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 (1 Viewer)

I mentioned yesterday that it would be awesome if there was some sort of Kickstarter or GoFundMe so people could donate to help out local Ferguson businesses damaged by riots/looting. I found one. Looks like she has all the money she needs and then some, but maybe some other local businesses will take the cue and do something similar, and perhaps she'll link to them when it happens. I'll poke around a little more and try to remember to check on it again after the holidays.

 
Woke up this morning here in Minneapolis without having watched then news last night to see that there were 1,000+ protesters here locally, and that two cars/vans essentially drove through the crowds.

#1 - http://www.startribune.com/video/283893441.html#sfcri

#2 - http://www.startribune.com/video/283919501.html#sfcri

WTF?! I'm absolutely dumbfounded how people are clinging to this as some massive injustice and willing to rally because of this ruling, when the evidence would reasonably lead one down the path towards this being a justifiable shooting of an 18 year old whom had just committed a "hey I'm taking #### from your store so what are you going to do about it" theft.

The wheels have officially come off of this country. Find a better cause to rally around and do dumb #### like blocking traffic. I hope one of these idiots' family members needs medical care and can't get it because they're blocking streets in support of a criminal whom was killed.
Awesome videos right there.

And :goodposting: overall. Country is ####ed.

 
Just to demonstrate that, despite Bryhamm's assertion, there really are a lot of points in dispute here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/25/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-mistakes_n_6220814.html?ref=topbar

Soon after Officer Darren Wilson shot and killed Michael Brown, an unarmed 18-year-old, law enforcement’s handling of the case was already being criticized as callous and sloppy. Residents of Ferguson, Missouri, looked on in horror as police officials failed to cover and later to remove Brown’s body from the street for hours.

Now that the grand jury evidence, including forensic records and testimony from Wilson and those investigating the fatal shooting, has been released, it's clear that other mistakes were made in attempting to figure out what happened on that August afternoon. The best physical evidence and testimony might not have been as ironclad in Wilson's favor as prosecutor Robert McCulloch characterized it on Monday night.

From the reams of grand jury testimony and police evidence, here are some key points that, if this case had gone to trial, could have been highlighted by prosecutors (not including the witnesses who appeared to contradict Wilson’s testimony):

1. Wilson washed away blood evidence.

In an interview with police investigators, Wilson admitted that after the shooting he returned to police headquarters and washed blood off his body -- physical evidence that could have helped to prove or disprove a critical piece of Wilson’s testimony regarding his struggle with Brown inside the police car. He told his interrogator that he had blood on both of his hands. “I think it was his blood,” Wilson said referring to Brown. He added that he was not cut anywhere.

2. The first officer to interview Wilson failed to take any notes.

The first supervising officer to the scene, who was also the first person to interview Wilson about the incident, didn’t take any notes about their conversation. In testimony more than a month after the incident, the officer offered his account from memory. He explained that he hadn’t been equipped with a recorder and hadn’t tried to take any written notes due to the chaotic nature of the situation. He also didn’t write up any notes soon after the fact. “I didn’t take notes because at that point in time I had multiple things going through my head besides what Darren was telling me,” the officer stated.

The same officer admitted during his grand jury testimony that Wilson had called him personally after they both had been interviewed by investigators. Wilson then went over his account again with the officer. The officer told the grand jury that there were no discrepancies between Wilson’s first account in person and his second account on the phone. But the call raises questions about whether Wilson may have influenced witness testimony.

3. Investigators failed to measure the likely distance between Brown and Wilson.

An unnamed medical legal examiner who responded to the shooting testified before the grand jury that he or she had not taken any distance measurements at the scene, because they appeared “self-explanatory.”

“Somebody shot somebody. There was no question as to any distances or anything of that nature at the time I was there,” the examiner told the jury.

The examiner also noted that he or she hadn’t been able to take pictures at the scene -- as is standard -- because the camera's batteries were dead. The examiner later testified that he or she accompanied investigators from the St. Louis County Police Department as they photographed Brown’s body.

4. Investigators did not test Wilson’s gun for fingerprints.

Talking with police investigators and before the grand jury, Wilson claimed that Brown had grabbed at Wilson's gun during the initial incident in the police car and that Brown's hand was on the firearm when it misfired at least once. Wilson also told police that he thought Brown would overpower him and shoot him with his own gun. “I was not in control of the gun,” Wilson said. Eventually he regained control of the weapon and fired from within the car.

