Speaking of myths being debunked
- Thread starter GMM
- Start date
Amazing that this report is not getting the national attention from media or attention from some posters on here. Was wondering when this would show up here. Tough to get any conviction, or really bring this to a jury trial with information based on this article.
This post was edited on 10/24 2:16 PM by Purdue97
This post was edited on 10/24 2:16 PM by Purdue97
ummm...bit of a problem there
The expert who the St. Louis Examiner spoke to, then reported on (which was then picked up by everyone else) says the views and quotes attributed to her were wildly misleading in several ways:
"A
reporter from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch called me earlier this week,
saying she had Michael Brown's official autopsy report as prepared by
the St. Louis County Medical Examiner, and asking me if I would examine
and analyze it from the perspective of a forensic pathologist with no
official involvement in the Ferguson, Missouri shooting death. I read
the report, and spent half an hour on the phone with the reporter
explaining Michael Brown's autopsy report line-by-line, and I told her
not to quote me - but that I would send her quotes she could use in an e
mail. The next morning, I found snippets of phrases from our
conversation taken out of context in her article in the Post-Dispatch.
These inaccurate and misleading quotes were picked up and disseminated
by other journals, blogs, and websites."
She then lists the actual email response she gave and then compares it to how the reporter reported what she said:
"This is how I was quoted in the Post-Dispatch the next day:
Dr.
Judy Melinek, a forensic pathologist in San Francisco, said the autopsy
"supports the fact that this guy is reaching for the gun, if he has
gunpowder particulate material in the wound." She added, "If he has his
hand near the gun when it goes off, he's going for the officer's gun."
Sources told the Post-Dispatch that Brown's blood had been found on
Wilson's gun. Melinek also said the autopsy did not support witnesses
who have claimed Brown was shot while running away from Wilson, or with
his hands up.[/I]
Notice
the difference? There's a big difference between "The hand wound has
gunpowder particles on microscopic examination, which suggests that it
is a close-range wound. That means that Mr. Brown's hand would have been
close to the barrel of the gun" and "he's going for the gun."
I
was very fortunate to have the opportunity to correct this, in my own
words last night, when Lawrence O'Donnell invited me to appear as a
guest on MSNBC.
Mr. O'Donnell allowed me to explain the autopsy findings clearly and in
context-if not in full. The show is called "The Last Word," and
Lawrence O'Donnell makes sure he gets it. Despite the guest-badgering
and interruptions that are a signature of his television persona,
however, Mr. O'Donnell did allow me to correct the record that the St.
Louis Post-Dispatch created. I am even more grateful to Tyrmaine Lee,
whose companion article to last night's Last Word segment (linked above)
serves as an excellent corrective to the Post-Dispatch article."
[/QUOTE]
actual expert's view
The expert who the St. Louis Examiner spoke to, then reported on (which was then picked up by everyone else) says the views and quotes attributed to her were wildly misleading in several ways:
"A
reporter from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch called me earlier this week,
saying she had Michael Brown's official autopsy report as prepared by
the St. Louis County Medical Examiner, and asking me if I would examine
and analyze it from the perspective of a forensic pathologist with no
official involvement in the Ferguson, Missouri shooting death. I read
the report, and spent half an hour on the phone with the reporter
explaining Michael Brown's autopsy report line-by-line, and I told her
not to quote me - but that I would send her quotes she could use in an e
mail. The next morning, I found snippets of phrases from our
conversation taken out of context in her article in the Post-Dispatch.
These inaccurate and misleading quotes were picked up and disseminated
by other journals, blogs, and websites."
She then lists the actual email response she gave and then compares it to how the reporter reported what she said:
"This is how I was quoted in the Post-Dispatch the next day:
Dr.
Judy Melinek, a forensic pathologist in San Francisco, said the autopsy
"supports the fact that this guy is reaching for the gun, if he has
gunpowder particulate material in the wound." She added, "If he has his
hand near the gun when it goes off, he's going for the officer's gun."
Sources told the Post-Dispatch that Brown's blood had been found on
Wilson's gun. Melinek also said the autopsy did not support witnesses
who have claimed Brown was shot while running away from Wilson, or with
his hands up.[/I]
Notice
the difference? There's a big difference between "The hand wound has
gunpowder particles on microscopic examination, which suggests that it
is a close-range wound. That means that Mr. Brown's hand would have been
close to the barrel of the gun" and "he's going for the gun."
