Missouri Police Officer guns down unarmed 18 year old

[xBiffx]

Running directly away or directly towards you is essentially the same as standing still. The aim is for center mass.

I'll add that if they are running towards you, you tend to get more accurate with successive shots as well.

 

[soundforbjt]

I know you're thinking critically, how else could you take a stance that in the following examples,


"the dude (Brown) started running ... kept coming towards the police"

is materially different than,

"the dude (Brown) charged the police",

This is bias, not stupidity in your case.

"kept coming towards the police" is not the same as "charging" in my eyes, maybe yours. We'll just have to agree to disagree until all the evidence comes out.

 

[WackyDan]

Ah, so you now believe that the guy who was running for his life, turned and said fuck it, I'm going to charge at this police officer who has a gun and who has already tried to shoot him twice?

Yep makes total sense! I mean that's how normal people instinctively react, right?


So other than speculation and hearsay what exactly has caused you to give the officer the benefit of the doubt? Seeing a video of the most violent robbery ever? Lol! You aren't interested in the truth so stop pretending😉

I am interested in the truth and that's why he has the benefit of the doubt. I'm not one of these emotional race baiters who feel obligated to spin the narrative that the officer is a bad cop and executed a black 18 year old out of shear malice. There is plenty of details that allow me to give him the benefit of the doubt over that of Michael Brown.

"Yep makes total sense! I mean that's how normal people instinctively react, right?"

Brown wasn't normal people. Normal people don't commit strong arm robbery and normal people don't assault police officers. Pretty simple concept.

 

[xBiffx]

"kept coming towards the police" is not the same as "charging" in my eyes, maybe yours. We'll just have to agree to disagree until all the evidence comes out.

Semantics. I truly hope this case is not about or decided on by semantics.

 

[ivwshane]

There are rumors that the brown camp witnesses are credible. Just that...

There is no difference in the credibility of either side other than the narrative is subtly changing in regard to what people think originally could have happened.

What we will see, is that ***if the officer was justified and followed proper protocol, the Brown supporters are fully invested and will double down on their narrative that the officer was in the wrong.

Actually there is a difference, a pretty big one too! One side has real, verifiable witnesses, the otherside doesn't. Right now the option is to believe the living and breathing or to believe an invisible witness.

As someone who relies on facts, it also means I must rely on what's in the here and now.

 

[werepossum]

"Murdered" is a value judgement not yet made by society. But beyond that, the suspect's own behavior controls 95% of whether he or she is arrested or shot dead. This chart also ignores the huge number of black murderers who are apprehended in a pathetic attempt to convince that blacks are murdered and whites are apprehended.

Evidently I'm a shallow person as I'm much sadder about the babe at lower right being killed than about Chokesaurus browni being killed. This is independent of whether or not Wilson should be prosecuted for killing Brown though. I'd just really, really prefer running into her.

Yet you are calling it evidence. Not only that, police are lying about it.

Your standards are not the same in that, as Attic stated, they are double. I'll also add your standards don't fit any description synonymous with objective either.

I'm going to agree with Homer here. The police have an obligation to say that Wilson's orbital socket was not broken if that story is being circulated and they know it isn't true. Absent this, I'm assuming that either it is true, or the police want us to think it's true until we have chosen a side, assuming that our choice will stay the same if we later learn that the attack did not happen or caused no real damage.* I'm not accepting or rejecting it until it is confirmed and backed up or not, but the longer this is delayed the less faith I have that it is true.

* To me whether or not there is significant damage IS important, as it could be considered the difference between a deliberate and dangerous attack and merely trying to get away.

Hell, there may even be legal issues preventing the discussion of other people's medical records.

There certainly are. However, the interests of both vested parties (Wilson and Wilson's employer) are absolutely in line with waiving this privilege in the interests of getting this information out there on record in the court of public opinion, which largely determines how many people riot, attack cops, and loot. I am absolutely not buying the notion that Wilson is unable to waive privacy on his own medical records. And given that they shared the videos of Brown attacking the store clerk, which is certainly part of the shooting investigation, I'm not the notion that the police department is unwilling or even unable to release evidence until the investigation is complete.

 

[WackyDan]

Again, there is nothing inconsistent with the shot count and the eye witness accounts. Brown ran, he was shot at, he was hit, his body reacted to the hit by jerking his body and turning around. There is no reason to not believe that the one ambiguous shot was the one that hit brown while he was running away. Brown then turns around and stops running and the officer now has a much better shot and he takes five of them.

So other than speculation and hearsay what exactly has caused you to give Brown the benefit of the doubt? Lol! You aren't interested in the truth so stop pretending

See what I did there?

