Fergusonj shooting, autopsy in, all shots from front

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

The world is a safer place without Big, Bad, Michael Brown.

You should be more than this, David.

But apparently you are not.

@parados,

parados wrote:

Walking down the middle of the street is jaywalking.

Quote:
jay·walk
ˈjāˌwôk/
verb
North American
gerund or present participle: jaywalking

cross or walk in the street or road unlawfully or without regard for approaching traffic.

Thank you for that, Parados.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I stand by what I said.

I 'll let YOU glorify evil.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:

And you want the cop to stand charges before the investigation is complete,
I DO want the lickspittles to stop this stupid uninformed upport of an event that, from its appearance is certainly not a proportional punishment now is it?

You've ignored the Glenn Becks clamoring to NOT try him by merely reversing the charges --good, LAZY, but good.

Lazy? Why am I compelled to comment on what Glenn Beck has to say? I don't pay any attention to him, he's not in this forum, and you didn't request anyone comment on his remarks. It seems from your posts that you want to see the cop indicted based upon how the incident appears to you; based on limited information. You wouldn't be alone and that's what I wished to comment upon.

Like all of these incidents, we don't know all the facts, and there have been plenty of times (not solely having to due with charges of police brutality and misconduct) when the initial reporting has created a picture that "appears" to be something it is not. The Duke Lacrosse Team rape incident comes to mind as does the Tawana Bradley hoax. In both cases there were lots of people getting their hanging ropes out of the closet before the investigations were complete, and in the former, the DA was leading the lynch mob.

These rushes to judgment fueled by prejudice, media stoked hysteria, and prosecutorial aggression are not limited to cases where there is a racial component. If you know anything about the Memphis Three case, you'll probably agree that it was a complete travesty of justice that ruined the lives of three white teenagers, and almost ended the life of one. The certainty that these three "white trash" kids were guilty of Satanic ritual murders was widespread.

It's a damned good thing that "innocent until proven guilty" is a foundational element of our legal system, because left to our own impulses, our judgments tend to be the exact opposite.

Unless I missed something, there is no video, with sound, that clearly shows what happened here from the moment the two came into contact until one was laying dead. The "appearence" of what happened has been blurred by conflicting "evidence," the accounts of possibly unreliable witnesses, and comments made by people with an agenda other than seeing that true justice prevails.

The fact that Brown was shot six times does "appear" to be an excessive response, but cops aren't taught to shoot to wound, they are taught to shoot to stop and shooting to stop usually means shots that kill. If the cop was warranted in shooting Brown (a possibility that remains unproven), it doesn't really matter whether he fired once or twice or six times.

Darren Wilson is a person. He's not a symbol for white racism. He is in hiding now because of the very real possibility of some self-styled vigilante deciding the hell with a trial, the cop needs to be executed. If he is guilty of a crime he should be convicted and sentenced, but what I'm afraid is shaping up here is Darren Wilson being tried for the abuse African-Americans have received at the hands of police. Folks can cite statistics all day long about disparate treatment, but every time a black man is arrested, or injured or killed by a cop, racism and/or excessive force is not at play.

We heard a lot of comments along the line of "Michael Brown was killed because he was guilty of the crime of being a black man." That may be the case here, but whether or not it is, Darren Wilson shouldn't be convicted and sentenced for being guilty of the crime of being a white cop in a community that believes it has been unfairly treated by the police.

And, you didn't answer my question: Do you want to see him indicated and prosecuted before the investigation is complete?

Lazy?

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I stand by what I said.

I 'll let YOU glorify evil.

You are personifying evil with the words you used, David.

I keep wanting to think it is beneath you. But as I noted, apparently it is not.

0 Replies

Quote:

#Ferguson: NAACP says Micheal Brown star witness being guilty of lying to police ‘doesn’t concern’ them

Funny how credibility is viewed through a racial prism. This guy has no credibility. But let's not let facts get in the way.
http://conservativehideout.com/2014/08/22/ferguson-naacp-says-micheal-brown-star-witness-being-guilty-of-lying-to-police-doesnt-concern-them/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Actually, I agree with lots of what you wrote here, Finn. It was an even-handed presentation...and your argument was cogent.

There should be no rush to judgment...and often "rushes to judgment" are proven wrong. Mistakes have been made in the past.

At some point, however, these kinds of things are going to set a kettle boiling that will not simmer down.

Black young men are not going to take the kind of nonsense that comes their way as often as it does. One day, when the summer is particularly hot...and some white cop or white vigilante happens to gun down a young black man...WHETHER RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY, WHETHER JUSTIFIED OR NOT...all this that preceded will blow up in all our faces...and innocent blacks and whites will pay a very, very heavy price. Our nation will pay a heavy price.

