Re: Michael Brown

[fm93]

The strong armed robbery of the cigars contradicts the narrative that Brown was a gentle giant who wouldn't hurt a fly.

Not really. Plenty of otherwise gentle, meek people occasionally have outbursts of rage that are out of character.

The marijuana in the system verifies Wilson's statement that Brown looked like he was on something. Maybe to be more accurate it "sort of" verifies it since marijuana residue can still be detected for weeks after it was used -- especially in larger individuals. Further, pot does not normally make one aggressive but the opposite. Still how would Wilson know what he was on?

Exactly. The presence of marijuana in his system would, if anything, be evidence against the claim that he aggressively charged towards the officer. It seemed as if the news outlets who were emphasizing the marijuana aspect were trying to paint Brown as a drug-abusing derelict.

I'm ignoring all other comments that take for granted the claim that Brown actually assaulted and later charged towards the officer. We simply don't have conclusive evidence for it yet.

[rogue06]

Not really. Plenty of otherwise gentle, meek people occasionally have outbursts of rage that are out of character.

But when they get physical and commit assault you no longer can accurately describe them as a gentle and meek person. That describes someone prone to violent outbursts and capable of snapping -- and that can be a very dangerous person indeed.

Exactly. The presence of marijuana in his system would, if anything, be evidence against the claim that he aggressively charged towards the officer. It seemed as if the news outlets who were emphasizing the marijuana aspect were trying to paint Brown as a drug-abusing derelict.

You appear to assume that Wilson possessed some psychic gift where he could ascertain exactly what Brown appeared to be high on. All Wilson apparently said that Brown looked like he was on something -- meaning he looked intoxicated. Finding marijuana in Brown's system lends credence to that evaluation although it does not definitively confirm it.

I'm ignoring all other comments that take for granted the claim that Brown actually assaulted and later charged towards the officer. We simply don't have conclusive evidence for it yet.

But you appear to think that there was enough evidence to demonstrate that Brown was unjustifiably shot. Not an entirely consistence stance IMHO.

[Juvenal]

Apparently, the public editor at the New York Times yesterday critiqued one of their stories for saying that the eye-witness accounts differed sharply from each other without giving any details about how they differed. I suspect they may have some of these reports or at least their own confidential sources but are not yet able to publish any details yet for some reason.

You're talking about this commentary: about this story: Shooting Accounts Differ as Holder Schedules Visit to Ferguson

The details on how the accounts agree and differ are there in the story. The commentary critiques the reasons behind the mix of named and anonymous sources.

As ever, Jesse

[fm93]

But when they get physical and commit assault you no longer can accurately describe them as a gentle and meek person. That describes someone prone to violent outbursts and capable of snapping -- and that can be a very dangerous person indeed.

I think the issue is that some people are painting Brown as someone who consistently and unrepentantly engaged in violent, dangerous behavior, whereas the gentle giant claim is countering that by saying he was generally a gentle, decent person who made an isolated mistake.

You appear to assume that Wilson possessed some psychic gift where he could ascertain exactly what Brown appeared to be high on. All Wilson apparently said that Brown looked like he was on something -- meaning he looked intoxicated. Finding marijuana in Brown's system lends credence to that evaluation although it does not definitively confirm it.

That's not what I meant. As you yourself said, marijuana tends to placate the smoker rather than making him aggressive. This makes it unlikely that Brown (if he'd recently been smoking marijuana) would've aggressively attacked and then charged towards the officer.

But you appear to think that there was enough evidence to demonstrate that Brown was unjustifiably shot. Not an entirely consistence stance IMHO.

I think shooting should always be the absolute last resort, and that no one deserves to be killed. Brown could've murdered the officer, and I still wouldn't have wanted him to be killed. (I will go ahead and confirm that yes, I'm against the death penalty.) I understand that it's possible that the officer may have thought he had no other choice but to pull the trigger, in which case I wish there was some other device or tactic he could've used to protect his own life while also not killing Brown. Makes me wonder why tasers couldn't have been an option, for instance. (Come to think of it, I think some tasers have a maximum range of up to 35 feet--the distance from which Brown was shot.)

[robrecht]

You're talking about this commentary: A Ferguson Story on ‘Conflicting Accounts’ Seems to Say ‘Trust Us’ about this story: Shooting Accounts Differ as Holder Schedules Visit to Ferguson

The details on how the accounts agree and differ are there in the story. The commentary critiques the reasons behind the mix of named and anonymous sources.

As ever, Jesse

Thanks, Jesse. I haven't had a chance to read yet. Hence my use of 'apparently'.

[rogue06]

I think the issue is that some people are painting Brown as someone who consistently and unrepentantly engaged in violent, dangerous behavior, whereas the gentle giant claim is countering that by saying he was generally a gentle, decent person who made an isolated mistake.

