In common law, assault is the act of creating apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact with a person.[1]
I know where you are getting your own "media narrative" from.
He was a suspect because he matched the description of the guy in the video. The cop doesn't know it was him, we don't know it was him. And it doesn't change anything about his encounter with the cop.
The only thing it does is let people justify it in their mind because, to quote you, the unarmed person gunned down by the cop was a violent criminal thug.
Yet you are accusing everybody else of thinking with their heart and not being rational...
Obviously that characterization rests on the man in the video and the deceased being the same person. Come on now, big kid rules. I shouldn't have to state this explicitly.
Second, if you had actually read my posts, you would see that I say specifically that it doesn't provide proof for or against the officer's justified use of force. It only changes the plausibility of the deceased "needing to be shot," and since the officer has not yet been convicted of any crime, it seems that these protests are heavily couched in plausibility.
This is only issue number 1000 on which we disagree, and honestly I have no interest in trying to argue with you as it's the very definition of a waste of time.
Obviously that characterization rests on the man in the video and the deceased being the same person. Come on now, big kid rules. I shouldn't have to state this explicitly.
Got it.
When you type "we know that the kid was a thug and a violent criminal and everything portrayed by the media should be questioned because of that fact" we are all supposed to know that what you really mean is "the revelation that the officer was investigating a theft and that the kid was a suspect means that there might be more to the story and we should keep an open mind and consider that neither the deceased or the officer has been convicted of anything at this point."
Because every reasonable user on Dakka is going to read "violent criminal thug" and just know that from the bottom of your heart you really meant "suspect in a robbery".
And talking to me is the waste of time
Edit: and just for fun. It is interesting that you didn't have anything to say in this thread until your today, when with your very first post on the subject you said Now it's obvious he was actually a thug.but this thug definitely "invited the man into his life" by committing violent crimes. that he was a suspect in a theft and innocent until proven quilty...
Well, that totally justifies the officer shooting him. Carry on everyone.
These riots are based on peoples' reactions to the media narrative of the big bad police officer shooting a sweet little boy. Now it's obvious he was actually a thug. This doesn't change the lethal force issue, but it certainly calls into question the media narrative that started this whole thing.
Ensis Ferrae has it - it's not that the robbery alone justified his shooting. Rather, the media narrative suggests that a sweet little boy was randomly attacked by a police officer. We now know that this is absolutely not the case. We can talk about the disparity of force issue, and try to hash out whether or not the shooting itself was justified, but this thug definitely "invited the man into his life" by committing violent crimes.
Nice to see it didn't take long for Nugg to show up and drop the Thug.
Is Thug still code for "black criminal"?
Anyway, it doesn't change anything in this situation other than give some people peace of mind knowing that another "thug" is off the streets and that he had it coming.
I didn't drop the thug - the police officer did.
Anyway, maybe it doesn't change anything if you're in the habit of thinking with your heart. However, for those of us exercising critical thinking, knowing that the deceased was a violent criminal calls the media narrative into question.
It seems that you are suggesting that "the media" knew the black student was a violent thug and deliberately concealed this information in order to provoke an outrage response from the public.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Apparently the police arrest and shooting had nothing to do with the robbery.
Well, that totally justifies the officer shooting him. Carry on everyone.
These riots are based on peoples' reactions to the media narrative of the big bad police officer shooting a sweet little boy. Now it's obvious he was actually a thug. This doesn't change the lethal force issue, but it certainly calls into question the media narrative that started this whole thing.
Ensis Ferrae has it - it's not that the robbery alone justified his shooting. Rather, the media narrative suggests that a sweet little boy was randomly attacked by a police officer. We now know that this is absolutely not the case. We can talk about the disparity of force issue, and try to hash out whether or not the shooting itself was justified, but this thug definitely "invited the man into his life" by committing violent crimes.
Nice to see it didn't take long for Nugg to show up and drop the Thug.
Is Thug still code for "black criminal"?
Anyway, it doesn't change anything in this situation other than give some people peace of mind knowing that another "thug" is off the streets and that he had it coming.
I didn't drop the thug - the police officer did.
Anyway, maybe it doesn't change anything if you're in the habit of thinking with your heart. However, for those of us exercising critical thinking, knowing that the deceased was a violent criminal calls the media narrative into question.
It seems that you are suggesting that "the media" knew the black student was a violent thug and deliberately concealed this information in order to provoke an outrage response from the public.
Never said that the media concealed information to incite a riot. But, they definitely didn't waste any time publishing photos like these:
And by the way, his role in the robbery is not exactly beyond question considering that his friend, who he was with, admitted that he did it...
Based on this afternoon's conference, the chief said that the officer "wasn't aware" of the robbery at the time of the initial stop.
The statement is that the stop was not related to the robbery.
It is conceivable that the officer stopped Brown and Johnson due to walking in the street, and then realized "This large man just might match the description of that robbery that went out over the radio."
We don't know that's what happened... and no one has said it happened that way or anything yet that led up to the shooting.
There's still waaaaaay more facts that need to be released to get the full picture.
Based on this afternoon's conference, the chief said that the officer "wasn't aware" of the robbery at the time of the initial stop.
The statement is that the stop was not related to the robbery.
It is conceivable that the officer stopped Brown and Johnson due to walking in the street, and then realized "This large man just might match the description of that robbery that went out over the radio."
We don't know that's what happened... and no one has said it happened that way or anything yet that led up to the shooting.
There's still waaaaaay more facts that need to be released to get the full picture.
IMO whether or not the cop knew is completely irrelevant. The thing that matters is Brown's actions up until the point that he was shot. If he did something to justify being shot, then there's no problem. If lethal force was not justified, then fry the cop.
Based on this afternoon's conference, the chief said that the officer "wasn't aware" of the robbery at the time of the initial stop.
The statement is that the stop was not related to the robbery.
It is conceivable that the officer stopped Brown and Johnson due to walking in the street, and then realized "This large man just might match the description of that robbery that went out over the radio."....
I had not realised it was illegal to walk while black in the USA.
Based on this afternoon's conference, the chief said that the officer "wasn't aware" of the robbery at the time of the initial stop.
The statement is that the stop was not related to the robbery.
It is conceivable that the officer stopped Brown and Johnson due to walking in the street, and then realized "This large man just might match the description of that robbery that went out over the radio."
We don't know that's what happened... and no one has said it happened that way or anything yet that led up to the shooting.
There's still waaaaaay more facts that need to be released to get the full picture.
IMO whether or not the cop knew is completely irrelevant. The thing that matters is Brown's actions up until the point that he was shot. If he did something to justify being shot, then there's no problem. If lethal force was not justified, then fry the cop.
Based on this afternoon's conference, the chief said that the officer "wasn't aware" of the robbery at the time of the initial stop.
The statement is that the stop was not related to the robbery.
It is conceivable that the officer stopped Brown and Johnson due to walking in the street, and then realized "This large man just might match the description of that robbery that went out over the radio."....
I had not realised it was illegal to walk while black in the USA.
Read the official report... the two were walking in the middle of the street blocking traffic.
Based on this afternoon's conference, the chief said that the officer "wasn't aware" of the robbery at the time of the initial stop.
The statement is that the stop was not related to the robbery.
It is conceivable that the officer stopped Brown and Johnson due to walking in the street, and then realized "This large man just might match the description of that robbery that went out over the radio."
We don't know that's what happened... and no one has said it happened that way or anything yet that led up to the shooting.
There's still waaaaaay more facts that need to be released to get the full picture.
IMO whether or not the cop knew is completely irrelevant. The thing that matters is Brown's actions up until the point that he was shot. If he did something to justify being shot, then there's no problem. If lethal force was not justified, then fry the cop.
From EVERY media. That's one of the most common pic.
He's like 13 yo in that picture. We don't see much of the 17/18 yo pics. I think Nugz was trying to point out.
This. Same thing happened in the Trayvon debacle. This cherry picking on the part of the media seems to indicate a clear agenda.
Fox News is part of a left wing media conspiracy to, do what, exactly?
Please, if the agenda is so clear, you should be able to lay it out for us.
Who is talking about a left-wing agenda or a conspiracy?
It's well known that the media amps up stories to create excitement. This was one of the basis theses of Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine.
A story about an evil racist police officer gunning down an innocent black boy is a lot more provocative than a story about a violent criminal being stopped after a robbery, assaulting an officer (who didn't know that the deceased was a suspect), and getting himself shot. I don't know to what extent either of these is true.
Based on this afternoon's conference, the chief said that the officer "wasn't aware" of the robbery at the time of the initial stop.
The statement is that the stop was not related to the robbery.
It is conceivable that the officer stopped Brown and Johnson due to walking in the street, and then realized "This large man just might match the description of that robbery that went out over the radio."
We don't know that's what happened... and no one has said it happened that way or anything yet that led up to the shooting.
There's still waaaaaay more facts that need to be released to get the full picture.
IMO whether or not the cop knew is completely irrelevant. The thing that matters is Brown's actions up until the point that he was shot. If he did something to justify being shot, then there's no problem. If lethal force was not justified, then fry the cop.
So your narrative in this thread so far has been:
"This kid was a thug. A violent criminal thug. Clearly his life as a violent criminal thug should be taken into consideration. I mean look at him assaulting that clerk. Here, Wikipedia even has an article on assault to point out what a violent criminal thug that kid was. He was not innocent, he was a violent criminal thug. I mean, clearly he was only accused of being a violent criminal thug. I shouldn't really have to type that. Everybody should know that when I say "violent criminal thug" repeatedly I really mean "kid accused of theft" and not what I actually typed. I mean we don't have the facts yet to decide if he was a suspect, a violent criminal thug, or innocent, but he was a violent criminal thug. And of course it is completely irrelevant if the cop knew or didn't knew if he was a violent criminal thug...but I just want to point out that he was..."
Based on this afternoon's conference, the chief said that the officer "wasn't aware" of the robbery at the time of the initial stop.
The statement is that the stop was not related to the robbery.
It is conceivable that the officer stopped Brown and Johnson due to walking in the street, and then realized "This large man just might match the description of that robbery that went out over the radio."
We don't know that's what happened... and no one has said it happened that way or anything yet that led up to the shooting.
There's still waaaaaay more facts that need to be released to get the full picture.
IMO whether or not the cop knew is completely irrelevant. The thing that matters is Brown's actions up until the point that he was shot. If he did something to justify being shot, then there's no problem. If lethal force was not justified, then fry the cop.
From EVERY media. That's one of the most common pic.
He's like 13 yo in that picture. We don't see much of the 17/18 yo pics. I think Nugz was trying to point out.
This. Same thing happened in the Trayvon debacle. This cherry picking on the part of the media seems to indicate a clear agenda.
Fox News is part of a left wing media conspiracy to, do what, exactly?
Please, if the agenda is so clear, you should be able to lay it out for us.
Who is talking about a left-wing agenda or a conspiracy?
It's well known that the media amps up stories to create excitement. This was one of the basis theses of Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine.
A story about an evil racist police officer gunning down an innocent black boy is a lot more provocative than a story about a violent criminal being stopped after a robbery, assaulting an officer (who didn't know that the deceased was a suspect), and getting himself shot. I don't know to what extent either of these is true.
So your theory is that Fox News is part of some kind of conspiracy to promote some not very clear agenda to be provocative for some unknown reason.
It's well known that the media amps up stories to create excitement. This was one of the basis theses of Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine.
A story about an evil racist police officer gunning down an innocent black boy is a lot more provocative than a story about a violent criminal being stopped after a robbery, assaulting an officer (who didn't know that the deceased was a suspect), and getting himself shot. I don't know to what extent either of these is true.
While the media would never dream up a story of a american-pie white police officer being unjustly targeted for gunning down a violent criminal thug?
Edit:
you were doing a lot better before you jumped into this thread with both feet going "hahahaha I knew it, the black kid was a thug!!!!"
Based on this afternoon's conference, the chief said that the officer "wasn't aware" of the robbery at the time of the initial stop.
The statement is that the stop was not related to the robbery.
It is conceivable that the officer stopped Brown and Johnson due to walking in the street, and then realized "This large man just might match the description of that robbery that went out over the radio."
We don't know that's what happened... and no one has said it happened that way or anything yet that led up to the shooting.
There's still waaaaaay more facts that need to be released to get the full picture.
IMO whether or not the cop knew is completely irrelevant. The thing that matters is Brown's actions up until the point that he was shot. If he did something to justify being shot, then there's no problem. If lethal force was not justified, then fry the cop.
From EVERY media. That's one of the most common pic.
He's like 13 yo in that picture. We don't see much of the 17/18 yo pics. I think Nugz was trying to point out.
This. Same thing happened in the Trayvon debacle. This cherry picking on the part of the media seems to indicate a clear agenda.
Fox News is part of a left wing media conspiracy to, do what, exactly?
Please, if the agenda is so clear, you should be able to lay it out for us.
Who is talking about a left-wing agenda or a conspiracy?
It's well known that the media amps up stories to create excitement. This was one of the basis theses of Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine.
A story about an evil racist police officer gunning down an innocent black boy is a lot more provocative than a story about a violent criminal being stopped after a robbery, assaulting an officer (who didn't know that the deceased was a suspect), and getting himself shot. I don't know to what extent either of these is true.
So your theory is that Fox News is part of some kind of conspiracy to promote some not very clear agenda to be provocative for some unknown reason.
I specifically stated that I do NOT believe that there is any kind of conspiracy. Please read my posts in their entirety or don't respond to them at all. Your reply constitutes trolling.
This is rather irrelevant on the whole, but @Kilkrazy I would like to advise you that the guardian has taken a thoroughly one-sided view of this issue, and is ignoring all evidence that opposes their view. I don't really want to say anything other than to avoid the guardian as a balanced news source.
Kilkrazy wrote: ...
So your theory is that Fox News is part of some kind of conspiracy to promote some not very clear agenda to be provocative for some unknown reason.
I specifically stated that I do NOT believe that there is any kind of conspiracy. Please read my posts in their entirety or don't respond to them at all. Your reply constitutes trolling.
No, you didn't. You asked rhetorically who is talking about a conspiracy. I think you are, because it is clearly implicit in your statements about the "media agenda", which involves a wide number of outlets.
The official report that led up to the shooting isn't out yet, I was referencing the first police conference call back in Monday where we got snippets of what happened before they clammed up. Sorry.
Kilkrazy wrote: ...
So your theory is that Fox News is part of some kind of conspiracy to promote some not very clear agenda to be provocative for some unknown reason.
I specifically stated that I do NOT believe that there is any kind of conspiracy. Please read my posts in their entirety or don't respond to them at all. Your reply constitutes trolling.
No, you didn't. You asked rhetorically who is talking about a conspiracy. I think you are, because it is clearly implicit in your statements about the "media agenda", which involves a wide number of outlets.
What is the agenda to which you have referred?
It's called "media sensationalism" and it's not a disputed phenomenon. There is no conspiracy. It's about reporting events in a way that maximizes provocation, because provocation ultimately increases profits. End of story.
Ouze wrote: So why didn't the police department release any of this info the night it happened? Why clam up?
It's fairly common that LEOs will "clam up" about this sort of stuff as at that point it's still an ongoing investigation, and as such to make certain comments about it, could/would skew public perception and would thus create an unfair court environment.
I dont think that this is the whole reason why this police department has only now brought this kind of information out... It's plausible in my mind that with the tensions/protests/riots as they were, things needed to calm down as they probably feared that this kind of information would only incite further violence from those rioters/looters.
There might be valid reasons, there might be racist alterior motives, there might be the need to make sure he blue shield is firmly in place...but in this case it might also be because this is the most idiotic police department in the entire state...
Ouze wrote: So it looks like when police dress normally and serve the public, as opposed to dressing up like Call of Duty characters and acting like an invading force, it doesn't inflame tensions? Crazy.
It's too bad they couldn't have known that in Nevada with Bundy.
Too bad these two situations aren't remotely related.
Drop it already.
You're right, in Nevada there were no shootings or riots on the part of the protestors and some people on these threads were saying things that would have gotten them banned if the protestors were not white, along with writing hopes that those towns would be wiped off the map by the BLM.
This from the other thread, as one example of many, by nkelsch
"If a 'militia' stands up, they deserve to get whatever enters into and splatters out the back of their heads. This is not a just cause worth taking up arms for... if they going to take up arms, then they deserve to be shot dead.
Sounds like the rancher is the tyrant who is threatening the local town folk to 'support him' or risk the consequences. Faster he is removed from the land and society it sounds, the better off everyone will be.
If they were black, and in the city on public park land taking up arms while illegally squatting the land and breaking other laws, they would all be dead and there would barley be a page 12 story in the local paper about it, let alone national news."
Strange to say with all the rioting and shooting, all the rioters are not dead by police hands as nkelsch claimed, that in his opinion, they would and should rightfully be, if one goes by his logic.
dont cha know we are supposed to do one thing for one set of people,
and another for another set of people?
thats how everyone gets treated equally...
oh wait... no its not.
and how dare you take history into account, history doesnt matter for THAT group like it does for THIS group.
/sarcasm
end result is, no matter what the truth is, be it all cops are racists who shoot black people when they wouldnt have shot white people, or be it that they are saints, or somewhere in between,
no matter what the truth is,
the rioting, violence, and destruction by the mob is not justified, that is the whole point.
You're right, in Nevada there were no shootings or riots on the part of the protestors and some people on these threads were saying things that would have gotten them banned if the protestors were not white, along with writing hopes that those towns would be wiped off the map by the BLM.
This is so far off the topic of the thread as to be obnoxious. Drop it, you're embarrassing yourself.
..
The chief described what happened minutes before the shooting as a “strongarm robbery” at the convenience store. The police report said that Brown was there with another man, Dorian Johnson. Police also released pictures taken from surveillance video that appeared to show a confrontation.
A 911 call about the robbery came in at 11:51 a.m., according to the police chief. A minute later, dispatchers gave a description of the suspect. The officer encountered Brown at 12:01 p.m. Three minutes later, the shooting was over, and a second officer was on the scene, he said.
Police have said that an officer encountered Brown and another man on the street. They have said that one of the men pushed the officer into his patrol car and that there was a struggle over the officer’s gun. They have said that Brown ran and the officer fired multiple times.
Johnson, however, told MSNBC that the officer ordered him and Brown off the sidewalk. He said that the officer tried to thrust his car door open but the door slammed into Brown and bounced closed. He said the officer then grabbed Brown by the neck, pointed the gun at him and said, “I’ll shoot.”
Johnson also said that the officer fired shots after Brown turned with his hands up and said, “I don’t have a gun, stop shooting!”
