Looting in Missouri after cops shoot 18 year old (1 Viewer)

[Bigboy10182000]

Maybe I am oversimplifying things, but the simplest explanation, in my mind, is:

Cop yells at kids, kids tell them to #### off, cop rolls up next to them, door slam/scuffle/whatever results in cop getting thumped in the head, kids run, cop is pissed and was "attacked", cop shoots. (and shoots, and shoots, and shoots).

Yeah, that's kinda where I am, too.

But the kid wasn't running away when he was shot.

Which time he was shot? And how do you know?

Why is it so hard for people to imagine that Brown was running from the cop and that the cop shot at Brown and he realized he wasnt out running a bullet ,turned around and was then shot in the front of his body and head?

I would like to believe a cop wouldn't do that. If Brown really was 30 feet away and stopped to turn around and was shot 6 times that's just terrible IMO. Whether he punched a man in the face or not.

What about the video of the witness saying at the scene that he saw Brown "running" towards the cop?

I'm not 100% sure but didn't he say "he kept coming" and not running?

 

[Politician Spock]

First off the robbery is insignificant to me. I don't care what kind of guy Brown was.

Ridiculous statement. The robbery could have had a great deal to do with motivation and actions. We'll find out soon enough.

Again, I disagree. Right now the only thing that matters is that Wilson shot Brown from a distance of 30 feet, and Brown was unarmed. Unless you believe that Brown was charging at Wilson, there is no other justification for this act- I don't care if Brown was a mass murderer, a child rapist or whatever. I don't care if he spent the last 10 minutes prior pummeling Wilson to the ground, breaking his arm, etc. He's 30 feet away at the time the shots are fired, and he's unarmed. So he can't be a threat, unless he's charging at Wilson.So once again, that means that in order to justify the shooting, we have to believe that Wilson would be willing to charge at a policeman firing bullets at him, like George Pickett at Gettysburg. There is NO prior action by Brown that we know of, not the robbery, not hitting the policeman earlier, that would make him being willing to rush into death any more plausible. So Christo and others can laugh at me all you want, but I atill say the robbery is irrelevant. EVERYTHING is irrelevant that doesn't either prove Brown was charging, or prove that Wilson had some other plausible reason for shooting him from 30 feet away. That's the heart of the matter.

So you've concluded that Wilson decided in the heat of the moment to do something irrational, but you can't imagine Brown deciding in the heat of the moment to do something irrational. How convenient.

Not convenient, but consider the two acts of irrationality and tell me which one is more likely. Wilson has a gun in his hand. Brown is unarmed. Is it more likely that the armed guy uses his gun, or that the unarmed guy charges into bullets?

Why does Wilson have to be firing before Brown charges towards him?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

First off the robbery is insignificant to me. I don't care what kind of guy Brown was.

Ridiculous statement. The robbery could have had a great deal to do with motivation and actions. We'll find out soon enough.

Again, I disagree. Right now the only thing that matters is that Wilson shot Brown from a distance of 30 feet, and Brown was unarmed. Unless you believe that Brown was charging at Wilson, there is no other justification for this act- I don't care if Brown was a mass murderer, a child rapist or whatever. I don't care if he spent the last 10 minutes prior pummeling Wilson to the ground, breaking his arm, etc. He's 30 feet away at the time the shots are fired, and he's unarmed. So he can't be a threat, unless he's charging at Wilson.So once again, that means that in order to justify the shooting, we have to believe that Wilson would be willing to charge at a policeman firing bullets at him, like George Pickett at Gettysburg. There is NO prior action by Brown that we know of, not the robbery, not hitting the policeman earlier, that would make him being willing to rush into death any more plausible. So Christo and others can laugh at me all you want, but I atill say the robbery is irrelevant. EVERYTHING is irrelevant that doesn't either prove Brown was charging, or prove that Wilson had some other plausible reason for shooting him from 30 feet away. That's the heart of the matter.

So you've concluded that Wilson decided in the heat of the moment to do something irrational, but you can't imagine Brown deciding in the heat of the moment to do something irrational. How convenient.

Not convenient, but consider the two acts of irrationality and tell me which one is more likely. Wilson has a gun in his hand. Brown is unarmed. Is it more likely that the armed guy uses his gun, or that the unarmed guy charges into bullets?

Hitting the cop earlier very much means he would be willing to rush him. He attempted to take Wilson's gun too. The gun went off. If you hit a copy, try to take his gun, and then fire that gun or force it to be fired, you are quite capable to think that you can overpower the cop from 10 yards away and get away with the whole thing. He was looking at jail time too. Totally rational, especially if you believe that the cop will not shoot you.

 

[matttyl]

So he beat the guy badly enough to cause an orbital fracture, but there were no signs of bruising on his hands? That seems weird.

Why assume that any facial injury was caused by a fist? An elbow, headbutt, or rebounding vehicle door (among many other things) could have done it.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

First off the robbery is insignificant to me. I don't care what kind of guy Brown was.

Ridiculous statement. The robbery could have had a great deal to do with motivation and actions. We'll find out soon enough.

Again, I disagree. Right now the only thing that matters is that Wilson shot Brown from a distance of 30 feet, and Brown was unarmed. Unless you believe that Brown was charging at Wilson, there is no other justification for this act- I don't care if Brown was a mass murderer, a child rapist or whatever. I don't care if he spent the last 10 minutes prior pummeling Wilson to the ground, breaking his arm, etc. He's 30 feet away at the time the shots are fired, and he's unarmed. So he can't be a threat, unless he's charging at Wilson.So once again, that means that in order to justify the shooting, we have to believe that Wilson would be willing to charge at a policeman firing bullets at him, like George Pickett at Gettysburg. There is NO prior action by Brown that we know of, not the robbery, not hitting the policeman earlier, that would make him being willing to rush into death any more plausible. So Christo and others can laugh at me all you want, but I atill say the robbery is irrelevant. EVERYTHING is irrelevant that doesn't either prove Brown was charging, or prove that Wilson had some other plausible reason for shooting him from 30 feet away. That's the heart of the matter.

So you've concluded that Wilson decided in the heat of the moment to do something irrational, but you can't imagine Brown deciding in the heat of the moment to do something irrational. How convenient.

Not convenient, but consider the two acts of irrationality and tell me which one is more likely. Wilson has a gun in his hand. Brown is unarmed. Is it more likely that the armed guy uses his gun, or that the unarmed guy charges into bullets?

I agree. Two men separated by 30 feet. One who stopped when commanded to and turned around, I just can't see how/ why he then decides to charge with a gun drawn on him and one shot having already been fired. I just can't wrap my head around that chain of events.

 

[msommer]

First off the robbery is insignificant to me. I don't care what kind of guy Brown was.

Ridiculous statement. The robbery could have had a great deal to do with motivation and actions. We'll find out soon enough.