I
was very fortunate to have the opportunity to correct this, in my own
words last night, when Lawrence O'Donnell invited me to appear as a
guest on MSNBC.
Mr. O'Donnell allowed me to explain the autopsy findings clearly and in
context-if not in full. The show is called "The Last Word," and
Lawrence O'Donnell makes sure he gets it. Despite the guest-badgering
and interruptions that are a signature of his television persona,
however, Mr. O'Donnell did allow me to correct the record that the St.
Louis Post-Dispatch created. I am even more grateful to Tyrmaine Lee,
whose companion article to last night's Last Word segment (linked above)
serves as an excellent corrective to the Post-Dispatch article."
[/QUOTE]
actual expert's view
So.....
.......provide whatever evidence has been produced that backs up the original narrative. Namely, that a white cop executed an unarmed teenager in cold blood because he was black.
The only reason this was a national news story was to push that narrative. Got any evidence to back that up?
.......provide whatever evidence has been produced that backs up the original narrative. Namely, that a white cop executed an unarmed teenager in cold blood because he was black.
The only reason this was a national news story was to push that narrative. Got any evidence to back that up?
No, my point was that you can try to reach for conspiracy stories that support your narrative, but CNN, NYT and others who usually vet what they report have already reported that the autopsy supports the officer's story. They aren't digging into the interpretation of it. "Forensics" show the gun was fired twice in the car, and Brown's blood is on the uniform and the car door.
For the two weeks we argued about this, you were questioning why there was no evidence of the struggle. Now that there is, the evidence is wrong?
How far are you willing to change your arguments here? It seems pretty evident that there was a struggle - cop went to the hospital with facial injuries, evidence of gunshots in the car, blood in the car. You've got that evidence, so why argue about it? It is now most likely that there was a struggle, which supports Wilson's story and casts doubt on other witness testimony as incomplete, at best (all they saw was the final gunshots, which is probably true. The initial shots in the car probably got their attention, and then all they saw was Brown "running away with a cop shooting at him.")
I agree, however, with the activists that this evidence does not, necessarily, exonerate Wilson nor explain/justify why Mike Brown is dead.
Not much ambiguity in CNN's report
lol
it's not a "conspiracy" that one newspaper or other news source trust the closest folks who did the actual reporting and don't every single time replicate everything they did. There was no prima facie reason to distrust the St. Louis reporter who reported what their expert says, except later when that expert said, nope I didn't say that at all.
I NEVER said there wasn't a struggle in the car.
Here AGAIN let me help you by giving ACTUAL QUOTES of what I said:
"I think he has this big guy, who's attacked him in some way"
"I believe some sort of altercation happened, of which Brown bears some degree of responsibility, if not a large degree."
"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."
"I've questioned the entire story of the assault?" Really? The "entire story?"
No, I've questioned several things:
1.
That he was hit hard enough for his eye socket to be fractured leaving
no evidence for the ME to find, and no evidence of it on video (not just
no visual evidence, no evidence anyone treated it, that he favored it,
that he was in pain).
2. That the kid was "going for his gun."
I've not questioned that some sort of altercation happened."
"Yes, I questioned the hand and guess what, I was right. I
questioned it NOT in the context of whether there was a struggle, I
questioned it in the context of broken eye socket."
Break
How many effing times do I have to say the same thing before you stop saying I said the opposite? Give me an over/under here, because if you are just going to invent crap what's the point?
What I said was that we don't know why there was a struggle or who was at fault for the struggle, or the mechanics of the struggle, that I found it highly unlikely to suggest that someone with no history of violence is going to walk up to a cop car, reach in, and try and take their gun, and I still see little reason to believe that's what happened. We know from the eyewitnesses that at least one shot was fired in the car. WHY that shot was fired is still a mystery, and the autopsy, as the expert who was consulted I linked said, it could as easily be an injury to the hand from PROXIMITY to the weapon and the lack of powder burns suggests it was not actually ON the weapon, at least at the time it was fired.