Johnson’s lawyer confirmed to MSNBC on Friday that Brown had taken the cigars from the store.
..
That Johnson's account...
How does the officer, still in his car, "then grabbed Brown by the neck, pointed the gun at him and said, “I’ll shoot.” "?
Brown is 6' 4''...
O.o
I really, REALLY hope the officer's side of the store is released soon. Preferably before it gets dark...
Fair enough... maybe Brown stuck his head in the car or lowered his head to talk to the office then?
Seeing this hopping around my twittah feed:
Alleged Friend Of Officer Darren Wilson Offers His Side A woman claiming to be a friend of the officer involved in the shooting of Ferguson’s Mike Brown called into my program offering Darren Wilson’s side of the story. Video via my show’s flagship station, KFTK in St. Louis:
Here's a working transcript:
“He pulled up ahead of them. And then he got a call-in that there was a strong-arm robbery. And, they gave a description. And, he’s looking at them and they got something in their hands and it looks like it could be what, you know those cigars or whatever. So he goes in reverse back to them. Tries to get out of his car. They slam his door shut violently. I think he said Michael did. And, then he opened the car again. He tried to get out. He stands up.
And then Michael just bum-rushes him and shoves him back into his car. Punches him in the face and them Darren grabs for his gun. Michael grabbed for the gun. At one point he got the gun entirely turned against his hip. And he shoves it away. And the gun goes off.
Well, then Michael takes off and gets to be about 35 feet away. And, Darren’s first protocol is to pursue. So, he stands up and yells, “Freeze!” Michael and his friend turn around. And Michael taunts him… And then all the sudden he just started bumrushing him. He just started coming at him full speed. And, so he just started shooting. And, he just kept coming. And, so he really thinks he was on something.”
Dana's producer just said the caller was vetted. (how do you do that????)
Eh... I don't find these sort of things helpful. She should've waited till the official report is out.
*sigh*
There's still a very LARGE crowd in Ferguson. Hoping for more calm nights.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: So why didn't the police department release any of this info the night it happened? Why clam up?
Watching the local news here... I can affirm something.
The Police wouldn't have released all these information today because of the on-going investigation... sounds like to me, if they had their druthers, none of these facts would be released till the investigation is complete.
But, the media found out about it (the robbery) and filed a FOIA request (it's actually called something like MO Sunshine Laws™ or something).
Yeah, that Dana 'newsperson's' story sounds just full of it. Like someone wanted their moment of fame and vaguely knew the copper, so they came up with a story that they knew they could sell to Dana, and went for it.
I'd be happy to be proved wrong (well not really, someone is still dead, so happy probably isn't the right word), but I would be surprised if that was the actual story.
motyak wrote: Yeah, that Dana 'newsperson's' story sounds just full of it. Like someone wanted their moment of fame and vaguely knew the copper, so they came up with a story that they knew they could sell to Dana, and went for it.
I'd be happy to be proved wrong (well not really, someone is still dead, so happy probably isn't the right word), but I would be surprised if that was the actual story.
Yeah... agreed.
Dana actually been very good reporting the events here (her and hubby are from St. Louis).
In this case, I'm raising my eyebrows here...
How do you actually "vet" someone on the radio? Do you call someone else to confirm?
jamesk1973 wrote: D-USA champion of all falsely accused thugs everywhere...
It's d-usa, and did I say he was falsely accused?
I'm calling out people throwing the latest code-word for "black guy that had it coming and deserved to be shot and we should be happy he is off the street" around.
Eilif wrote: Really? An uncomfirmed 2nd hand report from a Fox talk radio show.
Well... she said her producer vetted the caller... but, I'm very dubious about that. (what's the SOP to vet a caller on a radio show?)
That's about as helpful in clarifying the situation as the posting about the rancher that a couple of members seem to want to do once per page.
Yeah... agreed.
I just saw another local report that the information today (the Robbery and the Officer's name) were likely forced to be revealed due to a FOIA request.
O.o
I guess they didn't want to release it anytime soon. How long does it take to investigate, document then call press conference? Surely they've interviewed everybody by now?
Jackson said the officer was aware cigars had been taken in the robbery of a store nearby, but did not know when he encountered Brown and Dorian Johnson that they might be suspects. He stopped them because they were walking in the street, Jackson said.
But Jackson told the Post-Dispatch that the officer, Darren Wilson, saw cigars in Brown’s hand and realized he might be the robber.
Did Wilson tell Brown that he suspected him of the robbery because of the cigars?
You're right, in Nevada there were no shootings or riots on the part of the protestors and some people on these threads were saying things that would have gotten them banned if the protestors were not white, along with writing hopes that those towns would be wiped off the map by the BLM.
This is so far off the topic of the thread as to be obnoxious. Drop it, you're embarrassing yourself.
Not really, as it illustrates how the public opinion to the law's response in one situation, wishing ill on people that are not rioting or looting, saying it is fitting officers are armed military style to handle the situation and it doesn't matter if the method of law enforcement is agitating people. It is further said these people deserve to die.
In the other scenario currently going on with rioting and looting, people are saying the police are heavy handed in thier response and look too military.
I feel it's on topic because of this it's an interesting contrast of opinion in two similar situations. Perhaps, though, it should be it's own thread.
Race should have nothing to do with this. Its just brought into play because ignorant people use it as a weapon because they don't like someone else (the police) but people wonder why racism is actually still around when they never freaking let it go. All the raiding stores and violence isn't even because of the shooting, its just an excuse to do it cause something bad happened. People need to grow up.
Not really, as it illustrates how the public opinion to the law's response in one situation, wishing ill on people that are not rioting or looting, saying it is fitting officers are armed military style to handle the situation and it doesn't matter if the method of law enforcement is agitating people. It is further said these people deserve to die.
This is a problem you frequently run into: generalizing from comments made by different people regarding different issues. Many people, including myself, have called you on this fact, yet you still do it habitually.
I feel it's on topic because of this it's an interesting contrast of opinion in two similar situations. Perhaps, though, it should be it's own thread.
I honestly don't see how the situations are similar except in that they both involve police organizations. Hell, the two police groups weren't even equipped in a similar fashion, deployed in similar numbers, or under similar circumstances.
So, as far as I can tell (from the bbc) we have gone from "racist police shoot promising high school graduate for being black and walking down the street" to "man who was wanted for robbery (acting, at best, strangely, stopping cars) shot after assaulting police officer." Now, it does seem an over reaction to me to shoot someone who is unarmed, but then again you need to ask if they knew he was unarmed or not. It seems the situation is much more complex than first portraid by protesters. I am not saying the police reaction is right, but equally we are not talking about the death of someone who was completely innocent. That dosnt mean he should have died at all, but there is much more too it.
Yes, if there is anything I've learned on these forums - from the Zimmerman case specifically - it's that polarizing stories like this are always sensationalized and often wrong. I (now) try not to form an opinion for a few days until the media stops reporting nonsense, rumor, speculation, and falsehoods, and finally have a clear, fact based story. Sometimes I'm too impulsive to do so but it's a good rule.
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie The officers got the wrong man, but charged him anyway—with getting his blood on their uniforms. How the Ferguson PD ran the town where Michael Brown was gunned down.
Police in Ferguson, Missouri, once charged a man with destruction of property for bleeding on their uniforms while four of them allegedly beat him.
“On and/or about the 20th day of Sept. 20, 2009 at or near 222 S. Florissant within the corporate limits of Ferguson, Missouri, the above named defendant did then and there unlawfully commit the offense of ‘property damage’ to wit did transfer blood to the uniform,” reads the charge sheet.
The address is the headquarters of the Ferguson Police Department, where a 52-year-old welder named Henry Davis was taken in the predawn hours on that date. He had been arrested for an outstanding warrant that proved to actually be for another man of the same surname, but a different middle name and Social Security number.
“I said, ‘I told you guys it wasn’t me,’” Davis later testified.
He recalled the booking officer saying, “We have a problem.”
The booking officer had no other reason to hold Davis, who ended up in Ferguson only because he missed the exit for St. Charles and then pulled off the highway because the rain was so heavy he could not see to drive. The cop who had pulled up behind him must have run his license plate and assumed he was that other Henry Davis. Davis said the cop approached his vehicle, grabbed his cellphone from his hand, cuffed him and placed him in the back seat of the patrol car, without a word of explanation.
But the booking officer was not ready just to let Davis go, and proceeded to escort him to a one-man cell that already had a man in it asleep on the lone bunk. Davis says that he asked the officer if he could at least have one of the sleeping mats that were stacked nearby.
”He said I wasn’t getting one,” Davis said.
Davis balked at being a second man in a one-man cell.
“Because it’s 3 in the morning,” he later testified. “Who going to sleep on a cement floor?”
The booking officer summoned a number of fellow cops. One opened the cell door while another suddenly charged, propelling Davis inside and slamming him against the back wall.
“I told the police officers there that I didn’t do nothing, ‘Why is you guys doing this to me?’” Davis testified. “They said, ‘OK, just lay on the ground and put your hands behind your back.’”
Davis said he complied and that a female officer straddled and then handcuffed him. Two other officers crowded into the cell.
“They started hitting me,” he testified. “I was getting hit and I just covered up.”
The other two stepped out and the female officer allegedly lifted Davis’ head as the cop who had initially pushed him into the cell reappeared.
“He ran in and kicked me in the head,” Davis recalled. “I almost passed out at that point… Paramedics came… They said it was too much blood, I had to go to the hospital.”
A patrol car took the bleeding Davis to a nearby emergency room. He refused treatment, demanding somebody first take his picture.
“I wanted a witness and proof of what they done to me,” Davis said.
He was driven back to the jail, where he was held for several days before he posted $1,500 bond on four counts of “property damage.” Police Officer John Beaird had signed complaints swearing on pain of perjury that Davis had bled on his uniform and those of three fellow officers.
The remarkable turned inexplicable when Beaird was deposed in a civil case that Davis subsequently brought seeking redress and recompense.
Schottel figures the courts might take the problems of the Ferguson Police Department as more than de minimis as a result of the protests sparked when an officer shot and killed an unarmed 18-year-old named Michael Brown.
“After Mr. Davis was detained, did you have any blood on you?” asked Davis’ lawyer, James Schottel.
“No, sir,” Beaird replied.
Schottel showed Beaird a copy of the “property damage” complaint.
“Is that your signature as complainant?” the lawyer asked.
“It is, sir,” the cop said.
“And what do you allege that Mr. Davis did unlawfully in this one?” the lawyer asked.
“Transferred blood to my uniform while Davis was resisting,” the cop said.
“And didn’t I ask you earlier in this deposition if Mr. Davis got blood on your uniform?”
“You did, sir.”
“And didn’t you respond no?”
“Correct. I did.”
Beaird seemed to be either admitting perjury or committing it. The depositions of other officers suggested that the “property damage” charges were not just bizarre, but trumped up.
“There was no blood on my uniform,” said Police Officer Christopher Pillarick.
And then there was Officer Michael White, the one accused of kicking Davis in the head, an allegation he denies, as his fellow officers deny striking Davis. White had reported suffering a bloody nose in the mayhem.
“Did you see Mr. Davis bleeding at all?” the lawyer, Schottel, asked.
“I did not,” White replied.
“Did Mr. Davis get any blood on you while you were in the cell?” Schottel asked.
“No,” White said.
The contradictions between the complaint and the depositions apparently are what prompted the prosecutor to drop the “property damage” allegation. The prosecutor also dropped a felony charge of assault on an officer that had been lodged more than a year after the incident and shortly after Davis filed his civil suit.
Davis suggested in his testimony that if the police really thought he had assaulted an officer he would have been charged back when he was jailed.
“They would have filed those charges right then and there, because that’s a major felony,” he noted.
Indisputable evidence of what transpired in the cell might have been provided by a surveillance camera, but it turned out that the VHS video was recorded at 32 times normal speed.
“It was like a blur,” Schottel told The Daily Beast on Wednesday. “You couldn’t see anything.”
The blur proved to be from 12 hours after the incident anyway. The cops had saved the wrong footage after Schottel asked them to preserve it.
Schottel got another unpleasant surprise when he sought the use-of-force history of the officers involved. He learned that before a new chief took over in 2010 the department had a surprising protocol for non-fatal use-of-force reports.
“The officer himself could complete it and give it to the supervisor for his approval,” the prior chief, Thomas Moonier, testified in a deposition. “I would read it. It would be placed in my out basket, and my secretary would probably take it and put it with the case file.”
No copy was made for the officer’s personnel file.
“Everything involved in an incident would generally be with the police report,” Moonier said. “I don’t know what they maintain in personnel files.”
“Who was in charge of personnel files, of maintaining them?” Schottel asked.
“I have no idea,” Moonier said. “I believe City Hall, but I don’t know.”
Schottel focused on the date of the incident.
“On September 20th, 2009, was there any way to identify any officers that were subject of one or more citizens’ complaints?” he asked.
“Not to my knowledge,” Moonier said.
“Was there any way to identify any officers who had completed several use-of-force reports?”
“I don’t recall.”
But however lax the department’s system and however contradictory the officers’ testimony, a federal magistrate ruled that the apparent perjury about the “property damage” charges was too minor to constitute a violation of due process and that Davis’ injuries were de minimis—too minor to warrant a finding of excessive force. Never mind that a CAT scan taken after the incident confirmed that he had suffered a concussion.
Schottel has appealed and expects to argue the case in December. He will contend that perjury is perjury however minor the charge and note that both the NFL and Major League Baseball have learned to consider a concussion a serious injury.
Schottel figures the courts might take the problems of the Ferguson Police Department as more than de minimis as a result of the protests sparked when an officer shot and killed an unarmed 18-year-old named Michael Brown on the afternoon of Aug. 9.
“Your chances on appeal are going up,” a fellow lawyer told him.
At least one witness has said that Brown was shot in the back and then in the chest and head as he turned toward the officer with his hands raised.
“I said, ‘Well, that doesn’t surprise me,’” Schottel told The Daily Beast on Wednesday. “I said I already know about Ferguson, nothing new can faze me about Ferguson.”
Schottel has also deposed the new chief, Thomas Jackson, who took over in 2010. Jackson testified that he has instituted a centralized system whereby all complaints lodged against cops by citizens or supervisors go through him and are assigned a number in an internal affairs log. Schottel views Jackson as “not a bad guy,” someone who has been trying to make positive change.
“He wants to do right, but it was such a mess,” Schottel said Wednesday.
Jackson has seemed less than progressive as he delayed identifying the officer involved in the shooting for fear it would place him and his family in danger. Jackson would only say the officer is white and has been on the job for six years. This means that for his first two and most formative years the officer might have been writing his own force reports and that none of them went into his file.
“It’s hard to get people to clean things up, especially if they’re used to doing things a certain way,” Schottel said.
On Friday, police finally identified the officer as Darren Wilson, who is said to have no disciplinary record, as such records are kept in Ferguson. We already know that he started out at a time when it was accepted for a Ferguson cop to charge somebody with property damage for bleeding on his uniform and later saying there was no blood on him at all.
Steve steveson wrote: Now, it does seem an over reaction to me to shoot someone who is unarmed, but then again you need to ask if they knew he was unarmed or not.
I'm not saying that it was justified in this specific case or not, but in terms of general use of deadly force by police (and civilians for that matter), someone doesn't necessarily have to be armed to present a threat of grievous bodily injury or death. There are circumstances in which shooting an unarmed person would be justified, even if the shooter knows that the person is unarmed.
Steve steveson wrote: Now, it does seem an over reaction to me to shoot someone who is unarmed, but then again you need to ask if they knew he was unarmed or not.
I'm not saying that it was justified in this specific case or not, but in terms of general use of deadly force by police (and civilians for that matter), someone doesn't necessarily have to be armed to present a threat of grievous bodily injury or death. There are circumstances in which shooting an unarmed person would be justified, even if the shooter knows that the person is unarmed.
Also something to consider just from early reports so far without knowing the full details: I am more suspicious about a bad guy getting shot in the back than I am about an unarmed guy getting shot.
Steve steveson wrote: Now, it does seem an over reaction to me to shoot someone who is unarmed, but then again you need to ask if they knew he was unarmed or not.
I'm not saying that it was justified in this specific case or not, but in terms of general use of deadly force by police (and civilians for that matter), someone doesn't necessarily have to be armed to present a threat of grievous bodily injury or death. There are circumstances in which shooting an unarmed person would be justified, even if the shooter knows that the person is unarmed.
Also something to consider just from early reports so far without knowing the full details: I am more suspicious about a bad guy getting shot in the back than I am about an unarmed guy getting shot.
I would tend to agree with that as well, if the bad guy was shot only in the back. I could theoretically see a situation where a cop could do a mag dump and the person being shot might turn right as the officer opens up and get hit in the back, although I'm not sure that applies in this case.
It's definitely no smoking gun, but "shot in back" is just another one of those things like "wasn't armed" that should make it evident that a closer look at the circumstances is warranted.
d-usa wrote: It's definitely no smoking gun, but "shot in back" is just another one of those things like "wasn't armed" that should make it evident that a closer look at the circumstances is warranted.
If posters on all sides of the issues could refrain from using the word "thug" in this thread further- thanks. It's becoming a bit too racially charged.
Masked rioter reportedly carries a Molotov ... (isn't that like, WMD or something?)
** Liquor Store Looted
** Sam’s Meat Market
** Chinese restaurant (for second time this week)
** Beauty Supply Store Looted
** Electronics Store Looted
** Domino’s Pizza fire – May have been inside the business
** Bus Stop Vandalized
** At least one person shot
** Brinks'n Bottles Thrown at police
The photographer claims that the protesters were taunting the police:
d-usa wrote: Looks like a State of Emergency and a Curfew have been declared.
Yup... from midnight to 5am.
Some of us here think it may make the situation worse...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Looks like the Justice Department and state police both told the PD that it is a really stupid idea to release the video at the same time as the name.
Except that there were some media members who filed a FOIA to have it released.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, and for the record, the governor’s press conference today was a COMPLETE DISASTER, too.
When Lacy Clay and Malik Shabazz have to save you from your own presser, just wow.
You can still meet the FIOA request and release the video a couple hours later at a separate conference.
The way they handled it and released both at once just felt like "yeah, this guy killed him, but he was no angel either", which was the concern by the other agencies.
Whembly, does it feel to you and your friends living there if an end is in sight? Hopefuly this can finish without anyone on either side of the action getting killed or seriously hurt.
Relapse wrote: Whembly, does it feel to you and your friends living there if an end is in sight? Hopefuly this can finish without anyone on either side of the action getting killed or seriously hurt.
