Tpoppa

Regarding possible injuries to Officer Wilson, so far I've read: 1. Broken orbital bone (possible hoax per Scruit's link) 2. Severely beaten 3. Beaten nearly unconscious 4. Repeatedly punched in the face If any of those were true wouldn't Wilson have been visibly injured after the shooting? If an officer is injured isn't it normal operating procedure for an ambulance to be called to the crime scene to assist the injured officer? None of that happened. Wilson is going about his business like nothing happened to him. See photos on this link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2728166/Video-shows-cop-shot-Michael-Brown-pacing-lifeless-body-immediately-firing-six-shots-teen.html Here is the video of Officer Wilson walking around after the shooting. There is no ambulance, no medical attention, not even an ice pack. Hell, he's not even holding his alledgedly severely beaten and severely swollen face. I'm afraid I can't believe that the officer had any significant injury until I see some concrete evidence that proves otherwise. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSy69cbDXsk

You really need to read more closely. Distance is critical because he was moving away from the officer, which is fleeing and no longer a threat. Feel free to argue that point with the Supreme Court ruling above. So, after that he turned around which was either either attempting to surrender or possibly charging back toward the officer. Statements on that point are being presented to the Grand Jury currently, and would likely be a key issue in a trail.

As mention above this is the relevant legal issue. What was Brown doing when he was shot? Running away, surrendering, or charging? Was Brown already incapacitated at the time of the final fatal shot?

Yes. After all the extraneous circumstances and emotions are distilled away this is the pertinent legal issue. It could even come down to what was occuring at the moment the final fatal shot was fired.

According to the Supreme Court it does. See Above. If he was endangering someone else with a weapon or trying to take a hostage, the officer could shoot to protect the public.

IMO, GTs are a little better in the dry. PRs are a little better in the wet. I have GTs on the CBR and VFR1200 right now. I've been through 3 or 4 sets of PR2 & 3 They are very close and both very good. Get some.

No. I was posting at the same time as you, so it was not a response to yours.

Legal precedent. Court ruled against the officer: Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may use deadly force to prevent escape only if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

There has been a history of residents complaining that the FPD has been too heavy handed in dealing with residents, and targeted black residents disproportionally. Conversely, there have indications of black residents of Ferguson being less than cooperative with the FPD. This all adds up to lots of tension. Warning the following contains **opinions** read at your own risk. This confrontation started off just like many others in Fergson. Dorian (the friend), said the after the cop said "Get the fuck off the street" he backed up and struck them with the door. Then the door accidentally bounced back and hit the officer. Dorian forgot to mention that they probably just helped an old lady across the street and were signing gospel songs... According to the officer, he tried to exit the vehicle and the door was violently slammed shut on him. He likely just finished rescuing a basket full of puppies and then donated money to your favorite charity... Like most cases the truth is in the middle. You have a A-hole, rule crazy cop and two kids who aren't particularly interested in cooperating with said A-hole cop. The cop intentionally hit them with the door and they intentionally hit him with it back. Cop is pissed that they did not respect his authority and grabs Brown, struggle ensues. Now put yourself in the situation of being in a struggle with someone you don't trust and they are reaching for a gun...what do you do? Try to stop the gun from being pointed at you, right? = The kid reached for my gun...taken out of context than sounds like Brown was attempting to shoot the officer. I'm sure Brown felt was fighting for his life...it turned out he was. Flame on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Because if the officer is giving chase, Brown is no longer escalating the situation. He is fleeing. Fleeing an officer is not legal, but not punishable by death.

Not at all. He certainly left the car to give chase.

If a shot went off in the car during a struggle. The hearing of both would have been temporarily impaired. I doubt either could hear what was said immediately afterward.

Reread. I said proximity "alone." Also, the examiner didn't state that he couldn't have been struck from behind. He said arms are mobile so it can't be ruled out. The grazing shot in particular could have come from with direction. Perhaps what I read was already out of date. Running only increases distance if you can run faster than the person chasing you.

You are probably correct that the actions of both were affected by adrenaline. In the videos I've seen, it did appear that a crime scene was established. The entire area was blocked of by police tape. But the videos started a few minutes after the shooting occurred, so it's hard to say what happened in the immediate aftermath.

Get some.

This is likely pretty close to reality, with a few exceptions: All accounts, even the ones that supports the officers claim, state that shots were already fired before he turned around. What is in dispute if Brown had been struck by any of those shots. If he did turn to confront the officer was it offensive or self defense? Common sense, logic, and basic survival instincts would all point to a low probability of an unarmed man defeating a trained police officer with his weapon already drawn. And then there is the matter of a shot to the top of his head.

Proximity alone can't justify a shooting. Now you answer mine. Pasted again. All accounts agree that the encounter began at the police vehicle, correct? Brown's body was laying 30-35 feet from the police vehicle, correct? Brown must have either walked or ran from the police vehicle, correct? If someone it trying to shoot YOU in the back, YOU are unarmed, and YOU have no place to hide, what are YOUR realistic options?

Fact 1, body was laying 30-35 feet from the vehicle. Fact 2, Brown was shot at least 6 times with a fatal wound at the very top of his head. Fact 3, the examiner stated in his preliminary findings that all 6 shots were fired from further than 2-3 feet away, and it could have been much further than that.

That is where you are wrong. Distance from the vehicle is critical. He is moving away from the officer. That means he is not a threat or no longer a threat, depending on how you want to word it. Assume he had assaulted the cop, then tried to flee. Is he still a threat? Is it OK for an officer to kill a fleeing individual? Is the officer realistically defending himself any longer, or is it something closer to seeking revenge? For the record, I am not certain that the officer was assaulted to begin with. I expect more facts will shed some light on whether or not the officer was assaulted..

Tell me which statements you believe are still in question. I saw the video with the body laying 30-35 feet behind the police vehicle that was parked diagonally across the road. I consider that a confirmed fact.

All accounts agree that the encounter began at the police vehicle, correct? Brown's body was laying 30-35 feet from the police vehicle, correct? Brown must have either walked or ran from the police vehicle, correct? If someone it trying to shoot YOU in the back, YOU are unarmed, and YOU have no place to hide, what are YOUR realistic options? 1. Keep running and hope he misses 2. Try to surrender and hope he stops shooting 3. Turn (unarmed) and take your chances trying to fight off the shooter. This would be an act of self defense. Certainly a desperate act, but still self defense. I don't believe that not cooperating with officers gives them the right to kill you. I understand that the officer's defense will be based on the notion that he "felt threatened." Officers are taught to say they "felt threatened" whenever there is a shooting. How can you prove beyond a doubt that he's not being truthful when he says he "felt threatened?" As soon as Brown retreated and the officer pursued, I believe Brown was the one who "felt threatened" and rightly so as he was killed seconds later.

I am not convinced of charging. Was Brown running toward the officer with the apex of his head pointing at the officer? I've never seen anyone run like that. Try it yourself, can you see where you're going? According to you he was shot in the top of his head from 6-35 feet away.

That's nice, but irrelevant as his gun had already been fired and was already drawn by the time Brown ran away from the vehicle.

Just to be clear, they didn't say 2 feet. They said 2 feet or more. Lack of gunpower residue would narrow it down to 2-35 feet in this case.

Or a door knob back at the police station.