Missouri Police Officer guns down unarmed 18 year old

Page 71 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,575
126
Considering the only source right now is a right wing blog that is known for completely fabricating things, I doubt it. Also, that would have been something that would have shown up day one, not a week later.

We've already been over that.

It's been posted plenty.

The poster has no credibility.

We know Wilson was likely hit in the face. That's been reported widely. He went to the hospital for whatever injury he had.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
Here is the thing: It keeps happening. Its not like this is some isolated incident...

where Al Sharpton has come out for the media attention and lead his fellow people down a path of wrong decisions and wrong judgments in the belief that some greater good is within reach. All you have to do is look past the evidence of the current situation and make a grab for the ultimate goal.

It's happened before, and it will happen again.

In a few days you may have your view of reality torn apart. But you won't care. You're eyes are still firmly fixated on the big prize. And you'll be happy. Because you're not living in the new smouldering burnt-down shithole that is Ferguson, MO.

Fight on, brave warrior, fight on.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com

Druidx

Platinum Member
Jul 16, 2002
2,971
0
76

LaserBlast

Member
Jul 25, 2014
36
0
0
The video of Wilson is crystal clear and he shows no visible signs of trauma or being hurt.

Not only is he too far away to see the kind of detail required, but something like what is described as having happened to him (socket bone broken) might not show any outward sign at first. This is minutes after the injury was sustained.

You could have such a bone injury without much of anything visible on the skin, is my understanding.

The next day maybe there was a huge bruise around that area, or maybe not. I'm not sure if that's expected.

Perhaps if you were the other officer standing with him and you got right up to his face and looked, maybe part of his eye on one side was full of blood in the white area of the eye, and maybe some damage was visible close up to the flesh around the eye... but something like that wouldn't show up on that video.
 

QueBert

Lifer
Jan 6, 2002
22,567
836
126
The officer suffered a broken orbital bone yet not a single picture has been released yet? I'm not saying he did, or he didn't. But if they're going to report that he did, releasing pictures would make sense. Since it's all talk with no pictures my gut is to write off the reports as fiction.
 

WackyDan

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,794
68
91
Every fair trial requires a vigorous prosecution as well as an equally vigorous defense. Welcome to the rule of law.

No... A vigorous prosecution is only required where there is evidence that one broke the law.

We've had no arrest of the officer suggesting there isn't enough evidence or evidence at all that he was negligent.

So we have an elected official in this case making a demand that potentially isn't based on any reality and making that demand publicly. It is simple political posturing and has nothing to do with his job as governor of MO.
 

WackyDan

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,794
68
91
Is it disputed that an unarmed person was shot 6 times?

There you are with the "unarmed" narrative again like so many others here who don't get that unarmed means jack shit when you fracture the eye socket of a police officer or even a private citizen.

unarmed does not equal not dangerous.
 

Londo_Jowo

Lifer
Jan 31, 2010
17,303
158
106
londojowo.hypermart.net
I'm sure the grand jury will be presented a doctors report and xray of the injury. If it's as the police dept has reported and there's 12 or more witnesses that have given statements that backup the officers statement of what occurred there will be no charges brought against the officer. There will also not be evidence that the officer violated DM's civil rights either.
 

WackyDan

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,794
68
91
Of course, but a trial is pretty much SOP whenever an unarmed person is shot and killed. Just because the shooter has a badge doesn't put him above the scrutiny of the law.

No a trial isn't SOP. Evidence is gathered, and it is decided by the prosecutor if there is enough to go to even a grand jury to weigh indictment.
 

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,464
2
0
The officer suffered a broken orbital bone yet not a single picture has been released yet? I'm not saying he did, or he didn't. But if they're going to report that he did, releasing pictures would make sense. Since it's all talk with no pictures my gut is to write off the reports as fiction.
They can't due to HIPAA. Only the officer can release it.
 

