Independent autopsy prelim results

[qazplm]

1. "at least" six shots (b/c did not have access to x-rays).

2. 4 to the arm including to the palm (suggests arms raised/defensive wounds to me--particularly the wound to the palm, you don't tend to bumrush someone palms up)

3. 2 to head/face, the final one to the top of the head suggesting he was falling (or his head was at least) from the other shots and the final shot hit him in the top of the head (the head shot(s) killed him).

4. NO gunpowder residue on him, although his clothes were not provided to the independent examiner hired by the family. If no gunpowder residue, then the idea that a gunshot was fired while he and the officer were struggling takes a hit. This should be easily checked though by either finding gunpowder residue in the car, or damage from the shot to the car or the surrounding buildings (round had to go somewhere, and they are in a car on a street surrounded by buildings--there should be evidence if it happened).

 

[Boiler20]

Your #2 has more than a bit of a stretch.

Whether or not Brown was engaged at close range / stuggling with the police officer, it doesn't replace the fact that you simply don't engage, let alone confront and also physically attack ANYONE who has a gun, and expect to live.

The non-preliminary results will be telling with regard to state of mind / drug or other chemicals present in the system.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Well, *IF* this is true, it would certainly be a narrative I'd think the police would want to get out sooner than a week later. My guess is the truth lies somewhere in between. Perhaps a scuffle did occur in the vicinity of the car. Perhaps Mike did punch the officer and then attempt to flee. Perhaps he was shot going away, turned around and started walking toward the officer, who then fired repeatedly.

I suspect only a few people really know, one of whom is dead, and I suspect all we'll hear are tainted narratives which support whatever "team" someone is "rooting for." Even "eye witnesses" don't have the same complete story...

Wilson's account

 

[qazplm]

so

people tend to rush folks with their palms raised? He was shot at distance, there's no evidence to the contrary there.

Whether or not Brown was engaged at close range/struggling with the police officer is kinda important dont you think?

If he's not struggling or going for the gun, but simply running, then stops and turns around to surrender and gets shot six times, that's a bit different from struggling, going for the gun, then turning and advancing.

Edit to write the cops have already "leaked" the drug part, they will say it showed he had traces of that common violent drug, marijuana is I believe what it's called. A drug that's well known to cause violence and aggression in its users.



This post was edited on 8/18 6:49 PM by qazplm

 

[qazplm]

unclear which if you are talking about. The only narrative positive to the police would be anything supporting either the kid rushing towards the cop, or the kid fighting in the car for the gun.

The former would require the very same eyewitness testimony you seem to discount.
The latter is more easily proved as if the gun was fired inside the vehicle there should be:

1. GSR on the kid (or his clothes which weren't tested in this exam)
2. GSR in the car
3. damage from the round either in the car, or the nearby structure to the car

The absence of all of this would tend to discount the story, the presence of some or all would tend to support it.
I'm "rooting" for a time machine where this didn't happen at all.

 

[Boilawyer]

I think #2 is the most significant.

#1. Six shots, four to the arm could mean several things. Extreme number of shots? Or, the officer was purposely taking non-lethal shots to the arm, which proved insufficient. Because the non-lethal shots were ineffective and MB continued to approach, the officer then took two lethal shots. Not enough alone to point to the correct version of events.

#3 The top of the head shot could have occurred after the MB was subdued. Or, it could have occurred as MB was falling in response any of the shots. Not enough alone to point to the correct version of events.

#4. Not enough information at this point.

#2. Hold your arms up while looking at shot diagram. All four of the shots to the arm are consistent with someone facing a shooter with their hands in the air. This is pretty damning for the officer's version of the story.

Apparent Facts: MB just robbed a store, drugs in his system (enough to make a difference?), an officer stops him (remember, he just committed a crime)...i.e. he's jacked up and aggressive, MB and the officer get in an altercation, MB flees and the officer pursues him, the officer shots MB six times, five times are non-lethal, one is lethal, at least four of the shots are to MB's raised arm.

