Well if I guess correctly, Colonel is/was in the US military and the M-16 series of weapons actually does have very little recoil to the point that the shooter can fire multiple shots in quick succession while maintaining accuracy.
Ferguson
- Thread starter Angst
- Start date
Well if I guess correctly, Colonel is/was in the US military and the M-16 series of weapons actually does have very little recoil to the point that the shooter can fire multiple shots in quick succession while maintaining accuracy.
If the audio is to be trusted that was associated with this case that is exactly what the officer did.
As to the no recoil comment, they do but I have sufficient training to deal with that while moving and maintaining accuracy.
I'm still active but that isn't the point as I stated earlier, I have professional training with M-16/M-4, 9mm, .40, .45, .38. Pistols, revolves and assault rifles. I can accurately shoot with any one of them whilst moving and maintaining accuracy.
I have that training as well by virtue of my military service, so I fully understand what you are talking about. One who is properly trained can most certainly fire on the move and still be deadly accurate.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Except you didn't run the entire distance Mike Brown did. You ran 30 feet. Brown fought with a cop in a car, ran about 185 ft further away from the patrol vehicle with Wilson after him, then turned, and ran at Wilson.
Your premise is flawed because you haven't really duplicated all the series of events that occurred. All you did was run 30 feet. Forming a premise on that and solely on that is an error.
If you find the graphic of the actual shooting you will see that Brown had actually progressed past many of the shell casings fired by Wilson towards him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooti...File:Michael_Brown_shooting_scene_diagram.svg
And since Wilson hit Brown 8 times, he would have had to hit him several times in the first 6 shots of the chase, and yet all the forensics indicated that Brown had been hit from the front, not back.
Your premise is simply incorrect and based on bad reference data.
You should also be open to the possibility that perhaps he just got lucky with his shots. That is not outside the realm of possibility either.
I was talking exceptions, not rules. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/nyregion/03shot.html?_r=0
useless
Social Justice Rogue
As a white man, what do you think should be the standard example of police racism and brutality
Zkribbler
Deity
Not so. Officer Wilson had thirteen rounds in his weapon that day. He fired two inside the car and got back to the station with one round left. This must mean that he fired ten rounds while outside the car. This would mean the audio should sound like either: pow-pow-pause-pow-pow-pause-pow-pow-pause-pow-pow-pause-pow-pow or pow-pow-pow-pause-pow-pow-pow-pause-pow-pow-pow-pause-pow. The audio indicates only one pause.
I am impressed.
Zkribbler
Deity
According to Officer Wilson's testimony, he did not fire at all while Brown was running away or when Brown was turning. Wilson didn't recommence firing until after Brown began to "bullrush" him. Thus, based upon Wilson's account, the 185 feet pursuit of Brown has no relevance to this analysis.
My focus is on whether Office Wilson could have fired 10 shots [with a three second pause] in the time Brown began to "bullrush" Wilson from a distance of 30 feet until Brown dropped dead at a distance of 8 feet. Yes, I could only guess at how far Wilson back pedaled. My best guess was 8 feet [so that Wilson could remain steady enough to fire 10 times and hit Brown 6 times].
The linked-to drawing actually strengthens my conclusion. According to it, the distance from the furthest red stain, i.e. blood, to the body is only 21' 7". Assuming that Brown could run at the same speed as I, this means Brown could cover this distance in TWO seconds. Yet during those two second, Wilson would have had to fire a fusillade of shots, paused for three second, and then fired a second fusillade of shots.
I can think of only two explanations for this:
(1) Wilson unlawfully fired shots at Brown as the fled, stopped firing for the three seconds which Brown took to stop, turn around and decide to charge Wilson, and then recommenced firing once Brown charged. or...
(2) Wilson did not fire at Brown as he was running. But neither did Brown "bullrush" Wilson, but came forward slowly, and thus would not be perceived by a reasonable officer as posing a risk. Nevertheless, Wilson opened fire upon him.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Simply incorrect. Of course what happened just prior to the shooting has relevance. For example, it shows that Brown had been physically pushing himself pretty hard already, got into a fight with a cop, and lost his flip flops running. This means he most assuredly wasn't going to cover that distance in the amount of time you thought he might.
