Officer Wilson's Version of Events

[hunkgolden]

According to this reporter, this story matches what Wilson's official report says. Based on what we know today, this version would be very difficult to disprove. Officer Wilson clearly thought these two were the robbery suspects; No shots in the back; Brown did have drugs in his system; Brown did have a reason to assault the policeman; Wilson has a fractured eye; police reporting a dozen or so witnesses claim that Brown was charging at Wilson; one eyewitness unknowingly being recorded stating that Brown kept coming back at Wilson even while Wilson was shooting at him.

This story is starting to sound more and more like Mr. Brown went out looking for trouble that day and didn't much care if he got killed - a suicide by cop kind of mentality. Or he was just young, stupid, and filled with enough bravado as a lot of 18 year olds are that he thought he could rob a store, assault a police officer, and come back for more without anyone doing anything to stop him.

Note to young people - no matter how big or bad you are - one shot can end your life so tread lightly through your teenage and younger 20 years.

To the people of Ferguson - move along...nothing more to see here.
This post was edited on 8/19 6:20 PM by hunkgolden

2nd hand account of Officer Wilson's Story

 

[pastorjoeboggs]

I take issue with the idea that "Officer Wilson clearly thought these two were the robbery suspects." The police chief said otherwise.

 

[lbodel]

Ok, case closed!

 

[hunkgolden]

Originally posted by pastorjoeboggs:
I take issue with the idea that "Officer Wilson clearly thought these two were the robbery suspects." The police chief said otherwise.

I'm pretty sure he corrected himself just moments after making that erroneous statement.

 

[TheCainer]

In another post in another thread you stated, "I know we live in microwave gotta have it now society but I'm comfortable with people taking their time and not putting out information until they know it's 100% accurate."


Do you plan to practice what you preach? You stand to look pretty foolish when this is all said and done unless you know you are 100% accurate. But, please proceed.

 

[GMM]

The original narrative remains true

Here's what's still true about the Michael Brown saga:

- He was unarmed
- He was black
- He was a teenager
- He was shot dead by a white cop

There, that's all you need to know. The rest of your so-called "facts" are just hatefacts and get in the way of Social Justice.

Your entire post is a microagression. Check your privilege.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

The only parts of your post I know to be accepted facts are:

- No shots in the back.
- Brown had drugs, specifically THC, in his system.

It's pretty common for shooting victims, particularly when you're talking small caliber weapons and shots not to the center of mass, to keep coming at someone. I'd guess that would be true of a young man of Brown's size. 9MM aren't really known for their stopping power, you know.

 

[qazplm]

it would be real easy to disprove

and real easy to prove.

Shot in the car? Great, let's see the bullet hole in the car. Powder burns on the clothes of Brown.
Grappled for the gun? Awesome, should be DNA on the gun, or fingerprints from Brown.
Suffered a fracture eye socket? Notwithstanding the fact that we have video of the officer right after the shooting with no apparent damage to his face, the guy should have clear bruising/swelling if his socket was fractured. Certainly there should be an xray.

all of this can be "leaked" right now. They can make a statement, right now. Other than the DNA, everything else could have been discovered/tested for right now, and the DNA would be expedited in this situation.

Clearly thought they were robbery suspects? Yeah, no, chief said no and no he didnt correct himself later. It also wasn't what was called in. A completely different cop responded to the break-in report.

The rest of your version is ridiculous. suicide by cop? Are you kidding me?

Just so I'm clear though, eyewitnesses come forward, you don't believe them...someone calls into a right wing talk show, totally true.

 

[qazplm]

duplicate

duplicate

This post was edited on 8/19 10:24 PM by qazplm

 

[hunkgolden]

Originally posted by pastorjoeboggs:
I take issue with the idea that "Officer Wilson clearly thought these two were the robbery suspects." The police chief said otherwise.

Even if Wilson didn't know Brown was the guy who just robbed the convenience store - Brown knew it.

 

[qazplm]

except the caller says he knew

you know, the person you are basing this all on. So if that parts wrong, is just a tiny teeny bit possible other parts are too?

 

[Bill4411]

Re: except the caller says he knew

At this point all of this is fascinating speculation, we may never know the actual answer to what happened as the facts are certainly in issue. I think people are going to really be upset when the find out what is presented to the grand jury is not available to the public.

 

[qazplm]

they might be

either way. I dunno, but so far, the evidence doesn't strike me as supporting a fractured orbital socket, not based on the video we have of the officer just after the incident. Looks to me like when you fracture your eye socket, you get a pretty nice, and large black eye.

There's also the fact that the autopsy said there was no signs of a struggle on Brown. And I would guess they looked at his hands for bruising or damage consistent with punching someone hard enough to fracture a bone.

 

[MikeLan]

Re: they might be

Originally posted by qazplm:
either way. I dunno, but so far, the evidence doesn't strike me as supporting a fractured orbital socket, not based on the video we have of the officer just after the incident. Looks to me like when you fracture your eye socket, you get a pretty nice, and large black eye.

