Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Police discrimination, misconduct, Ferguson, MO, the Roman Legion, and now math???

Police discrimination, misconduct, Ferguson, MO, the Roman Legion, and now math??? (Page 2)
Thread Tools
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2014, 11:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Any particular reason why we can't wait for additional evidence, any that might be confirmed? Your link doesn't purport to say what you claim we know for certain, only that we absolutely know the following;
I was mainly responding to your claim that if you go for a cops gun (which is just the police officer's version at this point), you will get shot -- while I think this isn't and shouldn't be automatically so.
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
It was a horrible thing, bad all around, but the media grabbing on to the "young teen" angle is disingenuous. They called the man "Big Mike" for a reason, he was 6'3" and weighed over 300lbs. He wasn't a little kid, as many imply, at least not physically, he was a grown man (and a relatively huge one, at that).
Body size has nothing to do with cognitive development. Brown was 18, i. e. he was a teenager, an adolescent.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2014, 11:52 AM
 
I addressed that. The problem is, an 18 y/o who's 6' 3" while tipping the scales at >300lbs, isn't just man-sized, he's "huge-assed" man-sized. That doesn't mean that what the officer did was right, but it does help fill in the gaps to the story. When someone that size is aggressive it causes you to think differently about a potential confrontation, naturally. In HS I got into a fight with a guy that size (over a girl) and I was doing well, if you scored the fight on points, but then he decided to just grab me and sling me around like a sack of laundry, into the lockers and concrete walls. Concussion, bruised ribs, cracked collarbone... he might have killed me if it weren't for a half dozen teachers and students jumping on him.

The point is, when someone massive is threatening you, you may not have the luxury of assessing their emotional/mental age. Also, people who are 18 are old enough to vote and volunteer to go to war, and while technically a teenager, they physically haven't been an adolescent for a while. In any legal matter, they're adults.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2014, 05:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I was mainly responding to your claim that if you go for a cops gun (which is just the police officer's version at this point), you will get shot -- while I think this isn't and shouldn't be automatically so.
I and others may find it equally hard to fathom that a perfectly innocent child had his hands in the air in surrender only to be gunned down by a cop. As is usually the case in scenarios like this, the truth is somewhere in the middle of what we're being spoon-fed.
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 18, 2014, 07:38 AM
 
For example, Brown's friend; Johnson tells the story of Brown being hit in the back while full-on running away, but Brown's family's private autopsy performed, Pro bono by the same guy who I believe did Kennedy's autopsy shows no shots entering the back. Problem #1.

Problem #2 is that a video has surfaced with an eyewitness in background of audio indicating that after the officer got his face pummeled by Brown, he pursued Brown, Brown turned and continued charging Wilson through multiple shots to his right arm and upper torso; a single, final blow to the head is what brought him down 2-3 feet in front of Wilson. Forensics will need the powder-burns from clothing to better approximate distances and if it corroborates Wilson's story, we have a very different narrative than those inciting riots and looting would have you believe.
ebuddy
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 18, 2014, 09:27 AM
 
Too much has happened for me to have stayed caught up this weekend. I don't think the curfew was a wise move (it just gave police an excuse to deploy crowd control), and now we've devolved to worse than before and the National Guard is coming in. Not doing well, Nixon.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
My only comment on this situation is "man, this has really gone off the rails."
…and you thought that then.
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 18, 2014, 10:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
For example, Brown's friend; Johnson tells the story of Brown being hit in the back while full-on running away, but Brown's family's private autopsy performed, Pro bono by the same guy who I believe did Kennedy's autopsy shows no shots entering the back. Problem #1.
There are at least two other eye witnesses, and their stories also don't match. My father used to be a lawyer, and he told me on several occasions that the worst type of evidence is eye witness testimony (even when the eye witnesses have no allegiance to one side or another).
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Problem #2 is that a video has surfaced with an eyewitness in background of audio indicating that after the officer got his face pummeled by Brown, he pursued Brown, Brown turned and continued charging Wilson through multiple shots to his right arm and upper torso; a single, final blow to the head is what brought him down 2-3 feet in front of Wilson.
You should take a page of your own book: don't try to fill in the gaps of the story before all the evidence is in. Especially if it's just to confirm the story you prefer.
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
The point is, when someone massive is threatening you, you may not have the luxury of assessing their emotional/mental age. Also, people who are 18 are old enough to vote and volunteer to go to war, and while technically a teenager, they physically haven't been an adolescent for a while. In any legal matter, they're adults.
That's a cop out. The mental age is crucially important when assessing how a person may react.