Don't know honestly...
However, tonight and tomorrow we're supposed to get some knarly thunderstorms. So maybe everyone will stay inside tonight!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: You can still meet the FIOA request and release the video a couple hours later at a separate conference.
The way they handled it and released both at once just felt like "yeah, this guy killed him, but he was no angel either", which was the concern by the other agencies.
There's merit to that.
But, even if they've waited a few hours later, the response would be the same imo.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I've heard that there's at least three distinct groups are agitating the protesters/police.
Here's the Black Panthers:
They are chanting:
What do we want? – Darren Wilson How do we want him? – Dead
It appears that the police owned up to the tear gas. But, and keep in mind that I am very critical of the police actions prior to this, it seems like they had a good reason:
Police fired smoke canisters on protesters in the first hour of the curfew. After getting reports of a shooting victim, police fired tear gas in order to get to the wounded individual, according to Johnson.
I have absolutely no problem with the police using teargas situationally. Those situations would be violent protesters, barricaded suspects with hostages, and other similar situations where force is called for to uphold the law and protect the public.
That does not include firing tear gas at journalists & film crews who are filming protestors, bystanders in their yards, and other previous uses in Ferguson.
So, a tear gas canniser alone does not, in my mind, police brutality make, and if there was a promise not to use tear gas, it should not have been made.
Speaking of the force continuum, in my mind, if you throw a molotov cocktail at human being, you should be getting shot with live ammo in return. So while the force used has sometimes been excessive, there has been some restraint.
Speaking of the force continuum, in my mind, if you throw a molotov cocktail at human being, you should be getting shot with live ammo in return. So while the force used has sometimes been excessive, there has been some restraint.
I was fine with them using tear gasses from the get go... it didn't start until the police were shot at first.
As to using real bullets when molotov cocktail is thrown? Not practical since those guys are usually bob 'n weaving between other protesters. It's not exactly easy to start firing at the crowd like that.
Tear gas is actually the less worst options of all bad options imo.
Speaking of the force continuum, in my mind, if you throw a molotov cocktail at human being, you should be getting shot with live ammo in return. So while the force used has sometimes been excessive, there has been some restraint.
I was fine with them using tear gasses from the get go... it didn't start until the police were shot at first.
As to using real bullets when molotov cocktail is thrown? Not practical since those guys are usually bob 'n weaving between other protesters. It's not exactly easy to start firing at the crowd like that.
Tear gas is actually the less worst options of all bad options imo.
Problem with that is we have to take the polices story at face value... which is really tough in that city.
I'm so glad I don't live anywhere near this crap. I get that people are upset with the police situation but this type of behavior doesn't help change anything and it only promotes negative stereotypes even further.
ijreview wrote:A Witness Conversation Unknowingly Captured at the Scene of the Ferguson Shooting is a Game-Changer
A previously unnoticed detail in a background conversion of a video taken minutes after the Ferguson shooting could change the course of the investigation into Mike Brown’s death.
The original video poster appears sympathetic to the narrative that Mike Brown was shot unarmed with his hands in the air. But he unknowingly picks up conversation between a man who saw the altercation and another neighbor.
An approximate transcription of the background conversation, as related by the “Conservative Treehouse” blog:
@6:28/6:29 of video
#1 How’d he get from there to there?
#2 Because he ran, the police was still in the truck – cause he was like over the truck
{crosstalk}
#2 But him and the police was both in the truck, then he ran – the police got out and ran after him
{crosstalk}
#2 Then the next thing I know he doubled back toward him cus - the police had his gun drawn already on him –
#1. Oh, the police got his gun
#2 The police kept dumpin on him, and I’m thinking the police kept missing – he like – be like – but he kept coming toward him
{crosstalk}
#2 Police fired shots – the next thing I know – the police was missing
#1 The Police?
#2 The Police shot him
#1 Police?
#2 The next thing I know … I’m thinking … the dude started running … (garbled something about “he took it from him”)
This is terribly important because if Mike Brown had been shot, and he advanced towards the cop instead of surrendering, it would substantiate the narrative that the policeman shot in self-defense due to the fact that he was being threatened with severe bodily harm.
This corroborates an account of the event given by a friend of Officer Darren Wilson:
Well, then Michael takes off and gets to be about 35 feet away. And, Darren’s first protocol is to pursue. So, he stands up and yells, “Freeze!” Michael and his friend turn around. And Michael taunts him… And then all the sudden he just started bumrushing him. He just started coming at him full speed. And, so he just started shooting. And, he just kept coming. And, so he really thinks he was on something.
It’s far too unlikely that these two accounts are similar accidentally, having been from such disparate sources. The apparent witness in the background conversation is speaking with detail about the tragic shooting, and in a manner that runs contrary to the widespread version. Those who watch the video need to judge for themselves if the witness sounds reliable (but he would seemingly have nothing to gain by telling such a story.)
A third piece of the puzzle would be the toxicology report. If there happens to be anything found that might explain how Mike Brown might have been shot and kept advancing toward the officer, then the defense becomes even more believable. Unless someone is emotionally invested in an alternative narrative to the extent that one might ignore plain facts.
We shall see.
Editor’s note: This article was edited after publication.
Speaking of the force continuum, in my mind, if you throw a molotov cocktail at human being, you should be getting shot with live ammo in return. So while the force used has sometimes been excessive, there has been some restraint.
I was fine with them using tear gasses from the get go... it didn't start until the police were shot at first.
As to using real bullets when molotov cocktail is thrown? Not practical since those guys are usually bob 'n weaving between other protesters. It's not exactly easy to start firing at the crowd like that.
Tear gas is actually the less worst options of all bad options imo.
Problem with that is we have to take the polices story at face value... which is really tough in that city.
I actually believed them in this case...
Automatically Appended Next Post: ugh... getting dangerous again....
FERGUSON, Mo. — Michael Brown, the unarmed black teenager who was killed by a police officer, sparking protests around the nation, was shot at least six times, including twice in the head, a preliminary private autopsy performed on Sunday found.
One of the bullets entered the top of Mr. Brown’s skull, suggesting his head was bent forward when it struck him and caused a fatal injury, according to Dr. Michael M. Baden, the former chief medical examiner for the City of New York, who flew to Missouri on Sunday at the family’s request to conduct the separate autopsy. It was likely the last of bullets to hit him, he said.
Mr. Brown, 18, was also shot four times in the right arm, he said, adding that all the bullets were fired into his front.
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said Sunday that the Justice Department would conduct its own autopsy, in addition to the one performed by local officials and this private one because, a department spokesman said, of “the extraordinary circumstances involved in this case and at the request of the Brown family.”
The preliminary autopsy results are the first time that some of the critical information resulting in Mr. Brown’s death has been made public. Thousands of protesters demanding information and justice for what was widely viewed as a reckless shooting took to the streets here in rallies that ranged from peaceful to violent.
Mr. Brown died last week in a confrontation with a police officer here in this suburb of St. Louis. The police department has come under harsh criticism for refusing to clarify the circumstances of the shooting and for responding to protests with military-style operational gear.
“People have been asking: How many times was he shot? This information could have been released on Day 1,” Dr. Baden said in an interview after performing the autopsy. “They don’t do that, even as feelings built up among the citizenry that there was a cover-up. We are hoping to alleviate that.”
Dr. Baden said that while Mr. Brown was shot at least six times, only three bullets were recovered from his body. But he has not yet seen the X-rays showing where the bullets were found, which would clarify the autopsy results. Nor has he had access to witness and police statements.
Dr. Baden provided a diagram of the entry wounds, and noted that the six shots produced numerous wounds. Some of the bullets entered and exited several times, including one that left at least five different wounds.
“This one here looks like his head was bent downward,” he said, indicating the wound at the very top of Mr. Brown’s head. “It can be because he’s giving up, or because he’s charging forward at the officer.”
He stressed that his information does not assign blame or justify the shooting.
“We need more information; for example, the police should be examining the automobile to see if there is gunshot residue in the police car,” he said.
Dr. Baden, 80, is a well-known New York-based medical examiner, who is one of only about 400 board-certified forensic pathologists in the nation. He reviewed the autopsies of both President John F. Kennedy and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and has performed more than 20,000 autopsies himself.
He is best known for having hosted the HBO show “Autopsy,” but he rankles when he is called a “celebrity medical examiner,” saying that the vast majority of what he does has nothing to do with celebrities.
Dr. Baden said that because of the tremendous attention to the case, he waived his $10,000 fee.
Prof. Shawn L. Parcells, a pathologist assistant based in Kansas, assisted Dr. Baden.
“You do this for the families,” Mr. Parcells said.
The two medical experts conducted the four-hour examination Sunday at the Austin A. Layne Mortuary in St. Louis. Benjamin L. Crump, a lawyer for Mr. Brown’s family who paid their travel expenses, hired them.
“The sheer number of bullets and the way they were scattered all over his body showed this police officer had a brazen disregard for the very people he was supposed to protect in that community,” Mr. Crump said. “We want to make sure people understand what this case is about: This case is about a police officer executing a young unarmed man in broad daylight.”
A spokesman for the Ferguson Police Department, Tim Zoll, said the police had not seen a report of the autopsy and therefore had no comment on it.
Dr. Baden said he consulted with the St. Louis County medical examiner before conducting the autopsy.
One of the bullets shattered Mr. Brown’s right eye, traveled through his face, exited his jaw and re-entered his collarbone. The last two shots in the head would have stopped him in his tracks and were likely the last fired.
Mr. Brown, he said, would not have survived the shooting even if he had been taken to a hospital right away. The autopsy indicated that he was otherwise healthy.
Dr. Baden said it was unusual for the federal government to conduct a third autopsy, but dueling examinations often occur when there is so much distrust of the authorities. The county of St. Louis has conducted an autopsy, and the results have not yet been released.
He stressed that his examination was not to determine whether the shooting was justified.
“In my capacity as the forensic examiner for the New York State Police, I would say, ‘You’re not supposed to shoot so many times,’ ” said Dr. Baden, who retired from the state police in 2011. “Right now there is too little information to forensically reconstruct the shooting.”
No matter what conclusions can be drawn from Dr. Baden’s work, Mr. Brown’s death remains marked by shifting and contradictory accounts more than a week after it occurred. The shooting is under investigation by St. Louis County and by the F.B.I., working with the Justice Department’s civil rights division and the office of Attorney General Holder.
According to what has emerged so far, on Saturday, Aug. 9, Mr. Brown, along with a companion, Dorian Johnson, was walking in the middle of Canfield Drive, a fistful of cigarillos in Mr. Brown’s hand, police say, which a videotape shows he stole from a liquor store on West Florissant Ave.
At 12:01 p.m., they were stopped by Darren Wilson, a police officer, who ordered them off the road and onto the sidewalk, Mr. Johnson, who is 22, later said.
The police have said that what happened next was a physical struggle between Mr. Brown and Officer Wilson that left the officer with a swollen face. Mr. Johnson and others have said that it was a case of racial profiling and police aggression from a white officer toward a black man. Within minutes, Mr. Brown, who was unarmed, was dead of gunshot wounds.
The sequence of events provided by law enforcement officials places Mr. Brown and Mr. Johnson at Ferguson Market and Liquors, a store several blocks away on West Florissant Ave., at about 11:50 a.m. After leaving the store with the cigarillos, the two walked north on West Florissant, a busy commercial thoroughfare, toward Canfield Drive, a clerk reported to the police.
Mr. Brown was a big man at 6-foot-4 and 292 pounds, though his family and friends described him as quiet and shy, a homebody who lived with his grandmother.
It is about a 10-minute walk from Ferguson Market to the spot where Officer Wilson, 28, with six years’ experience, approached Mr. Brown and Mr. Johnson.
The police tell of an officer who was enforcing the minor violation of jaywalking, as Mr. Brown and Mr. Johnson ignored the sidewalk and strolled down the middle of the road instead.
The morning after the shooting, Chief Jon Belmar of the St. Louis County police said that Officer Wilson was leaving his police car when Mr. Brown “allegedly pushed the police officer back into the car,” where he “physically assaulted the police officer.”
“Within the police car there was a struggle over the officer’s weapon,” Chief Belmar said. “There was at least one shot fired in the car.” At that point, the police said, Officer Wilson left his vehicle and fatally shot Mr. Brown. “More than a few” shell casings were recovered from the scene.
Mr. Johnson, who declined to be interviewed, has described the events differently in television interviews. While he and Mr. Brown walked, he said, Officer Wilson stopped his vehicle and told them to get on the sidewalk. When they refused, Officer Wilson slammed on his brakes and drove in reverse to get closer.
When the officer opened his door, it hit Mr. Brown. With his left hand, Officer Wilson reached out and grabbed Mr. Brown by the neck, Mr. Johnson said.
“It’s like tug-of-war,” Mr. Johnson said. “He’s trying to pull him in. He’s pulling away, that’s when I heard, ‘I’m gonna shoot you.’ ”
A neighbor, Tiffany Mitchell, said in an interview with MSNBC that she heard tires squeal, then saw Mr. Brown and Officer Wilson “wrestling” through the open car window. A shot went off from within the car, Mr. Johnson said, and the two began to run away from the officer.
According to Ms. Mitchell, “The officer gets out of his vehicle,” she said, pursuing Mr. Brown, then continued to shoot.
Mr. Johnson said that he hid behind a parked car and that Mr. Brown was struck by a bullet in his back as he ran away, an account that Dr. Baden’s autopsy appears to contradict.
“Michael’s body jerks as if he was hit,” Ms. Mitchell said, “and then he put his hands up.” Mr. Brown turned, Mr. Johnson said, raised his hands, and said, “I don’t have a gun, stop shooting!”
Officer Wilson continued to fire and Mr. Brown crumpled to the ground, Mr. Johnson said. Within seconds, confusion and horror swept through Canfield Drive. On that Saturday afternoon, dozens of neighbors were at home and rushed out of their apartments when they heard gunshots.
One person who claimed to witness the shooting began posting frantic messages on Twitter, written hastily with shorthand and grammatical errors, only two minutes after Officer Wilson approached Mr. Brown. At 12:03 p.m., the person, identified as @TheePharoah, a St. Louis-area rapper, wrote on Twitter that he had just seen someone die.
That same minute, he wrote, “Im about to hyperventilate.”
At 12:23 p.m., he wrote, “dude was running and the cops just saw him. I saw him die bruh.”
A 10-minute video posted on YouTube appeared to be taken on a cellphone by someone who identified himself as a neighbor. The video, which has collected more than 225,000 views, captures Mr. Brown’s body, the yellow police tape that marked off the crime scene and the residents standing behind it.
“They shot that boy ’cause they wanted to,” said one woman who can be heard on the video.
“They said he had his hands up and everything,” said the man taking the video, speaking to a neighbor.
Mr. Brown’s body remained in the street for several hours, a delay that Chief Jackson said last week made him “uncomfortable.” Antonio French, a St. Louis alderman who has been active in this case, said on ABC on Sunday that the body had remained in the street for nearly five hours.
At one point, a woman can be heard shouting, “Where is the ambulance? Where is the ambulance?” The man taking the video, who remained off-camera, said, “God rest his soul. He’s gone.”
Unlike the rumors earlier... Michael Brown was not shot in the back.
I've read way too many twitter comments about this whole deal, and it just reminds me what bigoted, small minded, myopic, overly impassioned and uninsightful creatures so many of us are. Twitter makes me sad. The world makes me sad.
Can't people see that apathy is the only road to lasting world peace?
Bromsy wrote: I've read way too many twitter comments about this whole deal, and it just reminds me what bigoted, small minded, myopic, overly impassioned and uninsightful creatures so many of us are. Twitter makes me sad. The world makes me sad.
Can't people see that apathy is the only road to lasting world peace?
Now I am going to go drink myself into a stupor.
Happily, I've stayed away from such things because I guessed I would see what you apparently did.
Hordini wrote: The problem is way too many people "know" what happened before they actually know anything about what happened.
People are more willing to hear from friends and family of a defendant or victim than an officer of the law. Frankly I don't expect to hear a mother say anything bad ever about her son or daughter and I don't expect a friend to say "yeah my friend was doing some illegal stuff and then did something stupid." I also don't trust videos the media plays as they often are heavily edited down to make the officers look bad. Case in point:
NSFW: graphic content
Spoiler:
This is what the media showed. It looks all sorts of bad.
This shows the suspect wielding his cellphone like it was a gun, pointing it at the officers. Adrenaline and human perception limits the ability to process information. You see the officer duck as he swings around again with his cellphone indicating the officer still thought it was a gun. Not to demean this person, but people do stupid things. Unarmed people get killed by doing stupid stuff around cops.
Then factor that the courts want as much as possible held back for the trial, details are going to be scant. The DA, Internal Affairs and the defense don't want all of the evidence freely available to the public as it may taint the jury.
All of this leads to bad information given by sources that want viewers so they get money, people jumping to conclusions and the general mass ignorance of the public rather than a more moderate wait and see approach to inform their judgements. I have no idea if the cop did something wrong here and neither does anyone outside of the investigation. We have multiple mixed accounts from biased sources and social activists are more than happy to play the victim-race-oooh-aren't-I-so-progressive-and-not-racist-card to fuel their views and justify their outrages. I'm tired of seeing the same old song and dance being played out and nobody is thinking rationally. The best motive the defense has come up with is "he's a white cop therefore he wants to kill black people" and I don't buy it and neither should anyone else. Racist isn't an adjective to be applied lightly or liberally and yet it is. People justify its use with anecdotes and generalizations and it's just not enough.
I'm gonna stop my rant now. It felt good but it's ultimately pointless.
I think this whole event can go down as the perfect training manual for "why you need an effective ICS system in place" and serve as the example of "this is how you don't coordinate any kind of cohesive operation with different parts doing different things and sending different messages".
Ouze wrote: The location of the wounds in his arm makes me doubt his hands were actually up, the forearm one especially.
On the other hand police officers are notoriously poor shots, so it might not mean anything.
Weren't they all forearm shots and head shots?
Might not mean much, but it seems weird to aim center-mass and hit a giant semicircle (arms and head). But it your arms are up (near your head) it might be more likely to get that pattern (and it would be a much tighter pattern).
I haven't seen the report yet, so just some speculations here.
One person in charge coordinating everything, one person talking to the media, everybody is on the same page. Basic stuff that even your lowly street-cop should be trained in.
