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!
I can at certain angles. If the bullet was basically sliding along the forearm (for the lack of a better description) and entered there it makes sense. If it's head on like it would have exited exactly opposite on the other side, that imo is only explainable if he was shot with his arms up.
![[icon]](/data/avatars/m/5/5167.jpg?1660313464){kind=avatar}
Not at all. As I said in the previous post, it's all about trajectories. Some trajectories are going to strengthen the officer's case. Other's are gonna strengthen the witnesses' statements about his hands being in the air. Just seeing where the bullet hit on the arms could go either way.
A single error can perhaps be dismissed. At some point a pattern of "errors" becomes, if not intent, at least gross negligence that destroys your credibility and makes you culpable. The Ferguson police crossed that line about four days ago. If you want to lap up whatever fresh pile of horse#### they're throwing your way today, that's up to you. But I wouldn't do it.
There was no gunpowder residue on the body which suggested it was close range. The forensics expert said he did not review the dead man's clothes, so couldn't rule out there was not residue. I don't see how the lack of gunpowder suggests he charged the police. If anything it goes against this - unless you're just being facetious.
The highway police, who were brought in last Thursday, had to use the same tactics this past weekend. And now the National Guard has been called in. At some point, the rioters are in the wrong, yes?
There was no gunpowder residue on the body which suggested it was close range. The forensics expert said he did not review the dead man's clothes, so couldn't rule out there was not residue. I don't see how the lack of gunpowder suggests he charged the police. If anything it goes against this - unless you're just being facetious.
I think the sooner good information comes out on the shooting the quicker the riots will disperse, or should if this is truly a reaction of the shooting. But I doubt it really was.I take it you don't think instant militarization of the police and tear gassing reporters to be a problem?There goes big media not keeping their focus on the actual 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.
Of course rioters are wrong- although to some extent I blame the heightening of tensions on the return to militarization and the preposterous victim-blaming announcement of the shooter's name after one day of peace. As far as I can tell the police have been the ones that have escalated things at every turn, and increased rioting and looting, if any, has been a response to that escalation rather than an independent action. That doesn't excuse any criminal behavior, but the criminal behavior doesn't get the police off the hook for a week's worth of inexcusable behavior. It is possible for more than one person/side to be responsible for a terrible situation.
You're right, as an attorney you can't imagine any other possibility. Running towards him and being shot would never allow for his arms to be hit where they were in any manner other than him surrendering and hands in the air. Even though people were heard saying Brown was running at the cop. Or wait, was he running away?
I finally listened to this now. You really need to fast forward to the 6 minute mark for the applicable part, but he really does lay down exactly why the cop was possibly (probably?) justified in shooting Brown. It's inconsequential what the officer knew about the earlier robbery or even why he stopped Brown initially, assuming he had a reason to stop him, but when that man says, "and he (Brown) kept coming at him (the cop)" (paraphrasing here) there really isn't much else to this story for me.
They said he was running away but now must change their story since the evidence proves otherwise.
The actions the police took definitely escalated the situation. That's not even up for debate.
Is that Michael Brown pictured with the gun and cash, looking ready to mix Hawaiian-Punch & a fifth of liquor?
The professional looters get a free pass too, its inconvenient to travel to another state for free stuff....lol
Are you serious? This guy just was in a physical confrontation with the officer in the car. The guy takes off and then comes rushing back (lets assume this is the case - it has not been substantiated yet). If the guy shot was 6'4" 290 lbs as described, if I was that cop I'd be a shootin' too.
That they should've kept letting people believe Brown was a just a sweet ol' kid with no criminal history at all.
I like how people think that "non-lethal" threats are so soft and fuzzy. People get beat to death all of the time. Or end up in the hospital in comas from fights. How many times in the past year have we read about refs who were punched and died from their injuries?
I beleive they said that he was giving himself up. If he held his hands up and subjugated himself by leaning forward (as one would do who was giving themselves up), he could also be shot in the top of the head - this was in the autopsy report as a prospective result of the top of head shot. There was more than just the friend as a witness. There was also a woman who said she saw what happened. She indicated he was shot at while he was running away from the cop. Not sure if she said he was hit in the back or not which would discredit her testimony too. This still eneds to flesh out some more.
My take on your post is: the police are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
When you call a press conference to announce the shooter's name (something that should have been done days before), you have two reasonable choices: (1) announce the shooters' name, apologize for the delay, maybe explain it, and be done with it: (2) announce the shooter's name and all other information pertinent to the shooting. They chose instead to release the name and then no other information about the shooting other than the fact that the victim was a suspect in a crime earlier that day. Later it came out that the robbery wasn't even why he was initially stopped- something they chose to conceal at that time.
Are you doubtful or is this shtick? Have you looked at pics of this kid? IMO 290 is an understatement.
Man, a female cop just shot someone in the head here in NO last week (I have no idea how he survived). It took the NOPD two days to even admit they had done it, and they only did because someone reported it to the media.
Not shtick. Just establishing. Someone else had written 250 lbs., so I was wondering if he was 250 or 290. I really don't know. He looked big though.
This is not a proper reaction to American citizens
Has anyone seen a picture of the cop?
Things seemed to calm down when the Highway Patrol took over, but they took heat when they used tear gas to get to people who had been shot. They then backed down to the point of basically watching the looters loot which obviously didn't go over well with store owners.
don't know how old this picture is:
Yup. Based on every account I've heard, the "first night of rioting and looting" was a mostly quiet protest with a few unfortunate incidents. Most post-championship sports rioting seem ten times worse. The response was so wildly out of proportion that it turned into the first act of escalation by the cops; something they've done several times since then with their militarization as explained well by Rand Paul, their treatment of the media (suggesting they had something to hide in addition to being a blatant denial of Constitutional rights), the ridiculous victim-blaming announcement, and so on. I have no idea they've somehow earned the benefit of the doubt with posters here after all that.
I stand corrected, he looks like a younger guy than I thought, that looks like fair/blond hair.
Did someone break into Saints' account and is posting under his name? How do you not know this stuff if you lead the thread in posts?
There was some information earlier on his work experience that would have put his age as late 20's, early 30's I believe.
This right here is the problem exactly. Your mindset seems to be police vs. community. "They made him sound like a great guy so the police have a right to say otherwise."
Brown could have been shot at from behind and not hit , then turned around and was hit
Why do you hate the second amendment