A few years ago three 16-18-year olds (I don't remember the exact age) decided to scare some friends and break up a party in a very upscale part of a German town. They put on black clothes, donned ski masks and got their hands on realistic-looking fake weapons (e. g. shotguns). While they snuck on their classmate's property, they were seen by neighbors who, not surprisingly, called the police. The police came and one of the police men caught one of them with shotgun in hand in the stair case. The police officer obviously could not see whether he was dealing with a teenager or a 30-year old. The police officer yells at him to put down the gun, but the teenager froze like bambi staring at the proverbial headlights. He had a split second to make the decision whether to pull the trigger or not. He did not. And it all ended in a few teenager proverbially shitting their pants. Could you blame the police officer if he had pulled the trigger and killed the teenager? Legally, probably not. But in an interview one of the responding police officers said that he's so glad he wasn't responsible for killing a kid.

I don't think just claiming »oh, legally, they are adults*, they can join the army (but can't drink).« is enough.

* In Germany, if you are between 18 and 21 and convicted of a crime, it's up to the court to decide whether to treat you as a juvenile or an adult.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 18, 2014, 10:38 AM
 
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 18, 2014, 10:54 AM
 
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 18, 2014, 12:50 PM
 
I guess the cops have the excuse of being ignorant of the law.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 18, 2014, 12:55 PM
 
@OreoCookie

I don't get your example. From what you wrote, had the cop shot the kid it would have been ruled justifiable.
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 18, 2014, 01:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
@OreoCookie

I don't get your example. From what you wrote, had the cop shot the kid it would have been ruled justifiable.
I wrote legally justifiable, but according to the cop who was interviewed (he was one of cops on scene, but not the one who almost shot the kid), his colleague was relieved to not have pulled the trigger. To me the point of the story is that (1) teenagers and young adolescents, even those with good backgrounds and who will become productive members of society, sometimes do really stupid things. And (2) that it is by no means automatic that you have to shoot-to-kill to solve a tense situation. The second point in particular is a point where the higher-ups in the police department set the tone.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 18, 2014, 01:28 PM
 
Not to put too fine a point on it, but most people, cops included, don't react well to killing anyone. This includes people who deserved it.

Anyone who isn't twisted is going to spend the rest of their lives wondering what they could have done differently. It may come as a surprise to many, most cops are caring people. That's why they became cops.


The situation you described wasn't tense, it was, for all intents and purposes, life threatening. The tone of all police departments is going to be "it's okay to fire in a life threatening situation". If the cop is able to do it some other way, then it's worthy of commendation for going above and beyond what is expected.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 18, 2014, 01:42 PM
 


They're getting rid of the curfew in the wake of brining the National Guard in. That's some improvement, at least.
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 18, 2014, 02:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Not to put too fine a point on it, but most people, cops included, don't react well to killing anyone. This includes people who deserved it.
I didn't claim anything of the sort. Why do you say that?
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The situation you described wasn't tense, it was, for all intents and purposes, life threatening. The tone of all police departments is going to be "it's okay to fire in a life threatening situation". If the cop is able to do it some other way, then it's worthy of commendation for going above and beyond what is expected.
To me, it's a matter of proper education and attitude, too. Cops are trained, and the purpose of training is to consistently act in the same way so that you don't have to think about things when time comes. Attitude is another one. A former neighbor of ours was a police officer, and he (proudly) said that if they caught a teenager with a stolen/borrowed car, the first thing he'd get is a proper beating. I reckon things are different with the younger generation, but if you are in a social environment where this is accepted practice, you are more likely to act out violently. (I've also heard essentially the same story from another retired cop in my judo club.)

To be clear, I don't make accusations about this specific case, because it'd just be baseless speculation on my part. The point is just that different training and different attitudes can change how cops react and how they are perceived because of that.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 18, 2014, 02:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post


They're getting rid of the curfew in the wake of brining the National Guard in. That's some improvement, at least.
I appreciate trying to look on the bright side, but I see the improvement of having the curfew lifted as being outweighed by the decline of needing to call dudes with tanks.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 18, 2014, 02:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I appreciate trying to look on the bright side, but I see the improvement of having the curfew lifted as being outweighed by the decline of needing to call dudes with tanks.
I see them as completely interrelated. Of course, I couldn't blame anyone who thinks this reeks of intimidation.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 18, 2014, 03:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I didn't claim anything of the sort. Why do you say that?

To me, it's a matter of proper education and attitude, too. Cops are trained, and the purpose of training is to consistently act in the same way so that you don't have to think about things when time comes. Attitude is another one. A former neighbor of ours was a police officer, and he (proudly) said that if they caught a teenager with a stolen/borrowed car, the first thing he'd get is a proper beating. I reckon things are different with the younger generation, but if you are in a social environment where this is accepted practice, you are more likely to act out violently. (I've also heard essentially the same story from another retired cop in my judo club.)