Surtur wrote: [
All of this leads to bad information given by sources that want viewers so they get money, people jumping to conclusions and the general mass ignorance of the public rather than a more moderate wait and see approach to inform their judgements. I have no idea if the cop did something wrong here and neither does anyone outside of the investigation. We have multiple mixed accounts from biased sources and social activists are more than happy to play the victim-race-oooh-aren't-I-so-progressive-and-not-racist-card to fuel their views and justify their outrages. I'm tired of seeing the same old song and dance being played out and nobody is thinking rationally. The best motive the defense has come up with is "he's a white cop therefore he wants to kill black people" and I don't buy it and neither should anyone else. Racist isn't an adjective to be applied lightly or liberally and yet it is. People justify its use with anecdotes and generalizations and it's just not enough.
I'm gonna stop my rant now. It felt good but it's ultimately pointless.
I agree that there's alot of information still missing and lots of people acting on limited info. Still, the blanket disdain for activists (there are good and bad activists at work and shouldn't be grouped together) and the throwing around of the term "race baiter" against anyone who points out the obvious racial aspects of the situation doesn't help the discussion or reflect reality. We don't know if the cop was racist or influenced by race. However, but denying the reality of how race, factors into the relationship between the police and community in Ferguson is hiding one's head in the sand.
Pointing out racism and the effects of race doesn't make one a "race baiter" any more than being a proponent of law and order makes one a racist.
But you just said that we don't know the officer's motivation. If he was not motivated by race then that really throws a wet towel on the cops vs blacks flare up in this incident. I understand that there is a history here, but that doesn't automatically every encounter a racial issue. If there is evidence that shows the officer has a prejudice past or is unable to sufficiently articulate why he stopped him in the first place, then I am more than willing to jump on the band wagon, but I want some proof first.
Ouze wrote: The location of the wounds in his arm makes me doubt his hands were actually up, the forearm one especially.
On the other hand police officers are notoriously poor shots, so it might not mean anything.
Weren't they all forearm shots and head shots?
Might not mean much, but it seems weird to aim center-mass and hit a giant semicircle (arms and head). But it your arms are up (near your head) it might be more likely to get that pattern (and it would be a much tighter pattern).
I haven't seen the report yet, so just some speculations here.
Obviously I'm not a ballistics or forensics expert, so this is just an armchair analysis, but arms down, the image shows a grouping that's pretty close for center mass - is that an entry wound in the right thumb/wrist? That would support a charging stance. Especially if his head was down.
If his arms are up, the entry wound is approx 30 inches from center of mass - that's a pretty bad miss. It also doesn't explain that wound on the right thumb/wrist.
One thing to keep in mind is that both sides of the picture are showing what we call anatomical position. So when we are standing naturally we would have the "back" of the forearms and hands facing the front. It sounds weird, but that's one of the quirks of using anatomical position.
So try standing in a way that all the wounds are facing forward and see if that is a natural position.
Then stand there and perform the classic "arms up, hands on your head" position and what is "front" on the anatomical position will actually face front. And in that position the grouping off all the wounds would be much tighter as well. You would also end up with the right hand much closer to the head.
It's in no way solid evidence, but it's something worth considering.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Edit: I think I have an a anatomic painting dummy thingy, I will try to explain it better with that when I get home.
It could, in theory anyway be that his "hands were up" as in, he had put his hands on/near his head in surrender. Though we don't really have anything to suggest, or not suggest this.
This grouping could also be, in the heat of the moment, the police officer pulling his shot, due to poor shooting mechanics. (as we all know, us layfolk probably get more practice time with firearms than the police do, so some of us may be better in a tense situation overall)
Ouze wrote: The location of the wounds in his arm makes me doubt his hands were actually up, the forearm one especially.
On the other hand police officers are notoriously poor shots, so it might not mean anything.
Indeed... but, who really knows?
There's one wound on the top of his skull that can be indicative to Brown leaning forward towards the officer (ie, charging?).
Or falling from the first shot.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: It could, in theory anyway be that his "hands were up" as in, he had put his hands on/near his head in surrender. Though we don't really have anything to suggest, or not suggest this.
This grouping could also be, in the heat of the moment, the police officer pulling his shot, due to poor shooting mechanics. (as we all know, us layfolk probably get more practice time with firearms than the police do, so some of us may be better in a tense situation overall)[/quote
I thought about that as well, that the hand shot was the first and then continuing up with every shot
The only weird thing about that is just the unnatural position of the wounds with regards to how the body is usually positioned.
Ouze wrote: The location of the wounds in his arm makes me doubt his hands were actually up, the forearm one especially.
On the other hand police officers are notoriously poor shots, so it might not mean anything.
Indeed... but, who really knows?
There's one wound on the top of his skull that can be indicative to Brown leaning forward towards the officer (ie, charging?).
Or falling from the first shot.
True... but, then, the other wound placements would then be very weird. He'd have to have his forearm out forward towards the officer while on the ground?
while we don't have commentary on the angle of many of the shots, perhaps he wasn't falling, but looking down at where he'd just been shot? I wouldn't necessarily think that he'd be falling forward, unless he really was moving toward/charging the officer (at the same time, he wouldnt be doing any hollywood flying back shenanigans either)
Ouze wrote: The location of the wounds in his arm makes me doubt his hands were actually up, the forearm one especially.
On the other hand police officers are notoriously poor shots, so it might not mean anything.
Indeed... but, who really knows?
There's one wound on the top of his skull that can be indicative to Brown leaning forward towards the officer (ie, charging?).
Or falling from the first shot.
True... but, then, the other wound placements would then be very weird. He'd have to have his forearm out forward towards the officer while on the ground?
As though surrendering on the ground? Or charged and got shot and fell? Kronk is many things, but not wise in the way of interpreting autopsy diagrams.
while we don't have commentary on the angle of many of the shots, perhaps he wasn't falling, but looking down at where he'd just been shot? I wouldn't necessarily think that he'd be falling forward, unless he really was moving toward/charging the officer (at the same time, he wouldnt be doing any hollywood flying back shenanigans either)
I mean, obviously we're all just guessing here.
But 'CSI: DakkaDakka' is so much fun!
Reconciling the anatomical position of the report with how humans actually stand is the biggest question mark for me. Like I said, I will try to pull out my model on an hour and see if I can explain it better.
Ouze wrote: The location of the wounds in his arm makes me doubt his hands were actually up, the forearm one especially.
On the other hand police officers are notoriously poor shots, so it might not mean anything.
Indeed... but, who really knows?
There's one wound on the top of his skull that can be indicative to Brown leaning forward towards the officer (ie, charging?).
Or falling from the first shot.
True... but, then, the other wound placements would then be very weird. He'd have to have his forearm out forward towards the officer while on the ground?
As though surrendering on the ground? Or charged and got shot and fell? Kronk is many things, but not wise in the way of interpreting autopsy diagrams.
Could also just reflexively jerked his head down after the first shot.
It's all pretty much just guess work.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Edit: do we know how many shots were fired?
Its a bit suprising, in this day and age, that there is not a 360 camera on the cop car, as well as on the cops.
one would think such a thing would do wonders for our justice system. This kind of situation could be analyzed and resovled much easier with the proper documentation.
all the bonus youtube hilarities it would record are just a bonus if russias dash cams are anything to go by.
easysauce wrote: Its a bit suprising, in this day and age, that there is not a 360 camera on the cop car, as well as on the cops.
one would think such a thing would do wonders for our justice system. This kind of situation could be analyzed and resovled much easier with the proper documentation.
all the bonus youtube hilarities it would record are just a bonus if russias dash cams are anything to go by.
I think there have been a lot of studies that have shown that police departments who started to use body-cams had a significant drop in use-of-force and a big drop in complaints.
And that's not just because the police feel watched so they beat you less. It's also because people who know that they are recorded being donkey-caves (people police are stopping in this case) will act less like donkey-caves because they know they can't pull the "cop was mean to me" card. And people who act better when confronted by the police will end up requiring less use-of-force.
So more cameras on cops result in people on both sides of the camera acting better. Which seems like it should be a win-win situation.
the problem with most body cams is they are either ridiculously expensive (I think one I heard about one recently was around 900 a unit), or they have very limited field of view. Depending on how they mount to the officer, they are also pretty easy to knock off if there is a fight.
sparkywtf wrote: the problem with most body cams is they are either ridiculously expensive (I think one I heard about one recently was around 900 a unit), or they have very limited field of view. Depending on how they mount to the officer, they are also pretty easy to knock off if there is a fight.
Imagine this situation if the federal government gave out free/cheep body cams to local PDs instead of free/cheep assault rifles and armored vehicles.
sparkywtf wrote: the problem with most body cams is they are either ridiculously expensive (I think one I heard about one recently was around 900 a unit), or they have very limited field of view. Depending on how they mount to the officer, they are also pretty easy to knock off if there is a fight.
Imagine this situation if the federal government gave out free/cheep body cams to local PDs instead of free/cheep assault rifles and armored vehicles.
I thought the local PDs had to buy that gak.
Either way, I'm fine with cops wearing body cams. The police cams in their cars are a hell of a lot more than $900, and would save that and then some in legal fees and lawsuits, presumably.
sparkywtf wrote: the problem with most body cams is they are either ridiculously expensive (I think one I heard about one recently was around 900 a unit), or they have very limited field of view. Depending on how they mount to the officer, they are also pretty easy to knock off if there is a fight.
Imagine this situation if the federal government gave out free/cheep body cams to local PDs instead of free/cheep assault rifles and armored vehicles.
Well when you have over bloated military spending then you have a lot more vehicles and guns to give away, as the military can not possibly use all that is being produced.
The body and car cams suggestion is a very good one. I've heard that many folks in russia have installed their own car cams because it makes it less likely you'll have to pay a bribe to an officer who pulls you over. As for their deployment in the USA, $900 per officer is chump change compared to the costs of just one lawsuit. The City of Chicago routinely pays out multi-million dollar lawsuits for police brutality. One lawsuit could put a camera on the shoulder of every beat cop in the city.
Surtur wrote: But you just said that we don't know the officer's motivation. If he was not motivated by race then that really throws a wet towel on the cops vs blacks flare up in this incident. I understand that there is a history here, but that doesn't automatically every encounter a racial issue. If there is evidence that shows the officer has a prejudice past or is unable to sufficiently articulate why he stopped him in the first place, then I am more than willing to jump on the band wagon, but I want some proof first.
My point is not that race explains the shooting, but rather that it explains much (though doesn't justify all) of the reactions that follow. Put another way, racism might not have lit the fuse in this case, but issues relating to race certainly helped fill the powder keg.
Eilif wrote: The body and car cams suggestion is a very good one. I've heard that many folks in russia have installed their own car cams because it makes it less likely you'll have to pay a bribe to an officer who pulls you over. As for their deployment in the USA, $900 per officer is chump change compared to the costs of just one lawsuit. The City of Chicago routinely pays out multi-million dollar lawsuits for police brutality. One lawsuit could put a camera on the shoulder of every beat cop in the city.
On the other side of that, people who have dash cams/helmet cams (for motorcycles) have had that information subpoena'd and been convicted of other crimes unrelated to what brought them before the law in the first place (so, instead of one count of speeding, they may be looking at 4 or 5 counts of speeding, with reckless driving, show of speed and other counts... when if they didn't have the camera, they'd only have a $20 ticket to pay )
As for the police having them, I think it's a good idea from multiple standpoints. With that footage, departments can share information and "best practices" as well as, when gak hits the fan, they have the video footage that can be used on trainees later, to hopefully take care of a potential problem with new officers before they ever come up.
And now, for the long anticipated episode of "CSI: DakkaDakka" with guest director d-usa!
So I got my little painting dummy together to try and explain where I was going with the whole "anatomical position" stuff. Here is the results from the preliminary (so we can all agree that these are details that can still change) autopsy:
Spoiler:
This is the result displayed in anatomical position. All the entry wounds are in anterior parts of the body. From the way it appears in this diagram all the shots hit him from the same direction. The problem with the anatomical position is that we don't actually stand that way. The way we normally stand is this:
Spoiler:
The thumb rotate to the front of the fingers and the arms follow that same rotation. This is more prominent in the forearm, but even the upper rotates in the same direction. This means that areas that are facing the front in anatomical position (such as in the chart) end up facing the body or even the back when we stand naturally. This means that two of the shots seems to be missing from this point of view, but we can find one of the entry points if we look at his back, while the other one is facing his body.
Spoiler:
Now that doesn't mean that he could not have been shot in that position. His body was probably in motion, the wound facing his body could have been a grazing hit, all kinds of scenarios here. But if you try a few different poses that all result in the wounds facing the gun you will find that almost none of the feel very natural.
Now the "hands up" scenario that we have heard from a few witnesses:
Spoiler:
Now my fancy $3.99 model doesn't let me bend the elbow to fully copy the classic "hands on your head" scenario that we are all familiar with. But unlike the "hands down your side" stance all the surfaces of the body that are facing anterior in the anatomical position (and the diagram) are also facing anterior in this position. Every entry wound comes from the same direction.
As far as grouping of the shots go:
Here is the grouping from the chart:
Spoiler:
On paper, pretty much a straight line. Based on his height the spread could easily be 3-4 feet. It's also a weird pattern, but as we stated before he could have been just left of the target when fired the first shot and then moved up and closer to the center line with every subsequent shot. It's a possibility and not something that is unheard off.
The pattern from the "hands up position"
Spoiler:
Yes, I know I only covered up to the elbow. I was still basing it on the "hands on the head" scenario that my fancy doll won't comply with. But in this case we have a grouping that is still off-target (although again not missing center mass by very much), but the grouping itself is a lot better. You would end up with a 12"-18" grouping.
Since my "enhance" button is broken this is all I can do at this point. I'm going to guest-direct an episode of NCIS now.
I think the results of the angles of these woulds would shed more light into what was more probably... Brown with his hands up or Brown charging the officer.
Also... news were leaked that he had Marijuana in his system. I wished people would stop leaking gak like this before the official report is released.
d-usa wrote: And now, for the long anticipated episode of "CSI: DakkaDakka" with guest director d-usa!
So I got my little painting dummy together to try and explain where I was going with the whole "anatomical position" stuff. Here is the results from the preliminary (so we can all agree that these are details that can still change) autopsy:
Spoiler:
This is the result displayed in anatomical position. All the entry wounds are in anterior parts of the body. From the way it appears in this diagram all the shots hit him from the same direction. The problem with the anatomical position is that we don't actually stand that way. The way we normally stand is this:
Spoiler:
The thumb rotate to the front of the fingers and the arms follow that same rotation. This is more prominent in the forearm, but even the upper rotates in the same direction. This means that areas that are facing the front in anatomical position (such as in the chart) end up facing the body or even the back when we stand naturally. This means that two of the shots seems to be missing from this point of view, but we can find one of the entry points if we look at his back, while the other one is facing his body.
Spoiler:
Now that doesn't mean that he could not have been shot in that position. His body was probably in motion, the wound facing his body could have been a grazing hit, all kinds of scenarios here. But if you try a few different poses that all result in the wounds facing the gun you will find that almost none of the feel very natural.
Now the "hands up" scenario that we have heard from a few witnesses:
Spoiler:
Now my fancy $3.99 model doesn't let me bend the elbow to fully copy the classic "hands on your head" scenario that we are all familiar with. But unlike the "hands down your side" stance all the surfaces of the body that are facing anterior in the anatomical position (and the diagram) are also facing anterior in this position. Every entry wound comes from the same direction.
As far as grouping of the shots go:
Here is the grouping from the chart:
Spoiler:
On paper, pretty much a straight line. Based on his height the spread could easily be 3-4 feet. It's also a weird pattern, but as we stated before he could have been just left of the target when fired the first shot and then moved up and closer to the center line with every subsequent shot. It's a possibility and not something that is unheard off.
The pattern from the "hands up position"
Spoiler:
Yes, I know I only covered up to the elbow. I was still basing it on the "hands on the head" scenario that my fancy doll won't comply with. But in this case we have a grouping that is still off-target (although again not missing center mass by very much), but the grouping itself is a lot better. You would end up with a 12"-18" grouping.
Since my "enhance" button is broken this is all I can do at this point. I'm going to guest-direct an episode of NCIS now.
Wow. That was a very informative illustration and it really helps to see the "wounds" on a 3-D figure.
easysauce wrote: Its a bit suprising, in this day and age, that there is not a 360 camera on the cop car, as well as on the cops.
one would think such a thing would do wonders for our justice system. This kind of situation could be analyzed and resovled much easier with the proper documentation.
all the bonus youtube hilarities it would record are just a bonus if russias dash cams are anything to go by.
I think there have been a lot of studies that have shown that police departments who started to use body-cams had a significant drop in use-of-force and a big drop in complaints.
And that's not just because the police feel watched so they beat you less. It's also because people who know that they are recorded being donkey-caves (people police are stopping in this case) will act less like donkey-caves because they know they can't pull the "cop was mean to me" card. And people who act better when confronted by the police will end up requiring less use-of-force.
So more cameras on cops result in people on both sides of the camera acting better. Which seems like it should be a win-win situation.
You would think so, but remember those magical words when it comes down to it...
Those body cameras? They require a "Tax Hike(TM)". So naturally they end up getting shelved as ideas because those cameras are not cheap at all.
CaulynDarr wrote: Imagine this situation if the federal government gave out free/cheep body cams to local PDs instead of free/cheep assault rifles and armored vehicles.
This is the world I'd like to live in.
Kanluwen wrote: Those body cameras? They require a "Tax Hike(TM)". So naturally they end up getting shelved as ideas because those cameras are not cheap at all.
It's been explained in this very thread that the cameras pay for themselves quite quickly. All it takes is a single settlement that didn't have to get paid out vs one that was, and I imagine most large police departments pay out several such settlements per year. There are other considerations with the cameras, but the cost is really the most minor of them.
Eilif wrote: The body and car cams suggestion is a very good one. I've heard that many folks in russia have installed their own car cams because it makes it less likely you'll have to pay a bribe to an officer who pulls you over. As for their deployment in the USA, $900 per officer is chump change compared to the costs of just one lawsuit. The City of Chicago routinely pays out multi-million dollar lawsuits for police brutality. One lawsuit could put a camera on the shoulder of every beat cop in the city.
Surtur wrote: But you just said that we don't know the officer's motivation. If he was not motivated by race then that really throws a wet towel on the cops vs blacks flare up in this incident. I understand that there is a history here, but that doesn't automatically every encounter a racial issue. If there is evidence that shows the officer has a prejudice past or is unable to sufficiently articulate why he stopped him in the first place, then I am more than willing to jump on the band wagon, but I want some proof first.
