What's new
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 (11 Viewers)

Should cops have the right to shoot a person who is charging at them - presumably with no weapon in sight?

If you think cops have that right, should that extend to any citizen? If not, why not?

It seems like we give too much leeway to police officers in this situation, and the situation in Utah, where we accept the use of deadly force in situations where we would not accept it from an ordinary citizen.

Which raises another question - do armed patrol officers really help?
Assume facts: You're a cop and suspect tries to take your gun, goes off, suspect runs, you yell freeze and to hit the deck, suspect turns, but does not drop but starts walking towards you, you yell freeze, you wing him three times, he starts running towards you. What do you do, wait for him to tackle you and take your gun again?

Assume other facts as you like, and it all depends on the facts, but obviously there are situations where a cop feels compelled to protect himself.
Why do we allow police to "protect themselves" from non-lethal threats?

Should we extend that "right" to anyone?

As for the second part, that was why I asked whether it is even a good idea for a regular patrol police officer to carry a weapon - does that weapon really help?
Have you totally lost your mind?
Seriously. Has to be the worst argument in a thread full of bad arguments.Why the hang up on "non-lethal"? The cop did have a gun, mike brown knew it, and it appears he still charged at him. That's a lethal situation. If you disagree, you should at least recognize it would turn lethal as soon as they were both wrestling with a gun involved.
Sinn Fein has watched too many movies/tv shows.

 
I do think it's crazy that we haven't started equipping police officers and their vehicles with video cameras. The technology is so cheap now and it would go a long way towards not only exonerating innocent police officers, but also preventing them from abusing their authority as well. It's beyond time that this happens.

 
Yeah, at this point I'm going to pretty much completely dismiss the friend's account of how this went down. That guy has no credibility whatsoever now.
Agreed. However, the guy who livetweeted it still has some in my mind. Maybe the cop missed when he shot while the kid was turned around? Warning shots?

 
The unidentified person's video of the events right after it occurred is key. He said Brown charged the officer. I was trying to figure out why a fleeing suspect would suddenly stop, turn around and the police would shoot him at a distance if he wasn't giving himself up. Now the question is why would Brown charge the officer after attempting to flee? My guess was he was either on something, he realized the officer knew who he was and where he lived, or the police officer possibly used a slur?

One thing I do know is if I was already in a physical altercation of Brown's size and he came back to charge at me after already been shot, I would consider it a lethal threat.

 
So we know everyone who said he was shot in the back basically made that story up.

Everyone who said the guy had his hands up and was being shot were wrong because there would be entry wounds on the back of the arms if his arms were raised over his head.

It looks more and more like a panicked officer shooting a charging suspect at least looking at that spray pattern of bullets.
Which leaves us with "why didn't he report the shooting or call EMS?"
I will admit that I have not been completely informed about this situation. But, how long did he wait before reporting the shooting and how do we know he waited? I read somewhere that there were up to 3 cops on scene when this happened, so that would suggest that he called for backup. I guess I just don't understand why there is a time gap here.
He called for crowd control because of the forming crowd. Anonymous released the dispatch audio.
Link to audio? Genuinely curious. So, call comes in for crowd control, but no mention of why the crowd is gathering?
http://www.salon.com/2014/08/13/anonymous_released_alleged_audio_from_st_louis_county_police_dispatch_from_the_day_michael_brown_was_killed/

 
I thought I had read somewhere that the officer was medically treated as well.

So I think a puzzle is coming together here.

Brown robs store with friend.

Brown and friend walking down the middle of the road are met by the officer who just wants to contact them to get out of the road because they have already stated the officer didn't know about the robbery.

Brown thinks he is getting pinched for the robbery struggles with the cop. **now we need more details here** but if Brown assaulted the officer and he ultimately needed medical attention, we now have the substantiation for the fear of officer safety.

Brown and friend run. Officer chases. Brown turns and comes at officer (this according to the audio from a cell phone later filming the body). Officer unloads on the kid. The trajectories of the bullets will be important. However, the idea the kid had has hands in the air while being shot seems to be rapidly falling apart.

As to why EMS wasn't called, that is another interesting question.
I thought about doing this, but I think you have all of this correct, or at least the way I see it.

For those still wondering why things have been "bungled," I think there's enough information available to see why. The Fergusson PD turned the case over to the county pretty early on, but yet the Fergusson Chief has still been the guy reporting things to the press. It's an assumption, but I'm guessing no one with the county wants to put their face on this, so they told the chief to handle it. We all know he has done a poor job reporting, but I think that's at least one explanation as to why things were stated incorrectly, at least initially by him. He isn't even a part of the investigation.

 
I'd like to call for peace in this thread and let all the agencies that are overseeing this investigation tell us what did and did not happen...This thread is a good indicator of how these situations devolve into mayhem...I wonder what would happen if we all squared off in person...

 
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.
The toxicology will be the other half of this puzzle. But right now it sounds like the cop purposefully winged him 4 times and he kept coming. How does that happen unless Brown was either crazed or on something?
I think the dude was leading with his right arm when going at the cop. Thus most hit the arm but 2 got past and took him out.
That sounds like a possibility.
So he was running sideways? How do you lead with an arm and rush at the same time?
Dude, think about it for a second. He's going towards a cop right arm out hand facing cop, trying to protect himself from a cop with a gun, head down knees bent trying to make himself small. Thus the 6'4" dude has the entry wounds he has from the much shorter cop.