Guessing isn't good enough. Guessing leads to error. In fact, in looking at the shell casing dispersal, it would appear Wilson backed up a lot further than 8 feet while firing.
You did take the time to look at the diagram I linked, right?
Um..no..it doesn't. It actually refutes it.
You do realize there was also blood stains on the patrol car. Brown was initially shot during the struggle in the car.
First of all, you have no idea how fast Brown was able to run or not. Again, he'd already been shot, struggled for a gun, run a couple hundred feet losing his sandals, and then turned and ran at Wilson again.
There are way too many variables there for you to really say with any accuracy how fast he was able to run or not.
Pure hyperbole.
Too many of the shots from the initial 'fusillade' as you say hit Brown for this to be supported logically, and the forensics showed that all the shots hit him from the front, not running away.
Or maybe he was still running just not as fast as you assume considering he'd lost his sandals, fought a cop, and ran a couple hundred feet already when already shot back at the patrol car (all of which you seem to want to ignore as factors).
The audio indicated that it was a 4 to 6 round initial burst followed by another 4 round burst. There was only 1 pause recorded. There was also 1 unfired round found on the pavement at the scene.
Zkribbler
Deity
Hold on. I'm going to have to give this a re-think.
Further down in the Wikipedia article cited to by MobBoss is the passage:
"The recording was analyzed by ShotSpotter, a company which developed technology to identify and locate urban gunshots in real time, using microphones mounted throughout a city. ShotSpotter could not verify, with available information, that the recording is of the Michael Brown shooting. The company did say that it is the sound of ten gunshots within less than seven seconds, with a three-second pause after the sixth shot. It also said that all ten rounds were fired from within a three-foot (1 m) radius—that the shooter was not moving. It identified seven additional sounds as echoes of gunshots."
Assuming the Shotspotter recording is of the Brown incident [and the recording of 10 shots makes this highly likely], this means (a) My No. 1 theory in the above post is not valid, because Shotspotter recorded 6 shots, a pause, and then 4 shots. Six shots hit Brown, all in the front, and so they had to be fired after he turned.
This also means: (b) that Wilson's statement that he back pedaled is incorrect. He stood his ground and fired as Brown advanced.
(c) Brown advance only 21' 7" in the time it took Wilson to fire six shots, pause for three seconds, and then fire four more shots...seven seconds in all. This means Brown traveled an average speed of 3-feet/second. In my experiment, I traveled 10-feet/second.
Further down in the Wikipedia article cited to by MobBoss is the passage:
"The recording was analyzed by ShotSpotter, a company which developed technology to identify and locate urban gunshots in real time, using microphones mounted throughout a city. ShotSpotter could not verify, with available information, that the recording is of the Michael Brown shooting. The company did say that it is the sound of ten gunshots within less than seven seconds, with a three-second pause after the sixth shot. It also said that all ten rounds were fired from within a three-foot (1 m) radius—that the shooter was not moving. It identified seven additional sounds as echoes of gunshots."
Assuming the Shotspotter recording is of the Brown incident [and the recording of 10 shots makes this highly likely], this means (a) My No. 1 theory in the above post is not valid, because Shotspotter recorded 6 shots, a pause, and then 4 shots. Six shots hit Brown, all in the front, and so they had to be fired after he turned.
This also means: (b) that Wilson's statement that he back pedaled is incorrect. He stood his ground and fired as Brown advanced.
(c) Brown advance only 21' 7" in the time it took Wilson to fire six shots, pause for three seconds, and then fire four more shots...seven seconds in all. This means Brown traveled an average speed of 3-feet/second. In my experiment, I traveled 10-feet/second.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
You forget the brass pattern. The pattern of expended ammo does suggest he back peddled quite a bit. I would put more stock in how the expended brass fell as opposed to the shotspotter analysis because it was done off a single cell phone recording - not sure how accurate that would be to be honest.
