Looting in Missouri after cops shoot 18 year old (3 Viewers)

[Sinn Fein]

So he hit 6 out of 17 shots? For a 300 pound man, that was standing right in front of him, ready to attack?

Not a very good shot, imo. Bystanders were probably in danger with this man discharging his weapon.

Or he gave quite a few warning shots. No cop is that bad of a shot of such a big target only ~30 feet away.

Not sure if you are serious - but I suspect the SOP for all police training, is no warning shots, particularly if a man is charging at you, and could reach you in a matter of seconds.

 

[Sammy3469]

So he hit 6 out of 17 shots? For a 300 pound man, that was standing right in front of him, ready to attack?

Not a very good shot, imo. Bystanders were probably in danger with this man discharging his weapon.

Or he gave quite a few warning shots. No cop is that bad of a shot of such a big target only ~30 feet away.

You want to bet?

According to a 2008 RAND Corporation study evaluating the New York Police Department’s firearm training, between 1998 and 2006, the average hit rate during gunfights was just 18 percent. When suspects did not return fire, police officers hit their targets 30 percent of the time.

http://nation.time.com/2013/09/16/ready-fire-aim-the-science-behind-police-shooting-bystanders/

 

[Sinn Fein]

So he hit 6 out of 17 shots? For a 300 pound man, that was standing right in front of him, ready to attack?

Not a very good shot, imo. Bystanders were probably in danger with this man discharging his weapon.

Or he gave quite a few warning shots. No cop is that bad of a shot of such a big target only ~30 feet away.

How much range time do the two of your have? I'm going out on a limb and guessing not much? GB people who watch too many movies professing as experts in hand gun shooting under duress.

Sounds like I have about as much training as Officer Magoo here.

 

[matttyl]

So he hit 6 out of 17 shots? For a 300 pound man, that was standing right in front of him, ready to attack?

Not a very good shot, imo. Bystanders were probably in danger with this man discharging his weapon.

Or he gave quite a few warning shots. No cop is that bad of a shot of such a big target only ~30 feet away.

How much range time do the two of your have? I'm going out on a limb and guessing not much? GB people who watch too many movies professing as experts in hand gun shooting under duress.

With handguns, not much. With shotguns, quite a bit. I'm a pretty decent shot with my Beretta 12 gauge vs clays in both sporting clays and trap shooting, but I'll defer to you on anything handgun related. I'm trying to put the pieces together of what we think we know with this apparent audio tape. What are your thoughts on it?

 

[Doug B]

Unloading 17 rounds into an unarmed individual is excessive by any measure. I guess the thinking of a lot of cops is that it is better to kill and than to injure and be sued. That is a dangerous mindset.

Hadn't listened to the tape, but I took Yenrub's post above to indicate 10 or 11 shots fired total, with a pause after the first five or six. Fpr what that's worth.

 

[[icon]]

With handguns, not much. With shotguns, quite a bit. I'm a pretty decent shot with my Beretta 12 gauge vs clays in both sporting clays and trap shooting, but I'll defer to you on anything handgun related. I'm trying to put the pieces together of what we think we know with this apparent audio tape. What are your thoughts on it?

Haven't paid attention to the audio because, frankly, at this point it's all noise. I'm tapping out until the dust settles.

I hear ya. I enjoy shooting clays as well on occasion. Shotguns w/ Birdshot against clay on predictable trajectory =/= pistol round on randomly moving live "target". The short barrel makes for wildly inaccurate shots. I think the numbers i quoted yesterday were that an aim 3 degrees off axis will result in missing your intended target by 2 feet at 30' distance (don't have in front of me right now).

Handguns are notoriously inaccurate. Center mass on a paper target at 30ft/10yds is pretty easy for anyone with reasonable training. Center mass on a living, breathing, moving target during an adrenaline-soaked encounter is not easy... at all.

The hit rate of 18% in police gunfights quoted above does NOT surprise me. Now factor in that the officer was reportedly in fear for his life (be it the suspect trying to overpower him and take his weapon, suspect striking him, whatever) and I don't blame the officer for firing 8-10 rounds. Perfectly acceptable if the above holds true.

 

[Henry Ford]

Ferguson policing. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/08/25/ferguson_officer_hog_tying_lawsuit_mcdonald_s_policeman_accused_of_aggression.html

One of the Ferguson police officers who arrested a reporter for failing to leave a McDonald's earlier this month is being sued for allegedly choking and "hog-tying" a 12-year-old boy, the Huffington Post says. (The HuffPo writer who was arrested, Ryan J. Reilly, is co-bylined on the report.) The incident occurred when the officer, Justin Cosma, worked for the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office.

According to a lawsuit filed in 2012 in Missouri federal court, Justin Cosma and another officer, Richard Carter, approached a 12-year-old boy who was checking the mailbox at the end of his driveway in June 2010. ... The pair asked the boy if he'd been playing on a nearby highway, and he replied no, according to the lawsuit.Then, the officers "became confrontational" and intimidated the child, the lawsuit claims. "Unprovoked and without cause, the deputies grabbed [the boy], choked him around the neck and threw him to the ground," it says. The boy was shirtless at the time, and allegedly "suffered bruising, choke marks, scrapes and cuts across his body."

Cosma and Carter, the suit alleges, then accused the 12-year-old of resisting arrest and assaulting a law enforcement officer, charges that were not pursued by the county prosecutor.

Another Ferguson officer, Eddie Boyd III, left the St. Louis Police Department after credible accusations that he had pistol-whipped a 12-year-old girl and a boy who was a high school freshman, HuffPo reported last week.

So, what is that... 10-15 officers we've seen accusations against in the last few months? Out of 55 or so?

 

[Sinn Fein]

Unloading 17 rounds into an unarmed individual is excessive by any measure. I guess the thinking of a lot of cops is that it is better to kill and than to injure and be sued. That is a dangerous mindset.

Hadn't listened to the tape, but I took Yenrub's post above to indicate 10 or 11 shots fired total, with a pause after the first five or six. Fpr what that's worth.

Well its 1 shot, slight pause, 5 shots, 4-second pause, 5 shots

If its accurate, I'd say it was one shot, the officer had a moment to reflect that he just shot someone (very slight delay here), then continued to fire at Brown, realized he winged him, maybe causing Brown to stumble forward, but not stop, and then the last 5 shots included the head shot.

 

[Henry Ford]

3 bad protestors mean nothing. 3 bad cops means they are all bad.

3 bad cops is more than 5% of the police force.

 

[[icon]]

Unloading 17 rounds into an unarmed individual is excessive by any measure. I guess the thinking of a lot of cops is that it is better to kill and than to injure and be sued. That is a dangerous mindset.

Hadn't listened to the tape, but I took Yenrub's post above to indicate 10 or 11 shots fired total, with a pause after the first five or six. Fpr what that's worth.

Haven't listened but assuming this is true, I could see the officer, if felt under threat, would fire a volley of rounds, reassess the threat, then fire another volley if the threat persisted.