 

[xBiffx]

Actually there is a difference, a pretty big one too! One side has real, verifiable witnesses, the otherside doesn't. Right now the option is to believe the living and breathing or to believe an invisible witness.

As someone who relies on facts, it also means I must rely on what's in the here and now.

Doesn't make them any more credible and credibility is the key here.

If you like, names can be given for the witnesses on the other side. John Doe and Jane Doe sound good.

 

[spidey07]

There are rumors that the brown camp witnesses are credible. Just that...

There is no difference in the credibility of either side other than the narrative is subtly changing in regard to what people think originally could have happened.

What we will see, is that ***if the officer was justified and followed proper protocol, the Brown supporters are fully invested and will double down on their narrative that the officer was in the wrong.

They've already setup their excuse.

"Prosecutor's family was cops so he would do everything he could to protect the murdering white boy"

And wait until the officers bashed face makes it public.

"Well, he wasn't beat that badly, he didn't have to murder the child"

 

[spidey07]

"kept coming towards the police" is not the same as "charging" in my eyes, maybe yours. We'll just have to agree to disagree until all the evidence comes out.

"He's coming right towards us" most certainly DOES mean charging. That's the definition of the word.

 

[WackyDan]

Actually there is a difference, a pretty big one too! One side has real, verifiable witnesses, the otherside doesn't. Right now the option is to believe the living and breathing or to believe an invisible witness.

As someone who relies on facts, it also means I must rely on what's in the here and now.

Bullshit. There has been no statement from investigators that the eyewitnesses that claim to have seen Brown shot in the back, surrendering, etc are credible. That their stories align and that they were even close enough to have seen anything. All you have is media interviews with people who claim to have seen it, didn't see the whole event, or were repeating what they think they were supposed to see.

You can't name one eyewitness that the investigation has listed as credible for either side.

 

[LTC8K6]

Well it is possible to empty a clip faster than it is to speak an entire sentence. I think you can pretty much empty a clip in about 1 sec. Average finger muscle twitch speed is 30 mS. Just about anybody can pull a trigger every 150 mS (5 times longer than average finger muscle twitch time). You could begin to scream in that amount of time but it doubtful if anybody would hear you.

Well, Brown was actually first shot at the car door. He had plenty of time to yell about that.

Johnson saw a lot of blood from Brown's right side while Brown was still at the vehicle door.

So the first shot hit Brown on his right side, according to Johnson.

 

[ivwshane]

I am interested in the truth and that's why he has the benefit of the doubt. I'm not one of these emotional race baiters who feel obligated to spin the narrative that the officer is a bad cop and executed a black 18 year old out of shear malice. There is plenty of details that allow me to give him the benefit of the doubt over that of Michael Brown.

"Yep makes total sense! I mean that's how normal people instinctively react, right?"

Brown wasn't normal people. Normal people don't commit strong arm robbery and normal people don't assault police officers. Pretty simple concept.

Strong arm robbery? Assaulting a police officer? These aren't facts.

The store video shows a confrontation between brown and the clerk, the video shows brown taking a box of cigars and it also shows him putting them back and taking a couple. Do you have more information than that? All I have is what I see on the video, I can make assumptions as to what happened but that doesn't make them facts.

As to assaulting the police officer, what facts do you have that back up that narrative? A witness? What else has that witness said? Do you have any actual evidence that corroborates their statement?

Again, if you are interested in the truth then everything you currently believe should be easily verified by actual evidence. What is that evidence?

 

[ivwshane]

Bullshit. There has been no statement from investigators that the eyewitnesses that claim to have seen Brown shot in the back, surrendering, etc are credible. That their stories align and that they were even close enough to have seen anything. All you have is media interviews with people who claim to have seen it, didn't see the whole event, or were repeating what they think they were supposed to see.

You can't name one eyewitness that the investigation has listed as credible for either side.

Lol! Yes, I've seen no one claim that brown was shot in the back. What I do have and have posted, is a video of a witness who was quite close to the incident, tell the press what she saw. What do you have? Nothing. Exactly!

 

[TerryMathews]

With no video, it's the officer's account against multiple eyewitnesses and very little definitive forensics...the witnesses have all stated the officer fired at Brown while he was facing the officer as well as while the was running away.

Incorrect. You mean little definitive forensics that has been released to date.

Brown's clothing and the officer's medical reports if any would be very relevant pieces of evidence that can answer multiple questions.

 

[ivwshane]

"He's coming right towards us" most certainly DOES mean charging. That's the definition of the word.

Lol! God you are fucking retarded!

Btw the definition for "charging" is:
to make an onset; rush, as to an attack.

 

[ivwshane]

Well, Brown was actually first shot at the car door. He had plenty of time to yell about that.

Johnson saw a lot of blood from Brown's right side while Brown was still at the vehicle door.