Investigators could have helped to prove or disprove Wilson’s testimony by testing his service weapon for Brown’s fingerprints. But the gun was not tested for fingerprints. An investigator argued before the grand jury that the decision was made not to test the weapon because Wilson “never lost control of his gun.”

5. Wilson did not immediately turn his weapon over to investigators after killing Brown.

A detective with the St. Louis County Police Department, who conducted the first official interview of Wilson, testified to the grand jury that Wilson had packaged his own service weapon into an evidence envelope following his arrival at the police station in the wake of the shooting. The detective said the practice was not usual for his department, though he was unclear on the protocol of the Ferguson Police Department. He said he didn’t explore that aspect further at the time.

According to the detective’s testimony, standard practice for the St. Louis County Police Department would be for an officer involved in a shooting to keep his or her weapon holstered until it can be turned over to a supervisor and a crime scene unit detective. While that clearly didn’t take place in Wilson’s case, the detective also testified that he believed the firearm was handled in a way that preserved the chain of custody.

6. An initial interview with investigators was delayed while Wilson traveled to the hospital with his superiors.

The same St. Louis County Police Department detective also testified that while he had intended to conduct his initial interview with Wilson at the Ferguson police station, a lieutenant colonel with the Ferguson Police Department decided that Wilson first needed to go to the hospital for medical treatment. The detective said that while it is common practice to defer to any medical decision of this nature, Wilson appeared to be in good health and didn’t have any notable injuries that would have prevented an interview from being conducted at the station. Wilson would also testify that he didn’t believe he needed to go to the hospital.

But that day, Wilson got into a vehicle with the lieutenant colonel and another Ferguson police official and went to the hospital, while the St. Louis County detective traveled in another vehicle.

7. Wilson’s initial interview with the detective conflicts with information given in later testimony.

In his first interview with the detective, just hours after Brown’s death, Wilson didn’t claim to have any knowledge that Brown was suspected of stealing cigarillos from a nearby convenience store. The only mention of cigarillos he made to the detective was a recollection of the call about the theft that had come across his radio and that provided a description of the suspect.

Wilson also told the detective that Brown had passed something off to his friend before punching Wilson in the face. At the time, the detective said, Wilson didn’t know what the item was, referring to it only as “something.” In subsequent interviews and testimony, however, Wilson claimed that he knew Brown’s hands were full of cigarillos and that fact eventually led him to believe Brown may have been a suspect in the theft.
LOL. Yes, there were mistakes in how things are handled. Where are the "disputes" in this?

 
I mentioned yesterday that it would be awesome if there was some sort of Kickstarter or GoFundMe so people could donate to help out local Ferguson businesses damaged by riots/looting. I found one. Looks like she has all the money she needs and then some, but maybe some other local businesses will take the cue and do something similar, and perhaps she'll link to them when it happens. I'll poke around a little more and try to remember to check on it again after the holidays.
It would be massively awesome if Ferguson got rebuilt quickly through something like this and didn't suffer the fate we all fear it will when the smoke really settles from this.

 
I think all officers like Wilson should be wearing a camera.

Lot of us don't want that because cops have a tough job and sometimes they got to get down and dirty while entering grey areas to get the job done. NYPD Blue style like we see on tv.

I understand that but the trade off is a large segment of the population has to deal with a lot of harassment/suspicion that the the other part would not put up with.

Our justice system is set up to let a lot more guilty people go free then lock up a non-guilty person.

I think what Wilson did was appropriate. But crime at it lowest in decades. Make the cops wear cameras. The Brown case is a poor substitute for the real issue.
Cameras, police oversight, police unionism and the allowance of public unions when safety or travel is at stake, and paramilitary-style police equipment out in even low-crime areas like the suburbs were all issues that should have been discussed from this.

Instead, we now have the typical circus and each political side is having a blame game with each other's political bases. The four things mentioned above could have changed so much more than national dialogues on race or rorschach tests of fact patterns, but it's lost in this garbage of "whodunit?"
I explained cameras pages ago. They are not cheap. The only way this gets done is via the federal govt. because they are the only ones who can run a deficit.
:confused: Cameras are actually dirt cheap. What's expensive and difficult is a good data storage methodology that is easily searchable. But with cloud storage becoming super cheap, that cost is coming down too.