To be clear, I don't make accusations about this specific case, because it'd just be baseless speculation on my part. The point is just that different training and different attitudes can change how cops react and how they are perceived because of that.
You had brought up the point the officer in question would have regretted shooting the kid. I'm trying to point out that isn't something unique to that officer, that police force, or that country. Almost anyone who was put in that situation would regret the decision to fire.

To put it in the form of a question, if you're illustrating something which applies to almost everyone everywhere, what information am I supposed to glean from this specific incident?


As for the cops roughing people up, while it's no justification, these types of attitudes don't sprout from a vacuum. Cops who proudly talk about smacking kids around probably come from an environment where just getting arrested and put through the penal system won't serve as much of, if any, deterrent. In fact, it very well may only serve as encouragement. That's how ****ed up the penal side of things are.

To reiterate, the cop's response is ****ed up, but there's a probability it's a ****ed up response to a ****ed up problem, which is a different thing from being ****ed up because you're a colossal asshole.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 18, 2014, 03:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I see them as completely interrelated. Of course, I couldn't blame anyone who thinks this reeks of intimidation.
I'm not denying the interrelationship, it's... I'm having trouble coming up with a good analogy.

"That concussion totally cleared my sinuses."
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 18, 2014, 04:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
To put it in the form of a question, if you're illustrating something which applies to almost everyone everywhere, what information am I supposed to glean from this specific incident?
I've covered that clearly and explicitly already: (1) Teenagers can have terrible ideas, even if they aren't lost causes (that includes mouthing off). And (2) that it is by no means automatic that you have to shoot-to-kill to solve a tense situation.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
As for the cops roughing people up, while it's no justification, these types of attitudes don't sprout from a vacuum. Cops who proudly talk about smacking kids around probably come from an environment where just getting arrested and put through the penal system won't serve as much of, if any, deterrent.
In these instances you're wrong. One police man (our former neighbor) got his training in the GDR, a socialist dictatorship, a simply continued with what was »normal«. The retired second police man (who used to be a member of my judo club) worked in Munich, a region with a very low crime rate. In some cases these were 16-year olds who were taking their parents' car for a spin (in Germany you have to wait until 18 to get your driver's license for cars).
Originally Posted by subego View Post
To reiterate, the cop's response is ****ed up, but there's a probability it's a ****ed up response to a ****ed up problem, which is a different thing from being ****ed up because you're a colossal asshole.
That's very vague even without the stars: what's your point exactly?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 18, 2014, 05:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post

That's a cop out.
No, it isn't. I can tell you've never been in such a situation. Were you attempting satire? "Excuse me, don't beat the hell out of me yet, I need to assess whether you're emotionally mature enough for me to defend myself."
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 18, 2014, 05:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Brown's family's private autopsy performed, Pro bono by the same guy who I believe did Kennedy's autopsy shows no shots entering the back. Problem #1.
I see this is being pointedly ignored by those who are completely invested in the theory that Mike was a sweet, loveable kid, and not just here. Not only is evidence showing he wasn't shot in the back, the shot that killed him was at much less than 25'. As more of this unfolds, the facts are painting a much different picture than everyone was initially led to believe, but I have a feeling that none of that will matter to those who need to believe that this was a murder.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 18, 2014, 06:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
Always fun to have your hometown in the spotlight... ugh...
Indeed.

Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
It's funny how they keep calling Ferguson a "small town". It's not a small town. It's suburban sprawl out from the city, 15 minutes from downtown St. Louis.
Exactly. What a lot of people may not realize is that STL County has approximately 90 different municipalities and several unincorporated areas. Many of these municipalities are fairly sizable like Ferguson (which is the 12th largest) whereas plenty of others are literally blocks long. You can be on a highway and cross a city limit sign and before you get to the next mile marker you've crossed another one. The best way to think of Ferguson is that it is an "inner ring suburb" of St. Louis in the northern portion of STL County. Older housing stock. Currently undergoing a bit of a business renaissance in certain areas. Farmers market, bars, restaurants, condos, etc.

Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
This whole thing has been a giant cluster****. What I hate about events like this, where no one really knows exactly what happened... is that everyone uses it as a blank canvas to fill in their own details and reinforce their already existing point of view.
I'm going to quibble with you a bit on this. This isn't one of those cases where an unarmed guy comes up dead at the hands of the police with no witnesses in the middle of the night. On the contrary this took place at "high noon" on a Saturday afternoon. There are plenty of eyewitnesses who posted videos and spoke about what happened contemporaneously all over social media. And they all essentially corroborate the key portions of Dorian Johnson's account ... the young man who was with Mike Brown when he was killed. Quite unlike the Ferguson PD whose narrative changed quite dramatically last Friday from what was stated right after the killing. All of these witnesses say A) Mike Brown was fleeing, B) the officer pursued firing shots, C) Mike Brown stopped, turned around, and put his hands in the air .... and D) then the police officer Darren Wilson just walked up to him, fired off more rounds into his head, and executed him on the spot. Again, this occurred in broad daylight which is why people are all over social media saying "The police killed him for no reason." It's why the residents of the apartment complex where this went down immediately started to converge on the scene because what had just happened was so egregious. So unless all of these eyewitnesses are suffering from some sort of mass hallucination ... it's pretty clear what the circumstances were when the final shots that took Mike Brown's life were fired. And it doesn't look good for Officer Wilson.