I suggest some folks read up on a OODA Loop which is frequently utilized in combat encounters (and taught to some LEO). That would likely address those who wished for officers to stop firing as soon as reasonably possible. The staggering of the round volleys above could indicate the application of an OODA Loop, which would further support Officer Wilson's position that he was under threat.

Observe

Orient

Decide

Act

(Cycle back to observe)

 

[Henry Ford]

CNN playing what's supposed to be an audio recording of the shooting

Sounded like 10 or 11 shots with a pause after about 5 or 6 shots

how many bullets does a hand gun carry

A Glock 17 has 17 standard. Interestingly a Glock 19 has 15..

So no need to reload to shoot 10 or 11 times in some hand guns at least.

here it is

What's up with the other audio in this saying you're so fine?

It does sound like he was recording an online sex chat session, doesn't it?

 

[Greggity]

All this police news has me a bit concerned about the ex-wife. She starts the police academy in norman OK in 2 weeks. How she passed the psych eval and why they would ever let her have a gun is beyond me.

 

[Sweet J]

Sorry it took a long time to respond, been busy working.

This will be my last response on this subject in this thread, as I don't intend to hijack the thread, and it properly belongs in another thread. I disagree with the premise in your first sentence- it is NOT a totally different discussion. My contention is that racism exists all down the line. It exists in terms of how many blacks are arrested. It exists in terms of the type of sentencing that occurs for blacks. It exists in terms of how many blacks are sentenced to death vs. how many whites for similar crimes. It exists in terms of how many blacks on death row are actually executed, vs. how many whites. It's all linked, all has to do with the same discussion. There are plenty of facts and figures available for you to look at. Here is a link to some, in case you're interested:

http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=54Many years back I was prosecuting a nuisance action against a landlord. He was black. He owned a 12-plex. Every one of his tenants were black. None listed an employer on their rental application. All had felony drug records. All paid rent in cash.

There was a normalized figure for crime calls in the area per residence. This 12-plex exceeded the norm by 400%. The calls were also of a much more serious nature being overwhelmingly calls for service involving gunshots, murder, and the like. Over the course of a 4 month period we had reliable intel that each tenant was selling drugs to support their lifestyle, and we arrested and charged tenants in four of the units for doing so.

I brought suit against the owner.

The next day the owner roared into my office with the Bishop from the local black Baptist mega-church. Racism they screamed at my Celtic face. They would have my job. They would make me a pariah. The press was downstairs with their stories already written. I was picking on the black man.

I pointed out to the Bishop, and his parishioner, that the statistics on that building were outrageously outside the norm. I pointed out to him that we had tried to work with the owner for months and had always been rebuffed. I then showed him the file with over three dozen complaints from young mothers in the neighborhood, all but three black, who were terrified to let their kids walk past that building to school, but who had little choice since the school was next door. I forced him to look at the crime scene photos of the young black child who had been shot in the head by a stray bullet from one of the apartments. I pointed out that the drug sales were disproportionally within the black community and that the owner there with him knew all of this but wished to profit by charging these dangerous felons higher rent and then burying his head in the sand as the community suffered so that he might profit.

I told the Bishop that he could scream in front of those cameras all he wanted, but that I was going to answer any questions the press had with the facts, including the fact that he seemed more interested in defending the profit of a slumlord who happened to donate to his church than of the scores of young mothers and children who were his flock, and who were the victims of the actions of the landlord's tenants. I told him I would personally write each mother who had written me to let them know that he was pressuring me with allegations of racism to drop the suit, but that I cared more for their wellbeing than the criticisms of a hypocrite in Bishop's clothing.

At that point the Bishop noticed a picture of my first wife on the office wall. She was of mixed race, primarily Filipina, but also Black, Brazilian, and Sioux. He presumed her black. At that point he apologized. He stated I could not be a racist as I was married to a black woman. I told him I could be a racist who just happened to be more misogynistic and shallow, caring more for her hotness than her race. I tossed his ### out of my office. I then went downstairs and welcomed the press to ask their questions. He ran up to the microphones and stated that he was sorry, he had invited them there mistakenly. He stated he was in support of the efforts of my Taskforce and that his church was doing all it could to forward our efforts. He told them there was a miscommunication and that this had always been his position. I retreated to my office without addressing the press and went back about my work.

Racism, and the club of allegations of racism are funny things. The eye of the beholder might not have been a wide open eye to begin with. When that club is swung it is difficult to undo the damage and to make matters right if it was swung mistakenly. What that club hits can be destroyed or damaged forever. I try not to wield that club.

I do believe there are individual racist in the world. I believe that there can be concentrations of racist in certain groups or institutions, but I generally believe that in this country, in this day and age, there is not institutional racism in government departments or agencies.

Apropos of nothing: This was a really thoughtful post. I'm not sure if I agree with the conclusions, but I like the thought that you put into it.

Your last part that I bolded I find fascinating. Maybe when I get some more free time, I'd like to have a separate thread devoted to discussing this more and fleshing it out. I don't think I agree with your conclusion that there isn't "institutionial racism," but I'm not even sure how I would define that expression, much less how you would define it, so it is hard to "disagree" with it. I think that statistics show a sorry state of affairs. Does it matter whether those sorry state of affairs are a result of "racism" or just a product of social evolution.

For example, I've read that Ferguson, where close to 70% of the population (I think I read 67%) is black, only has 3 out of 50 officers who are black (6%). If we assume those statistics are correct, then it strikes my (non-expert) perception as problematic. I'd guess that criminologists would say that this is a recipe for disaster, but frankly that would just be a guess. But more importantly to your point: is that an example of "institutional racism"? There are a number of situations where "statistics" would show that blacks, by percentage, are worse of than whites (just guessing here: incarceration rate, unwed mothers, graduation rate, arrest rate, income, etc. etc.). I think it would be an interesting debate/discussion to examine whether these things were a result of "racism" or some other social construct (let's go ahead and put "innate abilities" on the table).

Anyway, I don't think that discussin is appropriate here, and don't really have the time now to start a thread devoted to this issue. But if anyone wants to take it from here, I'd be happy to contribute.

 

[Sweet J]

With handguns, not much. With shotguns, quite a bit. I'm a pretty decent shot with my Beretta 12 gauge vs clays in both sporting clays and trap shooting, but I'll defer to you on anything handgun related. I'm trying to put the pieces together of what we think we know with this apparent audio tape. What are your thoughts on it?

Haven't paid attention to the audio because, frankly, at this point it's all noise. I'm tapping out until the dust settles.

I hear ya. I enjoy shooting clays as well on occasion. Shotguns w/ Birdshot against clay on predictable trajectory =/= pistol round on randomly moving live "target". The short barrel makes for wildly inaccurate shots. I think the numbers i quoted yesterday were that an aim 3 degrees off axis will result in missing your intended target by 2 feet at 30' distance (don't have in front of me right now).

Handguns are notoriously inaccurate. Center mass on a paper target at 30ft/10yds is pretty easy for anyone with reasonable training. Center mass on a living, breathing, moving target during an adrenaline-soaked encounter is not easy... at all.

The hit rate of 18% in police gunfights quoted above does NOT surprise me. Now factor in that the officer was reportedly in fear for his life (be it the suspect trying to overpower him and take his weapon, suspect striking him, whatever) and I don't blame the officer for firing 8-10 rounds. Perfectly acceptable if the above holds true.