Berzerker
Deity
Witness 10 said Brown charged Wilson but slowed and stopped after the first volley. At that point Wilson stopped firing (the gap between volleys) but Brown then resumed his charge and thats when Wilson fired the last volley including the kill shots.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...n-had-a-reasonable-belief-he-needed-to-shoot/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...n-had-a-reasonable-belief-he-needed-to-shoot/
Zkribbler
Deity
ShotSpotter doesn't use the cell phone. It uses microphones disbursed across the area to triangulate the sound of gunfire. The cell phone recorded similar sounds: gunfire, a 3-second pause, and then more gunfire.
I don't know this gun's normal patter of ejecting shells. It's clear that shell casings are ejected to the right, but are they also propelled forward?
Bamspeedy
CheeseBob
And how accurate is the Shotspotter? Does it narrow the shots fired to the nearest inch, or the nearest 10 meters?
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
No, it was using the cell phone recording. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...c-experts-detail-purported-ferguson-shooting/
From what I gather it uses multiple microphones to triangulate and find the shooters location. In this case however, there is only 1 source involved, and they are relying on the size of the sound waves given by the shots to say they came from the same spot. There is no indication as to how accurate this can be given only a single source. In looking up about it, it appears some cities do have accuracy concerns regarding the system.
To believe that this proves Wilson wasn't moving you'd have to be sold on its being 100% accurate from a cell phone recording - in some cities it apparently gets about 60% accuracy even from multiple sensors...so I wouldn't put a lot of stock into the claim that the recording indicates Wilson wasn't moving. I think its pretty plain from the brass dispersion that he was.
I read in one article with multiple sources it can narrow it down to about 40 feet. Not really accurate enough to tell if Wilson moved or not in this case. Certainly not with only a single source available.
Zkribbler
Deity
Here is the relevant quote from the Supreme Court:
It is not, however, unconstitutional on its face. Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.
Let's look at your two "violent crimes."
1a) Brown pushed the shopkeeper out of the way as he exited. There is no apparent attempt to injury nor was any injury incurred. The victim did not even call the police.
1b) Wilson did not know of any violence at the store. He had been informed only of an alleged robbery [i.e. the taking by force or threat of force]. He had been told that what was stolen was cigarillos, wish sounds much more like shoplifting than a stick up.
2) When Wilson first attempted to exit his vehicle, he slammed his door into Brown and Johnson. Brown pushed it back. Wilson then pulled his weapon; Brown attempted to prevent Wilson from shooting him. --We know this because Wilson's--not Brown's--hand was on the handle of the gun, and his finger was on the trigger. Brown's flesh was on the barrel of the gun, which he could not have reached if the gun had been holstered when he grabbed it. Wilson described [I believe to his supervision sergeant] that he fired the gun but that Brown's holding onto the mechanism above the chamber caused the gun to misfire twice.]
I submit:
(A) that it objective unreasonable for any officer to believe a shoplifter, whom the officer has attacked and who has attempted only to defend himself, "poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others," but ...
(b) this portion of the debate is irrelevant. As I have stated between your post and this one, the ShotSpotter recording coupled with the autopsy reports establishes that Wilson could not have fired at Brown as he fled.
Zkribbler
Deity
You are correct.
Zkribbler
Deity
The article says within 1 meter.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
You are stating a lot of this as fact when it simply isn't, and are directly wrong on several points.
Strong arm robbery, which is the crime Brown allegedly committed in the store film is indeed a crime of violence and a felony. The difference in strong arm robbery and shoplifting is precisely that context of violence when Brown shoves the shop owner and indicates there is more violence to come if the shop owner doesn't back off. As such, Brown was not a shoplifter, but someone shown willing to engage in violence to steal.
All of your comments about what occurred in the vehicle are simply presumptions, not facts.
I'm not buying that, and I can find several other articles over the net that disagree with that. For example: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/us/shots-heard-pinpointed-and-argued-over.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
In looking this up, there are quite a few more articles worried about its accuracy, than espousing it.