Speculation based on the above. Wilson let emotions get to him and shot MB even though his hands were up.

 

[Boilawyer]

Re: so

I don't get the close range struggle story line. Perhaps it occurred before the shots, but I don't see how is happened near/at the same time. How do you shot someone like that during a struggle? Perhaps there was a struggle, but Wilson clearly had the gun well after the struggle (if any) occurred...at least long enough for Wilson to separate and raise his hand(s).

 

[hunkgolden]

Originally posted by Boilawyer:
I think #2 is the most significant.

#1. Six shots, four to the arm could mean several things. Extreme number of shots? Or, the officer was purposely taking non-lethal shots to the arm, which proved insufficient. Because the non-lethal shots were ineffective and MB continued to approach, the officer then took two lethal shots. Not enough alone to point to the correct version of events.

#3 The top of the head shot could have occurred after the MB was subdued. Or, it could have occurred as MB was falling in response any of the shots. Not enough alone to point to the correct version of events.

#4. Not enough information at this point.

#2. Hold your arms up while looking at shot diagram. All four of the shots to the arm are consistent with someone facing a shooter with their hands in the air. This is pretty damning for the officer's version of the story.

Apparent Facts: MB just robbed a store, drugs in his system (enough to make a difference?), an officer stops him (remember, he just committed a crime)...i.e. he's jacked up and aggressive, MB and the officer get in an altercation, MB flees and the officer pursues him, the officer shots MB six times, five times are non-lethal, one is lethal, at least four of the shots are to MB's raised arm.

Speculation based on the above. Wilson let emotions get to him and shot MB even though his hands were up.

Could the shots to the arms be the result of MB rushing the officer with arms slightly open as if he was going to tackle him? Just as the eyewitness on the 10 minute long video stated MB was doing.

 

[hunkgolden]

Originally posted by hunkgolden:

Originally posted by Boilawyer:
I think #2 is the most significant.

#1. Six shots, four to the arm could mean several things. Extreme number of shots? Or, the officer was purposely taking non-lethal shots to the arm, which proved insufficient. Because the non-lethal shots were ineffective and MB continued to approach, the officer then took two lethal shots. Not enough alone to point to the correct version of events.

#3 The top of the head shot could have occurred after the MB was subdued. Or, it could have occurred as MB was falling in response any of the shots. Not enough alone to point to the correct version of events.

#4. Not enough information at this point.

#2. Hold your arms up while looking at shot diagram. All four of the shots to the arm are consistent with someone facing a shooter with their hands in the air. This is pretty damning for the officer's version of the story.

Apparent Facts: MB just robbed a store, drugs in his system (enough to make a difference?), an officer stops him (remember, he just committed a crime)...i.e. he's jacked up and aggressive, MB and the officer get in an altercation, MB flees and the officer pursues him, the officer shots MB six times, five times are non-lethal, one is lethal, at least four of the shots are to MB's raised arm.

Speculation based on the above. Wilson let emotions get to him and shot MB even though his hands were up.

Could the shots to the arms be the result of MB rushing the officer with arms slightly open as if he was going to tackle him? Just as the eyewitness on the 10 minute long video stated MB was doing.



Never mind. Just got my answer from Dr. Baden. He said the autopsy results are inconclusive if MB had his hands raised or if he was charging at Wilson. The gun wounds are consistant with both he said. Baden also stated that drugs were in MB's system.

 

[hunkgolden]

Originally posted by Boilawyer:
I think #2 is the most significant.

#1. Six shots, four to the arm could mean several things. Extreme number of shots? Or, the officer was purposely taking non-lethal shots to the arm, which proved insufficient. Because the non-lethal shots were ineffective and MB continued to approach, the officer then took two lethal shots. Not enough alone to point to the correct version of events.