What I also said and what is still clearly not belied by anything in the autopsy, is that after the encounter at the car, the kid ran and was shot at, the autopsy says little about that.
it's not a "conspiracy" that one newspaper or other news source trust the closest folks who did the actual reporting and don't every single time replicate everything they did. There was no prima facie reason to distrust the St. Louis reporter who reported what their expert says, except later when that expert said, nope I didn't say that at all.
I NEVER said there wasn't a struggle in the car.
Here AGAIN let me help you by giving ACTUAL QUOTES of what I said:
"I think he has this big guy, who's attacked him in some way"
"I believe some sort of altercation happened, of which Brown bears some degree of responsibility, if not a large degree."
"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."
"I've questioned the entire story of the assault?" Really? The "entire story?"
No, I've questioned several things:
1.
That he was hit hard enough for his eye socket to be fractured leaving
no evidence for the ME to find, and no evidence of it on video (not just
no visual evidence, no evidence anyone treated it, that he favored it,
that he was in pain).
2. That the kid was "going for his gun."
I've not questioned that some sort of altercation happened."
"Yes, I questioned the hand and guess what, I was right. I
questioned it NOT in the context of whether there was a struggle, I
questioned it in the context of broken eye socket."
Break
How many effing times do I have to say the same thing before you stop saying I said the opposite? Give me an over/under here, because if you are just going to invent crap what's the point?
What I said was that we don't know why there was a struggle or who was at fault for the struggle, or the mechanics of the struggle, that I found it highly unlikely to suggest that someone with no history of violence is going to walk up to a cop car, reach in, and try and take their gun, and I still see little reason to believe that's what happened. We know from the eyewitnesses that at least one shot was fired in the car. WHY that shot was fired is still a mystery, and the autopsy, as the expert who was consulted I linked said, it could as easily be an injury to the hand from PROXIMITY to the weapon and the lack of powder burns suggests it was not actually ON the weapon, at least at the time it was fired.
What I also said and what is still clearly not belied by anything in the autopsy, is that after the encounter at the car, the kid ran and was shot at, the autopsy says little about that.
Re: lol
The other part of that story is that 6-7 witnesses say one thing, another half dozen say another, and it certainly appears that witnesses that are claiming Brown was shot in the back, are either leaving out the assault on the cop part or just did not see the entire ordeal.
Not saying it is right or wrong or justifies Brown's death, but it is really hard to get a conviction with witnesses that appear to have at best conflicting stories.
As for you questioning who was at fault for the struggle-For one to believe that one has to believe Wilson from inside his car pulled a 300 lb man into the car. Eh-not flying. That said, it is pretty bogus what the reporter changed/left out/amended.
i
This post was edited on 10/25 2:09 PM by Purdue97
The other part of that story is that 6-7 witnesses say one thing, another half dozen say another, and it certainly appears that witnesses that are claiming Brown was shot in the back, are either leaving out the assault on the cop part or just did not see the entire ordeal.
Not saying it is right or wrong or justifies Brown's death, but it is really hard to get a conviction with witnesses that appear to have at best conflicting stories.
As for you questioning who was at fault for the struggle-For one to believe that one has to believe Wilson from inside his car pulled a 300 lb man into the car. Eh-not flying. That said, it is pretty bogus what the reporter changed/left out/amended.
i
This post was edited on 10/25 2:09 PM by Purdue97
Re: lol
I'm going to put my tin foil hat on here and say, you have fallen into the trap.
Does it seem strange that these shooting only become national debate when the shooting is questionable? In each of these it seems each side pounces in it and interestingly enough somehow, well after the fact and the protests and the this is how black males are treated... evidences begins to support the shooter and that evidence is widely reported by the "liberal' press. But somehow the "liberal" press has given just a glimpse at the SC trooper shooting on an unarmed black man. Why is that?
IMHO, you're trying to fight on their turf, don't, read your Sun Tzu and focus on the fights you can win, in this case Columbia not Ferguson.
Edit-that is more a generic you than you personally.
This post was edited on 10/26 9:03 AM by kescwi
I'm going to put my tin foil hat on here and say, you have fallen into the trap.