Again, I disagree. Right now the only thing that matters is that Wilson shot Brown from a distance of 30 feet, and Brown was unarmed. Unless you believe that Brown was charging at Wilson, there is no other justification for this act- I don't care if Brown was a mass murderer, a child rapist or whatever. I don't care if he spent the last 10 minutes prior pummeling Wilson to the ground, breaking his arm, etc. He's 30 feet away at the time the shots are fired, and he's unarmed. So he can't be a threat, unless he's charging at Wilson.So once again, that means that in order to justify the shooting, we have to believe that Wilson would be willing to charge at a policeman firing bullets at him, like George Pickett at Gettysburg. There is NO prior action by Brown that we know of, not the robbery, not hitting the policeman earlier, that would make him being willing to rush into death any more plausible. So Christo and others can laugh at me all you want, but I atill say the robbery is irrelevant. EVERYTHING is irrelevant that doesn't either prove Brown was charging, or prove that Wilson had some other plausible reason for shooting him from 30 feet away. That's the heart of the matter.

So you've concluded that Wilson decided in the heat of the moment to do something irrational, but you can't imagine Brown deciding in the heat of the moment to do something irrational. How convenient.

Not convenient, but consider the two acts of irrationality and tell me which one is more likely. Wilson has a gun in his hand. Brown is unarmed. Is it more likely that the armed guy uses his gun, or that the unarmed guy charges into bullets?

Why does Wilson have to be firing before Brown charges towards him?

Why else would he stop?

 

[matttyl]

The injury to Wilson's face makes it more likely, at least to me, that he committed a crime here.

My likely scenario: Wilson stops Brown and Johnson. A scuffle occurs. Brown hits Wilson in the face, causing the injury. The two kids take off running. Wilson fires his gun. The first shot either misses or wings Brown in the arm. Brown turns around, and either raises his arms in surrender or does not, just turns around. (Not sure what happened to Johnson at this point.)

And here is where the crime is committed by Wilson: in fear or rage or both, Wilson does not ask Brown to surrender. He does not instruct Brown to lie down on the ground. Instead, he fires his remaining bullets at Wilson. And that's murder.

There's probably no way to prove it, but that's what I think probably happened.

Why do you give the benefit of the doubt to the guy who just robbed a convenience store and attacked a cop instead of the cop?

Why do you give the benefit of the doubt to a cop who's going in front of a grand jury for shooting someone instead of the dead guy?

I've seen proof of the dead guy committing a crime. I have not seen the same of the cop.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

First off the robbery is insignificant to me. I don't care what kind of guy Brown was.

Ridiculous statement. The robbery could have had a great deal to do with motivation and actions. We'll find out soon enough.

Again, I disagree. Right now the only thing that matters is that Wilson shot Brown from a distance of 30 feet, and Brown was unarmed. Unless you believe that Brown was charging at Wilson, there is no other justification for this act- I don't care if Brown was a mass murderer, a child rapist or whatever. I don't care if he spent the last 10 minutes prior pummeling Wilson to the ground, breaking his arm, etc. He's 30 feet away at the time the shots are fired, and he's unarmed. So he can't be a threat, unless he's charging at Wilson.So once again, that means that in order to justify the shooting, we have to believe that Wilson would be willing to charge at a policeman firing bullets at him, like George Pickett at Gettysburg. There is NO prior action by Brown that we know of, not the robbery, not hitting the policeman earlier, that would make him being willing to rush into death any more plausible. So Christo and others can laugh at me all you want, but I atill say the robbery is irrelevant. EVERYTHING is irrelevant that doesn't either prove Brown was charging, or prove that Wilson had some other plausible reason for shooting him from 30 feet away. That's the heart of the matter.

So you've concluded that Wilson decided in the heat of the moment to do something irrational, but you can't imagine Brown deciding in the heat of the moment to do something irrational. How convenient.

Not convenient, but consider the two acts of irrationality and tell me which one is more likely. Wilson has a gun in his hand. Brown is unarmed. Is it more likely that the armed guy uses his gun, or that the unarmed guy charges into bullets?

Hitting the cop earlier very much means he would be willing to rush him. He attempted to take Wilson's gun too. The gun went off. If you hit a copy, try to take his gun, and then fire that gun or force it to be fired, you are quite capable to think that you can overpower the cop from 10 yards away and get away with the whole thing. He was looking at jail time too. Totally rational, especially if you believe that the cop will not shoot you.

If you believe the cop will not shoot why not keep running away? Why listen now when ordered to stop?

 

[financewonk]

First off the robbery is insignificant to me. I don't care what kind of guy Brown was.

Ridiculous statement. The robbery could have had a great deal to do with motivation and actions. We'll find out soon enough.

Again, I disagree. Right now the only thing that matters is that Wilson shot Brown from a distance of 30 feet, and Brown was unarmed. Unless you believe that Brown was charging at Wilson, there is no other justification for this act- I don't care if Brown was a mass murderer, a child rapist or whatever. I don't care if he spent the last 10 minutes prior pummeling Wilson to the ground, breaking his arm, etc. He's 30 feet away at the time the shots are fired, and he's unarmed. So he can't be a threat, unless he's charging at Wilson.So once again, that means that in order to justify the shooting, we have to believe that Wilson would be willing to charge at a policeman firing bullets at him, like George Pickett at Gettysburg. There is NO prior action by Brown that we know of, not the robbery, not hitting the policeman earlier, that would make him being willing to rush into death any more plausible. So Christo and others can laugh at me all you want, but I atill say the robbery is irrelevant. EVERYTHING is irrelevant that doesn't either prove Brown was charging, or prove that Wilson had some other plausible reason for shooting him from 30 feet away. That's the heart of the matter.

So you've concluded that Wilson decided in the heat of the moment to do something irrational, but you can't imagine Brown deciding in the heat of the moment to do something irrational. How convenient.

Not convenient, but consider the two acts of irrationality and tell me which one is more likely. Wilson has a gun in his hand. Brown is unarmed. Is it more likely that the armed guy uses his gun, or that the unarmed guy charges into bullets?

Brown committed two irrational/ violent acts in the course of 15 mins just prior to being shot (i.e. he robbed a store and attacked a police officer), whereas Wilson allegedly has no history of misconduct. Given the info that's out there, isn't it more likely that Brown would again do something stupid/ violent than it is that Wilson would murder Brown?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Maybe I am oversimplifying things, but the simplest explanation, in my mind, is:

Cop yells at kids, kids tell them to #### off, cop rolls up next to them, door slam/scuffle/whatever results in cop getting thumped in the head, kids run, cop is pissed and was "attacked", cop shoots. (and shoots, and shoots, and shoots).

Yeah, that's kinda where I am, too.

But the kid wasn't running away when he was shot.

Which time he was shot? And how do you know?

Why is it so hard for people to imagine that Brown was running from the cop and that the cop shot at Brown and he realized he wasnt out running a bullet ,turned around and was then shot in the front of his body and head?