That being said .... this is STL County where the Prosecuting Attorney is notorious for his pro-police bias. If a judge doesn't appoint a special prosecutor ... neither the Governor nor the Attorney General have the power to do so ... and Bob McCulloch remains in charge then I certainly won't have any expectations that the grand jury will indict this officer. Despite all the eyewitness accounts. Despite the autopsy that showed the final kill shot entered the top of Mike Brown's head with a back-to-front trajectory ... which is entirely consistent with the eyewitnesses who said he was on his knees with his hands on the air when when the final shot was fired. Why? Because the jury pool will be drawn from the entirety of STL County ... not just Ferguson. And there are those in that jury pool who will believe whatever cockamamie story a police officer has to say regardless of what the people at the scene witnessed or simple common sense. A grand jury is an entirely one-side process. Only the Prosecuting Attorney gets to make a case. So if Mr. McCulloch decides that he doesn't want an indictment there simply won't be. Just saying ....

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Aug 19, 2014 at 12:46 PM. )
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 18, 2014, 06:10 PM
 
Well, I have to say that I expected that. Let's see here. Pointing out that he robbed a convenience store an hour before the shooting is "an unwarranted attack on the young man's character" and pointing out that forensic evidence isn't supporting the eyewitness testimony is already being called "defamation against the black community". Yeah...
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 18, 2014, 06:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
I see this is being pointedly ignored by those who are completely invested in the theory that Mike was a sweet, loveable kid, and not just here. Not only is evidence showing he wasn't shot in the back, the shot that killed him was at much less than 25'. As more of this unfolds, the facts are painting a much different picture than everyone was initially led to believe, but I have a feeling that none of that will matter to those who need to believe that this was a murder.
First of all, whether Mike Brown was a "sweet lovable kid" is entirely irrelevant to the circumstances surrounding his death. As for whether or not he was shot from behind even that isn't 100% clear based upon the autopsy results:

Baden told the New York Times on Sunday that one wound was when "his head was bent downward,” indicating the wound at the very top of Brown’s head. “It can be because he’s giving up, or because he’s charging forward at the officer.”

Shawn Parcells, a pathologist assistant based in Kansas, assisted Baden during the autopsy. Parcells joined Baden on Monday in speaking to reporters about their findings. In a 2013 story in the Post-Dispatch, some coroners and medical examiners in Missouri said Parcells has inflated his qualifications and performed autopsies without a medical license.

Parcells said it is not yet clear if the wounds on Brown's arms were from the teen holding his arms up to surrender. A witness has said that is what Brown was doing when he was shot.

The teen may have had his back to the shooter, or he could have been facing the shooter with his hands above his head or in a defensive position across his face or chest, Parcells said.

"But we don't know," he added.


Parcells said the forensics could not explain the order of the gunshots but he speculated that the shots to the head were the last.

Baden said the shots were not at close range.

Baden said they have to look at Brown's clothing to know more. The clothes are still in the custody of the medical examiner's office. He said defense attorneys should get access to the clothes.

Baden said the x-rays will be important to examine and those were taken by Dr. Case's office, but Baden hasn't seen those yet.

He said there was no evidence of a struggle on Brown's body. There were some abrasions on the right side of Brown's face, which Baden believes happened when Brown fell to the pavement.

The autopsy was done Sunday at a local funeral home. It took three to four hours.

Appearing on Good Morning America Monday, Brown family attorney Benjamin Crump said the autopsy "confirms our worst fear, that the witnesses were telling the truth."
Private autopsy says Brown shot 6 times; Holder orders third autopsy : News

IIRC correctly Mike Brown was shot 6 times but only 3 bullets were recovered from his body. The others must have went "through and through". But we have the forensic expert saying right here that the shots to his arm were either the result of ...

A. Mike Brown with his back toward the shooter.
B. Mike Brown facing the shooter with his hands in the air above his head.
C. Mike Brown facing the shooter with his hands in a defensive position across his face or chest.

And how exactly does this help Officer Wilson?