What's your first instinct if a gun is raised at you? It's instinctually arm up to 'protect' yourself.
Yes, but when you raise your arm, defensively or offensively, the inside of your arm is showing. Didn't the shots hit the top of his arm? How does that work?

The only way you show the top of your arm to someone is if your arms are at your sides, or in front of you like you're holding a shield. Or if they're raised in the air and your back is to him.

 
Should cops have the right to shoot a person who is charging at them - presumably with no weapon in sight?

If you think cops have that right, should that extend to any citizen? If not, why not?

It seems like we give too much leeway to police officers in this situation, and the situation in Utah, where we accept the use of deadly force in situations where we would not accept it from an ordinary citizen.

Which raises another question - do armed patrol officers really help?
Assume facts: You're a cop and suspect tries to take your gun, goes off, suspect runs, you yell freeze and to hit the deck, suspect turns, but does not drop but starts walking towards you, you yell freeze, you wing him three times, he starts running towards you. What do you do, wait for him to tackle you and take your gun again?

Assume other facts as you like, and it all depends on the facts, but obviously there are situations where a cop feels compelled to protect himself.
Why do we allow police to "protect themselves" from non-lethal threats?

Should we extend that "right" to anyone?

As for the second part, that was why I asked whether it is even a good idea for a regular patrol police officer to carry a weapon - does that weapon really help?
Have you totally lost your mind?
Maybe - but don't cops in England get away without carrying a weapon?

Maybe instead of carrying a weapon, we teach/train differently on how to deal with this situations.
This is the US, not England. Pretty sure England doesn't have areas like Chicago (among others) where there are shootings daily. How about you become a cop, patrol that area and we'll give you a stick to defend yourself.

 
So we know everyone who said he was shot in the back basically made that story up.

Everyone who said the guy had his hands up and was being shot were wrong because there would be entry wounds on the back of the arms if his arms were raised over his head.

It looks more and more like a panicked officer shooting a charging suspect at least looking at that spray pattern of bullets.
Which leaves us with "why didn't he report the shooting or call EMS?"
I will admit that I have not been completely informed about this situation. But, how long did he wait before reporting the shooting and how do we know he waited? I read somewhere that there were up to 3 cops on scene when this happened, so that would suggest that he called for backup. I guess I just don't understand why there is a time gap here.
He called for crowd control because of the forming crowd. Anonymous released the dispatch audio.
Link to audio? Genuinely curious. So, call comes in for crowd control, but no mention of why the crowd is gathering?
http://www.salon.com/2014/08/13/anonymous_released_alleged_audio_from_st_louis_county_police_dispatch_from_the_day_michael_brown_was_killed/
This specific piece of audio is not, however, from the Ferguson Police Department, whose officer shot Michael Brown, where more discussion of the shooting was likely to happen.
This is from St Louis County Dispatch. There would have been calls coming into Ferguson Dispatch first, right?

 
Should cops have the right to shoot a person who is charging at them - presumably with no weapon in sight?

If you think cops have that right, should that extend to any citizen? If not, why not?

It seems like we give too much leeway to police officers in this situation, and the situation in Utah, where we accept the use of deadly force in situations where we would not accept it from an ordinary citizen.

Which raises another question - do armed patrol officers really help?
Assume facts: You're a cop and suspect tries to take your gun, goes off, suspect runs, you yell freeze and to hit the deck, suspect turns, but does not drop but starts walking towards you, you yell freeze, you wing him three times, he starts running towards you. What do you do, wait for him to tackle you and take your gun again?

Assume other facts as you like, and it all depends on the facts, but obviously there are situations where a cop feels compelled to protect himself.
Why do we allow police to "protect themselves" from non-lethal threats?

Should we extend that "right" to anyone?

As for the second part, that was why I asked whether it is even a good idea for a regular patrol police officer to carry a weapon - does that weapon really help?
It helped in this case.
Define "helped in this case"
Your idea of instituting a policy of waiting for charging suspects to hit the officer and engage into a wrestling match for their weapon before using lethal force is absurd.

I think there are way too many instances of cops using lethal force prematurely, but there are few alternatives if you are getting rushed.

 
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.
The toxicology will be the other half of this puzzle. But right now it sounds like the cop purposefully winged him 4 times and he kept coming. How does that happen unless Brown was either crazed or on something?
I think the dude was leading with his right arm when going at the cop. Thus most hit the arm but 2 got past and took him out.
That sounds like a possibility.
So he was running sideways? How do you lead with an arm and rush at the same time?
Dude, think about it for a second. He's going towards a cop right arm out hand facing cop, trying to protect himself from a cop with a gun, head down knees bent trying to make himself small. Thus the 6'4" dude has the entry wounds he has from the much shorter cop.

What's your first instinct if a gun is raised at you? It's instinctually arm up to 'protect' yourself.
Yes, but when you raise your arm, defensively or offensively, the inside of your arm is showing. Didn't the shots hit the top of his arm? How does that work?

