What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Looting in Missouri after cops shoot 18 year old (5 Viewers)

I literally just posted ten minutes ago that I was talking about the protest and the idea behind it, not accounting for individual people who may take things too far.

It seems like you have trouble separating the group and its goals from the relatively few individuals within the group who do bad things in its name. It's a pretty simple concept that applies to pretty much any group that organizes and takes action for some kind of change, regardless of what they want or what side of the aisle you might put them on. Not sure why you're struggling with it.
You keep referencing a few individuals... You've been using this reference for some time and it always appears to be a small handful :shrug: When are a few individuals not considered a few individuals anymore?

You read about the constant harassment that law enforcement and their families are getting from this "small handful"? The PBA link was posted a few hours ago.

I don't think he is struggling with anything, it might be you... & I think St Louis Bob has a legitimate gripe, I don't like being harassed for no reason either.
I did? I don't see the word "constant" or any synonym of "constant" anywhere in that article. I don't even see the word "regular" or "frequent" or anything along those lines. In fact there's no discussion of how much this is happening at all.

You really seem to have a problem just reading words on a screen and not editorializing or adding something that's not there. You do it with my posts all the time and now you're doing it with news stories. As I suggested earlier, if I annoy you to the point that you frequently feel the need to make stuff up just to argue with me, perhaps you should just put me on ignore.

 
Maybe you can rephrase your words so I can better understand. You said all the Rams game protesters, except the two that were arrested, are significantly better than someone holding a picture of an aborted fetus in the subway. As the reader of those words, I interpret someone holding a picture of a fetus as completely harmless, while more than just 2 protesters at the Rams game were slinging insults and being disorderly. Where am I wrong? Please specifically point out where I am misinterpreting your words.
Sure thing.

When I said they were "significantly better" I meant to compare the principles- the idea of loudly protesting racial injustice at a football game seems significantly better to me than loudly yelling at people that they are going to hell for not loving Jesus or surprising people with bloody images of dead fetuses. Obviously I can't compare the actions of individuals who go beyond that if I don't know what they're doing- which is why I excepted the two people I know about. I probably should have excluded the dooshbags calling SLB a racist, although I'd still say telling people they're going to hell or showing them fetuses is more obnoxious, but that's subjective. Either way they're both pretty easily ignored, or they should be. I was probably too sarcastic and snarky with my reply to SLB, but that was my point- there's a very very good reason these people are so pissed off, and it's a little weird when people don't recognize this.

You first responded by telling me that "the black community in St Louis isn't struggling due to white police officers," which as far as I can tell has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said, although I'm not even sure what it means to be honest. You then described people yelling at passersby that they're going to hell and people shoving huge bloody images of dead fetuses as "preaching to Jesus," which is a generous description to say the least. Then you gave me a link to an article about threats to the police from protestors. It says nothing about the protests at the football game, which is what I was talking about. Finally you said that I thought only two people at the football game protest had "ill will, actions and intentions," which once again I had not said. None of it made much sense. A lot of it also seems to confuse me saying that the protests and the anger of the group are understandable with me condoning the behavior of certain individuals who take it too far- something I've repeatedly taken care not to do.
My comment stating the black community in St Louis isn't struggling due to white police officers was in response to your statement that read "with no recognition of the fact that something appears to be seriously wrong when it comes to St. Louis area race relations and law enforcement and that's why they're so mad." Regarding my link to protesters threatening police: if I were to draw a Venn diagram, there would be overlap between Rams Game Protesters and Protesters Threatening Police. You obviously think they're mutually exclusive.
1. There can be something seriously wrong with area race relations and with law enforcement without attributing all of a minority's "struggles" to the police.2

2. I have no idea if they're mutually exclusive or not, but I don't know why you just assume that there's an overlap. If I hear reports that a couple of fantasy football enthusiasts like to have sex with farm animals I don't go to the Shark Pool and call them a bunch of cow#######.
It seems to me you already took the stance that they are, by stating all but 2 are significantly better than the preaching group.
I literally just posted ten minutes ago that I was talking about the protest and the idea behind it, not accounting for individual people who may take things too far.

It seems like you have trouble separating the group and its goals from the relatively few individuals within the group who do bad things in its name. It's a pretty simple concept that applies to pretty much any group that organizes and takes action for some kind of change, regardless of what they want or what side of the aisle you might put them on. Not sure why you're struggling with it.
I think A LOT of the protesters are up to no good, not just a handful. And I think it's a lot of the same ones, over and over again. Have you actually been watching the news?

 
I literally just posted ten minutes ago that I was talking about the protest and the idea behind it, not accounting for individual people who may take things too far.
If law enforcement fairly has to own and accept accountability for the verry worst of their lot, why shouldn't the broad "protest" own the worst of theirs?

Can "the protest and the idea behind it" truly be separated from "the worst of the protestors"?
I don't think law enforcement has to own and accept accountability for the very worst of their lot. I don't think any group should have to do that.

 
Maybe you can rephrase your words so I can better understand. You said all the Rams game protesters, except the two that were arrested, are significantly better than someone holding a picture of an aborted fetus in the subway. As the reader of those words, I interpret someone holding a picture of a fetus as completely harmless, while more than just 2 protesters at the Rams game were slinging insults and being disorderly. Where am I wrong? Please specifically point out where I am misinterpreting your words.
Sure thing.

When I said they were "significantly better" I meant to compare the principles- the idea of loudly protesting racial injustice at a football game seems significantly better to me than loudly yelling at people that they are going to hell for not loving Jesus or surprising people with bloody images of dead fetuses. Obviously I can't compare the actions of individuals who go beyond that if I don't know what they're doing- which is why I excepted the two people I know about. I probably should have excluded the dooshbags calling SLB a racist, although I'd still say telling people they're going to hell or showing them fetuses is more obnoxious, but that's subjective. Either way they're both pretty easily ignored, or they should be. I was probably too sarcastic and snarky with my reply to SLB, but that was my point- there's a very very good reason these people are so pissed off, and it's a little weird when people don't recognize this.

You first responded by telling me that "the black community in St Louis isn't struggling due to white police officers," which as far as I can tell has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said, although I'm not even sure what it means to be honest. You then described people yelling at passersby that they're going to hell and people shoving huge bloody images of dead fetuses as "preaching to Jesus," which is a generous description to say the least. Then you gave me a link to an article about threats to the police from protestors. It says nothing about the protests at the football game, which is what I was talking about. Finally you said that I thought only two people at the football game protest had "ill will, actions and intentions," which once again I had not said. None of it made much sense. A lot of it also seems to confuse me saying that the protests and the anger of the group are understandable with me condoning the behavior of certain individuals who take it too far- something I've repeatedly taken care not to do.
My comment stating the black community in St Louis isn't struggling due to white police officers was in response to your statement that read "with no recognition of the fact that something appears to be seriously wrong when it comes to St. Louis area race relations and law enforcement and that's why they're so mad." Regarding my link to protesters threatening police: if I were to draw a Venn diagram, there would be overlap between Rams Game Protesters and Protesters Threatening Police. You obviously think they're mutually exclusive.
1. There can be something seriously wrong with area race relations and with law enforcement without attributing all of a minority's "struggles" to the police.2

2. I have no idea if they're mutually exclusive or not, but I don't know why you just assume that there's an overlap. If I hear reports that a couple of fantasy football enthusiasts like to have sex with farm animals I don't go to the Shark Pool and call them a bunch of cow#######.
It seems to me you already took the stance that they are, by stating all but 2 are significantly better than the preaching group.
I literally just posted ten minutes ago that I was talking about the protest and the idea behind it, not accounting for individual people who may take things too far.