In fact, at the time of the incident, Ferguson PD already HAD wearable cameras. They just had't been deployed yet.
You want it done right, then it's the Panasonic Arbitrator system which is designed to take the video from the car to the server. No thumb drives no manually uploading. You drive to the station and it auto connects and uploads to the server. $5000 or so per system. Now multiply that times the number of vehicles. Then tack on the yearly maint. It's not nearly as cheap as you think. Only a stupid agency would cloud storage their videos.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think all officers like Wilson should be wearing a camera.

Lot of us don't want that because cops have a tough job and sometimes they got to get down and dirty while entering grey areas to get the job done. NYPD Blue style like we see on tv.

I understand that but the trade off is a large segment of the population has to deal with a lot of harassment/suspicion that the the other part would not put up with.

Our justice system is set up to let a lot more guilty people go free then lock up a non-guilty person.

I think what Wilson did was appropriate. But crime at it lowest in decades. Make the cops wear cameras. The Brown case is a poor substitute for the real issue.
Cameras, police oversight, police unionism and the allowance of public unions when safety or travel is at stake, and paramilitary-style police equipment out in even low-crime areas like the suburbs were all issues that should have been discussed from this.

Instead, we now have the typical circus and each political side is having a blame game with each other's political bases. The four things mentioned above could have changed so much more than national dialogues on race or rorschach tests of fact patterns, but it's lost in this garbage of "whodunit?"
I explained cameras pages ago. They are not cheap. The only way this gets done is via the federal govt. because they are the only ones who can run a deficit.
Earlier in the thread it was established that Ferguson has them but have chosen not to use them

 
Woke up this morning here in Minneapolis without having watched then news last night to see that there were 1,000+ protesters here locally, and that two cars/vans essentially drove through the crowds.

#1 - http://www.startribune.com/video/283893441.html#sfcri

#2 - http://www.startribune.com/video/283919501.html#sfcri

WTF?! I'm absolutely dumbfounded how people are clinging to this as some massive injustice and willing to rally because of this ruling, when the evidence would reasonably lead one down the path towards this being a justifiable shooting of an 18 year old whom had just committed a "hey I'm taking #### from your store so what are you going to do about it" theft.

The wheels have officially come off of this country. Find a better cause to rally around and do dumb #### like blocking traffic. I hope one of these idiots' family members needs medical care and can't get it because they're blocking streets in support of a criminal whom was killed.
Escalating in Cleveland also...protests yesterday over Cleveland police officer shooting and killing a 12 year old kid last weekend...kid was waving around a pellet gun that looked like a real gun at a park...police respond and tell kid to put his hands up...instead, kid pulls pellet gun out of his pants and rookie cop shoots him...kid dies the next day.

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/11/protests_break_out_in_cleveland.html#incart_big-photo
has seemed pretty peaceful so far, although the irritated drivers on the Shoreway yesterday may have other things to say. I liked how the mayor and police chief managed yesterday's events.
 
I do have concerns with the militarization of our police forces and there certainly are bad apples, which is why wearable cameras need to be mandatory for all officers across the board. But those guys have a tough job and there seem to be a whole lot of folks willing to fight police officers these days.
I have often wondered if there can be a comfrotable middle ground in a free society between (a) the kind of police forces American communities generally have now and (b) an American Stasi.

IOW, can you give American police, say, 20% more "lawbreaking" leeway (how to quantify 20%?), a limited "license to kill" to prevent prosecutions in Wilson-Brown/fight-or-flight-reaction cases where premeditation cannot be established, etc. When spelled out, it sounds terrible and wholly unconstitutional. But can the lawful defeat the lawless? Does it take an outlaw to beat an outlaw? In a lawful land, is the one lawless man a virtual king because he can cross lines to gain power that no one else dares to cross?

I wish I knew what the middle ground could be. I love "law and order", conceptually, but don't want to live in East Germany or North Korea either. Is it that events like Ferguson are the necessary price a free society must, at times, pay?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
We just had a grand jury decision based on all of the evidence, yet all of the evidence is back in dispute.

Is the coroner in on the conspiracy now? I can't keep track anymore.
Tim -

Stop and read the bolded ... slowly.
i did read it. And as I pointed out, the Grand Jury determined that there wasn't enough evidence to indict Wilson. That is all they determined. They did not determine Wilson's story was true. They did not determine that he was justified in shooting Brown.
 