I would like to believe a cop wouldn't do that. If Brown really was 30 feet away and stopped to turn around and was shot 6 times that's just terrible IMO. Whether he punched a man in the face or not.

What about the video of the witness saying at the scene that he saw Brown "running" towards the cop?

I'm not 100% sure but didn't he say "he kept coming" and not running?

The next thing I know … the dude started running ... towards the police ...

~@7:38-42

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyEoNbJYMsE

 

[Fennis]

Maybe I am oversimplifying things, but the simplest explanation, in my mind, is:

Cop yells at kids, kids tell them to #### off, cop rolls up next to them, door slam/scuffle/whatever results in cop getting thumped in the head, kids run, cop is pissed and was "attacked", cop shoots. (and shoots, and shoots, and shoots).

Yeah, that's kinda where I am, too.

But the kid wasn't running away when he was shot.

Which time he was shot? And how do you know?

Why is it so hard for people to imagine that Brown was running from the cop and that the cop shot at Brown and he realized he wasnt out running a bullet ,turned around and was then shot in the front of his body and head?

I would like to believe a cop wouldn't do that. If Brown really was 30 feet away and stopped to turn around and was shot 6 times that's just terrible IMO. Whether he punched a man in the face or not.

What about the video of the witness saying at the scene that he saw Brown "running" towards the cop?

I'm not 100% sure but didn't he say "he kept coming" and not running?

The next thing I know … the dude started running ...

can you post the link to the original blog. I don't recall the name of it. it was a conservative blog.

 

[msommer]

The injury to Wilson's face makes it more likely, at least to me, that he committed a crime here.

My likely scenario: Wilson stops Brown and Johnson. A scuffle occurs. Brown hits Wilson in the face, causing the injury. The two kids take off running. Wilson fires his gun. The first shot either misses or wings Brown in the arm. Brown turns around, and either raises his arms in surrender or does not, just turns around. (Not sure what happened to Johnson at this point.)

And here is where the crime is committed by Wilson: in fear or rage or both, Wilson does not ask Brown to surrender. He does not instruct Brown to lie down on the ground. Instead, he fires his remaining bullets at Wilson. And that's murder.

There's probably no way to prove it, but that's what I think probably happened.

Why do you give the benefit of the doubt to the guy who just robbed a convenience store and attacked a cop instead of the cop?

Why do you give the benefit of the doubt to a cop who's going in front of a grand jury for shooting someone instead of the dead guy?

I've seen proof of the dead guy committing a crime. I have not seen the same of the cop.

Are you willing to accept said proof may exist?

 

[timschochet]

Since this story gained national attention, it seems like every piece of evidence that has been released is strengthening the officer being in the right.

Why in this case, as well as the TM one, is the original narrative misleading which strikes outrage and only when time goes by and more bits and pieces of information come out do we learn what actually happened isn't close to what was first portrayed.

If you were a staunch defender of the victim in either case, don't you feel a bit betrayed or duped when you find out what you were supporting turns out to be completely different? Youve been put in a tough spot to have to change your position as more facts come out. It's hard to blame anyone for grasping at alternative scenarios in order to avoid having to admit they were on the wrong side. Some never will. It's a shame.

in both cases, reasonable people allow facts to inform their opinions and then change them if necessary. One guy I have to give a lot of credit to in the Zimmerman case is Jon Mx. Even though we argued the whole way through (and I still don't agree with his conclusions) he started out believing GZ was guilty, learned more facts, and then changed his mind. I admire that he allowed facts to change his opinion.

As for me, right now I strongly believe that Wilson committed the act of murder by shooting at an unarmed man from a distance of 30 feet. If I learn new facts, such as that the distance was actually 5 or 10 feet, then I'm going to change my mind once again (because from a short distance apart it's plausible that Wilson could have reasonably considered any sudden movement by Brown to be a threat.)

 

[msommer]

First off the robbery is insignificant to me. I don't care what kind of guy Brown was.

Ridiculous statement. The robbery could have had a great deal to do with motivation and actions. We'll find out soon enough.

Again, I disagree. Right now the only thing that matters is that Wilson shot Brown from a distance of 30 feet, and Brown was unarmed. Unless you believe that Brown was charging at Wilson, there is no other justification for this act- I don't care if Brown was a mass murderer, a child rapist or whatever. I don't care if he spent the last 10 minutes prior pummeling Wilson to the ground, breaking his arm, etc. He's 30 feet away at the time the shots are fired, and he's unarmed. So he can't be a threat, unless he's charging at Wilson.So once again, that means that in order to justify the shooting, we have to believe that Wilson would be willing to charge at a policeman firing bullets at him, like George Pickett at Gettysburg. There is NO prior action by Brown that we know of, not the robbery, not hitting the policeman earlier, that would make him being willing to rush into death any more plausible. So Christo and others can laugh at me all you want, but I atill say the robbery is irrelevant. EVERYTHING is irrelevant that doesn't either prove Brown was charging, or prove that Wilson had some other plausible reason for shooting him from 30 feet away. That's the heart of the matter.

So you've concluded that Wilson decided in the heat of the moment to do something irrational, but you can't imagine Brown deciding in the heat of the moment to do something irrational. How convenient.

Not convenient, but consider the two acts of irrationality and tell me which one is more likely. Wilson has a gun in his hand. Brown is unarmed. Is it more likely that the armed guy uses his gun, or that the unarmed guy charges into bullets?

Brown committed two irrational/ violent acts in the course of 15 mins just prior to being shot (i.e. he robbed a store and attacked a police officer), whereas Wilson allegedly has no history of misconduct. Given the info that's out there, isn't it more likely that Brown would again do something stupid/ violent than it is that Wilson would murder Brown?

May have attacked a police officer

 

[Henry Ford]

So he beat the guy badly enough to cause an orbital fracture, but there were no signs of bruising on his hands? That seems weird.

Why assume that any facial injury was caused by a fist? An elbow, headbutt, or rebounding vehicle door (among many other things) could have done it.

I think I've already said I wouldn't be surprised if it was the door.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Yeah, that's kinda where I am, too.

But the kid wasn't running away when he was shot.

Which time he was shot? And how do you know?

Why is it so hard for people to imagine that Brown was running from the cop and that the cop shot at Brown and he realized he wasnt out running a bullet ,turned around and was then shot in the front of his body and head?

I would like to believe a cop wouldn't do that. If Brown really was 30 feet away and stopped to turn around and was shot 6 times that's just terrible IMO. Whether he punched a man in the face or not.

What about the video of the witness saying at the scene that he saw Brown "running" towards the cop?

I'm not 100% sure but didn't he say "he kept coming" and not running?

The next thing I know … the dude started running ...

can you post the link to the original blog. I don't recall the name of it. it was a conservative blog.

I posted the full video on YT above.