Does it seem strange that these shooting only become national debate when the shooting is questionable? In each of these it seems each side pounces in it and interestingly enough somehow, well after the fact and the protests and the this is how black males are treated... evidences begins to support the shooter and that evidence is widely reported by the "liberal' press. But somehow the "liberal" press has given just a glimpse at the SC trooper shooting on an unarmed black man. Why is that?
IMHO, you're trying to fight on their turf, don't, read your Sun Tzu and focus on the fights you can win, in this case Columbia not Ferguson.
Edit-that is more a generic you than you personally.
This post was edited on 10/26 9:03 AM by kescwi
Re: lol
Do you agree that it's going to be extremely difficult, if not unlikely, that they are able to convict based on evidence that we know of thus far? What about a civil trial?
Everything that's "leaked" or whatever is painting the picture of a petty criminal with THC "in his system" who assaulted a police officer. Right now, it seems like an awful lot of eyewitness testimony vs. forensic science. The eye witness testimony side of the case seems to be leaning on the altercation somehow being started by the police officer claiming that he reached out of the window of his car and pulled Brown in. That seems dubious to me.
I don't know if Brown deserved to be shot, but it seems pretty clear to me that he was physically violent, and he wasn't running away or walking with his hands up when he was shot and killed.
Do you agree that it's going to be extremely difficult, if not unlikely, that they are able to convict based on evidence that we know of thus far? What about a civil trial?
Everything that's "leaked" or whatever is painting the picture of a petty criminal with THC "in his system" who assaulted a police officer. Right now, it seems like an awful lot of eyewitness testimony vs. forensic science. The eye witness testimony side of the case seems to be leaning on the altercation somehow being started by the police officer claiming that he reached out of the window of his car and pulled Brown in. That seems dubious to me.
I don't know if Brown deserved to be shot, but it seems pretty clear to me that he was physically violent, and he wasn't running away or walking with his hands up when he was shot and killed.
well how often
do police EVER get convicted for killing/harming someone?
Took two tries in Rodney King. So it was always going to be tough to get a conviction because that's how it works.
The guy had a nanogram level so low that it wouldn't have counted in a MILITARY drug test. It was below 15 nanograms, so why you keep talking about THC in his system like even a drop of it somehow makes the guy a problem I don't understand.
Forensic science has only said they were close to each other in the car and the number and location of shots.
It doesn't say who started it, it doesnt say what happened. You're dubious that the officer started the altercation, but not so dubious that someone with no history of serious violence just decides to attack a cop in a car and try and take his gun? Not dubious that the same kid who gets shot, gets scared, and runs away then decides to charge the cop while the cop is firing at him from a distance?
do police EVER get convicted for killing/harming someone?
Took two tries in Rodney King. So it was always going to be tough to get a conviction because that's how it works.
The guy had a nanogram level so low that it wouldn't have counted in a MILITARY drug test. It was below 15 nanograms, so why you keep talking about THC in his system like even a drop of it somehow makes the guy a problem I don't understand.
Forensic science has only said they were close to each other in the car and the number and location of shots.
It doesn't say who started it, it doesnt say what happened. You're dubious that the officer started the altercation, but not so dubious that someone with no history of serious violence just decides to attack a cop in a car and try and take his gun? Not dubious that the same kid who gets shot, gets scared, and runs away then decides to charge the cop while the cop is firing at him from a distance?
Re: well how often
Define "serious violence?" He has no arrest record of serious violence, but minutes before he was killed, he committed a strong arm robbery. Petty theft by any measure, but he clearly had little regard for property nor did he demonstrate exceptional judgment nor caring about his fellow man when he just shoved the store owner out of the way. Given the two records, again I side with the police officer with no record.
It's entirely possible that the cop said "Get out of the street you f------ n------," and that started the whole thing. If that's the case, it's entirely inappropriate and worthy of termination, possibly criminal charges for assault. But yes, I am dubious about the cop starting it because it would be damn near physically impossible for him to do what is suggested, that is lean out of the window of the Tahoe window, grab a 6'4" 300lb man by his neck and pull him inside the vehicle. Wilson's tall, but that would require some serious leverage to accomplish. Far more likely in my mind is the large man - provoked or not - leaned into the window himself and started the altercation.