My point is not that race explains the shooting, but rather that it explains much (though doesn't justify all) of the reactions that follow. Put another way, racism might not have lit the fuse in this case, but issues relating to race certainly helped fill the powder keg.
While it may be chump change for Chicago to pay for body cams, most departments are not nearly that large, nor have nearly that many (if any) police brutality lawsuits against them.
For most departments however, it is hugely expensive. For the small department next to me, to have enough cameras for ONE day would almost cost them the same as a new cruiser, which would be a much better use of money for the department and the city. And again, that is only for one day, not for the entire department to have one.
Back to what is going on, thank you d-usa for the demonstration.
Anyone have any concerns with the national guard being called up? I know some of you think it is a good idea, but I am hesitant about it. Military personal usually are trained to shoot and kill, not so much trained in being a police force. What are they going to be able to do that the state troopers couldn't when it comes to prevent violence and looting?
Eilif wrote: The body and car cams suggestion is a very good one. I've heard that many folks in russia have installed their own car cams because it makes it less likely you'll have to pay a bribe to an officer who pulls you over. As for their deployment in the USA, $900 per officer is chump change compared to the costs of just one lawsuit. The City of Chicago routinely pays out multi-million dollar lawsuits for police brutality. One lawsuit could put a camera on the shoulder of every beat cop in the city.
Surtur wrote: But you just said that we don't know the officer's motivation. If he was not motivated by race then that really throws a wet towel on the cops vs blacks flare up in this incident. I understand that there is a history here, but that doesn't automatically every encounter a racial issue. If there is evidence that shows the officer has a prejudice past or is unable to sufficiently articulate why he stopped him in the first place, then I am more than willing to jump on the band wagon, but I want some proof first.
My point is not that race explains the shooting, but rather that it explains much (though doesn't justify all) of the reactions that follow. Put another way, racism might not have lit the fuse in this case, but issues relating to race certainly helped fill the powder keg.
While it may be chump change for Chicago to pay for body cams, most departments are not nearly that large, nor have nearly that many (if any) police brutality lawsuits against them.
For most departments however, it is hugely expensive. For the small department next to me, to have enough cameras for ONE day would almost cost them the same as a new cruiser, which would be a much better use of money for the department and the city. And again, that is only for one day, not for the entire department to have one.
How much did Ferguson and St. Louis County spend on tear-gas, riot gear, fuel for their big fancy APCs, and overtime after this event?
Most places also wouldn't buy cameras for everybody all at once. You would phase them in and purchase X number each year much the same way you wouldn't buy all new cars all at once, you would replace them every so often.
Back to what is going on, thank you d-usa for the demonstration.
I'm available as an expert witness for hire.
Anyone have any concerns with the national guard being called up? I know some of you think it is a good idea, but I am hesitant about it. Military personal usually are trained to shoot and kill, not so much trained in being a police force. What are they going to be able to do that the state troopers couldn't when it comes to prevent violence and looting?
The national guard is a weird mix of things. They are "military", but they are also part of the community. It's a weird gap between police and military. They get called up frequently to help with disasters, wild fires, floods, etc. So while they push towards the "militarization" aspect of this event, they also have a "we are part of the community and are here to help" role to them. The perception of them is really going to depend on what the actual role is that they will be used for.
Kanluwen wrote: Those body cameras? They require a "Tax Hike(TM)". So naturally they end up getting shelved as ideas because those cameras are not cheap at all.
It's been explained in this very thread that the cameras pay for themselves quite quickly. All it takes is a single settlement that didn't have to get paid out vs one that was, and I imagine most large police departments pay out several such settlements per year. There are other considerations with the cameras, but the cost is really the most minor of them.
Preaching to the choir--but remember that the general public tends to consist of kneejerk reactionaries who are easily swayed by key terms.
Not law enforcement being the Governor called them up. Even if they were Military Police (more likely) they do not have LEO authority unless granted by POTUS. I do not think they are going in with ACH and IOTV's on though which would be dicey since six LEO were injured when they were told to not wear the Protective/Riot gear (they're suing). Now the "Mob" (Going with the Roman "Mob" being the Looters/Rioters from media view is mostly black) might actually claim "Combat Troops" have been deployed against them.
Helmet cams can be attach on anywhere. Its "KISS" at its finest. Except the cord would piss everyone off being it will catch on things damn near
Kanluwen wrote: Those body cameras? They require a "Tax Hike(TM)". So naturally they end up getting shelved as ideas because those cameras are not cheap at all.
It's been explained in this very thread that the cameras pay for themselves quite quickly. All it takes is a single settlement that didn't have to get paid out vs one that was, and I imagine most large police departments pay out several such settlements per year. There are other considerations with the cameras, but the cost is really the most minor of them.
Preaching to the choir--but remember that the general public tends to consist of kneejerk reactionaries who are easily swayed by key terms.
"Tax hike!" is one of those terms.
Tax Hike can be counter with public safety, liability, and "common sense". Helmet cams have been used to clear "Unauthorized Shooting" in OIF and OEF
Tax Hike can be counter with public safety, liability, and "common sense". Helmet cams have been used to clear "Unauthorized Shooting" in OIF and OEF
All that's really unnecessary. Did the city raise a tax to buy an armored car (in the pics it didn't look like milsurp) assault rifles, etc, etc.? No. It's simply a matter of budget priorities. Maybe body cams are not immediately in reach for very small police departments, but PD's of even moderate size get quite a bit of leeway in prioritizing equipment acquisition.
Really, in the longer term, it's probably a moot issue. With the constant improving of technological quality and decreasing of price, it won't be more than a decade or two before a body cam on an officer is as ubiquitous as a badge. The cell phones carried by the spouses of police officers probably have an overall higher level of technology in them than an average body cam.
I don't think I've ever seen a man his size run like that, though. And that's coming from starting blocks.
After the initial start, a runner is completely erect.
*spoiler'd due to size
The cranial shot... wouldn't Brown have to be falling/charging like this?
I looked around the computer and found the enhance button. I pushed it five times and suddenly found myself inside the laptop looking out, and my whole house had this weird supersaturated yellow/orange/blue thing going on. After my cat put on sunglasses the printer spit out a summary of all knowledge that states that the suspect did, in fact, have his right hand on top of his head and the bullet that struck the right hand was deflected down and into the skull.
I have no idea but it sounds good and science-like doesn't it?
From my arm chair... I'm guessing he got that wound when falling down.
I'm thinking that a person that hears the first shot and instinctively ducks/lowers his head forward/raised the arms forward as to block the shots could also end up with wounds in all the positions indicated in the report.
Laemos wrote: Please show a pic of a football player rushing to make a tackle.
I also thought of that, but (to my knowledge) we don't have any information on how far away he was shooting. And you only bend over when you're about to make contact...and there was no power residue on his skin, right?
D. Make your model appear to have arms covering the face and the head bent a bit downward. Like one trying to protect one's face. Waist a bit forward to to give the shooter a smaller "target"
Jihadin wrote: D. Make your model appear to have arms covering the face and the head bent a bit downward. Like one trying to protect one's face. Waist a bit forward to to give the shooter a smaller "target"
I tried, but the cheap model doesn't want to bend elbows or waist. It won't hold that position at all. But just trying to hold that position myself and looking at my arms and where the wounds are, it seems like it would be possible.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Edit: what do we actually know about the skull wound other than "it hit the top of the head"?
Did it go straight in, did it just glance, anything?
Which of course is something to keep in mind about my fancy CSI work. I know anatomic position and I know that normally the body doesn't stand like it looks on that paper. But other than that all my fancy detective work is based on guesswork, no forensic training of any kind, and a grainy scanned single sheet paper from a preliminary report from a private autopsy.
I heard one round enter the lower jaw and glance down to enter into the clavical. That jives with head down (could be second to last shot) pushing the head downward more to entry into the top of head being the final shot.
More likely he was right handed. Which would mean he would more likely turn left into incoming fire
Damn good chance the LEO was trained to fire into center mass.
A weapon that firing we all know would track up from discharge. Since it was a rapid trigger squeeze no sight picture was reacquired after first shot.
More likely he was right handed. Which would mean he would more likely turn left into incoming fire
Does turn left mean right shoulder forward?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: I heard one round enter the lower jaw and glance down to enter into the clavical. That jives with head down (could be second to last shot) pushing the head downward more to entry into the top of head being the final shot.
I looked back through and it seems like that might have been the one that entered near the right eye and then was deflected down out through the jaw and into the clavicle. Lots of heavy bones around the brain, I could see them deflecting a bullet. Especially if the head was tilted slightly forward.
When you attempt to change direction suddenly you often end up in a lowered position like what was shown coming off the blocks or a tackling position. Ever try and do shuttle runs in gym class?
Also I find the media twisting a rather massive legal adult into a "teen" pretty biased. Dude was 6"4 and 300 lbs, that's not a boy, or what I'd consider a "teen". We send 18 year old adults off to war all the time and judging by his size he's bigger then most soldiers (and cops) so his size has everything to do with the amount of physical threat he'd pose, and they've tried to conceal that issue by labeling him as a "teen" in the headlines. Also why is it they were showing pictures of him when he was in the 12-13 age range? They want to portray him as a innocent boy for sympathy and not as the large and imposing adult he actually was.
Teenager: a person in his teens: from thirteen through nineteen.
You can be an adult and a teenager at the same time. It's that magical period where you are given responsibility of an adult and try to combine it with the stupidity of still being a child.
d-usa wrote: Teenager: a person in his teens: from thirteen through nineteen.
You can be an adult and a teenager at the same time. It's that magical period where you are given responsibility of an adult and try to combine it with the stupidity of still being a child.
I actually have no problem the media saying "teen".
We all can figure it out once we hear his age.
However, I do object the strategry of primarily using this pic: 13/14 yo?
His age is irrelevant. He's 6'4" 300. There are occasionally monstrous 14-15 year olds running around that could very well bloody an average adult male and possibly a competent police officer.
More likely he was right handed. Which would mean he would more likely turn left into incoming fire
Does turn left mean right shoulder forward?
I've seen the shoulder going downward and forward to try to protect the head (going say instinctive refex(?)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: I heard one round enter the lower jaw and glance down to enter into the clavical. That jives with head down (could be second to last shot) pushing the head downward more to entry into the top of head being the final shot.
I looked back through and it seems like that might have been the one that entered near the right eye and then was deflected down out through the jaw and into the clavicle. Lots of heavy bones around the brain, I could see them deflecting a bullet. Especially if the head was tilted slightly forward.
Going to guess this
First round was right chest above the nipple
2nd round upper right arm
3rd lower part of upper arm
4th forearm
5th (thumb) I would say a graze with the round entering the right eye which (guessing) slowed the round enough to deflect downward to exit out the lower jaw into the clavicle
6th round the kill shot on top of the head
whembly wrote: 'cuz... The Narrative™ needs to be messaged.
Of course you are trying to create and propagate your own narrative as well. If you weren't you wouldn't be as insulting or use handpicked photos to try and characterize the victim either. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised you would do what you complain about, so I am not.
whembly wrote: 'cuz... The Narrative™ needs to be messaged.
Of course you are trying to create and propagate your own narrative as well. If you weren't you wouldn't be as insulting or use handpicked photos to try and characterize the victim either. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised you would do what you complain about, so I am not.
I think there's a difference between an old photo that's misleading (both age and size), and a new photo that shows what the victim actually looked like.
I don't have any real problem with the second picture that whembly posted. I mean, he's fully clothed, not doing anything illegal. None of the clothes appear to be overly vulgar or "bad". It gives the impression of an adult vs a child, but beyond that, it doesn't seem to cast him in any dimmer a light than I would imagine any other picture to do so.
I mean, I work with people in a professional environment who dress more questionably than that on a daily basis.
I'm also not bothered by the second photo. It's going to look "thug'ish" to folks who don't know, but the truth is that it's pretty normal street wear for alot of kids. I'm not down with the hand signs in his neighborhood, but he could as easily be representing a neighborhood as a gang.
The average person probably couldn't tell the difference between a gang banger and a star basketball player if they saw them on the streets. I've been here 10 years and I can't.
All this to say, I don't find the picture to be particularly prejudicial.
The national guard is a weird mix of things. They are "military", but they are also part of the community. It's a weird gap between police and military. They get called up frequently to help with disasters, wild fires, floods, etc. So while they push towards the "militarization" aspect of this event, they also have a "we are part of the community and are here to help" role to them. The perception of them is really going to depend on what the actual role is that they will be used for.
Hence they are called Citizen Soldiers. They are citizens that are willing to become soldiers in a time of need.
Also sweet jeebus! One of my home cities (Saginaw) has a Maxxpro? Having ridden in one on combat ops I can honestly say I have zero understanding of why they require one. An MRAPs definitely are not street friendly in the slightest.
Some of these small town police forces have better gear then my battalion does....and we actually fight in warzones. This is honestly extremely disturbing to me.
The bit about police not understanding the concept of escalation of force is spot on. One of the things I keep noticing. They are too keyed up for the kill, it looks like they want what is happening to get the chance to fight. If they wanted to fight they should of joined the military.
The national guard is a weird mix of things. They are "military", but they are also part of the community. It's a weird gap between police and military. They get called up frequently to help with disasters, wild fires, floods, etc. So while they push towards the "militarization" aspect of this event, they also have a "we are part of the community and are here to help" role to them. The perception of them is really going to depend on what the actual role is that they will be used for.
Hence they are called Citizen Soldiers. They are citizens that are willing to become soldiers in a time of need.
Also sweet jeebus! One of my home cities (Saginaw) has a Maxxpro? Having ridden in one on combat ops I can honestly say I have zero understanding of why they require one. An MRAPs definitely are not street friendly in the slightest.
Some of these small town police forces have better gear then my battalion does....and we actually fight in warzones. This is honestly extremely disturbing to me.
The bit about police not understanding the concept of escalation of force is spot on. One of the things I keep noticing. They are too keyed up for the kill, it looks like they want what is happening to get the chance to fight. If they wanted to fight they should of joined the military.
1) MRAPs are free to LEO, because DoD doesn't want to pay to keep them in storage. Also, saying there are plenty of people with rifles that people call "high powered", police need something that can withstand getting shot at, most older "armored" SWAT vehicles can't do that. Not saying all gun people are crazy cop killers, but there are some.
2) being a small town police force is almost more dangerous than being an officer in a large city. You are more likely to be alone, and a lot of meth and pot is grown out in the middle of no where. Also, not all the gear you see is free from the government. DoD only gives out free rifles if they have a surplus of old stuck, surplus being only M16s, not newer M4s. Most departments either purchase their own rifles, or allow their officers to supply their own rifle (as long as you can qualify on it.)
3) the concept of escalation of force and training depends on the state. Some are much better than others at training. The real problem is a lot of officers tend to be ex military (see so they aren't just playing soldier, they were one), and the military doesn't exactly train for urban policing in the lower 48. I have had a couple professors (all ex LEO) say that some of the worst cops are the ones that transition from military, because of their previous training.
Jihadin wrote: Now we have lawyers talking about the entry wound on top the head like an "execution shot" almost
Is that legal? They are lawyers and that is slander. Can they be brought before the bar or something?
Saying "the police officer decided to execute him with a clean shot to the skull" is slander. Anything short of that is really fair game since it describes things, and not that particular person or his actions.
1) MRAPs are free to LEO, because DoD doesn't want to pay to keep them in storage. Also, saying there are plenty of people with rifles that people call "high powered", police need something that can withstand getting shot at, most older "armored" SWAT vehicles can't do that. Not saying all gun people are crazy cop killers, but there are some.
MRAPs are very expensive to maintain, and 'free' seems to ignore the cost the tax payers pony up to get them back stateside then reconditioned for LEO use. It would be cheaper to blow them in place or sell them for scrap than to pass them to CONUSLE. And, the bottom line is they were designed and built to defeat IEDs and other explosions from the ground upwards. Frankly, that is not a threat most CONUSLE faces, so they are paying a premium for a capability they do not need. They are crappy APCs (poor mobility, too tall for some urban applications, high roll over rate, low OR rate, don't carry a full SWAT team and so on). There are several purpose built vehicles out there that are MUCH better for SWAT use than an MRAP designed to withstand major explosions.
I know I would be pissed if my county burdened me and my fellow tax payers with the upkeep on an MRAP or two.
Depends on what was happening. If the "275+ Big Dude was rushing at him" is accurate, then I would guess, no the first few shots would not drop him to the point the cop firing would realize the kid was no longer a threat. Mass and velocity of the guy would have kept him up and moving forward enough that the cop sees 'threat still up' in the very few seconds it took to fire those rounds. Frankly, the kid, IF he was rushing at the cop, probably could not have stopped himself in that time span once he committed to the rush.
So, it really depends on what the kid was actually doing in relation to the cop.
1) MRAPs are free to LEO, because DoD doesn't want to pay to keep them in storage. Also, saying there are plenty of people with rifles that people call "high powered", police need something that can withstand getting shot at, most older "armored" SWAT vehicles can't do that. Not saying all gun people are crazy cop killers, but there are some.
MRAPs are very expensive to maintain, and 'free' seems to ignore the cost the tax payers pony up to get them back stateside then reconditioned for LEO use. It would be cheaper to blow them in place or sell them for scrap than to pass them to CONUSLE. And, the bottom line is they were designed and built to defeat IEDs and other explosions from the ground upwards. Frankly, that is not a threat most CONUSLE faces, so they are paying a premium for a capability they do not need. They are crappy APCs (poor mobility, too tall for some urban applications, high roll over rate, low OR rate, don't carry a full SWAT team and so on). There are several purpose built vehicles out there that are MUCH better for SWAT use than an MRAP designed to withstand major explosions.
I know I would be pissed if my county burdened me and my fellow tax payers with the upkeep on an MRAP or two.
Some idiot LEO driver going to flip one crushing the CROW on top
Edit
SPC activated to deal with Ferguson has the impression that the "Mob" has word to leave them the NG alone
And I just notice one LEO has an M16A2, tacticl vest with six clips plus one in the well, Kevlar with NOD mount with series 6 NVG on it.I see no National Guard members formed
1) MRAPs are free to LEO, because DoD doesn't want to pay to keep them in storage. Also, saying there are plenty of people with rifles that people call "high powered", police need something that can withstand getting shot at, most older "armored" SWAT vehicles can't do that. Not saying all gun people are crazy cop killers, but there are some.