#3 The top of the head shot could have occurred after the MB was subdued. Or, it could have occurred as MB was falling in response any of the shots. Not enough alone to point to the correct version of events.

#4. Not enough information at this point.

#2. Hold your arms up while looking at shot diagram. All four of the shots to the arm are consistent with someone facing a shooter with their hands in the air. This is pretty damning for the officer's version of the story.

Apparent Facts: MB just robbed a store, drugs in his system (enough to make a difference?), an officer stops him (remember, he just committed a crime)...i.e. he's jacked up and aggressive, MB and the officer get in an altercation, MB flees and the officer pursues him, the officer shots MB six times, five times are non-lethal, one is lethal, at least four of the shots are to MB's raised arm.

Speculation based on the above. Wilson let emotions get to him and shot MB even though his hands were up.

Regarding #4 - no residue on the body means the shots were fired from 18" or more. There could be residue on the clothing though.

 

[Boiler20]

Your #2 : I would think that if Wilson was attacked in his own patrol car and MB tried to get his gun, then imo we can safely assume that A.) MB was in a crazed /stupid state of mind and that B.) If Wilson thought his life was in danger, or had been seconds before, that his emotions, ire, etc.,...were raised in the fight / flight response to not be in a 'normal' 'professional' state of mind.

Also, is it possible that his arms were raised as if to shield his body ...i.e.,.....part way to an out stretched position, as opposed to the straight in the air 'I surrender' status? If so, then it is possible, even likely that a single or multiple bullets entered, exited and then entered his body at different points.

Again, I keep going back to the 'don't f*** with people that have guns'...if you do, then YOU bring the threat of loss of life into the equation, and it simply does NOT matter if the person is justified or if you 'deserve' it or not. You are still dead, or at least shot, and YOU suffer the consequences, period.

Moral of the story, which has served 95% of the population very well for over 200 years, if not more, the world over: Respect the law and avoid confrontation with ANYONE bearing arms, period.

 

[Boilawyer]

The video transcript indicates that MB was heading toward the officer. Nothing about rushing the officer. However, I think the safest course of action would be to stop in your tracks and not move toward the officer.

Perhaps MB arms were up in an attack position.

 

[GMM]

This is pretty much irrelevant

The reason why this is a national news story has very little to do with what actually happened. Incidents like this happen all the time yet they're not national news. Why this one? To push a leftist narrative.

We were supposed to believe that a racist, white cop executed Michael Brown in cold blood because he was black. Its how life really is in AmeriKKKa. Its what we get with racial profiling. Its an indictment of the criminal justice system. Its why blacks aren't as well off as whites. At least that's what they wanted us to believe.

That narrative has crumbled but it doesn't matter anymore. They got the effect they wanted. They've got black people angry at The System and they're got white people feeling just a little more guilty over their "white privilege". Same as the Trayvon Martin saga. The actual facts of what happened just aren't anywhere near as important as the (bogus) narrative.

 

[hunkgolden]

Re: This is pretty much irrelevant

Originally posted by GMM:
The reason why this is a national news story has very little to do with what actually happened. Incidents like this happen all the time yet they're not national news. Why this one? To push a leftist narrative.

We were supposed to believe that a racist, white cop executed Michael Brown in cold blood because he was black. Its how life really is in AmeriKKKa. Its what we get with racial profiling. Its an indictment of the criminal justice system. Its why blacks aren't as well off as whites. At least that's what they wanted us to believe.

That narrative has crumbled but it doesn't matter anymore. They got the effect they wanted. They've got black people angry at The System and they're got white people feeling just a little more guilty over their "white privilege". Same as the Trayvon Martin saga. The actual facts of what happened just aren't anywhere near as important as the (bogus) narrative.

Look for the narrative to change as to why people are marching, looting, and rioting. Insert any # of liberal talking points for the past 60 years as reasons.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

The *IF* is the story presented in the link. It's apparently the first time Wilson's side of the story has been told.