The only way you show the top of your arm to someone is if your arms are at your sides, or in front of you like you're holding a shield. Or if they're raised in the air and your back is to him.
I didn't hear what the arm wound entries/exits were. The top of the head and in the eye, out the neck area point to a guy leaning forward and low at 6'4"

 
fwiw, I found this article on Missourah's rule on use of deadly force by police:

As new facts come to light about the interaction that led to Michael Brown's killing in Ferguson, a major question is whether the police officer, Darren Wilson, broke the law. As Peter Suderman points out atReason (citing a tweet from Sean Davis of The Federalist), Missouri appears to have a very lax standard for the use of deadly force by officers:

A law enforcement officer in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody is justified in using deadly force only

(1) When such is authorized under other sections of this chapter; or

(2) When he reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested

(a) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony; or

(b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon; or

(.c) May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.

4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.

This is essentially the "fleeing felon" rule that was widely used in the U.S. for many decades -- but the Supreme Court struck it down in the mid-1980s. Now, police officers are allowed to use deadly force against a fleeing felon only if they have reason to believe the felon is dangerous. Missouri may not have changed the text of its law to reflect the ruling, but the ruling still applies.

We can see how these cases actually play out in Missouri by looking at the officially approved jury instructions. Obnoxiously, the state doesn't make those instructions available publicly for free, but here's a citation of the relevant provision in a Springfield Police Department document:

A law enforcement officer is justified in using deadly force to effect an arrest and such use of deadly force is lawful if:

• First, the law enforcement officer is making or attempting to make a lawful arrest or what he reasonably believed to be a lawful arrest and the law enforcement officer reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary to effect the arrest or to prevent the escape of the offender, and

• Second, the law enforcement officer reasonably believed that the offender was attempting to escape by the use of a deadly weapon or would endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay, and the law enforcement officer reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was immediately necessary to effect the arrest of the offender.Missouri Approved Jury Instructions-Criminal, 3rd Edition, 306.14 (based on Missouri Revised Statutes, Section 563.046 and Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) (U.S. Supreme Court held that deadly force may not be used to arrest a fleeing unarmed suspected felon unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others).
 
These threads really jump the shark (pool) when trying to recreate the scene of the crime. Big media has successfully driven the story to be mainly focused on the shooting and not on what occurred afterwards re: the protests. That will all be forgotten in a couple of weeks while a darling national trial gets to be paraded around by the big outlets.

 
You would think 3 shots would have slowed him up enough to give him the matador treatment if he was charging....Of course when using a semi automatic 6 shots come out in a couple of seconds.

 
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.
The toxicology will be the other half of this puzzle. But right now it sounds like the cop purposefully winged him 4 times and he kept coming. How does that happen unless Brown was either crazed or on something?
I think the dude was leading with his right arm when going at the cop. Thus most hit the arm but 2 got past and took him out.
That sounds like a possibility.
So he was running sideways? How do you lead with an arm and rush at the same time?
Dude, think about it for a second. He's going towards a cop right arm out hand facing cop, trying to protect himself from a cop with a gun, head down knees bent trying to make himself small. Thus the 6'4" dude has the entry wounds he has from the much shorter cop.

What's your first instinct if a gun is raised at you? It's instinctually arm up to 'protect' yourself.
Yes, but when you raise your arm, defensively or offensively, the inside of your arm is showing. Didn't the shots hit the top of his arm? How does that work?

The only way you show the top of your arm to someone is if your arms are at your sides, or in front of you like you're holding a shield. Or if they're raised in the air and your back is to him.
I didn't hear what the arm wound entries/exits were. The top of the head and in the eye, out the neck area point to a guy leaning forward and low at 6'4"
When trying to "spear" or perform a take down, the head is usually lowered for leverage. This justifies a shot to the top of the head imo.

 
Attorney General Eric Holder has ordered a federal medical examiner to perform a separate autopsy because of the circumstances surrounding the shooting.

When Holder reports that the fed medical examiner came back with the same results of the current autopsy, that Crumb guy is going to wish he never took this case and that family is really going to say some stupid ####. They should cut their losses. That and the recorded eye witness statement should have already sent them packing.

We should get a second round of free TV's down the road.

 
Should cops have the right to shoot a person who is charging at them - presumably with no weapon in sight?

If you think cops have that right, should that extend to any citizen? If not, why not?

It seems like we give too much leeway to police officers in this situation, and the situation in Utah, where we accept the use of deadly force in situations where we would not accept it from an ordinary citizen.

Which raises another question - do armed patrol officers really help?
Assume facts: You're a cop and suspect tries to take your gun, goes off, suspect runs, you yell freeze and to hit the deck, suspect turns, but does not drop but starts walking towards you, you yell freeze, you wing him three times, he starts running towards you. What do you do, wait for him to tackle you and take your gun again?

Assume other facts as you like, and it all depends on the facts, but obviously there are situations where a cop feels compelled to protect himself.
Why do we allow police to "protect themselves" from non-lethal threats?

Should we extend that "right" to anyone?

As for the second part, that was why I asked whether it is even a good idea for a regular patrol police officer to carry a weapon - does that weapon really help?
Have you totally lost your mind?
Maybe - but don't cops in England get away without carrying a weapon?Maybe instead of carrying a weapon, we teach/train differently on how to deal with this situations.
They carry weapons. Just not firearms.
Some do, some don't. I don't know how it's broken down though.