It seems like you have trouble separating the group and its goals from the relatively few individuals within the group who do bad things in its name. It's a pretty simple concept that applies to pretty much any group that organizes and takes action for some kind of change, regardless of what they want or what side of the aisle you might put them on. Not sure why you're struggling with it.
I think A LOT of the protesters are up to no good, not just a handful. And I think it's a lot of the same ones, over and over again. Have you actually been watching the news?
That's fine if you want to think that, but that doesn't mean you can assume it to be true and then apply it to what I've said to turn it into something I haven't said.

 
Maybe you can rephrase your words so I can better understand. You said all the Rams game protesters, except the two that were arrested, are significantly better than someone holding a picture of an aborted fetus in the subway. As the reader of those words, I interpret someone holding a picture of a fetus as completely harmless, while more than just 2 protesters at the Rams game were slinging insults and being disorderly. Where am I wrong? Please specifically point out where I am misinterpreting your words.
Sure thing.

When I said they were "significantly better" I meant to compare the principles- the idea of loudly protesting racial injustice at a football game seems significantly better to me than loudly yelling at people that they are going to hell for not loving Jesus or surprising people with bloody images of dead fetuses. Obviously I can't compare the actions of individuals who go beyond that if I don't know what they're doing- which is why I excepted the two people I know about. I probably should have excluded the dooshbags calling SLB a racist, although I'd still say telling people they're going to hell or showing them fetuses is more obnoxious, but that's subjective. Either way they're both pretty easily ignored, or they should be. I was probably too sarcastic and snarky with my reply to SLB, but that was my point- there's a very very good reason these people are so pissed off, and it's a little weird when people don't recognize this.

You first responded by telling me that "the black community in St Louis isn't struggling due to white police officers," which as far as I can tell has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said, although I'm not even sure what it means to be honest. You then described people yelling at passersby that they're going to hell and people shoving huge bloody images of dead fetuses as "preaching to Jesus," which is a generous description to say the least. Then you gave me a link to an article about threats to the police from protestors. It says nothing about the protests at the football game, which is what I was talking about. Finally you said that I thought only two people at the football game protest had "ill will, actions and intentions," which once again I had not said. None of it made much sense. A lot of it also seems to confuse me saying that the protests and the anger of the group are understandable with me condoning the behavior of certain individuals who take it too far- something I've repeatedly taken care not to do.
My comment stating the black community in St Louis isn't struggling due to white police officers was in response to your statement that read "with no recognition of the fact that something appears to be seriously wrong when it comes to St. Louis area race relations and law enforcement and that's why they're so mad." Regarding my link to protesters threatening police: if I were to draw a Venn diagram, there would be overlap between Rams Game Protesters and Protesters Threatening Police. You obviously think they're mutually exclusive.
1. There can be something seriously wrong with area race relations and with law enforcement without attributing all of a minority's "struggles" to the police.2

2. I have no idea if they're mutually exclusive or not, but I don't know why you just assume that there's an overlap. If I hear reports that a couple of fantasy football enthusiasts like to have sex with farm animals I don't go to the Shark Pool and call them a bunch of cow#######.
It seems to me you already took the stance that they are, by stating all but 2 are significantly better than the preaching group.
I literally just posted ten minutes ago that I was talking about the protest and the idea behind it, not accounting for individual people who may take things too far.

It seems like you have trouble separating the group and its goals from the relatively few individuals within the group who do bad things in its name. It's a pretty simple concept that applies to pretty much any group that organizes and takes action for some kind of change, regardless of what they want or what side of the aisle you might put them on. Not sure why you're struggling with it.
I think A LOT of the protesters are up to no good, not just a handful. And I think it's a lot of the same ones, over and over again. Have you actually been watching the news?
That's fine if you want to think that, but that doesn't mean you can assume it to be true and then apply it to what I've said to turn it into something I haven't said.
So you call out the 2 people who were arrested for their actions and said the rest of the group was significantly better, which implies the rest of the group acted just fine. Then you say you're just comparing principles. Then you say you don't know if the rest of the group acted just fine or not, and part of that group may or may not have been part of another group that threatens police. Then you probably should've acted a different way, then you shouldn't have been so sarcastic. How can anyone follow what you write?

 
So you call out the 2 people who were arrested for their actions and said the rest of the group was significantly better, which implies the rest of the group acted just fine. Then you say you're just comparing principles. Then you say you don't know if the rest of the group acted just fine or not, and part of that group may or may not have been part of another group that threatens police. Then you probably should've acted a different way, then you shouldn't have been so sarcastic. How can anyone follow what you write?
I didn't say anything that even comes close to resembling the bolded.

The rest is basically correct, although the snark and sarcasm on my part wasn't too far out of line since it was a reply to snark and sarcasm. Not sure why you can't follow that. Maybe it would help if you didn't start by attributing things to me that I didn't say? :shrug:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nearly every sporting event I attend has people outside with big signs proclaiming that anyone who doesn't accept Jesus is doomed to Hell. I ignore them. My experience is that protestors don't get in your face unless you get into theirs.
So what about the reports of protesters saying there will be "bloodshed to innocents" and "breaking cracker skulls" if Darren Wilson isn't charged? Are these just empty threats? Should I be concerned that my wife and kids walk to the park during the day, and I live in the city of St Louis?
I think your wife and kids are safe in the park. But yes, if those reports are accurate, you should be a little concerned. Of course. Nobody likes to hear inflammatory stuff like that. 20 years ago I was in Los Angeles during the Rodney King riots, and I personally witnessed some very bad things. When people get upset and turn into a mob, they can get ugly.

That being said, I'd be pretty cautious about this. Usually in these situations the media will take the most extreme comments by one person and make it representative of the whole, because that's what sells. At this point, unfortunately, it sounds like if Wilson is not indicted there WILL be some kind of violent response. How much is anyone's guess. I hope I'm wrong about this, of course.

 
Nearly every sporting event I attend has people outside with big signs proclaiming that anyone who doesn't accept Jesus is doomed to Hell. I ignore them. My experience is that protestors don't get in your face unless you get into theirs.
So what about the reports of protesters saying there will be "bloodshed to innocents" and "breaking cracker skulls" if Darren Wilson isn't charged? Are these just empty threats? Should I be concerned that my wife and kids walk to the park during the day, and I live in the city of St Louis?
I think your wife and kids are safe in the park. But yes, if those reports are accurate, you should be a little concerned. Of course. Nobody likes to hear inflammatory stuff like that. 20 years ago I was in Los Angeles during the Rodney King riots, and I personally witnessed some very bad things. When people get upset and turn into a mob, they can get ugly.

