Ferguson

[Traitorfish]

Well, now we're back to a double standard. Your against-the-grain interpretations of other people's words are plainly factual, but other people's against-the-grain interpretations of your words are the grossest insolence. It doesn't add up.

 

[bhsup]

There is nothing I can do if you are seeing double standards where none exist. I've tried to explain how that is not the case, but you still insist it is. We are, alas, at an impasse.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

There is no double standard, TF. And there was also nothing to interpret from my post to suggest I was making a blanket statement about "cops" in the plural. I wrote of the injustice of the vitriol and false accusations leveled against a cop (singular) in one instance. Hangman immediately, like Tim is prone to do, comes back with "cops" as though things that have happened previously have any bearing at all on this one situation. They do not. They clearly would have if the cop had just decided to execute some random black guy, but that is not at all what happened and everybody knows it. Man tries to kill cop, cop kills man, man's mother speaks before UN. What the hell?

But no, I remark on this and people jump to a stupid conclusion that I think cops do no wrong blah blah blah. There is no reason to make that assumption, but it happens. Mobby gets this as well and it's bullcrap. Yeah, I guess I think cops do no wrong, which is why I commented about that NYC case the way I did.

I note that you have not tried to explain how people (notoriously difficult to stir into action) have leaped into months of rioting over (in your opinion) this single incident, while coincidentally they are wrong about said incident to start with. I have said that you are willfully ignoring not only what they are probably upset about, but what they say they are upset about. I see no surer way to ensure that they remain upset.

I say 'cops', plural, because that is what they are rioting about. You literally cannot get people to riot over one cop shooting someone under questionable circumstances. If the cops screw them systematically for a few years with no end in sight it gets a lot easier.

 

[bhsup]

No, Tim, that is not what they are rioting about and that is why I didn't bother to, again, address it when you asked about it yesterday. If they had been rioting about the situation in general, then they would have been doing it non-stop. It wasn't until after the grand jury chose not to indict this individual cop that they commenced to riot again. That is clearly an indication that they want to, as the step-father said, burn the place to the ground over one incident where the cop did nothing wrong.

I am dismissing everything anyone says about Ferguson, period, and that's completely on the community and their ridiculous reaction to a cop doing his job. Aggressive criminal assaults store keeper, aggressive criminal assaults cop and tries to kill said cop, mother of aggressive criminal speaks to UN about police brutality in the USA while continuing to perpetuate the "gentle giant" lie. What the hell...

You want a legitimate case to rally around for the issue of systemic racism and/or brutality by police? There are plenty, I don't deny that and never have. The NYC choking case being the one that really should have been the rallying point. But no, instead everyone picked one cop doing his job and went bananas. And because I won't listen to people trying to twist it into something it wasn't, what I say gets twisted, distorted, and flat out fabricated into some ridiculous claim that "cops can do no wrong."

 

[Timsup2nothin]

No, Tim, that is not what they are rioting about and that is why I didn't bother to, again, address it when you asked about it yesterday. If they had been rioting about the situation in general, then they would have been doing it non-stop. It wasn't until after the grand jury chose not to indict this individual cop that they commenced to riot again. That is clearly an indication that they want to, as the step-father said, burn the place to the ground over one incident where the cop did nothing wrong.

I am dismissing everything anyone says about Ferguson, period, and that's completely on the community and their ridiculous reaction to a cop doing his job. Aggressive criminal assaults store keeper, aggressive criminal assaults cop and tries to kill said cop, mother of aggressive criminal speaks to UN about police brutality in the USA while continuing to perpetuate the "gentle giant" lie. What the hell...

You want a legitimate case to rally around for the issue of systemic racism and/or brutality by police? There are plenty, I don't deny that and never have. The NYC choking case being the one that really should have been the rallying point. But no, instead everyone picked one cop doing his job and went bananas. And because I won't listen to people trying to twist it into something it wasn't, what I say gets twisted, distorted, and flat out fabricated into some ridiculous claim that "cops can do no wrong."

Okay, let's not fabricate anything ridiculous.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that the day before Wilson shot Brown that the FPD officers were walking through their community like some Andy through Mayberry re-enactment? That place was a powder keg...evidence? It exploded.

If it hadn't touched off over Wilson and Brown it would have been something else, because clearly the mayor and the FPD had no intention of defusing the situation before it exploded. They're still trying to stuff the genie back in the bottle now.

 

[hangman]

There is no double standard, TF. And there was also nothing to interpret from my post to suggest I was making a blanket statement about "cops" in the plural. I wrote of the injustice of the vitriol and false accusations leveled against a cop (singular) in one instance.