There's also the fact that the autopsy said there was no signs of a struggle on Brown. And I would guess they looked at his hands for bruising or damage consistent with punching someone hard enough to fracture a bone.

doesn't have to be hands, Brown could have kicked the officer or elbowed or head butted or kneed him. I doubt Marquess of Queensberry rules applied here.



This post was edited on 8/20 5:07 PM by MikeLan

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Re: they might be


Wilson's apparent version of the story is that he was punched, but I disagree with qaz regarding bruising, etc., due to fracturing an orbital. Those bones are not "top of the head" hard. If he hit him in the side of his eye (temple area) there's a very good chance, if not a probability, that he could've broken a bone in Wilson's face without damaging his hand. Black eyes and swelling don't always occur immediately, either. Think about boxing where swelling usually doesn't occur immediately after a hit, it's usually noticable a few rounds in. If we're talking a matter of seconds or a minute or two (as in the video), I doubt you'd notice it, particuarly in an grainy-crapass video like that one.

There are now multiple sources reporting the fracture.

 

[qazplm]

you dont usually have

broken orbital bones in boxing.

Do a google of broken orbital bones, it's not pretty. If you are breaking a bone, you are damaging the blood vessels that surround it, that alone is going to cause bruising and discoloration. Second, if you break/fracture a bone, that takes a lot of force. Bones are tough. Tough enough that if you hit someone hard enough to fracture one, you are likely to have some sort of damage to your hand, certainly something a forensic exam is going to find.

Second, regarding kick or other things, first the New York Times Article says witness all agree Brown was leaning on/inside the closed door talking to the cop, who was inside the car. Some sort of altercation happened, the kid started running, cop gets out of car, fires at kid, misses, then kid turns around...it's at that point that witness diverge on what happened next.


"Some
of the accounts seem to agree on how the fatal altercation initially
unfolded: with a struggle between the officer, Darren Wilson, and the
teenager, Michael Brown. Officer Wilson was inside his patrol car at the
time, while Mr. Brown, who was unarmed, was leaning in through an open
window. Many
witnesses also agreed on what happened next: Officer Wilson's firearm
went off inside the car, Mr. Brown ran away, the officer got out of his
car and began firing toward Mr. Brown, and then Mr. Brown stopped,
turned around and faced the officer."

So I'd submit if there was contact between the two, it would have been the hand, not the foot or elbow, and that it looks like the cop DID shoot at the kid while he was running away.

NYT

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Re: you dont usually have

It seems the stories are changing.

Have you actually listened to Johnson's account? "He opened the door so aggressively, it ricocheted off of both of us, and closed back on officer Wilson. He then reached out of the window and grabbed Big Mike by the throat, and tried to pull him into the car."

So, let me get this straight: the cop reaches out of a cruiser, presumably seated, say 3, maybe 4 feet off the ground, reaches up 2.5 feet and grabs the 6'4" 300lb Brown by the throat? And tries to pull him into the car?

Just a lot of BS in that story if you ask me.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Re: you dont usually have

In addition, I've broken a few bones in my day. Swelling and bruising doesn't show up immediately, and you wouldn't be able to ID it in a grainy video shot from an apartment window.

 

[CWS]

Re: you dont usually have

Without taking sides here, just wanted to add some knowledge. The main reason for boxing gloves is to avoid eye injuries (and reduce cuts and prolong fights). The eye is a precious organ so the body was designed (or evolved depending on your view) to protect the eye. The two main mechanisms for protection are 1: Sitting recessed in the eye socket, protected by the nose/cheek/brow bones and 2: Surrounded by fat (padding) and thin orbital wall bones.

In the case of a blunt trauma (such as a boxing glove/softball), the brow /nose/cheek take the brunt of the impact and trauma to the eye is minimized

In the case of more direct contact to the eye (knuckle/elbow/golf ball), the force transmitted to the eye is then transmitted to the surrounding fat which is then transmitted to the orbital wall bones. The orbital wall bones are thin and designed to break as opposed to squishing the eye like a grape. Sort of like a car bumper absorbs some of the shock to help protect the occupant. The orbital floor is the side of the eye socket that usually blows out, next most common is the medial wall (behind the nose). The orbital floor drains into the maxillary sinus (the sinus of the cheek).
Posted from wireless.rivals.com[/URL]

 

[qazplm]

I dont believe I've focused

on a single account, I referenced the accounts that collectively the NYT's says jibe with each other. I knew about the car door but didn't talk about it because it's one account, and no one else corroborates it.

 

[qazplm]

except

the chief said almost right after that there was "some swelling" on his face. Now whether that means his bone was broken, or it was minor swelling, or there was none at all remains to be seen. But you are reaching with the idea that you can essentially be hit so hard your eye socket is broken but have little to no swelling for days and no damage to the hand that caused it that a forensic exam can't even pick up.