We are setting a modern history for this sort of thing...and it is not a pretty thing I am seeing. I hear people in this forum who feel very much the opposite way. David, for instance, is asserting the world is a better place because Brown is dead...just as he asserted that the world is a better place because Trayvon Martin is dead. And he is far from the only one taking positions on this sort of thing that should repulse anyone with a brain.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

The officer who shot Brown was not aiming to kill with his first few shots, he shot him in the arm. The fatal shot was one fired at the head. At no time did he aim at Brown's body mass.

I love it when people with little understand of firearms talk about firearms. He wasn't aiming for center mass? You know that for a fact?

What if his possible broken eye socket had his aim off? I can tell you from the track of the bullets that most of those shots were fired from bottom to top. How do I know this? I fired a lot of guns and the recoil forces the gun up. When you are firing in rapid succession, which someone would be doing if there were being charged at, the gun jumps up and you have to correct. This is why you see the bullet holes "climb" up the body. It would make perfect sense that the lower shots were the first ones, and the ones that ended up in his head were the last shots.

Do you know how long it takes to charge someone from 20 feet away? It only takes a second or two to cover 20 feet. The average person can cover about 7 feet in about half a second. So at 20 feet, it would take about 2 seconds to cover that distance. It has been estimated that a cop can draw his weapon and fire in about the same amount of time. Cops used to train with what they called the "21 Foot rule". It has been altered since then to allow for more distance. Check the article below for a good read on procedure. The article is from 2007 but I'm pretty sure the info hasn't changed all that much.

http://www.policemag.com/channel/patrol/articles/2007/10/rethinking-the-21-foot-rule.aspx

This is the reason I have asked Frank several times to ask his family in LE. He has no training in LE but seems to think he knows the answers.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

Quote:
The officer who shot Brown was not aiming to kill with his first few shots, he shot him in the arm. The fatal shot was one fired at the head. At no time did he aim at Brown's body mass.

I love it when people with little understand of firearms talk about firearms. He wasn't aiming for center mass? You know that for a fact?

What if his possible broken eye socket had his aim off? I can tell you from the track of the bullets that most of those shots were fired from bottom to top. How do I know this? I fired a lot of guns and the recoil forces the gun up. When you are firing in rapid succession, which someone would be doing if there were being charged at, the gun jumps up and you have to correct. This is why you see the bullet holes "climb" up the body. It would make perfect sense that the lower shots were the first ones, and the ones that ended up in his head were the last shots.

Do you know how long it takes to charge someone from 20 feet away? It only takes a second or two to cover 20 feet. The average person can cover about 7 feet in about half a second. So at 20 feet, it would take about 2 seconds to cover that distance. It has been estimated that a cop can draw his weapon and fire in about the same amount of time. Cops used to train with what they called the "21 Foot rule". It has been altered since then to allow for more distance. Check the article below for a good read on procedure. The article is from 2007 but I'm pretty sure the info hasn't changed all that much.

http://www.policemag.com/channel/patrol/articles/2007/10/rethinking-the-21-foot-rule.aspx

This is the reason I have asked Frank several times to ask his family in LE. He has no training in LE but seems to think he knows the answers.

For the record, Baldimo...I questioned Firefly's comments long before you did. I used almost the same words.

I have not questioned the training...and I realize if one has to fire...one should aim for the body mass. Nothing I have said indicates otherwise.

And I responded to your question about asking family members in law enforcement about this...WHICH IS MORE THAN YOU HAVE DONE FOR THE QUESTION I ASKED YOU.

The issue should not be when I will respond (I already have)...the issue should be when will YOU.

1 Reply

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

The officer who shot Brown was not aiming to kill with his first few shots, he shot him in the arm. The fatal shot was one fired at the head. At no time did he aim at Brown's body mass.

I agree with everything you've written, but would note that this could mean that he wasn't very skilled with aiming and firing a gun. (I suppose there is a possibility that he was highly skilled and either could have been trying to make him stop with the first shots and when this didn't work he went for the coup de grace, or that he was a sadist who wanted to make Brown suffer - neither seem plausible though)

Or it could mean that the situation was very volatile and he didn't have the opportunity to take careful aim.

Regardless, his own testimony as to what happened will be a key factor in determining the truth. If the PD followed standard procedure, Wilson would have been interviewed very soon after the shooting and provided a written or video statement. In this way he would not have had sufficient time to concoct a bulletproof (no pun intended) story as to what happened. If his account of the shooting differs significantly from the physical evidence, it will be a good indication that he lied in giving it, and will be one more piece of evidence to support a case against him.