Vapid Cabal

Member
Dec 2, 2013
170
10
81
This whole event is a shame. We aren't going to get "the truth".
From what I can tell:
1.) Witnesses are relaying what happened as they perceive (judged) it (not what they witnessed)
2.) The character of the deceased is in play (should not be)
3.) "Vigorous prosecution"? How about a "vigorous investigation" first.
 

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,575
126
The video of Wilson is crystal clear and he shows no visible signs of trauma or being hurt.

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/v...wday-intv-ferguson-shooting-crenshaw.cnn.html

Piaget Crenshaw who witnessed entire shooting talks with CNN

Crystal clear? That's a stretch. The video is simply not good enough to determine if Wilson has been punched in the face.

Now then, witnesses who were standing all around there might be able to tell.

But it's silly. We already have the police on record saying Wilson had a facial injury and went to the hospital for treatment. The records of that will be presented to the Grand Jury. If it's not true, then there will not be any record of such an injury to present to the Grand Jury.

The Grand Jury will know whether Wilson had no injury, a minor injury, or a broken eye socket.
 

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,464
2
0
Of course, but a trial is pretty much SOP whenever an unarmed person is shot and killed. Just because the shooter has a badge doesn't put him above the scrutiny of the law.
No, its not. A grand jury might be considered SOP but even that's a stretch.

Ever hear of the term malicious prosecution?
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
Of course, but a trial is pretty much SOP whenever an unarmed person is shot and killed. Just because the shooter has a badge doesn't put him above the scrutiny of the law.

Not where the shooter is a police officer. A criminal prosecution is the exception rather than the rule in this situation.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,336
136
Not where the shooter is a police officer. A criminal prosecution is the exception rather than the rule in this situation.
And that's the problem. The police are effectively above the law. This is far from an isolated instance.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
And that's the problem. The police are effectively above the law. This is far from an isolated instance.

They are not "above the law." They are given weapons and the legal authority to use them if circumstances justify it. They are also given some immunities, by law, that are not available to laypeople. These are necessities in order that they can do their jobs. I think cops who intentionally commit crimes should absolutely be prosecuted, and they are. Where a use of force involves a judgment call, and their judgment is not obviously faulty, I think they should get the benefit of the doubt, and they do.

Here, if it's true Wilson had a fractured orbital socket and there are third-party witnesses describing Brown (who had undisputedly, moments earlier, committed a violent robbery) rushing toward Wilson after punching him in the face, I don't think he should be charged.
 

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,575
126
With the pressure on to deliver, and the way a GJ works, it would be a miracle if no bill is forthcoming.
 

Oldgamer

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,280
1
0
Not only is he too far away to see the kind of detail required, but something like what is described as having happened to him (socket bone broken) might not show any outward sign at first. This is minutes after the injury was sustained.

You could have such a bone injury without much of anything visible on the skin, is my understanding.

The next day maybe there was a huge bruise around that area, or maybe not. I'm not sure if that's expected.

Perhaps if you were the other officer standing with him and you got right up to his face and looked, maybe part of his eye on one side was full of blood in the white area of the eye, and maybe some damage was visible close up to the flesh around the eye... but something like that wouldn't show up on that video.

The officer suffered a broken orbital bone yet not a single picture has been released yet? I'm not saying he did, or he didn't. But if they're going to report that he did, releasing pictures would make sense. Since it's all talk with no pictures my gut is to write off the reports as fiction.

A broken eye socket is extremely painful and he wouldn't be walking around like that so casually without holding his eye in pain. Remember the woman who police broke her eye socket? She was screaming in pain. Trust me it is a very painful area of the eye. In addition yes it would be visible because any major trauma to the eye or nose causes immediate bruising and blood pooling. None of you know what the hell your talking about.

Then on top of all that he didn't go to the hospital till many, many hours later, in fact if I am correct it wasn't till the next day, and I imagine that was done on purpose to make it appear he had some sort of injury. I for one will be interested in seeing the actual doctor report and x ray.

