Missouri Police Officer guns down unarmed 18 year old

Page 80 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,764
28,977
136
Well that may be true but the cop said Brown charged him and:



Probably not worth much but it is something.

We will have to wait for the grand jury to know anything for sure. Currently I am leaning towards the cops story be closer to the truth. My opinion of Brown changed drastically after seeing him on video bullying a man less than half his size..... that struck a nerve with me.

I understand but I think that's why the police released it. They knew there would be that kind of public reaction thereby giving more of a justification to shoot Brown.

My biggest problem with police is their leaking of stories without any evidence or ability to prove. The broken orbital would be the easiest thing to prove by releasing a picture but they haven't which makes be think, did they make it up??
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
The shooting was either appropriate or it wasn't. Race should have no bearing.

I agree, race should have no bearing, but it does. Pretending that we don't live in a society with a long and violent history of interracial conflict is delusional, and that plays out in interactions between the police and black people across the country. Just listen to the quotes from the citizens who live in Ferguson talking about how they're scared of police. It's an underlying problem that colors any interactions within that community, and that's hardly the only place in this country where that's true. Even looking at some of the comments posted here about "thug culture" and the like reveal racial prejudices that belie the notion of a post-racial America. So, yes, in a perfect world, we ignore race and just focus on the act itself. But this isn't a perfect world. This is a community that's 67% black being policed by a force that's 94% white. Do you really think race doesn't matter?
 

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
What it makes them is the only witnesses who back up most of Brown version. I'm giving Paiget credibility because she told her story early when there were no sides to take. Now could she have made mistakes, yes but the shooting while surrendering so far holds up.

Are you willing to discredit these witnesses vs having no witnesses that side with cops story?

As for Brown being a criminal that doesn't mean he is necessary lying. Just like police department doesn't always tell the truth, which has happened in this case.

What do you mean there were no sides to take early? Now I know you're full of it.

You seem to think that having a name witness carries a great deal more weight than someone saying that "there is a witness that says such and such". I don't. Why? Because one isn't any more or less believable than the other.
 

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
I don't know about that. What is relevant is that the friend had just aided and abetted Mr Brown in a strong arm robbery on camera not 15 minutes before the shooting. Given that, if he and Mr Brown assaulted the cop and tried to take his gun, I would not expect the friend to be honest and say as much to the media. The friend was hardly a disinterested third

So it seems you would agree that the friend's criminality is relevant, considering you just pointed out a crime he was just involved in.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
One consistent theme amongst all the supporters of Brown is - the notion that there is absolutely nothing an unarmed person can do that could justify being shot.

I don't agree with that. And it doesn't matter skin color. If an unarmed white person gets in a fight with an officer, there is the chance he will be shot. And I am fine with that reality.

Every killing should be looked at, but to flat out say shooting at an unarmed person should never happen, meaning under any and all circumstances, in my opinion is wrong.

When the conversation follows this line:

-What happen?
"He was unarmed and was shot."
-Did anything else happen?
"He was unarmed."
-Did he do anything to threaten the officer?
"The cop was armed, while he was unarmed."
-Did the earlier robbery influence the conflict?
"No, he was unarmed during the robbery and was unarmed during the conflict with the cop."
-An unarmed person is capable of doing great harm to and even killing a person.
-"Fucking racist cop lover!"
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
34,061
8,082
136
What do you mean there were no sides to take early? Now I know you're full of it.

You seem to think that having a name witness carries a great deal more weight than someone saying that "there is a witness that says such and such". I don't. Why? Because one isn't any more or less believable than the other.

Rumors of witnesses have FAR less credibility than actual witnesses.
 

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
Rumors of witnesses have FAR less credibility than actual witnesses.

Sorry, they don't. Giving a witness a name and a face does not make said witness more credible.

Witnesses are found not credible all the time.
 

Attic

Diamond Member
Jan 9, 2010
4,282
2
76
I agree, race should have no bearing, but it does. Pretending that we don't live in a society with a long and violent history of interracial conflict is delusional, and that plays out in interactions between the police and black people across the country. Just listen to the quotes from the citizens who live in Ferguson talking about how they're scared of police. It's an underlying problem that colors any interactions within that community, and that's hardly the only place in this country where that's true. Even looking at some of the comments posted here about "thug culture" and the like reveal racial prejudices that belie the notion of a post-racial America. So, yes, in a perfect world, we ignore race and just focus on the act itself. But this isn't a perfect world. This is a community that's 67% black being policed by a force that's 94% white. Do you really think race doesn't matter?


Well put.

