FBI Opens Investigation into Shooting of Michael Brown

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

So basically what you have is a police force that largely doesn't reside in the town, drawing salaries from money made by shaking down the town's residents?

Pretty typical in towns like this. Said it from Day 1 that if towns like this (and Newark, where I know more about it..) would institute rules that forced public servants to live in those communities, it'd go a long way to changing some things.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

This is a great video BTW.

The great part of that video is at 27:00, where a prosecutor comes on and says "everything he said was right".

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Young Drachma

Pretty typical in towns like this. Said it from Day 1 that if towns like this (and Newark, where I know more about it..) would institute rules that forced public servants to live in those communities, it'd go a long way to changing some things.

By all means, limit the pool of qualified personnel. That should fix things right up.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Arles

They are stupid to act like an obstructionist on a routine traffic or parking stop. A majority of these instances are at the officer's discretion as to whether you get a ticket (or worse). Openly defying them and refusing to interact is a quick path to lose any discretion on your behalf. And for what purpose? To feel all smug and good about yourself for being a dick? I don't get it.

You line up 20 traffic stops and have a person act polite and reasonable on the first 10 and "refuse to talk" for the other 10 and see who ends up with more tickets and overall level of hassle. I get it for really serious stuff, but having this attitude across the board just seems childish and stupid - not to mention actually hurting your chances of a positive outcome.

Agreed. I got pulled over one time for speeding in an area where I knew a small town cop always hangs out. He approached me. I first apologized to him for stopping along the side of the road rather than pulling onto a side street. Asked him if he wanted me to pull around the corner to a safer area. He thanked me and said no. He then asked me if I knew why I was pulled over. I said I'm assuming I was going too fast. He said I was going 57 in a 45 MPH zone. He asked if I had any reason to go that fast. I told him to be honest, I know you all patrol this area regularly, but my wife and her grandmother were arguing about something and I was distracted. He went back to his car, checked my history and insurance, and then came back. He said he was going to let me go this time on a warning, but to focus more on my driving going forward. I shook his hand and thanked him.

There's absolutely no way that situation ends how it did if I follow the instructions of that guy in the video.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

The great part of that video is at 27:00, where a prosecutor comes on and says "everything he said was right".

Yeah - I've watched it before.

That being said - I like some of what it has to say, but I think you've got to take everything in context.

If I get pulled over for a rolling stop at a stop-sign on St. Patrick's Day or something, and I know I have nothing in my car, and I haven't been drinking that day or anything, I'm not going to 5th Amendment up and turn it into a confrontation. I'm not going to voluntarily incriminate myself as far as why I was pulled over (I'll pull the "please enlighten me officer" bit, but I'm not going to go out of my way to turn it confrontational.

Both because it would only take more of my time then the ticket was worth, and it would also take the officer's time when he could be out there going after actual drunk drivers who were a danger.

Now if they've pulled me over for doing 70 in a 50 or something and I'm looking at a huge ticket - then yeah...I'm going to act differently.

I feel like you guys are all arguing the two extremes "be a sheeple" or "be confrontational" and nobody's acknowledging that the reality for most people in most interactions is going to lie in the middle ground.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Young Drachma

Pretty typical in towns like this. Said it from Day 1 that if towns like this (and Newark, where I know more about it..) would institute rules that forced public servants to live in those communities, it'd go a long way to changing some things.

I'm going to note that this is only somewhat effective. Here in KC, they have a rule that all public servants (firefighters, police, etc.) must live in the city limits of KC proper. I live in the far northeast corner of KC in a small slice of the city that is in a well-respected suburban school district. This area has great property value, one of the best school districts in the state, and is 15-20 minutes from the core of the city. Last I checked, a good portion of firefighters and police in the city live in our area. It's wonderful from our perspective because we are a ridiculously safe area of the community due to the number of public servants in the area. But I doubt the policy in place is really having the intended effect they'd like it to have. Those people are looking for areas to live that meet the requirements, but are far away from the core of the city.

I can see both sides of this argument. Just presenting my personal experience in regards to this kind of policy.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'm going to note that this is only somewhat effective. Here in KC, they have a rule that all public servants (firefighters, police, etc.) must live in the city limits of KC proper. I live in the far northeast corner of KC in a small slice of the city that is in a well-respected suburban school district. This area has great property value, one of the best school districts in the state, and is 15-20 minutes from the core of the city. Last I checked, a good portion of firefighters and police in the city live in our area. It's wonderful from our perspective because we are a ridiculously safe area of the community due to the number of public servants in the area. But I doubt the policy in place is really having the intended effect they'd like it to have. Those people are looking for areas to live that meet the requirements, but are far away from the core of the city.

