That's another incredibly sad story and should be shared and considered in the larger argument about the state of the police in this country
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Looting in Missouri after cops shoot 18 year old (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Otis
- Start date
johnnycakes
Footballguy
Ditka Butkus
Footballguy
No...Straight brimmed hat on backwards....cops with guns drawn and he keeps walking, like nothing is wrong....
dickey moe
Fingerpicker
Mr. Reilly's GHWB moment.Good lord.
lod01
Footballguy
Nah.
“I feel my time is coming soon, my nightmears are telling me,” he posted. “im gonna have warrnts out for my arrest soon. ALL my family has turned and snitched on me. ill die before I go do a lot of time in a cell,”
He was going down eventually.
He threatened to shoot a witness to the theft, and then he threatened to shoot one of his accomplices and their wife or daughter about a month after the incident.
Who cares that this POS is dead.
Last edited by a moderator:
jplvr
Footballguy
Exactly, these kids were headed down totally different paths in life.
http://shtfplan.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/michaelbrown1-e1408126335433.jpg
lod01
Footballguy
Greggity
Footballguy
Gary Coal Man
Footballguy
jplvr
Footballguy
Oh really? Apologies if not. Are the rest of the unflattering pics also not him? There are plenty out there I could have chosen, as I'm sure you know.
Gary Coal Man
Footballguy
I can't find the article where I saw that picture dispelled as being a picture of Brown. The site had several unflattering pictures of Brown, but noted the picture above is being posted around the internet as Brown, but it's not him.
Last edited by a moderator:
Todd Andrews
Footballguy
Unless the cop shot at Brown while he was running away before he turned back to the cop and the friend thought he had been shot in the back, right?
Jim11
Footballguy
Shot for the front...but let's just keep doing autopsies until we get the result we desire.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/08/18/county-investigation-michael-brown-was-shot-from-the-front-had-marijuana-in-his-system/
Michael Brown was shot in the head and chest multiple times, according to Mary Case, the St. Louis County medical examiner.
While Case declined to comment further, citing the ongoing investigation into Brown’s death, another person familiar with the county’s investigation told The Washington Post that Brown had between six and eight gunshot wounds and was shot from the front.
The family gave permission for a medical examiner with the U.S. military to conduct a third autopsy, which was requested Sunday by the Department of Justice.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/08/18/county-investigation-michael-brown-was-shot-from-the-front-had-marijuana-in-his-system/
Michael Brown was shot in the head and chest multiple times, according to Mary Case, the St. Louis County medical examiner.
While Case declined to comment further, citing the ongoing investigation into Brown’s death, another person familiar with the county’s investigation told The Washington Post that Brown had between six and eight gunshot wounds and was shot from the front.
The family gave permission for a medical examiner with the U.S. military to conduct a third autopsy, which was requested Sunday by the Department of Justice.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mario Kart
Footballguy
And then we all can do the Dosey Doe and finish this off with a party of hyperbole. WooHoo!!!!
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
msommer
Footballguy
interesting that one coroner finds gunshot wounds in the chest and another in the arm, though...
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Yes. This is indeed possible.
But a few days ago, you and several others were of the strong belief that Michael Brown was murdered by a police officer, while those that argued in defense of the police appeared to be grasping at straws.
Now, as a result of all the new information (most importantly, the autopsy), those in defense of the police have the strong belief that the shooting was justified, while you're the one who appears to be grasping at straws.
timschochet
Footballguy
Hopefully somebody is going to release results from an examination of Brown's clothing. We really won't know the distance involved until those clothes are checked out.
msommer
Footballguy
Fennis
Footballguy
You think Brown was running away, stopped running away for some reason, turned around and then charged towards the police officer who had a gun drawn on him as the logical story?
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
I get that "not shot in the back" makes it less likely that it was a straight up murder, but you go waaaaay too far with the bolded. The only thing that changed is that there's gunshot wounds from the front. You've still got 6 to 8 shots, none from close range, including a head shot. You've still got several eyewitnesses saying he had given himself up and was not confronting the police at all- the angle of the shooting doesn't change that. And just as importantly, you've got a police department that's spent the last week acting like it's got something to hide and has a history of racial injustice. You hardly have to "grasp at straws" to conclude that something ain't right here.