Rarely. Hence the reason I keep bringing up the THC level is that it's going to factor in as it pertains to the judgment of the victim. Do I think Brown was high? No, but it is clearly not going to help his cause.
Define "serious violence?" He has no arrest record of serious violence, but minutes before he was killed, he committed a strong arm robbery. Petty theft by any measure, but he clearly had little regard for property nor did he demonstrate exceptional judgment nor caring about his fellow man when he just shoved the store owner out of the way. Given the two records, again I side with the police officer with no record.
It's entirely possible that the cop said "Get out of the street you f------ n------," and that started the whole thing. If that's the case, it's entirely inappropriate and worthy of termination, possibly criminal charges for assault. But yes, I am dubious about the cop starting it because it would be damn near physically impossible for him to do what is suggested, that is lean out of the window of the Tahoe window, grab a 6'4" 300lb man by his neck and pull him inside the vehicle. Wilson's tall, but that would require some serious leverage to accomplish. Far more likely in my mind is the large man - provoked or not - leaned into the window himself and started the altercation.
I dont think that's going to have any effect
because it's so low.
"Strong arm robbery" is simply the term used for ANY amount of force in a robbery. It's a colorful term but it does not, as it's descriptive terminology suggests mean that someone was beat-up or forcibly attacked. Watch the video, effectively he pushes his way past the guy. He doesn't grab him, or punch him or physically damage him in any way. Yes, petty theft, perfect example. That's a FAR cry from someone then going and trying to dearm an officer because he, probably, was a bit of a richard in talking to him to get out of the street.
I don't know all that happened, none of us do obviously. My guess, and it's just a guess, is that the cop was annoyed at them for walking in the street, he spoke to them probably not politely. I suspect they responded with choice words of their own. He backed up and initiated a verbal confrontation with them, they engaged in kind. Someone, I don't know who, initiated something at a physical level whether it's a grab or a push or a shove, or a car door being opened too quickly, I don't know. I believe it was likely a mutual affray, with both the cop and the kid at fault to some degree, who gets the greater measure of fault, I don't know. There's a difference between "the cop started it" and "the cop did this very specific thing you don't buy." There's also the concept that they both were responsible for the altercation escalating to the physical or escalating to the point that the cop decided to reach for his gun. I don't believe for a moment the kid reached in and tried to take a cop's gun. Again, in no way consistent with common sense or logic or the kid's history.
At some point during that altercation, the cop pulls his gun and fires. The kid is hit, and panics, and starts running. The cop chases and fires after him. The kid stops and tries to surrender. I don't for a moment believe he was charging the guy who'd already shot him once and was actively shooting at him. That requires that the kid has abandoned all sense of logic, reason, and self-preservation. I think the cop continues firing, likely out of adrenaline mixed with anger mixed with fear.
because it's so low.
"Strong arm robbery" is simply the term used for ANY amount of force in a robbery. It's a colorful term but it does not, as it's descriptive terminology suggests mean that someone was beat-up or forcibly attacked. Watch the video, effectively he pushes his way past the guy. He doesn't grab him, or punch him or physically damage him in any way. Yes, petty theft, perfect example. That's a FAR cry from someone then going and trying to dearm an officer because he, probably, was a bit of a richard in talking to him to get out of the street.
I don't know all that happened, none of us do obviously. My guess, and it's just a guess, is that the cop was annoyed at them for walking in the street, he spoke to them probably not politely. I suspect they responded with choice words of their own. He backed up and initiated a verbal confrontation with them, they engaged in kind. Someone, I don't know who, initiated something at a physical level whether it's a grab or a push or a shove, or a car door being opened too quickly, I don't know. I believe it was likely a mutual affray, with both the cop and the kid at fault to some degree, who gets the greater measure of fault, I don't know. There's a difference between "the cop started it" and "the cop did this very specific thing you don't buy." There's also the concept that they both were responsible for the altercation escalating to the physical or escalating to the point that the cop decided to reach for his gun. I don't believe for a moment the kid reached in and tried to take a cop's gun. Again, in no way consistent with common sense or logic or the kid's history.