 

[Gary Coal Man]

None of it matters. Wilson will never ever, never ever, never ever, never ever, never ever, never ever, never ever, never ever, never ever, never ever, be indicted.



Interesting article from the perspective of a white man whose son was killed by the police because a cop got his holster caught on a car mirror and thought the son was trying to grab it.

Wow. I wonder what the results will be of this case:

In 129 years since police and fire commissions were created in the state of Wisconsin, we could not find a single ruling by a police department, an inquest or a police commission that a shooting was unjustified.

The problem over many decades, in other words, was a near-total lack of accountability for wrongdoing; and if police on duty believe they can get away with almost anything, they will act accordingly

The decision whether to indict won't by police inquest but instead by grand jury. So the police inquest history is, for the most part, irrelevant.This case has far more publicity then nearly any alleged police brutality case with the possible exception of Rodney King. With the Rodney King riots and current riots in mind a grand jury will feel pressure to indict.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

Maybe I am oversimplifying things, but the simplest explanation, in my mind, is:

Cop yells at kids, kids tell them to #### off, cop rolls up next to them, door slam/scuffle/whatever results in cop getting thumped in the head, kids run, cop is pissed and was "attacked", cop shoots. (and shoots, and shoots, and shoots).

Yeah, that's kinda where I am, too.

But the kid wasn't running away when he was shot.

Which time he was shot? And how do you know?

Why is it so hard for people to imagine that Brown was running from the cop and that the cop shot at Brown and he realized he wasnt out running a bullet ,turned around and was then shot in the front of his body and head?

I would like to believe a cop wouldn't do that. If Brown really was 30 feet away and stopped to turn around and was shot 6 times that's just terrible IMO. Whether he punched a man in the face or not.

What about the video of the witness saying at the scene that he saw Brown "running" towards the cop?

I'm not 100% sure but didn't he say "he kept coming" and not running?

The next thing I know the dude started running ... towards the police ...

~@7:38-42

Is this incorrect?

*ETA*

I'm not listening to the 10 minute video. I'll trust you, I just thought the above quote was what was said.

 

[timschochet]

First off the robbery is insignificant to me. I don't care what kind of guy Brown was.

Ridiculous statement. The robbery could have had a great deal to do with motivation and actions. We'll find out soon enough.

Again, I disagree. Right now the only thing that matters is that Wilson shot Brown from a distance of 30 feet, and Brown was unarmed. Unless you believe that Brown was charging at Wilson, there is no other justification for this act- I don't care if Brown was a mass murderer, a child rapist or whatever. I don't care if he spent the last 10 minutes prior pummeling Wilson to the ground, breaking his arm, etc. He's 30 feet away at the time the shots are fired, and he's unarmed. So he can't be a threat, unless he's charging at Wilson.So once again, that means that in order to justify the shooting, we have to believe that Wilson would be willing to charge at a policeman firing bullets at him, like George Pickett at Gettysburg. There is NO prior action by Brown that we know of, not the robbery, not hitting the policeman earlier, that would make him being willing to rush into death any more plausible. So Christo and others can laugh at me all you want, but I atill say the robbery is irrelevant. EVERYTHING is irrelevant that doesn't either prove Brown was charging, or prove that Wilson had some other plausible reason for shooting him from 30 feet away. That's the heart of the matter.

So you've concluded that Wilson decided in the heat of the moment to do something irrational, but you can't imagine Brown deciding in the heat of the moment to do something irrational. How convenient.

Not convenient, but consider the two acts of irrationality and tell me which one is more likely. Wilson has a gun in his hand. Brown is unarmed. Is it more likely that the armed guy uses his gun, or that the unarmed guy charges into bullets?

Hitting the cop earlier very much means he would be willing to rush him. He attempted to take Wilson's gun too. The gun went off. If you hit a copy, try to take his gun, and then fire that gun or force it to be fired, you are quite capable to think that you can overpower the cop from 10 yards away and get away with the whole thing. He was looking at jail time too. Totally rational, especially if you believe that the cop will not shoot you.

sorry, this line of thinking makes no sense to me. Brown thought he could overpower a armed cop from 10 yards away? And if he believed that, why run away from the cop in the first place?

 

[avoiding injuries]

Since this story gained national attention, it seems like every piece of evidence that has been released is strengthening the officer being in the right.

Why in this case, as well as the TM one, is the original narrative misleading which strikes outrage and only when time goes by and more bits and pieces of information come out do we learn what actually happened isn't close to what was first portrayed.

If you were a staunch defender of the victim in either case, don't you feel a bit betrayed or duped when you find out what you were supporting turns out to be completely different? Youve been put in a tough spot to have to change your position as more facts come out. It's hard to blame anyone for grasping at alternative scenarios in order to avoid having to admit they were on the wrong side. Some never will. It's a shame.

in both cases, reasonable people allow facts to inform their opinions and then change them if necessary. One guy I have to give a lot of credit to in the Zimmerman case is Jon Mx. Even though we argued the whole way through (and I still don't agree with his conclusions) he started out believing GZ was guilty, learned more facts, and then changed his mind. I admire that he allowed facts to change his opinion.

As for me, right now I strongly believe that Wilson committed the act of murder by shooting at an unarmed man from a distance of 30 feet. If I learn new facts, such as that the distance was actually 5 or 10 feet, then I'm going to change my mind once again (because from a short distance apart it's plausible that Wilson could have reasonably considered any sudden movement by Brown to be a threat.)

I may be misremembering, but in the beginning of this thread, weren't you skeptical that that the officer did anything wrong?

 

[msommer]

Since this story gained national attention, it seems like every piece of evidence that has been released is strengthening the officer being in the right.

Why in this case, as well as the TM one, is the original narrative misleading which strikes outrage and only when time goes by and more bits and pieces of information come out do we learn what actually happened isn't close to what was first portrayed.

If you were a staunch defender of the victim in either case, don't you feel a bit betrayed or duped when you find out what you were supporting turns out to be completely different? Youve been put in a tough spot to have to change your position as more facts come out. It's hard to blame anyone for grasping at alternative scenarios in order to avoid having to admit they were on the wrong side. Some never will. It's a shame.

no evidence beyond the robbery video has been released. It is only police officers off the record leaking info (I would bet illegally) to the press.

The autopsy basically contradicts the main points of the story that I originally heard. The robbery video, the officers injuries (perhaps this is premature to list, but I don't think so), and the video where an eyewitness says what they saw without knowing it was recorded. It's enough to make you go hmmmm.

Still to come: toxicology and whether or not there is a bullet hole in the police car.

How many shots fired

Distance from body where shots fired

Medical report on officer incl toxicology

Officer's statement

GSR on clothing

final autopsy

I'm sure there's more

DNA of the officer on Browns body and vice versa (making the scuffle more likely even if there is no physical sign on Browns body of it)

 

[Fennis]

None of it matters. Wilson will never ever, never ever, never ever, never ever, never ever, never ever, never ever, never ever, never ever, never ever, be indicted.