MRAPs are very expensive to maintain, and 'free' seems to ignore the cost the tax payers pony up to get them back stateside then reconditioned for LEO use. It would be cheaper to blow them in place or sell them for scrap than to pass them to CONUSLE. And, the bottom line is they were designed and built to defeat IEDs and other explosions from the ground upwards. Frankly, that is not a threat most CONUSLE faces, so they are paying a premium for a capability they do not need. They are crappy APCs (poor mobility, too tall for some urban applications, high roll over rate, low OR rate, don't carry a full SWAT team and so on). There are several purpose built vehicles out there that are MUCH better for SWAT use than an MRAP designed to withstand major explosions.
I know I would be pissed if my county burdened me and my fellow tax payers with the upkeep on an MRAP or two.
Free in the sense that DoD said "come pick it up and its yours". And most of them are ones that were only used for training or have never been used, and have never been shipped over seas. While CONUSLE may not need a mine resistant vehicle, there are potential uses for an armored vehicle, and these ones just happen to already be paid for.
1) MRAPs are free to LEO, because DoD doesn't want to pay to keep them in storage. Also, saying there are plenty of people with rifles that people call "high powered", police need something that can withstand getting shot at, most older "armored" SWAT vehicles can't do that. Not saying all gun people are crazy cop killers, but there are some.
MRAPs are very expensive to maintain, and 'free' seems to ignore the cost the tax payers pony up to get them back stateside then reconditioned for LEO use. It would be cheaper to blow them in place or sell them for scrap than to pass them to CONUSLE. And, the bottom line is they were designed and built to defeat IEDs and other explosions from the ground upwards. Frankly, that is not a threat most CONUSLE faces, so they are paying a premium for a capability they do not need. They are crappy APCs (poor mobility, too tall for some urban applications, high roll over rate, low OR rate, don't carry a full SWAT team and so on). There are several purpose built vehicles out there that are MUCH better for SWAT use than an MRAP designed to withstand major explosions.
I know I would be pissed if my county burdened me and my fellow tax payers with the upkeep on an MRAP or two.
Free in the sense that DoD said "come pick it up and its yours". And most of them are ones that were only used for training or have never been used, and have never been shipped over seas. While CONUSLE may not need a mine resistant vehicle, there are potential uses for an armored vehicle, and these ones just happen to already be paid for.
Actually quite a lot are coming back from Afghanistan.. The MRAPS (family) used in Iraq are predisposition in Kuwait. The one's from Afghanistan are being shipped through to Karachi, Pakistan and/or flown out from Bagram, Kandahar, Shindand, and Mazar Sharif heading to Kuwait or Manas.
A good portion of the vehicles are being brought out of the Theater by the Polish, Romanians, and Israel have paid for their own carrier to remove the vehicles they have purchase. The Frag 7 Humvees Israel purchase are being moved overland.
Another good route being used is barges starting in the Black Sea to remove a uparmor LMTV's and other vehicles of those types. The US Airforce is not alone in moving vehicles and equipment. US Military has on contract certain vehicle cargo ships of a huge nature (4 from Japan), Ukraine AN124 contract company (8 total birds and one AN127).
Have to remember these Up Armor vehicles can have their armor remove and replaced with a lighter version armor.
Local Community leaders are trying their best to keep a lid on it. If someone gets out of line to start an incident the LEO move in mass and and secure the individual and move back to their lines
Edit
Their giving the local leaders a chance to keep a handle on it
As anger erupted again on the streets of Ferguson, Missouri, a human rights team from Amnesty International worked on the ground in the US for the first time ever.
Confrontation flared up after an autopsy found that Michael Brown, an unarmed teenager who was fatally shot by an officer on 9 August, had suffered at six bullet wounds including one in the top of his head.
Eye-witnesses report seeing police, with no visible ID badges, hurling tear gas and rubber bullets at protesters and threatening members of the press in another night of demonstrations.
Amnesty International, said it would be observing police and protester activity and gathering testimonies as well as training local activists “on methods of non-violent protest” in an “unprecedented” move by the campaigners.
Amnesty International USA's Executive Director, Steven W Hawkins said that the “people of Ferguson have the right to protest peacefully the lack of accountability for Michael Brown’s shooting”.
Jasmine Heiss, one of the 13-strong team sent by Amnesty, told Buzzfeed that the limits placed on the organisation’s access to post-curfew areas was indicative of “the overall lack of transparency in this investigation”.
“Law enforcement, from the FBI to state and local police, are obligated to respect and uphold the human rights of our communities,” Mr Hawkins said in a statement on 14 August.
“The US cannot continue to allow those obligated and duty-bound to protect to become those who their community fears most," said Amnesty International USA's executive director, Steven W. Hawkins.”
The fresh dissidence has led to Jay Nixon, the Governor of the state of Missouri, ordering the deployment of National Guard troops to “protect life and property”, he said in a statement this morning.
The military will, he says, will “maintain peace and order” by closing streets and thoroughfares, if it must, after the events that have unfolded have “continued to create conditions of distress and hazard to the safety, welfare and property of the citizens of the community beyond the capacities of local jurisdiction”.
READ MORE: MISSOURI GOVERNOR ‘THUNDERSTRUCK’ BY IMAGES
CHAOS ERUPTS ON THE STREETS OF FERGUSON AFTER AUTOPSY REPORT
HOW RACIAL STEREOTYPING CAN LEAD TO MURDER
Relations between protesters and police quickly deteriorated yesterday as a second night under curfew began, following the State of Emergency that was declared on Saturday.
Officers say they were responding to gunfire, looting, vandalism and the hurling of Molotov cocktails at them, with at least two people wounded.
"Based on the conditions, I had no alternative but to elevate the level of response," said Captain Ron Johnson, from the Missouri Highway Patrol.
A number of journalists present at the clash in the early hours of this morning reported being threatened with tear gas if they didn’t move, as they were shepherded away from the media enclosure.
Complex Magazine said that police had opened fire into the crowds without warning three hours before the midnight curfew began, causing some children and members of the media to be hit with tear gas and rubber bullets.
Two black journalists from Complex also said that they had been racially profiled, being refused re-entry into the press area whereas white members of the press had been.
While tensions ran high in Missouri, another demonstration in Los Angeles, 1,800 miles away, saw 500 people congregate outside police headquarters to protest the fatal shooting of another unarmed black man, who was killed 11 August.
Ezell Ford, 25, died in hospital after being shot by an LAPD officer – Ford’s family say he had been cooperating with police and was lying on the ground when hit, however police say that Ford was trying to grab one of their guns, according to Reuters.
I mean, it's pretty clear at this point that the "eyewitness" accounts are worthless considering the initial one stated that brown was shot while his hands were up and he was surrendering.
This thing is a fething mess, and it's not going to get any better because no one in the community has any reason, at this point, to tell the actual truth.
cincydooley wrote: I mean, it's pretty clear at this point that the "eyewitness" accounts are worthless considering the initial one stated that brown was shot while his hands were up and he was surrendering.
This thing is a fething mess, and it's not going to get any better because no one in the community has any reason, at this point, to tell the actual truth.
I think neither side will. Do we trust the people who were at fault or who cause the whole mess and escalated it?
I can't believe what is going shesh. I feel really sorry for those poor people who are just so scared of the police and the whole bloody situation.
Amnesty International USA's Executive Director, Steven W Hawkins said that the “people of Ferguson have the right to protest peacefully the lack of accountability for Michael Brown’s shooting”.
Jasmine Heiss, one of the 13-strong team sent by Amnesty, told Buzzfeed that the limits placed on the organisation’s access to post-curfew areas was indicative of “the overall lack of transparency in this investigation”.
“Law enforcement, from the FBI to state and local police, are obligated to respect and uphold the human rights of our communities,” Mr Hawkins said in a statement on 14 August.
“The US cannot continue to allow those obligated and duty-bound to protect to become those who their community fears most," said Amnesty International USA's executive director, Steven W. Hawkins.”
I have a great deal of respect for Amnesty, but they don't half stick their oar in and stir things up sometimes. It has been just over a week. There has been violence and rioting. The officer involved has been suspended pending an investigation, and they are talking about lack of accountability. What they are asking for is summary justice. Investigations take time and due process must be observed. They are making an assumption that nothing will be done and stoking the idea that not releasing information in to the public domain is the same as not being transparent.
There are questions to be anserd by the police across the US, but groups like amnesty should be more measured than this. Personally I don't think this has anything to do with race, more to do with the paramilitary attitude some police in the US seem to have and groups like the lawyers and NGO's sturing the pot like this just muddy the issue.
cincydooley wrote: I feel sorry for the people that are forced to be scared of the looters and rioters.
Agreed. Those poor peeps.
I feel for the poor business owners who have had their businesses looted and or burnt down. I suspect at least some will either be unable to afford or just choose not to rebuild/re-open making the neighborhood that much poorer.
1) MRAPs are free to LEO, because DoD doesn't want to pay to keep them in storage. Also, saying there are plenty of people with rifles that people call "high powered", police need something that can withstand getting shot at, most older "armored" SWAT vehicles can't do that. Not saying all gun people are crazy cop killers, but there are some.
MRAPs are very expensive to maintain, and 'free' seems to ignore the cost the tax payers pony up to get them back stateside then reconditioned for LEO use. It would be cheaper to blow them in place or sell them for scrap than to pass them to CONUSLE. And, the bottom line is they were designed and built to defeat IEDs and other explosions from the ground upwards. Frankly, that is not a threat most CONUSLE faces, so they are paying a premium for a capability they do not need. They are crappy APCs (poor mobility, too tall for some urban applications, high roll over rate, low OR rate, don't carry a full SWAT team and so on). There are several purpose built vehicles out there that are MUCH better for SWAT use than an MRAP designed to withstand major explosions.
I know I would be pissed if my county burdened me and my fellow tax payers with the upkeep on an MRAP or two.
Free in the sense that DoD said "come pick it up and its yours". And most of them are ones that were only used for training or have never been used, and have never been shipped over seas. While CONUSLE may not need a mine resistant vehicle, there are potential uses for an armored vehicle, and these ones just happen to already be paid for.
Actually quite a lot are coming back from Afghanistan.. The MRAPS (family) used in Iraq are predisposition in Kuwait. The one's from Afghanistan are being shipped through to Karachi, Pakistan and/or flown out from Bagram, Kandahar, Shindand, and Mazar Sharif heading to Kuwait or Manas.
A good portion of the vehicles are being brought out of the Theater by the Polish, Romanians, and Israel have paid for their own carrier to remove the vehicles they have purchase. The Frag 7 Humvees Israel purchase are being moved overland.
Another good route being used is barges starting in the Black Sea to remove a uparmor LMTV's and other vehicles of those types. The US Airforce is not alone in moving vehicles and equipment. US Military has on contract certain vehicle cargo ships of a huge nature (4 from Japan), Ukraine AN124 contract company (8 total birds and one AN127).
Have to remember these Up Armor vehicles can have their armor remove and replaced with a lighter version armor.
Yep, I know a guy who was in the agency that got the first one to go to a CONUSLE agency. It has had transmission problems, leaves puddles of oil everywhere, and is a mess. Came from overseas. But it looks cool!
Will be interesting to see what the development will be on that one. From what I have read this morning it seems like the video released may have been incomplete and another video actually shows him paying at the counter. The store never called 911 to report a theft either.
d-usa wrote: So about the whole "violent criminal" thing...
Will be interesting to see what the development will be on that one. From what I have read this morning it seems like the video released may have been incomplete and another video actually shows him paying at the counter. The store never called 911 to report a theft either.
So we will see.
Source? I don't see anything remotely close to that...
This is sorta a bombshell:
Police sources tell me more than a dozen witnesses have corroborated cop's version of events in shooting #Ferguson
Assuming Brown did pay, does that negate the obvious assault in the portion of the video we have seen? Would someone who does that not be correctly described as 'violent', and since assault is criminal, well, maybe the label would still fit?
trexmeyer wrote: His age is irrelevant. He's 6'4" 300. There are occasionally monstrous 14-15 year olds running around that could very well bloody an average adult male and possibly a competent police officer.
From the Little Leage World Series: His name is Erick Figueroa and he's listed at 6-foot-4 and 229 pounds. He's also listed at 13 years old.
To put that in perspective, David Ortiz (who is also known by the moniker "Big Papi") is listed at 6-foot-4 and 230 pounds.
Spoiler:
My only point is that a 6'4" 18-year-old weighing 300 pounds could feth me the hell up.
I hope a video comes out showing the full incident, one way or the other.
CptJake wrote: Assuming Brown did pay, does that negate the obvious assault in the portion of the video we have seen? Would someone who does that not be correctly described as 'violent', and since assault is criminal, well, maybe the label would still fit?
Talk about "forging a narrative...".
If that push is an obvious assault and makes him violent criminal then I guess almost all of us are violent criminals. I have a hard time believing that the majority of people here have not pushed someone at some point in their lives.
I can honestly say I never pushed a cashier or business owner while at their business, let alone while trying to take unpaid for product (which does seem to be what happened here). And from the video we have seen, it wasn't just a small nudge out of the way type push.
So yeah, anyone who has acted in that way is gonna get labeled violent by me.
CptJake wrote: I can honestly say I never pushed a cashier or business owner while at their business, let alone while trying to take unpaid for product (which does seem to be what happened here). And from the video we have seen, it wasn't just a small nudge out of the way type push.
So yeah, anyone who has acted in that way is gonna get labeled violent by me.
Great deflection, but also a non answer.
You have honestly never pushed anybody at anytime in your life?
I think this whole line of discussion is sort of irrelevant. The police that stopped him had no idea this altercation had happened and it was no salient to why they stopped him.
Ouze wrote: I think this whole line of discussion is sort of irrelevant. The police that stopped him had no idea this altercation had happened and it was no salient to why they stopped him.
We still don't have all the details of that police stop.
The convention here is that the officer didn't put 2 and 2 together at the initial contact.
The initial contact was to tell Brown&Friend to get off the road... then when he drove past them, stopped and backed up.
At this point, he probably realizes that they fit the description of the robbery 10 mins earlier.
CptJake wrote: I can honestly say I never pushed a cashier or business owner while at their business, let alone while trying to take unpaid for product (which does seem to be what happened here). And from the video we have seen, it wasn't just a small nudge out of the way type push.
So yeah, anyone who has acted in that way is gonna get labeled violent by me.
Great deflection, but also a non answer.
You have honestly never pushed anybody at anytime in your life?
While committing a crime? Nope, never. In the context of sports? Yep. In the context of fights, yep, but I can honestly say I never instigated any of the fights I've been in.
And I'll also admit, I can be very violent and have committed some very violent acts when I had to.
But never against some poor guy trying to make a living or against someone that much smaller than me and never while stealing.
While committing a crime? Nope, never. In the context of sports? Yep. In the context of fights, yep, but I can honestly say I never instigated any of the fights I've been in.
And I'll also admit, I can be very violent and have committed some very violent acts when I had to.
But never against some poor guy trying to make a living or against someone that much smaller than me and never while stealing.
Three different posts, three different criteria of "assault" and "violent criminal".
Your first post:
Assuming Brown did pay, does that negate the obvious assault in the portion of the video we have seen?
So you argue that even if no crime is committed, pushing someone makes you a violent criminal because you assaulted him.
Which is something you are apparently guilty of doing. Although you then spend the next two posts trying to justify your way out of it by saying "I never pushed a clerk or store owner" and "I never pushed anyone while committing a crime or stealing", even though you have already established that pushing someone makes you a violent criminal even if no theft occurred or no other crime is being committed.
Now I'm not pointing this out in order to go "Now CptJake, we all know damn well that you have assaulted plenty of people and that you are a violent criminal yourself, so shut your trap!" It's not my intention to makes this a "yeah, you too!" post.
My point is that:
A) The whole "he was a violent criminal" is completely irrelevant to what actually happened because it appears that the cop didn't know about his "violent criminal" status at the time and it didn't change the nature of the confrontation.
B) That the basis of the whole "he's a violent criminal, look at him assaulting people" is such a ridiculous low standard that if we were to apply it to all of us we would all be violent criminals. If a push makes you a criminal then we are all guilty.
CptJake wrote: I can honestly say I never pushed a cashier or business owner while at their business, let alone while trying to take unpaid for product (which does seem to be what happened here). And from the video we have seen, it wasn't just a small nudge out of the way type push.
So yeah, anyone who has acted in that way is gonna get labeled violent by me.
yeah, stealing, then assaulting the clerk, then FOLLOWING the clerk a bit, strikes me as violent and very aggressive. Its a guy half his size he pushes too, a simple trip could have resulted in serious injury to the clerk, would we have riots then?
Some people (not you jake) can downplay this all you want, but the fact is:
the mob wants blood, no matter if the cop is proven innocent, they will not believe the verdict.
As much as they want to cry out that all the cops are racist, the rioters need to look in the mirror and realize that they are operating under preconceptions and prejudice themselves by not even acknowledging the possibility of the cops innocence or conforming to the rule of law until a verdict is passed.
A) The whole "he was a violent criminal" is completely irrelevant to what actually happened because it appears that the cop didn't know about his "violent criminal" status at the time and it didn't change the nature of the confrontation.
B) That the basis of the whole "he's a violent criminal, look at him assaulting people" is such a ridiculous low standard that if we were to apply it to all of us we would all be violent criminals. If a push makes you a criminal then we are all guilty.
except the fact is, he was violent and has been recorded on tape as such, and that is just what is 100% proven.
He didnt "push" the clerk, he violently shoved him, and pursued him a bit after, you can tell the clerk is terrified and he has good reason to be.
You are trying to equate this to something benign like school kids pushing each other or two buddies having a drunken argument, which it simply is not.
He is alleged to have been more violent by the cop and some witnesses, while this tape doesnt prove he was violent at the scene, it does show an immediate history of it.
It does lend credence the the cops and some witnesses reports that he was violent at the time of the shooting.
The cop was just doing his job, if doing your job makes you lynch able by the mob, then we are all lynch able.
one would think, given history, that mobs wouldnt be the go to reaction to this thing, especially given that there has been no verdict yet and the facts are still coming out.
the mob wants blood, no matter if the cop is proven innocent, they will not believe the verdict.
This is a big problem here. We had the same with the Mark Duggan case. Cop found innocent. Its a cover up. Cop found guilty. Its proof of deeper problems they are hiding. This is one of the big issues police are facing, that people trust authority less and less and expect more and more to be out in the public domain wether appropriate or not.
A) The whole "he was a violent criminal" is completely irrelevant to what actually happened because it appears that the cop didn't know about his "violent criminal" status at the time and it didn't change the nature of the confrontation.
B) That the basis of the whole "he's a violent criminal, look at him assaulting people" is such a ridiculous low standard that if we were to apply it to all of us we would all be violent criminals. If a push makes you a criminal then we are all guilty.