At some point during that altercation, the cop pulls his gun and fires. The kid is hit, and panics, and starts running. The cop chases and fires after him. The kid stops and tries to surrender. I don't for a moment believe he was charging the guy who'd already shot him once and was actively shooting at him. That requires that the kid has abandoned all sense of logic, reason, and self-preservation. I think the cop continues firing, likely out of adrenaline mixed with anger mixed with fear.
Re: I dont think that's going to have any effect
I don't believe Brown reached into the SUV for the purpose of grabbing the gun. I believe he might've gone into the SUV to further exacerbate a verbal confrontation, at which point if I'm the cop, yep, I probably defend myself physically from the 6'4" 300 lb man. Brown has no business leaning into the cop's vehicle. Period. And as I've said I seriously doubt the cop pulled him in.
Adrenaline mixed with anger mixed with fear sounds an awful lot like self-defense to me, at least to start.
Again, none of this is justifying the kid's death - he likely didn't deserve to die - but it opens up a lot of holes in the eye witness testimony.
Sorry, but there should be no such thing as a "mutual affray" as it pertains to dealings with the police. The proper response for Brown was to get the F out of the middle of the road and respond to the Officer with a hearty "yes sir." I know there are other issues in Ferguson, but it's a Class A misdemeanor to disobey the lawful order of a police officer as well (Missouri Model Traffic Ordinance Section 300.800 - "get out of the street" regardless of delivery, is a lawful order). Thus any affray short of something like Rodney King or anything remotely in that neighborhood, of course, isn't "mutual"; indeed, the officer is in the right to give the order, the citizen is obligated to follow it. When he doesn't, the officer is obligated to enforce the law. One is in the right, and one is in the wrong. Now, that doesn't abide an officer being verbally or physically abusive, but I don't apologize for giving the BOD to a police officer with no record of issues over the 18 year old (most of them are idiots at times) who'd just committed a crime. Again, Brown doesn't know that the cop doesn't know, so maybe he overreacted?
I don't believe Brown reached into the SUV for the purpose of grabbing the gun. I believe he might've gone into the SUV to further exacerbate a verbal confrontation, at which point if I'm the cop, yep, I probably defend myself physically from the 6'4" 300 lb man. Brown has no business leaning into the cop's vehicle. Period. And as I've said I seriously doubt the cop pulled him in.
Adrenaline mixed with anger mixed with fear sounds an awful lot like self-defense to me, at least to start.
Again, none of this is justifying the kid's death - he likely didn't deserve to die - but it opens up a lot of holes in the eye witness testimony.
Re: I dont think that's going to have any effect
yeah no, you absolutely can have a mutual affray with an officer, particularly if that officer is acting outside his authority or irresponsibly. The fact that the kids "ignored" him or "sassed" him does not mean the officer is in his rights to physically respond which is the whole point of what we are talking about, a physical confrontation begun by either the kid or the cop. If they mutually threw down then yes it's a mutual affray, if one of them started/escalated, then that person is responsible for the physical confrontation.
No, adrenaline mixed with fear mixed with anger isn't remotely self-defense. Self-defense is generally a pretty narrow defense, particularly use of deadly force, except for the limited few whacko places like florida, and of course, as you are a primary example of, being a cop generally gets a lot of folks to bend over backwards to find possibilities why you aren't in the wrong.
And no, again, nothing in the forensic report "opens up a lot of holes in the eyewitness testimony" The forensic report supports EITHER of them being the aggressor.
yeah no, you absolutely can have a mutual affray with an officer, particularly if that officer is acting outside his authority or irresponsibly. The fact that the kids "ignored" him or "sassed" him does not mean the officer is in his rights to physically respond which is the whole point of what we are talking about, a physical confrontation begun by either the kid or the cop. If they mutually threw down then yes it's a mutual affray, if one of them started/escalated, then that person is responsible for the physical confrontation.
No, adrenaline mixed with fear mixed with anger isn't remotely self-defense. Self-defense is generally a pretty narrow defense, particularly use of deadly force, except for the limited few whacko places like florida, and of course, as you are a primary example of, being a cop generally gets a lot of folks to bend over backwards to find possibilities why you aren't in the wrong.
And no, again, nothing in the forensic report "opens up a lot of holes in the eyewitness testimony" The forensic report supports EITHER of them being the aggressor.
