Michael Brown Shooting

chadwick

i have nearly no faith at all in the eyewitnesses, even brown's dear friend who was walking w/ him to & from the convenience store. that young man is so full of shit in his story telling skills that his nose grew. yes i do think so

i'll tell you what would be a difficult task... waking up every morning & putting on that uniform & patrolling the st. louis (or any city for that matter) area. that'd be a scary job & now it's really on

it is terrible that brown died. i wish he could have used the sidewalk, quit strong arm robbing shops, had some sense & manner w/ authority figures. heck he'd still be alive today im sure of that. well, unless one of his peers smoked his ass in a driveby or something ridiculous like that.

Last-12-Exit

norm said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

norm said:

wait...brown had a criminal record? i never read that. for what?

Immediately preceding the incident in question, Brown had robbed a convenience store.

interesting...so a person who has not been arrested, charged or convicted of a crime is a criminal...fascinating

I dont know if he had a recored prior to the actions of that day. Does anyone seriously know if he did?

Last-12-Exit

Gern Blansten said:

Last-12-Exit said:

Those eyewitnesses you are counting on so much have been proven wrong. Those eyewitness accounts of brown surrendering with his hands in the air when he was shot are not accurate. How much more faith are you going put in them?

What is your source for them being proven wrong?

Ive answered that already. In the CNN article that you posted, the first line says two men describe as an unarmed teenager with his hands in the air is gunned down. The second autopsy report proved that his hands were not in the air when he was shot.

You can what if that all day, but the facts are the facts. You have brought nothing to the table other than speculation and unreliable witnesses.

Gern Blansten

Last-12-Exit said:

Gern Blansten said:

Last-12-Exit said:

Those eyewitnesses you are counting on so much have been proven wrong. Those eyewitness accounts of brown surrendering with his hands in the air when he was shot are not accurate. How much more faith are you going put in them?

What is your source for them being proven wrong?

Ive answered that already. In the CNN article that you posted, the first line says two men describe as an unarmed teenager with his hands in the air is gunned down. The second autopsy report proved that his hands were not in the air when he was shot.

You can what if that all day, but the facts are the facts. You have brought nothing to the table other than speculation and unreliable witnesses.

I feel like I'm dreaming or something...

The autopsy most certainly did not "prove" that his hands were not in the air. It may have proven what position his hands were in the instant ONE bullet hit his arm but that's all that it proves.

There are multiple eyewitnesses telling a similar story. The article I posted above is still the most vivid account so far.

Gern Blansten

chadwick said:

i have nearly no faith at all in the eyewitnesses, even brown's dear friend who was walking w/ him to & from the convenience store. that young man is so full of shit in his story telling skills that his nose grew. yes i do think so

i'll tell you what would be a difficult task... waking up every morning & putting on that uniform & patrolling the st. louis (or any city for that matter) area. that'd be a scary job & now it's really on

it is terrible that brown died. i wish he could have used the sidewalk, quit strong arm robbing shops, had some sense & manner w/ authority figures. heck he'd still be alive today im sure of that. well, unless one of his peers smoked his ass in a driveby or something ridiculous like that.

That's fine but there are at least 4 maybe 5 separate witnesses telling basically the same story.

pjhawks

Gern Blansten said:

Staceb10 said:

Eyewitness accounts are largely unreliable. This "hands up" things is the entire slogan for the so-called protests i.e. looting and rioting. The forensic evidence doesn't show that he had his hands in the air in surrender which will outweigh eyewitness accounts.

apa.org/monitor/apr06/eyewitness.aspx

scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/

cbsnews.com/news/eyewitness-how-accurate-is-visual-memory/

innocenceproject.org/understand/Eyewitness-Misidentification.php

Wait...forensics can determine if you had your hands in the air? At what point? If I have my hands in the air and you walk up and shoot me in the head with no eyewitnesses will forensics show that I had my hands in the air?

Am I missing something?

absolutely and at the point the bullets enter the body. the angle of the wounds can determine direction of the body and preliminary autopsy reports are his hands were not in the air when the bullets entered his body.

edit: in your scenario in the head it won't necessarily determine hands in the air or not but when the fatal shots are on the torso and shots within the arms absolutely.

Gern Blansten

pjhawks said:

Gern Blansten said:

Staceb10 said:

Eyewitness accounts are largely unreliable. This "hands up" things is the entire slogan for the so-called protests i.e. looting and rioting. The forensic evidence doesn't show that he had his hands in the air in surrender which will outweigh eyewitness accounts.

apa.org/monitor/apr06/eyewitness.aspx

scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/

cbsnews.com/news/eyewitness-how-accurate-is-visual-memory/

innocenceproject.org/understand/Eyewitness-Misidentification.php

Wait...forensics can determine if you had your hands in the air? At what point? If I have my hands in the air and you walk up and shoot me in the head with no eyewitnesses will forensics show that I had my hands in the air?

