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

[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.

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?

You really should read what I wrote before you comment. I'm not on a jury. If I was on a jury, based on what we know, I'd vote to acquit. So no, for the purposes of this discussion forum, it is not innocent until proven guilty, because this is not a court of law. Here we are allowed to use words and phrases like "probably", and "here's what I think happened".

If it's not what YOU think happened, give me a good argument.

 

[Guest]

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

I want to hear the whole recording.

Wait, why would this guy need an attorney? He didn't do anything wrong.

 

[Da Guru]

Love my wife..I said this Ferguson thing is a mess. Her reply was..why are Ron and Sue Ferguson getting divorced??

 

[Politician Spock]

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.

It was two against one. Brown may have charged if he thought Johnson had him distracted for a moment.

There's really so many possibilities of what actually happened that any "probably" you can choose to believe in is a less than likely possibility.

 

[bryhamm]

lol. 20 feet is nothing. tim, you stand 20 feet away from me and I bet I could be on top of you in 2 strides, all while avoiding a gun aimed at me.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

lol. 20 feet is nothing. tim, you stand 20 feet away from me and I bet I could be on top of you in 2 strides, all while avoiding a gun aimed at me.

ya ok Quicksilver

 

[Courtjester]

I still can see this thing going down either way. I admit I tend to give the police officer's story a little more belief simply because of the bullet pattern on the victim. It substantiates someone shooting in a hurried panicked state--not someone coldly executing a man as the victim's family would want us to believe. And the fact all of the eyewitnesses that said he was shot in the back and "put down like an animal" have been refuted by the first autopsy, that doesn't help. However, I still believe one piece of evidence could take this either way and I withhold judgment to see it.

One of the things I have been tossing around is the idea that sure the body is 30 feet from the police vehicle, but that doesn't mean that is where the shots came from. I can honestly see a scenario where the officer is assaulted, Brown runs, officer leaves his vehicle and begins to chase the suspect--maybe firing--especially if he was hit or his gun discharged in a struggle. The victim is a big guy and not exactly an athlete, if he senses the officer closing he could easily have turned to engage again and the officer sensing a threat after being hit by a fist, car door frame (take your pick) all of a sudden finds himself way too close to this big guy and he opens up firing as he back peddles to a safer distance. This is kind of a balance of both stories--Brown not necessarily charging, but the officer feeling threatened because he is faster than this guy and was way too close to a man that may have just assaulted him. It would explain the hurried bullet pattern.

I don't know....I wish we had more answers.

 

[Sinn Fein]

I still can see this thing going down either way. I admit I tend to give the police officer's story a little more belief simply because of the bullet pattern on the victim. It substantiates someone shooting in a hurried panicked state--not someone coldly executing a man as the victim's family would want us to believe. And the fact all of the eyewitnesses that said he was shot in the back and "put down like an animal" have been refuted by the first autopsy, that doesn't help. However, I still believe one piece of evidence could take this either way and I withhold judgment to see it.

One of the things I have been tossing around is the idea that sure the body is 30 feet from the police vehicle, but that doesn't mean that is where the shots came from. I can honestly see a scenario where the officer is assaulted, Brown runs, officer leaves his vehicle and begins to chase the suspect--maybe firing--especially if he was hit or his gun discharged in a struggle. The victim is a big guy and not exactly an athlete, if he senses the officer closing he could easily have turned to engage again and the officer sensing a threat after being hit by a fist, car door frame (take your pick) all of a sudden finds himself way too close to this big guy and he opens up firing as he back peddles to a safer distance. This is kind of a balance of both stories--Brown not necessarily charging, but the officer feeling threatened because he is faster than this guy and was way too close to a man that may have just assaulted him. It would explain the hurried bullet pattern.

I don't know....I wish we had more answers.

I think the story loses a bit of credibility if you really think the officer shot at him running away. Not saying it could not have happened, I just have a hard time with that - the officer presumably would have known the autopsy would show he hit a kid in the back, if he actually hit him.

I don't know what happened - I don't really trust either version of events. Both seem to be coming from sources with inherent biases. But, I am saddened that we live in a society where apparently an initial confrontation between citizen and police officer over jaywalking, ended in the death of anyone. It seems to me that a lot of poor decisions by both parties went into the final outcome.

