Michael Brown shooting and civil unrest Goes Forth

[sToNED_CAT]

Which piece of evidence shows that Brown was going for the gun again? Wilson's claim is all we have, right? It could have just as easily been Wilson who provoked it, punched Brown, who punched back, and then Wilson pulled his gun out to fire on him.

I mean, the evidence also corroborates this story, so why are we now claiming that 'he was going for my gun' was actual fact?

There's no evidence for this, true. But if you have a word of a cop (who until that incident served without any significant problems) against thief, juries side with cop 99% of time (and for good reason). Besides, the claim, that Wilson provoked the whole thing is pretty implausible - it is unlikely he would be physically able to drag 300 pounds guy through the window, like the other thief claims. Not to mention it would be pretty stupid - the last thing you want to do with much stronger opponent is to let him near you!

[daskool]

"Dr. Judy Melinek, a forensic pathologist in San Francisco, said the autopsy “supports the fact that this guy is reaching for the gun, if he has gunpowder particulate material in the wound.” She added, “If he has his hand near the gun when it goes off, he’s going for the officer’s gun.”

Yep, there was definitely some kind of struggle in the car, only explanation for the residue in the hand wound. Also if a gun is discharged in a confined space both of them would have been temporarily deafened which means that Brown wouldn't have been able to hear the officer shouting at him to stop when he ran away and/or the officer being able to hear Brown call out 'I surrender'.

[awesome possum]

Yep, there was definitely some kind of struggle in the car, only explanation for the residue in the hand wound.

Some kind of struggle, yes. It doesn't prove for a fact that Brown was "going for the gun." Hell, Wilson could have pulled the gun and Brown was pushing it away from him - protecting himself - when it went off. That same residue would exist in that situation.

But people are going to believe what they want to believe. The only fact that will ever remain clear in this case is that the Ferguson PD is a horrid, corrupt organization.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Nestor loves trolling these types of threads. Anyone who falls to his level deserves to be trolled.

He actually examines and analyzes what info we're given and speculates as to how the powers that be might run with it. Unlike you, who post links, drop some current left/progressive talking points (that I pretty much always agree with) along with a bunch of.vitriol, and then have the temerity to call Nestor a troll.

Not sure how Nestor can be the troll when other posts, like many of yours, contribute nothing but name calling.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Nestor loves trolling these types of threads. Anyone who falls to his level deserves to be trolled.

Oh please. I do find these high-profile, ractially-charged shootings to be absolutely fascinating - not so much for the incidents themselves, but because of the media's role in fostering and perpetuating certain narratives, the public response, and the resilience of first impressions in the face of changing evidence.

Much like the Zimmerman trial (where I actually started out on the other side defending the State's Probable Cause affidavit from right-wing critics like FLoW and laying out a path for the State to prove it's 2nd Degree Murder charge, and only gradually changed position as the evidence began mounting up against the State's version of events), I suspect that people's first impressions of this case, which are going to be heavily informed by these early public witnesses whose statements are now being contradicted by the medical evidence (ie: everyone that says Brown was shot from behind, as he was fleeing), are going to persist regardless of what evidence crops up to contradict them.

I went on at length in the Zimmerman threads about why this might be the case. I happen to think that ideology and not "the facts" is the primary determinant about how most people view these cases. It just so happens that the facts are ultimately going to support one position more than another, and half the country is going to be wrong by accident, and the other half will be right by accident.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

He actually examines and analyzes what info we're given and speculates as to how the powers that be might run with it. Unlike you, who post links, drop some current left/progressive talking points (that I pretty much always agree with) along with a bunch of.vitriol, and then have the temerity to call Nestor a troll.

Not sure how Nestor can be the troll when other posts, like many of yours, contribute nothing but name calling.

Thanks, I appreciate that.

I also think it's important to try to separate some of our "gut feelings" about the case from what the evidence actually tends to show from a legal standpoint.