I can see both sides of this argument. Just presenting my personal experience in regards to this kind of policy.

Right - but you can only go so far with that type of policy before it becomes ridiculously nit-picky.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Agreed. I got pulled over one time for speeding in an area where I knew a small town cop always hangs out. He approached me. I first apologized to him for stopping along the side of the road rather than pulling onto a side street. Asked him if he wanted me to pull around the corner to a safer area. He thanked me and said no. He then asked me if I knew why I was pulled over. I said I'm assuming I was going too fast. He said I was going 57 in a 45 MPH zone. He asked if I had any reason to go that fast. I told him to be honest, I know you all patrol this area regularly, but my wife and her grandmother were arguing about something and I was distracted. He went back to his car, checked my history and insurance, and then came back. He said he was going to let me go this time on a warning, but to focus more on my driving going forward. I shook his hand and thanked him.

There's absolutely no way that situation ends how it did if I follow the instructions of that guy in the video.

But, on another day, if the officer was in a bad mood/needed to make a quota/whatever, you gave him an opening to ticket your wife and her grandmother for distracting a driver. It obviously didn't happen here, but that is exactly what the video was referring to. Why give them extra info?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by cartman

But, on another day, if the officer was in a bad mood/needed to make a quota/whatever, you gave him an opening to ticket your wife and her grandmother for distracting a driver. It obviously didn't happen here, but that is exactly what the video was referring to. Why give them extra info?

Because, in general, police are going to appreciate honestly IMO. I know quite a few KCPD cops who frequent my establishment. They say the same thing. If you have nothing to hide and you're honest with us from the start, we're going to move on to looking for the bad guys rather than waste our time talking with you.

I'm not sure I care if he gives me a ticket either. I've already admitted I broke a law. Should I be upset if he gives me a ticket? I'm sure there's an exception somewhere, but for the most part, honesty is the best policy.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Because, in general, police are going to appreciate honestly IMO. I know quite a few KCPD cops who frequent my establishment. They say the same thing. If you have nothing to hide and you're honest with us from the start, we're going to move on to looking for the bad guys rather than waste our time talking with you.

Want to know how I know you didn't watch the video?

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

By all means, limit the pool of qualified personnel. That should fix things right up.

If you want the job, move there. Period. Works for rural communities and other enclaves, it's only when we talk about majority black towns in the North where people want to assume "well, there aren't enough qualified applicants."

Bullshit. Find them. Move them there.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

I'm sorry because I'm not trying to be "aggressive". It's just that your posts literally make me *facepalm* with the logic and reasoning you provide.

First, we'll disagree on where your logic takes you when you're stopping people for being the wrong color in a certain neighborhood and then arresting people when you don't like their answers.

Secondly, what you're saying about speaking to the cops is complete bunk. You're asserting the people should not protect their Constitutional rights because the police may violate them if you do? Instead we shouldn't assert or protect your rights at all because it may work out better for us? What kind of logic is that? Sorry, I'd rather assert my rights and know at least that legally I'm covered. If it agitates a cop that I'm following the law and expecting them to do the same, then that's his/her problem. If they make it mine, I will seek restitution.

And finally, I really suggest you watch the video linked. The first 10 minutes will tell you exactly why you don't talk to cops. Please.

To be fair Arles & DT have qualified what I was trying to say with what I assumed people would take as read - i'm talking about situations where either you're completely clear of any wrongdoing, and/or not being accused of murder or anything. If you didn't get that, well, I didn't explicitly state it I guess.

But no, I don't agree that taking the 5th is the best possible option in most circumstances. In fact, it is IMO, a very poor option most of the time in a traffic stop like CU Tiger found himself in, and he also says himself that he would do things differently if there is a next time.

What is also true in my belief in initial attitudes set the playing field is that it's a two-way street: you react to the attitude of the other, and if the cop is aggressive, it is more difficult to be rational and open. Note open: not sheepie or however it was described: I'm not saying roll over but just why be awkward if you don't have to be?

