Ferguson Riots

[StrangeSox]

And therein lies the problem. Anyone can literally find a source that will back up any version of events that happened over the past week or so. There has been pretty much zero consistency in reporting. The only rule seems to have been that the earlier the report was made, the less accurate it was.

We're talking about the police overreaction to protesters and media members, not Brown. There's no problem there, sources are consistent on the police overreaction.

[StrangeSox]

My own eyes watching live footage, and I've repeatedly seen police trying to ask media members to do something rational like move back 3 feet and they completely ignore it over and over. I saw a camera man basically walk into the path of tear gas last night when warned for around 10 min that it was going to come. I dont trust their words, but I trust their pictures .

 

Did you also see live video earlier last week where they demanded everyone turn off their recording devices?

[RockRaines]

We're talking about the police overreaction to protesters and media members, not Brown. There's no problem there, sources are consistent on the police overreaction.

No, sources are consistent that they did nothing wrong and the police just acted randomly.

[caulfield12]

My own eyes watching live footage, and I've repeatedly seen police trying to ask media members to do something rational like move back 3 feet and they completely ignore it over and over. I saw a camera man basically walk into the path of tear gas last night when warned for around 10 min that it was going to come. I dont trust their words, but I trust their pictures .

 

 

Even that's not 100% trustworthy if it's taken out of context....or just showing PART of the picture, or it's not continuous footage, etc. For instance, I can watch looting/rioting for 10 minutes, but if I don't see anything that happened before or after, how can you assess it without your own preconceived biases kicking in on one side or the other?

 

We had a debate for a week or so on the Tony Stewart footage, for example.

Edited August 19, 2014 by caulfield12

[Jenksismyhero]

It might as well be Matt Drudge or Fox News, lol. Breitbart.com and "Big Government" in the link of a story, c'mon, that's not going to be close to impartial, any more than CNBC anchors like Rachel Maddow or The Ed Show would be reliable sources for unbiased reporting.

 

Yes, he has his spin on it, but he's also citing their original statements.

 

 

[RockRaines]

If Brown was running/moving away and Wilson missed him or just clipped him in the arm after he shouted "Freeze!", then Brown subsequently turned around and charged back towards Wilson, that's a very different scenario.

This is what most of the medical report suggests at the moment with what little information we have.

[RockRaines]

Even that's not 100% trustworthy if it's taken out of context....or just showing PART of the picture, or it's not continuous footage, etc.

 

We had a debate for a week or so on the Tony Stewart footage, for example.

Most of what I;ve seen was live continuous footage. Everything else has been framed so horribly. In today's news world its all about clicks, so who gets it first or has the most ridiculous story wins.

[Jenksismyhero]

That's why we need the ballistics report.

 

Supposedly, Brown was shot 6 times. The weapon went off at least once when they were struggling over it (according to most witness accounts). How many shots were taken...and what was Michael Brown's initial position when the first shot was fired? Did the officer fire at him while he was fleeing/with his back turned, which might have surprised Brown and caused him to turn around, knowing he wasn't going to outrun a much smaller officer with a gun?

 

It's not exactly a rational idea for someone to charge into a police officer's path of fire from 35 feet away unless something has precipitated the thought that this is the only course of action left remaining to survive...that running away wasn't an option.

 

Huh? From 35 feet running at someone that is shooting you is a better option than running away?

[StrangeSox]

No, sources are consistent that they did nothing wrong and the police just acted randomly.

Yes, they are. Multiple sources from multiple news agencies. There's tons photographic and video evidence.

 

Why is it so unbelievable that a county SWAT team in military gear would be pretty s***ty at protest peace-keeping operations?

[RockRaines]

Yes, they are. Multiple sources from multiple news agencies. There's tons photographic and video evidence.

 

Why is it so unbelievable that a county SWAT team in military gear would be pretty s***ty at protest peace-keeping operations?

Its not unbelievable, but its also not unbelievable that the media is lying about doing "nothing" and then getting gassed.

[StrangeSox]

This is what most of the medical report suggests at the moment with what little information we have.

again, no, it doesn't. The first autopsy is consistent with Brown running forward with his head down. It is also consistent with him being shot in the head as he falls to the ground from the other gun shots.

[StrangeSox]

Its not unbelievable, but its also not unbelievable that the media is lying about doing "nothing" and then getting gassed.

A whole bunch of different media groups are just lying about it in the same manner, including in their video of the various events. Ok.

[illinilaw08]

But that's still not getting us anywhere. We still need to find out if Brown was running back towards Wilson.

 

But it should get us somewhere. IF Wilson shoots at Brown while Brown is retreating, would you agree that Wilson would not have been in immediate danger of serious bodily harm (or whatever the standard for use of deadly force is) when he fired those shots?

 

You said, "But we know he wasn't 'fleeing' when he was shot," but if he was fleeing when he was shot AT that certainly changes the narrative quite a bit...

 

EDIT: First line.

Edited August 19, 2014 by illinilaw08

[RockRaines]

again, no, it doesn't. The first autopsy is consistent with Brown running forward with his head down. It is also consistent with him being shot in the head as he falls to the ground from the other gun shots.

it doesnt but then you agree with me?

[StrangeSox]

it doesnt but then you agree with me?

There is a difference between the report suggesting something and being consistent with it. The report does not rule out charging, but it doesn't suggest it either.

[caulfield12]

Huh? From 35 feet running at someone that is shooting you is a better option than running away?

 

 

Let's assume that Brown thought he could run away and that Officer Wilson wasn't going to fire at him, because you don't expect the police to shoot you down from behind if you're unarmed, even if you had confronted him violently 30 seconds ago.

 

Fight or flight response, right?

 

Then you realize he is shooting at you...and that your life might be in danger even.