 
The police switched to a softer friendlier approach, and then nighttime looting and rioting started back up. Maybe the more heavy handed-approach, which was heavily criticized, is necessary to protect Ferguson's business owners' interests and residents' safety.
Yeah, that is one way to look at it. Another is that there was almost no looting for days after the initial night of protest, while the Ferguson PD attacked peaceful protestors night after night, and then the Ferguson PD were pulled out and a more thoughtful approach was taken and the first night was peaceful. Then the Ferguson PD hamhandedly released a video yesterday criminalizing Brown and tried to (apparently falsely) connect it to Brown before backing off that claim (and they didnt even tell Capt Johnson, who was now in charge of policing the community, that they were releasing the video--he found out about the existence of that video on the news that morning as they released it). And then that night there were some more incidents of looting.
The release of the video was nothing more than an excuse for some fresh looting. People were either upset they missed out on the first round of looting or realized they forgot to take the ottomon to go with their nice new leather recliner so went back. Looters gunna loot.

 
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.
The toxicology will be the other half of this puzzle. But right now it sounds like the cop purposefully winged him 4 times and he kept coming. How does that happen unless Brown was either crazed or on something?
I think the dude was leading with his right arm when going at the cop. Thus most hit the arm but 2 got past and took him out.
That sounds like a possibility.
So he was running sideways? How do you lead with an arm and rush at the same time?
Dude, think about it for a second. He's going towards a cop right arm out hand facing cop, trying to protect himself from a cop with a gun, head down knees bent trying to make himself small. Thus the 6'4" dude has the entry wounds he has from the much shorter cop.

What's your first instinct if a gun is raised at you? It's instinctually arm up to 'protect' yourself.
Yes, but when you raise your arm, defensively or offensively, the inside of your arm is showing. Didn't the shots hit the top of his arm? How does that work?

The only way you show the top of your arm to someone is if your arms are at your sides, or in front of you like you're holding a shield. Or if they're raised in the air and your back is to him.
I didn't hear what the arm wound entries/exits were. The top of the head and in the eye, out the neck area point to a guy leaning forward and low at 6'4"
When trying to "spear" or perform a take down, the head is usually lowered for leverage. This justifies a shot to the top of the head imo.
Dude probably was mimicking WWE. The Spear - 2:02 mark.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
These threads really jump the shark (pool) when trying to recreate the scene of the crime. Big media has successfully driven the story to be mainly focused on the shooting and not on what occurred afterwards re: the protests. That will all be forgotten in a couple of weeks while a darling national trial gets to be paraded around by the big outlets.
The discussion is weather or not the shooting was justified. Doesn't everyone agree that weather it is justified or not, responding by rioting is not justified?

 
From Chapter 563 of Missourah General Laws:

Law enforcement officer's use of force in making an arrest.

563.046. 1. A law enforcement officer need not retreat or desist from efforts to effect the arrest, or from efforts to prevent the escape from custody, of a person he reasonably believes to have committed an offense because of resistance or threatened resistance of the arrestee. In addition to the use of physical force authorized under other sections of this chapter, he is, subject to the provisions of subsections 2 and 3, justified in the use of such physical force as he reasonably believes is immediately necessary to effect the arrest or to prevent the escape from custody.

2. The use of any physical force in making an arrest is not justified under this section unless the arrest is lawful or the law enforcement officer reasonably believes the arrest is lawful.

3. A law enforcement officer in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody is justified in using deadly force only

(1) When such is authorized under other sections of this chapter; or

(2) When he reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested

(a) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony; or

(b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon; or

(.c) May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.

4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.
Use of force to prevent escape from confinement.

563.056. 1. A guard or other law enforcement officer may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2, use physical force when he reasonably believes such to be immediately necessary to prevent escape from confinement or in transit thereto or therefrom.

2. A guard or other law enforcement officer may use deadly force under circumstances described in subsection 1 only

(1) When such use of deadly force is authorized under other sections of this chapter; or

(2) When he reasonably believes there is a substantial risk that the escapee will endanger human life or cause serious physical injury unless the escape is prevented.

3. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.
 
These threads really jump the shark (pool) when trying to recreate the scene of the crime. Big media has successfully driven the story to be mainly focused on the shooting and not on what occurred afterwards re: the protests. That will all be forgotten in a couple of weeks while a darling national trial gets to be paraded around by the big outlets.
The discussion is weather or not the shooting was justified. Doesn't everyone agree that weather it is justified or not, responding by rioting is not justified?
The looters are in the wrong. Were the reporters and protesters wrong? Is it wrong to ask for answers?

 
These threads really jump the shark (pool) when trying to recreate the scene of the crime. Big media has successfully driven the story to be mainly focused on the shooting and not on what occurred afterwards re: the protests. That will all be forgotten in a couple of weeks while a darling national trial gets to be paraded around by the big outlets.
The discussion is weather or not the shooting was justified. Doesn't everyone agree that weather it is justified or not, responding by rioting is not justified?
I think the weather was pretty good when Brown was shot, so visibility should not have been a factor.

 
These threads really jump the shark (pool) when trying to recreate the scene of the crime. Big media has successfully driven the story to be mainly focused on the shooting and not on what occurred afterwards re: the protests. That will all be forgotten in a couple of weeks while a darling national trial gets to be paraded around by the big outlets.
The discussion is weather or not the shooting was justified. Doesn't everyone agree that weather it is justified or not, responding by rioting is not justified?
I just hope the whether is nice there today.