Interesting article from the perspective of a white man whose son was killed by the police because a cop got his holster caught on a car mirror and thought the son was trying to grab it.

Wow. I wonder what the results will be of this case:

In 129 years since police and fire commissions were created in the state of Wisconsin, we could not find a single ruling by a police department, an inquest or a police commission that a shooting was unjustified.

The problem over many decades, in other words, was a near-total lack of accountability for wrongdoing; and if police on duty believe they can get away with almost anything, they will act accordingly

The decision whether to indict won't by police inquest but instead by grand jury. So the police inquest history is, for the most part, irrelevant.This case has far more publicity then nearly any alleged police brutality case with the possible exception of Rodney King. With the Rodney King riots and current riots in mind a grand jury will feel pressure to indict.

The police collect and provide the evidence.

 

[Josie Maran]

The injury to Wilson's face makes it more likely, at least to me, that he committed a crime here.

My likely scenario: Wilson stops Brown and Johnson. A scuffle occurs. Brown hits Wilson in the face, causing the injury. The two kids take off running. Wilson fires his gun. The first shot either misses or wings Brown in the arm. Brown turns around, and either raises his arms in surrender or does not, just turns around. (Not sure what happened to Johnson at this point.)

And here is where the crime is committed by Wilson: in fear or rage or both, Wilson does not ask Brown to surrender. He does not instruct Brown to lie down on the ground. Instead, he fires his remaining bullets at Wilson. And that's murder.

There's probably no way to prove it, but that's what I think probably happened.

Why do you give the benefit of the doubt to the guy who just robbed a convenience store and attacked a cop instead of the cop?

Why do you give the benefit of the doubt to a cop who's going in front of a grand jury for shooting someone instead of the dead guy?

I've seen proof of the dead guy committing a crime. I have not seen the same of the cop.

Is it legal to shoot at an unarmed person that's running away?

 

[Fennis]

can you post the link to the original blog. I don't recall the name of it. it was a conservative blog.

I posted the full video on YT above.

do you remember the original blog? Id like to see that again

 

[Fennis]

Since this story gained national attention, it seems like every piece of evidence that has been released is strengthening the officer being in the right.

Why in this case, as well as the TM one, is the original narrative misleading which strikes outrage and only when time goes by and more bits and pieces of information come out do we learn what actually happened isn't close to what was first portrayed.

If you were a staunch defender of the victim in either case, don't you feel a bit betrayed or duped when you find out what you were supporting turns out to be completely different? Youve been put in a tough spot to have to change your position as more facts come out. It's hard to blame anyone for grasping at alternative scenarios in order to avoid having to admit they were on the wrong side. Some never will. It's a shame.

in both cases, reasonable people allow facts to inform their opinions and then change them if necessary.One guy I have to give a lot of credit to in the Zimmerman case is Jon Mx. Even though we argued the whole way through (and I still don't agree with his conclusions) he started out believing GZ was guilty, learned more facts, and then changed his mind. I admire that he allowed facts to change his opinion.

As for me, right now I strongly believe that Wilson committed the act of murder by shooting at an unarmed man from a distance of 30 feet. If I learn new facts, such as that the distance was actually 5 or 10 feet, then I'm going to change my mind once again (because from a short distance apart it's plausible that Wilson could have reasonably considered any sudden movement by Brown to be a threat.)

I may be misremembering, but in the beginning of this thread, weren't you skeptical that that the officer did anything wrong?

what day is it?

 

[Bigboy10182000]

The injury to Wilson's face makes it more likely, at least to me, that he committed a crime here.

My likely scenario: Wilson stops Brown and Johnson. A scuffle occurs. Brown hits Wilson in the face, causing the injury. The two kids take off running. Wilson fires his gun. The first shot either misses or wings Brown in the arm. Brown turns around, and either raises his arms in surrender or does not, just turns around. (Not sure what happened to Johnson at this point.)

And here is where the crime is committed by Wilson: in fear or rage or both, Wilson does not ask Brown to surrender. He does not instruct Brown to lie down on the ground. Instead, he fires his remaining bullets at Wilson. And that's murder.

There's probably no way to prove it, but that's what I think probably happened.

Why do you give the benefit of the doubt to the guy who just robbed a convenience store and attacked a cop instead of the cop?

Why do you give the benefit of the doubt to a cop who's going in front of a grand jury for shooting someone instead of the dead guy?

I've seen proof of the dead guy committing a crime. I have not seen the same of the cop.

Is it legal to shoot at an unarmed person that's running away?

I would like to know too. Are you allowed to shoot one that's running at you too?

I really don't know.

 

[avoiding injuries]

Since this story gained national attention, it seems like every piece of evidence that has been released is strengthening the officer being in the right.

Why in this case, as well as the TM one, is the original narrative misleading which strikes outrage and only when time goes by and more bits and pieces of information come out do we learn what actually happened isn't close to what was first portrayed.

If you were a staunch defender of the victim in either case, don't you feel a bit betrayed or duped when you find out what you were supporting turns out to be completely different? Youve been put in a tough spot to have to change your position as more facts come out. It's hard to blame anyone for grasping at alternative scenarios in order to avoid having to admit they were on the wrong side. Some never will. It's a shame.

no evidence beyond the robbery video has been released. It is only police officers off the record leaking info (I would bet illegally) to the press.

The autopsy basically contradicts the main points of the story that I originally heard. The robbery video, the officers injuries (perhaps this is premature to list, but I don't think so), and the video where an eyewitness says what they saw without knowing it was recorded. It's enough to make you go hmmmm.

Still to come: toxicology and whether or not there is a bullet hole in the police car.

How many shots firedDistance from body where shots fired

Medical report on officer incl toxicology

Officer's statement

GSR on clothing

final autopsy

I'm sure there's more

DNA of the officer on Browns body and vice versa (making the scuffle more likely even if there is no physical sign on Browns body of it)

Bump this post if any of the above comes out to support Brown. I will apologize for being as skeptical as I am right now.

 

[matttyl]

Has their been a good explanation for the bullets to the arm? I find it unlikely that the cop was able to hit the arm as many times as he did, if the arms were raised, but at the same time, I would have expected multiple-entries for a single shot if he was running - assuming the arm would be bent like anyone who was running hard would have them.

So, I guess, neither story makes sense to me right now.

Honestly, a broken orbital bone (if that story is true). If that story is true, I'm going to assume it was the left eye. That's the side of the face of a driver which faces the window, and the side of the face that would be hit by a right handed assailant.

Now with both eyes open, point a finger (as it it were a gun) toward a particular object. I'm pointing toward the light switch on the opposite wall. Do it quickly, without thinking. Now close your left eye (as it it were hurt). You'll notice that your finger is now pointing just a bit left of where you thought it was - as you're only seeing it out of your right eye (the good one). If you're shooting slightly to the left, you're going to be hitting a target coming at you on it's right side. I think he was aiming at "center mass" but was shooting slightly to his left due to his eye (again, if that story is true) thus hitting Brown in his right arm when Brown was facing him.