Again, the eyewitnesses said that Ofc. Wilson walked up on Mike Brown and killed him while he had his hands in the air. The distance figure that is being bandied about is simply how far Mike Brown's body was from the officer's vehicle when he was killed. Which is relevant because both Dorian Johnson and the Ferguson PD say the first shot was fired from inside the police vehicle. Additionally, eyewitnesses said the officer was firing at Mike Brown as he fled and they saw his body jerk and that's when he turned around, got on his knees, and put his hands in the air. So apparently they assumed one of the shots must have hit him when he was fleeing. But perhaps not. In any event, the officer has a lot of explaining to do because the witnesses describe him firing, pausing, then walking up to Mike Brown who had already surrendered and firing more shots to his head. So the kill shot was less than 25'. Ok. But none of the eyewitnesses ever said otherwise.

And how exactly does this help Officer Wilson?

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Aug 19, 2014 at 12:08 AM. )
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 18, 2014, 07:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
There are at least two other eye witnesses, and their stories also don't match. My father used to be a lawyer, and he told me on several occasions that the worst type of evidence is eye witness testimony (even when the eye witnesses have no allegiance to one side or another).
Well, that's most of what we're going to have regardless of the multiple autopsies. What we know for certain out of the gate is that Brown's friend's account of the cop shooting Brown in the back is decidedly wrong.

You should take a page of your own book: don't try to fill in the gaps of the story before all the evidence is in. Especially if it's just to confirm the story you prefer.
I'd ask that you not pull pages out of my book when holding me accountable for it. i.e. you snipped this little bit out of my statement -- "... if it corroborates Wilson's story, we have a very different narrative than those inciting riots and looting would have you believe." Note the word "if".

And let me be perfectly clear here, the only sane story to prefer would be the one you're accusing me of. Think about that for at least more than 1.5 seconds, thanks.

That's a cop out. The mental age is crucially important when assessing how a person may react.
No. No it's really not. You don't stop to ask the age of a 6'4", 275 lb person you're pursuing for criminal acts.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 18, 2014, 07:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
First of all, whether Mike Brown was a "sweet lovable kid" is entirely irrelevant to the circumstances surrounding his death. As for whether or not he was shot from behind even that isn't 100% clear based upon the autopsy results:



Private autopsy says Brown shot 6 times; Holder orders third autopsy : News

IIRC correctly Mike Brown was shot 6 times but only 3 bullets were recovered from his body. The others must have went "through and through". But we have the forensic expert saying right here that the shots to his arm were either the result of ...

A. Mike Brown with his back toward the shooter.
B. Mike Brown facing the shooter with his hands in the air above his head.
C. Mike Brown facing the shooter with his hands in a defensive position across his face or chest.

And how exactly does this help Officer Wilson?

Again, the eyewitnesses said that Ofc. Wilson walked up on Mike Brown and killed him while he had his hands in the air. The distance figure that is being bandied about is simply how far Mike Brown's body was from the officer's vehicle when he was killed. Which is relevant because both Dorian Johnson and the Ferguson PD say the first shot was fired from inside the police vehicle. Additionally, eyewitnesses said the officer was firing at Mike Brown as he fled and they saw his body jerk and that's when he turned around, got on his knees, and put his hands in the air. So apparently they assumed one of the shots must have hit him when he was fleeing. But perhaps not. In any event, the officer has a lot of explaining to do because the witnesses describe him firing, pausing, then walking up to Mike Brown who had already surrendered and firing more shots to his head. So the kill shot was less than 25'. Ok. But none of the eyewitnesses ever said otherwise.

And how exactly does this help Officer Wilson?

OAW
Yep, same garbage all over again. I didn't say I have the answers, I'm just going to follow the forensics evidence, because it's becoming more and more apparent that eyewitness testimony in this case is going to be completely useless.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 18, 2014, 11:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Yep, same garbage all over again. I didn't say I have the answers, I'm just going to follow the forensics evidence, because it's becoming more and more apparent that eyewitness testimony in this case is going to be completely useless.
A minute ago you were insistent that Mike Brown was NOT shot from behind. Then I presented what the forensics experts actually said which did NOT rule out that possibility. In fact, they explicitly listed it as a potential scenario. And now all of a sudden you say you don't have all the answers. Seems like your story keeps shifting just like the Ferguson PD. So now you have demonstrated yourself to be woefully uninformed on the subject. Which is what happens when you only bother to read the headlines and not the full article. I'll just leave it at that.

OAW

PS: And we'll also take note of how you didn't answer the question of how any of these revelations help Officer Wilson.
( Last edited by OAW; Aug 19, 2014 at 12:03 AM. )
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 19, 2014, 12:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
A minute ago you were insistent that Mike Brown was NOT shot from behind. Then I presented what the forensics experts actually said which did NOT rule out that possibility. In fact, they explicitly listed it as a potential scenario. And now you say you don't have all the answers. Your story keeps shifting just like the Ferguson PD. I'll just leave it at that.