 
The police switched to a softer friendlier approach, and then nighttime looting and rioting started back up. Maybe the more heavy handed-approach, which was heavily criticized, is necessary to protect Ferguson's business owners' interests and residents' safety.
Yeah, that is one way to look at it. Another is that there was almost no looting for days after the initial night of protest, while the Ferguson PD attacked peaceful protestors night after night, and then the Ferguson PD were pulled out and a more thoughtful approach was taken and the first night was peaceful. Then the Ferguson PD hamhandedly released a video yesterday criminalizing Brown and tried to (apparently falsely) connect it to Brown before backing off that claim (and they didnt even tell Capt Johnson, who was now in charge of policing the community, that they were releasing the video--he found out about the existence of that video on the news that morning as they released it). And then that night there were some more incidents of looting.
The release of the video was nothing more than an excuse for some fresh looting. People were either upset they missed out on the first round of looting or realized they forgot to take the ottomon to go with their nice new leather recliner so went back. Looters gunna loot.
Heard on CNN this morning that their are "professional" looters and rioters coming in from Chicago and that they are the ones who have created most of the problems/trouble.

 
The police switched to a softer friendlier approach, and then nighttime looting and rioting started back up. Maybe the more heavy handed-approach, which was heavily criticized, is necessary to protect Ferguson's business owners' interests and residents' safety.
Yeah, that is one way to look at it. Another is that there was almost no looting for days after the initial night of protest, while the Ferguson PD attacked peaceful protestors night after night, and then the Ferguson PD were pulled out and a more thoughtful approach was taken and the first night was peaceful. Then the Ferguson PD hamhandedly released a video yesterday criminalizing Brown and tried to (apparently falsely) connect it to Brown before backing off that claim (and they didnt even tell Capt Johnson, who was now in charge of policing the community, that they were releasing the video--he found out about the existence of that video on the news that morning as they released it). And then that night there were some more incidents of looting.
The release of the video was nothing more than an excuse for some fresh looting. People were either upset they missed out on the first round of looting or realized they forgot to take the ottomon to go with their nice new leather recliner so went back. Looters gunna loot.
Look faaaarrrr in the distance and you can see the end game:

1. The cop (Wilson) is not indicted.

2. The cop is indicted, the trial is moved, and acquitted.

3. The cop is indicted, the trial is moved and he is convicted.

This is Rodney King all over again.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
These threads really jump the shark (pool) when trying to recreate the scene of the crime. Big media has successfully driven the story to be mainly focused on the shooting and not on what occurred afterwards re: the protests. That will all be forgotten in a couple of weeks while a darling national trial gets to be paraded around by the big outlets.
The discussion is weather or not the shooting was justified. Doesn't everyone agree that weather it is justified or not, responding by rioting is not justified?
I think the weather was pretty good when Brown was shot, so visibility should not have been a factor.
:cool: There goes big media not keeping their focus on the actual problem.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
The toxicology will be the other half of this puzzle. But right now it sounds like the cop purposefully winged him 4 times and he kept coming. How does that happen unless Brown was either crazed or on something?
I think the dude was leading with his right arm when going at the cop. Thus most hit the arm but 2 got past and took him out.
That sounds like a possibility.
So he was running sideways? How do you lead with an arm and rush at the same time?
Dude, think about it for a second. He's going towards a cop right arm out hand facing cop, trying to protect himself from a cop with a gun, head down knees bent trying to make himself small. Thus the 6'4" dude has the entry wounds he has from the much shorter cop.

What's your first instinct if a gun is raised at you? It's instinctually arm up to 'protect' yourself.
Yes, but when you raise your arm, defensively or offensively, the inside of your arm is showing. Didn't the shots hit the top of his arm? How does that work?

The only way you show the top of your arm to someone is if your arms are at your sides, or in front of you like you're holding a shield. Or if they're raised in the air and your back is to him.
I honestly don't know from the autopsy diagram. I'm no Quincy, but it looks to me like a couple of the shots are to what I would call the "inside" of the upper arm. I don't know what that means.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/us/michael-brown-autopsy-shows-he-was-shot-at-least-6-times.html

 
The police switched to a softer friendlier approach, and then nighttime looting and rioting started back up. Maybe the more heavy handed-approach, which was heavily criticized, is necessary to protect Ferguson's business owners' interests and residents' safety.
Yeah, that is one way to look at it. Another is that there was almost no looting for days after the initial night of protest, while the Ferguson PD attacked peaceful protestors night after night, and then the Ferguson PD were pulled out and a more thoughtful approach was taken and the first night was peaceful. Then the Ferguson PD hamhandedly released a video yesterday criminalizing Brown and tried to (apparently falsely) connect it to Brown before backing off that claim (and they didnt even tell Capt Johnson, who was now in charge of policing the community, that they were releasing the video--he found out about the existence of that video on the news that morning as they released it). And then that night there were some more incidents of looting.
The release of the video was nothing more than an excuse for some fresh looting. People were either upset they missed out on the first round of looting or realized they forgot to take the ottomon to go with their nice new leather recliner so went back. Looters gunna loot.
Heard on CNN this morning that their are "professional" looters and rioters coming in from Chicago and that they are the ones who have created most of the problems/trouble.
Do they wear purple shirts?