I wish we had communities where people did not have so much distrust of police officers. I wish all police officers were more trust worthy. (Yes I understand the impossibility of "all" but I can wish). I wish people had more respect for each other, where common curtesy ruled the day instead of a cop with a gun. I wish police departments had more funds and better training to ensure that officers can safely deal with unruly citizens (did this officer have a partner?)

:sigh:

 

[mcintyre1]

lol. 20 feet is nothing. tim, you stand 20 feet away from me and I bet I could be on top of you in 2 strides, all while avoiding a gun aimed at me.

ya ok Quicksilver

 

[mcintyre1]

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

I want to hear the whole recording.

Wait, why would this guy need an attorney? He didn't do anything wrong.

"at the time he didn't even realize the import of what he was hearing." How #### must a neighborhood be that you don't stop recording yourself dirty talking with a cam girl when you hear a dozen shots pop off outside?

 

[timschochet]

Bottom line- I don't see how the authorities can charge Wilson based on what we know. Unless the distance between them can be proven somehow, it's a waste of taxpayers money. He'll never be convicted (nor should he be).

 

[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?

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.

I don't think you understand the logical premise of assumptions. What you are doing is making conclusions.

The assumptions can be made either way:

1. Assume Brown, after struggling with the gun, and after hitting the officer, in one continuous action ran 10 yards in say 3 seconds, heard the police officer yell freeze (emerging from the car), and then ...

2.... Brown) puts his hands up, challenges the officer, doubting he will fire, and then runs at the officer.

- What then is your conclusion under that set of assumptions?

This is a pretty long thread, I've been removed from some of the recent news reports, etc., but I do think you are missing the contemporaneous video recording of the witness who said that Brown did indeed turn around at 10 yards and then started running towards Wilson.

That's some serious internal dialogue there going on at the end, Tim.

 

[Fennis]

lol. 20 feet is nothing. tim, you stand 20 feet away from me and I bet I could be on top of you in 2 strides, all while avoiding a gun aimed at me.

ya ok Quicksilver

The NRA has recreated how this could have happened.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

lol. 20 feet is nothing. tim, you stand 20 feet away from me and I bet I could be on top of you in 2 strides, all while avoiding a gun aimed at me.

ya ok Quicksilver

The NRA has recreated how this could have happened.

Remo Bryhamm

 

[rick6668]

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.

Tim, this is my first post in this thread. Did you see/hear this video?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2727321/Conversation-recorded-bystander-just-moments-Michael-Brown-shooting-casts-doubt-claims-teen-surrendered-Officer-Darren-Wilson.html#v-3736258127001

This was recorded right after the shooting.

(not my transcript)

#1 How’d he get from there to there?

#2 Because he ran, the police was still in the truck – cause he was like over the truck

{crosstalk}

#2 But him and the police was both in the truck, then he ran – the police got out and ran after him

{crosstalk}

#2 Then the next thing I know he doubled back toward him cus - the police had his gun drawn already on him –

#1. Oh, the police got his gun

#2 The police kept dumpin on him, and I’m thinking the police kept missing – he like – be like – but he kept coming toward him

{crosstalk}

#2 Police fired shots – the next thing I know – the police was missing

#1 The Police?

#2 The Police shot him

#1 Police?

#2 The next thing I know … I’m thinking … the dude started running … (garbled something about “he took it from him”)

 

[avoiding injuries]

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?

You really should read what I wrote before you comment. I'm not on a jury. If I was on a jury, based on what we know, I'd vote to acquit. So no, for the purposes of this discussion forum, it is not innocent until proven guilty, because this is not a court of law. Here we are allowed to use words and phrases like "probably", and "here's what I think happened". If it's not what YOU think happened, give me a good argument.

I noticed you didn't mention the autopsy and locations of bullet wounds. Are you waiting for the 2nd/3rd to come out?

 

[Guest]

I admit I tend to give the police officer's story a little more belief simply because of the bullet pattern on the victim.

What story? I don't think we've heard one yet.

 

[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.

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?

You really should read what I wrote before you comment. I'm not on a jury. If I was on a jury, based on what we know, I'd vote to acquit. So no, for the purposes of this discussion forum, it is not innocent until proven guilty, because this is not a court of law. Here we are allowed to use words and phrases like "probably", and "here's what I think happened". If it's not what YOU think happened, give me a good argument.