Am I missing something?

absolutely and at the point the bullets enter the body. the angle of the wounds can determine direction of the body and preliminary autopsy reports are his hands were not in the air when the bullets entered his body.

edit: in your scenario in the head it won't necessarily determine hands in the air or not but when the fatal shots are on the torso and shots within the arms absolutely.

right....so you have no idea if Brown's hands were in the air or not. You just believe that they weren't in the air when one shot entered his body. That's my point.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

norm said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

norm said:

wait...brown had a criminal record? i never read that. for what?

Immediately preceding the incident in question, Brown had robbed a convenience store.

interesting...so a person who has not been arrested, charged or convicted of a crime is a criminal...fascinating

interesting... that one chooses to refute video footage and victim accounts as insufficient for labelling someone a criminal... fascinating.

dignin

Gern Blansten said:

pjhawks said:

Gern Blansten said:

Staceb10 said:

Eyewitness accounts are largely unreliable. This "hands up" things is the entire slogan for the so-called protests i.e. looting and rioting. The forensic evidence doesn't show that he had his hands in the air in surrender which will outweigh eyewitness accounts.

apa.org/monitor/apr06/eyewitness.aspx

scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/

cbsnews.com/news/eyewitness-how-accurate-is-visual-memory/

innocenceproject.org/understand/Eyewitness-Misidentification.php

Wait...forensics can determine if you had your hands in the air? At what point? If I have my hands in the air and you walk up and shoot me in the head with no eyewitnesses will forensics show that I had my hands in the air?

Am I missing something?

absolutely and at the point the bullets enter the body. the angle of the wounds can determine direction of the body and preliminary autopsy reports are his hands were not in the air when the bullets entered his body.

edit: in your scenario in the head it won't necessarily determine hands in the air or not but when the fatal shots are on the torso and shots within the arms absolutely.

right....so you have no idea if Brown's hands were in the air or not. You just believe that they weren't in the air when one shot entered his body. That's my point.

Yeah, I'm trying to figure out how forensics can tell if he had his hands in the air when he got shot in the head. I can't quite wrap my head around it....maybe I'm just thick.

Last-12-Exit

It's fine that you want to ignore the facts of the case that have been released. If those eyewitness accounts were as reliable as you claim them to be, they why hasn't the officer been charged yet? The autopsy did reveal gun powder residue on Brown's hand. That proves that Brown was at least 18 inches away from the gun. Which corroborates Wilsons story of brown going after his gun.

rgambs

Last-12-Exit said:

It's fine that you want to ignore the facts of the case that have been released. If those eyewitness accounts were as reliable as you claim them to be, they why hasn't the officer been charged yet? The autopsy did reveal gun powder residue on Brown's hand. That proves that Brown was at least 18 inches away from the gun. Which corroborates Wilsons story of brown going after his gun.

You aren't wrong, but I fail to see why such force was necessary given the distance between the two. Maybe he reached for the gun (maybe he didn't, 18 inches means his hand could have been as far away as the door of the vehicle) but he didn't get the gun and yet, after traveling several paces away from the officer he was shot to death.

Gern Blansten

Last-12-Exit said:

It's fine that you want to ignore the facts of the case that have been released. If those eyewitness accounts were as reliable as you claim them to be, they why hasn't the officer been charged yet? The autopsy did reveal gun powder residue on Brown's hand. That proves that Brown was at least 18 inches away from the gun. Which corroborates Wilsons story of brown going after his gun.

Let me summarize my argument....we seem to be rehashing the same stuff over and over

First I will answer your question from above. Why hasn't the officer been charged yet? Because the grand jury hasn't issued their decision yet.

I don't know what facts you think I am ignoring. I accept the report that Brown got a gunshot wound to the hand and that it could have been within 18 inches of the gun.

What we don't know is why....was Brown reaching for his gun? Or did the cop get trigger happy and thought Brown may have been reaching for his own weapon by mistake so he plugged him?

If the official autopsy report says that none of the wounds appear to have come from behind then I accept that. But that does NOT prove that Brown wasn't running away. All it proves is that the wounds entered his body while he was turned around which is EXACTLY what the eyewitnesses have said happened.

Why did he turn around? It could be that he was charging the officer (which I consider highly unlikely...he was running for a reason) or that he turned to surrender (which is what multiple EYEWITNESSES have said) and the officer let his emotions get to him (or the officer was a racist piece of shit?) and killed him unjustifiably. That Brown stole cigars means nothing. That Brown refused to get on the sidewalk means nothing.

If the evidence is released and the overwhelming proof is that he charged the officer then I would say the officer did what he had to do. That is not what several EYEWITNESSES have reported seeing.