 
The police switched to a softer friendlier approach, and then nighttime looting and rioting started back up. Maybe the more heavy handed-approach, which was heavily criticized, is necessary to protect Ferguson's business owners' interests and residents' safety.
Yeah, that is one way to look at it. Another is that there was almost no looting for days after the initial night of protest, while the Ferguson PD attacked peaceful protestors night after night, and then the Ferguson PD were pulled out and a more thoughtful approach was taken and the first night was peaceful. Then the Ferguson PD hamhandedly released a video yesterday criminalizing Brown and tried to (apparently falsely) connect it to Brown before backing off that claim (and they didnt even tell Capt Johnson, who was now in charge of policing the community, that they were releasing the video--he found out about the existence of that video on the news that morning as they released it). And then that night there were some more incidents of looting.
The release of the video was nothing more than an excuse for some fresh looting. People were either upset they missed out on the first round of looting or realized they forgot to take the ottomon to go with their nice new leather recliner so went back. Looters gunna loot.
Heard on CNN this morning that their are "professional" looters and rioters coming in from Chicago and that they are the ones who have created most of the problems/trouble.
:lol: is there a school I can go to to become a professional looter? Seems like being a pro looter, I would never get caught. Not sure what being a pro rioter would get me.

 
The police switched to a softer friendlier approach, and then nighttime looting and rioting started back up. Maybe the more heavy handed-approach, which was heavily criticized, is necessary to protect Ferguson's business owners' interests and residents' safety.
Yeah, that is one way to look at it. Another is that there was almost no looting for days after the initial night of protest, while the Ferguson PD attacked peaceful protestors night after night, and then the Ferguson PD were pulled out and a more thoughtful approach was taken and the first night was peaceful. Then the Ferguson PD hamhandedly released a video yesterday criminalizing Brown and tried to (apparently falsely) connect it to Brown before backing off that claim (and they didnt even tell Capt Johnson, who was now in charge of policing the community, that they were releasing the video--he found out about the existence of that video on the news that morning as they released it). And then that night there were some more incidents of looting.
The release of the video was nothing more than an excuse for some fresh looting. People were either upset they missed out on the first round of looting or realized they forgot to take the ottomon to go with their nice new leather recliner so went back. Looters gunna loot.
Heard on CNN this morning that their are "professional" looters and rioters coming in from Chicago and that they are the ones who have created most of the problems/trouble.
Time to bring in the big guns! lol

 
The police switched to a softer friendlier approach, and then nighttime looting and rioting started back up. Maybe the more heavy handed-approach, which was heavily criticized, is necessary to protect Ferguson's business owners' interests and residents' safety.
Yeah, that is one way to look at it. Another is that there was almost no looting for days after the initial night of protest, while the Ferguson PD attacked peaceful protestors night after night, and then the Ferguson PD were pulled out and a more thoughtful approach was taken and the first night was peaceful. Then the Ferguson PD hamhandedly released a video yesterday criminalizing Brown and tried to (apparently falsely) connect it to Brown before backing off that claim (and they didnt even tell Capt Johnson, who was now in charge of policing the community, that they were releasing the video--he found out about the existence of that video on the news that morning as they released it). And then that night there were some more incidents of looting.
The release of the video was nothing more than an excuse for some fresh looting. People were either upset they missed out on the first round of looting or realized they forgot to take the ottomon to go with their nice new leather recliner so went back. Looters gunna loot.
Look faaaarrrr in the distance and you can see the end game:

1. The cop (Wilson) is not indicted.

2. The cop is indicted, the trial is moved, and acquitted.

3. The cop is indicted, the trial is moved and he is convicted.

This is Rodney King all over again.
Going with 1 based on the autopsy, the lack of credible witnesses and the one recorded witness statement. Riots to follow.

 
The police switched to a softer friendlier approach, and then nighttime looting and rioting started back up. Maybe the more heavy handed-approach, which was heavily criticized, is necessary to protect Ferguson's business owners' interests and residents' safety.
Yeah, that is one way to look at it. Another is that there was almost no looting for days after the initial night of protest, while the Ferguson PD attacked peaceful protestors night after night, and then the Ferguson PD were pulled out and a more thoughtful approach was taken and the first night was peaceful. Then the Ferguson PD hamhandedly released a video yesterday criminalizing Brown and tried to (apparently falsely) connect it to Brown before backing off that claim (and they didnt even tell Capt Johnson, who was now in charge of policing the community, that they were releasing the video--he found out about the existence of that video on the news that morning as they released it). And then that night there were some more incidents of looting.
The release of the video was nothing more than an excuse for some fresh looting. People were either upset they missed out on the first round of looting or realized they forgot to take the ottomon to go with their nice new leather recliner so went back. Looters gunna loot.
Heard on CNN this morning that their are "professional" looters and rioters coming in from Chicago and that they are the ones who have created most of the problems/trouble.
:lol: is there a school I can go to to become a professional looter? Seems like being a pro looter, I would never get caught. Not sure what being a pro rioter would get me.
What is your 40 time?