 

[msommer]

The injury to Wilson's face makes it more likely, at least to me, that he committed a crime here.

My likely scenario: Wilson stops Brown and Johnson. A scuffle occurs. Brown hits Wilson in the face, causing the injury. The two kids take off running. Wilson fires his gun. The first shot either misses or wings Brown in the arm. Brown turns around, and either raises his arms in surrender or does not, just turns around. (Not sure what happened to Johnson at this point.)

And here is where the crime is committed by Wilson: in fear or rage or both, Wilson does not ask Brown to surrender. He does not instruct Brown to lie down on the ground. Instead, he fires his remaining bullets at Wilson. And that's murder.

There's probably no way to prove it, but that's what I think probably happened.

Why do you give the benefit of the doubt to the guy who just robbed a convenience store and attacked a cop instead of the cop?

Why do you give the benefit of the doubt to a cop who's going in front of a grand jury for shooting someone instead of the dead guy?

I've seen proof of the dead guy committing a crime. I have not seen the same of the cop.

Is it legal to shoot at an unarmed person that's running away?

Potentially yes, Johnnycakes quoted some stuff earlier in the thread. Henry Ford was unconvinced.

Had to do with felony, threat to officer or others lives IIRC

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

If every cop acting like that was forced to take a few days off there would be none left. There's literally dozens of videos like that, maybe hundreds. Here's a nice one of them going after a local alderman. Here's the video of them teargassing a camera crew and dismantling their equipment. I could go on all day if I had time.

I just don't see how anyone can justify teargassing a news crew.

I don't see how anyone could resist.

 

[Fennis]

Has their been a good explanation for the bullets to the arm? I find it unlikely that the cop was able to hit the arm as many times as he did, if the arms were raised, but at the same time, I would have expected multiple-entries for a single shot if he was running - assuming the arm would be bent like anyone who was running hard would have them.

So, I guess, neither story makes sense to me right now.

Honestly, a broken orbital bone (if that story is true). If that story is true, I'm going to assume it was the left eye. That's the side of the face of a driver which faces the window, and the side of the face that would be hit by a right handed assailant.

Now with both eyes open, point a finger (as it it were a gun) toward a particular object. I'm pointing toward the light switch on the opposite wall. Do it quickly, without thinking. Now close your left eye (as it it were hurt). You'll notice that your finger is now pointing just a bit left of where you thought it was - as you're only seeing it out of your right eye (the good one). If you're shooting slightly to the left, you're going to be hitting a target coming at you on it's right side. I think he was aiming at "center mass" but was shooting slightly to his left due to his eye (again, if that story is true) thus hitting Brown in his right arm when Brown was facing him.

now we need to know if the cop was right or left eye dominant.

 

[matttyl]

Right now the only thing that matters is that Wilson shot Brown from a distance of 30 feet, and Brown was unarmed.

We don't know that Wilson shot Brown from thirty feet away. That thirty feet estimate was provided by Dorian Johnson. The autopsy neither confirmed nor dismissed the thirty feet estimate.

Didn't Johnson also say that Brown was shot in the back, or at least while running away - which the autopsy dismissed. I can pretty much forgive him for not mentioning the robbery - but not mentioning it along with telling his side of the shooting which the autopsy dismissed pretty much makes me think that anything he says is false.

 

[Sand]

First off the robbery is insignificant to me. I don't care what kind of guy Brown was.

Ridiculous statement. The robbery could have had a great deal to do with motivation and actions. We'll find out soon enough.

Again, I disagree. Right now the only thing that matters is that Wilson shot Brown from a distance of 30 feet, and Brown was unarmed. Unless you believe that Brown was charging at Wilson, there is no other justification for this act- I don't care if Brown was a mass murderer, a child rapist or whatever. I don't care if he spent the last 10 minutes prior pummeling Wilson to the ground, breaking his arm, etc. He's 30 feet away at the time the shots are fired, and he's unarmed. So he can't be a threat, unless he's charging at Wilson.So once again, that means that in order to justify the shooting, we have to believe that Wilson would be willing to charge at a policeman firing bullets at him, like George Pickett at Gettysburg. There is NO prior action by Brown that we know of, not the robbery, not hitting the policeman earlier, that would make him being willing to rush into death any more plausible. So Christo and others can laugh at me all you want, but I atill say the robbery is irrelevant. EVERYTHING is irrelevant that doesn't either prove Brown was charging, or prove that Wilson had some other plausible reason for shooting him from 30 feet away. That's the heart of the matter.

So you've concluded that Wilson decided in the heat of the moment to do something irrational, but you can't imagine Brown deciding in the heat of the moment to do something irrational. How convenient.

Kids who are under the influence have the capability to do lots of implausible things.

 

[[icon]]

Guys supporting dead thief to Wilson supporters when asking why they think he's innocent:
I'm going to need you to back your position with precise answers from the horses mouth for these 19 questions. In triplicate. What do you mean facts are still coming in? It's obviously a conspiracy.

Guys supporting dead thief when asked why they don't believe cop with flawless record:

"I'm pretty sure the evidence could possibly be interpreted this way, and you're a racist if you don't agree"

 

[Fennis]

Right now the only thing that matters is that Wilson shot Brown from a distance of 30 feet, and Brown was unarmed.

We don't know that Wilson shot Brown from thirty feet away. That thirty feet estimate was provided by Dorian Johnson. The autopsy neither confirmed nor dismissed the thirty feet estimate.

Didn't Johnson also say that Brown was shot in the back, or at least while running away - which the autopsy dismissed. I can pretty much forgive him for not mentioning the robbery - but not mentioning it along with telling his side of the shooting which the autopsy dismissed pretty much makes me think that anything he says is false.

how many missed shots were there?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

can you post the link to the original blog. I don't recall the name of it. it was a conservative blog.

I posted the full video on YT above.

do you remember the original blog? Id like to see that again

I'd be glad to look for it, it's probably in the thread. It wasn't a well known site.

 

[Fennis]

can you post the link to the original blog. I don't recall the name of it. it was a conservative blog.

I posted the full video on YT above.

do you remember the original blog? Id like to see that again

I'd be glad to look for it, it's probably in the thread. It wasn't a well known site.

if you can find it... if not no worries.

 

[msommer]

First off the robbery is insignificant to me. I don't care what kind of guy Brown was.

Ridiculous statement. The robbery could have had a great deal to do with motivation and actions. We'll find out soon enough.