When I was 22, I used to train with a guy from Pender County (deep-country) North Carolina. He grew up shooting, used to tell stories about coming home from school and then going out to shoot something (usually squirrel) for dinner. Great guy. After we worked out, we would go for a run past deserted hills outside of Wilminton. I'd ask him a lot about shooting. I was fascinated, as I had never shot a gun before. One day he brought a pistol with him on our run. Little thing that he could fit in his pocket, I think he said it was a .25 caliber. We found a decent place near some water and I aimed for a tree trunk maybe 30 feet out, and I didn't come NEAR it. Then picked a closer tree and nothing, and then yet closer. It was embarrassing how hard it was to hit a target not 15 feet away from me. And I was standing still, no rush, probably using two hands. I can't imagine if I was in a situation like that. 30 feet away in a tense situation? Forget about it.

 

[[icon]]

When I was 22, I used to train with a guy from Pender County (deep-country) North Carolina. He grew up shooting, used to tell stories about coming home from school and then going out to shoot something (usually squirrel) for dinner. Great guy. After we worked out, we would go for a run past deserted hills outside of Wilminton. I'd ask him a lot about shooting. I was fascinated, as I had never shot a gun before. One day he brought a pistol with him on our run. Little thing that he could fit in his pocket, I think he said it was a .25 caliber. We found a decent place near some water and I aimed for a tree trunk maybe 30 feet out, and I didn't come NEAR it. Then picked a closer tree and nothing, and then yet closer. It was embarrassing how hard it was to hit a target not 15 feet away from me. And I was standing still, no rush, probably using two hands. I can't imagine if I was in a situation like that. 30 feet away in a tense situation? Forget about it.

Yeah it's surprising how hard it is to shoot accurately with a handgun. That's why I get a little frustrated in here when I hear folks who don't understand that making comments about stuff that's just silly. I don't fault folks for not being experienced or knowledgeable, but It gets my hackles up when they try to speak as if they know what they're talking about.

 

[Fennis]

All this police news has me a bit concerned about the ex-wife. She starts the police academy in norman OK in 2 weeks. How she passed the psych eval and why they would ever let her have a gun is beyond me.

I can't believe a woman wouldn't stay married to you. How could she let you go?

 

[Greggity]

All this police news has me a bit concerned about the ex-wife. She starts the police academy in norman OK in 2 weeks. How she passed the psych eval and why they would ever let her have a gun is beyond me.

I can't believe a woman wouldn't stay married to you. How could she let you go?

Craziness right?

 

[timschochet]

When I was 22, I used to train with a guy from Pender County (deep-country) North Carolina. He grew up shooting, used to tell stories about coming home from school and then going out to shoot something (usually squirrel) for dinner. Great guy. After we worked out, we would go for a run past deserted hills outside of Wilminton. I'd ask him a lot about shooting. I was fascinated, as I had never shot a gun before. One day he brought a pistol with him on our run. Little thing that he could fit in his pocket, I think he said it was a .25 caliber. We found a decent place near some water and I aimed for a tree trunk maybe 30 feet out, and I didn't come NEAR it. Then picked a closer tree and nothing, and then yet closer. It was embarrassing how hard it was to hit a target not 15 feet away from me. And I was standing still, no rush, probably using two hands. I can't imagine if I was in a situation like that. 30 feet away in a tense situation? Forget about it.

Yeah it's surprising how hard it is to shoot accurately with a handgun. That's why I get a little frustrated in here when I hear folks who don't understand that making comments about stuff that's just silly. I don't fault folks for not being experienced or knowledgeable, but It gets my hackles up when they try to speak as if they know what they're talking about.

I don't doubt that any of this is true. But Officer Wilson was very accurate with his handgun in this instance; that's also true. 5 of his bullets hit Brown, two in the head. And he kept firing.

 

[msommer]

When I was 22, I used to train with a guy from Pender County (deep-country) North Carolina. He grew up shooting, used to tell stories about coming home from school and then going out to shoot something (usually squirrel) for dinner. Great guy. After we worked out, we would go for a run past deserted hills outside of Wilminton. I'd ask him a lot about shooting. I was fascinated, as I had never shot a gun before. One day he brought a pistol with him on our run. Little thing that he could fit in his pocket, I think he said it was a .25 caliber. We found a decent place near some water and I aimed for a tree trunk maybe 30 feet out, and I didn't come NEAR it. Then picked a closer tree and nothing, and then yet closer. It was embarrassing how hard it was to hit a target not 15 feet away from me. And I was standing still, no rush, probably using two hands. I can't imagine if I was in a situation like that. 30 feet away in a tense situation? Forget about it.

Yeah it's surprising how hard it is to shoot accurately with a handgun. That's why I get a little frustrated in here when I hear folks who don't understand that making comments about stuff that's just silly. I don't fault folks for not being experienced or knowledgeable, but It gets my hackles up when they try to speak as if they know what they're talking about.

I don't doubt that any of this is true. But Officer Wilson was very accurate with his handgun in this instance; that's also true. 5 of his bullets hit Brown, two in the head. And he kept firing.

Grassy knoll?

(The second autopsy said six bullets hit...)

 

[lod01]

When I was 22, I used to train with a guy from Pender County (deep-country) North Carolina. He grew up shooting, used to tell stories about coming home from school and then going out to shoot something (usually squirrel) for dinner. Great guy. After we worked out, we would go for a run past deserted hills outside of Wilminton. I'd ask him a lot about shooting. I was fascinated, as I had never shot a gun before. One day he brought a pistol with him on our run. Little thing that he could fit in his pocket, I think he said it was a .25 caliber. We found a decent place near some water and I aimed for a tree trunk maybe 30 feet out, and I didn't come NEAR it. Then picked a closer tree and nothing, and then yet closer. It was embarrassing how hard it was to hit a target not 15 feet away from me. And I was standing still, no rush, probably using two hands. I can't imagine if I was in a situation like that. 30 feet away in a tense situation? Forget about it.

Yeah it's surprising how hard it is to shoot accurately with a handgun. That's why I get a little frustrated in here when I hear folks who don't understand that making comments about stuff that's just silly. I don't fault folks for not being experienced or knowledgeable, but It gets my hackles up when they try to speak as if they know what they're talking about.

I don't doubt that any of this is true. But Officer Wilson was very accurate with his handgun in this instance; that's also true. 5 of his bullets hit Brown, two in the head. And he kept firing.

It's easy to hit your target when it is coming at you and only 3 feet away or so.

 

[timschochet]

When I was 22, I used to train with a guy from Pender County (deep-country) North Carolina. He grew up shooting, used to tell stories about coming home from school and then going out to shoot something (usually squirrel) for dinner. Great guy. After we worked out, we would go for a run past deserted hills outside of Wilminton. I'd ask him a lot about shooting. I was fascinated, as I had never shot a gun before. One day he brought a pistol with him on our run. Little thing that he could fit in his pocket, I think he said it was a .25 caliber. We found a decent place near some water and I aimed for a tree trunk maybe 30 feet out, and I didn't come NEAR it. Then picked a closer tree and nothing, and then yet closer. It was embarrassing how hard it was to hit a target not 15 feet away from me. And I was standing still, no rush, probably using two hands. I can't imagine if I was in a situation like that. 30 feet away in a tense situation? Forget about it.