There is a certain logic to General Tso's argument. If Michael Brown did indeed attack a police officer, it's likely that he is going to be shot. It's possible that he's going to die. And in such instances, it's extremely unlikely that the police officer will ever be charged with a crime. It is VERY STUPID to attack a police officer.

But all of that assumes that there actually was an attack, and that it played out the way Wilson describes it.
:lmao:

Thanks for the pre-Thanksgiving laugh

 
I think all officers like Wilson should be wearing a camera.

Lot of us don't want that because cops have a tough job and sometimes they got to get down and dirty while entering grey areas to get the job done. NYPD Blue style like we see on tv.

I understand that but the trade off is a large segment of the population has to deal with a lot of harassment/suspicion that the the other part would not put up with.

Our justice system is set up to let a lot more guilty people go free then lock up a non-guilty person.

I think what Wilson did was appropriate. But crime at it lowest in decades. Make the cops wear cameras. The Brown case is a poor substitute for the real issue.
Cameras, police oversight, police unionism and the allowance of public unions when safety or travel is at stake, and paramilitary-style police equipment out in even low-crime areas like the suburbs were all issues that should have been discussed from this.

Instead, we now have the typical circus and each political side is having a blame game with each other's political bases. The four things mentioned above could have changed so much more than national dialogues on race or rorschach tests of fact patterns, but it's lost in this garbage of "whodunit?"
I explained cameras pages ago. They are not cheap. The only way this gets done is via the federal govt. because they are the only ones who can run a deficit.
Earlier in the thread it was established that Ferguson has them but have chosen not to use them
Dumb move by them. If you have them and use them, they are awesome. When you go into court with the video and the defense lawyer tries some legal bull#### you roll the tape and the defense attorney gives up.

 
We just had a grand jury decision based on all of the evidence, yet all of the evidence is back in dispute.

Is the coroner in on the conspiracy now? I can't keep track anymore.
Tim -

Stop and read the bolded ... slowly.
i did read it. And as I pointed out, the Grand Jury determined that there wasn't enough evidence to indict Wilson. That is all they determined. They did not determine Wilson's story was true. They did not determine that he was justified in shooting Brown.
Tonight, would you mind stepping out to protest on the LA freeway? Thanks in advance.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I saw an interview this morning on CNN with two commentators one black and one white...The white guy said something along the lines of, "it makes me physically ill to know that my friend (the black commentator) has to have a talk with his sons about how to act around the police, how to talk, walk etc"....To me this is such a horse #### argument..If you are a white father and you are not teaching your sons how to interact with the police you are just a sorry father...Every father should be saying to their sons and daughters "when confronted by a police officer be respectful and listen to and obey the commands that they are giving you".... Apparently nobody had that talk with Brown....There was not an issue of race in his killing, it was an issue of ignorance and disobedience...The issue of race came afterwards started by the black community.

 
There's been about a dozen posts this morning all asking the same thing: why, given the evidence, do some people still believe that Michael Brown was wrongfully killed? You guys just can't understand it. Ivan K offered a patronizing answer: because they've made their minds up already. Which implies that the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of Wilson's story.

Except it isn't. From the beginning there were 3 key questions related to this event: what exactly happened at the car? How far away was Brown when Wilson fired at him outside of the car? Did Brown actually charge at Wilson? (This last question being the most important of all). We still don't know the answers to any of these questions. Most of you have simply accepted Wilson's story as to what happened. I don't, particularly with regard to the last question, because I don't think it's plausible, and there's no evidence other than his statement. So no, sorry Ivan, it's not because I've already made my mind up (quite the contrary in my case) but because neither you nor anyone else have provided evidence or reason to change it in this instance. I believe that Michael Brown was wrongfully killed because he was at least 35 feet away from Wilson and was therefore not a threat to Wilson, even if he had been earlier. If Brown had meant to kill Wilson, I don't think he would have walked away from him in the first place. That's what my common sense tells me, and nothing has been presented to contradict it so far.