Really? Because your original response was to this comment:

Kinda like the idiots that latch onto one cop in a million dying on the job and leap to repeat that "they have a dangerous job and put their lives on the line every day" garbage, eh?

which is quite clearly (to me, anyway) an abstraction. Trying to spin this as if the discussion was about Michael Brown in particular is a lame cop-out.

Also, you never addressed this:

Why is it acceptable for you unveil the "true" meaning of the protesters' demands, but not acceptable for Hangman to present the "true" meaning of your post?

other than to say "NUH-UH!"

 

[Zkribbler]

aggressive criminal assaults cop

Three people were witness to this event. Officer Wilson says Brown attacked him. Dorian Johnson says it was Wilson who grabbed Brown around the neck and pulled his head into the vehicle. Brown can't talk. A simple fingerprint check would have been dispositive on whether Brown had grabbed Wilson's gun or not. Alas, the Ferguson police chose not to do one. IMHO, the question is still open as to who assaulted whom.

The most troubling aspect to me of the shooting arises from the 13 bullets in Wilson's gun. One was still in the gun at the end of the day. Two were fired inside the vehicle. That leaves ten bullets. Johnson says that as he and Brown were running away, Wilson was shooting at them. (Under U.S. law, this is not permitted. The prosecutors incorrectly instructed the Grand Jury on this. They later told them they had been given an incorrect instruction, but when a Grand Juror requested the correct law, the prosecutor's reply was "We don't want to get into a law school course here.")

Wilson claims he fired no shots at Brown as he fled. Wilson says it wasn't until Brown turned and bullrushed him that he fired. A cell phone recorded the sounds of these shots. There are a series of shots, a three-second pause, and then another series of shots. Brown started from 30 feet away from Wilson; he died 8 feet away. To believe Wilson, one must believe that in the time it took Brown to "bullrush" 22 feet, Wilson was able to fire off 10 rounds, pausing for 3 seconds in the middle of shooting. The physics don't add up.

It seems far more likely that, while Brown was fleeing, Wilson was illegally shooting at him. Brown concluded that if he continued to run, one of Wilson's shot was going to hit him. He concluded that his only chance of survival was to turn around, charge Wilson and take his gun away. When Brown turned, Wilson ceased firing for three seconds. When Brown charged, Wilson fired the final shots.

 

[Berzerker]

So Brown thought Wilson would shoot him if he kept running but charged Wilson anyway after he stopped shooting? I'd be happy he stopped shooting.

There's a problem with that theory, Wilson's shell casings were found relatively close to where Brown stopped running and lead back toward the suv for 20-30 feet. That means Wilson was not only backpedaling as Brown charged him it also suggests Wilson's shots were fired as he backpedaled.

 

[MobBoss]

Three people were witness to this event. Officer Wilson says Brown attacked him. Dorian Johnson says it was Wilson who grabbed Brown around the neck and pulled his head into the vehicle. Brown can't talk. A simple fingerprint check would have been dispositive on whether Brown had grabbed Wilson's gun or not. Alas, the Ferguson police chose not to do one. IMHO, the question is still open as to who assaulted whom.

The most troubling aspect to me of the shooting arises from the 13 bullets in Wilson's gun. One was still in the gun at the end of the day. Two were fired inside the vehicle. That leaves ten bullets. Johnson says that as he and Brown were running away, Wilson was shooting at them. (Under U.S. law, this is not permitted. The prosecutors incorrectly instructed the Grand Jury on this. They later told them they had been given an incorrect instruction, but when a Grand Juror requested the correct law, the prosecutor's reply was "We don't want to get into a law school course here.")

Wilson claims he fired no shots at Brown as he fled. Wilson says it wasn't until Brown turned and bullrushed him that he fired. A cell phone recorded the sounds of these shots. There are a series of shots, a three-second pause, and then another series of shots. Brown started from 30 feet away from Wilson; he died 8 feet away. To believe Wilson, one must believe that in the time it took Brown to "bullrush" 22 feet, Wilson was able to fire off 10 rounds, pausing for 3 seconds in the middle of shooting. The physics don't add up.

It seems far more likely that, while Brown was fleeing, Wilson was illegally shooting at him. Brown concluded that if he continued to run, one of Wilson's shot was going to hit him. He concluded that his only chance of survival was to turn around, charge Wilson and take his gun away. When Brown turned, Wilson ceased firing for three seconds. When Brown charged, Wilson fired the final shots.