Wilson would need to be a psychotic genius to come up with a lie that fit the physical evidence relatively soon after what (irrespective of his intent) had to be a very emotionally charged experience.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Which question was that Frank? Whether 6 bullets was excessive or not? I already answered that question. Did your old eyes miss it?

2 Replies

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

Which question was that Frank? Whether 6 bullets was excessive or not? I already answered that question. Did your old eyes miss it?

No, Baldimo...it was not about what seems to be the excessive amount of bullets in the young mans body.

My question has to do with what you just said I did not respond to...the question of asking my relatives in law enforcement.

My response and the question I asked you is contained in this post:

http://able2know.org/topic/252350-9#post-5746297

Hope you old eyes didn't miss it...and that it simply was something you wanted to miss because you understand the answer will probably cast a shadow on the value of your question.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

That does not change my mind about the six bullets seeming to be excessive.

That's a pity, because getting hung up on the six bullets is missing the point. As Firefly points out, if Wilson's use of deadly force was not justified, even one bullet was excessive. Conversely, if the use of deadly force was justified, who cares how many bullets it took to complete the kill? This is not about the bullets. The real question is, "was officer Wilson justified or not in using deadly force against Mr. Brown?"

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

This whole thread, like others of its ilk, turned into a mutual" accusathon of disrespect". No lite and lotsa heat.
May I ask that we consider some basic questions?

Was the cop , fearing for his life, just firing continuously at this kid?

Did the cop have a taser, MACE, or a night stick in his ute ?.

Was the kid attacking the cop to draw such fire?
Do we have any compelling information or a witness that backs this up?

See, my problem is that (despite what the gun folks seem to be leaning toward), I cannot see ANY reason for such a use of deadly force in such a manner without evidence that the kid had an equally badass weapon and was brandishing it.
This was a BIIIIG kid who, as Im hearing, was menacingly coming at the cop but was unarmed, and so the cop, fearing for his own safety, drew down on the kid and just began pumping lead at him.

This may be a call for, at the least, a redesign of utility belts where these cops carry all their "dissuaders'. Our cops in our townof Maine have their mace/pepper juice sorta in the back left in a carrier that requires some fiddling to get out quickly . Only two cops out of say 6 Id seen recently, even had tasers and they were both State Cops from Maines Hiway Patrol.

Im not calling for the disarmament of cops but I think we should consider that cops have other "non-lethal" equipment as easily available to reach as are their pistols. I think that , for the vast number of times, A taser would have dropped a meth stoked Mike Tyson and probably no death would have resulted (unless Mike was A- fib positive).

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

That does not change my mind about the six bullets seeming to be excessive.

I'm not sure we can go by the number of bullets to decide if the use of lethal force was excessive.

I'll repeat what I said before--if the use of lethal force wasn't justified, then a single bullet would have been excessive.

If a police officer fires in defense of his own life, I would think he would continue firing until the person either falls down or gets down--that might take one bullet or six. The purpose of the shooting is to stop the threat, not necessarily to kill the threatening person.

I heard Bernard Kerik, former NYC Police Commissioner, say yesterday that officers are generally taught to aim for the body mass simply because that's the easiest part of the body to hit because it's the largest area. He also said that whether to shoot, and where to aim, are often split second decisions made under stress.

And, as been been pointed out in this thread, these guns fire bullets rapidly.

So I don't think that six bullets would necessarily be excessive in this particular situation--the officer continued firing until Brown went down, according to eyewitnesses.

What has to be determined is whether the officer was justified in using any deadly force in this situation. And that's unrelated to the number of bullet wounds in Brown.

It would seem that officers should have some alternate means of subduing someone--like using a Taser--particularly when the threatening individual does not appear to have a lethal weapon. The police in Ferguson do not use Tasers.

If their only weapon of self-defense is a gun, police will be more inclined to use deadly force.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

So you want more sources but they can't be from the gateway pundit? Wow nothing like limiting the argument.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/20/missouri-cop-was-badly-beaten-before-shooting-michael-brown-says-source/

I'm wondering if you take the word of Browns buddy? Shot in the back? You realize the media reported that in the beginning and was using it until the autopsy was released. Since that time no none has mentioned Brown being shot in the back. That continued on for almost a week before it was proven false. So save me you request for multiple sources. The media hasn't been right from the start on this story. They carried a liars narrative for almost a week.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
That does not change my mind about the six bullets seeming to be excessive.

That's a pity, because getting hung up on the six bullets is missing the point.

I am not "hung up" on the six bullets. People ask me about what I said...and I respond. That is what most of us do here in A2K.

