Ferguson Riots

[ptatc]

In a fair system, this would not go over well with cross examination, but that's why it shouldn't have been tried by a grand jury.

That's what was reported by witnesses. He continued to walk toward the officer with his hands up as the officer was shooting him.

[StrangeSox]

No, and to go further, if the initial witnesses don't lie by claiming that Brown had his hands up and/or his back to the officer when he was shot, and they admit that he was charging the officer, the story doesn't reach anywhere near this level.

 

There were protests (mostly peaceful) in cities all over the US last night with people chanting "Hands up, don't shoot" which is all based on the initial lie that Brown had his hands up when he was shot.

I still remain baffled as to why you think that this has been conclusively shown.

[StrangeSox]

fun fact from this 'investigation:' nobody bothered to get an official statement from Wilson on his version of events for at least a month after the shooting, giving him plenty of time to craft his story around everything that was publicly reported (plus whatever was leaked to him). Even with all of that prep time and advantage, he still came up with an at times fantastical story that the prosecution didn't bother to question at all.

[Balta1701]

That's what was reported by witnesses. He continued to walk toward the officer with his hands up as the officer was shooting him.

Was he slowly walking towards the guy with the gun 30 feet away or was he charging like the Hulk?

 

These are the kind of details that could be hashed out in an actual trial, or at least by an investigation from an independent prosecutor. Which witnesses were in the appropriate place to see that behavior? How rapidly was he moving at the end. How many agree that his hands were up? How long would it have taken him to take the steps required based on the position he reached? How have the witnesses stories, including that of the shooter, changed with time? Are either of those inconsistent with the autopsy results?

 

The grand jury with a "witness dump" simply is in no position to evaluate these issues. In the process of putting together an actual case, a prosecutor would have to answer questions like that in order to tell their side of the story of what actually happened. Because this was a trial with no prosecutor, none of that ever happened, there was no effort to evaluate how these witness statements fit together or to paint a coordinated picture on behalf of the deceased.

[RockRaines]

fun fact from this 'investigation:' nobody bothered to get an official statement from Wilson on his version of events for at least a month after the shooting, giving him plenty of time to craft his story around everything that was publicly reported (plus whatever was leaked to him). Even with all of that prep time and advantage, he still came up with an at times fantastical story that the prosecution didn't bother to question at all.

Thats not what they said on ABC last night. They said he gave a statement to the supervisor on scene and then debriefed at the station.

[ptatc]

Was he slowly walking towards the guy with the gun 30 feet away or was he charging like the Hulk?

 

These are the kind of details that could be hashed out in an actual trial, or at least by an investigation from an independent prosecutor. Which witnesses were in the appropriate place to see that behavior? How rapidly was he moving at the end. How many agree that his hands were up? How long would it have taken him to take the steps required based on the position he reached? How have the witnesses stories, including that of the shooter, changed with time? Are either of those inconsistent with the autopsy results?

 

The grand jury with a "witness dump" simply is in no position to evaluate these issues. In the process of putting together an actual case, a prosecutor would have to answer questions like that in order to tell their side of the story of what actually happened. Because this was a trial with no prosecutor, none of that ever happened, there was no effort to evaluate how these witness statements fit together or to paint a coordinated picture on behalf of the deceased.

Doesn't matter. If you continue to advance toward an individual you have already repeatedly punched in the face, the individual has every right to feel threatened. both parties are probably exaggerating a little.

 

The officer trying to say he was charging the others side of witnesses say he he was slowly moving. Either way the fact that he was advancing toward and person he has already attacked gives that person a right to feel threatened.

[StrangeSox]

Thats not what they said on ABC last night. They said he gave a statement to the supervisor on scene and then debriefed at the station.

There's no written record. Ferguson PD didn't ask for one and used "we handed it over to St Louis County" as their excuse. St. Louis County also didn't bother. They managed to produce an incident report 10 days after the shooting, but it contained no statements from Wilson.

 

Wilson did give a written statement to his lawyer shortly after the shooting, but that is and will remain secret.

 

Wilson also thoroughly scrubbed blood and potentially gun shot residue off of his hands and face after the shooting, with no one bothering to collect any for evidence first.

[StrangeSox]

Doesn't matter. If you continue to advance toward an individual you have already repeatedly punched in the face, the individual has every right to feel threatened. both parties are probably exaggerating a little.

 

The officer trying to say he was charging the others side of witnesses say he he was slowly moving. Either way the fact that he was advancing toward and person he has already attacked gives that person a right to feel threatened.

Twice, with what doesn't appear to be much effect:

 

 

Somebody punching you in the face twice doesn't generally justify deadly force in response.

 

[Chi Town Sox]

Twice, with what doesn't appear to be much effect:

 

 

Somebody punching you in the face twice doesn't generally justify deadly force in response.

 

True but then again, if he connects in the temple which he is pretty close to judging by his small wounds, goodnight.

 

[ptatc]

Twice, with what doesn't appear to be much effect:

 

 

Somebody punching you in the face twice doesn't generally justify deadly force in response.

So because the kid punched him but it didn't leave much of a mark the officer has no right to feel threatened.