More like the exact opposite. The "gentle giant" meme was repeatedly and unquestionably promoted by the media for the first several days after the shooting. Only considerably later did the information and pictures of the strong arm robbery that he was involved in, which painted a drastically different picture than what had been reported, was released. If anything the images of him engaging in a physical assault during the theft were released to counteract the saintly image that had been portrayed.

And please, engaging in a strong armed robbery isn't a "mistake." A mistake is more akin to an accident or something unintentional. This was definitely deliberate. He didn't mistakenly steal the cigars. He didn't accidentally physically assault the shopkeeper.

That's not what I meant. As you yourself said, marijuana tends to placate the smoker rather than making him aggressive. This makes it unlikely that Brown (if he'd recently been smoking marijuana) would've aggressively attacked and then charged towards the officer.

Less likely doesn't mean impossible. People have committed violent acts while high on marijuana.

I think shooting should always be the absolute last resort, and that no one deserves to be killed.

I would disagree about nobody deserving to be shot but it most certainly ought to be a last resort.

Brown could've murdered the officer, and I still wouldn't have wanted him to be killed. (I will go ahead and confirm that yes, I'm against the death penalty.) I understand that it's possible that the officer may have thought he had no other choice but to pull the trigger, in which case I wish there was some other device or tactic he could've used to protect his own life while also not killing Brown.

There are but you have to act with what you have available not with what you wish had available.

Personally I think that the death penalty ought to be reserved for only the worst of the worst. From all indications Brown would not qualify but the situation may have left Wilson with little choice but to use lethal force.

Makes me wonder why tasers couldn't have been an option, for instance. (Come to think of it, I think some tasers have a maximum range of up to 35 feet--the distance from which Brown was shot.)

But if Wilson didn't have one at hand the question is moot. Or if he had been hit in the head as some reports suggest he may not have been thinking clearly. Further a couple of those speaking out the loudest about Brown's death are also the ones who have spoken out against the police using tasers.

[Cow Poke]

So they do everything in their power to dehumanize him and emphasize every bad thing that he might've done, as if that somehow makes him deserving of being killed.

But he was just awarded police officer of the... oh, you're talking about Brown!

[Cow Poke]

Apparently, the public editor at the New York Times yesterday critiqued one of their stories for saying that the eye-witness accounts differed sharply from each other without giving any details about how they differed. I suspect they may have some of these reports or at least their own confidential sources but are not yet able to publish any details yet for some reason.

And when one of the key eyewitnesses is discovered to have been charged, according to his own attorney, with making a false police report, many of the media outlets began backing away... this is also the witness that said Brown was shot in the back, proven false by the autopsy. His pants suddenly burst into flames....

[myth]

You accuse me of having "already made up my mind," while lecturing me and taking for granted the claim that Brown was actually charging towards the officer--a claim for which we currently have no conclusive evidence.

I'd appreciate it if you'd stop with the personal attacks.

I'm sorry if you feel that was a personal attack, because I did not intend for it to be insulting. With nearly 30 pages of discussion on this topic, I just thought I was stating the obvious. In my naivety, I assumed that you had made up your mind and it was a conscious decision on your part (that you would/could acknowledge). I've pretty much made up my mind, I'll admit. But alas, if you think you're giving the evidence available a fair shake, then who am I to argue?

I also didn't intend to 'lecture' you, but I suppose my tone came off that way. This is my area of professional expertise...given a lot of the questions that you've asked / debated in this thread, I can tell that you have not been similarly educated in related topics. That's ok, most people here have not either. But I was hoping that by sharing some of what I've learned, we could keep the discussion from devolving into the realm of wild speculation without any sort of realistic perspective.

Lastly, I don't think you have any standing to accuse me of taking facts in this case for granted. As far as I can tell, you think the shooting was not justified (since above you challenge the claim that Brown was charging at Officer Wilson).This lines your opinion up nicely with the now-discredited 'witnesses' who stated Brown was shot in the back.

I have concluded that he probably was charging at Officer Wilson. Why? Because of media reports that (1) Officer Wilson was injured (indicative of an aggressive assailant), (2) the video where the unknown witness says Brown was coming back towards Officer Wilson (candid camera, anyone?) and most importantly of all (3) the autopsy report...which is consistent with Officer Wilson's claims, but not consistent with what multiple 'witnesses' have said.

So, yes, I've formed an opinion based on the information now available. But the only thing I believe I'm really 'taking for granted' is that Officer Wilson had no desire to kill a teenager when he strapped on his gear and went to work that day.

[lilpixieofterror]

So they do everything in their power to dehumanize him and emphasize every bad thing that he might've done, as if that somehow makes him deserving of being killed.