Just because you haven't heard about said evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The police have been pretty close to the vest with their side of the story so far - for some reason. Likely because their side of the story isn't going to be all that flattering, IMO.

Please stop trying to create an argument with me, because I don't think we disagree here. I am only saying the truth likely lies somewhere in between "hands up totally innocent minding my own business surrendering racially-motivated execution" and "physical assault bordering on attempted murder self-defense." Some altercation likely happened, and Wilson probably overreacted.

We'll see.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Re: so

Why would his palms have to be "raised." Couldn't his arms be extended outward as if getting ready to make a tackle. Palms in that case would be facing the person you're rushing and could cause a bullet to enter the palm and underside of the arms.

Make light of it all you want, if he was high, that's not helping the situation, period. It might not make you violent per se, but it lowers your inhibitions and impairs judgment. Alcohol is a depressant, but people get violent when they're under the influence all the time.


Edit: it's appropriate that my 25,000th post was spent disagreeing with qaz about something.
This post was edited on 8/18 9:45 PM by gr8indoorsman

 

[qazplm]

look at the grouping

of the shots. no I highly doubt his arms were extended outward like he was getting ready to make a tackle from 30 feet away.

And no marijuana is not something that leads to violence except a very narrow subset of people. And the report doesn't say he was "high" it says he had marijuana in his system, which as we all know, it can take 30 days or more for marijuana to leave your system since it collects in fat cells.

 

[qazplm]

how is it that every freaking time I ask you a question you equate it with "creating an argument?"

Good grief, there isn't a single damn thing in there that's "creating an argument." You look for arguments where there aren't any.

The police haven't been close to the vest on evidence that supports their story. They put out the video. They actually went to the business and got a warrant for it, then put it out against the desires of the Feds. They are also leaking out the marijuana testing. I think if they had other evidence, they'd have leaked that out as well. I concur with you that odds are this about all of the good evidence that they have.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Must've missed the part where I said it didn't make you violent, just lowered your inhibitions and impaired judgment. But you are right, no idea what "in his system" really means.
Posted from wireless.rivals.com[/URL]

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Originally posted by qazplm:
how is it that every freaking time I ask you a question you equate it with "creating an argument?"

Good grief, there isn't a single damn thing in there that's "creating an argument." You look for arguments where there aren't any.

.

Fair enough in this case; you're right. Reread your post and I must've read some tone or something that isn't there. My bad.

Posted from wireless.rivals.com[/URL]

 

[qazplm]

not sure lowered inhibitions and judgment equate to attack someone who's shooting at you.
Regardless, I think on the whole there's little evidence to support the idea that he was charging, and there is evidence to support both in eyewitness testimony and the autopsy to support he was giving up.

Even so, I'd be more prone to say that overall the cop would be "unprosecutable" for want of a better word, if they have evidence of a gunshot fired inside the car. So that evidence, or lack thereof, would be fairly critical to me.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Actually, I recall that the autopsy didn't say "he was surrendering." It deemed it was inconclusive and that his wounds could be consistent with either surrendering or charging.

Where you lose me is "attack(ing) someone who's shooting at you." How do you know Wilson was shooting first? We don't know that. Brown may well have turned and charged, then been shot. Unless I'm mistaken, he wasn't shot in the back.

I am interested in why they haven't released any evidence of a shot fired in the car, etc. As you and I agree, they're awfully slow to release any evidence supporting their story, which makes you think they don't have it.
This post was edited on 8/19 11:36 AM by gr8indoorsman

 

[boilergeek]

Re: This is pretty much irrelevant

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that many of the liberal talking points of 60 years ago were actually pretty good.

 

[qazplm]

Well

he wasn't shot in the back, but he was shot at while running away. Then he turned, then he was shot again. Having said that one of the things the medical examiner said was possible was that one or two of the shots in the arm could have been while he was turned away.