I'm done in terms of this: my perspective is from UK police who are generally unarmed, and clearly very different to a US inner city cop in Ferguson/CU's case, but I wanted to express my opinion - I know it's a bit hippyish to an extent, but I do genuinely believe if all other things are equal, you do better by being helpful than obstructive in these situations.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'm going to note that this is only somewhat effective. Here in KC, they have a rule that all public servants (firefighters, police, etc.) must live in the city limits of KC proper. I live in the far northeast corner of KC in a small slice of the city that is in a well-respected suburban school district. This area has great property value, one of the best school districts in the state, and is 15-20 minutes from the core of the city. Last I checked, a good portion of firefighters and police in the city live in our area. It's wonderful from our perspective because we are a ridiculously safe area of the community due to the number of public servants in the area. But I doubt the policy in place is really having the intended effect they'd like it to have. Those people are looking for areas to live that meet the requirements, but are far away from the core of the city.

I can see both sides of this argument. Just presenting my personal experience in regards to this kind of policy.

I'm talking about small towns that have the distinct problem of being run by outsiders, specifically. Not large cities, where I know places like Chicago require you to live there within six months if you want to work for school district.

There are tons of these inside of the urban core towns that are largely overrun by outsiders coming in, getting training and then leaving for greener pastures. It really depends on the community, I'm not an absolutist about it. But there are a lot of places that have the demographic issues in terms of civil servants that Ferguson boasts that would be solved by ordinances to make people live there.

Rather than Jon's inference that no qualified people would chose to live amongst the uncouth, alternatives, you'd just get white enclaves that probably already exist would just become more appealing and housing values would go up as a result.

That's if the argument that the only qualified people to be police officers, firefighters or teachers in these communities are predominantly non-black people who'd otherwise choose to not live there.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Young Drachma

If you want the job, move there. Period. Works for rural communities and other enclaves, it's only when we talk about majority black towns in the North where people want to assume "well, there aren't enough qualified applicants."

Bullshit. Find them. Move them there.

Actually it hasn't been a rule in any of the rural or suburban counties I've lived in. And in the town most comparable to Ferguson it was far from the case. Our best and most respected officers tended to both come from AND live outside the area, the most corrupt (both black and white) were the locals. Too much history, too many relatives, too much personal crap, etc etc.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Yeah - I've watched it before.

That being said - I like some of what it has to say, but I think you've got to take everything in context.

If I get pulled over for a rolling stop at a stop-sign on St. Patrick's Day or something, and I know I have nothing in my car, and I haven't been drinking that day or anything, I'm not going to 5th Amendment up and turn it into a confrontation. I'm not going to voluntarily incriminate myself as far as why I was pulled over (I'll pull the "please enlighten me officer" bit, but I'm not going to go out of my way to turn it confrontational.

Both because it would only take more of my time then the ticket was worth, and it would also take the officer's time when he could be out there going after actual drunk drivers who were a danger.

Now if they've pulled me over for doing 70 in a 50 or something and I'm looking at a huge ticket - then yeah...I'm going to act differently. For all of these stories about getting out of tickets...so have I! But I have also had times where aggressive cops asked to search my car. No. Where am I going? No. Where have I been? No. So on and so forth.

I feel like you guys are all arguing the two extremes "be a sheeple" or "be confrontational" and nobody's acknowledging that the reality for most people in most interactions is going to lie in the middle ground.

No one who has said "don't talk" has said be confrontational. That's a myth from the "sheeple" side who believe you should answer questions, allow searches and so forth. I've never said be confrontational. Ever. In fact, I've repeatedly said I would be polite. I'll politely give them my license and registration. I'll keep my hands where they can see them. I don't feel like getting tased, clubbed or shot.

I'm just not giving them any information or allowing them to search my person or my car.

[nol]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

If it is true there will be hospital/doctor records. Not really anything to fuss over now until the evidence is released.

No, the evidence is the evidence. I'm already assuming the most cop-friendly position where the anonymously-sourced report from the St. Louis police department is true and Darren Wilson suffered an orbital blowout fracture.

What I'm saying is that it's entirely consistent for someone to have minor bruises and swelling that don't require immediate medical attention while also having a broken bone. Conversely, it would be incredibly easy to put a spin on that information and convince a dumb person (aka a potential juror) that an orbital blowout fracture is a big, scary life-threatening injury (Whoa, a broken skull!) that demands a lethal escalation of force when it isn't even close. In fact, you could probably argue that in court without having to provide a definitive answer about whether the orbital fracture was the result of an unprovoked attack or self-defense.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by cartman

So using rights granted to you by the Constitution is stupid and obstructionist?