Yeah it's surprising how hard it is to shoot accurately with a handgun. That's why I get a little frustrated in here when I hear folks who don't understand that making comments about stuff that's just silly. I don't fault folks for not being experienced or knowledgeable, but It gets my hackles up when they try to speak as if they know what they're talking about.

I don't doubt that any of this is true. But Officer Wilson was very accurate with his handgun in this instance; that's also true. 5 of his bullets hit Brown, two in the head. And he kept firing.

It's easy to hit your target when it is coming at you and only 3 feet away or so.

3 feet??If you can prove that, then I'm with you all the way.

 

[tom22406]

CNN playing what's supposed to be an audio recording of the shooting

Sounded like 10 or 11 shots with a pause after about 5 or 6 shots

how many bullets does a hand gun carry

A Glock 17 has 17 standard. Interestingly a Glock 19 has 15..

So no need to reload to shoot 10 or 11 times in some hand guns at least.

here it is

What's up with the other audio in this saying you're so fine?

It does sound like he was recording an online sex chat session, doesn't it?

I was waiting for it to say press 1 if you like anal,press 2 if you want a threesome.

 

[Henry Ford]

CNN playing what's supposed to be an audio recording of the shooting

Sounded like 10 or 11 shots with a pause after about 5 or 6 shots

how many bullets does a hand gun carry

A Glock 17 has 17 standard. Interestingly a Glock 19 has 15..

So no need to reload to shoot 10 or 11 times in some hand guns at least.

here it is

What's up with the other audio in this saying you're so fine?

It does sound like he was recording an online sex chat session, doesn't it?

I was waiting for it to say press 1 if you like anal,press 2 if you want a threesome.

I like how the bullets didn't phase him.

 

[Guest]

When I was 22, I used to train with a guy from Pender County (deep-country) North Carolina. He grew up shooting, used to tell stories about coming home from school and then going out to shoot something (usually squirrel) for dinner. Great guy. After we worked out, we would go for a run past deserted hills outside of Wilminton. I'd ask him a lot about shooting. I was fascinated, as I had never shot a gun before. One day he brought a pistol with him on our run. Little thing that he could fit in his pocket, I think he said it was a .25 caliber. We found a decent place near some water and I aimed for a tree trunk maybe 30 feet out, and I didn't come NEAR it. Then picked a closer tree and nothing, and then yet closer. It was embarrassing how hard it was to hit a target not 15 feet away from me. And I was standing still, no rush, probably using two hands. I can't imagine if I was in a situation like that. 30 feet away in a tense situation? Forget about it.

Yeah it's surprising how hard it is to shoot accurately with a handgun. That's why I get a little frustrated in here when I hear folks who don't understand that making comments about stuff that's just silly. I don't fault folks for not being experienced or knowledgeable, but It gets my hackles up when they try to speak as if they know what they're talking about.

I don't doubt that any of this is true. But Officer Wilson was very accurate with his handgun in this instance; that's also true. 5 of his bullets hit Brown, two in the head. And he kept firing.

He kept firing after the 2 head shots?

 

[avoiding injuries]

When I was 22, I used to train with a guy from Pender County (deep-country) North Carolina. He grew up shooting, used to tell stories about coming home from school and then going out to shoot something (usually squirrel) for dinner. Great guy. After we worked out, we would go for a run past deserted hills outside of Wilminton. I'd ask him a lot about shooting. I was fascinated, as I had never shot a gun before. One day he brought a pistol with him on our run. Little thing that he could fit in his pocket, I think he said it was a .25 caliber. We found a decent place near some water and I aimed for a tree trunk maybe 30 feet out, and I didn't come NEAR it. Then picked a closer tree and nothing, and then yet closer. It was embarrassing how hard it was to hit a target not 15 feet away from me. And I was standing still, no rush, probably using two hands. I can't imagine if I was in a situation like that. 30 feet away in a tense situation? Forget about it.

Yeah it's surprising how hard it is to shoot accurately with a handgun. That's why I get a little frustrated in here when I hear folks who don't understand that making comments about stuff that's just silly. I don't fault folks for not being experienced or knowledgeable, but It gets my hackles up when they try to speak as if they know what they're talking about.

I don't doubt that any of this is true. But Officer Wilson was very accurate with his handgun in this instance; that's also true. 5 of his bullets hit Brown, two in the head. And he kept firing.

He kept firing after the 2 head shots?

Picture yourself in the wilderness and a bear is coming at you (it doesn't have to be a black bear in case that offends anyone) and you have a handgun. If you are legitimately in fear, I don't think you stop firing until you are absolutely sure the threat is over. Even though very little facts are available, people are talking like the officer was in the middle of a training exercise.

 

[[icon]]

When I was 22, I used to train with a guy from Pender County (deep-country) North Carolina. He grew up shooting, used to tell stories about coming home from school and then going out to shoot something (usually squirrel) for dinner. Great guy. After we worked out, we would go for a run past deserted hills outside of Wilminton. I'd ask him a lot about shooting. I was fascinated, as I had never shot a gun before. One day he brought a pistol with him on our run. Little thing that he could fit in his pocket, I think he said it was a .25 caliber. We found a decent place near some water and I aimed for a tree trunk maybe 30 feet out, and I didn't come NEAR it. Then picked a closer tree and nothing, and then yet closer. It was embarrassing how hard it was to hit a target not 15 feet away from me. And I was standing still, no rush, probably using two hands. I can't imagine if I was in a situation like that. 30 feet away in a tense situation? Forget about it.

Yeah it's surprising how hard it is to shoot accurately with a handgun. That's why I get a little frustrated in here when I hear folks who don't understand that making comments about stuff that's just silly. I don't fault folks for not being experienced or knowledgeable, but It gets my hackles up when they try to speak as if they know what they're talking about.

I don't doubt that any of this is true. But Officer Wilson was very accurate with his handgun in this instance; that's also true. 5 of his bullets hit Brown, two in the head. And he kept firing.

Interesting... you've seen a report that the first 5 bullets hit brown and then he continued firing?

Could you provide a link that outlined the number of rounds and which hit where? I must have missed that.

 

[timschochet]

When I was 22, I used to train with a guy from Pender County (deep-country) North Carolina. He grew up shooting, used to tell stories about coming home from school and then going out to shoot something (usually squirrel) for dinner. Great guy. After we worked out, we would go for a run past deserted hills outside of Wilminton. I'd ask him a lot about shooting. I was fascinated, as I had never shot a gun before. One day he brought a pistol with him on our run. Little thing that he could fit in his pocket, I think he said it was a .25 caliber. We found a decent place near some water and I aimed for a tree trunk maybe 30 feet out, and I didn't come NEAR it. Then picked a closer tree and nothing, and then yet closer. It was embarrassing how hard it was to hit a target not 15 feet away from me. And I was standing still, no rush, probably using two hands. I can't imagine if I was in a situation like that. 30 feet away in a tense situation? Forget about it.