That being said, I'd be pretty cautious about this. Usually in these situations the media will take the most extreme comments by one person and make it representative of the whole, because that's what sells. At this point, unfortunately, it sounds like if Wilson is not indicted there WILL be some kind of violent response. How much is anyone's guess. I hope I'm wrong about this, of course.
I hope the officer does not get charged and the city of Ferguson and St Louis burn. Let the world see what these people are like.

 
Nearly every sporting event I attend has people outside with big signs proclaiming that anyone who doesn't accept Jesus is doomed to Hell. I ignore them. My experience is that protestors don't get in your face unless you get into theirs.
So what about the reports of protesters saying there will be "bloodshed to innocents" and "breaking cracker skulls" if Darren Wilson isn't charged? Are these just empty threats? Should I be concerned that my wife and kids walk to the park during the day, and I live in the city of St Louis?
I think your wife and kids are safe in the park. But yes, if those reports are accurate, you should be a little concerned. Of course. Nobody likes to hear inflammatory stuff like that. 20 years ago I was in Los Angeles during the Rodney King riots, and I personally witnessed some very bad things. When people get upset and turn into a mob, they can get ugly.

That being said, I'd be pretty cautious about this. Usually in these situations the media will take the most extreme comments by one person and make it representative of the whole, because that's what sells. At this point, unfortunately, it sounds like if Wilson is not indicted there WILL be some kind of violent response. How much is anyone's guess. I hope I'm wrong about this, of course.
I hope the officer does not get charged and the city of Ferguson and St Louis burn. Let the world see what these people are like.
Lame. And even lamer that you want it to happen. Bet you were disappointed when nobody rioted after Zimmerman got off, weren't you?

IMO, anyone who wants to see violence and destruction happen for political purposes is no better than a terrorist.

 
Nearly every sporting event I attend has people outside with big signs proclaiming that anyone who doesn't accept Jesus is doomed to Hell. I ignore them. My experience is that protestors don't get in your face unless you get into theirs.
So what about the reports of protesters saying there will be "bloodshed to innocents" and "breaking cracker skulls" if Darren Wilson isn't charged? Are these just empty threats? Should I be concerned that my wife and kids walk to the park during the day, and I live in the city of St Louis?
I think your wife and kids are safe in the park. But yes, if those reports are accurate, you should be a little concerned. Of course. Nobody likes to hear inflammatory stuff like that. 20 years ago I was in Los Angeles during the Rodney King riots, and I personally witnessed some very bad things. When people get upset and turn into a mob, they can get ugly.

That being said, I'd be pretty cautious about this. Usually in these situations the media will take the most extreme comments by one person and make it representative of the whole, because that's what sells. At this point, unfortunately, it sounds like if Wilson is not indicted there WILL be some kind of violent response. How much is anyone's guess. I hope I'm wrong about this, of course.
I hope the officer does not get charged and the city of Ferguson and St Louis burn. Let the world see what these people are like.
Lame. And even lamer that you want it to happen. Bet you were disappointed when nobody rioted after Zimmerman got off, weren't you?

IMO, anyone who wants to see violence and destruction happen for political purposes is no better than a terrorist.
Based on your statement, I need your call on this one.

The below, to me, strikes of political purpose...

Black Vote Seen as Last Hope for Democrats to Hold Senate

WASHINGTON — The confidential memo from a former pollster for President Obama contained a blunt warning for Democrats. Written this month with an eye toward Election Day, it predicted “crushing Democratic losses across the country” if the party did not do more to get black voters to the polls.

“African-American surge voters came out in force in 2008 and 2012, but they are not well positioned to do so again in 2014,” Cornell Belcher, the pollster, wrote in the memo, dated Oct. 1. “In fact, over half aren’t even sure when the midterm elections are taking place.”

Al Sharpton Planning Michael Brown Weekend

NEW YORK (KMOX) - The president of the National Action Network says plans are in motion for what he’s calling “Michael Brown Weekend” in St. Louis.

Reverend Al Sharpton announced Saturday it will be a four-day event and precede others on the east coast, “Hands Up from Ferguson to Staten Island to Washington. No local grand jury’s going to stop our pursuit of justice.”

Sharpton says the dates for the St. Louis protest will be October 31st through November 3rd.

I'm sure that Al's planned nationwide, four day protest immediately before the midterm election has nothing to do with the political purpose of getting black people to vote which, in turn, means vote Democrat,

Granted, you did say that the person has to want to see violence and destruction for political purpose to be considered a terrorist, but looking back at his history of rousing crowds to violence and destruction in New York, Al has to be aware that some people may once again take his words too far.

Verdict, Tim?


 
I can't stand Al Sharpton. He's one of the people I dislike most in politics. On occasion he can be a force for good- during and after the Zimmerman trial, he called for calm- but mostly he is a rank opportunist. And he has anti-Semitic tendencies.

But I'm not quite sure I see the connection you're making here. So far as I know, Sharpton has never called for violence, never publicly hoped for violence or took pleasure in it. So what does that have to do with my response to Grandpa Rox?

 
So what does that have to do with my response to Grandpa Rox?
Because you discussed political purpose stemming from potential riots.Grandpa stated a purpose, but I don't see it as political. So I wanted to give an example currently in the news of using the Ferguson ordeal for political purpose.

So why do you consider Grandpa's purpose political?

 
So what does that have to do with my response to Grandpa Rox?
Because you discussed political purpose stemming from potential riots.Grandpa stated a purpose, but I don't see it as political. So I wanted to give an example currently in the news of using the Ferguson ordeal for political purpose.

So why do you consider Grandpa's purpose political?
your analogy is pretty weak IMO. GrandpaRox is hoping there is a riot and the city burns down, because he believes that if that happens, the world will come to share his feelings about "these people". That was my take anyhow, and I find it detestable and that's what I wrote. Attempting to use Ferguson for political purposes is shady, though typical of our politicians on both sides. But nobody's calling for violence, so it's not even comparable.
 
So what does that have to do with my response to Grandpa Rox?
Because you discussed political purpose stemming from potential riots.Grandpa stated a purpose, but I don't see it as political. So I wanted to give an example currently in the news of using the Ferguson ordeal for political purpose.

So why do you consider Grandpa's purpose political?
your analogy is pretty weak IMO. GrandpaRox is hoping there is a riot and the city burns down, because he believes that if that happens, the world will come to share his feelings about "these people". That was my take anyhow, and I find it detestable and that's what I wrote. Attempting to use Ferguson for political purposes is shady, though typical of our politicians on both sides. But nobody's calling for violence, so it's not even comparable.
Once again, what's the political aspect of Grandpa's statement that made you bring up politics in the first place?
 
So what does that have to do with my response to Grandpa Rox?
Because you discussed political purpose stemming from potential riots.Grandpa stated a purpose, but I don't see it as political. So I wanted to give an example currently in the news of using the Ferguson ordeal for political purpose.