Gern Blansten

Victor W. Weedn, chairman of the George Washington University Department of Forensic Sciences, said the autopsy report raises doubts about whether Brown’s hands were raised at the time of the shooting but is not conclusive.

“Somebody could have raised their hands way above their head and lowered their hands and then be shot,” Weedn said. “So an autopsy will never rule out that the hands were above the head. It can only say what happened at the time of the shooting. . . . With the graze to the right arm, it appears the arm was in a vertical position, suggesting that it was closer to down by his side, but it could have been higher.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/new-evidence-supports-officers-account-of-shooting-in-ferguson/2014/10/22/cf38c7b4-5964-11e4-bd61-346aee66ba29_story.html

Gern Blansten

If I have to decide whether to agree with you or with the chairman of the George Washington University Department of Forensic Sciences I'm going to go with him. Sorry.

rgambs

I wish all the uproar was surrounding the Crawford case rather than the Brown case, it is a much less complicated scenario in which video evidence shows trigger happy police shooting a man ON VIDEO wrongfully. And no indictment of course.

Gern Blansten

rgambs said:

I wish all the uproar was surrounding the Crawford case rather than the Brown case, it is a much less complicated scenario in which video evidence shows trigger happy police shooting a man ON VIDEO wrongfully. And no indictment of course.

It's just sad. Although I don't feel like the police had anything but good intentions of protecting the public from what they felt was a potential shooter it is still tragic as hell.

rgambs

Gern Blansten said:

rgambs said:

I wish all the uproar was surrounding the Crawford case rather than the Brown case, it is a much less complicated scenario in which video evidence shows trigger happy police shooting a man ON VIDEO wrongfully. And no indictment of course.

It's just sad. Although I don't feel like the police had anything but good intentions of protecting the public from what they felt was a potential shooter it is still tragic as hell.

Yeah I don't think it was done out of malice...just trigger happy from all their paramilitary training...very sad, and I don't feel they should go to jail for it, but they shouldn't even be allowed to be mall security after such a terrible lapse in judgment...nope still roaming the streets, fingers itchin'

Last-12-Exit

How do you think police should be trained? Law enforcement is a paramilitary organization.

Yes, along with lethal force, pepper spray, tazers and other non lethal methods should be (if they aren't already) practiced and taught. What else can you do?

rgambs

The officers who responded were part of a SWAT type team, that's why I referenced the paramilitary style training. I don't believe law enforcement should be considered a paramilitary organization, I think that says a lot about how our country views war. It's all about perspective. Is all weapons training paramilitary by nature? Couldn't we view our officers as civil servants who use self-defense as a last resort as opposed to soldiers who use force as a primary tactic.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

rgambs said:

The officers who responded were part of a SWAT type team, that's why I referenced the paramilitary style training. I don't believe law enforcement should be considered a paramilitary organization, I think that says a lot about how our country views war. It's all about perspective. Is all weapons training paramilitary by nature? Couldn't we view our officers as civil servants who use self-defense as a last resort as opposed to soldiers who use force as a primary tactic.

Honestly...

In the USA, I think it is too much to ask for police to use self-defence as a last resort. Your country is steeped in weaponry, crime, and from many citizens... an attitude that disrespects authority (it's prevalent on this very forum).

If a police officer is 'forced' to defend themselves (you used the term 'self defence')... then a criminal has pushed them to that place. Given they have been pushed there... I feel they have a right to defend their lives vociferously and not be required to exhaust a variety of tactics that might result in them compromising their personal safety.

Edit: sorry... I just realized your post was in response to the poor fellow in the mall. I agree with what you have written in that context.

Last-12-Exit

rgambs said:

The officers who responded were part of a SWAT type team, that's why I referenced the paramilitary style training. I don't believe law enforcement should be considered a paramilitary organization, I think that says a lot about how our country views war. It's all about perspective. Is all weapons training paramilitary by nature? Couldn't we view our officers as civil servants who use self-defense as a last resort as opposed to soldiers who use force as a primary tactic.

This topic could definitely have its own thread. I think law enforcement HAS to be treated as a paramilitary organization. You have to have a command structure and you must train these guys with a warfare mentality. They are putting their life on the line in the same way as troops overseas do. I completely understand the sentiment of using non lethal force. But that the tricky part. Training these guys to act with the same mind set as a military man, but at the same time knowing when that particular skill set needs to be used.

Negotiating skills, people skills, leadership ability, handling stress are major issues that needs to be enforced. Regardless of how I feel in this thread, I don't think the gun should be used as the first option in every situation. Every situation is different.

As related to the Brown case, could it been handled different. I'm sure it could have been. But then you "what if" the scenario to death because we don't know all of the facts. If things had played out different, we may be dealing with a cop killer instead of a dead, unarmed 18 year old. Both scenarios are horrible. Best case would have obviously been a simple arrest.