Yeah it's surprising how hard it is to shoot accurately with a handgun. That's why I get a little frustrated in here when I hear folks who don't understand that making comments about stuff that's just silly. I don't fault folks for not being experienced or knowledgeable, but It gets my hackles up when they try to speak as if they know what they're talking about.

I don't doubt that any of this is true. But Officer Wilson was very accurate with his handgun in this instance; that's also true. 5 of his bullets hit Brown, two in the head. And he kept firing.

Interesting... you've seen a report that the first 5 bullets hit brown and then he continued firing?

Could you provide a link that outlined the number of rounds and which hit where? I must have missed that.

I didn't mean that he kept firing after the first 5 bullets. I meant that after each bullet hit, he kept firing.

 

[[icon]]

When I was 22, I used to train with a guy from Pender County (deep-country) North Carolina. He grew up shooting, used to tell stories about coming home from school and then going out to shoot something (usually squirrel) for dinner. Great guy. After we worked out, we would go for a run past deserted hills outside of Wilminton. I'd ask him a lot about shooting. I was fascinated, as I had never shot a gun before. One day he brought a pistol with him on our run. Little thing that he could fit in his pocket, I think he said it was a .25 caliber. We found a decent place near some water and I aimed for a tree trunk maybe 30 feet out, and I didn't come NEAR it. Then picked a closer tree and nothing, and then yet closer. It was embarrassing how hard it was to hit a target not 15 feet away from me. And I was standing still, no rush, probably using two hands. I can't imagine if I was in a situation like that. 30 feet away in a tense situation? Forget about it.

Yeah it's surprising how hard it is to shoot accurately with a handgun. That's why I get a little frustrated in here when I hear folks who don't understand that making comments about stuff that's just silly. I don't fault folks for not being experienced or knowledgeable, but It gets my hackles up when they try to speak as if they know what they're talking about.

I don't doubt that any of this is true. But Officer Wilson was very accurate with his handgun in this instance; that's also true. 5 of his bullets hit Brown, two in the head. And he kept firing.

Interesting... you've seen a report that the first 5 bullets hit brown and then he continued firing?

Could you provide a link that outlined the number of rounds and which hit where? I must have missed that.

I didn't mean that he kept firing after the first 5 bullets. I meant that after each bullet hit, he kept firing.

Clarify the bold then... you seem to imply he hit him all those times but kept firing. I've missed the evidence that he fired any more times than was necessary.

 

[timschochet]

To me the key to this incident is the distance between the two. I would think that sometime in the next several weeks, we will learn the following:

A. The distance between Wilson and Brown can never be determined on a factual basis, and we have to rely on witnesses. This is probably the most likely result. If this this is the case, then I have the feeling that Wilson is probably guilty of murder, but it is nothing more than a feeling, nothing that can be proved, because there are conflicting statements by the witnesses and at least one, possibly more, are unreliable. Therefore I am against indicting Wilson and if he is indicted, I would have to vote not guilty based on what we know, which is not enough. Too much reasonable doubt.

B. The distance between Wilson and Brown is scientifically proven to be at least 20 feet, possibly more. If this is the case then I think Wilson can be found guilty 0f murder and I think he should be indicted, and I would likely vote guilty. The suggestion that Brown charged him from that distance is improbable to me; it is not in my mind a reasonable doubt, unless the defense could somehow prove that it happened. I don't think they can.

C. The distance between Wilson and Brown is scientifically proven to be less than 20 feet, possibly even closer, etc. In this event I would reverse my position and say that it's very possible that Wilson considered Brown a threat and shot him in self-defense. Wilson should not be tried, and he should be allowed to return to his duties.

 

[timschochet]

When I was 22, I used to train with a guy from Pender County (deep-country) North Carolina. He grew up shooting, used to tell stories about coming home from school and then going out to shoot something (usually squirrel) for dinner. Great guy. After we worked out, we would go for a run past deserted hills outside of Wilminton. I'd ask him a lot about shooting. I was fascinated, as I had never shot a gun before. One day he brought a pistol with him on our run. Little thing that he could fit in his pocket, I think he said it was a .25 caliber. We found a decent place near some water and I aimed for a tree trunk maybe 30 feet out, and I didn't come NEAR it. Then picked a closer tree and nothing, and then yet closer. It was embarrassing how hard it was to hit a target not 15 feet away from me. And I was standing still, no rush, probably using two hands. I can't imagine if I was in a situation like that. 30 feet away in a tense situation? Forget about it.

Yeah it's surprising how hard it is to shoot accurately with a handgun. That's why I get a little frustrated in here when I hear folks who don't understand that making comments about stuff that's just silly. I don't fault folks for not being experienced or knowledgeable, but It gets my hackles up when they try to speak as if they know what they're talking about.

I don't doubt that any of this is true. But Officer Wilson was very accurate with his handgun in this instance; that's also true. 5 of his bullets hit Brown, two in the head. And he kept firing.

Interesting... you've seen a report that the first 5 bullets hit brown and then he continued firing?

Could you provide a link that outlined the number of rounds and which hit where? I must have missed that.

I didn't mean that he kept firing after the first 5 bullets. I meant that after each bullet hit, he kept firing.

Clarify the bold then... you seem to imply he hit him all those times but kept firing. I've missed the evidence that he fired any more times than was necessary.

There is none. I'm going by the assumptions that there was reasonable distance (at least 20 feet or more between the two, and Brown didn't charge. If both statements are true, then NONE of the bullets were necessary.

 

[[icon]]

There is none. I'm going by the assumptions that there was reasonable distance (at least 20 feet or more between the two, and Brown didn't charge. If both statements are true, then NONE of the bullets were necessary.

You're taking cluelesstim™ shtick to new heights in this thread. Props.

 

[avoiding injuries]

When I was 22, I used to train with a guy from Pender County (deep-country) North Carolina. He grew up shooting, used to tell stories about coming home from school and then going out to shoot something (usually squirrel) for dinner. Great guy. After we worked out, we would go for a run past deserted hills outside of Wilminton. I'd ask him a lot about shooting. I was fascinated, as I had never shot a gun before. One day he brought a pistol with him on our run. Little thing that he could fit in his pocket, I think he said it was a .25 caliber. We found a decent place near some water and I aimed for a tree trunk maybe 30 feet out, and I didn't come NEAR it. Then picked a closer tree and nothing, and then yet closer. It was embarrassing how hard it was to hit a target not 15 feet away from me. And I was standing still, no rush, probably using two hands. I can't imagine if I was in a situation like that. 30 feet away in a tense situation? Forget about it.

Yeah it's surprising how hard it is to shoot accurately with a handgun. That's why I get a little frustrated in here when I hear folks who don't understand that making comments about stuff that's just silly. I don't fault folks for not being experienced or knowledgeable, but It gets my hackles up when they try to speak as if they know what they're talking about.

I don't doubt that any of this is true. But Officer Wilson was very accurate with his handgun in this instance; that's also true. 5 of his bullets hit Brown, two in the head. And he kept firing.