Greggity
Footballguy
lod01
Footballguy
These people are real idiots: From the article.
“What was in the system of that cop when he was pumping bullets into that boy’s body?” asked a protest leader, shouting into a megaphone, during a rally on Friday afternoon.
Once it's shown that he had nothing in his system they will A. call it a cover up and B. move onto a new accusation.
lod01
Footballguy
We can add, no longer credible. He wasn't shot in the back. Logically, here is a police officer with a spotless record vs a guy who had just robbed a store and some people think that this 6'4" 290 lb man gave up, got on his knees AFTER being shot a few times and then this officer walked up and executed him with a shot to the top of his head. Ridiculous.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Right. That doesn't make a lot of sense.
In no way am I saying that this shooting was justified. All I'm saying is that the first witness accounts described a cold-blooded murder, and we now know that it didn't go down precisely like that. I'm still open to the possibility that the cop may have committed a serious crime.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
I agree that it is less likely that he was, but being shot in the inside of the arm is not inconsistent with being shot while his back was turned.
Todd Andrews
Footballguy
Grasping at what straws? The autopsy shows he could have been shot at while his back was to the officer, which would support the friend's account (remember, one pathologist said one graze on one arm could mean he was shot from behind), and the rest of the autopsy shows he had a number of shots hit him from the front from a distance, but we dont know whether he was standing still, running at the cop, stumbling towards the cop who had already shot him at the car, or on his knees. I still think based on what I have heard that that cop probably seriously mishandled the "stop" but we dont know exactly how or if I am right in my suspicion.
Maybe if Brown had the body of a 20 year old girl you wouldnt think this was a crime?
timschochet
Footballguy
Fair enough. I am probably going overboard.
My main problem is this: I based my initial thoughts about this on Johnson's story, which I thought was credible. Then it turns out that he was involved in a robbery with Brown (something he forgot to mention.) While I didn't care that it made Brown out to be a bad dude (even bad dudes don't desrve to be shot without cause), it did cause me to question Johnson's credibility. However, there were two other witnesses who confirmed Johnson's story, so based on that I still assumed that the cop did something wrong here.
But now we learned that Brown was shot in the front, not in the back. That alone wouldn't bother me; like you, I would still be suspicious, based on the amount of gunshots and the history of the police and their weird actions afterward, that something ain't right here. What bothered me is that it completely negates the testimony of the other two witnesses and makes them out to be mistaken or lying. (Actually lying is much more probable, since it seems unlikely that 2-3 people would all be mistaken.) So now we have NO witnesses that can be trusted. And if that's the case, what do we have left? Show me some evidence that proves wrongdoing here and I'll charge the policeman with a crime. But I'm not sure, in the end, that there is any.
timschochet
Footballguy
Todd Andrews
Footballguy
What if Brown, already shot at the car, is running away from the officer who shoots at his back and misses, and then Brown stops and turns raising his hands and is shot 5 more times? Would that help explain some of the eyewitness accounts?
urbanhack
Fight The Power!
Todd Andrews
Footballguy
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Nor do errors from some eyewitness accounts about which direction the guy was facing at any time mean that all eyewitness accounts were wrong about him being nowhere near the cop and presenting no threat at all- something that evidence has confirmed thus far and that the cops still have not denied.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
We've learned that's a consistent interpretation with his wounds. I agree it's a compelling interpretation, and the most likely interpretation, but it isn't the only interpretation.
timschochet
Footballguy
Not really. If I were an eyewitness and Brown stopped running, turned around, and raised his arms, I think I'd remember that, and testify it. You'd think at least one of the 3 witnesses would testify to that. But they all said he was shot in the back.