I noticed you didn't mention the autopsy and locations of bullet wounds. Are you waiting for the 2nd/3rd to come out?

I didn't mention the autopsy because I don't think it has bearing on the two assumptions that I made.

As for the other witness caught on video, I mentioned that earlier. From a legal standpoint, it makes all of the witnesses unreliable because they contradict each other. From my personal POV, I find the 3 witnesses who claim that Brown was shot at a distance and did not turn and charge Wilson to be much more credible, because I still have a lot of trouble believing that anyone would charge a policeman pointing a gun at him and firing the gun at him. No matter how much people insist that this is what happened, I just don't buy it. You're basically gonna have to prove it to me to change my mind. (If any of you care about changing my mind that is.)

 

[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?

You really should read what I wrote before you comment. I'm not on a jury. If I was on a jury, based on what we know, I'd vote to acquit. So no, for the purposes of this discussion forum, it is not innocent until proven guilty, because this is not a court of law. Here we are allowed to use words and phrases like "probably", and "here's what I think happened". If it's not what YOU think happened, give me a good argument.

I noticed you didn't mention the autopsy and locations of bullet wounds. Are you waiting for the 2nd/3rd to come out?

I didn't mention the autopsy because I don't think it has bearing on the two assumptions that I made.

As for the other witness caught on video, I mentioned that earlier. From a legal standpoint, it makes all of the witnesses unreliable because they contradict each other. From my personal POV, I find the 3 witnesses who claim that Brown was shot at a distance and did not turn and charge Wilson to be much more credible, because I still have a lot of trouble believing that anyone would charge a policeman pointing a gun at him and firing the gun at him. No matter how much people insist that this is what happened, I just don't buy it. You're basically gonna have to prove it to me to change my mind. (If any of you care about changing my mind that is.)

How do you explain that he was shot in the front if he was running away?

 

[rick6668]

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?

You really should read what I wrote before you comment. I'm not on a jury. If I was on a jury, based on what we know, I'd vote to acquit. So no, for the purposes of this discussion forum, it is not innocent until proven guilty, because this is not a court of law. Here we are allowed to use words and phrases like "probably", and "here's what I think happened". If it's not what YOU think happened, give me a good argument.

I noticed you didn't mention the autopsy and locations of bullet wounds. Are you waiting for the 2nd/3rd to come out?

I didn't mention the autopsy because I don't think it has bearing on the two assumptions that I made.

As for the other witness caught on video, I mentioned that earlier. From a legal standpoint, it makes all of the witnesses unreliable because they contradict each other. From my personal POV, I find the 3 witnesses who claim that Brown was shot at a distance and did not turn and charge Wilson to be much more credible, because I still have a lot of trouble believing that anyone would charge a policeman pointing a gun at him and firing the gun at him. No matter how much people insist that this is what happened, I just don't buy it. You're basically gonna have to prove it to me to change my mind. (If any of you care about changing my mind that is.)

Then there's no convincing you. Your mind is made up unless there is a video of the shooting. Even then I don't think you'd believe it.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

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?

You really should read what I wrote before you comment. I'm not on a jury. If I was on a jury, based on what we know, I'd vote to acquit. So no, for the purposes of this discussion forum, it is not innocent until proven guilty, because this is not a court of law. Here we are allowed to use words and phrases like "probably", and "here's what I think happened". If it's not what YOU think happened, give me a good argument.

I noticed you didn't mention the autopsy and locations of bullet wounds. Are you waiting for the 2nd/3rd to come out?

I didn't mention the autopsy because I don't think it has bearing on the two assumptions that I made.

As for the other witness caught on video, I mentioned that earlier. From a legal standpoint, it makes all of the witnesses unreliable because they contradict each other. From my personal POV, I find the 3 witnesses who claim that Brown was shot at a distance and did not turn and charge Wilson to be much more credible, because I still have a lot of trouble believing that anyone would charge a policeman pointing a gun at him and firing the gun at him. No matter how much people insist that this is what happened, I just don't buy it. You're basically gonna have to prove it to me to change my mind. (If any of you care about changing my mind that is.)