Interesting... you've seen a report that the first 5 bullets hit brown and then he continued firing?

Could you provide a link that outlined the number of rounds and which hit where? I must have missed that.

I didn't mean that he kept firing after the first 5 bullets. I meant that after each bullet hit, he kept firing.

Clarify the bold then... you seem to imply he hit him all those times but kept firing. I've missed the evidence that he fired any more times than was necessary.

There is none. I'm going by the assumptions that there was reasonable distance (at least 20 feet or more between the two, and Brown didn't charge. If both statements are true, then NONE of the bullets were necessary.

It's funny, because the scenario you describe is the one that I first remember hearing. Since then, I didn't think any reasonable person continued to believe that.

 

[timschochet]

So now it's clueless to believe that Brown didn't charge into a guy pointing a gun at him and firing at him? Now all reasonable people believe that he charged into bullets? And it's clueless to believe that they were 20-30 feet apart?

When did this stuff become the "reasonable" conclusion?? Do you guys have anything to back this up?

 

[jonessed]

So now it's clueless to believe that Brown didn't charge into a guy pointing a gun at him and firing at him? Now all reasonable people believe that he charged into bullets? And it's clueless to believe that they were 20-30 feet apart?

When did this stuff become the "reasonable" conclusion?? Do you guys have anything to back this up?

There are no reasonable conclusions with regard to what transpired. Everybody is just guessing and/or picking and choosing which series of possible outcomes suits their general predisposition to the world.

That made some sense when lots of information, both accurate and inaccurate, was coming out. Now it's all just political posturing and potshots. Nobody is going to prove anything. You are just rearranging the same deck chairs.

 

[Fennis]

So now it's clueless to believe that Brown didn't charge into a guy pointing a gun at him and firing at him? Now all reasonable people believe that he charged into bullets? And it's clueless to believe that they were 20-30 feet apart?

When did this stuff become the "reasonable" conclusion?? Do you guys have anything to back this up?

There are no reasonable conclusions with regard to what transpired. Everybody is just guessing and/or picking and choosing which series of possible outcomes suits their general predisposition to the world.

That made some sense when lots of information, both accurate and inaccurate, was coming out. Now it's all just political posturing and potshots. Nobody is going to prove anything. You are just rearranging the same deck chairs.

"rearranging cigars in the humidor"

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

There is none. I'm going by the assumptions that there was reasonable distance (at least 20 feet or more between the two, and Brown didn't charge. If both statements are true, then NONE of the bullets were necessary.

Ok, what are some of the other assumptions you are considering?

 

[Christo]

There is none. I'm going by the assumptions that there was reasonable distance (at least 20 feet or more between the two, and Brown didn't charge. If both statements are true, then NONE of the bullets were necessary.

Ok, what are some of the other assumptions you are considering?

The ones that fit his theory

 

[lod01]

Black cop kills unarmed white 20 year old. I reported this earlier, destroying Tim's claim in the process. At the time it wasn't known that the officer was black. No rioting, no looting.

http://www.wnd.com/2014/08/black-cop-kills-white-man-media-hide-race/

 

[TobiasFunke]

Black cop kills unarmed white 20 year old. I reported this earlier, destroying Tim's claim in the process. At the time it wasn't known that the officer was black. No rioting, no looting.

http://www.wnd.com/2014/08/black-cop-kills-white-man-media-hide-race/

Of course there was no rioting or looting! We white people save that kind of behavior for truly important events, like economic summits, or when our hockey teams lose Game 7 of the Stanley Cup Finals, or if there's mediocre waves at a surfing competition.

 

[mcintyre1]

So he hit 6 out of 17 shots? For a 300 pound man, that was standing right in front of him, ready to attack?

Not a very good shot, imo. Bystanders were probably in danger with this man discharging his weapon.

Or he gave quite a few warning shots. No cop is that bad of a shot of such a big target only ~30 feet away.

You want to bet?

According to a 2008 RAND Corporation study evaluating the New York Police Department’s firearm training, between 1998 and 2006, the average hit rate during gunfights was just 18 percent. When suspects did not return fire, police officers hit their targets 30 percent of the time.

http://nation.time.com/2013/09/16/ready-fire-aim-the-science-behind-police-shooting-bystanders/

It should be noted that this study was specifically on the NYPD, which uses a much heavier 12lb trigger pull on all of their service pistols, resulting in noticeably decreased accuracy per gun enthusiasts.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

CNN playing what's supposed to be an audio recording of the shooting

Sounded like 10 or 11 shots with a pause after about 5 or 6 shots

how many bullets does a hand gun carry

Love these "experts" weighing in on how weapons should be used.

??????? Who`s weighing in as experts? all i see are questions and relaying what people heard on tv....im guessing this is just your way of bragging that you know about guns...congrats , you are officially my FBG gun toting hero

 

[timschochet]

There is none. I'm going by the assumptions that there was reasonable distance (at least 20 feet or more between the two, and Brown didn't charge. If both statements are true, then NONE of the bullets were necessary.

Ok, what are some of the other assumptions you are considering?

None. These are the important ones. However, I think that based on what we know, they are both very reasonable assumptions. Let's look at each one:

1. The distance was at least 20 feet. This claim was made by 3 witnesses, and also inadvertently referred to by the chief of police. Against this, we have a phone call from a supposed friend of the wife that the distance was closer. Officer Wilson has not made any claim nor told his story publicly. Now I already wrote above (see post #4379) about how difficult this would be to prove, and how I could never personally convict, or even indict Wilson unless it WAS proven. But that's for a court of law. In terms of our discussion, based on what we know it's a reasonable assumption unless proven otherwise (and if you can't prove it, at least provide a good reason why I shouldn't believe this.)

2.Brown didn't charge. At the moment, the only claim we have for this is one anonymous witness and the wife's supposed friend who wasn't at the scene. It's amazing to me that so many people have taken these two statements, both of which contradict the other witnesses, and assumed that it is true. I assume the opposite. I don't care if Brown was a criminal, or crazy, or high on drugs, or all 3. It still strikes me as improbable that he would charge toward a police officer with his gun out shooting bullets at him. Now, as I wrote earlier, if you can close the distance to closer than 20 feet, then I would buy this as at least plausible. But at 20-30 feet I don't buy it as plausible. Once again, give me a good reason why I should consider this to be true and I'll consider it.

So those are my thoughts. I have no ulterior motive; I have no desire to either convict or acquit this policeman because it helps or hurts my political and cultural views (which I suspect many people here do.) If you think I am wrong. Show me proof. Lacking that, give me a good argument.

 

[StrikeS2k]

There is none. I'm going by the assumptions that there was reasonable distance (at least 20 feet or more between the two, and Brown didn't charge. If both statements are true, then NONE of the bullets were necessary.

Ok, what are some of the other assumptions you are considering?