My goal at any routine police interaction is to have the least amount of disturbance and lowest chance for a fine/ticket possible. I've found the best path for this is to be polite and answer their questions. I guess it depends on your goals. If your goals are to never talk to the police because you have that right - have at it. I just don't see that helping the case for my goal. But, again, maybe people don't mind paying tickets/fines and paying attorneys to fight every situation. That's just not me.

If the officers are inconvenienced by someone invoking their rights, that isn't the person's problem.

It is when they get an escalated ticket or additional charge for being difficult. You have the right to tell an officer you aren't going to speak to them and invoke your 5th amendment when they pull you over. They also have the right to give you a ticket and/or add additional "petty offenses" because you aggravated them. Now, you can hire an attorney and fight those offenses and try to bargain the ticket down. But, is that really a better solution than just simply cooperating either getting a minimal ticket or no ticket at all? At a minimum, my time is worth more to me to quickly answer their questions and get on my way as opposed to being difficult and having them detain me longer or add more red tape I have to deal with.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I feel like you guys are all arguing the two extremes "be a sheeple" or "be confrontational" and nobody's acknowledging that the reality for most people in most interactions is going to lie in the middle ground.

According to the video that everyone is lauding over, there is NEVER any situation to EVER talk to a policeman. Seems like that advice is pretty cut and dry. If, instead, the video offered a more reasonable approach and saying never talk if you are accused of a serious crime or may have committed a more serious offense, I wouldn't have the issue I do with it.

[digamma]

Lots of people here ordering the Nate Silver jailhouse burrito, apparently.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Arles

According to the video that everyone is lauding over, there is NEVER any situation to EVER talk to a policeman. Seems like that advice is pretty cut and dry. If, instead, the video offered a more reasonable approach and saying never talk if you are accused of a serious crime or may have committed a more serious offense, I wouldn't have the issue I do with it.

Did you watch the video, or stop it a minute or two in? They go over exactly why even what you think is a nice and innocent statement can still land you in hot water. You have every right to waive your 5th Amendment protections, just as you also have the right to invoke them. If you feel in your situation that answering questions is fine, that is your right. It should be (but as you mentioned isn't) that if you decide to invoke your 5th Amendment right in a respectful manner, that shouldn't be viewed by a LEO as 'being difficult' and subject to punitive damages. By treating someone invoking their rights in that way, aren't they just trying to create an environment to keep you from using a constitutional right?

[Arles]

Originally Posted by cartman

It should be (but as you mentioned isn't) that if you decide to invoke your 5th Amendment right in a respectful manner, that shouldn't be viewed by a LEO as 'being difficult' and subject to punitive damages. By treating someone invoking their rights in that way, aren't they just trying to create an environment to keep you from using a constitutional right?

I prefer to deal with reality, not some kind of constitutional utopia. Yes, officers should handle the 5th amendment perfectly in every situation - but that just isn't real life. Again, my goal is to get out of normal traffic stops with as little hassle/fines as possible. If your goal is instead to ensure that every cop treats you properly in regards to invoking the 5th, maybe you don't mind a longer hassle or higher fine/ticket in certain instances. Good for you for fighting that fight, I just choose the path of least resistance on these minor stops and it has served me pretty well so far.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Subby

Bad cop example:

Cop Pointing Rifle At Ferguson Protestors: "I Will Fucking Kill You"

Originally Posted by RainMaker

And if his department had any integrity they would fire him immediately.

In Subby's link, they've posted an update that he has been removed from service and suspended indefinitely.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

No one who has said "don't talk" has said be confrontational. That's a myth from the "sheeple" side who believe you should answer questions, allow searches and so forth. I've never said be confrontational. Ever. In fact, I've repeatedly said I would be polite. I'll politely give them my license and registration. I'll keep my hands where they can see them. I don't feel like getting tased, clubbed or shot.

I'm just not giving them any information or allowing them to search my person or my car.

Same here - although I can't imagine I'd ever put myself in a situation to be searched, so that's really a non-issue in that regard.

[Dutch]

haha,

Dude on CNN is standing in the crowd of protesters chatting with Treyvon Martin's mother via satellite. Somebody start yelling at him and he snaps back, "I'm talking to Trayvon Martin's mom, show some respect!" and continues on with the interview. I couldn't help it, but I pictured Napoleon Dynamite yelling that.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by nol

No, the evidence is the evidence. I'm already assuming the most cop-friendly position where the anonymously-sourced report from the St. Louis police department is true and Darren Wilson suffered an orbital blowout fracture.