For example, I think one of the issues in this case is that some people, and I often share in this general sentiment, are distrustful of cops, believe that cops will often abuse their authority if given the chance, and will lie to cover up their wrongdoing. As a result, they simply will not believe anything that Wilson says or testifies to in this matter. However, the legal system, including juries, are charged with listening to all of the evidence and weighing it on its own merits and are tasked specifically with putting aside any prejudices to objectively weigh the evidence. Are they always successful at doing so? I'm sure not. And in fact, I think there's a strong case to be made that police officers are often given more deference than the general public both by juries and by judges in bench trials (you see this in municipal Court all the time, where an officer's word against a citizen's word almost always results in the officer's word being found to be more credible).

An example of how this is a personal conflict for me - my gut tells me there is NO WAY that Michael Brown reached into Officer Wilson's car and tried to grab his gun. I think anyone trying to grab an officer's gun is likely to die for their efforts, and that that goes double for a black teenager in Ferguson, and I have no reason to think that Brown was overtly suicidal. But when I put my gut feelings aside and look at the evidence that's going to be presented for that narrative - Wilson's testimony, presumably (as has been indicated in multiple stories) medical evidence showing Wilson was struck in the face, and then the autopsy and firearms residue test results which show that Wilson's hand was near the gun when it went off - that story has enough support to demand that it be considered seriously, and so I have to, and I think the grand jury will have to as well. When you throw in other facts - like the strong-arm robbery it appeared Brown committed just a few minutes prior, and the fact that he appeared to have significant levels of THC in his system - I'm even more inclined to believe what my gut tells me is unbelievable. But some people are just never going to make that leap.

[awesome possum]

He actually examines and analyzes what info we're given and speculates as to how the powers that be might run with it. Unlike you, who post links, drop some current left/progressive talking points (that I pretty much always agree with) along with a bunch of.vitriol, and then have the temerity to call Nestor a troll.

Not sure how Nestor can be the troll when other posts, like many of yours, contribute nothing but name calling.

If it seems like many of my posts contribute nothing but name-calling, you're either not paying attention or you see me calling out lots of trolls. Either way, I'm not easily fooled by long-winded pedantic bullshit that tries desperately to pretend to have nothing to do with opinion.

Oh please. I do find these high-profile, ractially-charged shootings to be absolutely fascinating - not so much for the incidents themselves, but because of the media's role in fostering and perpetuating certain narratives, the public response, and the resilience of first impressions in the face of changing evidence.

Much like the Zimmerman trial (where I actually started out on the other side defending the State's Probable Cause affidavit from right-wing critics like FLoW and laying out a path for the State to prove it's 2nd Degree Murder charge, and only gradually changed position as the evidence began mounting up against the State's version of events), I suspect that people's first impressions of this case, which are going to be heavily informed by these early public witnesses whose statements are now being contradicted by the medical evidence (ie: everyone that says Brown was shot from behind, as he was fleeing), are going to persist regardless of what evidence crops up to contradict them.

I went on at length in the Zimmerman threads about why this might be the case. I happen to think that ideology and not "the facts" is the primary determinant about how most people view these cases. It just so happens that the facts are ultimately going to support one position more than another, and half the country is going to be wrong by accident, and the other half will be right by accident.

Cool story bro.

[daskool]

Some kind of struggle, yes. It doesn't prove for a fact that Brown was "going for the gun." Hell, Wilson could have pulled the gun and Brown was pushing it away from him - protecting himself - when it went off. That same residue would exist in that situation.

But people are going to believe what they want to believe. The only fact that will ever remain clear in this case is that the Ferguson PD is a horrid, corrupt organization.

Yes of course, absent a camera in the car we're left with the officer's word as to the likeliest explanation to explain the residue, sucks but true. The really important part is what happened after Brown fled the car. If he couldn't hear the officers commands (very likely) and if it can be argued that the cop was in anyway justified in shooting an unarmed suspect. My opinion, which it goes without saying means nothing, is that there was a struggle over the gun and Brown got shot. He ran out of the car, the cop ordered him to stop and drop or he'd shoot, Brown couldn't hear him and didn't comply, a jacked up and extremely POd policeman then discharged his weapon until Brown was dead. I'll leave it to lawyers to figure out whether that can be called murder or not.