 

Do you 1) put your hands up and risk being killed surrendering, or 2) charge at the officer, knowing you're unlikely to survive that 35 foot distance against a trained officer with his gun trained on you, also realizing you're not exactly a small or elusive target?

 

Logically, if confronted with this scenario in a simulation, almost nobody would run at the officer and think they're going to survive unless they feel there's no other alternative. As there was reportedly marijuana in his system and not a stimulant, wouldn't that make him LESS likely to fly at the officer from so far away?

Edited August 19, 2014 by caulfield12

[RockRaines]

There is a difference between the report suggesting something and being consistent with it. The report does not rule out charging, but it doesn't suggest it either.

Jesus, sorry teacher.

[RockRaines]

Let's assume that Brown thought he could run away and that Officer Wilson wasn't going to fire at him, because you don't expect the police to shoot you down from behind if you're unarmed, even if you had confronted him violently 30 seconds ago.

 

Fight or flight response, right?

 

Then you realize he is shooting at you...and that your life might be in danger even.

 

Do you 1) put your hands up and risk being killed surrendering, or 2) charge at the officer, knowing you're unlikely to survive that 35 foot distance against a trained officer with his gun trained on you, also realizing you're not exactly a small or elusive target?

 

Logically, if confronted with this scenario in a simulation, almost nobody would run at the officer and think they're going to survive unless they feel there's no other alternative. As there was reportedly marijuana in his system and not a stimulant, wouldn't that make him LESS likely to fly at the officer from so far away?

#1 he should have just gotten out of the street and been respectful from minute 1. The whole "I should fight a police officer" is the wildcard here IMO. Who has that mindset?

[Jenksismyhero]

But it should get us somewhere. IF Wilson shoots at Brown while Brown is retreating, would you agree that Wilson would not have been in immediate danger of serious bodily harm (or whatever the standard for use of deadly force is) when he fired those shots?

 

You said, "But we know he wasn't 'fleeing' when he was shot," but if he was fleeing when he was shot AT that certainly changes the narrative quite a bit...

 

EDIT: First line.

 

Yes, but I think we also know the "kill shot" could not have occurred from a backwards angle. He had to have been facing forward.

 

The narrative doesn't really change because if anything that gives Brown an excuse for turning around. It still doesn't excuse the shooting if Brown is just standing there with his hands up. And it doesn't negate Wilson's justifiable use of force IF Brown was running at him. I guess it could open an argument that he "invited" Brown to attack him, in his own self defense, but that seems like a weak argument.

[StrangeSox]

Jesus, sorry teacher.

There's a pretty big difference there, this isn't just grammar nitpicking. That autopsy doesn't rule out either version, but what you said implies that it did.

[StrangeSox]

Yes, but I think we also know the "kill shot" could not have occurred from a backwards angle. He had to have been facing forward.

 

The narrative doesn't really change because if anything that gives Brown an excuse for turning around. It still doesn't excuse the shooting if Brown is just standing there with his hands up. And it doesn't negate Wilson's justifiable use of force IF Brown was running at him. I guess it could open an argument that he "invited" Brown to attack him, in his own self defense, but that seems like a weak argument.

If he were firing at Brown as brown was fleeing, those shots would be unjustifiable. Would that make shooting Brown, even if he turned and came back, unjustifiable? I'm not sure how that would fall out.

[Jenksismyhero]

Let's assume that Brown thought he could run away and that Officer Wilson wasn't going to fire at him, because you don't expect the police to shoot you down from behind if you're unarmed, even if you had confronted him violently 30 seconds ago.

 

Fight or flight response, right?

 

Then you realize he is shooting at you...and that your life might be in danger even.

 

Do you 1) put your hands up and risk being killed surrendering, or 2) charge at the officer, knowing you're unlikely to survive that 35 foot distance against a trained officer with his gun trained on you, also realizing you're not exactly a small or elusive target?

 

Logically, if confronted with this scenario in a simulation, almost nobody would run at the officer and think they're going to survive unless they feel there's no other alternative. As there was reportedly marijuana in his system and not a stimulant, wouldn't that make him LESS likely to fly at the officer from so far away?

 

I see what you're saying, but this is a man who obviously didn't think logically or even morally. He's a thief and a bully given his actions at the convenient store, and he's also incredibly stupid for picking a fight with a cop. All three things that the vast majority of people would never do. So "logic" can be thrown out the window. He was capable of doing anything.

 

[CrimsonWeltall]

Thats simply not enough for me.

 

...how about 2 separate videos that have absolutely zero rioting in them?

[illinilaw08]

Yes, but I think we also know the "kill shot" could not have occurred from a backwards angle. He had to have been facing forward.

 

The narrative doesn't really change because if anything that gives Brown an excuse for turning around. It still doesn't excuse the shooting if Brown is just standing there with his hands up. And it doesn't negate Wilson's justifiable use of force IF Brown was running at him. I guess it could open an argument that he "invited" Brown to attack him, in his own self defense, but that seems like a weak argument.

 

Shots fired on a fleeing suspect with no imminent threat of danger to the officer seems pretty bad to me.

 

It changes the narrative from "shots fired because he was charging at the officer" to "shots fired at an unarmed, fleeing suspect."

 

The forensics to date are not inconsistent with either story...

[Jenksismyhero]

If he were firing at Brown as brown was fleeing, those shots would be unjustifiable. Would that make shooting Brown, even if he turned and came back, unjustifiable? I'm not sure how that would fall out.

 

Yeah, I think it muddles it for sure. I think there's that issue of "inviting" or creating the serious threat that requires deadly force. That's the argument Brown's attorney would make anyway.

 

To me, I dunno that I buy that, especially if there were shots fired and Brown turned around, waited and then ran after the cop. If there was some pause in between, Brown still has time to choose whether to attack and surrender.