So why do you consider Grandpa's purpose political?
your analogy is pretty weak IMO. GrandpaRox is hoping there is a riot and the city burns down, because he believes that if that happens, the world will come to share his feelings about "these people". That was my take anyhow, and I find it detestable and that's what I wrote. Attempting to use Ferguson for political purposes is shady, though typical of our politicians on both sides. But nobody's calling for violence, so it's not even comparable.
Once again, what's the political aspect of Grandpa's statement that made you bring up politics in the first place?
I have no idea why you're choosing to stress the most irrelevant aspect of what I wrote. When someone hopes for a riot that will show the world what "these people" are like, that's political. It's not political in terms of Democrat vs Republican, or liberal vs conservative, but it's still a political thought. It's also lame, stupid, hateful, and bigoted. Those are more important aspects, IMO.
 
I have no idea why you're choosing to stress the most irrelevant aspect of what I wrote. When someone hopes for a riot that will show the world what "these people" are like, that's political. It's not political in terms of Democrat vs Republican, or liberal vs conservative, but it's still a political thought. It's also lame, stupid, hateful, and bigoted. Those are more important aspects, IMO.
I just wanted to know your rationale behind labeling Grandpa's purpose a "political" purpose.

Were there really more relevant aspects to what you wrote, though?


Lame. And even lamer that you want it to happen. Bet you were disappointed when nobody rioted after Zimmerman got off, weren't you?

IMO, anyone who wants to see violence and destruction happen for political purposes is no better than a terrorist.
Way to go out on that limb in criticizing people who want to see violence and destruction. I should have delved into that bold stand instead? :confused:


 
From interview with forensic expert on CNN. Bodes well for the officer.

Latest leaks from the grand jury have the officer getting punched in the head, Brown being shot at close range, possibly within arms reach. Gun powder reside on his hand. Also, radio transmissions may indicate that not only did the officer know a robbery had been committed at that store, but the description fit Brown. Timeframe may indicate that is why he backed up to confront them.

I almost want to see a trial so that when they put that friend up on the stand, the defense destroys him. There is no way the prosecution can coach him up on what would come his way. He would be a valuable witness for the officer.

 
From interview with forensic expert on CNN. Bodes well for the officer.

Latest leaks from the grand jury have the officer getting punched in the head, Brown being shot at close range, possibly within arms reach. Gun powder reside on his hand. Also, radio transmissions may indicate that not only did the officer know a robbery had been committed at that store, but the description fit Brown. Timeframe may indicate that is why he backed up to confront them.

I almost want to see a trial so that when they put that friend up on the stand, the defense destroys him. There is no way the prosecution can coach him up on what would come his way. He would be a valuable witness for the officer.
Found more on this

ST. LOUIS COUNTY • The official autopsy on Michael Brown shows that he was shot in the hand at close range, according to an analysis of the findings by two experts not involved directly in the case.

The accompanying toxicology report shows he had been using marijuana.

Those documents, prepared by the St. Louis County medical examiner and obtained by the Post-Dispatch, provide the most detailed description to date of the wounds Brown sustained in a confrontation Aug. 9 with Ferguson police Officer Darren Wilson.

A source with knowledge of Wilson’s statements said the officer had told investigators that Brown had struggled for Wilson’s pistol inside a police SUV and that Wilson had fired the gun twice, hitting Brown once in the hand. Later, Wilson fired additional shots that killed Brown and ignited a national controversy.

The St. Louis medical examiner, Dr. Michael Graham, who is not part of the official investigation, reviewed the autopsy report for the newspaper. He said Tuesday that it “does support that there was a significant altercation at the car.”

Graham said the examination indicated a shot traveled from the tip of Brown’s right thumb toward his wrist. The official report notes an absence of stippling, powder burns around a wound that indicate a shot fired at relatively short range.

But Graham said, “Sometimes when it’s really close, such as within an inch or so, there is no stipple, just smoke.”

The report on a supplemental microscopic exam of tissue from the thumb wound showed foreign matter “consistent with products that are discharged from the barrel of a firearm.”

Dr. Judy Melinek, a forensic pathologist in San Francisco, said the autopsy “supports the fact that this guy is reaching for the gun, if he has gunpowder particulate material in the wound.” She added, “If he has his hand near the gun when it goes off, he’s going for the officer’s gun.”

Sources told the Post-Dispatch that Brown’s blood had been found on Wilson’s gun.

Melinek also said the autopsy did not support witnesses who have claimed Brown was shot while running away from Wilson, or with his hands up.

She said Brown was facing Wilson when Brown took a shot to the forehead, two shots to the chest and a shot to the upper right arm. The wound to the top of Brown’s head would indicate he was falling forward or in a lunging position toward the shooter; the shot was instantly fatal.

A sixth shot that hit the forearm traveled from the back of the arm to the inner arm, which means Brown’s palms could not have been facing Wilson, as some witnesses have said, Melinek said. That trajectory shows Brown probably was not taking a standard surrender position with arms above the shoulders and palms out when he was hit, she said.

The county medical examiner, Dr. Mary Case, could not be reached. The assistant who performed the autopsy, Dr. Gershom Norfleet, relayed word that he would not comment.

That post mortem, conducted the morning after Brown’s death, comports in most ways with the findings of a private autopsy arranged by Brown’s family and made public Aug. 18.

In that one, Dr. Michael M. Baden, a nationally known forensic pathologist, said none of Brown’s wounds appeared to have been from shots fired at close range.

Baden noted then that there was no gunshot residue on the body, so it appeared to him that the muzzle of the weapon was at least one or two feet away. He said, “It could have been 30 feet away.”

A third autopsy was ordered by federal officials as part of their separate investigation of the shooting. Results of that one have not been revealed.

The county and private autopsies agree on the number and location of the wounds.

The official autopsy also confirmed that tissue from Brown was found on the exterior of the driver’s side of Wilson’s vehicle.

“Someone got an injury that tore off skin and left it on the car,” Graham said. “That fits with everything else that came out. There’s blood in the car, now skin on the car, that shows something happened right there.”

The toxicology test, performed by a St. Louis University laboratory, revealed tetrahydrocannabinol, THC for short, in Brown’s blood and urine.

Alfred Staubus, a consultant in forensic toxicology at the Ohio State University College of Pharmacy, said that THC could impair judgment or slow reaction times but that there was no reliable measurement to make those conclusions.

States that have legalized marijuana have struggled with the issue of how to measure impairment.

“The detection of THC in the postmortem blood of Michael Brown really indicates his recent use of marijuana (within a few hours) and that he may or may not have been impaired at the time of his death,” Staubus wrote in an email.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/official-autopsy-shows-michael-brown-had-close-range-wound-to/article_e98a4ce0-c284-57c9-9882-3fb7df75fef6.html
 
From interview with forensic expert on CNN. Bodes well for the officer.

Latest leaks from the grand jury have the officer getting punched in the head, Brown being shot at close range, possibly within arms reach. Gun powder reside on his hand. Also, radio transmissions may indicate that not only did the officer know a robbery had been committed at that store, but the description fit Brown. Timeframe may indicate that is why he backed up to confront them.

I almost want to see a trial so that when they put that friend up on the stand, the defense destroys him. There is no way the prosecution can coach him up on what would come his way. He would be a valuable witness for the officer.
Sad to hear people treating it like a sporting event where there are sides and a rooting interest (I hope the other team tries to play that weak defender against us so we can light him up!) instead of an investigation where everyone has the same interest, which is what it should be. Not surprising at all of course, but still kinda gross to see it put that bluntly.