[DanteGabriel]

For the record, I believe Nestor is arguing in good faith.

Having said that...

"Dr. Judy Melinek, a forensic pathologist in San Francisco, said the autopsy “supports the fact that this guy is reaching for the gun, if he has gunpowder particulate material in the wound.” She added, “If he has his hand near the gun when it goes off, he’s going for the officer’s gun.”

Dr. Melinek has clarified that quote:

But Melinek told MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell on Wednesday that her comments had been taken "out of context" and that she believed the findings could be explained by other scenarios as well.

"What happens sometimes is when you get interviewed and you have a long conversation with a journalist, they're going to take things out of context," she said. "I made it very clear that we only have partial information here. We don't have the scene information. We don't have the police investigation. We don't have all the witness statements. And you can't interpret autopsy findings in a vacuum."

She and O'Donnell then walked through a variety of alternative situations in which the gunshot residue found on Brown's hand -- the key finding that suggested Brown had been reaching for Wilson's gun -- could have gotten there.

"I'm not saying that Brown going for the gun is the only explanation. I'm saying the officer said he was going for the gun and the right thumb wound supports that," Melinek. "I have limited information. It could also be consistent with other scenarios. That's the important thing. That's why the witnesses need to speak to the grand jury and the grand jury needs to hear all the unbiased testimony and compare those statements to the physical evidence."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/judy-melinek-ferguson-autopsy-report-msnbc

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

For the record, I believe Nestor is arguing in good faith.

Having said that...

Dr. Melinek has clarified that quote:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/judy-melinek-ferguson-autopsy-report-msnbc

That's not really much of a clarification, although I understand what she's saying. You cannot prove that Brown was grabbing for the gun based solely on the autopsy evidence. All you can really do is show that Brown's hand was in extremely close proximity, or perhaps even contact with the gun when it fired. LegalInsurrection's take here. This corroborates the story that Wilson is telling. Of course, it doesn't exclude other (questionably likely, in my mind) scenarios, and could potentially corroborate other versions of the story as well - but nobody is setting forth any clear, alternative narratives. If Wilson's narrative is the one being supported, this is clearly helpful to him. So I certainly don't take the autopsy results to be "conclusive proof" that Brown was grabbing for the gun, but in conjunction with Wilson's narrative, I think that's clearly what it tends to show.

[Rhom]

If it seems like many of my posts contribute nothing but name-calling, you're either not paying attention or you see me calling out lots of trolls. Either way, I'm not easily fooled by long-winded pedantic bullshit that tries desperately to pretend to have nothing to do with opinion.

So wait... "I'm not a troll..."

Followed by:

Cool story bro.

Isn't that pretty much the definition of an internet troll response?!!?

[MerenthaClone]

Yeah, its just "questionably likely" that Brown raised his hands to cover his face after he ended up with a gun pointed at it.

I assume that when you say "after Brown flees" you really mean "when Brown continued to advance on Wilson despite repeated orders to stop."

In which case I don't think the grand jury will fault him for firing on him either time.

Yeah, when Brown continued to advance despite repeated orders to stop to the point where he was 30 feet away from Wilson. That time? Because now you're suggesting that Brown got shot in the car after trying to grab for the gun, ran, made it at least 30 feet away, and then turned around again. He wasn't retreating, he was attacking in the opposite direction. What nonsense.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

So wait... "I'm not a troll..."

Followed by:

Isn't that pretty much the definition of an internet troll response?!!?

There is no point engaging with AP. You have correctly identified that he adds nothing to the conversation except insults and the occasional link. My suggestion is to either ignore him, or use his posts as a blank canvas to just opine on whatever you feel like talking about. That's what I do.

[aceluby]

There's no evidence for this, true. But if you have a word of a cop (who until that incident served without any significant problems) against thief, juries side with cop 99% of time (and for good reason). Besides, the claim, that Wilson provoked the whole thing is pretty implausible - it is unlikely he would be physically able to drag 300 pounds guy through the window, like the other thief claims. Not to mention it would be pretty stupid - the last thing you want to do with much stronger opponent is to let him near you!