 
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.
So based on the above article, we really don't know whether Brown tried to seize Wilson's gun or not. We really don't know how far the distance was between them when Wilson fatally shot Brown. For both of these, so far as I know, all we have is Wilson's testimony plus several unreliable witnesses who contradict each other. Many of you have simply bought into Wilson's claims without questioning them at all. Many of you have treated them as undisputable facts, and have used them to justify all or most of your thinking on this issue. And they may be what actually happened. But we don't know.
Simple question - do you believe that Mike Brown assaulted Officer Wilson?
Simple answer: yes. It is my hunch that he did. Michael Brown was a stupid thug. However I don't know for sure. Did Michael Brown try to seize Wilson's gun? I have no ####### idea.

Did Michael Brown, already wounded, having walked or run away from the car, suddenly turn around at a distance of 40 feet or more and charge an armed policeman, with a gun pointed at him, like a mad wounded animal? I have NEVER been able to believe this, sorry. Even for a dumb thug like Brown it doesn't make any sense. Sure it's possible. But I don't buy it.
No matter what the physical evidence is and witness testimony that matches with the physical evidence and officer Wilson's testimony you just refuse to believe it. I told you back in August you wouldn't believe it and you still don't.

 
Who was the black reverend on last night that blasted Brown and the protestors? They need to have that guy on nightly to try and pound some sense into this country.

 
We just had a grand jury decision based on all of the evidence, yet all of the evidence is back in dispute.

Is the coroner in on the conspiracy now? I can't keep track anymore.
Tim -

Stop and read the bolded ... slowly.
i did read it. And as I pointed out, the Grand Jury determined that there wasn't enough evidence to indict Wilson. That is all they determined. They did not determine Wilson's story was true. They did not determine that he was justified in shooting Brown.
Tonight, would you mind stepping out to protest on the LA freeway? Thanks in advance.
this has been the level of your input to this discussion all along. You have been remarkably consistent.
 
A person can cover 35 ft in what? 2 seconds? 3 maybe? That's not like he was a football field away and the cop hit him with a sniper rifle.

 
We just had a grand jury decision based on all of the evidence, yet all of the evidence is back in dispute.

Is the coroner in on the conspiracy now? I can't keep track anymore.
Tim -

Stop and read the bolded ... slowly.
i did read it. And as I pointed out, the Grand Jury determined that there wasn't enough evidence to indict Wilson. That is all they determined. They did not determine Wilson's story was true. They did not determine that he was justified in shooting Brown.
Tonight, would you mind stepping out to protest on the LA freeway? Thanks in advance.
this has been the level of your input to this discussion all along. You have been remarkably consistent.
:lmao: The joke goes :whoosh: right over your head. I thought the 'thanks in advance' would allow you to understand that it was a joke.

 
A person can cover 35 ft in what? 2 seconds? 3 maybe? That's not like he was a football field away and the cop hit him with a sniper rifle.
yes. We've been over this. If Brown was charging. What makes you think he was, beyond that Wilson said so after the fact?
Occam's razor. It makes a lot more sense than some conspiracy theory about a cop who was just out for blood or whatever. Do you think this cop just decided "you know what I need to do, kill somebody. That'd be a hoot."

 
Hey Rick6668, please explain what physical evidence there is that Brown charged Wilson? That's what I wrote I wasn't buying.
When you examine the foot impressions Brown left in the pavement and measure the distance between them, you have your answer.

JFC. There is no physical evidence of that on pavement. There can't be. There is eyewitness testimony. Just wondering when you guys are going to jump on the 'they must have paid these people off to make those statements' angle.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
There's been about a dozen posts this morning all asking the same thing: why, given the evidence, do some people still believe that Michael Brown was wrongfully killed? You guys just can't understand it. Ivan K offered a patronizing answer: because they've made their minds up already. Which implies that the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of Wilson's story.

Except it isn't. From the beginning there were 3 key questions related to this event: what exactly happened at the car? How far away was Brown when Wilson fired at him outside of the car? Did Brown actually charge at Wilson? (This last question being the most important of all). We still don't know the answers to any of these questions. Most of you have simply accepted Wilson's story as to what happened. I don't, particularly with regard to the last question, because I don't think it's plausible, and there's no evidence other than his statement. So no, sorry Ivan, it's not because I've already made my mind up (quite the contrary in my case) but because neither you nor anyone else have provided evidence or reason to change it in this instance. I believe that Michael Brown was wrongfully killed because he was at least 35 feet away from Wilson and was therefore not a threat to Wilson, even if he had been earlier. If Brown had meant to kill Wilson, I don't think he would have walked away from him in the first place. That's what my common sense tells me, and nothing has been presented to contradict it so far.
That's somewhat the point. We don't know for sure what happened and never will. We are back to square 1 in this thread. I don't understand the point of debating either side of something we will never know. All we know is that the GJ decided not to indict based on the evidence available.