But your mind seems so satisfied right were it is, unchanged. Why should we seek to change it like you are an infant and your mind is a dirty diaper. If, however, you might want to change it yourself you could read Masood Ayoob, or the research done by the IACP, or you could study up on survival shooting, FLETC has some wonderful information, or did back in the days when I taught there. I seem to remember some good DOJ papers on survival shooting for LEO's. Now these resources would not be opining on the fact of the present discussion since there are no facts at this point, just the sparsest of already suspect eye-witness accounts, but they could give you a solid basis from which to evaluate the scenarios you and others have posited. You would have data and the benefit of expert experience when discussing distance, speed, reaction time, accuracy at the distances both relaxed and under stress. You might even find surpising statistics on the frequency with which people will indeed challenge or charge officers with drawn weapons. Your speculation would have some foundation. Some of the information would even strengthen some of your suppositions.

I have noticed many times your involvement in gun threads. I truly believe you would benefit from some fundamental education on the underlying subject matter.

BTW, you will also find information at each of those sources which may suggest the tactics and scenarios thus far proposed call the Officer's decisions in to serious doubt so some of the information could be used to bolster your unchanged mind.

 

[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.

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?

You really should read what I wrote before you comment. I'm not on a jury. If I was on a jury, based on what we know, I'd vote to acquit. So no, for the purposes of this discussion forum, it is not innocent until proven guilty, because this is not a court of law. Here we are allowed to use words and phrases like "probably", and "here's what I think happened". If it's not what YOU think happened, give me a good argument.

I noticed you didn't mention the autopsy and locations of bullet wounds. Are you waiting for the 2nd/3rd to come out?

I didn't mention the autopsy because I don't think it has bearing on the two assumptions that I made.

As for the other witness caught on video, I mentioned that earlier. From a legal standpoint, it makes all of the witnesses unreliable because they contradict each other. From my personal POV, I find the 3 witnesses who claim that Brown was shot at a distance and did not turn and charge Wilson to be much more credible, because I still have a lot of trouble believing that anyone would charge a policeman pointing a gun at him and firing the gun at him. No matter how much people insist that this is what happened, I just don't buy it. You're basically gonna have to prove it to me to change my mind. (If any of you care about changing my mind that is.)

How do you explain that he was shot in the front if he was running away?

I never said he was running away. I just wrote that I don't believe he was rushing toward Wilson.

 

[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.

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?

You really should read what I wrote before you comment. I'm not on a jury. If I was on a jury, based on what we know, I'd vote to acquit. So no, for the purposes of this discussion forum, it is not innocent until proven guilty, because this is not a court of law. Here we are allowed to use words and phrases like "probably", and "here's what I think happened". If it's not what YOU think happened, give me a good argument.

I noticed you didn't mention the autopsy and locations of bullet wounds. Are you waiting for the 2nd/3rd to come out?

I didn't mention the autopsy because I don't think it has bearing on the two assumptions that I made.

As for the other witness caught on video, I mentioned that earlier. From a legal standpoint, it makes all of the witnesses unreliable because they contradict each other. From my personal POV, I find the 3 witnesses who claim that Brown was shot at a distance and did not turn and charge Wilson to be much more credible, because I still have a lot of trouble believing that anyone would charge a policeman pointing a gun at him and firing the gun at him. No matter how much people insist that this is what happened, I just don't buy it. You're basically gonna have to prove it to me to change my mind. (If any of you care about changing my mind that is.)

Then there's no convincing you. Your mind is made up unless there is a video of the shooting. Even then I don't think you'd believe it.

No that's not true at all. If somebody can prove they were closer than 20-30 feet, or can prove that Brown was charging Wilson, either way I will change my mind.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

For me it is just one of several forms of self flagellation in which I engage. I can't speak for others.

 

[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.

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?

You really should read what I wrote before you comment. I'm not on a jury. If I was on a jury, based on what we know, I'd vote to acquit. So no, for the purposes of this discussion forum, it is not innocent until proven guilty, because this is not a court of law. Here we are allowed to use words and phrases like "probably", and "here's what I think happened". If it's not what YOU think happened, give me a good argument.

I noticed you didn't mention the autopsy and locations of bullet wounds. Are you waiting for the 2nd/3rd to come out?