One thing here I think we can all agree on: this case has to be used as a training tool. This must be critiqued in a manner that shows what was done right and wrong on both sides. There is always something that can be learned from cases like this. Much like a firehouse critiquing a fire they had the previous shift. The most relevant example.I can think of is the sofa super store fire on June 18, 2007 in Charleston, SC. Without going into detail, 9 fireman were killed and as a result, massive changes for the better occured and we are still doing training exercises that were developed in direct correlation.

Sorry for going way off topic. Point is that there can be positives that can come from this tragedy.

hedonist

Excellent post, Last-12.

rgambs

agreed! A very good post! My stance is all wishy. I wish we could be less violent and then expect more from our police! One thing to remember is that not all regions have the same crime rates and many of these high profile cases occur in areas where the situation isnt anything like a warzone, making the militaristic response excessive. I wish we could treat them more as we treat doctors and social workers. They put their lives on the line, and we expect them to keep human dignity intact above all else. Does a doctor turn away patients with AIDS or ebola because of the risk? It seems to me that's the sort of behavior cops are being trained to.

Gern Blansten

To me it is also a question of how we should expect the police to act when we have such an insane gun culture. Ohio is an open carry state....this can happen again and again if someone calls 911 to report a suspicious person with a gun. How do you know they are up to no good until they start firing?

Open carry laws just allow criminals to blend in and make things much tougher on law enforcement.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Gern Blansten said:

To me it is also a question of how we should expect the police to act when we have such an insane gun culture. Ohio is an open carry state....this can happen again and again if someone calls 911 to report a suspicious person with a gun. How do you know they are up to no good until they start firing?

Open carry laws just allow criminals to blend in and make things much tougher on law enforcement.

This is what I was trying to get at in my last post. The police do not work in ideal conditions where the decisions we expect them to make come easily.

Gern Blansten

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2014/10/23/1338661/-The-Official-Michael-Brown-Autopsy-Report-Doesn-t-Say-What-the-St-Louis-Post-Dispatch-Says-It-Does?showAll=yes

Interesting...yes it is from the Daily KOS but there really isn't much opinion here. It is pointing out some of the garbage that I was trying to make a point about a few days ago.

The interpretations that were released several days ago were mostly OPINIONS or statements taken out of context. See Dr. Melinek's responses...she was the one they were trying to hang their hat on and she came about against what they printed as her statements.

***QUOTE***It was difficult to reconcile the person who wrote that with the person who was quoted in Byers' and Bernhard's article. It's important to remember that Dr. Melinek was not offering an opinion with legal ramifications. Rather, she was offering an opinion to a reporter, whose reporting would help shape public opinion in a highly contentious court case. The reporters quoted her thus:
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.”
I read that yesterday morning and thought, "Wait, what? That's a pretty big leap."
And indeed it is. If he has his hand near the gun when it goes off, it means ... his hand was near the gun when it went off. We don't know why or how his hand got there. It's just as likely that he was trying to block the gun because he was afraid that Darren Wilson was about to kill him.***/QUOTE***

So you can see...the gunpowder on Brown's hand could have been a defensive wound. Perhaps the officer pulled the gun out and Brown tried to push it away and got shot in the process. That scenario is closer to what the EYEWITNESSES have stated.

norm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Iigvm5iPkU

Thirty Bills Unpaid

norm said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Iigvm5iPkU

wow.

Jason P

Again, the Barney Fife rule should be employed. One bullet in the shirt pocket.

Cops are for the most part the D-student linebacker from your high school that flunked out of community college.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Jason P said:

Again, the Barney Fife rule should be employed. One bullet in the shirt pocket.

Cops are for the most part the D-student linebacker from your high school that flunked out of community college.

This is correct in many cases.

Again, I'd point out the fact that in Canada, the RCMP used to be one of the best jobs a person could get in terms of wage, benefits, pension, and respect. The wait list was years and screening was thorough- only the most appropriate people ended up with a badge.

Now... people can have a better living and not have to worry about getting killed on the job by mopping floors at the various mines pimped out by our country to international companies.

What am I saying if it's not obvious? You can't make chicken soup out of chicken shit. If people wish for exceptional police forces... then they should be prepared to pay for them. There is a highly unrealistic attitude from some on these boards that think cops should take their little salaries and feel very happy about that.

In developed countries, any job that places a person's life on the line is richly compensated, otherwise people do not assume the inherent risk- they need to be motivated. So... where I agree with you, Jason, is around the notion that 'some' people entering the police force are motivated by things other than salaries and benefits- such as power. This group would in my unqualified estimation be the minority, however we are seeing this minority and their unqualified aptitude in our monthly Youtube clips, headlines, and this forum.

I'm not making an excuse for any brutal cop behaviours, but its not a stretch to expect poor results when your force is comprised of poor candidates better suited for other professions.