 
Last edited:
And I think we place too much on police sometimes. Confrontations with violent criminals can go bad really really fast. Good training can help speed up the decision making process so that officers make better choices than the average person, but expecting them to get it right and not kill a suspect that is attacking them is asking a whole lot.

Here's one similar incident from this year where things went bad really fast and ended with the officer getting shot to death with his own gun: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/officer-shot-killed-crazed-man-snatches-gun-police-article-1.1740921

I do have concerns with the militarization of our police forces and there certainly are bad apples, which is why wearable cameras need to be mandatory for all officers across the board. But those guys have a tough job and there seem to be a whole lot of folks willing to fight police officers these days.
Cops are acutely aware of every single LEO duty related death and every non-fatal shooting, stabbing, or other deadly weapon assault upon LEO around the nation. (Vehicular assaults are plentiful) Pretty much every Department in the Country receives notifications through the End of Watch organization detailing the facts. I sometimes believe that this process may cause Officers to have a skewed sense of danger. If so that is a problem. The problem of correctly attributing risk is something we all face due to information filters we have in place. Our attribution are less socially significant than a LEO's. If we are misinformed maybe we over pontificate on a message board or around the Thanksgiving table. If LEO's do so maybe the shoot some person or family pet that did not really need shooting.

 
A person can cover 35 ft in what? 2 seconds? 3 maybe? That's not like he was a football field away and the cop hit him with a sniper rifle.
yes. We've been over this. If Brown was charging. What makes you think he was, beyond that Wilson said so after the fact?
African American witness testimony corroborating Wilsons story of him charging.
There were several witnesses who contradicted each other on this point. I have not read their testimonies so I have no idea which ones are more credible than others. Perhaps if I do I will change my mind. But I think that when faced with contradictory testimony of this type, it's a reasonable conclusion to disregard all of it. I certainly don't think it's wise to pick and choose.
 
A person can cover 35 ft in what? 2 seconds? 3 maybe? That's not like he was a football field away and the cop hit him with a sniper rifle.
yes. We've been over this. If Brown was charging. What makes you think he was, beyond that Wilson said so after the fact?
African American witness testimony corroborating Wilsons story of him charging.
There were several witnesses who contradicted each other on this point. I have not read their testimonies so I have no idea which ones are more credible than others. Perhaps if I do I will change my mind. But I think that when faced with contradictory testimony of this type, it's a reasonable conclusion to disregard all of it. I certainly don't think it's wise to pick and choose.
Which is why there is no indictment and there will be no trial that would be impossible to win. Last night one guy even said he didn't think there is any chance a civil case could be won.

The fact is that a guy just committed a robbery, Wilson decided this guy fit the description and the guy is now dead because of his own actions.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
We just had a grand jury decision based on all of the evidence, yet all of the evidence is back in dispute.

Is the coroner in on the conspiracy now? I can't keep track anymore.
Tim -

Stop and read the bolded ... slowly.
i did read it. And as I pointed out, the Grand Jury determined that there wasn't enough evidence to indict Wilson. That is all they determined. They did not determine Wilson's story was true. They did not determine that he was justified in shooting Brown.
Tonight, would you mind stepping out to protest on the LA freeway? Thanks in advance.
this has been the level of your input to this discussion all along. You have been remarkably consistent.
:lmao: The joke goes :whoosh: right over your head. I thought the 'thanks in advance' would allow you to understand that it was a joke.
i got that it was a joke. I guess I just don't find "go die" jokes very funny.
 
A person can cover 35 ft in what? 2 seconds? 3 maybe? That's not like he was a football field away and the cop hit him with a sniper rifle.
yes. We've been over this. If Brown was charging. What makes you think he was, beyond that Wilson said so after the fact?
African American witness testimony corroborating Wilsons story of him charging.
There were several witnesses who contradicted each other on this point. I have not read their testimonies so I have no idea which ones are more credible than others. Perhaps if I do I will change my mind. But I think that when faced with contradictory testimony of this type, it's a reasonable conclusion to disregard all of it. I certainly don't think it's wise to pick and choose.
Which is why there is no indictment and there will be no trial that would be impossible to win.
i agree.
 