I didn't mention the autopsy because I don't think it has bearing on the two assumptions that I made.

As for the other witness caught on video, I mentioned that earlier. From a legal standpoint, it makes all of the witnesses unreliable because they contradict each other. From my personal POV, I find the 3 witnesses who claim that Brown was shot at a distance and did not turn and charge Wilson to be much more credible, because I still have a lot of trouble believing that anyone would charge a policeman pointing a gun at him and firing the gun at him. No matter how much people insist that this is what happened, I just don't buy it. You're basically gonna have to prove it to me to change my mind. (If any of you care about changing my mind that is.)

But your mind seems so satisfied right were it is, unchanged. Why should we seek to change it like you are an infant and your mind is a dirty diaper. If, however, you might want to change it yourself you could read Masood Ayoob, or the research done by the IACP, or you could study up on survival shooting, FLETC has some wonderful information, or did back in the days when I taught there. I seem to remember some good DOJ papers on survival shooting for LEO's. Now these resources would not be opining on the fact of the present discussion since there are no facts at this point, just the sparsest of already suspect eye-witness accounts, but they could give you a solid basis from which to evaluate the scenarios you and others have posited. You would have data and the benefit of expert experience when discussing distance, speed, reaction time, accuracy at the distances both relaxed and under stress. You might even find surpising statistics on the frequency with which people will indeed challenge or charge officers with drawn weapons. Your speculation would have some foundation. Some of the information would even strengthen some of your suppositions.

I have noticed many times your involvement in gun threads. I truly believe you would benefit from some fundamental education on the underlying subject matter.

BTW, you will also find information at each of those sources which may suggest the tactics and scenarios thus far proposed call the Officer's decisions in to serious doubt so some of the information could be used to bolster your unchanged mind.

First off, the bolded is rather tasteless and rude, and unlike you.

Second, the information you want to me absorb deals with possibilities. I already have no trouble accepting the possibility that Wilson is blameless, which is why I've already posted on numerous occasions that unless more facts come along, he should neither be indicted nor found guilty of a crime. If Wilson is indicted right now it will be a sham, based on political pressure and not on the facts, which would be a terrible occurrence.

But in this thread I am discussing probabilities. I find it improbable that Brown would charge Wilson, as I've stated. I doubt that any of your info would make that more probable in my mind, but I'll look at it anyhow. I always do.

Finally, with regard to gun control, as I've wrote you already convinced me in the past of many of your arguments. The only one I still hold out for is removing the private sales loophole. And on that particular issue, I've read an awful lot.

 

[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.

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?

You really should read what I wrote before you comment. I'm not on a jury. If I was on a jury, based on what we know, I'd vote to acquit. So no, for the purposes of this discussion forum, it is not innocent until proven guilty, because this is not a court of law. Here we are allowed to use words and phrases like "probably", and "here's what I think happened". If it's not what YOU think happened, give me a good argument.

I noticed you didn't mention the autopsy and locations of bullet wounds. Are you waiting for the 2nd/3rd to come out?

I didn't mention the autopsy because I don't think it has bearing on the two assumptions that I made.

As for the other witness caught on video, I mentioned that earlier. From a legal standpoint, it makes all of the witnesses unreliable because they contradict each other. From my personal POV, I find the 3 witnesses who claim that Brown was shot at a distance and did not turn and charge Wilson to be much more credible, because I still have a lot of trouble believing that anyone would charge a policeman pointing a gun at him and firing the gun at him. No matter how much people insist that this is what happened, I just don't buy it. You're basically gonna have to prove it to me to change my mind. (If any of you care about changing my mind that is.)

But your mind seems so satisfied right were it is, unchanged. Why should we seek to change it like you are an infant and your mind is a dirty diaper. If, however, you might want to change it yourself you could read Masood Ayoob, or the research done by the IACP, or you could study up on survival shooting, FLETC has some wonderful information, or did back in the days when I taught there. I seem to remember some good DOJ papers on survival shooting for LEO's. Now these resources would not be opining on the fact of the present discussion since there are no facts at this point, just the sparsest of already suspect eye-witness accounts, but they could give you a solid basis from which to evaluate the scenarios you and others have posited. You would have data and the benefit of expert experience when discussing distance, speed, reaction time, accuracy at the distances both relaxed and under stress. You might even find surpising statistics on the frequency with which people will indeed challenge or charge officers with drawn weapons. Your speculation would have some foundation. Some of the information would even strengthen some of your suppositions.