Fractured eye socket
4de087458dfcb.image.jpg


Another Fractured eye socket this was with in hours
10-03-08_2159copy.jpg


article-2695848-1FB8FBFA00000578-127_634x831.jpg


This is what the report says and I call bullshit: According to a source from within the Prosecuting Attorney’s office, Wilson suffered an, “orbital blowout fracture to the eye socket,” which has been confirmed by the St. Louis County Police. The Pundit describes, “A blowout fracture is a fracture of one or more of the bones surrounding the eye and is commonly referred to as an orbital floor fracture.”

We aren't getting this info from a doctor but from the prosecuting attorneys office. Look at that video again, and look at the stills of the officer you would in fact see dark shades of bruising and swelling on his eye if this was the case, and none is visible. Nor do you see him acting as if he is in ANY PAIN.
 
Last edited:

Londo_Jowo

Lifer
Jan 31, 2010
17,303
158
106
londojowo.hypermart.net
Don't know whether this is valid or not but a St Louis radio station (KFNS-FM 100.7 FM, "TheViper") is reporting this on their Facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/1007TheViper/timeline?ref=page_internal

***BREAKING NEWS***
Remember, you saw it and heard it here first. We have heard (from a VERY connected national media source) that Ferguson officer Darren Wilson will be cleared in the shooting of Michael Brown. The key: Dorian Johnson has now admitted that Michael Brown attacked Officer Wilson and attempted to take his gun. OFFICER WILSON WILL NOT BE CHARGED! This is scary. When this news is made official, we all have reason to be concerned about the reaction.
 
Last edited:

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,708
513
126
1.) Witnesses are relaying what happened as they perceive (judged) it (not what they witnessed)

That's an issue.

Witnesses can be unreliable just because most are not trained observers.

It reminds me of an example I read about where a group of people are asked to count how many times a group of people pass a basketball on a court in a video that is subsequently played for them.

After the video is played they are also asked an additional question about the gorilla that walked on the court while people were passing the basketball.

A lot of them then ask "What Gorilla?"

Then the video is played again and sure enough a person in a gorilla suit onto the court turns to look at the camera briefly, while people are passing a basketball, then walks off again.

Some people never recall seeing the gorilla because they're too busy focusing on counting.


Different witnesses can look at the same incident and tell you different versions not because some are lying and others are not but just because the human brain isn't a perfect recording device.

And that's the problem. The police are effectively above the law. This is far from an isolated instance.
And that's the problem. The police are effectively above the law. This is far from an isolated instance.

This should be judged on whatever evidence that can be gathered says happened.

It is quite possible that Officer Wilson was in a situation where events unfolded in a way where a reasonable person would fear for his life and he should be exonerated.
I'm on the fence now.
I haven't heard of any absolutely conclusive physical evidence and eyewitnesses are relating different versions of how events unfolded.

Unfortunately many people will bring their own viewpoints and look at this through a prism.

"Police always abuse power" "Teenagers today are nothing but thugs."

It's like having over 7 billion people on earth has driven people collectively unsane.


.....
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,764
28,977
136
Of course it was. These are poor black people living in subsidized housing (the shooting happened in a Section 8 housing area). They are under great societal pressure not to cooperate with the police at all, and particularly not when it comes to clearing the name of a white police officer who killed a black guy. The "snitches get stitches" phenomenon is very real. If you want to get completely pissed off, watch this 60 Minute segment - http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1ss1u_60-minutes-stop-snitching-04-22-200_shortfilms

While there is a "don't snitch" mentality in many black communities its due mainly to mistrust of the police.

If your premise is true these witnesses would never come forward. So until those people come forward in public I'm suspect of the existence of these witnesses.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,764
28,977
136
Precisely the same evidence that justifies the prosecution of the officer? That is to say, eye witness accounts that starkly contrast the early narrative of hands being raised and/or shots fired into the back. Accounts of a charging MB who had already assaulted the officer.

BTW - to date I have only "heard" of the existence of these witnesses. We have yet to get a story first hand from any of them.

Even the phone interview of a woman recounting the cops version got the story from the cops girlfriend. That's double hearsay.

You are correct there are conflicts of shots in the back but the raised hands has been consistent.