I feel fairly confident that multiple witnesses saying he was shooting at him, then he turned around are legit. There's this thing floating around about "12 witnesses who support the cops version of events" even though not one has come forward yet or the audio that purports to have someone say they saw him charge (but says absolutely nothing like that and it's barely clear what the folks in the audio are even talking about since they seem to think personal pronouns and identifiers are just suggestions).

I think the pattern of shots, and the location strongly suggest arms raised. I think the distance from the car suggest the cop wasn't in imminent physical danger. I think it unlikely he would run that distance, then for no apparent reason, turn around and start charging an armed cop. You know if the kid were on PCP or cocaine or something like that, maybe...marijuana, no. Kid has no arrest history that I'm aware of, which let's be honest, is pretty surprising given the neighborhood and the obviously poor relationship with the cops, and while clearly a thief, his confrontation in the store was a push, that's it. Nothing to suggest a wild, crazed aggressive guy.

I disagree with you that the police are slow to put out evidence favorable. On the contrary, I think they released the evidence about marijuana (leaked actually) as soon as the results came in. I think they released the store video as soon as they got it. I think they are releasing things as soon as they can that help. I agree with you that there isn't more is likely because there isn't more.

What I'm concerned about is:

1. The police car was not remotely treated like evidence
2. DNA/fingerprint testing of the gun supposedly fought over
3. Ballistics testing of the car, the area outside where the car was
4. How far was the shooting from the car?
5. How far was the officer from Brown when he shot?
6. A little digging shows that the PD there up until recently filed disciplinary reports locally (i.e. they had a very lax system) would like to see the history of this officer. Does he file a lot of "resisting arrest" charges?
7. Did they test the cop's blood to see if he was on anything? (of course they didn't).
8. Did they take pics of the cops face? Browns hands? If he supposedly punched the cop in the face, one of those should have some evidential value.

I'm more to open to the idea that there is a universe of facts that justifies or excuses this shooting. IF the kid was grabbing the gun and gets shot in the car? Justified. If the kid attacks the officer, and the officer fires, justified. Six times might not be, but it's excused in that case. But unless the evidence swings wildly in the other direction...

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Re: Well

Originally posted by qazplm:
he wasn't shot in the back, but he was shot at while running away. Then he turned, then he was shot again. Having said that one of the things the medical examiner said was possible was that one or two of the shots in the arm could have been while he was turned away.

I feel fairly confident that multiple witnesses saying he was shooting at him, then he turned around are legit. There's this thing floating around about "12 witnesses who support the cops version of events" even though not one has come forward yet or the audio that purports to have someone say they saw him charge (but says absolutely nothing like that and it's barely clear what the folks in the audio are even talking about since they seem to think personal pronouns and identifiers are just suggestions).

I think the pattern of shots, and the location strongly suggest arms raised. I think the distance from the car suggest the cop wasn't in imminent physical danger. I think it unlikely he would run that distance, then for no apparent reason, turn around and start charging an armed cop. You know if the kid were on PCP or cocaine or something like that, maybe...marijuana, no. Kid has no arrest history that I'm aware of, which let's be honest, is pretty surprising given the neighborhood and the obviously poor relationship with the cops, and while clearly a thief, his confrontation in the store was a push, that's it. Nothing to suggest a wild, crazed aggressive guy.

I disagree with you that the police are slow to put out evidence favorable. On the contrary, I think they released the evidence about marijuana (leaked actually) as soon as the results came in. I think they released the store video as soon as they got it. I think they are releasing things as soon as they can that help. I agree with you that there isn't more is likely because there isn't more.

What I'm concerned about is:

1. The police car was not remotely treated like evidence
2. DNA/fingerprint testing of the gun supposedly fought over
3. Ballistics testing of the car, the area outside where the car was
4. How far was the shooting from the car?
5. How far was the officer from Brown when he shot?
6. A little digging shows that the PD there up until recently filed disciplinary reports locally (i.e. they had a very lax system) would like to see the history of this officer. Does he file a lot of "resisting arrest" charges?
7. Did they test the cop's blood to see if he was on anything? (of course they didn't).
8. Did they take pics of the cops face? Browns hands? If he supposedly punched the cop in the face, one of those should have some evidential value.