I have noticed many times your involvement in gun threads. I truly believe you would benefit from some fundamental education on the underlying subject matter.

BTW, you will also find information at each of those sources which may suggest the tactics and scenarios thus far proposed call the Officer's decisions in to serious doubt so some of the information could be used to bolster your unchanged mind.

Long time lurker, first time poster. Why are we pretending that Tim has a reasonable mind that can be changed with facts on matters that he's resolute about like guns, immigration, and race?

Because this is a specific issue based on facts. If I have my facts wrong, then I will absolutely change my mind. I'm certainly not resolute about guns either; I have changed my mind considerably on that issue. But the other two issues you named, immigration and race, are more subjects of political philosophy, so it's going to be harder to convince me that I am wrong about those, though anything's possible.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

http://www.apcj.org/documents/2_1_eyewitness.pdf

Some interesting opinions on eyewitness estimation of distance are summarized. Nothing definitive, but perhaps informative.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

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?

You really should read what I wrote before you comment. I'm not on a jury. If I was on a jury, based on what we know, I'd vote to acquit. So no, for the purposes of this discussion forum, it is not innocent until proven guilty, because this is not a court of law. Here we are allowed to use words and phrases like "probably", and "here's what I think happened". If it's not what YOU think happened, give me a good argument.

I noticed you didn't mention the autopsy and locations of bullet wounds. Are you waiting for the 2nd/3rd to come out?

I didn't mention the autopsy because I don't think it has bearing on the two assumptions that I made.

As for the other witness caught on video, I mentioned that earlier. From a legal standpoint, it makes all of the witnesses unreliable because they contradict each other. From my personal POV, I find the 3 witnesses who claim that Brown was shot at a distance and did not turn and charge Wilson to be much more credible, because I still have a lot of trouble believing that anyone would charge a policeman pointing a gun at him and firing the gun at him. No matter how much people insist that this is what happened, I just don't buy it. You're basically gonna have to prove it to me to change my mind. (If any of you care about changing my mind that is.)

But your mind seems so satisfied right were it is, unchanged. Why should we seek to change it like you are an infant and your mind is a dirty diaper. If, however, you might want to change it yourself you could read Masood Ayoob, or the research done by the IACP, or you could study up on survival shooting, FLETC has some wonderful information, or did back in the days when I taught there. I seem to remember some good DOJ papers on survival shooting for LEO's. Now these resources would not be opining on the fact of the present discussion since there are no facts at this point, just the sparsest of already suspect eye-witness accounts, but they could give you a solid basis from which to evaluate the scenarios you and others have posited. You would have data and the benefit of expert experience when discussing distance, speed, reaction time, accuracy at the distances both relaxed and under stress. You might even find surpising statistics on the frequency with which people will indeed challenge or charge officers with drawn weapons. Your speculation would have some foundation. Some of the information would even strengthen some of your suppositions.

I have noticed many times your involvement in gun threads. I truly believe you would benefit from some fundamental education on the underlying subject matter.

BTW, you will also find information at each of those sources which may suggest the tactics and scenarios thus far proposed call the Officer's decisions in to serious doubt so some of the information could be used to bolster your unchanged mind.

First off, the bolded is rather tasteless and rude, and unlike you.

Second, the information you want to me absorb deals with possibilities. I already have no trouble accepting the possibility that Wilson is blameless, which is why I've already posted on numerous occasions that unless more facts come along, he should neither be indicted nor found guilty of a crime. If Wilson is indicted right now it will be a sham, based on political pressure and not on the facts, which would be a terrible occurrence.

But in this thread I am discussing probabilities. I find it improbable that Brown would charge Wilson, as I've stated. I doubt that any of your info would make that more probable in my mind, but I'll look at it anyhow. I always do.

Finally, with regard to gun control, as I've wrote you already convinced me in the past of many of your arguments. The only one I still hold out for is removing the private sales loophole. And on that particular issue, I've read an awful lot.