Actually, there were far more than 3 witnesses. At least 64 appeared before the grand jury and testified. I created a thread with a chart that gave a synopsis of each witness' testimony here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=540128

For Dorian Johnsons testimony to be believed, you would have to believe that Officer Wilson, from inside his vehicle, got his arms around the neck of Brown who was 6'4" or 6'5" tall. That's not really probable if you really think about it, and in fact, it borders on the ridiculous.

Also, none of the forensic evidence suggests that Wilson shot at Brown while he was fleeing, and in fact there was witness testimony that Brown charged Wilson once Wilson got out of his car and ordered Brown to halt.

As to the shots fired, I'm not sure why you think the 'physics' don't add up? You also have to recall that Wilson said he was backpeddling as Brown charged him. He fired 4 shots, and Brown reportedly kept running resulting in another 4 shots and Brown got to within 8 feet before going down where he died. You don't think a person with a semi-automatic pistol can fire 8 shots in that time?

 

[Berzerker]

hmm... I thought Wilson fired 2 in the suv and another 10 afterward... Did Wilson fire twice before Brown charged him? The two volleys separated by a gap were as Brown charged but if they only account for 8 shots then that leaves 2 shots.

 

[Zkribbler]

Actually, there were far more than 3 witnesses. At least 64 appeared before the grand jury and testified. I created a thread with a chart that gave a synopsis of each witness' testimony here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=540128

Many of the witnesses described seeing a struggle within the car. Only two saw it begin, Wilson and Johnson. [BTW: Thank you for the chart. ]

For Dorian Johnsons testimony to be believed, you would have to believe that Officer Wilson, from inside his vehicle, got his arms around the neck of Brown who was 6'4" or 6'5" tall. That's not really probable if you really think about it, and in fact, it borders on the ridiculous.

...in the alternative, a person could believe that Brown bent over to speak into the vehicle, allowing Wilson to grab him. How often have you spoken to someone in the driver's seat of a car while you were standing straight up?

Also, none of the forensic evidence suggests that Wilson shot at Brown while he was fleeing,

For any shot that hit Brown, the forensic evidence would show which way Brown was facing. However, for any shot that missed Brown, the forensic evidence would not indicate which way Brown was facing. So the fact that the forensic evidence does not suggest that shots were fired at a fleeing Brown proves nothing. Plenty of witnesses testified that shots were fired at Brown as he ran away.

...and in fact there was witness testimony that Brown charged Wilson once Wilson got out of his car and ordered Brown to halt.

There are witnesses who said Brown charged; there are other who said Brown moved in Wilson's direct. What bearing does this have on whether Wilson was illegally shooting at Brown as he ran away?

As to the shots fired, I'm not sure why you think the 'physics' don't add up? You also have to recall that Wilson said he was backpeddling as Brown charged him. He fired 4 shots, and Brown reportedly kept running resulting in another 4 shots and Brown got to within 8 feet before going down where he died. You don't think a person with a semi-automatic pistol can fire 8 shots in that time?

A charging person can close 22 feet with another person pretty darn quickly, even if the person being charged is back peddling. This was not a panicked back peddling, nor was this panicked shooting, as shown by the fact that Wilson hit Brown six times. And remember, somewhere in there is a three-second gap, which Wilson never mentioned.

 

[MobBoss]

...in the alternative, a person could believe that Brown bent over to speak into the vehicle, allowing Wilson to grab him.

Oh come on. Do you REALLY believe a kid that just robbed a store, and getting told to get out of the street is going to do that?

Come on man. You really think Brown is going to lean into an Officer's patrol car like some Bikini Barrista?

How often have you spoken to someone in the driver's seat of a car while you were standing straight up?

All the time.

For any shot that hit Brown, the forensic evidence would show which way Brown was facing. However, for any shot that missed Brown, the forensic evidence would not indicate which way Brown was facing. So the fact that the forensic evidence does not suggest that shots were fired at a fleeing Brown proves nothing. Plenty of witnesses testified that shots were fired at Brown as he ran away.

And plenty of witnesses said the exact opposite. You do know that several witnesses that originally testified that Brown was trying to surrender recanted their story before the Grand Jury, right?

Not to mention the fact that in general its human nature to run like hell when shots get fired - but you would have us believe that Brown, upon hearing shots, stopped, turned around, and then charged Wilson?

Again, that's pretty far fetched.

There are witnesses who said Brown charged; there are other who said Brown moved in Wilson's direct. What bearing does this have on whether Wilson was illegally shooting at Brown as he ran away?

None, since there is zero substantial evidence to suggest Wilson did any such thing.

A charging person can close 22 feet with another person pretty darn quickly, even if the person being charged is back peddling. This was not a panicked back peddling, nor was this panicked shooting, as shown by the fact that Wilson hit Brown six times. And remember, somewhere in there is a three-second gap, which Wilson never mentioned.