A person can cover 35 ft in what? 2 seconds? 3 maybe? That's not like he was a football field away and the cop hit him with a sniper rifle.
yes. We've been over this. If Brown was charging. What makes you think he was, beyond that Wilson said so after the fact?
African American witness testimony corroborating Wilsons story of him charging.
There were several witnesses who contradicted each other on this point. I have not read their testimonies so I have no idea which ones are more credible than others. Perhaps if I do I will change my mind. But I think that when faced with contradictory testimony of this type, it's a reasonable conclusion to disregard all of it. I certainly don't think it's wise to pick and choose.
Disregard all of it instead of just the ones that can be discredited? Wow that sounds brilliant. Glad you aren't in charge.

 
Anyone see this video of a driver running their car through a crowd of protestors after they swarm the vehicle and running over at least one person?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJiRoRtdiSg

I am sure some of the more sane posters in this thread would have simply stopped the car, allowed the mob to beat the #### out of it and then snatch them out of the vehicle rather than risk taking another person's life...I mean, their life has value and all.
watching it again there is a few cars in the upper screen...im thinking this was someone who was sitting in traffic and figured they would just try and drive thru the crowd thinking they would move outa the way...then when some people fell down and got pinned under the car the crowd swarmed ...the the person panicked and took off running over even more people

 
A person can cover 35 ft in what? 2 seconds? 3 maybe? That's not like he was a football field away and the cop hit him with a sniper rifle.
yes. We've been over this. If Brown was charging. What makes you think he was, beyond that Wilson said so after the fact?
African American witness testimony corroborating Wilsons story of him charging.
There were several witnesses who contradicted each other on this point. I have not read their testimonies so I have no idea which ones are more credible than others. Perhaps if I do I will change my mind. But I think that when faced with contradictory testimony of this type, it's a reasonable conclusion to disregard all of it. I certainly don't think it's wise to pick and choose.
I tend to side with the person who goes out everyday and tries to uphold the law not the 6'4" criminal who smacks around store midgets.

 
A person can cover 35 ft in what? 2 seconds? 3 maybe? That's not like he was a football field away and the cop hit him with a sniper rifle.
yes. We've been over this. If Brown was charging. What makes you think he was, beyond that Wilson said so after the fact?
African American witness testimony corroborating Wilsons story of him charging.
There were several witnesses who contradicted each other on this point. I have not read their testimonies so I have no idea which ones are more credible than others. Perhaps if I do I will change my mind. But I think that when faced with contradictory testimony of this type, it's a reasonable conclusion to disregard all of it. I certainly don't think it's wise to pick and choose.
Now you're just being ignorant. Read about the ####### case and gain a clue before you come in here with your unsubstantiated opinions.

The most credible eyewitnesses to the shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., said he had charged toward Police Officer Darren Wilson just before the final, fatal shots

It's the first ####### sentence in this article:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/11/25/us/witnesses-told-grand-jury-that-michael-brown-charged-at-darren-wilson-prosecutor-says.html?referrer=

 
A person can cover 35 ft in what? 2 seconds? 3 maybe? That's not like he was a football field away and the cop hit him with a sniper rifle.
yes. We've been over this. If Brown was charging. What makes you think he was, beyond that Wilson said so after the fact?
Occam's razor. It makes a lot more sense than some conspiracy theory about a cop who was just out for blood or whatever. Do you think this cop just decided "you know what I need to do, kill somebody. That'd be a hoot."
i agree. I don't think this was any conspiracy theory either. Occam's Razor tells me that Wilson freaked out and killed Brown in the heat of the moment after Brown ceased to be a threat to Wilson.
 
Except it isn't. From the beginning there were 3 key questions related to this event: what exactly happened at the car? How far away was Brown when Wilson fired at him outside of the car? Did Brown actually charge at Wilson? (This last question being the most important of all). We still don't know the answers to any of these questions. Most of you have simply accepted Wilson's story as to what happened. I don't, particularly with regard to the last question, because I don't think it's plausible, and there's no evidence other than his statement.
Wilson's account is the one and only account that Brown turned back upon Wilson? I thought there was some other testimony that backed Wilson up.