Sometimes I can be quite tasteless and rude, just check out my warning points. I think half are for tasteless, and the other half for rude. You are right though, there was no reason to go there other than the pun possibilities on changing sprang to my mind, and like a three year old with no self control I just had to go there. I apologize for any offense caused. Adding needless acrimony is something I strive to avoid. Consider me diminished by my behavior.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Sometimes I forget the whetstone may not appreciate the sharpening of one's rhetorical sword.

 

[timschochet]

I accept your apology DW. I will try to read everything you referenced and posted.

 

[timschochet]

Well those are 3 very bright guys. I don't take any offense that you don't think I'm as smart as they are. I'm not.

Of course, if your implication is that I'm not intelligent at all, then all I can say is that I hope you change your mind about that over time.

 

[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?

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.

Tim, this is my first post in this thread. Did you see/hear this video?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2727321/Conversation-recorded-bystander-just-moments-Michael-Brown-shooting-casts-doubt-claims-teen-surrendered-Officer-Darren-Wilson.html#v-3736258127001

This was recorded right after the shooting.

(not my transcript)

#1 How’d he get from there to there?

#2 Because he ran, the police was still in the truck – cause he was like over the truck

{crosstalk}

#2 But him and the police was both in the truck, then he ran – the police got out and ran after him

{crosstalk}

#2 Then the next thing I know he doubled back toward him cus - the police had his gun drawn already on him –

#1. Oh, the police got his gun

#2 The police kept dumpin on him, and I’m thinking the police kept missing – he like – be like – but he kept coming toward him

{crosstalk}

#2 Police fired shots – the next thing I know – the police was missing

#1 The Police?

#2 The Police shot him

#1 Police?

#2 The next thing I know … I’m thinking … the dude started running … (garbled something about “he took it from him”)

@1:09-10 - "...running toward the police..."

Whoever this guy is, supposedly feds and police investigators have fanned out across the area and knocked on every door, he will be asked to testify. It's an open question whether if anyone saw the events in a way that would exculpate the cop will testify or tell the truth under oath, because how are they ever going to go back to that neighborhood.

It's occurred to me more than once this is more than a little like "To Kill a Mockingbird."

 

[avoiding injuries]

So the "probable" scenario is that Brown stood 20-30 feet away while facing the officer and Wilson, an officer of 6 years with a perfectly clean record, fired shots at him, hitting him 6 times and killing him?

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Wicked smart fellows and damn fine gentlemen..

 

[drummer]

Hmmm, I think there are more productive things to do today than to read all 89 pages of this thread.

 

[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?

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.

Tim, this is my first post in this thread. Did you see/hear this video?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2727321/Conversation-recorded-bystander-just-moments-Michael-Brown-shooting-casts-doubt-claims-teen-surrendered-Officer-Darren-Wilson.html#v-3736258127001

This was recorded right after the shooting.

(not my transcript)

#1 How’d he get from there to there?

#2 Because he ran, the police was still in the truck – cause he was like over the truck

{crosstalk}

#2 But him and the police was both in the truck, then he ran – the police got out and ran after him

{crosstalk}

#2 Then the next thing I know he doubled back toward him cus - the police had his gun drawn already on him –

#1. Oh, the police got his gun

#2 The police kept dumpin on him, and I’m thinking the police kept missing – he like – be like – but he kept coming toward him

{crosstalk}

#2 Police fired shots – the next thing I know – the police was missing

#1 The Police?

#2 The Police shot him

#1 Police?

#2 The next thing I know … I’m thinking … the dude started running … (garbled something about “he took it from him”)

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, it doesn't fit the theory.

 

[[icon]]

Guys I'm not sure why we're wasting our time in here...

Firearms and Ballistics Expert Timschochet PI is all over this case and has all the facts. It's only a matter of time before he's vindicated with a Murder 2 conviction of Officer Wilson.

MIght as well SHUT IT DOWN!

 

[[icon]]

Hmmm, I think there are more productive things to do today than to read all 89 pages of this thread.

Don't do it.... Elephant walk of epic proportions.

 

[Road Warriors]

So the "probable" scenario is that Brown stood 20-30 feet away while facing the officer and Wilson, an officer of 6 years with a perfectly clean record, fired shots at him, hitting him 6 times and killing him?