 
The police switched to a softer friendlier approach, and then nighttime looting and rioting started back up. Maybe the more heavy handed-approach, which was heavily criticized, is necessary to protect Ferguson's business owners' interests and residents' safety.
Yeah, that is one way to look at it. Another is that there was almost no looting for days after the initial night of protest, while the Ferguson PD attacked peaceful protestors night after night, and then the Ferguson PD were pulled out and a more thoughtful approach was taken and the first night was peaceful. Then the Ferguson PD hamhandedly released a video yesterday criminalizing Brown and tried to (apparently falsely) connect it to Brown before backing off that claim (and they didnt even tell Capt Johnson, who was now in charge of policing the community, that they were releasing the video--he found out about the existence of that video on the news that morning as they released it). And then that night there were some more incidents of looting.
The release of the video was nothing more than an excuse for some fresh looting. People were either upset they missed out on the first round of looting or realized they forgot to take the ottomon to go with their nice new leather recliner so went back. Looters gunna loot.
Heard on CNN this morning that their are "professional" looters and rioters coming in from Chicago and that they are the ones who have created most of the problems/trouble.
:lol: is there a school I can go to to become a professional looter? Seems like being a pro looter, I would never get caught. Not sure what being a pro rioter would get me.
Yes. Here: http://www.cps.edu/Pages/home.aspx

 
The police switched to a softer friendlier approach, and then nighttime looting and rioting started back up. Maybe the more heavy handed-approach, which was heavily criticized, is necessary to protect Ferguson's business owners' interests and residents' safety.
Yeah, that is one way to look at it. Another is that there was almost no looting for days after the initial night of protest, while the Ferguson PD attacked peaceful protestors night after night, and then the Ferguson PD were pulled out and a more thoughtful approach was taken and the first night was peaceful. Then the Ferguson PD hamhandedly released a video yesterday criminalizing Brown and tried to (apparently falsely) connect it to Brown before backing off that claim (and they didnt even tell Capt Johnson, who was now in charge of policing the community, that they were releasing the video--he found out about the existence of that video on the news that morning as they released it). And then that night there were some more incidents of looting.
The release of the video was nothing more than an excuse for some fresh looting. People were either upset they missed out on the first round of looting or realized they forgot to take the ottomon to go with their nice new leather recliner so went back. Looters gunna loot.
Heard on CNN this morning that their are "professional" looters and rioters coming in from Chicago and that they are the ones who have created most of the problems/trouble.
:lol: is there a school I can go to to become a professional looter? Seems like being a pro looter, I would never get caught. Not sure what being a pro rioter would get me.
What is your 40 time?
What is your 40 time while carrying a washer & dryer?

 
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.
The toxicology will be the other half of this puzzle. But right now it sounds like the cop purposefully winged him 4 times and he kept coming. How does that happen unless Brown was either crazed or on something?
I think the dude was leading with his right arm when going at the cop. Thus most hit the arm but 2 got past and took him out.
That sounds like a possibility.
So he was running sideways? How do you lead with an arm and rush at the same time?
Dude, think about it for a second. He's going towards a cop right arm out hand facing cop, trying to protect himself from a cop with a gun, head down knees bent trying to make himself small. Thus the 6'4" dude has the entry wounds he has from the much shorter cop.

What's your first instinct if a gun is raised at you? It's instinctually arm up to 'protect' yourself.
Yes, but when you raise your arm, defensively or offensively, the inside of your arm is showing. Didn't the shots hit the top of his arm? How does that work?

The only way you show the top of your arm to someone is if your arms are at your sides, or in front of you like you're holding a shield. Or if they're raised in the air and your back is to him.
I honestly don't know from the autopsy diagram. I'm no Quincy, but it looks to me like a couple of the shots are to what I would call the "inside" of the upper arm. I don't know what that means.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/us/michael-brown-autopsy-shows-he-was-shot-at-least-6-times.html
Interesting. Not the side of the arm I would've considered the front. trajectories is probably the most important thing here. I'm not skilled enough in reading the chart to determine that.

 
The police switched to a softer friendlier approach, and then nighttime looting and rioting started back up. Maybe the more heavy handed-approach, which was heavily criticized, is necessary to protect Ferguson's business owners' interests and residents' safety.
Yeah, that is one way to look at it. Another is that there was almost no looting for days after the initial night of protest, while the Ferguson PD attacked peaceful protestors night after night, and then the Ferguson PD were pulled out and a more thoughtful approach was taken and the first night was peaceful. Then the Ferguson PD hamhandedly released a video yesterday criminalizing Brown and tried to (apparently falsely) connect it to Brown before backing off that claim (and they didnt even tell Capt Johnson, who was now in charge of policing the community, that they were releasing the video--he found out about the existence of that video on the news that morning as they released it). And then that night there were some more incidents of looting.
The release of the video was nothing more than an excuse for some fresh looting. People were either upset they missed out on the first round of looting or realized they forgot to take the ottomon to go with their nice new leather recliner so went back. Looters gunna loot.
Heard on CNN this morning that their are "professional" looters and rioters coming in from Chicago and that they are the ones who have created most of the problems/trouble.
:lol: is there a school I can go to to become a professional looter? Seems like being a pro looter, I would never get caught. Not sure what being a pro rioter would get me.
What is your 40 time?
What is your 40 time while carrying a washer & dryer?
Im too old for that, but I am interested in the manager/coordinator program.