 

Maybe if he punches him and stops there it doesn't. However, when the officer tells him to stop and he continues to advance on him the officer has every right to feel threatened. I don't think someone should die for it either. A non-lethal weapon would have been better, but he didn't have that option. He should have had a stun gun. I know he explained it but it still would have been better.

 

If Brown would have stopped and gave up. It wouldn't have happened. He continued to advance toward the officer and the officer had every right to feel threatened.

[LittleHurt05]

No, and to go further, if the initial witnesses don't lie by claiming that Brown had his hands up and/or his back to the officer when he was shot, and they admit that he was charging the officer, the story doesn't reach anywhere near this level.

 

There were protests (mostly peaceful) in cities all over the US last night with people chanting "Hands up, don't shoot" which is all based on the initial lie that Brown had his hands up when he was shot.

 

Yeah, there have been way worse instances of police killing civilians, yet they are protesting one where the victim physically attacked the officer first.

[Balta1701]

Yeah, there have been way worse instances of police killing civilians, yet they are protesting one where the victim physically attacked the officer first.

Based solely on the officer's story, once again.

[Harry Chappas]

So because the kid punched him but it didn't leave much of a mark the officer has no right to feel threatened.

 

Maybe if he punches him and stops there it doesn't. However, when the officer tells him to stop and he continues to advance on him the officer has every right to feel threatened. I don't think someone should die for it either. A non-lethal weapon would have been better, but he didn't have that option. He should have had a stun gun. I know he explained it but it still would have been better.

 

If Brown would have stopped and gave up. It wouldn't have happened. He continued to advance toward the officer and the officer had every right to feel threatened.

 

and that right there is the end of the story for me, the rest of this tragic tale is all media fueled hysteria.

 

 

[cabiness42]

Based solely on the officer's story, once again.

 

No, not solely on the officer's story. The officer's story which happens to be corroborated by physical evidence and several witnesses.

[StrangeSox]

One really confusing part of Wilson's story:

 

He says Brown initially struck him with his right hand, and later that Brown grabbed the gun on Wilson's right hip with his right hand. First is that the injuries are more on the right side of Wilson's face, not his left, and you'd expect a right-hand hit to hurt the left side of your face. The second is the really awkward positioning you'd have to take to grab a gun off of a seated person's right hip through a car window with your own right hand while still continuing to fight with your left. He also contradicts himself in the span of a couple sentences, first saying that Brown had complete control of the gun and then saying he wouldn't say that Brown had complete control of the gun, just some control.

[Balta1701]

If Brown would have stopped and gave up. It wouldn't have happened. He continued to advance toward the officer and the officer had every right to feel threatened.

if he had his hands up and was yelling something like "I give up" and the cop continued shooting, an entirely reasonable response would be to slowly walk towards him with his hands up so that he could hear him.

[Jenksismyhero]

Twice, with what doesn't appear to be much effect:

 

 

Somebody punching you in the face twice doesn't generally justify deadly force in response.

 

Going for a gun sure does though.

[Balta1701]

No, not solely on the officer's story. The officer's story which happens to be corroborated by physical evidence and several witnesses.

And several witnesses also say that the deceased had his hands up and was surrendering, but you discount them.

[Balta1701]

Going for a gun sure does though.

With his amazing 30 feet long arms.

[StrangeSox]

Yeah, there have been way worse instances of police killing civilians, yet they are protesting one where the victim physically attacked the officer first.

The uproar really started when the police trampled and drove over a makeshift memorial the night of the shooting. That led to the violence the next day, which led to the ridiculously over-the-top police response which turned it into a national story.

[cabiness42]

And several witnesses also say that the deceased had his hands up and was surrendering, but you discount them.

 

The same witnesses who said that also said he wasn't moving forward, which is disproved by the physical evidence. Same with the witnesses who said he was shot in the back.

[Jenksismyhero]

if he had his hands up and was yelling something like "I give up" and the cop continued shooting, an entirely reasonable response would be to slowly walk towards him with his hands up so that he could hear him.

 

I'm pretty sure that would be the opposite of what cops are trained to do. They're trained to have the person stay still while they move towards them. Brown would have been told to get on his knees with his hands up, then down on the ground.

[Balta1701]

The same witnesses who said that also said he wasn't moving forward, which is disproved by the physical evidence. Same with the witnesses who said he was shot in the back.

Which is why there ought to have been an actual prosecution to sort through these issues.

[StrangeSox]

The same witnesses who said that also said he wasn't moving forward, which is disproved by the physical evidence.

 

Not exactly. I'm still waiting for something more conclusive than the non-expert conclusion reached by one member of the grand jury.

 

Same with the witnesses who said he was shot in the back.

A few witnesses thought he was shot in the back and, I think, maintain that Wilson shot at Brown while Brown was fleeing. No one disagreed that Brown eventually stopped and turned around before being fatally shot from the front. That these witnesses mistakenly believed that Brown was hit by these alleged shots fired from behind doesn't undermine the rest of their testimony.

[Jenksismyhero]

And several witnesses also say that the deceased had his hands up and was surrendering, but you discount them.

 

Someone really needs to see what the witnesses said in their grand jury testimony, because you keep relying on this but supposedly most of those witnesses changed their story later.