Clean records in Ferguson may not mean that much

The chief at the time was Thomas Moonier, who testified how excessive use of force complaints were handled.

"The officer himself could complete it and give it to the supervisor for his approval," Moonier said in a deposition taken last September. Documents revealed a copy of the report was never placed in an officer's personnel file.

 

[bryhamm]

lol. 20 feet is nothing. tim, you stand 20 feet away from me and I bet I could be on top of you in 2 strides, all while avoiding a gun aimed at me.

ya ok Quicksilver

The NRA has recreated how this could have happened.

Remo Bryhamm

 

[timschochet]

Guys I'm not sure why we're wasting our time in here...

Firearms and Ballistics Expert Timschochet PI is all over this case and has all the facts. It's only a matter of time before he's vindicated with a Murder 2 conviction of Officer Wilson.

MIght as well SHUT IT DOWN!

You (and several others) seem to have a reading comprehension issue in this thread. I will be vindicated with Wilson's acquittal, or better yet, with the decision not to indict him.

 

[msommer]

lol. 20 feet is nothing. tim, you stand 20 feet away from me and I bet I could be on top of you in 2 strides, all while avoiding a gun aimed at me.

Long legs. Do you model?

 

[Doug B]

Tim, a consideration:

The audio file released earlier this week indicates a pause during the firing. Speculatively, could Brown have interpreted this pause as either (a) Wilson being out of bullets and thus vulnerable to a physical attack, or (b) a great time to get behind a just-passed obstacle, which could have possibly required Brown to turn back toward Wilson (not to charge, just to get where he intended to duck down).

Just speculation, but there are conceivable reasons Brown could've turned back towards Wilson, gun drawn or not. Note that "turn back towards" does not necessarly equal "charging towards".

 

[lod01]

Bottom line- I don't see how the authorities can charge Wilson based on what we know. Unless the distance between them can be proven somehow, it's a waste of taxpayers money. He'll never be convicted (nor should he be).

Did someone steal timschochet's password? If so, a full 1 yr subscription to FBG's is warranted if not a lifetime exemption.

 

[timschochet]

Tim, a consideration:

The audio file released earlier this week indicates a pause during the firing. Speculatively, could Brown have interpreted this pause as either (a) Wilson being out of bullets and thus vulnerable to a physical attack, or (b) a great time to get behind a just-passed obstacle, which could have possibly required Brown to turn back toward Wilson (not to charge, just to get where he intended to duck down).

Just speculation, but there are conceivable reasons Brown could've turned back towards Wilson, gun drawn or not. Note that "turn back towards" does not necessarly equal "charging towards".

yes. Even if he didn't turn back, he at least turned around- we know that because the bullets were fired in the front. Even so, I still contend that if the distance between them is more than 20 feet at the point that Wilson fires, and if Brown is not charging, then it's murder.

 

[Doug B]

Bottom line- I don't see how the authorities can charge Wilson based on what we know. Unless the distance between them can be proven somehow, it's a waste of taxpayers money. He'll never be convicted (nor should he be).

Did someone steal timschochet's password? If so, a full 1 yr subscription to FBG's is warranted if not a lifetime exemption.

He's been consistent on this point the whole time.

 

[lod01]

Bottom line- I don't see how the authorities can charge Wilson based on what we know. Unless the distance between them can be proven somehow, it's a waste of taxpayers money. He'll never be convicted (nor should he be).

Did someone steal timschochet's password? If so, a full 1 yr subscription to FBG's is warranted if not a lifetime exemption.

He's been consistent on this point the whole time.

Even the bold part? That was the free subscription part.

 

[Doug B]

Even the bold part? That was the free subscription part.

Yes.

 

[Doug B]

Even so, I still contend that if the distance between them is more than 20 feet at the point that Wilson fires, and if Brown is not charging, then it's murder.

Distance from the shooter is a part of the puzzle, but I don't agree that it's the lynchpin of a potential case. Again, there are conceivable reasons to shoot at someone from ~20 feet or more. For a conjectural example: Brown, while turning around, grabs the front of his pants to hike them up so he can move quicker. Wilson interprets this as the proverbial "going for a weapon". QED.

 

[urbanhack]

Thank you Jon Stewart.