Again, I disagree. Right now the only thing that matters is that Wilson shot Brown from a distance of 30 feet, and Brown was unarmed. Unless you believe that Brown was charging at Wilson, there is no other justification for this act- I don't care if Brown was a mass murderer, a child rapist or whatever. I don't care if he spent the last 10 minutes prior pummeling Wilson to the ground, breaking his arm, etc. He's 30 feet away at the time the shots are fired, and he's unarmed. So he can't be a threat, unless he's charging at Wilson.So once again, that means that in order to justify the shooting, we have to believe that Wilson would be willing to charge at a policeman firing bullets at him, like George Pickett at Gettysburg. There is NO prior action by Brown that we know of, not the robbery, not hitting the policeman earlier, that would make him being willing to rush into death any more plausible. So Christo and others can laugh at me all you want, but I atill say the robbery is irrelevant. EVERYTHING is irrelevant that doesn't either prove Brown was charging, or prove that Wilson had some other plausible reason for shooting him from 30 feet away. That's the heart of the matter.

So you've concluded that Wilson decided in the heat of the moment to do something irrational, but you can't imagine Brown deciding in the heat of the moment to do something irrational. How convenient.

Kids who are under the influence have the capability to do lots of implausible things.

The only thing we have is a leak stating there was marijuana in the bloodstream. Whether it was more or less than Josh Gordon's or whether it would impair we do not even have an unnamed source peeping about

 

[boots11234]

This story ultimately confirms my thoughts that a 9mm is much much to small a round for an officer to carry. Shooting someone 6 times is a joke. It looks excessive. They need to move back to the 45 or as some call the round, "The flying ashtray." No way does an officer need to shoot someone 6 times with a 45 to take them down. The first one or two hits will take you down. Another popular old school cop phrase is "45 stay alive!".

I actually believe the Army is moving away from the 9mm. Its just not powerful enough.

Kid was a D bag. Mark my words.

 

[Gary Coal Man]

None of it matters. Wilson will never ever, never ever, never ever, never ever, never ever, never ever, never ever, never ever, never ever, never ever, be indicted.



Interesting article from the perspective of a white man whose son was killed by the police because a cop got his holster caught on a car mirror and thought the son was trying to grab it.

Wow. I wonder what the results will be of this case:

In 129 years since police and fire commissions were created in the state of Wisconsin, we could not find a single ruling by a police department, an inquest or a police commission that a shooting was unjustified.

The problem over many decades, in other words, was a near-total lack of accountability for wrongdoing; and if police on duty believe they can get away with almost anything, they will act accordingly

The decision whether to indict won't by police inquest but instead by grand jury. So the police inquest history is, for the most part, irrelevant.This case has far more publicity then nearly any alleged police brutality case with the possible exception of Rodney King. With the Rodney King riots and current riots in mind a grand jury will feel pressure to indict.

The police collect and provide the evidence.

In this case with the state, DOJ, and FBI breathing over their shoulder.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

can you post the link to the original blog. I don't recall the name of it. it was a conservative blog.

I posted the full video on YT above.

do you remember the original blog? Id like to see that again

I'd be glad to look for it, it's probably in the thread. It wasn't a well known site.

if you can find it... if not no worries.

Is this it?

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/08/168698-eyewitness-recalls-important-detail-background-video-mins-ferguson-shooting/

 

[matttyl]

Since this story gained national attention, it seems like every piece of evidence that has been released is strengthening the officer being in the right.

Why in this case, as well as the TM one, is the original narrative misleading which strikes outrage and only when time goes by and more bits and pieces of information come out do we learn what actually happened isn't close to what was first portrayed.

If you were a staunch defender of the victim in either case, don't you feel a bit betrayed or duped when you find out what you were supporting turns out to be completely different? Youve been put in a tough spot to have to change your position as more facts come out. It's hard to blame anyone for grasping at alternative scenarios in order to avoid having to admit they were on the wrong side. Some never will. It's a shame.

no evidence beyond the robbery video has been released. It is only police officers, off the record, leaking info (I would bet illegally) to the press.

Well, that and the pesky autopsy which totally discredits the initial reaction of a black kid being shot in the back.

 

[msommer]

None of it matters. Wilson will never ever, never ever, never ever, never ever, never ever, never ever, never ever, never ever, never ever, never ever, be indicted.



Interesting article from the perspective of a white man whose son was killed by the police because a cop got his holster caught on a car mirror and thought the son was trying to grab it.

Wow. I wonder what the results will be of this case:

In 129 years since police and fire commissions were created in the state of Wisconsin, we could not find a single ruling by a police department, an inquest or a police commission that a shooting was unjustified.

The problem over many decades, in other words, was a near-total lack of accountability for wrongdoing; and if police on duty believe they can get away with almost anything, they will act accordingly

The decision whether to indict won't by police inquest but instead by grand jury. So the police inquest history is, for the most part, irrelevant.This case has far more publicity then nearly any alleged police brutality case with the possible exception of Rodney King. With the Rodney King riots and current riots in mind a grand jury will feel pressure to indict.

The police collect and provide the evidence.

In this case with the state, DOJ, and FBI breathing over their shoulder.

They had the case on their own for a week, though, right?

#### would really hit the fan again if stuff was 'missing' when handed over to the prosecutor.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

First off the robbery is insignificant to me. I don't care what kind of guy Brown was.

Ridiculous statement. The robbery could have had a great deal to do with motivation and actions. We'll find out soon enough.

Again, I disagree. Right now the only thing that matters is that Wilson shot Brown from a distance of 30 feet, and Brown was unarmed. Unless you believe that Brown was charging at Wilson, there is no other justification for this act- I don't care if Brown was a mass murderer, a child rapist or whatever. I don't care if he spent the last 10 minutes prior pummeling Wilson to the ground, breaking his arm, etc. He's 30 feet away at the time the shots are fired, and he's unarmed. So he can't be a threat, unless he's charging at Wilson.So once again, that means that in order to justify the shooting, we have to believe that Wilson would be willing to charge at a policeman firing bullets at him, like George Pickett at Gettysburg. There is NO prior action by Brown that we know of, not the robbery, not hitting the policeman earlier, that would make him being willing to rush into death any more plausible. So Christo and others can laugh at me all you want, but I atill say the robbery is irrelevant. EVERYTHING is irrelevant that doesn't either prove Brown was charging, or prove that Wilson had some other plausible reason for shooting him from 30 feet away. That's the heart of the matter.

So you've concluded that Wilson decided in the heat of the moment to do something irrational, but you can't imagine Brown deciding in the heat of the moment to do something irrational. How convenient.

Not convenient, but consider the two acts of irrationality and tell me which one is more likely. Wilson has a gun in his hand. Brown is unarmed. Is it more likely that the armed guy uses his gun, or that the unarmed guy charges into bullets?

Hitting the cop earlier very much means he would be willing to rush him. He attempted to take Wilson's gun too. The gun went off. If you hit a copy, try to take his gun, and then fire that gun or force it to be fired, you are quite capable to think that you can overpower the cop from 10 yards away and get away with the whole thing. He was looking at jail time too. Totally rational, especially if you believe that the cop will not shoot you.

sorry, this line of thinking makes no sense to me. Brown thought he could overpower a armed cop from 10 yards away? And if he believed that, why run away from the cop in the first place?

