NestorMakhnosLovechild Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 First bit - You don't think the police should have a higher standard of judgement for whether they actually in need of using lethal force? I know I disagree with you on the acceptable threshold for use of deadly force anyway, but the police is a separate question. I have a real issue with police killing people when its not 100% absolutely necessary, and I just don't see any way that this met this. Bolded - why do you dismiss accounts on the basis of "hands up", 16 witnesses from your link say he did and only 2 say he didn't. I don't see how the physical evidence contradicts it. It also doesn't contradict that he was shot at while running, just that he was hit by said shots. Him not moving towards Wilson at all IS contradicted by the physical evidence, but not those two which seem perfectly credible still. Actually for that matter the chart doesn't even have an option for just "moving towards", it only has "charging towards" - someone could say no to charging towards and still be saying he was moving towards Wilson. I think the same legal standard should apply for police officers using deadly force as it does for everyone else - when you reasonably believe it's necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury. Individual personal characteristics can impact how the standard is utilized - certain kinds of training may impact when it's reasonable for you to believe you need to use deadly force to protect yourself. But that being said, if it's true that Brown tried to take Wilson's gun and if it's true that Brown charged or even refused to stop moving towards Wilson despite repeated commands to stop after trying to take his gun, I would say that a lethal shooting under those circumstances is sufficiently justified. I'm not necessarily dismissing anything. I was very careful to state only that the physical evidence "tended to contradict" something, not that it definitively did so. The physical evidence tends to contradict the "hands up in the surrender pose" testimony because the shot that hit Brown's forearm entered from the back of the arm and traveled through the inner arm (palms, if exposed, were facing away from Wilson). Several of the witnesses claiming Wilson fired at Brown as he was running away also clearly claim that Wilson actually SHOT Brown while he was running away. Witnesses 45 and 46 both say specifically in their police interviews that Brown was actually shot in the back. Witness 46 also says there was another police officer in the car with Wilson, which is also not true. I'm too tired to go searching through another hundred pages of interviews and transcripts, but I suspect the other two witnesses who also said that Wilson fired on Brown while he was running away also specifically said that Brown was actually shot in the back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karaddin Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 I think the same legal standard should apply for police officers using deadly force as it does for everyone else - when you reasonably believe it's necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury. Individual personal characteristics can impact how the standard is utilized - certain kinds of training may impact when it's reasonable for you to believe you need to use deadly force to protect yourself. But that being said, if it's true that Brown tried to take Wilson's gun and if it's true that Brown charged or even refused to stop moving towards Wilson despite repeated commands to stop after trying to take his gun, I would say that a lethal shooting under those circumstances is sufficiently justified. I'm not necessarily dismissing anything. I was very careful to state only that the physical evidence "tended to contradict" something, not that it definitively did so. The physical evidence tends to contradict the "hands up in the surrender pose" testimony because the shot that hit Brown's forearm entered from the back of the arm and traveled through the inner arm (palms, if exposed, were facing away from Wilson). From a legal sense (bearing in mind I'm not a lawyer) I'm probably with you on the first part - it is the same standard but I feel the training should impact whether its reasonable. The rest can just be down to a genuine disagreement on what is an acceptable standard as this situation does not warrant it in my opinion even accepting that Brown was doing all of that. For the last bit, I haven't read the particulars of the "not shot in back" forensics, I've just accepted that they are true, now I'm wondering from a curiousity point of view - was it explicitly discussed and ruled out as a possibility that the forearm shot could have happened with his arm at a different angle from behind? If the entry would does not match having his hands up and shot from in front, is it possible for that same wound to happen if he's facing away? Or the heights/angles show that couldn't have happened? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 . The physical evidence tends to contradict the "hands up in the surrender pose" testimony because the shot that hit Brown's forearm entered from the back of the arm and traveled through the inner arm (palms, if exposed, were facing away from Wilson). Several of the witnesses claiming Wilson fired at Brown as he was running away also clearly claim that Wilson actually SHOT Brown while he was running away. Witnesses 45 and 46 both say specifically in their police interviews that Brown was actually shot in the back. Witness 46 also says there was another police officer in the car with Wilson, which is also not true. I'm too tired to go searching through another hundred pages of interviews and transcripts, but I suspect the other two witnesses who also said that Wilson fired on Brown while he was running away also specifically said that Brown was actually shot in the back. Wait a second, if there was a shot that entered the back of Browns' arm, wouldn't that lend credence to the witness claims that he had been shot while running away from Wilson? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roose Seal Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Good to see some here think that a Black kid's life is worth a few cigarillos. :rolleyes: Wait a second, if there was a shot that entered the back of Browns' arm, wouldn't that lend credence to the witness claims that he had been shot while running away from Wilson? http://youtu.be/tWUkBxmFUvU I find this comment absolutely fucking disgusting, especially considering two members of the Black Panthers were arrested for allegedly planning to blow up the Arch, one of the big tourist destinations in St. Louis. I'm not commenting on the Michael Brown shooting one way or the other, but if you think anarchy and terrorism is the answer I could not disagree any more vehemently.and police gunning down Black people left and right for no reason then tear gassing and shooting rubber bullets on peaceful protesters is not terrorism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 http://youtu.be/tWUkBxmFUvU That didn't really answer my question. Unless I'm missing something. Plus it seems that gentleman had some bad information. He says twice that officer Wilson is six feet tall, and he is 6'4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolverine Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Wait a second, if there was a shot that entered the back of Browns' arm, wouldn't that lend credence to the witness claims that he had been shot while running away from Wilson? I think he means the top side of the arm when he says back (I could be wrong), judging how he says the palms are on the other side. Don't we know he at least shot at him as he was running away? Even if he didn't hit him, he was trying to. The fatal shots were not in the back though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolverine Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Good to see some here think that a Black kid's life is worth a few cigarillos. :rolleyes: http://youtu.be/tWUkBxmFUvU and police gunning down Black people left and right for no reason then tear gassing and shooting rubber bullets on peaceful protesters is not terrorism? Is that is what is happening? I don't see how what Tyrion states indicates he would support that action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 I think he means the top side of the arm when he says back (I could be wrong), judging how he says the palms are on the other side. Don't we know he at least shot at him as he was running away? Even if he didn't hit him, he was trying to. The fatal shots were not in the back though. Yeah, again it seems to me that witnesses who claim he was shot in the back are potentially credible witnesses, even if Brown was not shot directly in the back. Wilson admits to firing on him as he's running away. One shot entered through the back of Brown's arm. So either Wilson shot him as he was running away, or he shot him when his arms were raised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Lannister Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 and police gunning down Black people left and right for no reason then tear gassing and shooting rubber bullets on peaceful protesters is not terrorism? Did I claim there weren't major problems with police conduct? I just don't see how killing innocent people will fix the problem, but call me crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tywin Manderly Posted November 28, 2014 Author Share Posted November 28, 2014 Cop at center of Ferguson case to leave force The Missouri police officer who killed an unarmed black teen sparking months of protests in the city of Ferguson will never return to policing, his lawyer said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roose Seal Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Did I claim there weren't major problems with police conduct? I just don't see how killing innocent people will fix the problem, but call me crazy. No but it seems people only have a problem with terrorism when civilians are doing it but none when the government is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Cop at center of Ferguson case to leave force Well that's some good news. If there's one thing I'm certain of in this whole mess, it's that this guy has no business being a police officer. His interview with Stephanopoulos convinced me of that. In it, Wilson stated that he had no regrets regarding the incident, and he would've done nothing differently if faced with the same circumstance again. :stunned: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Lannister Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 No but it seems people only have a problem with terrorism when civilians are doing it but none when the government is. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I have a major problem with some of the things the government/police force have done recently, including some of the response to what has been going on in Ferguson. Cop at center of Ferguson case to leave force I don't see how there was any other option. That would have been a ticking time bomb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Bet he's going to be a Fox News analyst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Bet he's going to be a Fox News analyst. He has supposedly received upwards of $500,000 for his media interviews thus far. Seems this could be a nice little cottage industry. That being said, he has a face made for radio. Don't see this guy having any sort of lasting career in television. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zelticgar Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 He has received upwards of $500,000 for his media interviews thus far. Seems this could be a nice little cottage industry. That being said, he has a face made for radio. Don't see this guy having any sort of lasting career in television. Seriously? That seems kind of weird. I did a quick search and all i could find was speculation but not a lot of substance. Lots of third party unnamed sources with generalizations that networks "sometimes" pay for interviews. Far from definitive proof he got paid. I also saw an article talking about a fund that is started to help Wilson out. Similar numbers were thrown out - 500k to a million but no proof. I have a feeling after the Zimmerman debacle in Florida people wont be so quick to send in donations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Yeah, again it seems to me that witnesses who claim he was shot in the back are potentially credible witnesses, even if Brown was not shot directly in the back. Wilson admits to firing on him as he's running away. One shot entered through the back of Brown's arm. So either Wilson shot him as he was running away, or he shot him when his arms were raised. He would have to be holding his arms rather oddly to have been shot in the back of the arm while facing towards Wilson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Seriously? That seems kind of weird. I did a quick search and all i could find was speculation but not a lot of substance. Lots of third party unnamed sources with generalizations that networks "sometimes" pay for interviews. Far from definitive proof he got paid. I also saw an article talking about a fund that is started to help Wilson out. Similar numbers were thrown out - 500k to a million but no proof. I have a feeling after the Zimmerman debacle in Florida people wont be so quick to send in donations. I have to admit that you are right regarding the substance of the claims. All the links I found were basically blog posts and Twitter and Facebook BS. That being said, both interviews he has given thus far have been "exclusives" with ABC. Exclusive interviews involving the main player of a story this large are typically paid for. The amount is speculative though, you are correct. ETA: I'll add "supposedly" to my initial post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Asking if he was shot in the back is the wrong question. You need to ask if he was shot from behind. And the answer is, maybe. The graze wound to the right forearm is consistent with being shot from behind. That's not the only possibility, but it is one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 I think the same legal standard should apply for police officers using deadly force as it does for everyone else - when you reasonably believe it's necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury. Individual personal characteristics can impact how the standard is utilized - certain kinds of training may impact when it's reasonable for you to believe you need to use deadly force to protect yourself. But that being said, if it's true that Brown tried to take Wilson's gun and if it's true that Brown charged or even refused to stop moving towards Wilson despite repeated commands to stop after trying to take his gun, I would say that a lethal shooting under those circumstances is sufficiently justified. Yes, absolutely. And I just don't understand why the police go so overboard in their reactions to police shootings. If you are going to have a confrontation with police you are going to get shot and the police are not going to be found guilty of murder. The covering-up that has been going on in this case has been appalling and has really given the police yet another black eye.There was so much interaction between Brown and Wilson, I don't understand the need for the stuff that went on. That log book, for example, is highly suspicious. The change in stories told by the police chief. The silence of Wilson. Allowing him to testify. The "black demon" bullshit. If Wilson got into a verbal confrontation with Brown and then pulled out his gun and just shot him, I would understand the cover-up stuff and the grand jury manipulation. This inevitably leads me to one conclusion. I assume at the root of the incident is the fact that Wilson had no report of the store robbery (since the store owner made no report) and was just engaging in typical racial profiling/harassing a black kid, and expected Brown to fall into line like a good little black boy should when harassed by a police officer. And since the people of Ferguson have been living with that kind of daily harassment and complaining about it for years, the fact that a standard action by Ferguson police led to an unarmed teen's death had to be covered up at all costs. Way back in 1988, in Toronto, 2 young black men were shot and killed by police, angering many people. The Ontario government created the Task Force on Race Relations and Policing, which in turn recommended a civilian investigatory unit that was independent of both the police and the government. In 1990 the Special Investigations Unit was set-up to investigate incidents where police action has caused death, serious injury or where there are complaints of sexual assault. Complaints are usually made by coroners, medical professionals, lawyers, the media and persons claiming harm. Every police shooting is automatically investigated, as are any other police/public interactions that result in deaths or serious injuries, like motor vehicle accidents. Most recently they charged a Toronto police officer with second degree murder, when he killed a young man on a streetcar who had threatened people with a knife after he failed to heed a repeated calls to drop the knife. The man was on the streetcar and the officer was outside, in no danger as far as most of us can tell. Witnesses recorded the events on their cellphones. You can draw your own conclusions from the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lG6OTyjzAgg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.