One should look for the truth your highness, no matter where it points to and stop with the race bating. If you were not so busy with race bating yourself, perhaps you would do that.

[Teallaura]

So they do everything in their power to dehumanize him and emphasize every bad thing that he might've done, as if that somehow makes him deserving of being killed.

No, it's called 'context' - understanding an event requires understanding everything that is involved in that event, including state of mind and events leading to.

Now, you've made quite a big deal about Mr Brown's age and the tragedy or his demise - so tell me, why does his case merit so much more attention than the 24 BM homicides in the
last 30 days in Baltimore?

The thing people find objectionable with your position is the witch hunt element - you seem more interested in convicting a police officer who's side isn't even public record yet than getting at the truth of the matter - evidently because it might prove Mr Brown less than amiable. If, as you contend, the death of an 18 year old is so tragic that no justification could exist, then what justification exists for the lack of attention given these 24 other black males of similar age all dead by homicide in the last thirty days? If an officer cannot use lethal force in protection of his life because the assailant is 35 feet away then why should those who hold the event in such outrage be permitted to cherry pick which homicides they will direct their ire toward? Far more blood flows on the ground from the lack of concern about black on black crime than from the entire history of police misconduct - why don't you care?

And YES, the two things are interrelated. The manufactured outrage at any possible racial incident - even without all relevant facts - obscures the far bloodier and more intractable problems within the black community. As long as 'racism' is allowed to be the vent for the social ills within the black community those ills will remain, fester and become worse. By assuming the worst based solely on race - either way - you (general) are being the very thing you claim to abhor - a racist - and far worse, you're part of the problem, not the solution.

[Juvenal]

I have concluded that he probably was charging at Officer Wilson. Why? Because of media reports that (1) Officer Wilson was injured (indicative of an aggressive assailant), (2) the video where the unknown witness says Brown was coming back towards Officer Wilson (candid camera, anyone?) and most importantly of all (3) the autopsy report...which is consistent with Officer Wilson's claims, but not consistent with what multiple 'witnesses' have said.

Hello myth,

I appreciate your input.

According to the New York Times, (1) is agreed by "most" witnesses, along with (1a), that Wilson's weapon was discharged inside the vehicle, and (1b), that Wilson exited the vehicle while continuing to fire at the fleeing Brown.

I'll point out that (2) is consistent either with Brown charging towards Wilson, or with Wilson shooting while approaching Brown, and that (3) is consistent with both as well, and with Brown stopping and turning and then either raising his arms, or charging after being fired upon but without being hit, as reported by other "witnesses" with or without the caution quotes.

These elisions and ambiguities are consistent with a more general principle. Cases should be tried in court, not in the press. We don't have all the facts, and the "facts" we do have are not well confirmed.

As ever, Jesse

[fm93]

One should look for the truth your highness, no matter where it points to and stop with the race bating. If you were not so busy with race bating yourself, perhaps you would do that.

I have said nothing about race in connection to Michael Brown. My objection from the very beginning has been based on the fact that someone so young had to have his life taken. It's evident that you haven't actually bothered to read my posts.

[robrecht]

This makes it sound like the first shot was fired while Michael Brown was running away:

Many witnesses also agreed on what happened next: Officer Wilson’s firearm went off inside the car, Mr. Brown ran away, the officer got out of his car and began firing toward Mr. Brown, and then Mr. Brown stopped, turned around and faced the officer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/20/us...les-visit.html

Some commentator said it police are generally allowed to shoot at someone who is fleeing if they are fleeing after committing a violent felony. I would imagine that fighting with an armed officer might qualify as a violent felony.

I heard one pathologist on TV saying that one of the shots might have hit his lower right arm while he was running away (when the lower arm is facing backwards [or when one's hands are up]), but it is impossible to say for sure. Michael Baden (I know his daughter, by the way) says that the fatal shot was the one that entered the top of his head. One witness said that he was falling toward the ground, one said maybe taking one or two steps toward him as he was falling, while others might think he was running toward him, crouched low, head down. This summary (same link) of the witness accounts seems rather tentative about the 'bum rush' theory:

Some witnesses say that Mr. Brown, 18, moved toward Officer Wilson, possibly in a threatening manner, when the officer shot him dead. But others say that Mr. Brown was not moving and may even have had his hands up when he was killed.

It will be interesting to hear the witnesses under oath and cross examined if this matter ever goes to trial. I don't think we will ever know for sure. Cops generally get the benefit of the doubt in the courtroom so I think most will believe him. The anonymous witness account in the video seems to support his version of events more strongly than the summary in the Times.

Autopsy sketch:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...-shooting.html

[Juvenal]

The anonymous witness account in the video seems to support his version of events more strongly than the summary in the Times.

I can't tell from the audio or the transcript whether Brown or Wilson was in motion.