OAW

PS: And we'll also take note of how you didn't answer the question of how any of these revelations help Officer Wilson.
Nooo, I said:

Not only is evidence showing he wasn't shot in the back, the shot that killed him was at much less than 25'. As more of this unfolds, the facts are painting a much different picture than everyone was initially led to believe,
I didn't say anything definitive, as you're implying. Are you going to just distort what people have said again, to fit your agenda? Because that gets tedious very quickly.

Also, I don't know how different perspectives help the officer, because I'm not trying to help him. I'm just digesting the evidence as it comes out and haven't made up my mind where I stand on this matter. "We" don't care what you "take note of".
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 19, 2014, 09:13 AM
 
So the ACLU agreement seems to have accomplished jack shit last night.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 19, 2014, 11:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
I didn't say anything definitive, as you're implying. Are you going to just distort what people have said again, to fit your agenda? Because that gets tedious very quickly.

Also, I don't know how different perspectives help the officer, because I'm not trying to help him. I'm just digesting the evidence as it comes out and haven't made up my mind where I stand on this matter. "We" don't care what you "take note of".
Duly noted. My point here is that a bullet may not have struck Mike Brown in the back ... but that doesn't mean that he wasn't struck from behind. Several witnesses say that Officer Wilson was shooting at Mike Brown as he was fleeing. They stated that his body jerked as if he were hit and that's when he stopped, turned around and put his hands in the air. And at that point the officer kept firing until he was dead. Whether being shot from behind resulted in him being struck in the back or the arm is beside the point. An eyewitness is not necessarily going to be able to tell from a distance exactly where the bullet landed ... but that will still commonly be described as "shot in the back" when technically what's being stated is that he was "shot from behind". So that's NOT a knock on the credibility of the eyewitness accounts. The issue is that the officer was firing at an unarmed, fleeing person who posed no threat to him at that point in time.

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Aug 19, 2014 at 12:44 PM. )
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 19, 2014, 12:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
So the ACLU agreement seems to have accomplished jack shit last night.
I'm surprised I hadn't seen these "loopholes" before.

"A protester might shoot you. If you don't leave I'll be forced to arrest you for your own safety."

I want someone from one of the Baghdad bureaus to go there just so they can give the cops the look of incredulity.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 19, 2014, 02:07 PM
 
I can't say that the willful blindness of the Ferguson Mayor is shocking. Unfortunately, this is fairly typical for STL.

Ferguson mayor: There's no racial divide here | MSNBC

OAW
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 19, 2014, 02:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I've covered that clearly and explicitly already: (1) Teenagers can have terrible ideas, even if they aren't lost causes (that includes mouthing off). And (2) that it is by no means automatic that you have to shoot-to-kill to solve a tense situation.

In these instances you're wrong. One police man (our former neighbor) got his training in the GDR, a socialist dictatorship, a simply continued with what was »normal«. The retired second police man (who used to be a member of my judo club) worked in Munich, a region with a very low crime rate. In some cases these were 16-year olds who were taking their parents' car for a spin (in Germany you have to wait until 18 to get your driver's license for cars).

That's very vague even without the stars: what's your point exactly?
My point without the (or with fewer) stars is the majority of violent cops become that way by working within a system where violence makes a certain amount of sense. They aren't violent just for the sake of being violent. At least to start. I fully admit it tends to get out of control. That the violence makes a certain amount of sense calls for a different metric for judgment than if it makes no sense whatsoever.

The cop in judo class? Appears to make no sense. You likely have a colossal asshole there. The cop who was basically trained by the ****ing Soviets? How do you expect him to act?

Does that expectation justify his behavior? Absolutely not. Am I going to judge him differently than the cop who's spent his whole life on the quiet streets of Munich? Of course I am.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 19, 2014, 02:09 PM
 
The professional rioters have showed up. Anarchists, black militants, etc. Their only goal is to provoke the police and make things worse while the whole world is watching. That's why this keeps getting worse... The police may have started it, but now that it's a media circus and the eye of the world are on Ferguson, the whacks have come out to cause trouble.

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 19, 2014, 02:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
The professional rioters have showed up. Anarchists, black militants, etc. Their only goal is to provoke the police and make things worse while the whole world is watching. That's why this keeps getting worse... The police may have started it, but now that it's a media circus and the eye of the world are on Ferguson, the whacks have come out to cause trouble.
Indeed. Capt. Johnson was saying they were arresting people all the way from CA and NY who came into town to wreak havoc. These rioters are only a tiny fraction of the people out there. The overwhelming majority are protestors. And as quiet as it was kept, the protestors did more to stop to the rioters than the police did.