 
From interview with forensic expert on CNN. Bodes well for the officer.

Latest leaks from the grand jury have the officer getting punched in the head, Brown being shot at close range, possibly within arms reach. Gun powder reside on his hand. Also, radio transmissions may indicate that not only did the officer know a robbery had been committed at that store, but the description fit Brown. Timeframe may indicate that is why he backed up to confront them.

I almost want to see a trial so that when they put that friend up on the stand, the defense destroys him. There is no way the prosecution can coach him up on what would come his way. He would be a valuable witness for the officer.
While that points to the fact that they had an altercation at/in the police car, it does not show:

1. Who initiated the contact. Was it the officer pulling Brown from the window - with Brown not attempting to attack until the gun was pulled.

2. Whether Brown was in fact surrendering himself to the officer, with his hands up and defenseless.

 
From interview with forensic expert on CNN. Bodes well for the officer.

Latest leaks from the grand jury have the officer getting punched in the head, Brown being shot at close range, possibly within arms reach. Gun powder reside on his hand. Also, radio transmissions may indicate that not only did the officer know a robbery had been committed at that store, but the description fit Brown. Timeframe may indicate that is why he backed up to confront them.

I almost want to see a trial so that when they put that friend up on the stand, the defense destroys him. There is no way the prosecution can coach him up on what would come his way. He would be a valuable witness for the officer.
While that points to the fact that they had an altercation at/in the police car, it does not show:

1. Who initiated the contact. Was it the officer pulling Brown from the window - with Brown not attempting to attack until the gun was pulled.

2. Whether Brown was in fact surrendering himself to the officer, with his hands up and defenseless.
The article I posted has your answer to #2

Melinek also said the autopsy did not support witnesses who have claimed Brown was shot while running away from Wilson, or with his hands up.

She said Brown was facing Wilson when Brown took a shot to the forehead, two shots to the chest and a shot to the upper right arm. The wound to the top of Brown’s head would indicate he was falling forward or in a lunging position toward the shooter; the shot was instantly fatal.

A sixth shot that hit the forearm traveled from the back of the arm to the inner arm, which means Brown’s palms could not have been facing Wilson, as some witnesses have said, Melinek said. That trajectory shows Brown probably was not taking a standard surrender position with arms above the shoulders and palms out when he was hit, she said.
 
From interview with forensic expert on CNN. Bodes well for the officer.

Latest leaks from the grand jury have the officer getting punched in the head, Brown being shot at close range, possibly within arms reach. Gun powder reside on his hand. Also, radio transmissions may indicate that not only did the officer know a robbery had been committed at that store, but the description fit Brown. Timeframe may indicate that is why he backed up to confront them.

I almost want to see a trial so that when they put that friend up on the stand, the defense destroys him. There is no way the prosecution can coach him up on what would come his way. He would be a valuable witness for the officer.
While that points to the fact that they had an altercation at/in the police car, it does not show:

1. Who initiated the contact. Was it the officer pulling Brown from the window - with Brown not attempting to attack until the gun was pulled.

2. Whether Brown was in fact surrendering himself to the officer, with his hands up and defenseless.
The article I posted has your answer to #2

Melinek also said the autopsy did not support witnesses who have claimed Brown was shot while running away from Wilson, or with his hands up.

She said Brown was facing Wilson when Brown took a shot to the forehead, two shots to the chest and a shot to the upper right arm. The wound to the top of Brown’s head would indicate he was falling forward or in a lunging position toward the shooter; the shot was instantly fatal.

A sixth shot that hit the forearm traveled from the back of the arm to the inner arm, which means Brown’s palms could not have been facing Wilson, as some witnesses have said, Melinek said. That trajectory shows Brown probably was not taking a standard surrender position with arms above the shoulders and palms out when he was hit, she said.
Forensic shmoresnic - Time to go loot and riot! :hot:

 
Well based on the above and the news the police officer rightly will not be charged. Now Tim and the world will see how rational and understanding and peaceful these people will be. Again the racists are the ones out in the streets and the ones that want to spit on and punch and kill "whitey".

I say since we can not talk about their behavior we only have to rely on their actions and put the spotlight on them.

By the way Tim I am sure the friends, family and acquaintances of these victims are now "protester" backers. And these were just baseball fans not Tea Party/Klan racists like you want it to be.

The "protesters" only hurt their cause when they show what they are all about.

The whole world is watching, the whole world is watching. :thumbup:

 
From interview with forensic expert on CNN. Bodes well for the officer.

Latest leaks from the grand jury have the officer getting punched in the head, Brown being shot at close range, possibly within arms reach. Gun powder reside on his hand. Also, radio transmissions may indicate that not only did the officer know a robbery had been committed at that store, but the description fit Brown. Timeframe may indicate that is why he backed up to confront them.

I almost want to see a trial so that when they put that friend up on the stand, the defense destroys him. There is no way the prosecution can coach him up on what would come his way. He would be a valuable witness for the officer.
While that points to the fact that they had an altercation at/in the police car, it does not show:

1. Who initiated the contact. Was it the officer pulling Brown from the window - with Brown not attempting to attack until the gun was pulled.

2. Whether Brown was in fact surrendering himself to the officer, with his hands up and defenseless.
Yeah right, Zimmerman all over again, if a loved one gets raped are you going to blame it on her also?

 
From interview with forensic expert on CNN. Bodes well for the officer.

Latest leaks from the grand jury have the officer getting punched in the head, Brown being shot at close range, possibly within arms reach. Gun powder reside on his hand. Also, radio transmissions may indicate that not only did the officer know a robbery had been committed at that store, but the description fit Brown. Timeframe may indicate that is why he backed up to confront them.

I almost want to see a trial so that when they put that friend up on the stand, the defense destroys him. There is no way the prosecution can coach him up on what would come his way. He would be a valuable witness for the officer.
While that points to the fact that they had an altercation at/in the police car, it does not show:

1. Who initiated the contact. Was it the officer pulling Brown from the window - with Brown not attempting to attack until the gun was pulled.

2. Whether Brown was in fact surrendering himself to the officer, with his hands up and defenseless.
1 - That's just silly; you're looking for any excuse to blame the officer.

2 - Shown to not be the case by the autopsy.

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2014/10/22/new-information-released-on-michael-brown-case/

A forensic pathologist from San Francisco, Dr. Judy Melinek, says based on a bullet wound to Brown’s arm, Brown’s palms could not have been facing Wilson in the standard surrender position – with hands up and palms out – when he was shot, and Brown was falling forward or lunging when he was hit by the fatal shot to the top of his head.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
From interview with forensic expert on CNN. Bodes well for the officer.

Latest leaks from the grand jury have the officer getting punched in the head, Brown being shot at close range, possibly within arms reach. Gun powder reside on his hand. Also, radio transmissions may indicate that not only did the officer know a robbery had been committed at that store, but the description fit Brown. Timeframe may indicate that is why he backed up to confront them.