Re: I dont think that's going to have any effect
I recall, though I could be wrong, that Brown's buddy said the cop pulled him into the car and that no shots were fired in the vehicle. But then again, I think he's gone back on quite a few things he initially said.
Anyway, agree to disagree on the rest of it. No matter how you cut it, Brown was in the wrong because he obviously disregarded the officer's direction, not to mention he'd already committed a misdemeanor (likely two, because he could be charged with battery for shoving the store owner, as well). It's unknown whether the cop was as well. But I've already made clear the various reasons I have been giving Wilson the benefit of the doubt over the 18-year-old who'd just committed a small crime.
I recall, though I could be wrong, that Brown's buddy said the cop pulled him into the car and that no shots were fired in the vehicle. But then again, I think he's gone back on quite a few things he initially said.
Anyway, agree to disagree on the rest of it. No matter how you cut it, Brown was in the wrong because he obviously disregarded the officer's direction, not to mention he'd already committed a misdemeanor (likely two, because he could be charged with battery for shoving the store owner, as well). It's unknown whether the cop was as well. But I've already made clear the various reasons I have been giving Wilson the benefit of the doubt over the 18-year-old who'd just committed a small crime.
no
his friend says he was shot in the car. Yes, he says that the cop pulled up to them (or rather, backed up to them IIRC), went to open the door hard, it bounced off of Brown and hit the cop in the face. Brown then leaned into the car, he said it looked like the cop was trying to pull him in, Brown was trying to get out, then a shot rang out, Brown was hit, and then Brown started running.
Now, do I think that's exactly how it went down? Probably not. Do I think from his vantage point it could have seemed that way? Sure. From a few feet away, I can see how a mutual affray or even Brown being an aggressor leaning into the car and the cop pulling away could look like the cop's trying to pull Brown in. Do I think the cop was trying to pull Brown into the car? No, I don't see any logical reason he would do that.
Do I think that Brown just started attacking the cop with zero provocation and went for his gun? No, I don't see any logical reason he would do that.
Once the cop shoots him by the car, and he runs, he is no longer a threat to that cop in any way, and thus the analysis changes as to whether or not the cop can shoot him dead. I don't give anyone "the benefit of the doubt." I'm looking at it as what would a normal, mentally reasonably sane person do assuming they are acting in their own, rational self-interest while allowing for the clouding emotions of fear and anger, which at different points in the confrontation both of them clearly felt.
his friend says he was shot in the car. Yes, he says that the cop pulled up to them (or rather, backed up to them IIRC), went to open the door hard, it bounced off of Brown and hit the cop in the face. Brown then leaned into the car, he said it looked like the cop was trying to pull him in, Brown was trying to get out, then a shot rang out, Brown was hit, and then Brown started running.
Now, do I think that's exactly how it went down? Probably not. Do I think from his vantage point it could have seemed that way? Sure. From a few feet away, I can see how a mutual affray or even Brown being an aggressor leaning into the car and the cop pulling away could look like the cop's trying to pull Brown in. Do I think the cop was trying to pull Brown into the car? No, I don't see any logical reason he would do that.
Do I think that Brown just started attacking the cop with zero provocation and went for his gun? No, I don't see any logical reason he would do that.
Once the cop shoots him by the car, and he runs, he is no longer a threat to that cop in any way, and thus the analysis changes as to whether or not the cop can shoot him dead. I don't give anyone "the benefit of the doubt." I'm looking at it as what would a normal, mentally reasonably sane person do assuming they are acting in their own, rational self-interest while allowing for the clouding emotions of fear and anger, which at different points in the confrontation both of them clearly felt.
Re: lol
1. officer confronted some jaywalking guys rudely! kids didn't comply for whatever stupid reasons (they were close to their house, they didn't like the cops tone, who knows?!)
2. officer backs up his car to them really close to them and attempts to open his door. As he does, the door hits the big man, who if I have to guess probably pushed back a bit (his friend said it was a richochet not a push, but that sounds self serving) resulting in the door hitting the officer trying to step out of his car.
3. Being hemmed in, and already assaulted (i.e. door hitting him), He reaches out and tries to accost Brown through his windows until he probably can get control of the situation.