I'm more to open to the idea that there is a universe of facts that justifies or excuses this shooting. IF the kid was grabbing the gun and gets shot in the car? Justified. If the kid attacks the officer, and the officer fires, justified. Six times might not be, but it's excused in that case. But unless the evidence swings wildly in the other direction...

You keep saying a few things as if they are facts: specifically, he was shot while running away. That's one story. It's not been confirmed. The link I gave yesterday gave another side which said Brown was shot while running towards Wilson. I agree that he might have been running away at some point, but for who knows what reason may have turned around - perhaps because he was being shot at, perhaps not.

I also find it unlikely that a somewhat experienced police officer without a history would all of a sudden go shooting someone in the back as they run away without cause. I find that more unlikely than I find someone who had just committed a crime (he probably didn't know that the police didn't know) and had drugs "in his system" (whatever that means) being completely innocent of any wrongdoing in this situation.

As I've repeatedly said, the truth is likely somewhere in the middle. Wilson thought he was in danger, but probably wasn't in "open fire" danger; Brown was probably doing something wrong and/or illegal, up to and including resisting arrest (and maybe doing so under the influence), but likely nothing which deserved being shot, certainly not killed. And that's going to be the overarching point. I don't think it'll be a "murder" situation, but likely whatever the police equivalent of "manslaughter" is, along with the wrongful death civil suit.

To be clear, based on everything I've heard, read, and watched about this, I find it unlikely that Wilson will be (or should be) fully exonerated.

I am quite certain that the formal investigaton was likely not handled properly right off the bat. In chaotic situations like that, it'd be hard to expect that considering the first "authority" on the scene was also involved in the shooting. There will be questions about anything the police put out. Frankly, I'm glad the Feds are getting involved with the investigation because there needs to be an independent investigation here. No one is going to trust what local authorities say, and rightly so for a lot of reasons, IMO.

 

[qazplm]

No

I said he was shot "at" while running away, not that he was "shot" while running away, although the ME keeps this as a possibility.

Like I said, i think it highly unlikely he just all of a sudden turns around for no reason at all, I think it highly likely he turned around either because he was being shot at, or was actually shot.

I think it very likely that a cop shoots a fleeing suspect, particularly if they are upset, emotional, or scared. I've never said the kid was "completely innocent" in this situation. He was at a minimum: a thief, disrespectful to the cop. What remains to be seen is whether and to what degree there was a scuffle with the cop. Obviously to ANY degree that there was, that's a problem for the kid, and it's wrong. Of course, the cop could have very well antagonized the situation because he was upset two kids weren't listening to his authority to get out of the street.

nothing I've said requires belief that the cop just decided for no reason to shoot at the kid. However, right now I think there's plenty of reasons to believe that the cop wrongfully shot the kid.

Based on the history of this country, I'll be real surprised if he's criminally charged and absolutely shocked if he's convicted, at least in state court. Federal court is a different matter, and civil suit is likely to fall in favor of the parents.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Re: No

Originally posted by qazplm:

I think it very likely that a cop shoots a fleeing suspect, particularly if they are upset, emotional, or scared.

I don't disagree with anything except this. Perhaps it's just linguistic nuance, but I don't think it's generally accepted, expected, nor practiced that police shoot fleeing suspects unless those suspects are a life-threatening danger. Perhaps you and I just have different views on police, but I generally try to give them the benefit of the doubt. In almost every case, they are well-trained and I would find it hard to believe that more than a few pull their gun without cause, let alone fire it.

I've had a run-in with the stereotypical power-hungry idiot cop once. They're out there, but I don't think they're the rule. Perhaps you do, I don't know. You and I have likely had different experiences with police, both through your line of work and our backgrounds (and my driving record!).