What I'm saying is that it's entirely consistent for someone to have minor bruises and swelling that don't require immediate medical attention while also having a broken bone. Conversely, it would be incredibly easy to put a spin on that information and convince a dumb person (aka a potential juror) that an orbital blowout fracture is a big, scary life-threatening injury (Whoa, a broken skull!) that demands a lethal escalation of force when it isn't even close. In fact, you could probably argue that in court without having to provide a definitive answer about whether the orbital fracture was the result of an unprovoked attack or self-defense.

An orbital bone fracture CAN be a big, scary deal. Not life threatening, no, but incredibly traumatic. Depending on the severity, it can cause near instant blindness in the eye or double vision. The only orbital bone fracture I've seen in person knocked the guy out and sent him to the hospital for 2 full days. (TKD tourney, a kick that landed right under the left eye)

I'm not saying the cop was in the right, I'm not saying the 18 year old deserved to die, I'm not saying this makes it an open and shut case. (Nor am I saying that Brown was in the right and the cop is a racist murderer)

We now have two sides of this story. One side saying it was the execution of a black kid in the street and the other stating the black kid attacked a cop, walked away and then charged the cop before getting hit.

I don't buy #1 and never have. #2 is much more likely, but probably doesn't state the entire story either.

Looks to me like both guys were in the wrong place, wrong time:

Kid robs store, walks in middle of street with friend.
Cop pulls up and tells kid to get out of street. Kid in a nervous state due to seeing a cop so shortly after robbing a store gets aggressive and throws a punch. A struggle ensues, more punches, the cop get drilled in the eye.

Kid turns and tries to get away. Cop pulls gun, tells him to stop. Kid turns around "What are you going to do, shoot me?" Takes step forward. Cop with blurred vision and addrenaline unloads the gun wildly. Kid dies.

I'm sure tomorrow more evidence will come out with different "facts" It's why RainMaker is right. Wait until they all come out before acting like the answer has already been given. If the story is accurate that the cops have 12 witnesses, the cop who fired the shots was hit hard enough to break bones in his face, and the already poor testimony of the "friend" falling apart. (All three main witnesses put forth in the media as friends of Brown say he was shot from behind and the cop was "trying to pull him in the police cruiser" He wasn't shot from behind and it's pretty psychotic to think that Wilson would have tried to throw Brown inside the care while sitting at the steering wheel. That pretty much defies explanation.

The people who want the cop to go to jail need some more evidence to turn their way and fast. Note: if the cop started, escalated and then shot Michael Brown, he should spend a long time in jail. I am not picking sides and haven't posted in this thread before now. Make no mistake, if the police show Wilson looking like Rocky Balboa after a fight, that IS the game changer as far as a conviction goes.

[nol]

Originally Posted by TroyF

An orbital bone fracture CAN be a big, scary deal. Not life threatening, no, but incredibly traumatic. Depending on the severity, it can cause near instant blindness in the eye or double vision. The only orbital bone fracture I've seen in person knocked the guy out and sent him to the hospital for 2 full days. (TKD tourney, a kick that landed right under the left eye)

Just stopping there, if it had been a severe fracture we would have 100 percent heard by now that Darren Wilson had to have surgery, was still in critical condition, or whatever else by now.

Originally Posted by TroyF

Looks to me like both guys were in the wrong place, wrong time:

That is absolutely true. Also, one guy got shot 6 times and is dead while the other guy got punched in the face and is on a paid vacation.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by cartman

In Subby's link, they've posted an update that he has been removed from service and suspended indefinitely.

Baby steps.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by TroyF

An orbital bone fracture CAN be a big, scary deal. Not life threatening, no, but incredibly traumatic. Depending on the severity, it can cause near instant blindness in the eye or double vision. The only orbital bone fracture I've seen in person knocked the guy out and sent him to the hospital for 2 full days. (TKD tourney, a kick that landed right under the left eye)

I'm not saying the cop was in the right, I'm not saying the 18 year old deserved to die, I'm not saying this makes it an open and shut case. (Nor am I saying that Brown was in the right and the cop is a racist murderer)

We now have two sides of this story. One side saying it was the execution of a black kid in the street and the other stating the black kid attacked a cop, walked away and then charged the cop before getting hit.

I don't buy #1 and never have. #2 is much more likely, but probably doesn't state the entire story either.