None. These are the important ones. However, I think that based on what we know, they are both very reasonable assumptions. Let's look at each one:

1. The distance was at least 20 feet. This claim was made by 3 witnesses, and also inadvertently referred to by the chief of police. Against this, we have a phone call from a supposed friend of the wife that the distance was closer. Officer Wilson has not made any claim nor told his story publicly. Now I already wrote above (see post #4379) about how difficult this would be to prove, and how I could never personally convict, or even indict Wilson unless it WAS proven. But that's for a court of law. In terms of our discussion, based on what we know it's a reasonable assumption unless proven otherwise (and if you can't prove it, at least provide a good reason why I shouldn't believe this.)

2.Brown didn't charge. At the moment, the only claim we have for this is one anonymous witness and the wife's supposed friend who wasn't at the scene. It's amazing to me that so many people have taken these two statements, both of which contradict the other witnesses, and assumed that it is true. I assume the opposite. I don't care if Brown was a criminal, or crazy, or high on drugs, or all 3. It still strikes me as improbable that he would charge toward a police officer with his gun out shooting bullets at him. Now, as I wrote earlier, if you can close the distance to closer than 20 feet, then I would buy this as at least plausible. But at 20-30 feet I don't buy it as plausible. Once again, give me a good reason why I should consider this to be true and I'll consider it.

So those are my thoughts. I have no ulterior motive; I have no desire to either convict or acquit this policeman because it helps or hurts my political and cultural views (which I suspect many people here do.) If you think I am wrong. Show me proof. Lacking that, give me a good argument.

LIAR.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

There is none. I'm going by the assumptions that there was reasonable distance (at least 20 feet or more between the two, and Brown didn't charge. If both statements are true, then NONE of the bullets were necessary.

Ok, what are some of the other assumptions you are considering?

None. These are the important ones. However, I think that based on what we know, they are both very reasonable assumptions. Let's look at each one:

1. The distance was at least 20 feet. This claim was made by 3 witnesses, and also inadvertently referred to by the chief of police. Against this, we have a phone call from a supposed friend of the wife that the distance was closer. Officer Wilson has not made any claim nor told his story publicly. Now I already wrote above (see post #4379) about how difficult this would be to prove, and how I could never personally convict, or even indict Wilson unless it WAS proven. But that's for a court of law. In terms of our discussion, based on what we know it's a reasonable assumption unless proven otherwise (and if you can't prove it, at least provide a good reason why I shouldn't believe this.)

2.Brown didn't charge. At the moment, the only claim we have for this is one anonymous witness and the wife's supposed friend who wasn't at the scene. It's amazing to me that so many people have taken these two statements, both of which contradict the other witnesses, and assumed that it is true. I assume the opposite. I don't care if Brown was a criminal, or crazy, or high on drugs, or all 3. It still strikes me as improbable that he would charge toward a police officer with his gun out shooting bullets at him. Now, as I wrote earlier, if you can close the distance to closer than 20 feet, then I would buy this as at least plausible. But at 20-30 feet I don't buy it as plausible. Once again, give me a good reason why I should consider this to be true and I'll consider it.

So those are my thoughts. I have no ulterior motive; I have no desire to either convict or acquit this policeman because it helps or hurts my political and cultural views (which I suspect many people here do.) If you think I am wrong. Show me proof. Lacking that, give me a good argument.

Dont forget that people saw the cop pursuing Brown and shooting thus closing the gap

 

[timschochet]

Black cop kills unarmed white 20 year old. I reported this earlier, destroying Tim's claim in the process. At the time it wasn't known that the officer was black. No rioting, no looting.

http://www.wnd.com/2014/08/black-cop-kills-white-man-media-hide-race/

Anecdotal examples neither destroy nor confirm broader based arguments. Show me some real data from a reliable source which contradicts one of my arguments, and then I'll agree it's been destroyed.

 

[timschochet]

There is none. I'm going by the assumptions that there was reasonable distance (at least 20 feet or more between the two, and Brown didn't charge. If both statements are true, then NONE of the bullets were necessary.

Ok, what are some of the other assumptions you are considering?

None. These are the important ones. However, I think that based on what we know, they are both very reasonable assumptions. Let's look at each one:

1. The distance was at least 20 feet. This claim was made by 3 witnesses, and also inadvertently referred to by the chief of police. Against this, we have a phone call from a supposed friend of the wife that the distance was closer. Officer Wilson has not made any claim nor told his story publicly. Now I already wrote above (see post #4379) about how difficult this would be to prove, and how I could never personally convict, or even indict Wilson unless it WAS proven. But that's for a court of law. In terms of our discussion, based on what we know it's a reasonable assumption unless proven otherwise (and if you can't prove it, at least provide a good reason why I shouldn't believe this.)

2.Brown didn't charge. At the moment, the only claim we have for this is one anonymous witness and the wife's supposed friend who wasn't at the scene. It's amazing to me that so many people have taken these two statements, both of which contradict the other witnesses, and assumed that it is true. I assume the opposite. I don't care if Brown was a criminal, or crazy, or high on drugs, or all 3. It still strikes me as improbable that he would charge toward a police officer with his gun out shooting bullets at him. Now, as I wrote earlier, if you can close the distance to closer than 20 feet, then I would buy this as at least plausible. But at 20-30 feet I don't buy it as plausible. Once again, give me a good reason why I should consider this to be true and I'll consider it.

So those are my thoughts. I have no ulterior motive; I have no desire to either convict or acquit this policeman because it helps or hurts my political and cultural views (which I suspect many people here do.) If you think I am wrong. Show me proof. Lacking that, give me a good argument.

Dont forget that people saw the cop pursuing Brown and shooting thus closing the gap

True. But that doesn't matter. If it can be proven that there is less than 20 feet between the two when any shot is fired, it at least makes the theory of Brown charging Wilson plausible. And if the distance can never be proven, then that leaves room for reasonable doubt. Either way Wilson shouldn't be convicted under such circumstances unless there are facts we are currently unaware of. (Facts do not include supposed eyewitnesses who are in conflict with one another, or who can't be relied upon to be truthful.)

 

[timschochet]

There is none. I'm going by the assumptions that there was reasonable distance (at least 20 feet or more between the two, and Brown didn't charge. If both statements are true, then NONE of the bullets were necessary.

Ok, what are some of the other assumptions you are considering?

None. These are the important ones. However, I think that based on what we know, they are both very reasonable assumptions. Let's look at each one:

1. The distance was at least 20 feet. This claim was made by 3 witnesses, and also inadvertently referred to by the chief of police. Against this, we have a phone call from a supposed friend of the wife that the distance was closer. Officer Wilson has not made any claim nor told his story publicly. Now I already wrote above (see post #4379) about how difficult this would be to prove, and how I could never personally convict, or even indict Wilson unless it WAS proven. But that's for a court of law. In terms of our discussion, based on what we know it's a reasonable assumption unless proven otherwise (and if you can't prove it, at least provide a good reason why I shouldn't believe this.)

2.Brown didn't charge. At the moment, the only claim we have for this is one anonymous witness and the wife's supposed friend who wasn't at the scene. It's amazing to me that so many people have taken these two statements, both of which contradict the other witnesses, and assumed that it is true. I assume the opposite. I don't care if Brown was a criminal, or crazy, or high on drugs, or all 3. It still strikes me as improbable that he would charge toward a police officer with his gun out shooting bullets at him. Now, as I wrote earlier, if you can close the distance to closer than 20 feet, then I would buy this as at least plausible. But at 20-30 feet I don't buy it as plausible. Once again, give me a good reason why I should consider this to be true and I'll consider it.