I almost want to see a trial so that when they put that friend up on the stand, the defense destroys him. There is no way the prosecution can coach him up on what would come his way. He would be a valuable witness for the officer.
Sad to hear people treating it like a sporting event where there are sides and a rooting interest (I hope the other team tries to play that weak defender against us so we can light him up!) instead of an investigation where everyone has the same interest, which is what it should be. Not surprising at all of course, but still kinda gross to see it put that bluntly.
The "protester" are the ones that make it a sporting event, by their cause being invalid and their actions anyway. It is ALL on the reaction of the protesters, if they were reasonable, thoughfull, intelligent people, this thread would not even exist.

 
From interview with forensic expert on CNN. Bodes well for the officer.

Latest leaks from the grand jury have the officer getting punched in the head, Brown being shot at close range, possibly within arms reach. Gun powder reside on his hand. Also, radio transmissions may indicate that not only did the officer know a robbery had been committed at that store, but the description fit Brown. Timeframe may indicate that is why he backed up to confront them.

I almost want to see a trial so that when they put that friend up on the stand, the defense destroys him. There is no way the prosecution can coach him up on what would come his way. He would be a valuable witness for the officer.
While that points to the fact that they had an altercation at/in the police car, it does not show:

1. Who initiated the contact. Was it the officer pulling Brown from the window - with Brown not attempting to attack until the gun was pulled.

2. Whether Brown was in fact surrendering himself to the officer, with his hands up and defenseless.
The article I posted has your answer to #2

Melinek also said the autopsy did not support witnesses who have claimed Brown was shot while running away from Wilson, or with his hands up.

She said Brown was facing Wilson when Brown took a shot to the forehead, two shots to the chest and a shot to the upper right arm. The wound to the top of Brown’s head would indicate he was falling forward or in a lunging position toward the shooter; the shot was instantly fatal.

A sixth shot that hit the forearm traveled from the back of the arm to the inner arm, which means Brown’s palms could not have been facing Wilson, as some witnesses have said, Melinek said. That trajectory shows Brown probably was not taking a standard surrender position with arms above the shoulders and palms out when he was hit, she said.
Playing devil's advocate here, he was shot at various times. The shot that hit the forearm may have been right when he turned around or when he was staggering forward after the first several shots.

 
From interview with forensic expert on CNN. Bodes well for the officer.

Latest leaks from the grand jury have the officer getting punched in the head, Brown being shot at close range, possibly within arms reach. Gun powder reside on his hand. Also, radio transmissions may indicate that not only did the officer know a robbery had been committed at that store, but the description fit Brown. Timeframe may indicate that is why he backed up to confront them.

I almost want to see a trial so that when they put that friend up on the stand, the defense destroys him. There is no way the prosecution can coach him up on what would come his way. He would be a valuable witness for the officer.
Sad to hear people treating it like a sporting event where there are sides and a rooting interest (I hope the other team tries to play that weak defender against us so we can light him up!) instead of an investigation where everyone has the same interest, which is what it should be. Not surprising at all of course, but still kinda gross to see it put that bluntly.
The "protester" are the ones that make it a sporting event, by their cause being invalid and their actions anyway. It is ALL on the reaction of the protesters, if they were reasonable, thoughfull, intelligent people, this thread would not even exist.
It's telling that you think the only cause of the protestors' outrage is the shooting of Brown. That was just the match that lit the fire that was built over a lot period of time by a lot of bad policies and abuses of power, and then the PD and the local/state government kept throwing gasoline on it over the course of the next two weeks. But sure, they're the ones who aren't thoughtful or reasonable or intelligent. Not the people who think this is just about one isolated instance of perceived injustice.

 
Wow, GrandpaRox doubling down on the hateful stupidity. Impressive.

There are several pathologists on the radio this morning who are taking issue with Dr. Melenik's conclusions. I'm not sure the autopsy tells us much more than we know before. As I wrote earlier, I think Brown was a thug, but "he was going for my gun" is the most common defense made by police officers whenever an unarmed person is shot, so it's reasonable to be skeptical about this. And of course it still doesn't answer why Wilson fired so many bullets into Brown after the altercation at the car. There can only be two justifications for that: either Wilson was reasonably afraid for his life, or he was reasonably afraid for the lives of others. If either of these factors are unreasonable or didn't exist, then its an unwarranted killing.

 
I also think it's important to separate what people here are calling "the protestors" (angry, apparently unorganized people making stupid remarks and doing stupid things) and the organized activists, who have engaged in peaceful protests and who have spoken intelligently about this case and about police brutality in general. The latter group comprise the vast majority of organized reaction to this issue, and they are comprised of whites, blacks, really anyone who cares about these issues.

 
Wow, GrandpaRox doubling down on the hateful stupidity. Impressive.

There are several pathologists on the radio this morning who are taking issue with Dr. Melenik's conclusions. I'm not sure the autopsy tells us much more than we know before.As I wrote earlier, I think Brown was a thug, but "he was going for my gun" is the most common defense made by police officers whenever an unarmed person is shot, so it's reasonable to be skeptical about this. And of course it still doesn't answer why Wilson fired so many bullets into Brown after the altercation at the car. There can only be two justifications for that: either Wilson was reasonably afraid for his life, or he was reasonably afraid for the lives of others. If either of these factors are unreasonable or didn't exist, then its an unwarranted killing.
And yet it clearly does tell us much more.

 
I also think it's important to separate what people here are calling "the protestors" (angry, apparently unorganized people making stupid remarks and doing stupid things) and the organized activists, who have engaged in peaceful protests and who have spoken intelligently about this case and about police brutality in general. The latter group comprise the vast majority of organized reaction to this issue, and they are comprised of whites, blacks, really anyone who cares about these issues.
:no:

 
Wow, GrandpaRox doubling down on the hateful stupidity. Impressive.

There are several pathologists on the radio this morning who are taking issue with Dr. Melenik's conclusions. I'm not sure the autopsy tells us much more than we know before.As I wrote earlier, I think Brown was a thug, but "he was going for my gun" is the most common defense made by police officers whenever an unarmed person is shot, so it's reasonable to be skeptical about this. And of course it still doesn't answer why Wilson fired so many bullets into Brown after the altercation at the car. There can only be two justifications for that: either Wilson was reasonably afraid for his life, or he was reasonably afraid for the lives of others. If either of these factors are unreasonable or didn't exist, then its an unwarranted killing.
And yet it clearly does tell us much more.
Not in terms of whether or not Officer Wilson is guilty of a crime.

 
Wow, GrandpaRox doubling down on the hateful stupidity. Impressive.

There are several pathologists on the radio this morning who are taking issue with Dr. Melenik's conclusions. I'm not sure the autopsy tells us much more than we know before.As I wrote earlier, I think Brown was a thug, but "he was going for my gun" is the most common defense made by police officers whenever an unarmed person is shot, so it's reasonable to be skeptical about this. And of course it still doesn't answer why Wilson fired so many bullets into Brown after the altercation at the car. There can only be two justifications for that: either Wilson was reasonably afraid for his life, or he was reasonably afraid for the lives of others. If either of these factors are unreasonable or didn't exist, then its an unwarranted killing.
And yet it clearly does tell us much more.
tim: let's wait for the facts to come out

facts come out that don't support his earlier thoughts

tim: I'm not sure the facts tell us anything

 
Wow, GrandpaRox doubling down on the hateful stupidity. Impressive.

