Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Seems a strong probability on Officer Wilson injury.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/08/breaking-report-po-darren-wilson-suffered-orbital-blowout-fracture-to-eye-socket-during-encounter-with-mike-brown/

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

ATXMILEY wrote:
http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/08/18/dont-know-happened-michael-brown-stop-pretending/

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.

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?

Obama shouldn't go, the police might arrest him for being a "suspicious character".

 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.

 Mr Nobody wrote:
Obama shouldn't go, the police might arrest him for being a "suspicious character".

Man that'd be the best thing to ever happen to this country, one can only hope right?

 d-usa wrote:

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.

 Breotan wrote:

 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.

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.

 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.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 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.

Also: http://nypost.com/2014/08/19/cop-involved-in-ferguson-shooting-has-fractured-eye-socket-report/

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.

I really wish Obama does not involve himself in these things. Makes the situation political and perception of him siding against law enforcements

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.

 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?

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.

ATXMILEY wrote:
http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/08/18/dont-know-happened-michael-brown-stop-pretending/

Pro Michael Brown protesters OWNED BIATCH(/Sarcasm)

Good article. I's say great, but there were 1500 too many pictures of "D-Bag in assorted D-Bag hats" on that page...

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.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 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

 Steve steveson wrote:

 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.