Wilson is also a police officer who is specifically trained to react in a situation like that. If he exited his patrol car with pistol drawn, he could easily, very easily, fire 8 shots in the time it takes a person to move 30 feet with a semi-automatic pistol.

Even for an untrained person with a gun holstered, minimum safe distance is about 21 feet. That means even an untrained person should be able to draw a weapon and fire it to hit someone outside of 21 feet from them or so. They actually did a myth busters on this once. Pretty informative.

I find your claim that 'the physics doesn't add up' to be unsubstantiated.

hmm... I thought Wilson fired 2 in the suv and another 10 afterward... Did Wilson fire twice before Brown charged him? The two volleys separated by a gap were as Brown charged but if they only account for 8 shots then that leaves 2 shots.

I thought it was 2 in the car, 8 afterward for a total of 10 shots, 6 of which hit. In order to believe the claim that Wilson shot at Brown while running, Brown would have had to instantly turned around after the first 2 shots of the first 4 shot volley, then getting hit with the last 2 shots of that volley THEN commenced to charge Brown at speed.

Ummmm. Not likely.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Arguing with a made up mind is pointless Zkribbler, and eventually you'll get sick of the condescension and say something that he can make a complaint out of. Save the effort.

 

[Berzerker]

I believe he fired 12 total, 2 at the suv and 10 after/during a foot chase. I remember hearing 2 volleys of 4-5 shots each separated by a 1-2 second gap, but if it was 4 shots each then he must have fired 2 before the volleys. I'd say the cop gave him plenty of time to reconsider, he's either a bad shot or he was reluctant to shoot to kill.

Dorian Johnson gave an interview to Chris Hayes of MSNBC and at the very end Johnson said Brown didn't threaten Wilson much. That means even his buddy admitted - let slip - Brown was not surrendering and was actually at the very least pretending to threaten Wilson.

 

[Colonel]

Three people were witness to this event. Officer Wilson says Brown attacked him. Dorian Johnson says it was Wilson who grabbed Brown around the neck and pulled his head into the vehicle. Brown can't talk. A simple fingerprint check would have been dispositive on whether Brown had grabbed Wilson's gun or not. Alas, the Ferguson police chose not to do one. IMHO, the question is still open as to who assaulted whom.

The most troubling aspect to me of the shooting arises from the 13 bullets in Wilson's gun. One was still in the gun at the end of the day. Two were fired inside the vehicle. That leaves ten bullets. Johnson says that as he and Brown were running away, Wilson was shooting at them. (Under U.S. law, this is not permitted. The prosecutors incorrectly instructed the Grand Jury on this. They later told them they had been given an incorrect instruction, but when a Grand Juror requested the correct law, the prosecutor's reply was "We don't want to get into a law school course here.")

Wilson claims he fired no shots at Brown as he fled. Wilson says it wasn't until Brown turned and bullrushed him that he fired. A cell phone recorded the sounds of these shots. There are a series of shots, a three-second pause, and then another series of shots. Brown started from 30 feet away from Wilson; he died 8 feet away. To believe Wilson, one must believe that in the time it took Brown to "bullrush" 22 feet, Wilson was able to fire off 10 rounds, pausing for 3 seconds in the middle of shooting. The physics don't add up.

It seems far more likely that, while Brown was fleeing, Wilson was illegally shooting at him. Brown concluded that if he continued to run, one of Wilson's shot was going to hit him. He concluded that his only chance of survival was to turn around, charge Wilson and take his gun away. When Brown turned, Wilson ceased firing for three seconds. When Brown charged, Wilson fired the final shots.

Just a heads up, since this seems to be the lynch pin of your argument. Under Missouri law an officer can shoot at a fleeing "violent" criminal/felon to stop his escape. As by the point they moved away from the officer, Micheal Brown and the Officer had been in an altercation which if started by Brown constitutes assaulting an officer and thereby would qualify him as a violent criminal.

563.046. 1. A law enforcement officer need not retreat or desist from efforts to effect the arrest, or from efforts to prevent the escape from custody, of a person he reasonably believes to have committed an offense because of resistance or threatened resistance of the arrestee. In addition to the use of physical force authorized under other sections of this chapter, he is, subject to the provisions of subsections 2 and 3, justified in the use of such physical force as he reasonably believes is immediately necessary to effect the arrest or to prevent the escape from custody.

2. The use of any physical force in making an arrest is not justified under this section unless the arrest is lawful or the law enforcement officer reasonably believes the arrest is lawful.