There are several pathologists on the radio this morning who are taking issue with Dr. Melenik's conclusions. I'm not sure the autopsy tells us much more than we know before.As I wrote earlier, I think Brown was a thug, but "he was going for my gun" is the most common defense made by police officers whenever an unarmed person is shot, so it's reasonable to be skeptical about this. And of course it still doesn't answer why Wilson fired so many bullets into Brown after the altercation at the car. There can only be two justifications for that: either Wilson was reasonably afraid for his life, or he was reasonably afraid for the lives of others. If either of these factors are unreasonable or didn't exist, then its an unwarranted killing.
And yet it clearly does tell us much more.
tim: let's wait for the facts to come out

facts come out that don't support his earlier thoughts

tim: I'm not sure the facts tell us anything
First off, the reported "facts" DO support my earlier thoughts- go back and read my post in which I surmise what happened. (Short recap: I think Wilson was wrong to kill Brown but not criminally negligent. He should be removed from the police force, but not charged with a crime.) But that doesn't matter. When "experts" disagree about what these facts mean, then I don't think they tell us anything one way or the other.

 
Wow, GrandpaRox doubling down on the hateful stupidity. Impressive.

There are several pathologists on the radio this morning who are taking issue with Dr. Melenik's conclusions. I'm not sure the autopsy tells us much more than we know before. As I wrote earlier, I think Brown was a thug, but "he was going for my gun" is the most common defense made by police officers whenever an unarmed person is shot, so it's reasonable to be skeptical about this. And of course it still doesn't answer why Wilson fired so many bullets into Brown after the altercation at the car. There can only be two justifications for that: either Wilson was reasonably afraid for his life, or he was reasonably afraid for the lives of others. If either of these factors are unreasonable or didn't exist, then its an unwarranted killing.
It is obvious that you have never been in a situation where you feared for your life PLUS had the means to defend yourself. In 99% of the cases a reasonable person being attacked will not fire once and wait to see what the outcome is. When the the fear is palpable and the adrenaline flowing if myself or a member of my family is being attacked I can almost guarantee that my weapon will be emptied when all is said and done.

I admire and applaud those that can show restraint and shoot only once or twice and determine the outcome, those people in those circumstances are very very rare.

Even a trained officer when in fight or flight mode is still human with human fears and reactions. I feel bad that you cannot see that.

Also just for your well being I would not care if the person or persons were white, black, brown, yellow or pink, my reaction would be the same. It is really not a race thing it is a human thing.

It would help if you know what you were talking about. But as usual you talk and think out of ignorance of the situation and how Tim would like to think things should work out instead of reality.

 
Sad to hear people treating it like a sporting event where there are sides and a rooting interest (I hope the other team tries to play that weak defender against us so we can light him up!) instead of an investigation where everyone has the same interest, which is what it should be. Not surprising at all of course, but still kinda gross to see it put that bluntly.
Understood, but there are worldviews at stake here. "Rooting interests" are inevitable.

 
TobiasFunke said:
More peaceful protesters.

I found myself, unexpectedly, right next to these people yesterday when I left the game. My GB's left the game early so I was by myself and I left at the 2:00 mark so there weren't a whole lot of people around.

This will be the fourth time that I've had people yelling, cursing and calling me a racist. You know, because I shave my head since most of my hair has fallen out. I'm obviously a racist because I don't have hair. All because I have the nerve to attend sporting events. That isn't harassment though. These people's rights trump mine.
Wow, man. Powerful, powerful stuff. I don't know how you find the strength to go on.

It's so awful that people focus on the tragedies experiences by the friends and families of Michael Brown and Eric Garner and Oscar Grant and the resulting anger and mistrust in their communities. Meanwhile you have to stand next to people who are "yelling and chanting" after a football game, and nobody seems to care. You might have even come face to face with the 49 year old woman and teenaged girl who were arrested for assault- no doubt a harrowing, life-threatening experience. Where's the CNN news crew to cover your living nightmare? Who's gonna make a Fruitvale Station about how some people yelled at you on your way to your car after watching the Rams win?
One of the bigger **** head posts ive seen here. :thumbdown:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
By the way Tim, not that it matters but my granddaughter is dating a black guy "Justin" and they will be here for a BBQ this weekend. He is a nice young man, is respectful, has a good job and is good for my granddaughter. Neither myself or my wife have absolutely any problem with him. I know none of this matters to you or anyone else on this board, but it is fact.

There is a difference between a black person and a "N" She has dated both one would be allowed in my home while another would not. She has also brought around white guys that fall into the same category.

It is not the color of their skin, it s the content of their character.
I don't expect you to understand that concept.

 
TobiasFunke said:
More peaceful protesters.

I found myself, unexpectedly, right next to these people yesterday when I left the game. My GB's left the game early so I was by myself and I left at the 2:00 mark so there weren't a whole lot of people around.

This will be the fourth time that I've had people yelling, cursing and calling me a racist. You know, because I shave my head since most of my hair has fallen out. I'm obviously a racist because I don't have hair. All because I have the nerve to attend sporting events. That isn't harassment though. These people's rights trump mine.
Wow, man. Powerful, powerful stuff. I don't know how you find the strength to go on.

It's so awful that people focus on the tragedies experiences by the friends and families of Michael Brown and Eric Garner and Oscar Grant and the resulting anger and mistrust in their communities. Meanwhile you have to stand next to people who are "yelling and chanting" after a football game, and nobody seems to care. You might have even come face to face with the 49 year old woman and teenaged girl who were arrested for assault- no doubt a harrowing, life-threatening experience. Where's the CNN news crew to cover your living nightmare? Who's gonna make a Fruitvale Station about how some people yelled at you on your way to your car after watching the Rams win?
One of the bigger **** head posts ive seen here. :thumbdown:
Yeah, you're probably right. My using snark and sarcasm yesterday (which I already said was maybe a little over the line) in response to snark and sarcasm is way worse than you calling me a #### head.

 
Wow, GrandpaRox doubling down on the hateful stupidity. Impressive.

There are several pathologists on the radio this morning who are taking issue with Dr. Melenik's conclusions. I'm not sure the autopsy tells us much more than we know before. As I wrote earlier, I think Brown was a thug, but "he was going for my gun" is the most common defense made by police officers whenever an unarmed person is shot, so it's reasonable to be skeptical about this. And of course it still doesn't answer why Wilson fired so many bullets into Brown after the altercation at the car. There can only be two justifications for that: either Wilson was reasonably afraid for his life, or he was reasonably afraid for the lives of others. If either of these factors are unreasonable or didn't exist, then its an unwarranted killing.
It is obvious that you have never been in a situation where you feared for your life PLUS had the means to defend yourself. In 99% of the cases a reasonable person being attacked will not fire once and wait to see what the outcome is. When the the fear is palpable and the adrenaline flowing if myself or a member of my family is being attacked I can almost guarantee that my weapon will be emptied when all is said and done.