I might buy into your explanation more if it was one witness, but with three it doesn't seem plausible to me that they'd all be that confused.
jonessed
Footballguy
It's not inconsistent with being shot facing any direction really. The arms move quite a bit.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Exactly. Which is why the "now we know he wasn't shot from behind" interpretation isn't as compelling as I'd like it to be.
timschochet
Footballguy
Every article on the autopsy has the coroner clearly saying "all shots were fired into the front." Not sure how there can be another interpretation, but I'm open to it if you've got one.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
I don't think anyone here wants him charged with a crime based on what we know right now. I just don't understand why you seemed to think that it was a settled matter or anything close to it. The first autopsy said they weren't close range shots.
I'll be honest, though- I'm more interested in the police behavior post-incident than the actual incident. What actually happened and who is to blame will probably never be fully known and settled. There's much more to be learned and discussed regarding what the PD has done since then, which has been a joke at its best and frequently much worse than that.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
He was shot on the inside of his arm, which can happen from virtually any direction except the extreme left or extreme right side of his body facing the officer. Let's see what the result is of the three autopsies and decide from there.timschochet said:
I haven't seen the coroner's statement in quotes that he was shot from the front. Is that the same report that says he has "between six and eight bullet wounds"? Because I'm a little suspect of an interpretation that can't tell me how many times he was shot. Sounds like an incomplete autopsy still waiting on a final report.
timschochet
Footballguy
I don't think it's a settled matter. All I'm saying is that earlier I thought it was probable that the shooting was unjustified, now I think it's probable that it was justified. I doubt we'll ever know for sure either way, but if new facts are presented, I may change my mind again.TobiasFunke said:
As far as afterwards, can you tell me what your SPECIFIC objections are to what the police did, and whether you believe them to be mistakes or deliberate wrongdoing (and also what you think the proper punishment should be.) TIA
timschochet
Footballguy
Fair enough. If there is any indication that he was indeed shot from behind (or if this remains a reasonable possibility) then I'll have to reappraise my thoughts on this again, giving those witnesses their credibility back.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
msommer
Footballguy
Might as well give it up. That has been quoted at least three times on the last three pages but it does not seem as if it is getting noticed by many regardless
Henry Ford
Footballguy
I just don't understand why a headline from some idiot who probably thinks earplugs are rubber bullets seems like hard proof, when it's going to be two weeks before there's a final autopsy report.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Here's a quick list off the top of my head with a little help from the WaPo timeline:
1. Refusal to quickly release incident report including names of officers present. This is common practice- see eg the controversial killing of Eric Garner by police less than a month ago. Names named, details provided ... and nobody responded by endangering the safety of the officers or anything like that. And Staten Island ain't exactly Greenwich.
2. Needless posturing and aggression from a militarized police in response to what was then mostly peaceful protests. Heavily armored police used tear gas to disperse peaceful protests on Monday and Tuesday nights (there hadn't been any looting or violence since Sunday night and even those reports were spotty)
3. Unjustified arrest of reporters on Wednesday. This was when I really started to think things were screwed up. The only reason we heard about this is because they snagged national reporters- imagine what they're doing to people who don't have immediate access to large audiences.
4. Efforts to suppress media coverage Wednesday, including video. I mean they literally tear-gassed reporters and dismantled their cameras. This continued this past weekend. Its a blatant First Amendment violation, maybe the worst I can remember. Covering the police at times like this is pretty much why we have a First Amendment. Amazing both by itself and because of what it implies about their behavior if they can't have it being covered by the media.
5. The ridiculous victim-blaming press conference on Friday morning, including concealing from the press that the initial contact was unrelated to the robbery (while knowing that what they did release would strongly imply a connection) and refusing to take questions.
6. Returning to a militarized police presence Friday night after things went incredibly well by all accounts Thursday night in response to the police change in tone that night.
7. The curfew this weekend, and the subsequent attempts to get the crowd to disperse during non-violent protests hours before the curfew was even reached.
There's a lot of other small examples here and there I saw on twitter and can't catalog. All in all it paints a pretty vivid picture. I don't blame people one bit for not trusting a police department that does these things, and that did this and God knows what else in the recent past.
As for the punishment- well, that's the problem. There is no real recourse because these horrible people are the ones that we have put in a position of power. I'm sure there will be some civil rights lawsuits as there should be, but beyond that we the people are pretty much screwed. And that's the problem.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