So those are my thoughts. I have no ulterior motive; I have no desire to either convict or acquit this policeman because it helps or hurts my political and cultural views (which I suspect many people here do.) If you think I am wrong. Show me proof. Lacking that, give me a good argument.

LIAR.

Well you're wrong.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

There is none. I'm going by the assumptions that there was reasonable distance (at least 20 feet or more between the two, and Brown didn't charge. If both statements are true, then NONE of the bullets were necessary.

Ok, what are some of the other assumptions you are considering?

None. These are the important ones. However, I think that based on what we know, they are both very reasonable assumptions. Let's look at each one:

1. The distance was at least 20 feet. This claim was made by 3 witnesses, and also inadvertently referred to by the chief of police. Against this, we have a phone call from a supposed friend of the wife that the distance was closer. Officer Wilson has not made any claim nor told his story publicly. Now I already wrote above (see post #4379) about how difficult this would be to prove, and how I could never personally convict, or even indict Wilson unless it WAS proven. But that's for a court of law. In terms of our discussion, based on what we know it's a reasonable assumption unless proven otherwise (and if you can't prove it, at least provide a good reason why I shouldn't believe this.)

2.Brown didn't charge. At the moment, the only claim we have for this is one anonymous witness and the wife's supposed friend who wasn't at the scene. It's amazing to me that so many people have taken these two statements, both of which contradict the other witnesses, and assumed that it is true. I assume the opposite. I don't care if Brown was a criminal, or crazy, or high on drugs, or all 3. It still strikes me as improbable that he would charge toward a police officer with his gun out shooting bullets at him. Now, as I wrote earlier, if you can close the distance to closer than 20 feet, then I would buy this as at least plausible. But at 20-30 feet I don't buy it as plausible. Once again, give me a good reason why I should consider this to be true and I'll consider it.

So those are my thoughts. I have no ulterior motive; I have no desire to either convict or acquit this policeman because it helps or hurts my political and cultural views (which I suspect many people here do.) If you think I am wrong. Show me proof. Lacking that, give me a good argument.

Dont forget that people saw the cop pursuing Brown and shooting thus closing the gap

True. But that doesn't matter. If it can be proven that there is less than 20 feet between the two when any shot is fired, it at least makes the theory of Brown charging Wilson plausible. And if the distance can never be proven, then that leaves room for reasonable doubt. Either way Wilson shouldn't be convicted under such circumstances unless there are facts we are currently unaware of. (Facts do not include supposed eyewitnesses who are in conflict with one another, or who can't be relied upon to be truthful.)

i`ll be interested in if there is a blood trail at least...if he was running full speed and getting shot he would leave blood splatter at least a few feet you would imagine....and he would have hit that pavement sliding forward a bit...if he was standing still when shot it will show he fell straight down where he was standing....thats just common sense

 

[Jim11]

There is none. I'm going by the assumptions that there was reasonable distance (at least 20 feet or more between the two, and Brown didn't charge. If both statements are true, then NONE of the bullets were necessary.

Ok, what are some of the other assumptions you are considering?

None. These are the important ones. However, I think that based on what we know, they are both very reasonable assumptions. Let's look at each one:

1. The distance was at least 20 feet. This claim was made by 3 witnesses, and also inadvertently referred to by the chief of police. Against this, we have a phone call from a supposed friend of the wife that the distance was closer. Officer Wilson has not made any claim nor told his story publicly. Now I already wrote above (see post #4379) about how difficult this would be to prove, and how I could never personally convict, or even indict Wilson unless it WAS proven. But that's for a court of law. In terms of our discussion, based on what we know it's a reasonable assumption unless proven otherwise (and if you can't prove it, at least provide a good reason why I shouldn't believe this.)

2.Brown didn't charge. At the moment, the only claim we have for this is one anonymous witness and the wife's supposed friend who wasn't at the scene. It's amazing to me that so many people have taken these two statements, both of which contradict the other witnesses, and assumed that it is true. I assume the opposite. I don't care if Brown was a criminal, or crazy, or high on drugs, or all 3. It still strikes me as improbable that he would charge toward a police officer with his gun out shooting bullets at him. Now, as I wrote earlier, if you can close the distance to closer than 20 feet, then I would buy this as at least plausible. But at 20-30 feet I don't buy it as plausible. Once again, give me a good reason why I should consider this to be true and I'll consider it.

So those are my thoughts. I have no ulterior motive; I have no desire to either convict or acquit this policeman because it helps or hurts my political and cultural views (which I suspect many people here do.) If you think I am wrong. Show me proof. Lacking that, give me a good argument.

Since it's innocent until proven guilty in this country, the proof required in this matter is proof that the officer acted improperly, not proof that another of one your "brilliant deductions" is wrong. Or did Obama issue an executive order to the contrary?

 

[Fennis]

There is none. I'm going by the assumptions that there was reasonable distance (at least 20 feet or more between the two, and Brown didn't charge. If both statements are true, then NONE of the bullets were necessary.

Ok, what are some of the other assumptions you are considering?

None. These are the important ones. However, I think that based on what we know, they are both very reasonable assumptions. Let's look at each one:

1. The distance was at least 20 feet. This claim was made by 3 witnesses, and also inadvertently referred to by the chief of police. Against this, we have a phone call from a supposed friend of the wife that the distance was closer. Officer Wilson has not made any claim nor told his story publicly. Now I already wrote above (see post #4379) about how difficult this would be to prove, and how I could never personally convict, or even indict Wilson unless it WAS proven. But that's for a court of law. In terms of our discussion, based on what we know it's a reasonable assumption unless proven otherwise (and if you can't prove it, at least provide a good reason why I shouldn't believe this.)

2.Brown didn't charge. At the moment, the only claim we have for this is one anonymous witness and the wife's supposed friend who wasn't at the scene. It's amazing to me that so many people have taken these two statements, both of which contradict the other witnesses, and assumed that it is true. I assume the opposite. I don't care if Brown was a criminal, or crazy, or high on drugs, or all 3. It still strikes me as improbable that he would charge toward a police officer with his gun out shooting bullets at him. Now, as I wrote earlier, if you can close the distance to closer than 20 feet, then I would buy this as at least plausible. But at 20-30 feet I don't buy it as plausible. Once again, give me a good reason why I should consider this to be true and I'll consider it.

So those are my thoughts. I have no ulterior motive; I have no desire to either convict or acquit this policeman because it helps or hurts my political and cultural views (which I suspect many people here do.) If you think I am wrong. Show me proof. Lacking that, give me a good argument.

Since it's innocent until proven guilty in this country, the proof required in this matter is proof that the officer acted improperly, not proof that another of one your "brilliant deductions" is wrong. Or did Obama issue an executive order to the contrary?

I guess you have grounds to appeal Tim's verdict. Speaking for myself, would like you to see take this all the way to the Draft Dominator.