I admire and applaud those that can show restraint and shoot only once or twice and determine the outcome, those people in those circumstances are very very rare.

Even a trained officer when in fight or flight mode is still human with human fears and reactions. I feel bad that you cannot see that.

Also just for your well being I would not care if the person or persons were white, black, brown, yellow or pink, my reaction would be the same. It is really not a race thing it is a human thing.

It would help if you know what you were talking about. But as usual you talk and think out of ignorance of the situation and how Tim would like to think things should work out instead of reality.
With regard to the bolded, here is what I wrote on October 18:

At this point, Wilson killed Brown. Which is perfectly understandable. Brown had tried to kill Wilson. You or I in such a situation, with a gun in our hands, would probably act the same way. I'm sure Wilson was terrified and enraged. And I strongly doubt he was making any racial consideration whatsoever. He was simply thinking, or FEELING: this guy just tried to kill me, he was going to kill me, I can't let him get away. And so Wilson lost his cool and fired. But policemen must be held to a higher standard than the rest of us. HE IS NOT SUPPOSED TO LOSE HIS COOL. That's an easier thing to say than to do. Realistically, cops lose their cool all the time.

I stand by that.

As for your feelings on this matter, you've made yourself very clear. You want a riot in order to show the world what "these people" are like. You hope the city burns down.

 
By the way Tim, not that it matters but my granddaughter is dating a black guy "Justin" and they will be here for a BBQ this weekend. He is a nice young man, is respectful, has a good job and is good for my granddaughter. Neither myself or my wife have absolutely any problem with him. I know none of this matters to you or anyone else on this board, but it is fact.

There is a difference between a black person and a "N" She has dated both one would be allowed in my home while another would not. She has also brought around white guys that fall into the same category.

It is not the color of their skin, it s the content of their character.
I don't expect you to understand that concept.
I'm glad for you that your granddaughter is dating one of the "good" blacks, and not an "N".

 
TobiasFunke said:
More peaceful protesters.

I found myself, unexpectedly, right next to these people yesterday when I left the game. My GB's left the game early so I was by myself and I left at the 2:00 mark so there weren't a whole lot of people around.

This will be the fourth time that I've had people yelling, cursing and calling me a racist. You know, because I shave my head since most of my hair has fallen out. I'm obviously a racist because I don't have hair. All because I have the nerve to attend sporting events. That isn't harassment though. These people's rights trump mine.
Wow, man. Powerful, powerful stuff. I don't know how you find the strength to go on.

It's so awful that people focus on the tragedies experiences by the friends and families of Michael Brown and Eric Garner and Oscar Grant and the resulting anger and mistrust in their communities. Meanwhile you have to stand next to people who are "yelling and chanting" after a football game, and nobody seems to care. You might have even come face to face with the 49 year old woman and teenaged girl who were arrested for assault- no doubt a harrowing, life-threatening experience. Where's the CNN news crew to cover your living nightmare? Who's gonna make a Fruitvale Station about how some people yelled at you on your way to your car after watching the Rams win?
One of the bigger **** head posts ive seen here. :thumbdown:
Yeah, you're probably right. My using snark and sarcasm yesterday (which I already said was maybe a little over the line) in response to snark and sarcasm is way worse than you calling me a #### head.
I probably am.

 
From interview with forensic expert on CNN. Bodes well for the officer.

Latest leaks from the grand jury have the officer getting punched in the head, Brown being shot at close range, possibly within arms reach. Gun powder reside on his hand. Also, radio transmissions may indicate that not only did the officer know a robbery had been committed at that store, but the description fit Brown. Timeframe may indicate that is why he backed up to confront them.

I almost want to see a trial so that when they put that friend up on the stand, the defense destroys him. There is no way the prosecution can coach him up on what would come his way. He would be a valuable witness for the officer.
While that points to the fact that they had an altercation at/in the police car, it does not show:

1. Who initiated the contact. Was it the officer pulling Brown from the window - with Brown not attempting to attack until the gun was pulled.

2. Whether Brown was in fact surrendering himself to the officer, with his hands up and defenseless.
The article I posted has your answer to #2

Melinek also said the autopsy did not support witnesses who have claimed Brown was shot while running away from Wilson, or with his hands up.

She said Brown was facing Wilson when Brown took a shot to the forehead, two shots to the chest and a shot to the upper right arm. The wound to the top of Brown’s head would indicate he was falling forward or in a lunging position toward the shooter; the shot was instantly fatal.

A sixth shot that hit the forearm traveled from the back of the arm to the inner arm, which means Brown’s palms could not have been facing Wilson, as some witnesses have said, Melinek said. That trajectory shows Brown probably was not taking a standard surrender position with arms above the shoulders and palms out when he was hit, she said.
Forensic shmoresnic - Time to go loot and riot! :hot:
If the protestors don't get the result they want out of this it's gonna get real ugly.I really hope I'm wrong.

 
Wow, GrandpaRox doubling down on the hateful stupidity. Impressive.

There are several pathologists on the radio this morning who are taking issue with Dr. Melenik's conclusions. I'm not sure the autopsy tells us much more than we know before. As I wrote earlier, I think Brown was a thug, but "he was going for my gun" is the most common defense made by police officers whenever an unarmed person is shot, so it's reasonable to be skeptical about this. And of course it still doesn't answer why Wilson fired so many bullets into Brown after the altercation at the car. There can only be two justifications for that: either Wilson was reasonably afraid for his life, or he was reasonably afraid for the lives of others. If either of these factors are unreasonable or didn't exist, then its an unwarranted killing.
It is obvious that you have never been in a situation where you feared for your life PLUS had the means to defend yourself. In 99% of the cases a reasonable person being attacked will not fire once and wait to see what the outcome is. When the the fear is palpable and the adrenaline flowing if myself or a member of my family is being attacked I can almost guarantee that my weapon will be emptied when all is said and done.

I admire and applaud those that can show restraint and shoot only once or twice and determine the outcome, those people in those circumstances are very very rare.

Even a trained officer when in fight or flight mode is still human with human fears and reactions. I feel bad that you cannot see that.

Also just for your well being I would not care if the person or persons were white, black, brown, yellow or pink, my reaction would be the same. It is really not a race thing it is a human thing.

It would help if you know what you were talking about. But as usual you talk and think out of ignorance of the situation and how Tim would like to think things should work out instead of reality.
With regard to the bolded, here is what I wrote on October 18:

At this point, Wilson killed Brown. Which is perfectly understandable. Brown had tried to kill Wilson. You or I in such a situation, with a gun in our hands, would probably act the same way. I'm sure Wilson was terrified and enraged. And I strongly doubt he was making any racial consideration whatsoever. He was simply thinking, or FEELING: this guy just tried to kill me, he was going to kill me, I can't let him get away. And so Wilson lost his cool and fired. But policemen must be held to a higher standard than the rest of us. HE IS NOT SUPPOSED TO LOSE HIS COOL. That's an easier thing to say than to do. Realistically, cops lose their cool all the time.

I stand by that.
It's impressive how absolutely clueless you are about reality in this thread...

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top