3. A law enforcement officer in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody is justified in using deadly force only

(1) When such is authorized under other sections of this chapter; or

(2) When he reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested

(a) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony; or

(b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon; or

(c) May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.

4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.

Now you have to apply that Missouri statue in conjunction with the SCOTUS decision Here is a portion of the applicable Majority opinion on the matter.

“Deadly force is unmatched,” stated the Court. The Court held that the Tennessee statute was unconstitutional in so far as it authorized the use of deadly force to stop a fleeing suspect who posed no immediate threat to the officer or others. “It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape” stated the Court. “We conclude that [deadly] force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer had probable cause to believe that the suspect posed a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.”

Given Missouri law in conjunction with SCOTUS case, had Micheal Brown assaulted the Officer, then proceeded to flee, coupled with him being suspected of "Strong arm" Robbery the officer would have been justified to shoot him as he escaped. Now as it stands Brown charged the Officer after fleeing a little ways which puts this squarely back into the "defense of life" clause for which the Officer is justified to shoot.

As to the audio recording, which I have listened to. It is questionable whether it is authentic or not. For the sake of this argument lets assume it is. As I and I'm sure more then a few others around here have been professionally trained in firearms lets go portion by portion. You hear three sets of shots separated by a few seconds each. What this sounds like to me and most others who know about firearms is that the officer took a few shots, stopped to re-evaluate his target, once he determined that the threat was still advancing took another set of shots, again determined that he was still advancing, took the final set of shots. This sounds to me like damn good training on the part of this Police Department. That an Officer was able to, after being assaulted and punched in the head multiple times maintain a level of discipline while a significant threat was continuing to advance toward him that he would stop firing to determine if the threat had been neutralized. I would venture a guess that some of the people in this thread who are calling for an Officer's head on a platter if they were placed in that Officer's position at the time would have unloaded the magazine without even a second to stop and think.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

“Deadly force is unmatched,” stated the Court. The Court held that the Tennessee statute was unconstitutional in so far as it authorized the use of deadly force to stop a fleeing suspect who posed no immediate threat to the officer or others. “It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape” stated the Court. “We conclude that [deadly] force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer had probable cause to believe that the suspect posed a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.”

If there were a demonstration that Wilson shot at Brown as he was fleeing and he tried Missouri law as protection the SC would either bury the Missouri law or have to rewrite that precedent...which I doubt even this court would do. A few more fascist appointments maybe...

 

[Colonel]

If there were a demonstration that Wilson shot at Brown as he was fleeing and he tried Missouri law as protection the SC would either bury the Missouri law or have to rewrite that precedent...which I doubt even this court would do. A few more fascist appointments maybe...

Assaulting a cop is a violent crime, strong arm robbery is a violent crime, what this shows me is that by the time Micheal Brown began his temporary fleeing, Officer Wilson had and I quote "the officer had probable cause to believe that the suspect posed a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.” Based on that clause of SCOTUS in conjunction with Missouri Law the Officer was justified by either clause to use deadly force, if Brown were fleeing or charging at the Officer.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Baloney. Go to the supreme court and explain how violent criminals always demonstrate their intent to do grave bodily harm by running away. Good luck with that.

 

[Colonel]

Baloney. Go to the supreme court and explain how violent criminals always demonstrate their intent to do grave bodily harm by running away. Good luck with that.

I didn't say always. I said in this instance when Micheal Brown had committed two violent crimes in less then 20 minutes. It stands to reason as a police officer, if you just committed a violent crime, then committed a violent crime against me (an ARMED POLICE OFFICER), then it stands to reason you will continue to commit more violent crimes because even I, the ARMED POLICE OFFICER, was not a deterrent for you to stop. Thus I have probable cause to assume you are physical threat to both myself and the public.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I didn't say always. I said in this instance when Micheal Brown had committed two violent crimes in less then 20 minutes. It stands to reason as a police officer, if you just committed a violent crime, then committed a violent crime against me (an ARMED POLICE OFFICER), then it stands to reason you will continue to commit more violent crimes because even I, the ARMED POLICE OFFICER, was not a deterrent for you to stop. Thus I have probable cause to assume you are physical threat to both myself and the public.

Well, maybe to anyone who confronts him with a gun. Since that's not something that happens with great regularity it's pretty unlikely anyone is going to be at great risk. If you try to parley 'he was running when an armed officer told him to stop' into 'he could go on a killing spree any second' the SCOTUS ruling will blow you oput of court.

The strongarm robbery was shoplifting with a push out of the way when the exit was blocked, so this amplification to 'oh he could go on a wild killing spree any second' baloney is just baloney.