The PD should have adapted to the situation to help alleviate and quell the tensions that were clearly building, rather than rigidly adhere to formal procedure. We saw the outcome, it was avoidable. The other significant problem here were the instigators and race baiters that pounced on this "opportunity" to do their dirty work and build the hysteria to a dangerous crescendo. Ultimately the ones who had more control were the race baiters and tragedy hustlers who swooped in on this incident.

Government is rigid and tends not to have an ability to delineate in unique or individual circumstances. They were easy to game by the baiters.
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,763
327
126
This is a community that's 67% black being policed by a force that's 94% white.

And why is that today? With all the affirmative action and other programs supposedly designed to overcome, why is there such a disparity? Where are the black men and women who could fill these positions as they come open? Are there so few qualified in Ferguson the PD has to go elsewhere to find qualified candidates.

To say this is overt racism I think misses a very important fact. There are opportunities available. Institutional racism is for the most part dead or at east buried deep. individuals can certainly be racist, but virtually an entire PD is white in an overwhelming black community???
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
Sorry, they don't. Giving a witness a name and a face does not make said witness more credible.

Witnesses are found not credible all the time.

The point is, if someone says "I saw it happen, and here's what I saw," that's someone you can ask questions of to get more details. If someone says, "Yeah, I heard like 12 people tell me this is what happened, and they were all there," you can't ask follow-up questions; it's just hearsay at that point. Without identifying who the witnesses are, it's inherently less credible than someone who you can cross-examine (which is why hearsay is inadmissible as evidence).
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,764
28,977
136
What do you mean there were no sides to take early? Now I know you're full of it.

You seem to think that having a name witness carries a great deal more weight than someone saying that "there is a witness that says such and such". I don't. Why? Because one isn't any more or less believable than the other.

I saw the interview Paiget gave, I think Mon or Tue after shooting Sun. Its your contention she decided at that moment to make up a story on the cop and tell the media. Your theory falls apart when her surrender and shoot observation matched Jackson. None of the parties(Paiget, [Jackson/Brown]) knew each other and there was not ample time for Paiget to track down Jackson, concoct a story and then disseminate to the media. I believe she told what she thinks happened.

As for the cops version there is no eye witness to date.

So you are choosing not to believe 2 witnesses vs 0 witnesses. Why I don't know.
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,315
1,215
126
I understand but I think that's why the police released it. They knew there would be that kind of public reaction thereby giving more of a justification to shoot Brown.

My biggest problem with police is their leaking of stories without any evidence or ability to prove. The broken orbital would be the easiest thing to prove by releasing a picture but they haven't which makes be think, did they make it up??


Yea I don't get that either. If the cops DON'T have the goods to back up the innuendo, they are going to look simply horrific. We will know one way or the other in a few days or weeks.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,764
28,977
136
Sorry, they don't. Giving a witness a name and a face does not make said witness more credible.

Witnesses are found not credible all the time.

What have the actual witnesses done/said that makes you think they are not credible??
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
And why is that today? With all the affirmative action and other programs supposedly designed to overcome, why is there such a disparity? Where are the black men and women who could fill these positions as they come open? Are there so few qualified in Ferguson the PD has to go elsewhere to find qualified candidates.

To say this is overt racism I think misses a very important fact. There are opportunities available. Institutional racism is for the most part dead or at east buried deep. individuals can certainly be racist, but virtually an entire PD is white in an overwhelming black community???

I didn't mean to suggest that this was an act of racism on part of the police; I do think it's telling that black men and women frequently talk about being scared of police though. That's not necessarily because the police are racist, but it probably doesn't help that a predominantly black community has a predominantly white group exercising authority.
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,763
327
126
I didn't mean to suggest that this was an act of racism on part of the police; I do think it's telling that black men and women frequently talk about being scared of police though. That's not necessarily because the police are racist, but it probably doesn't help that a predominantly black community has a predominantly white group exercising authority.

And I did not intend to imply you did. I can agree it probably does not help as well having a predominately white PD in a black neighborhood. It "should" not matter but still does.

It still begs the question of why there are not more black officers on the PD force. The opportunity is there.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
That's exactly my point. I'd convict the officer if those witnesses aren't real. If Brown was shot at a distance of 35 feet, while running away or with his arms up. To change my mind there must be evidence to cast doubt on that.
Exactly. I can see excellent reasons for such witnesses to not come out in the public eye, but the existence of excellent reasons for anonymity does not automatically make such witnesses exist, or make them necessarily credible, or necessarily mean that the representations we've been given of their testimony are fundamentally accurate. I'm very much concerned that the police have not released corroborating evidence for the story that Wilson suffered a broken orbital socket since the two parties who would have to waive privacy, Wilson and his employer, have a strong interest in having such evidence emerge. A broken eye socket represents a deliberate and fairly serious attack; "swelling on the side of his face" could represent anything from an undiagnosed broken orbital socket to an attorney's advice and, even if an actual injury, might well represent very slight damage inflicted while attempting to escape Wilson's clutches. Big difference to me. And I'm not accepting the story about not releasing evidence in an investigation; they released the surveillance tapes of Brown's strong arm robbery quickly enough.