It does help to explain how the situation progressed from a policeman asking them to get out of the middle of the street to having to shoot an unarmed man attacking the policeman. Far from the original "poor little kid accosted by the police while just walking down the street and killed on his knees with his hands up...He Was Going To COLLEGE!!!" though.
1) MRAPs are free to LEO, because DoD doesn't want to pay to keep them in storage. Also, saying there are plenty of people with rifles that people call "high powered", police need something that can withstand getting shot at, most older "armored" SWAT vehicles can't do that. Not saying all gun people are crazy cop killers, but there are some.
MRAPs are very expensive to maintain, and 'free' seems to ignore the cost the tax payers pony up to get them back stateside then reconditioned for LEO use. It would be cheaper to blow them in place or sell them for scrap than to pass them to CONUSLE. And, the bottom line is they were designed and built to defeat IEDs and other explosions from the ground upwards. Frankly, that is not a threat most CONUSLE faces, so they are paying a premium for a capability they do not need. They are crappy APCs (poor mobility, too tall for some urban applications, high roll over rate, low OR rate, don't carry a full SWAT team and so on). There are several purpose built vehicles out there that are MUCH better for SWAT use than an MRAP designed to withstand major explosions.
I know I would be pissed if my county burdened me and my fellow tax payers with the upkeep on an MRAP or two.
I can't find the article, but I read somewhere that many police departments take them, leave them in storage for the required number of years and then sell them to military vehicle collectors as a way to finance what are often cash-strapped departments. This I totally understand.
However, like you, what I don't is dumping taxpayer $ into a reconditioning a vehicle not designed for the use at hand.
Eilif wrote: I can't find the article, but I read somewhere that many police departments take them, leave them in storage for the required number of years and then sell them to military vehicle collectors as a way to finance what are often cash-strapped departments. This I totally understand.
However, like you, what I don't is dumping taxpayer $ into a reconditioning a vehicle not designed for the use at hand.
I think that's a lot less offensive than, say, government dollars going into healthcare for the needy, which is socialism.
Mr Nobody wrote: Have they explained why the officer fired his gun yet?
Cop says the kid tried to take his gun, backed away, and was then charging at him. The autopsy can be interpreted to support that. A video taken of a bystander also seems to support that.
Mr Nobody wrote: Have they explained why the officer fired his gun yet?
Cop says the kid tried to take his gun, backed away, and was then charging at him. The autopsy can be interpreted to support that. A video taken of a bystander also seems to support that.
If the cop is telling the truth, then I can understand why he shot him. It seems like the cop panicked and unloaded his gun. Whether that's justifiable or not is more complicated.
Mr Nobody wrote: Have they explained why the officer fired his gun yet?
Cop says the kid tried to take his gun, backed away, and was then charging at him. The autopsy can be interpreted to support that. A video taken of a bystander also seems to support that.
If the cop is telling the truth, then I can understand why he shot him. It seems like the cop panicked and unloaded his gun.
That's what it sounds like to me, too, but we still need more info
cincydooley wrote: We need to wait to see if it's corroborated and confirmed, obviously.
Yeah, I'm not too sure about that source. I started looking at their articles and cleared my browsing history after getting to the KKK rally announcement. Wasn't sure if it was a "Hey, watch out", or "Hey, it's party time" kind of announcement. The content of the other articles made it ambiguous enough that I didn't want to stick around and find out.
The Grand Jury may start up tomorrow, so this stuff should be coming out officially soon. And hopefully the parallel federal investigation will keep the county honest.
Apparently there's been a group of wannabe communist revolutionaries from Chicago that have been stirring up much of the trouble these last few nights.
Eilif wrote: I can't find the article, but I read somewhere that many police departments take them, leave them in storage for the required number of years and then sell them to military vehicle collectors as a way to finance what are often cash-strapped departments. This I totally understand.
However, like you, what I don't is dumping taxpayer $ into a reconditioning a vehicle not designed for the use at hand.
I think that's a lot less offensive than, say, government dollars going into healthcare for the needy, which is socialism.
Not going to get into it here, but just to assuage my curiosity, are you being serious or joking?
The massive number of emoticons would suggest joking, but since none of them are smileys it's kind of a toss-up.
It wouldn't justify lethal force after the fact though. So the question is still "was he a threat when the shots were fired" not "was he big and scary and a threat earlier".
CptJake wrote: If true, it would have been nice if they released it a lot earlier. Maybe then the media would not have fanned the flames as much as they have.
No matter what else comes of this, It's pretty safe to say that the Ferguson and County police made a bad situation much worse than it had to be,
It could mean something like "she is not with the paper at the moment, and did not go through proper channels (clearing it with an editor) before publishing."
And so she might not mean her report is untrue, just that the report should not be associated with her newspaper, as she was not acting as a reporter for that paper when she tweeted.
But if it's true, surely we'll see the paper itself, with current employees, following it up.
I will say that while it does appear the cop might have had a legit reason for the shooting Ferguson police all the way up to the govenor have done zero right in this situation.
Cops have hard jobs. It's why I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt. But the manner in which the police responded to this has been way, way, way wrong.
A punch hard enough to shatter the orbital bones around the eye and may have pop the eyeball out. That's pretty close to extreme physical harm. One eye all screwed up and possible two different views being perceived.
Everyone is capable of violence and I mean EVERYONE. Does not matter the level of pacifism there is a trigger point one would commit violence.
Jihadin wrote: Everyone is capable of violence and I mean EVERYONE. Does not matter the level of pacifism there is a trigger point one would commit violence.
You guys remember Katrina, when President Bush did the flyover? It was the right thing to do - him coming in would cause a lot of more important things to be put to the side for what were essentially photo ops. However, it was really bad optics - he didn't explain his rationale until much later - and so I doubt that's a mistake any administration will make for the immediate future.
d-usa wrote: It wouldn't justify lethal force after the fact though. So the question is still "was he a threat when the shots were fired" not "was he big and scary and a threat earlier".
If, as had been alleged, Brown was rushing the cop after having caved in an eye socket, I suspect the cop could have justifiably feared enough damage to make this a good shoot in the eyes of a jury. Honestly, if this is true, I would be surprised if a DA decided to prosecute at all. Remember 'earlier' is probably quite a bit less than 5 minutes before the shooting so the 'threat' never went away.
Ouze wrote: Do you have autocorrect set to mispell his name on purpose or something?
I do that quite a bit...eh?
I'm pretty sure the headlines would be pretty poor if there isn't some kind of appearance by someone high up in the executive.
The Governor should've been here earlier... even though he F'ed up and couldn't wait to scurry away.
But the Prez? Not sure if he can help the situation anymore by showing up and do speeches.
But, hey... he's more than welcome to come on down.
*shrug*
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: You guys remember Katrina, when President Bush did the flyover? It was the right thing to do - him coming in would cause a lot of more important things to be put to the side for what were essentially photo ops. However, it was really bad optics - he didn't explain his rationale until much later - and so I doubt that's a mistake any administration will make for the immediate future.
d-usa wrote: It wouldn't justify lethal force after the fact though. So the question is still "was he a threat when the shots were fired" not "was he big and scary and a threat earlier".
Was the officer assaulted" is generally the determining factor in police being justified in shooting people actually, bare knuckled hits to the face can kill, its not something to be brushed off so lightly.
by definition, ANY response from the officer to an attack is as you say, "after the fact".
in other words,
How many seconds is too many for the officer to wait after (allegedly) having his face bashed in by a 300ILB 6+ foot guy before we draw the line between a cop and racist cop?
How many seconds does it take a 300ilb 6+ foot tall person hitting you to turn into a sweet, innocent kid who was going to colledge? (or vise versa if the cops injuries are faked)
If the alleged injuries to the officer are true, hes also likely operating under extreme conditions due to pain, likely a concussion, and possibly blocked eye sight due to blood.
If this man would have attacked him in perfect condition, whats to make the officer believe his life isnt in danger after he is already injured?
Im also pretty sure the exact timing between the alleged cop face bashing and the alleged "kiddy killa KKK Kop" has yet to be released,
We talking the discharge in the LEO vehicle? I can see the LEO discharging his weapon in the vehicle into the driver side door after getting jacked up by CC. Getting hit that freaking hard would be a TBI. On a TBI thinking out the tenth story window and one can only react
d-usa wrote: It wouldn't justify lethal force after the fact though. So the question is still "was he a threat when the shots were fired" not "was he big and scary and a threat earlier".
Was the officer assaulted" is generally the determining factor in police being justified in shooting people actually,
Congratulations. That statement is so wrong I am giving you an internet cookie.
"Was the officer assaulted" is irrelevant in determining if lethal force was justified.
"Is the officer or another member of the public in danger right now" is how justification for lethal force is determined.
The cop thinking "he already broke my orbit (if indeed correct), I'm going to shoot him because he assaulted me" does not give any justification of lethal force.
The cop thinking "crap, he is charging me, he already broke my orbit, I'm going to shoot him" does give justification of lethal force.
blah blah blah big scary black man blah blah blah evil racist cop blah blah blah KKK cop blah blah blah
Edited by AgeOfEgos Either have a legitimate conversation with legitimate points or just hang out in the "oohhhh, everybody who thinks the cop acted wrong thinks all cops are racist" time-out corner.
Soladrin wrote: So are we ignoring that someone else got shot during riots?
I think they for shot by other rioters. I chalk that up to stupid people being stupid.
I think the community and the cops are actually moving towards working together to get rid of the idiots doing the rioting, many of whom are not local.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jasper76 wrote: I thought this was a good opinion piece on the subject in today's Post. YMMV
CptJake wrote: Assuming Brown did pay, does that negate the obvious assault in the portion of the video we have seen? Would someone who does that not be correctly described as 'violent', and since assault is criminal, well, maybe the label would still fit?
Talk about "forging a narrative...".
If that push is an obvious assault and makes him violent criminal then I guess almost all of us are violent criminals. I have a hard time believing that the majority of people here have not pushed someone at some point in their lives.
Yup, everybody I know has shoved a store clerk before intimidating him with my stature and leaving with an item I didn't paid for.
If that push is an obvious assault and makes him violent criminal then I guess almost all of us are violent criminals.
CptJake wrote: Assuming Brown did pay, does that negate the obvious assault in the portion of the video we have seen? Would someone who does that not be correctly described as 'violent', and since assault is criminal, well, maybe the label would still fit?
Talk about "forging a narrative...".
If that push is an obvious assault and makes him violent criminal then I guess almost all of us are violent criminals. I have a hard time believing that the majority of people here have not pushed someone at some point in their lives.
Yup, everybody I know has shoved a store clerk before intimidating him with my stature and leaving with an item I didn't paid for.
If that push is an obvious assault and makes him violent criminal then I guess almost all of us are violent criminals.
Just throwing this in. His actions indicates he is capable of violence
CptJake wrote: Assuming Brown did pay, does that negate the obvious assault in the portion of the video we have seen? Would someone who does that not be correctly described as 'violent', and since assault is criminal, well, maybe the label would still fit?
Talk about "forging a narrative...".
If that push is an obvious assault and makes him violent criminal then I guess almost all of us are violent criminals. I have a hard time believing that the majority of people here have not pushed someone at some point in their lives.
Yup, everybody I know has shoved a store clerk before intimidating him with my stature and leaving with an item I didn't paid for.
If that push is an obvious assault and makes him violent criminal then I guess almost all of us are violent criminals.
I would point out to you that CptJake specified that EVEN IF YOU DIDN'T COMMIT ANY OTHER CRIME WHATSOEVER pushing someone equals assault and makes you a violent criminal.
But if you couldn't be arsed to read it the first time I doubt you would bother to actually read his argument now.
Strong-arm robbery is a term used to describe a situation where the offender used any degree of force to complete the act. Strong-arm robbery is technically a term used to describe the crime of "Robbery by sudden snatching."
"Robbery by sudden snatching" means the taking of money or other property from the victim's person, with intent to permanently or temporarily deprive the victim or the owner of the money or other property, when, in the course of the taking, the victim was or became aware of the taking. In order to satisfy this definition, it is not necessary to show that:
The offender used any amount of force beyond that effort necessary to obtain possession of the money or other property; or
There was any resistance offered by the victim to the offender or that there was injury to the victim's person.
Physical assault takes place when an individual or a group provokes and attacks a person physically, with or without the use of a weapon, or threatens to hurt that person. Work-related aggression happens through the use of force or threats to a non-consenting victim on the work premises or in the context of the victim’s work.
The following are examples of physical assault.
Provocation: insults, death threats.
Intimidation: making a fist, pushing, stalking, stealing/throwing objects.
Brutality: attacks, struggles, fights.
Punches and injuries: bites, bruises, injuries, dislocations, fractures.
Assault with a weapon.
Armed robbery (with a firearm or using force or the threat of force).
d-usa wrote: I would point out to you that CptJake specified that EVEN IF YOU DIDN'T COMMIT ANY OTHER CRIME WHATSOEVER pushing someone equals assault and makes you a violent criminal.
But if you couldn't be arsed to read it the first time I doubt you would bother to actually read his argument now.
I'm not commenting on this in regard to the case, I'm commenting on the fact that you see a video like that and try to excuse it as just 'pushing' that a majority of people all do. Which as indicated my by use of smilies is laughable, IMO.
CptJake wrote: Assuming Brown did pay, does that negate the obvious assault in the portion of the video we have seen? Would someone who does that not be correctly described as 'violent', and since assault is criminal, well, maybe the label would still fit?
Talk about "forging a narrative...".
If that push is an obvious assault and makes him violent criminal then I guess almost all of us are violent criminals. I have a hard time believing that the majority of people here have not pushed someone at some point in their lives.
Yup, everybody I know has shoved a store clerk before intimidating him with my stature and leaving with an item I didn't paid for.
If that push is an obvious assault and makes him violent criminal then I guess almost all of us are violent criminals.
I would point out to you that CptJake specified that EVEN IF YOU DIDN'T COMMIT ANY OTHER CRIME WHATSOEVER pushing someone equals assault and makes you a violent criminal.
But if you couldn't be arsed to read it the first time I doubt you would bother to actually read his argument now.
Just throwing this in. His actions indicates he is capable of violence
As do yours.
As do mine.
I'd venture to say pushing the diminutive clerk around in a strong arm robbery followed up with fracturing bones in the officers face pretty much cements in place the credentials for being tagged a violent criminal.
Pushing + Physical intimidation + theft makes you a violent criminal. You seem to see those three things and leave it at "He just pushed him"
Let me try to summarize one last time, just for the off-chance that you actually didn't read the entire conversation there and just decided to chirp in on a random comment.
Me: I saw some reports that seem to show that he actually paid for the cigars and there was no robbery.
CptJake: It doesn't matter. Even if he didn't steal them, he would still be a violent criminal who assaulted people for pushing the clerk.
You: Yeah, Pushing + Stealing makes you a criminal.
Me: He said that pushing, WITHOUT STEALING, makes you a violent criminal anyway.
You: Pushing + Physical intimidation + theft makes you a violent criminal. You seem to see those three things and leave it at "He just pushed him"
If you want to jump into the middle of a discussion to argue whatever you think it is I am saying, then be my guest. But I'm going to call you out for not knowing what it is you are actually arguing against.
I'm not saying that pushing a clerk out of the way while stealing something =/= assault, so I have no earthly idea where you are getting that idea from.
Now if you want to counter "pushing without anything else going on doesn't make you a violent criminal" with "pushing while stealing makes you a violent criminal" for a third time and completely ignore the point then I guess I can't stop you.
I'd venture to say pushing the diminutive clerk around in a strong arm robbery followed up with fracturing bones in the officers face pretty much cements in place the credentials for being tagged a violent criminal.
Congratulations on not being able to actually read as well.
Is this thing even on? Do letters show up on the other side of the interweb pipes when I'm pushing them on my keyboard?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote: You're right, and I did chirp in at a random comment without reading the rest of the conversation like I should have.
My apologies
Thanks, and sorry for getting butthurt about it. It's just a tad bit frustrating.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Edit: also for the record.
There was a couple YouTube videos this morning that appear to show Brown paying for the cigars before he left and was confronted by the clerk and then pushed him out of the way. A couple places started to talk about that and questioned the "did he steal" story and mentioned that the store didn't call 911 and that a bystander who noticed it called. That is where my "there are some stories that seem to indicate..." came from.
I haven't seen anything else to back that up since then.
I'd venture to say pushing the diminutive clerk around in a strong arm robbery followed up with fracturing bones in the officers face pretty much cements in place the credentials for being tagged a violent criminal.
Congratulations on not being able to actually read as well.
Is this thing even on? Do letters show up on the other side of the interweb pipes when I'm pushing them on my keyboard?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote: You're right, and I did chirp in at a random comment without reading the rest of the conversation like I should have.
My apologies
Thanks, and sorry for getting butthurt about it. It's just a tad bit frustrating.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Edit: also for the record.
There was a couple YouTube videos this morning that appear to show Brown paying for the cigars before he left and was confronted by the clerk and then pushed him out of the way. A couple places started to talk about that and questioned the "did he steal" story and mentioned that the store didn't call 911 and that a bystander who noticed it called. That is where my "there are some stories that seem to indicate..." came from.
I haven't seen anything else to back that up since then.
The details of the incident aside, this isn't about a single killing. A spark doesn't start a fire in isolation. Fixating on how to classify the fact the guy shoved someone at some store earlier or if he stole petty items or not is just the kind of distraction that really serves to underline why the anger behind these events is so fierce.
Ouze wrote: Any confirmation on the cop's injuries anywhere?
Not yet.
Physical assault takes place when an individual or a group provokes and attacks a person physically, with or without the use of a weapon, or threatens to hurt that person. Work-related aggression happens through the use of force or threats to a non-consenting victim on the work premises or in the context of the victim’s work.
The following are examples of physical assault.
Provocation: insults, death threats.
Intimidation: making a fist, pushing, stalking, stealing/throwing objects.
Brutality: attacks, struggles, fights.
Punches and injuries: bites, bruises, injuries, dislocations, fractures.
So, pushing? check. Intimidation? Check
Kind of like Brown's actions in the video? So, even without the theft, he could have been charged for assault for the actions in that video?
There was a couple YouTube videos this morning that appear to show Brown paying for the cigars before he left and was confronted by the clerk and then pushed him out of the way. A couple places started to talk about that and questioned the "did he steal" story and mentioned that the store didn't call 911 and that a bystander who noticed it called. That is where my "there are some stories that seem to indicate..." came from.
I haven't seen anything else to back that up since then.