And I am not missing the point.

Quote:

As Firefly points out, if Wilson's use of deadly force was not justified, even one bullet was excessive. Conversely, if the use of deadly force was justified, who cares how many bullets it took to complete the kill?

Obviously you do not. And if the cop had reloaded and walked over to Brown and popped another nine into him, it would be okay with you.

In answer to your question, though...I DO...and I do not think police officers are trained to kill...but to bring the perceived danger to an end. If the person deemed a danger is brought down...and not dead...it is not alright to continue shooting until he/she is.

Quote:

This is not about the bullets.

My comment WAS about the bullets. Your comments, it seems also ARE about the bullets...and about my comments about the bullets.

Let's get our stories straight here, Thomas.

Quote:

The real question is, "was officer Wilson justified or not in using deadly force against Mr. Brown?"

Fine...deal with that if you choose. But how about allowing me to offer an opinion that six bullets into the young man seems a bit excessive.

2 Replies

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

Quote:

That does not change my mind about the six bullets seeming to be excessive.

I'm not sure we can go by the number of bullets to decide if the use of lethal force was excessive.

I'll repeat what I said before--if the use of lethal force wasn't justified, then a single bullet would have been excessive.

If a police officer fires in defense of his own life, I would think he would continue firing until the person either falls down or gets down--that might take one bullet or six. The purpose of the shooting is to stop the threat, not necessarily to kill the threatening person.

I heard Bernard Kerik, former NYC Police Commissioner, say yesterday that officers are generally taught to aim for the body mass simply because that's the easiest part of the body to hit because it's the largest area. He also said that whether to shoot, and where to aim, are often split second decisions made under stress.

And, as been been pointed out in this thread, these guns fire bullets rapidly.

So I don't think that six bullets would necessarily be excessive in this particular situation--the officer continued firing until Brown went down, according to eyewitnesses.

What has to be determined is whether the officer was justified in using any deadly force in this situation. And that's unrelated to the number of bullet wounds in Brown.

It would seem that officers should have some alternate means of subduing someone--like using a Taser--particularly when the threatening individual does not appear to have a lethal weapon. The police in Ferguson do not use Tasers.

If their only weapon of self-defense is a gun, police will be more inclined to use deadly force.

That is your right, Firefly.

It is also my right to say that I consider the six bullets in this young man's body to seem excessive.

AND I DO CONSIDER SIX BULLETS IN BROWN'S BODY TO SEEM EXCESSIVE.

That is my opinion.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

But how about allowing me to offer an opinion that six bullets into the young man seems a bit excessive.

"Allow"? Now that's hyperbole, Frank. You know very well that if you want to keep missing the point, there is nothing I can do to stop you. So by all means, please continue!

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

So you want more sources but they can't be from the gateway pundit? Wow nothing like limiting the argument.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/20/missouri-cop-was-badly-beaten-before-shooting-michael-brown-says-source/

Let's go through this slowly...so perhaps you can get it.

Our discussion hinged on you saying that I have not responded to your question about asking my law enforcement relatives what they think about this situation.

THAT IS WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.

Not about that other stuff.

Are you paying attention? Read all the posts up until now...

...AND THINK ABOUT WHAT STARTED THIS LAST BIT OF DISCUSSION.

Here is the relevant part of the link I offered in my last reply to you:

You wrote:

Quote:

Fantasy Frank. Nice try. No I don't, I know how the police are trained and if you have family in LE like you say you do, you would know this. My dad is a federal cop, my brother was an MP and my nephew is currently an MP in the Airforce. I've asked most of my family because they are the experts on LE procedure. I think you take your own advice as expert.

My response was:

Quote:

And you are absolutely sure that they are not prejudice in favor of the police officer?

I do have all those cops...street cops and detectives in my family, Baldimo...and I would bet my life that several of them would defend the actions of the cop no matter what.

Your argument in this respect is an absurdity...whether you can see it as an absurdity or not.

YES...Baldimo...I can ask my many police officer relatives what they think about this situation...just as you can...

...but I sure as hell WOULD suppose that the fraternity of police officers would stick together and see the officers actions as perfectly fine. Probably none would question what the officer did in any way...just as apparently your Military Police officers didn't.

Do you think a jury composed of police officers would fairly decide this case if it went to trial.

Your request to query the cops in my family is an absurdity...just as you bringing the question to the cops in your family is.

For the most part, cops are going to stick together. They are not going to be fair an objective.

Your request of me to ask the cops in my family for their opinions...are about as reasonable as me asking you to question Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson on this issue.

Wake the hell up.

1 Reply

Fergusonj shooting, autopsy in, all shots from front

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know