OAW
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 19, 2014, 02:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
My point without the (or with fewer) stars is the majority of violent cops become that way by working within a system where violence makes a certain amount of sense. They aren't violent just for the sake of being violent. At least to start. I fully admit it tends to get out of control. That the violence makes a certain amount of sense calls for a different metric for judgment than if it makes no sense whatsoever.
Like you write before, an explanation is not a justification.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The cop in judo class? Appears to make no sense. You likely have a colossal asshole there. The cop who was basically trained by the ****ing Soviets? How do you expect him to act?
Until I met the second cop, I thought it was a difference between the two systems. But after meeting the second one, I'm not so sure anymore. And in the end, there is no difference between the actions, these two guys were proudly talking about it with either their neighbors or in front of other club members as if they told the story about that time when they bought chewing gum at a 7/11. No shame, no care about who might or might not listen in on the conversation. If they don't mind telling outsiders (non-police men), you have to wonder what they tell to other police officers.

In Munich, cops are specifically targeting small time stoners. If you wear the »right« clothes, you can be quite certain to be searched. And usually cops skid right on the line of legality in the sense that they intimidatingly ask you to do something and if you (voluntarily) do it, you're ok. Targeting the weak (your teenage stoner) is just so much easier than the investment banker with a cocaine habit.

(Just to be clear, I'm not saying all cops are assholes. They certainly do have a hard job and some people are really giving them a hard time, e. g. because they only show up after the crime. Also, this has happened ~10+ years ago, and perhaps the new generation of cops no longer find this acceptable.)

To tie this back in with the story of Ferguson: the reaction of the city police afterwards is much more telling -- and well-documented -- than any of the evidence of the actual shooting. The excessive display of force just tells me plenty about the mindset of police there, sort of like in some Eastern German police department where it is apparently acceptable to gratuitously beat up kids for shits and giggles.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 19, 2014, 02:55 PM
 
An explanation is not a justification, but when you lack the explanation it's all too easy to fall in the trap of demonizing someone or something.

There's no question the Ferguson PD botched things left and right. Did they botch things to the extent that even with the National Guard on scene the situation is still out of control, or is there a possibility the Ferguson PD had a situation there was no hope of them ever controlling in the first place?

I'm going to judge the acts of the FPD differently depending upon which scenario is closer to truth.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 19, 2014, 03:57 PM
 
And we just had another police shooting. Great timing! This time in the northern reaches of the STL city limits a mere 3 miles from Ferguson. This time the man was armed with a knife. Neighbors describe him as someone with mental issues. While this shooting is certainly not as egregious as what happened with Mike Brown, it does beg the question. If an erratically behaving man with a knife is several feet away WTF can't you just use the freaking TASER instead of BULLETS?

St. Louis Cops Shoot and Kill Man Near Ferguson, Crowd Gathers - NBC News

OAW
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 19, 2014, 04:12 PM
 
A quick synopsis of the FIVE (thus far) separate eyewitness accounts of what happened. Note this does not necessarily account for all the contemporaneous social media posts ... this is just those who have come forward in media interviews and/or investigators. All say Mike Brown was fleeing from Officer Wilson who was firing at him, then he stopped, turned around with his hands in the air, and at that point Officer Wilson continued his approach and fired more shots killing him.

5 Eyewitness Accounts of Michael Brown’s Shooting - The Root

OAW
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 19, 2014, 04:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
And we just had another police shooting. Great timing! This time in the northern reaches of the STL city limits a mere 3 miles from Ferguson. This time the man was armed with a knife. Neighbors describe him as someone with mental issues. While this shooting is certainly not as egregious as what happened with Mike Brown, it does beg the question. If an erratically behaving man with a knife is several feet away WTF can't you just use the freaking TASER instead of BULLETS?

St. Louis Cops Shoot and Kill Man Near Ferguson, Crowd Gathers - NBC News

OAW
The answer which jumps immediately to mind is they didn't have Tasers.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 19, 2014, 04:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The answer which jumps immediately to mind is they didn't have Tasers.
I suppose that's possible. But then that begs the question of why these local PD's have all the surplus military gear but not tasers and dash cams?

OAW
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 19, 2014, 04:50 PM
 
It depends on the particular PD. I'm sure there are many who wouldn't be able to provide a good reason.

Either way, I'd assume the STLPD is a completely different animal than the nearby suburban PDs.
     