I've only seen amateur video analysts trying to make money out of pixels so far. Given the store's statement "A customer called 911, we didn't in this case--please don't loot/burn our store, we would like to stay in business"....and the fact that Mike Brown's friend flat out stated that Mike Brown stole the cigarillos, I'm inclined to believe he did indeed steal them.
Pro Michael Brown protesters OWNED BIATCH(/Sarcasm)
A friend of mine posted this on Facebook yesterday and I paraphrased it for other people so didn't have to read it:
"I don't know what happened, but these other people that don't know what happened know less about what happened than I do so let me explain how they are wrong." -Author of that article
Pro Michael Brown protesters OWNED BIATCH(/Sarcasm)
A friend of mine posted this on Facebook yesterday and I paraphrased it for other people so didn't have to read it:
"I don't know what happened, but these other people that don't know what happened know less about what happened than I do so let me explain how they are wrong." -Author of that article
Pro Michael Brown protesters OWNED BIATCH(/Sarcasm)
A friend of mine posted this on Facebook yesterday and I paraphrased it for other people so didn't have to read it:
"I don't know what happened, but these other people that don't know what happened know less about what happened than I do so let me explain how they are wrong." -Author of that article
The sad thing is he's basically right.
Unless, of course, it's acceptable to people to see a tiny old man grabbed by the collar and shoved around by someone, let alone a person the size of a mountain.
One thing I am wondering about, though is how it is that they couldn't tell by entry and exit wounds if the hands were raised or not.
Pushing + Physical intimidation + theft makes you a violent criminal. You seem to see those three things and leave it at "He just pushed him"
his action was battery. It gives indication that, when stopped, his response would be extremely aggressive.
Sounds like a good shoot.
Protip. Don't fight with cops. Don't die.
Edit: since I've been suspended once for saying the rioters should be shot I'll just say, the rioters should be dealt with, with all means necessary. Time to end this.
Yup, everybody I know has shoved a store clerk before intimidating him with my stature and leaving with an item I didn't paid for.
notice how no one has found that clerk and talked to him? or how he didn't call the police after the incident? or how the huffington post pulled its "story" about witnesses confirming the police's story?
There's a lot of things with this that doesn't add up
Yup, everybody I know has shoved a store clerk before intimidating him with my stature and leaving with an item I didn't paid for.
notice how no one has found that clerk and talked to him? or how he didn't call the police after the incident? or how the huffington post pulled its "story" about witnesses confirming the police's story?
There's a lot of things with this that doesn't add up
Considering what's going on, it's no wonder the clerk isn't talking. He probably doesn't have that strong of a death wish.
Yup, everybody I know has shoved a store clerk before intimidating him with my stature and leaving with an item I didn't paid for.
notice how no one has found that clerk and talked to him? or how he didn't call the police after the incident? or how the huffington post pulled its "story" about witnesses confirming the police's story?
There's a lot of things with this that doesn't add up
Hey, that clerk is probably terrified right now. If he says anything bad or casts Michael Brown in an unfavourable light, the store will almost certainly be looted/burnt down, if it hasn't already happened. And maybe he didn't call the police because a customer did that for him? No point in making duplicate calls as far as I'm aware.
Pro Michael Brown protesters OWNED BIATCH(/Sarcasm)
A friend of mine posted this on Facebook yesterday and I paraphrased it for other people so didn't have to read it:
"I don't know what happened, but these other people that don't know what happened know less about what happened than I do so let me explain how they are wrong." -Author of that article
The sad thing is he's basically right.
Except he isn't. He's no different than the people he's claiming are so wrong.
I've read plenty of other stuff by this guy and all the same tripe; smug intellectual dishonesty masquerading as moral righteousness.
Relapse wrote: Unless, of course, it's acceptable to people to see a tiny old man grabbed by the collar and shoved around by someone, let alone a person the size of a mountain.
Please show me where anyone said this was even remotely acceptable.
Until then, enjoy this:
One thing I am wondering about, though is how it is that they couldn't tell by entry and exit wounds if the hands were raised or not.
Pro Michael Brown protesters OWNED BIATCH(/Sarcasm)
A friend of mine posted this on Facebook yesterday and I paraphrased it for other people so didn't have to read it:
"I don't know what happened, but these other people that don't know what happened know less about what happened than I do so let me explain how they are wrong." -Author of that article
The sad thing is he's basically right.
Except he isn't. He's no different than the people he's claiming are so wrong.
I've read plenty of other stuff by this guy and all the same tripe; smug intellectual dishonesty masquerading as moral righteousness.
Relapse wrote: Unless, of course, it's acceptable to people to see a tiny old man grabbed by the collar and shoved around by someone, let alone a person the size of a mountain.
Please show me where anyone said this was even remotely acceptable.
Until then, enjoy this:
One thing I am wondering about, though is how it is that they couldn't tell by entry and exit wounds if the hands were raised or not.
We discussed this a length a couple of pages ago.
Thanks for letting me know, I didn't feel like slogging through a crapload of pages hunting.
BTW, are you seriously trying to tell me that a fair number among those protestors are not trying to excuse what was done to the clerk? From what I've been reading quite a few seem to be.
Pro Michael Brown protesters OWNED BIATCH(/Sarcasm)
A friend of mine posted this on Facebook yesterday and I paraphrased it for other people so didn't have to read it:
"I don't know what happened, but these other people that don't know what happened know less about what happened than I do so let me explain how they are wrong." -Author of that article
The sad thing is he's basically right.
Except he isn't. He's no different than the people he's claiming are so wrong.
I've read plenty of other stuff by this guy and all the same tripe; smug intellectual dishonesty masquerading as moral righteousness.
I'm not saying it's not smug, but it's not dishonest. Do you really think there aren't a large number of people who are upset about this because they already believe a preconceived narrative about the shooting, even without definitive evidence at this point?
I haven't read anything else by this guy though, so my interpretation of this particular article isn't clouded by any past negative experience.
Mr Nobody wrote: Obama shouldn't go, the police might arrest him for being a "suspicious character".
On a serious note though. LEO has to be detailed off to provide security for the POTUS if he does go. That reassignment of officers is going to cut in what little time they have to sleep (sounds like four hours min of sleep) just to cover down for POTUS and turn around to provide security at night for possible out breaks of riots and stores getting crushed.
blah blah blah big scary black man blah blah blah evil racist cop blah blah blah KKK cop blah blah blah
Just stop this nonsense. It does nothing but make you look really juvenile and silly. Either have a legitimate conversation with legitimate points or just hang out in the "oohhhh, everybody who thinks the cop acted wrong thinks all cops are racist" time-out corner.
says the guy acting completely childish and literally using the "blah blah blahy your wrong Im right" argument and editing my words to make it completely different then what I said?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: We talking the discharge in the LEO vehicle? I can see the LEO discharging his weapon in the vehicle into the driver side door after getting jacked up by CC. Getting hit that freaking hard would be a TBI. On a TBI thinking out the tenth story window and one can only react
yeah, its sounding more and more like the cop was in a pretty bad way.
Medium of Death wrote: I see he robbed a store the morning of his death and reports indicate he advanced on officers before he was shot.
Surely this is an open and shut case?
A scumbag got wasted. Good news for everybody, right?
There's conflicting information about what happened in the store. Also, no video of what happened before and during the moments when the gunshots rang out and a man lay dead in the street - only conflicting testimony. Lots of "hearsay" being played in the news for the sake of drama right now.
I expect that the cop's version of events will eventually come out as the true version and the rioters will be back to riot again when he's acquitted.
Well besides a crushed orbital to the right eye Wilson has Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI). When your "bell" is rung from a physical force one mental capacity goes down to instincts and reflex. Been two incidents I've witness from a IED giving a few troops TBI and having them stagger out the vehicle in combat mode.
Well, to be honest, I was at first skeptical when I read that Officer Wilson will not be brought before a grand jury--and that Dorian Johnson recanted his testimony, now stating that Mike Brown attacked the officer and tried to get his gun.
However, the same news agency that's breaking this---also broke the autopsy report a full day before any other media outlets (including the photo). So perhaps there's some legitimacy to it.
If that's true, probably going to be ugly tomorrow night--even if Nixon appoints a special investigator (which I assume he will if no grand jury).
Mod Hat On:
Some alerts are being generated on this thread---and some of the posts are starting to edge closer to the 'personal attack' line more than 'objective critical analysis' . Please quit--be kind and objective to each other. It's an internet forum.
Jihadin wrote: When your "bell" is rung from a physical force one mental capacity goes down to instincts and reflex. Been two incidents I've witness from a IED giving a few troops TBI and having them stagger out the vehicle in combat mode.
Not instinct or reflex, that's training taking over. Muscle memory, if you will.
Jihadin wrote: When your "bell" is rung from a physical force one mental capacity goes down to instincts and reflex. Been two incidents I've witness from a IED giving a few troops TBI and having them stagger out the vehicle in combat mode.
Not instinct or reflex, that's training taking over. Muscle memory, if you will.
to an extent, yes. In many ways you're correct, because the military's stance is to attempt to train soldiers to the point where training becomes instinctual.
As for the reports of Mr. Brown assaulting/stealing stuff, which apparently "besmirch" his good character... There certainly CAN be something said for that, because he had had no prior violent acts recorded in law. That's not to say that he didn't have the occasional violent outburst, say, at school or someplace where it wouldn't necessarily be recorded, etc.
IMHO, IF he did steal stuff from a store, AND he attacked a police officer, then depending on the timeline between when he began his attack on the police officer and when he was shot, the police officer should be free and clear. We can add in that, if the attack on the police officer did induce the damages that may be reported soon (the broken eye socket) then as Jihadin has pointed out numerous times, he'd have some pretty substantial TBI which would most certainly alter his state of consciousness to the point where he was certainly in Fight or Flight mode.
Laemos wrote: Even if he did buy the smokes was he old enough to do it legally? That may be why the store guy was trying to stop them. I'm just guessing here.
He was legal to purchase smokes. Though some states are pressing for 21.
I've a good feeling the LEO was justified to an extent. Before we all go screaming how wrong I am one need to brush up on what TBI is.
Now if his right eye was looking in another direction and the left was normal and having TBI damn near then its "fight" modebecause foremost on one's mind is your "F'ed up bad"
I've seen one top of wound like that and that was a round that passed through the bridge of one nose (side ways) knocking both eye balls out of socket. All we could do was apply dressing and place a sand bag over his head so everything remains dark and he doesn't puke his brains out from vertigo or something.
Jihadin wrote: When your "bell" is rung from a physical force one mental capacity goes down to instincts and reflex. Been two incidents I've witness from a IED giving a few troops TBI and having them stagger out the vehicle in combat mode.
Not instinct or reflex, that's training taking over. Muscle memory, if you will.
to an extent, yes. In many ways you're correct, because the military's stance is to attempt to train soldiers to the point where training becomes instinctual.
As for the reports of Mr. Brown assaulting/stealing stuff, which apparently "besmirch" his good character... There certainly CAN be something said for that, because he had had no prior violent acts recorded in law. That's not to say that he didn't have the occasional violent outburst, say, at school or someplace where it wouldn't necessarily be recorded, etc.
IMHO, IF he did steal stuff from a store, AND he attacked a police officer, then depending on the timeline between when he began his attack on the police officer and when he was shot, the police officer should be free and clear. We can add in that, if the attack on the police officer did induce the damages that may be reported soon (the broken eye socket) then as Jihadin has pointed out numerous times, he'd have some pretty substantial TBI which would most certainly alter his state of consciousness to the point where he was certainly in Fight or Flight mode.
The cop should be clear if the details of the assault are accurate, not because of the overall timeline. The incident at the store can show state of mind but isn't particularly relevant to the assault. It just shows possible motives or intentions of Brown when he saw the officer. Going for the officers gun, fracturing his skull and preparing to charge him again means that he was a clear and present danger to the officer. That is the key. The officer cannot let his gun be taken away from him because we know what happens next, a dead officer shot with his own gun. Even if the kid did put his hands up, the timing of the shots and the raising of his hands could be simultaneous or very close to each other which would make it very hard for the officer to properly react to the new situation. The officer should be able to fire off the 6 rounds in under 2 seconds. The whole incident is too compact for critical thinking to occur and I cannot see the officer being held liable. Obama REALLY should have not commented the way he did on this.
It re-reports the orbital blowout from the other article, but more interesting is the last few paragraphs. Apparently professional agitators have been showing up and "helping" the situation.
It is the worst racial rioting for several years. The president can hardly ignore it.
Back on topic, if the policemen was assaulted and seriously injured by Brown, then he had a right to defend himself and if shown to be suffering concussion would not have been in a right thinking state of mind, which could excuse the apparent execution style of the multiple shooting.
This sort of information should have been made available much earlier in this whole sorry series of events.
Whilst there are conflicting accounts of the events, all of them seem to agree that the police officer fired at Brown while he was running away* (though he missed.) To me that is enough to damn the officer. Whether or not there had been an attack earlier, at that point he was in no danger, and decided to shoot anyway. I also find it highly unlikely, that a person who was already fleeing would suddenly decide to turn around and a charge a person pointing a gun at them. Granted, it is possible that a panicked police officer thought that this is what was happening, while Brown was merely trying to surrender.
Furthermore, why the hell doesn't the police use tasers instead of guns? I know tasers have been used on little kids (which is horrible), but why they're not used in situations which they're designed for? If there indeed was a threat to the officer here, a taser would have been perfectly sufficient. Same goes for the other shooting case where the man was refused to drop his knife. It is not acceptable for the police to use lethal means if non-lethal options are available.
(* "As Officer Wilson got out of his car, the men were running away. The officer fired his weapon but did not hit anyone, according to law enforcement officials." -NY Times)
Crimson wrote: Whilst there are conflicting accounts of the events, all of them seem to agree that the police officer fired at Brown while he was running away* (though he missed.) To me that is enough to damn the officer.
I don't know. People are claiming that he had his hands up and was surrendering and that he was running away. These two seem to be mutually exclusive, and the evidence seems to show he was shot from the front. People are picking up on the lack of gun shot residue on him, showing he was not at "close range" although apparently this means he was more than 2 feet away, and to me even over 2 feet seems very close.
Has anyone considered that the store robbery may have been what triggered this event? Not in the police officers actions but with the man who got shot? They were apparently walking away from a place where he'd committed theft and assaulted the store clerk, the cop attempts to stop him for something completely unrelated (walking in the road and blocking traffic) and fearing that he's about to be arrested for the incident at the store he freaks out.
Happens all the time with traffic stops that turn into chases, there's countless cases where idiot people fear being arrested and decide they can out run or attack a cop in effort to get away. He obviously felt he could assault his way out of the conflict with the store employee, why wouldn't he feel like he could give the cop the same type of thrashing and also get away with it?
Looks like a typical brainless bully who's used to strong arming people. IMO he got what he deserved for trying it on an armed police officer, stupid is as stupid does and he paid the price. Unfortunately the community suffers over this stupid gak as many of the rioters are simply being opportunists and don't actually care about what the truth is. Looting stores and stealing your neighbors wide screen TV doesn't ever help resolve social injustice and only makes your community poorer.
There's a reason that people respected MLK and his non-violent approach to the civil rights movement, despite their anger they are still strove to hold their protests in an orderly fashion and inspire rational understanding. When protesters instead decide to act like animals by rioting and looting nobody respects the violence and it's highly counter productive to their aims.
When protesters instead decide to act like animals by rioting and looting nobody respects the violence and it's highly counter productive to their aims.
I guess it would depend on their aims. A peaceful protest would not have gotten the press coverage the rioting and looting got. Probably would not have gotten Pres Obama to send Holder down. I doubt it would have gotten 40+ FBI agents sent in for the investigation.
Sometimes the goal is to get the gov't/police to (at least appear to) over react.
And peaceful protesting doesn't get you a free big screen TV or restock your liquor cabinet.
Obama is damned if he does and if he doesn't. The usual suspects that I know are already bitching about how he has done nothing and stayed away leaving everything for the governor because he is a spineless president.
If he goes it's a photo-op, of he doesn't he is out of touch, if he says something he is meddling and race-baiting, if he says nothing then he is not being a leader.
When protesters instead decide to act like animals by rioting and looting nobody respects the violence and it's highly counter productive to their aims.
And the wast majority of protesters are not doing any of that.
stanman wrote: Has anyone considered that the store robbery may have been what triggered this event? Not in the police officers actions but with the man who got shot? They were apparently walking away from a place where he'd committed theft and assaulted the store clerk, the cop attempts to stop him for something completely unrelated (walking in the road and blocking traffic) and fearing that he's about to be arrested for the incident at the store he freaks out.
Yeah, we did 3-4 pages on that in this thread.
Certainly plausable/possible/likely, but it's really just speculation.
Kilkrazy wrote: which could excuse the apparent execution style of the multiple shooting.
"[E]xecution style" because of multiple shots? Isn't execution style usually a single shot to the head, typically from behind?
Or multiple shots from the front, finished with a coup de grace to the head, as is usual in military executions.
But what I am trying to express is that if the policeman was in serious pain and danger, he could easily have reacted by shooting as hard and fast as possible at his assailant, and hit him multiple times with the end result of an execution style of shooting.
Community leaders and individuals are placing themselves between those that are instigators and belligerents and the LEO.
Though LEO would form up and rush in and apprehend an individual that gets "froggy"
Till someone freaking put rounds out then LEO launch flashbangs and CS
Crimson wrote: Whilst there are conflicting accounts of the events, all of them seem to agree that the police officer fired at Brown while he was running away* (though he missed.) To me that is enough to damn the officer.
I don't know. People are claiming that he had his hands up and was surrendering and that he was running away. These two seem to be mutually exclusive, and the evidence seems to show he was shot from the front. People are picking up on the lack of gun shot residue on him, showing he was not at "close range" although apparently this means he was more than 2 feet away, and to me even over 2 feet seems very close.
Everyone seems to agree that he was running away, and then stopped and turned. Whether that was to attack or to surrender is the part that is unclear. However, the police has said that the fatal shots were fired as self defence, when Brown started to charge; they however have also said that the officer already shot at Brown (but missed) when he was running away. Thus even if we believe the police account of events, the self defence claim is bs. The officer was already shooting before the alledged charge happened, he was merely able to finally hit Brown when he stopped running away.
If he was following his training (specifically in regards to firing) he would have been shooting as 'hard and fast as possible' hitting him multiple times. Generally you are trained that IF you are firing you are going to fire until the target goes down and is no longer a threat. You don't fire a round, evaluate where it hit and what damage it may or may not have done, then repeat as necessary. Pain or lack of pain may have an effect on how well you shoot.