I very much dislike the opinion that an unarmed person should be allowed to safely beat the crap out of someone weaker without incurring the risk of deadly force, but that dislike doesn't make me automatically believe every claim of being beaten or accept every possible use of deadly force in response.

The point is, if someone says "I saw it happen, and here's what I saw," that's someone you can ask questions of to get more details. If someone says, "Yeah, I heard like 12 people tell me this is what happened, and they were all there," you can't ask follow-up questions; it's just hearsay at that point. Without identifying who the witnesses are, it's inherently less credible than someone who you can cross-examine (which is why hearsay is inadmissible as evidence).
That plus we're getting their testimony through third parties who may well be interpreting it through their own needs and opinions.
 

Attic

Diamond Member
Jan 9, 2010
4,282
2
76
With eyewitnesses, their account has to match evidence to see whose telling the truth or not. We have multiple eyewitness accounts, but little physical evidence to go on. It's not the eyewitness accounts that will cancel eachother out, but the layover of physical evidence and eyewitness accounts that will cancel out certain eyewitness accounts and bring others into focus as legit.

If eyewitness "A" has 75% of their account that can be proved or disproved by physical evidence then whether or not it is approved or disproved makes a pretty big difference in the legitimacy of the remaining 25% of their story. Where physical evidence is lacking that 25% part might be critical. If eyewitness B offers an account that simply can't be corroborated by physical it's hard to trust. If eyewitness C gives an account that can be matched 90% of physical and it does, the remaining 10% no matter what the 10% is weighted heavily. The investigators by this point should have a pretty good idea of the caliber of eyewitness accounts by this time.

We are stuck knowing little about physical evidence, but this will/should weed out legit eyewitness accounts from the forgeries. We can still play whack a mole with accounts that clearly don't match up known physical, but if known physical is very limited it leaves most eyewitness accounts somewhat murky. Judgement call on who would be more likely to lie/manipulate/embellish than others. Dorian Johnson should not have been paraded out on national TV, that account crowdfunds intent to create similar accounts. Poisoned the well IMO. Dorian is an interesting cat though, it appears that he returned the cigarellos to the clerk when Brown was in that store and took cigarellos. If this is true, speaks pretty heavy to positive of Dorians character (doing right thing in face of obstacles-in that case browns intent to steal cigarellos).
 
Last edited:

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
The point is, if someone says "I saw it happen, and here's what I saw," that's someone you can ask questions of to get more details. If someone says, "Yeah, I heard like 12 people tell me this is what happened, and they were all there," you can't ask follow-up questions; it's just hearsay at that point. Without identifying who the witnesses are, it's inherently less credible than someone who you can cross-examine (which is why hearsay is inadmissible as evidence).

If the police, or anyone else, say they have witnesses wouldn't that fit the description of someone they can follow-up with and cross-examine. Just because they have no names at this point doesn't change that.

There are plenty of reasons not to identify the witnesses as well. Everyone is forgetting that much.
 
Last edited:

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
What have the actual witnesses done/said that makes you think they are not credible??

Nothing they have done/said makes me think they are credible. That's my point.

I put zero credibility into just an eye witness with nothing to corroborate the story. So far, there are no facts, just supposition and opinion on details of the events.

Same goes for the "other witnesses" who back up Wilson's story. Both stories are compelling but neither is any more believable than the other based on just witness testimony.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,764
28,977
136
Nothing they have done/said makes me think they are credible. That's my point.

I put zero credibility into just an eye witness with nothing to corroborate the story. So far, there are no facts, just supposition and opinion on details of the events.

Same goes for the "other witnesses" who back up Wilson's story. Both stories are compelling but neither is any more believable than the other based on just witness testimony.

Right now we only have preponderance of the evidence. Seems so far its weighted towards the Brown story. That may change. Gunshots to the arm/hand favor Brown.

Also police leaking unsubstantiated stories (broken orbital) sullies their credibility.
 
Last edited:

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
Ok, so I'll ask the opposite question, what have the 0 witnesses for the cop said/done that convince you they are credible?

Nothing, and I never said they were. What I have said, multiple times, is that one is no more credible than the other. Are you slowly getting this?
 

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
Right now we only have preponderance of the evidence. Seems so far its weighted towards the Brown story. That may change.

What evidence do we have other than I'm fairly certain it can be agreed that Brown is dead and Wilson did the shooting?

Also police leaking unsubstantiated stories (broken orbital) sullies their credibility.

Only to someone with questionable objectivity, like yourself.