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Aug 19, 2014, 07:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
But then that begs the question of why these local PD's have all the surplus military gear but not tasers and dash cams?
I read somewhere that they do have dash cams on hand. But hadn't bothered to install them in the cars.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2014, 06:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Duly noted. My point here is that a bullet may not have struck Mike Brown in the back ... but that doesn't mean that he wasn't struck from behind. Several witnesses say that Officer Wilson was shooting at Mike Brown as he was fleeing. They stated that his body jerked as if he were hit and that's when he stopped, turned around and put his hands in the air. And at that point the officer kept firing until he was dead. Whether being shot from behind resulted in him being struck in the back or the arm is beside the point. An eyewitness is not necessarily going to be able to tell from a distance exactly where the bullet landed ... but that will still commonly be described as "shot in the back" when technically what's being stated is that he was "shot from behind". So that's NOT a knock on the credibility of the eyewitness accounts. The issue is that the officer was firing at an unarmed, fleeing person who posed no threat to him at that point in time.

OAW
It's also entirely possible that Brown never had his hands in the air and that he turned and charged the pursuing officer. Several witnesses report that Wilson was opening up on Brown while Brown was charging him. Right?
ebuddy
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2014, 09:02 AM
 
The only person saying Brown was shot in the back was his buddy involved in the strong arm robbery.

This whole thing has been enraged by the political hacks to change our attention from the amount of south american roaches pouring over our borders. Luckily, the MSM has been helping too.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2014, 09:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
I suppose that's possible. But then that begs the question of why these local PD's have all the surplus military gear but not tasers and dash cams?

OAW
Yeah, I've been wondering, did the guy who drove up not have a dash cam? Was it not on?

Because, if you're telling me that we live in a country where the police are prioritizing riot gear over dash cams, I would make a serious call for that kind of ridiculousness to legislated to the dust bin of history. The cost could't possibly be prohibitive compared to riot gear.
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2014, 11:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
This whole thing has been enraged by the political hacks to change our attention from the amount of south american roaches pouring over our borders.
Right on.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2014, 12:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
It's also entirely possible that Brown never had his hands in the air and that he turned and charged the pursuing officer. Several witnesses report that Wilson was opening up on Brown while Brown was charging him. Right?
Ok. Let's say you get into some sort of altercation with a police officer. And let's set aside who started it and why. Because now the cop just took a shot at you and the reason why is pretty much irrelevant at this stage in the game. So you take off running. The cop gets out of the car and continues to shoot at you. Now please raise your hand if YOU would then stop, turn around, and bum rush the cop who is still shooting at you? Wearing flip flops mind you! I'll wait ....

.
.
.
.

Is that a REASONABLE and RATIONAL response in that situation by any human being with an inkling of a self-perseveration instinct? Of course not! It's even more ludicrous than the narrative in the Trayvon Martin case where the kid was running away in fear one second ... then the next second he supposedly turns around and becomes "Super Thug" and attacks unprovoked. Unfortunately, there are plenty of people who ascribe to such fanciful notions when it comes to other people who don't look like them or live where they live ... when they would NEVER ascribe to such foolishness when it comes to themselves or their own.

So it is certainly possible that the Ferguson PD account is the truth and the 5 eyewitnesses that have come forth so far ALL got it wrong telling what is essentially the same story. I'm just saying that it's not probable my friend.

As for witnesses that supposedly claim Brown was charging the officer ... I'm just going to have to ask you to cite a reference where the witness is speaking in their own words. The only thing I've seen is an eyewitness account on social media that picked up a guy in the background saying "he kept coming." Those who buy into the Ferguson PD's narrative are assuming the HE referred to Mike Brown. Which is ludicrous since ALL the eyewitnesses said that Mike Brown put his hands in the air and Officer Wilson kept approaching while shooting. So the HE that guy was talking about was Officer Wilson.

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Aug 20, 2014 at 12:41 PM. )
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2014, 12:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Yeah, I've been wondering, did the guy who drove up not have a dash cam? Was it not on?

Because, if you're telling me that we live in a country where the police are prioritizing riot gear over dash cams, I would make a serious call for that kind of ridiculousness to legislated to the dust bin of history. The cost could't possibly be prohibitive compared to riot gear.
The Ferguson PD presently does NOT have dash cams. Go figure.

OAW
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2014, 12:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
The Ferguson PD presently does NOT have dash cams. Go figure.

OAW
It's the little things that catch you off-guard. It's not that I thought police were required to have them, but I figured they were ubiquitous (I should find out if my town has them).

I mean, I could see an excuse that "they weren't in the budget" (though I can't imagine they're that expensive compared to vehicles that are replace every 10 years or so), but how do you justify prioritizing riot gear over dash cams? I mean, is Ferguson prone riots or something? (The riot gear was purchased by Ferguson, correct? Or am I mistaken?)

I mean, we talk about poor perception of the police, how does that kind of priorities strike you?
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:12 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2