Looks to me like both guys were in the wrong place, wrong time:

Kid robs store, walks in middle of street with friend.
Cop pulls up and tells kid to get out of street. Kid in a nervous state due to seeing a cop so shortly after robbing a store gets aggressive and throws a punch. A struggle ensues, more punches, the cop get drilled in the eye.

Kid turns and tries to get away. Cop pulls gun, tells him to stop. Kid turns around "What are you going to do, shoot me?" Takes step forward. Cop with blurred vision and addrenaline unloads the gun wildly. Kid dies.

I'm sure tomorrow more evidence will come out with different "facts" It's why RainMaker is right. Wait until they all come out before acting like the answer has already been given. If the story is accurate that the cops have 12 witnesses, the cop who fired the shots was hit hard enough to break bones in his face, and the already poor testimony of the "friend" falling apart. (All three main witnesses put forth in the media as friends of Brown say he was shot from behind and the cop was "trying to pull him in the police cruiser" He wasn't shot from behind and it's pretty psychotic to think that Wilson would have tried to throw Brown inside the care while sitting at the steering wheel. That pretty much defies explanation.

The people who want the cop to go to jail need some more evidence to turn their way and fast. Note: if the cop started, escalated and then shot Michael Brown, he should spend a long time in jail. I am not picking sides and haven't posted in this thread before now. Make no mistake, if the police show Wilson looking like Rocky Balboa after a fight, that IS the game changer as far as a conviction goes.

I like this and agree we should let the story play out.

It is curious how long it took for the cop side of the story to come out, you would have thought the police would have immediately responded with evidence of the assault on the cop. This does make me wonder if the stories coming out now are somewhat iffy.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Kid turns and tries to get away. Cop pulls gun, tells him to stop. Kid turns around "What are you going to do, shoot me?" Takes step forward. Cop with blurred vision and addrenaline unloads the gun wildly. Kid dies.

Someone who knows more can correct me, but I don't think a "step forward" from allegedly 35 feet away would constitute enough reason to shoot a minimum of six times. That would lean more towards #1 in your scenario than #2. Of course, change that to "charged the cop" and it's a different story, although still hard for me to comprehend why someone would do that when a cop has pulled a gun on them. My unscientific guess would be that 99.9% of the times criminals face a cop yelling to freeze, they try to run away, not towards.

(All three main witnesses put forth in the media as friends of Brown say he was shot from behind and the cop was "trying to pull him in the police cruiser" He wasn't shot from behind and it's pretty psychotic to think that Wilson would have tried to throw Brown inside the care while sitting at the steering wheel. That pretty much defies explanation.

He may have been shot from behind. The bullets that hit his arm could have just as easily come as he was running away/back turned/process of turning around.

As for "trying to pull him in" I think you're overstating that. The witness statements I've seen said that Wilson grabbed Brown through the window of the car and was trying to hold him against the car. Not that he was trying to throw him into the backseat.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Logan

He may have been shot from behind. The bullets that hit his arm could have just as easily come as he was running away/back turned/process of turning around.

Yeah, I don't know why people keep saying "the autopsy showed all the shots were from the front" when it doesn't and I've already posted the quote from the medical examiner who says they could have come from behind.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Yeah, I don't know why people keep saying "the autopsy showed all the shots were from the front" when it doesn't and I've already posted the quote from the medical examiner who says they could have come from behind.

I think it's because the Times article on the autopsy said, without a direct quote, "Mr. Brown, 18, was also shot four times in the right arm, he said, adding that all the bullets were fired into his front." So maybe that was written explicitly and quoted in the autopsy, I don't remember. But what's important is that the "front" of the arm from a medical examiner's perspective is "palms up, elbows pointed down" which obviously isn't a natural way anyone would ever stand.

Doesn't mean that he 100% wasn't facing forward either, but just simply that arm position is impossible to determine based on what we know.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Logan

I think it's because the Times article on the autopsy said, without a direct quote, "Mr. Brown, 18, was also shot four times in the right arm, he said, adding that all the bullets were fired into his front." So maybe that was written explicitly and quoted in the autopsy, I don't remember. But what's important is that the "front" of the arm from a medical examiner's perspective is "palms up, elbows pointed down" which obviously isn't a natural way anyone would ever stand.

Doesn't mean that he 100% wasn't facing forward either, but just simply that arm position is impossible to determine based on what we know.

That article was wrong then, given the direct quote I've already posted from the guy who did the examination.

