie]

I have seen no indication that Wilson and Brown were ever 35 feet apart.
Nor did I post anything that would indicate it.

Brown's body was supposedly around 35 feet from the SUV.

There's no solid info on Wilson's distance from Brown as far as I know.

They could have been less than 10 feet apart the whole time.

For one thing, if Brown was 35 feet away from Wilson when Wilson killed him, then I would vote to convict Wilson for the shooting.

Well now you're hitting on the crux of the matter. Wilson was 35 feet from Brown when he BEGAN killing him, that he ended up closer to him as he fired doesn't help his case. What can help him is if there is any evidence Brown actually did come towards him in any significant manner. And the evidence just doesn't support this.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That makes no sense, though.

Top of head to face is not back to front. It is front to back.

Did you watch Purcell describe the wound or are you just trying to imagine what he said?

If Brown were laying on his back, and I got up close, laid on the ground, and shot him in the top of the head at an upward angle, that would be top of head toward face.

If Brown were falling backwards, I could also duplicate the angle, and that would be considered back to front, since I would be behind Brown.

If I were standing above Brown, I could again duplicate the angle, top of head toward face.

The most sense in this case, is that the top of brown's head was almost facing the shooter, and that's how we get an angle from the top of the head towards the face.

Why are you talking about Brown lying on his back?

We know Brown had his head down because of the entry wound, so start there.

Now, how does a bullet go from the top of your head toward the face? Look at Mike's diagrams. Bend the head more or have the bullet come in from a higher starting point (or a little of both) and you get the trajectory of the bullet per the autopsy.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...the best you can is "spoke to them in an allegedly confrontational manner."

Do you see people putting "allegedly" in front of other versions of events?

 

[Reheat]

Leak there is proof? Does that rank above or below, there is a rumor?

I heard it in a News Report, but if it pleases you we'll consider it a rumor at this point. Note: I very plainly said IF it's true, but I suppose you missed that part. It's amusing that you don't use those qualifying terms for the expert opinions that you express, so I'm not surprised that you ignored that in my post.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I heard it in a News Report, but if it pleases you we'll consider it a rumor at this point. Note: I very plainly said IF it's true, but I suppose you missed that part. It's amusing that you don't use those qualifying terms for the expert opinions that you express, so I'm not surprised that you ignored that in my post.

Guess it would depend on if that 'news' was CNN or a right wing blog pretending to be the news media.

Where did you see/hear the report?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Yes, CNN's analysis was 10 shots and one echo.

I'm getting six followed by four ..

Here is the recording at normal speed..

http://vid1130.photobucket.com/albums/m532/abitofmystuff/NewgunshotsNormal_zps8fe440b6.mp4


Here it is slowed down to half speed..

http://vid1130.photobucket.com/albums/m532/abitofmystuff/Newgunshotsslow_zps7a00c94a.mp4

The echoes are more apparent in the group of four, which indicate an acoustic/position change between the first six and the last four...

 

[LTC8K6]

Did you watch Purcell describe the wound or are you just trying to imagine what he said?

Why are you talking about Brown lying on his back?

We know Brown had his head down because of the entry wound, so start there.

Now, how does a bullet go from the top of your head toward the face? Look at Mike's diagrams. Bend the head more or have the bullet come in from a higher starting point (or a little of both) and you get the trajectory of the bullet per the autopsy.

What would be left of the brain after the first autopsy?

Keep in mind that bullets often veer off course even when they do not hit anything solid, and more often if they do.

I cannot visualize any shot that I would call "back to front".

The purpose of the term "back to front" from Parcells seems obvious, imo.

If we stand Brown's body up the bullet path then appears to be "back to front", but that is not representative.