 

[lbodel]

Re: No

As I've posted before, while it certainly is a tragedy, the biggest takeaway of this should be the overall effectiveness of law enforcement.

1. There was obviously a huge distrust between the residents of Ferguson and police well before this situation, showing there was an issue. There is probably frustration on both sides on a day to day basis - residents probably don't often treat cops well and cops didn't often treat residents well - and at some point people boil over.

Having a big fracture between your community and law enforcement is never a good thing and there clearly needs to be steps taken to improve that.

2. Building on that, it's pretty clear that St. Louis in general has a law enforcement leadership problem. Even reporters are flat out saying their responses are inconsistent and do not make sense (yes, even a Fox News producer went on record criticizing).

 

[qazplm]

there are plenty of good cops

I dont remotely agree however that in "almost every case" they are well-trained. I certainly don't think that's true in small towns. This is a town that doesn't have dash cams in their cars.

I think there's a very wide variability from police department to police department on training, quality of officers, etc.

I think a substantial minority of cops are cops because of the power and authority. Does that mean that a majority aren't there because they are trying to serve the community? Of course not, but I think way too large a minority are there and not doing good things.

Of course, in this case, it could simply be a cop who wants to do the right thing, but is poorly trained, or has a bad day, or overreacts.

I think you should look a little deeper into the history of unarmed minorities and police shootings (and throw in poor whites, same difference). I think the benefit of the doubt only goes so far as the evidence, and to me, there's plenty of evidence here establishing probable cause. Is there beyond reasonable doubt? Not yet obviously, would take quite a bit more for that.

 

[qazplm]

hit the nail on both

not just the distrust, but the utter incompetence of the PD on so many levels. It does not generate any confidence that this particular cop was well trained or well suited to handle this situation properly.

 

[TheCainer]

Re: No

To add a third point to your first two, it sounds like the judicial system leaves a lot to be desired as well as far as building public trust. From a study conducted by a group calling itself the ArchCity Defenders, it sounds like court fines are the second largest revenue source for the city of Ferguson. From their paper:


Ferguson is a city located in northern St. Louis County with
21,203 residents living in 8,192 households.
The majority (67%) of
residents are African-American, while the remainder (29%) are largely
white.
Ferguson's unemployment rate is 14.3%, more than double
that of both St. Louis County (6.1%) and Missouri (6.6%), and a full
10% of the city's 9,105 housing units are vacant.
22% of residents live
below the poverty level, including 35.3% of children under 18, and
21.7% received food stamps in the last year.
Despite Ferguson's relative poverty, fines and court fees comprise [/I]
the second largest source of revenue for the city, a total of $2,635,400.
In 2013, the Ferguson Municipal Court disposed of 24,532 warrants[/I]
and 12,018 cases,
or about 3 warrants and 1.5 cases per household.
According to a court employee, the docket for an average court session

may include as many as 1,500 cases. Assuming an 80% conviction
rate,
the average fine in a case resulting in a guilty verdict would be
$275.
In addition to such heavy legal prosecution, Ferguson and other
municipal courts engage in a number of operational procedures that
make it even more difficult for defendants to navigate the courts. For
example, a Ferguson court employee reported that the bench routinely
starts hearing cases 30 minutes before the appointed time and then
locks the doors to the building as early as five minutes after the official
hour, a practice that could easily lead a defendant arriving even slightly
late to receive an additional charge for failure to appear.

ArchCity Defenders Study

 

[hunkgolden]

Re: No

Originally posted by TheCainer:
To add a third point to your first two, it sounds like the judicial system leaves a lot to be desired as well as far as building public trust. From a study conducted by a group calling itself the ArchCity Defenders, it sounds like court fines are the second largest revenue source for the city of Ferguson. From their paper:



Ferguson is a city located in northern St. Louis County with

21,203 residents living in 8,192 households.