Or is it a question of the definition of "charging" vs. "other kinds of more deliberate motion"? I don't know about the "charging like a football player", either, but I have no problem believing "wheeled around and moved hand on waistband".I think it was a fight-or-flight situation for Wilson, especially after the tussle in the car, and I cannot fault him for starting to shooting someone at that distance. Admittedly, the "hand moved to the waistband" is important to my reasoning here ... more so that any "charging".

Also, is it not firmly established that the final shot (the fatal shot to the head) was within 10 feet? If so, then motion toward Wilson (if not charging) was certainly established, correct? Perhaps the "wheel around + hand moved to the waistband" can justify the shot(s) from 30+ feet, and the subsequent forward motion can justify the head shot.

 
A person can cover 35 ft in what? 2 seconds? 3 maybe? That's not like he was a football field away and the cop hit him with a sniper rifle.
yes. We've been over this. If Brown was charging. What makes you think he was, beyond that Wilson said so after the fact?
Occam's razor. It makes a lot more sense than some conspiracy theory about a cop who was just out for blood or whatever. Do you think this cop just decided "you know what I need to do, kill somebody. That'd be a hoot."
i agree. I don't think this was any conspiracy theory either. Occam's Razor tells me that Wilson freaked out and killed Brown in the heat of the moment after Brown ceased to be a threat to Wilson.
Logic tells me Wilson identified Brown as a possible suspect in the theft earlier, Brown, holding the stole cigars, knows he's now in potentially in trouble. Goes nuts and attacks Wilson, tries to get his gun, dies because of that action. It's his own fault he's dead.

:lol: at Wilson freaking out and no mention of Brown's actions.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Except it isn't. From the beginning there were 3 key questions related to this event: what exactly happened at the car? How far away was Brown when Wilson fired at him outside of the car? Did Brown actually charge at Wilson? (This last question being the most important of all). We still don't know the answers to any of these questions. Most of you have simply accepted Wilson's story as to what happened. I don't, particularly with regard to the last question, because I don't think it's plausible, and there's no evidence other than his statement.
Wilson's account is the one and only account that Brown turned back upon Wilson? I thought there was some other testimony that backed Wilson up.

Or is it a question of the definition of "charging" vs. "other kinds of more deliberate motion"? I don't know about the "charging like a football player", either, but I have no problem believing "wheeled around and moved hand on waistband".I think it was a fight-or-flight situation for Wilson, especially after the tussle in the car, and I cannot fault him for starting to shooting someone at that distance. Admittedly, the "hand moved to the waistband" is important to my reasoning here ... more so that any "charging".

Also, is it not firmly established that the final shot (the fatal shot to the head) was within 10 feet? If so, then motion toward Wilson (if not charging) was certainly established, correct? Perhaps the "wheel around + hand moved to the waistband" can justify the shot(s) from 30+ feet, and the subsequent forward motion can justify the head shot.
There is. He's talking out of his ### again.

 
A person can cover 35 ft in what? 2 seconds? 3 maybe? That's not like he was a football field away and the cop hit him with a sniper rifle.
yes. We've been over this. If Brown was charging. What makes you think he was, beyond that Wilson said so after the fact?
African American witness testimony corroborating Wilsons story of him charging.
There were several witnesses who contradicted each other on this point. I have not read their testimonies so I have no idea which ones are more credible than others. Perhaps if I do I will change my mind. But I think that when faced with contradictory testimony of this type, it's a reasonable conclusion to disregard all of it. I certainly don't think it's wise to pick and choose.
Now you're just being ignorant. Read about the ####### case and gain a clue before you come in here with your unsubstantiated opinions.

The most credible eyewitnesses to the shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., said he had charged toward Police Officer Darren Wilson just before the final, fatal shots

It's the first ####### sentence in this article:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/11/25/us/witnesses-told-grand-jury-that-michael-brown-charged-at-darren-wilson-prosecutor-says.html?referrer=
..., the St. Louis County prosecutor said Monday night.

It's not the article saying those were the most credible eyewitnesses, it's the prosecutor.

If you're going to get angry at other people's supposed "ignorance," at least finish reading "the first ####### sentence of this article" before you come in here ranting and raving.

 
Hey Rick6668, please explain what physical evidence there is that Brown charged Wilson? That's what I wrote I wasn't buying.
When you examine the foot impressions Brown left in the pavement and measure the distance between them, you have your answer.
There was a blood pattern on the sidewalk, though. I thought it was established that Brown was moving forward between the first shot and the last one.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top