[Noop]

[TroyF]

1) If the medical examiner said that, then what I've read/heard is wrong. Obviously, IF it can be proven the shots were from behind, it is some sort of a murder charge against the cop. Or should be.

2) In my "story" above, I'm NOT saying it was OK for the cop to put 6 rounds in the kid at 35 feet away. I'm saying if he was suffering from blurred vision, blindness due to the orbital bone injury, he may not have been thinking very clearly. Fearing for your life, vision blurred/depth perception off, addrenaline pumping. . . I'm stating a "reason" the shots may have been fired.

3) The idea that the cop was trying to hold Brown to the side of the car or trying ANY type of physical altercation from inside the police car is just beyond my scope of reason. Why would a cop intentionally put himself in a horrible position? Grabbing someone (especially someone who is much bigger than you) from inside a car gives the other individual a vast advantage in any altercation. If the cop did it, it's one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.

4) As for the police side of the story, they have done a pretty amazing job of locking down the fort on BOTH sides. The Brown witnesses came forward to the media, their testimony was not released by the cops. The video tape of the robbery was a freedom of inormation act request. There have been zero leaks from the FBI who have been out since the start of this thread.

What does that mean? I don't know. I know we haven't seen the cop, so he may look like Rocky after a fight or he may look like a male fashion model. Everything about the cop's side of events has been given through anonymous sources. I've heard one say Brown was charging and actually died about 3 feet in front of the cop.

Witnesses suck in situations like this. Forensics like CSI happen mainly in TV shows. The one great thing is eventually all of the evidence will come out. We will see the officers "injuries" We will hear the witnesses from both sides give their information. Then everyone will make their own opinions fit what they believe happened, they'll have a heated discussion about it and we will move on.

IMHO, every cop needs to be wearing a camera. All day, every day, every city. I don't care about the cost. It needs to happen.It won't make things perfect, but it will give a clearer picture than we get now. Instead of spending money on F'ing tanks, it should be spent on technology to protect both the cops and the citizens.

[cuervo72]

Coverage like this too, Noop: When The Media Treats White Suspects And Killers Better Than Black Victims

[Noop]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Coverage like this too, Noop: When The Media Treats White Suspects And Killers Better Than Black Victims

That articulated what I have been thinking better than I could.

[cuervo72]

There's video of the Kajieme Powell shooting out now too. I don't know if this was suicide by cop, or goading them to prove a point. Either way...the police certainly didn't hesitate to do what he told them to, or to even attempt to talk him down.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Noop

Well, you could add Tim McVeigh to the white side. We could also take innocent white guys shot by police (it happens) and throw in blacks who have multiple homicides who were arrested and not killed. We could also throw up hispanics, american indians and others on our poster.

Overall, I don't know the situations of everyone on the poster, but I do know one right off. James Holmes was sitting in the parking lot when the police got him.

Rather than a picture with the word "murdered" under it, how about telling both sides of the stories, the aftermath (did the cop go to trial and get convicted) and use those cases to rally the cause?

Just a thought.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Well, you could add Tim McVeigh to the white side. We could also take innocent white guys shot by police (it happens) and throw in blacks who have multiple homicides who were arrested and not killed. We could also throw up hispanics, american indians and others on our poster.

Overall, I don't know the situations of everyone on the poster, but I do know one right off. James Holmes was sitting in the parking lot when the police got him.

Rather than a picture with the word "murdered" under it, how about telling both sides of the stories, the aftermath (did the cop go to trial and get convicted) and use those cases to rally the cause?

Just a thought.

You have decided your opinion and view. I commend people like you and Jon for sticking to your views but I disagree with it.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Coverage like this too, Noop: When The Media Treats White Suspects And Killers Better Than Black Victims

The media is going to put what sells out there. Doesn't everyone get that by now? The smart, gym rat is always white, the "athlete" who needs to learn how to play the game is always black.

Picking out headlines is also pretty easy and isn't all that accurate. James Holmes was portrayed as a guy with deep psychological problems.It all depends on the timeline.

It ALWAYS goes in a full cycle until all of the facts come out. In the first couple of days of the Trayvon Martin case, he was a good kid with no problems. Then some people start digging and find he's had issues in school. More digging and they find pictures of guns and dope on his phone. Then the headline is changed to "Martin was suspended from school 3 times"

The killer in these situations also has the narrative change. Zimmerman goes from homicidal maniac, to his head beat in, to "look those are only scratches" to the trial.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by TroyF

The media is going to put what sells out there. Doesn't everyone get that by now? The smart, gym rat is always white, the "athlete" who needs to learn how to play the game is always black.