The majority (67%) of

residents are African-American, while the remainder (29%) are largely

white.

Ferguson's unemployment rate is 14.3%, more than double

that of both St. Louis County (6.1%) and Missouri (6.6%), and a full

10% of the city's 9,105 housing units are vacant.

22% of residents live

below the poverty level, including 35.3% of children under 18, and

21.7% received food stamps in the last year.

Despite Ferguson's relative poverty, fines and court fees comprise [/I]

the second largest source of revenue for the city, a total of $2,635,400.

In 2013, the Ferguson Municipal Court disposed of 24,532 warrants[/I]

and 12,018 cases,

or about 3 warrants and 1.5 cases per household.

According to a court employee, the docket for an average court session


may include as many as 1,500 cases. Assuming an 80% conviction

rate,

the average fine in a case resulting in a guilty verdict would be

$275.

In addition to such heavy legal prosecution, Ferguson and other

municipal courts engage in a number of operational procedures that

make it even more difficult for defendants to navigate the courts. For

example, a Ferguson court employee reported that the bench routinely

starts hearing cases 30 minutes before the appointed time and then

locks the doors to the building as early as five minutes after the official

hour, a practice that could easily lead a defendant arriving even slightly

late to receive an additional charge for failure to appear.

Don't get arrested and have to appear in court and you avoid the court fines. Next.

 

[TheCainer]

Re: No

Why don't you read the whole report?

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Re: there are plenty of good cops

I've never questioned that there's enough to indict - there certainly is that. As you noted, there's not enough to convict... just seems like a lot of conjecture and conflicting witness statements.

I haven't looked at the unarmed minority shooting history, but I'm sure it's lengthy, and I'm sure there are plenty of stereotypes that would play out there (more in the south, for example). I try to treat these things as individual events. It'd be easy to jump to the conclusion that racist/phobic white cop shoots innocent black man, but as I keep repeating, there's truth in the middle here, IMO.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

WSJ OP-Ed

Ignore the political part at the end about Obama and Fallujah, and I think this guy makes good points: this happened because of a failure of the police/city government/people to be proactive and create the proper environment in Ferguson.

Sorry, can't link it until probably tomorrow. Essentially said the police in Ferguson are too concerned with reacting to crime rather than preventing it.

 

[ecouch]

Regarding your #1, non-lethal shots aren't fired. Most, if not all, police forces use a force continuum with the last stage being lethal.

 

[BoilerJS]

Look closely at the autopsy bullet entrance wound locations. Looks to me like Brown was hit first in the upper shoulder. He raised his arm to protect himself or because of the pain, two more shots were fired that went through both his arm and his torso. The fatal shot was to his head. This would mean there would be exit wounds in his arms. The autopsy would reveal this.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another tragedy all the way around. Ended the life of one man and ruined the life of another.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Re: there are plenty of good cops

There are plenty of good cops, and then there's that asshat who was pointing his assault rifle at bystanders (including one who was taking video...) two nights ago, and said "I'll f********* kill you." What an idiot, hopefully he never wears a badge again. (STL police suspended him.)

 

[qazplm]

the problem is

there are plenty of those guys out there. Think about it, this guy did that, while being videoed, while he knew he was being videoed, to someone he knew was the press.

Imagine what he does when he thinks no one is looking.

Like I said, plenty of good cops, but I think plenty more bad ones are out there then you think there are.

 

[hunkgolden]

Re: there are plenty of good cops

Originally posted by gr8indoorsman:
There are plenty of good cops, and then there's that asshat who was pointing his assault rifle at bystanders (including one who was taking video...) two nights ago, and said "I'll f********* kill you." What an idiot, hopefully he never wears a badge again. (STL police suspended him.)

MSNBC reported this morning that there was a someone in the crowd near the guy with the camerphone that pulled out what was believed to be a handgun and was pointing it at the police. That is why the guy raised his rifle. The handgun later turned out to be a bb gun.