If you're going to refer to these people as a 'thief', can we refer to Wilson as a murderer? In which case if you're going to ask me who to believe between a thief and a murderer, I'll take my chances w/ the thief.

[TerraPrime]

There's no evidence for this, true. But if you have a word of a cop (who until that incident served without any significant problems) against thief, juries side with cop 99% of time (and for good reason). Besides, the claim, that Wilson provoked the whole thing is pretty implausible - it is unlikely he would be physically able to drag 300 pounds guy through the window, like the other thief claims. Not to mention it would be pretty stupid - the last thing you want to do with much stronger opponent is to let him near you!

So Brown had been convicted of stealing?

Oh wait, no, he had not.

Yeah, I'm going to take what you said about wanting justice to prevail and considering all evidence before reaching a conclusion of guilt seriously, now, yup.

People should remember what you said here and from now on out every comment you make about this developing case when it comes to considering evidence before drawing conclusion ought to be laughed out of the thread.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Yeah, its just "questionably likely" that Brown raised his hands to cover his face after he ended up with a gun pointed at it.

Yeah, when Brown continued to advance despite repeated orders to stop to the point where he was 30 feet away from Wilson. That time? Because now you're suggesting that Brown got shot in the car after trying to grab for the gun, ran, made it at least 30 feet away, and then turned around again. He wasn't retreating, he was attacking in the opposite direction. What nonsense.

Except Wilson's testimony, and the eyewitness testimony that I had linked to previously, both indicated that Brown stopped running away, turned around, advanced on Wilson despite repeated orders to stop, and then continued to advance on Wilson even after being shot the first 3 or so times. The distance between the two is estimated to have been 25-30 feet. A person can cover 25-30 feet in 2-4 seconds if they are motivated to do so. Brown didn't run very far, and it wouldn't have taken him long to reach Wilson if his intention was to attack him after he left the car.

The problems with the "Brown raised his hands to cover his face" story as an explanation for the contact residue on his hands are that:

- nobody is presenting this as a clear, alternative narrative and

- it doesn't seem to make any sense. If Brown was covering his face with his hand and Wilson discharged the gun TWICE when it had contact with Brown's hand, Wilson would have most likely shot Brown in the face, which is not what happened. The wound to Brown's thumb described in the autopsy as a "graze."

[aceluby]

Um, why are you putting so much emphasis on the guys testimony who shot the kid? Whether it's justified or not his story would be the same, it's not like it's human nature to just own up to something that will get you life in prison.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Um, why are you putting so much emphasis on the guys testimony who shot the kid? Whether it's justified or not his story would be the same, it's not like it's human nature to just own up to something that will get you life in prison.

Because it would be absurd not to consider the testimony of a party directly involved in the incident.

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

Um, why are you putting so much emphasis on the guys testimony who shot the kid? Whether it's justified or not his story would be the same, it's not like it's human nature to just own up to something that will get you life in prison.

Smfh...I can't. Why are you putting so much emphasis on the guys testimony!? What do you think the grand jury is gonna do? That's kind of the whole point in it's entirety...Terra if stoned cat is to be laughed at, Ace should be as well! Nestor, you have laid the facts out very well. But most of these guys don't want to hear it. It derails their rush to judgment and they can't be wrong. It's not even about the facts anymore for them. It's their need to reinforce the same false narrative the media sold to them in the first place.

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

So Brown had been convicted of stealing?

Oh wait, no, he had not.

Yeah, I'm going to take what you said about wanting justice to prevail and considering all evidence before reaching a conclusion of guilt seriously, now, yup.

People should remember what you said here and from now on out every comment you make about this developing case when it comes to considering evidence before drawing conclusion ought to be laughed out of the thread.

So he didn't steal blunts from the store? I thought they had that on camera? Pretty sure if that went to trial there would be a conviction. Was he convicted? No. Did he commit a theft? Yes.