But that's what's fucked up about it and needs to be called out, otherwise it won't change. Prevent the media from offering up the same tired narratives and perpetuating the same cycle. Though admittedly that's hard given that there is going to be some segment that can't wait to demonize the black guy (there was a political cartoon posted by someone on FB that was flat-out racist, and the responses were appalling but 100% unsurprising) or vilify the white guy (I think there is more harm in the former because it is more widespread and endemic in our society).

[Arles]

First of all, racism is and will always be and underlying factor that needs to be accounted for. I think it's better than it was in 1980, but there's still room for improvement and I think when my 9-year old son is an adult, it will be much better than it is now.

That said, the practical issue that can be looked at is kids in poverty. 12% of white kids under the age of 18 grow up in poverty. 40% of black kids under the age of 18 grow up in poverty. You could have a completely colorblind society and more African American young people are going to be in prison/issues with the law just due to the economic factors. So, the real issue we should be tackling is how to reduce that 40% number. I think part of it is cultural (not a lot of African American parents have college degrees compared to whites so they end up in poorer areas with less focus on going to college), and I think that will improve as more black kids see college (esp academically) as a legit option. Still, I feel like more could be done and there are opportunities here for people legitimately concerned about improving African American crime/police arrest rates. The arrest/police altercation is the cough, the poverty is the underlying disease.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

There's video of the Kajieme Powell shooting out now too. I don't know if this was suicide by cop, or goading them to prove a point. Either way...the police certainly didn't hesitate to do what he told them to, or to even attempt to talk him down.

Disgusting. Bet if he was white they would have tried to talk to him or tazer him.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Noop

Disgusting. Bet if he was white they would have tried to talk to him or tazer him.

I don't necessarily agree. The police were onsite at 1:26 of the video I saw. The guy approaches the police officer and gets shot at 1:41 right at the officer's feet. There wasn't much time to talk and the suspect was already within feet of the police. This is pretty much an unambiguous case of suicide by cop.

[Logan]

I agree. He was very close to the officers holding a knife and not responding to their instructions.

[JonInMiddleGA]

A shockingly even-handed & rationale piece from AP I saw a little while ago

My Way News - Supreme Court case to shape Ferguson investigation

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

A shockingly even-handed & rationale piece from AP I saw a little while ago

My Way News - Supreme Court case to shape Ferguson investigation

It was a 9-0 vote which I find interesting.

[mckerney]

Source: Darren Wilson did not have a fractured eye socket - CNN.com Video

[Grammaticus]

1857
Dred Scott v. Sandford was a highly controversial case that intensified the national debate over slavery. The case involved Dred Scott, a slave, who was taken from a slave state to a free territory. Scott filed a lawsuit claiming that because he had lived on free soil he was entitled to his freedom. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney disagreed, ruling that blacks were not citizens and therefore could not sue in federal court. Taney further inflamed antislavery forces by declaring that Congress had no right to ban slavery from U.S. territories.

1896
Plessy v. Ferguson was the infamous case that asserted that “equal but separate accommodations” for blacks on railroad cars did not violate the “equal protection under the laws” clause of the 14th Amendment. By defending the constitutionality of racial segregation, the Court paved the way for the repressive Jim Crow laws of the South. The lone dissenter on the Court, Justice John Marshall Harlan, protested, “The thin disguise of ‘equal’ accommodations…will not mislead anyone.”

These are also two cases that were decided by the US Supreme Court. It is apparent that our Supreme Court gets it wrong at times and sanctions oppression on the people of the US. Hopefully this nasty decision that seemingly allows Cops to behave badly and just say "I was threatened" so they can pretty much do anything they want anytime they want, gets fixed too.

The people are increasingly getting fed up with this. And it sheds a negative shadow upon all Cops who support and stick up for this bad behavior.

I don't remember the 1980s being that antiquated, but WOW! That court was apparently full of some bad people.

Those Cops refused information that was presented to them and abused a guy and just dumped him in his front yard when he needed medical attention. And you wonder why people think the Police are among the most dangerous people in the US.

[RainMaker]

I wish things like this would result in protests, FBI agents, black leaders flying in, comments from the President, and the Attorney General coming to town. But the 9 year old is not as important as an 18-year old criminal.

Parents visit block where boy, 9, was slain: 'Where he took his last breath' - Chicago Tribune