So the first shot hit Brown on his right side, according to Johnson.

So there should be blood evidence on the vehicle door then, correct?

It shouldn't be too hard to find some pics of said door to corroborate with that detail.

 

[TerryMathews]

So there should be blood evidence on the vehicle door then, correct?

It shouldn't be too hard to find some pics of said door to corroborate with that detail.

Is there some reason you tools are unwilling to accept that there is likely evidence that hasn't been released yet?

 

[werepossum]

Running vs standing still? plausible reason...

As long as Wilson is not running and Brown is running directly toward (or away from) him, the center mass firing solution does not much change. Obviously left to right doesn't change, and since the shooter's aim for center mass (or if you will, the triangle formed by shoulders and naval) will be more or less horizontal in any practical distance.

The less explicable thing to me is why Brown would stop running unless Wilson is shooting at him. Having attacked Wilson and ran, he had to know that Wilson would pursue. Seems more likely to me that Brown would stop to turn and surrender OR turn and attack if he seriously believes he's about shot in the back.

Link please, I've seen no official declaration by the police that they have these dozen witnesses, only a post on a right-wing blog by a reporter who gets her info from an unnamed source.

Assuming Wilson goes to trial and these witnesses do not appear, there's a natural inclination to suspect that they were scared to testify. Thus from the police's standpoint leaking the rumor of multiple corroborating when there are in fact few or none can subtly bias potential jurors.

I'm a law and order conservative kinda guy; I'm predisposed to believe the cops. But I need to see the evidence. The video of Brown attacking the store clerk really changed my mind about him, but assholes get murdered too, and so far the official story of the shooting isn't making any sense to me.

 

[nehalem256]

Strong arm robbery? Assaulting a police officer? These aren't facts.

The store video shows a confrontation between brown and the clerk, the video shows brown taking a box of cigars and it also shows him putting them back and taking a couple. Do you have more information than that? All I have is what I see on the video, I can make assumptions as to what happened but that doesn't make them facts.

As to assaulting the police officer, what facts do you have that back up that narrative? A witness? What else has that witness said? Do you have any actual evidence that corroborates their statement?

Again, if you are interested in the truth then everything you currently believe should be easily verified by actual evidence. What is that evidence?

So you won't believe video evidence that is "inconvenient" for you?

Guess there isn't much point in police body/dash cams then is there?

 

[Svnla]

Lol! God you are fucking retarded!

Btw the definition for "charging" is:
to make an onset; rush, as to an attack.

You missed an important word, "forward" as in rush forward, moving forward to a target or object.

 

[soundforbjt]

As long as Wilson is not running and Brown is running directly toward (or away from) him, the center mass firing solution does not much change. Obviously left to right doesn't change, and since the shooter's aim for center mass (or if you will, the triangle formed by shoulders and naval) will be more or less horizontal in any practical distance.

The less explicable thing to me is why Brown would stop running unless Wilson is shooting at him. Having attacked Wilson and ran, he had to know that Wilson would pursue. Seems more likely to me that Brown would stop to turn and surrender OR turn and attack if he seriously believes he's about shot in the back.


Assuming Wilson goes to trial and these witnesses do not appear, there's a natural inclination to suspect that they were scared to testify. Thus from the police's standpoint leaking the rumor of multiple corroborating when there are in fact few or none can subtly bias potential jurors.

I'm a law and order conservative kinda guy; I'm predisposed to believe the cops. But I need to see the evidence. The video of Brown attacking the store clerk really changed my mind about him, but assholes get murdered too, and so far the official story of the shooting isn't making any sense to me.

One of my best friends is a retired officer, twenty five years on the force, I've never had a "run-in" with a bad officer, just the opposite. But he told me about some bad ones he worked with, glad I never had any interaction with them...

 

[ivwshane]

So other than speculation and hearsay what exactly has caused you to give Brown the benefit of the doubt? Lol! You aren't interested in the truth so stop pretending

See what I did there?

I don't have enough evidence one way or the other😉


Did you see what I did there? I made no judgement because I don't have all the facts.

 

[ivwshane]

Is there some reason you tools are unwilling to accept that there is likely evidence that hasn't been released yet?

Sure I can accept that there is evidence that hasn't been released. Should I assume that evidence exist or should I rely on evidence that is currently available?

So who is the tool now? The guy that believes there is info that backs up claims but that info hasn't been released or the guy who is relying on the info at hand?

Careful, don't embarrass yourself trying to answer that😉

 

[ivwshane]

You missed an important word, "forward" as in rush forward, moving forward to a target or object.

Do you know the difference between stumbling forward and rushing forward? I suspect you do but if you want to play the moron, you are doing a fine job.