 

[qazplm]

except

the chief said almost right after that there was "some swelling" on his face. Now whether that means his bone was broken, or it was minor swelling, or there was none at all remains to be seen. But you are reaching with the idea that you can essentially be hit so hard your eye socket is broken but have little to no swelling for days and no damage to the hand that caused it that a forensic exam can't even pick up.

 

[qazplm]

except

the chief said almost right after that there was "some swelling" on his face. Now whether that means his bone was broken, or it was minor swelling, or there was none at all remains to be seen. But you are reaching with the idea that you can essentially be hit so hard your eye socket is broken but have little to no swelling for days and no damage to the hand that caused it that a forensic exam can't even pick up.

 

[qazplm]

Re: you dont usually have

seems like you have the knowledge to "take sides" then yes?

So, bruising or no? Damage to the kids hands that can be seen by a ME or no?

 

[CWS]

Re: you dont usually have

I have knowledge, but like you, no access to the evidence other than what is reported by biased media on both sides. A CT of the orbits can tell if an injury is old or new, but would not be able to tell if the injury was done by the dead man or by the police officer's friend on the way to the hospital. Swelling/bruising can be immediate, but can also be delayed, especially the bruising due to gravity causing the blood to go downward towards the floor fracture instead out outward where it is visible. I have less knowledge about forensics, so can't comment on bruising to an elbow or knuckle.
Posted from wireless.rivals.com[/URL]

 

[CWS]

Re: you dont usually have

P.S. My "side" is on the side of justice, probably like everyone (hopefully).
Posted from wireless.rivals.com[/URL]

 

[qazplm]

except

the chief said almost right after that there was "some swelling" on his face. Now whether that means his bone was broken, or it was minor swelling, or there was none at all remains to be seen. But you are reaching with the idea that you can essentially be hit so hard your eye socket is broken but have little to no swelling for days and no damage to the hand that caused it that a forensic exam can't even pick up.

dont know why this took four times to post, and only once correctly.

 

[qazplm]

Re: you dont usually have

Well you brought up the concept of sides...that's why I put it in quotes.

 

[CWS]

Re: you dont usually have

In my response, I didn't realize you had put it in quotes. I guess you put it in quotes for the same reason I did - because we're all on the same side - the search for the truth, and also anything anti-Hoosier. .
Posted from wireless.rivals.com[/URL]

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Re: you dont usually have

There are definitely sides in this debate; it's naive to pretend otherwise. While only a few idiots out there are running around saying Brown deserved to die, there are plenty of people thinking/hoping Wilson is exonerated and plenty of people thinking/hoping that Wilson is found to have executed Brown.

I am on the "side" that hopes Wilson is exonerated by hard evidence, not by some technicality or other BS reason, but I don't believe that will happen because I think Wilson made a mistake and because I don't think there will be enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted purely in self-defense. If they can prove that he did, in fact, murder Brown, then obviously I want justice for the Brown family.

I am also not ashamed to admit that I give Wilson more benefit of the doubt than I give Brown not because of race, but because of circumstances around the incident: specifically, demonstrated criminal behavior and presence of an intoxicating substance vs. a police officer with no record of issues to this point. If this were a black cop shooting an unarmed white man, I'd feel the same way.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Re: I dont believe I've focused


I didn't mean to imply that you did, only that there are an awful lot of holes in his story. There are also "indications" (whether I believe them or not, I'm not sure) that some of the other stories are unraveling a little bit. But ultimately, as discussed, eyewitness testimony can be inaccurate. CNN had an anonymous interview last night where someone claimed there were many witnesses who had yet to come forward for fear of retribution, I guess by the police.

 

[qazplm]

I'm on the side

of knowing what happened.

I have enough evidence to believe as you do, wilson made a mistake. I have enough evidence to neither believe that Wilson is perfectly clean here nor that Brown is. I believe some sort of altercation happened, of which Brown bears some degree of responsibility, if not a large degree. Although I also think the cop likely didn't help the situation.

I don't hope for exoneration for anyone. The kid is dead. I want to know why. Whatever that leads to. I don't have the same trust of small town Missouri cops that you do. I don't trust the record keeping given how lax I've read they were. I don't trust that things like being verbally or even minor physical abuse were things stringently addressed by the Ferguson Police Department.
I also don't think the presence of marijuana, which could have been from one joint smoked a month ago means anything. Nor do I think a minor shoplifting with a push means anything.

I agree there's never going to be a conviction here.

 

[qazplm]

I'm sure that fear is out there

hunkgolden keeps referencing the 10+ folks who say they can verify the cops version but no mention of it anywhere but right-wing press and a call-in talk show as of yet.

Yes, singular eyewitness testimony can be inaccurate, but as the numbers grow, you can have more confidence in the things that collectively nearly everyone agrees on.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Re: I'm on the side


When I say I hope for exoneration, I mean that insofar as this incident has already ended one life, and likely ruined another. I hope that Wilson did everything according to protocol so the impact to another life is minimal, but also because I'd like to believe that our law enforcement officers generally act appropriately. I just don't see that as likely.