4. Brown sensing hey i can wrestle my way out of this officers grip and run home, does exactly that. (stupid idea no doubt). And from there a tussle ensues with Brown leaning in through the officers window.
5. Officer feeling genuinely threatened (1. he had been hit by the door 2. there is now Brown in his personal space tussling with him) reaches for his gun. (i am almost 100% certain, that it was the officer that un-holstered his own firearm not Brown)
6. Brown probably fearing he was about to get shot, reaches for the pulled-out gun too defensively i.e. trying to either dispossess the man or perhaps get the barrel pointed away from him, who knows. Probably even more tussling between the two.
7. The officer still got a shot off, hits Brown in the hand. Brown takes off running! Officer gets out of the car in pursuit
So far, the officer has been in the right! Maybe a couple of stupid decisions but his use of force is absolute justified. Brown and his friend have made even far more stupid decisions. What happens after this point to is the point of the matter. And surprisingly, it is the one has the fewest leaks of the officers's story. But I do doubt, someone that was running away from an officer who had already shot him once, would stop running, turn back and start bum-rushing the officer for no reason which is the narrative I would have to believe. If i had to take a guess at what probably happened, it would be this.
officer right after leaving the car in pursuit of brown fires a couple shots, none hits Brown. Brown stops running turns around, raises his hands. Perhaps the officer was still firing or not. Brown is probably thinking at this point, this officer is going to kill me regardless of what I do. Rather than stand and be shot, maybe he took his chance at rushing the officer. Wrong choice, Officer guns him down with the last couple bullets hitting Brown as he was already on the way down.
This part right here is the difference between you and guys on the other side of the argument. They believe this is possible, you and I don't. If I put together both eye witness stories and the cops story floating around. I will go something pretty much similar to what I said from the start.
1. officer confronted some jaywalking guys rudely! kids didn't comply for whatever stupid reasons (they were close to their house, they didn't like the cops tone, who knows?!)
2. officer backs up his car to them really close to them and attempts to open his door. As he does, the door hits the big man, who if I have to guess probably pushed back a bit (his friend said it was a richochet not a push, but that sounds self serving) resulting in the door hitting the officer trying to step out of his car.
3. Being hemmed in, and already assaulted (i.e. door hitting him), He reaches out and tries to accost Brown through his windows until he probably can get control of the situation.
4. Brown sensing hey i can wrestle my way out of this officers grip and run home, does exactly that. (stupid idea no doubt). And from there a tussle ensues with Brown leaning in through the officers window.
5. Officer feeling genuinely threatened (1. he had been hit by the door 2. there is now Brown in his personal space tussling with him) reaches for his gun. (i am almost 100% certain, that it was the officer that un-holstered his own firearm not Brown)
6. Brown probably fearing he was about to get shot, reaches for the pulled-out gun too defensively i.e. trying to either dispossess the man or perhaps get the barrel pointed away from him, who knows. Probably even more tussling between the two.
7. The officer still got a shot off, hits Brown in the hand. Brown takes off running! Officer gets out of the car in pursuit
So far, the officer has been in the right! Maybe a couple of stupid decisions but his use of force is absolute justified. Brown and his friend have made even far more stupid decisions. What happens after this point to is the point of the matter. And surprisingly, it is the one has the fewest leaks of the officers's story. But I do doubt, someone that was running away from an officer who had already shot him once, would stop running, turn back and start bum-rushing the officer for no reason which is the narrative I would have to believe. If i had to take a guess at what probably happened, it would be this.
officer right after leaving the car in pursuit of brown fires a couple shots, none hits Brown. Brown stops running turns around, raises his hands. Perhaps the officer was still firing or not. Brown is probably thinking at this point, this officer is going to kill me regardless of what I do. Rather than stand and be shot, maybe he took his chance at rushing the officer. Wrong choice, Officer guns him down with the last couple bullets hitting Brown as he was already on the way down.
Re: lol
I found it highly unlikely to suggest that someone with no history of violence is
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess you missed the video of him stealing a box of cigars and pushing the attendent moments before the altercation with the police.
I found it highly unlikely to suggest that someone with no history of violence is
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess you missed the video of him stealing a box of cigars and pushing the attendent moments before the altercation with the police.