First of all you asked about Brown being willing to rush the officer. I think I addressed that.

Secondly, you're assuming Brown was running away to escape - but he only got 10-12 yards away. And yet he wasn't shot in the back. How long does that take running for a 6'4" 18 year old? 5 2 seconds? Cop yells freeze. Brown is confident, not scared, he thinks he can take the cop (he just overpowered him). If he runs away maybe the cop will call for backup. Maybe the cops will come for him at his house the next day. There are a lot of worse alternatives. If he takes out the cop he could get away with it.

Btw we could probably do this from POV of Brown's supporters but you've already done that.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

Since this story gained national attention, it seems like every piece of evidence that has been released is strengthening the officer being in the right.

Why in this case, as well as the TM one, is the original narrative misleading which strikes outrage and only when time goes by and more bits and pieces of information come out do we learn what actually happened isn't close to what was first portrayed.

If you were a staunch defender of the victim in either case, don't you feel a bit betrayed or duped when you find out what you were supporting turns out to be completely different? Youve been put in a tough spot to have to change your position as more facts come out. It's hard to blame anyone for grasping at alternative scenarios in order to avoid having to admit they were on the wrong side. Some never will. It's a shame.

no evidence beyond the robbery video has been released. It is only police officers, off the record, leaking info (I would bet illegally) to the press.

Well, that and the pesky autopsy which totally discredits the initial reaction of a black kid being shot in the back.

Didn't he have a bullet graze wound on his back or back of the arm? Thought I read that.

 

[[icon]]

Didn't he have a bullet graze wound on his back or back of the arm? Thought I read that.

No

 

[Politician Spock]

First off the robbery is insignificant to me. I don't care what kind of guy Brown was.

Ridiculous statement. The robbery could have had a great deal to do with motivation and actions. We'll find out soon enough.

Again, I disagree. Right now the only thing that matters is that Wilson shot Brown from a distance of 30 feet, and Brown was unarmed. Unless you believe that Brown was charging at Wilson, there is no other justification for this act- I don't care if Brown was a mass murderer, a child rapist or whatever. I don't care if he spent the last 10 minutes prior pummeling Wilson to the ground, breaking his arm, etc. He's 30 feet away at the time the shots are fired, and he's unarmed. So he can't be a threat, unless he's charging at Wilson.So once again, that means that in order to justify the shooting, we have to believe that Wilson would be willing to charge at a policeman firing bullets at him, like George Pickett at Gettysburg. There is NO prior action by Brown that we know of, not the robbery, not hitting the policeman earlier, that would make him being willing to rush into death any more plausible. So Christo and others can laugh at me all you want, but I atill say the robbery is irrelevant. EVERYTHING is irrelevant that doesn't either prove Brown was charging, or prove that Wilson had some other plausible reason for shooting him from 30 feet away. That's the heart of the matter.

So you've concluded that Wilson decided in the heat of the moment to do something irrational, but you can't imagine Brown deciding in the heat of the moment to do something irrational. How convenient.

Not convenient, but consider the two acts of irrationality and tell me which one is more likely. Wilson has a gun in his hand. Brown is unarmed. Is it more likely that the armed guy uses his gun, or that the unarmed guy charges into bullets?

Why does Wilson have to be firing before Brown charges towards him?

Why else would he stop?

Stop what?

 

[jonessed]

First off the robbery is insignificant to me. I don't care what kind of guy Brown was.

Ridiculous statement. The robbery could have had a great deal to do with motivation and actions. We'll find out soon enough.

Again, I disagree. Right now the only thing that matters is that Wilson shot Brown from a distance of 30 feet, and Brown was unarmed. Unless you believe that Brown was charging at Wilson, there is no other justification for this act- I don't care if Brown was a mass murderer, a child rapist or whatever. I don't care if he spent the last 10 minutes prior pummeling Wilson to the ground, breaking his arm, etc. He's 30 feet away at the time the shots are fired, and he's unarmed. So he can't be a threat, unless he's charging at Wilson.So once again, that means that in order to justify the shooting, we have to believe that Wilson would be willing to charge at a policeman firing bullets at him, like George Pickett at Gettysburg. There is NO prior action by Brown that we know of, not the robbery, not hitting the policeman earlier, that would make him being willing to rush into death any more plausible. So Christo and others can laugh at me all you want, but I atill say the robbery is irrelevant. EVERYTHING is irrelevant that doesn't either prove Brown was charging, or prove that Wilson had some other plausible reason for shooting him from 30 feet away. That's the heart of the matter.

So you've concluded that Wilson decided in the heat of the moment to do something irrational, but you can't imagine Brown deciding in the heat of the moment to do something irrational. How convenient.

Not convenient, but consider the two acts of irrationality and tell me which one is more likely. Wilson has a gun in his hand. Brown is unarmed. Is it more likely that the armed guy uses his gun, or that the unarmed guy charges into bullets?

Hitting the cop earlier very much means he would be willing to rush him. He attempted to take Wilson's gun too. The gun went off. If you hit a copy, try to take his gun, and then fire that gun or force it to be fired, you are quite capable to think that you can overpower the cop from 10 yards away and get away with the whole thing. He was looking at jail time too. Totally rational, especially if you believe that the cop will not shoot you.

sorry, this line of thinking makes no sense to me. Brown thought he could overpower a armed cop from 10 yards away? And if he believed that, why run away from the cop in the first place?

When the officer came by he was walking down the middle of a lit street stoned immediately after committing a robbery. I don't consider anything he allegedly did after that a big stretch as he was already acting either really stupid or really crazy.

 

[Fennis]

can you post the link to the original blog. I don't recall the name of it. it was a conservative blog.

I posted the full video on YT above.

do you remember the original blog? Id like to see that again

I'd be glad to look for it, it's probably in the thread. It wasn't a well known site.

if you can find it... if not no worries.

Is this it?

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/08/168698-eyewitness-recalls-important-detail-background-video-mins-ferguson-shooting/

looks like it thanks!!

they link back to this site: http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2014/08/15/exceptional-catch-the-jj-witness-video-eye-witness-audio-of-mike-brown-shooting-sharing-brown-doubled-back-toward-police/

Like you said, the people talking are not clear that anyone was running towards the police.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

can you post the link to the original blog. I don't recall the name of it. it was a conservative blog.

I posted the full video on YT above.

do you remember the original blog? Id like to see that again

I'd be glad to look for it, it's probably in the thread. It wasn't a well known site.

if you can find it... if not no worries.

I think this is it.

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2014/08/17/the-hidden-audio-of-mike-brown-shooting-eye-witness-a-witness-conversation-unknowingly-captured-at-the-scene-of-the-ferguson-shooting-is-a-game-changer/