 
The police switched to a softer friendlier approach, and then nighttime looting and rioting started back up. Maybe the more heavy handed-approach, which was heavily criticized, is necessary to protect Ferguson's business owners' interests and residents' safety.
Yeah, that is one way to look at it. Another is that there was almost no looting for days after the initial night of protest, while the Ferguson PD attacked peaceful protestors night after night, and then the Ferguson PD were pulled out and a more thoughtful approach was taken and the first night was peaceful. Then the Ferguson PD hamhandedly released a video yesterday criminalizing Brown and tried to (apparently falsely) connect it to Brown before backing off that claim (and they didnt even tell Capt Johnson, who was now in charge of policing the community, that they were releasing the video--he found out about the existence of that video on the news that morning as they released it). And then that night there were some more incidents of looting.
The release of the video was nothing more than an excuse for some fresh looting. People were either upset they missed out on the first round of looting or realized they forgot to take the ottomon to go with their nice new leather recliner so went back. Looters gunna loot.
Heard on CNN this morning that their are "professional" looters and rioters coming in from Chicago and that they are the ones who have created most of the problems/trouble.
:lol: is there a school I can go to to become a professional looter? Seems like being a pro looter, I would never get caught. Not sure what being a pro rioter would get me.
Loot?

 
One of the bullets entered the top of Mr. Browns 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 familys request to conduct the separate autopsy. It was likely the last of bullets to hit him, he said.
The toxicology will be the other half of this puzzle. But right now it sounds like the cop purposefully winged him 4 times and he kept coming. How does that happen unless Brown was either crazed or on something?
I think the dude was leading with his right arm when going at the cop. Thus most hit the arm but 2 got past and took him out.
That sounds like a possibility.
So he was running sideways? How do you lead with an arm and rush at the same time?
Dude, think about it for a second. He's going towards a cop right arm out hand facing cop, trying to protect himself from a cop with a gun, head down knees bent trying to make himself small. Thus the 6'4" dude has the entry wounds he has from the much shorter cop.What's your first instinct if a gun is raised at you? It's instinctually arm up to 'protect' yourself.
Yes, but when you raise your arm, defensively or offensively, the inside of your arm is showing. Didn't the shots hit the top of his arm? How does that work?The only way you show the top of your arm to someone is if your arms are at your sides, or in front of you like you're holding a shield. Or if they're raised in the air and your back is to him.
I honestly don't know from the autopsy diagram. I'm no Quincy, but it looks to me like a couple of the shots are to what I would call the "inside" of the upper arm. I don't know what that means.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/us/michael-brown-autopsy-shows-he-was-shot-at-least-6-times.html
Interesting. Not the side of the arm I would've considered the front. trajectories is probably the most important thing here. I'm not skilled enough in reading the chart to determine that.
Yeah, I just can't imagine how you get shot in that spot of the upper arm.
 
These threads really jump the shark (pool) when trying to recreate the scene of the crime. Big media has successfully driven the story to be mainly focused on the shooting and not on what occurred afterwards re: the protests. That will all be forgotten in a couple of weeks while a darling national trial gets to be paraded around by the big outlets.
The discussion is weather or not the shooting was justified. Doesn't everyone agree that weather it is justified or not, responding by rioting is not justified?
I think the weather was pretty good when Brown was shot, so visibility should not have been a factor.
:cool: There goes big media not keeping their focus on the actual problem.
I take it you don't think instant militarization of the police and tear gassing reporters to be a problem?

I'm trying to not be insensitive to the Michael Brown shooting, but that will get sorted out in its time. It irks me that attention has been diverted from something I perceive to be a much worse systemic problem. Might just be a poor viewpoint/perspective on my part.

 
The police switched to a softer friendlier approach, and then nighttime looting and rioting started back up. Maybe the more heavy handed-approach, which was heavily criticized, is necessary to protect Ferguson's business owners' interests and residents' safety.
Yeah, that is one way to look at it. Another is that there was almost no looting for days after the initial night of protest, while the Ferguson PD attacked peaceful protestors night after night, and then the Ferguson PD were pulled out and a more thoughtful approach was taken and the first night was peaceful. Then the Ferguson PD hamhandedly released a video yesterday criminalizing Brown and tried to (apparently falsely) connect it to Brown before backing off that claim (and they didnt even tell Capt Johnson, who was now in charge of policing the community, that they were releasing the video--he found out about the existence of that video on the news that morning as they released it). And then that night there were some more incidents of looting.
The release of the video was nothing more than an excuse for some fresh looting. People were either upset they missed out on the first round of looting or realized they forgot to take the ottomon to go with their nice new leather recliner so went back. Looters gunna loot.
Heard on CNN this morning that their are "professional" looters and rioters coming in from Chicago and that they are the ones who have created most of the problems/trouble.
:lol: is there a school I can go to to become a professional looter? Seems like being a pro looter, I would never get caught. Not sure what being a pro rioter would get me.
What is your 40 time?
Probably not good at this point but I think I can still produce a solid 3 cone drill. That should allow me to juke the authorities and their bullets.

is it one degree for both? Or do I have to take classes to be a looter and then take classes to be a rioter? Can one get a Ph.D in this?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top