Scruit

I think you've missed my point.

 

What I meant was that whether or not Brown could have or did injure the officer isn't important when examining whether or not the officer executed Brown after Brown tried to surrender.

 

 

Fair enough - let's examine...

Witness #1 says that Brown did not initially attack the officer prior to running away, and that Brown was surrendering when shot.

FTSOA, let's say the injuries are confirmed and it is determined that Brown DID attack the officer prior to running away.  Now we have to decide two things:

1) Does the fact that the witness was proven wrong on her first part of her claim mean that we should question the second part of her claim?

2) Does this revelation matter?  I mean after he surrenders it's game over, right?

On 2...  Him attacking the officer does not justify him being shot at some later point after surrendering.  If it can be proven that he was surrendering then the killing was murder.  If it can be proven that he was charging the officer then the shooting would be justified.

Problem is that absent any absolute proof either way, the jury will have to decide (or grand jury).  This is where 1 comes into play.   As a juror, do you believe the witness story that 100% matches the evidence, or do you believe the witness story that was proven to be partially wrong?

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. 

Lack of residue on the unclothed body would narrow it down to 6" to 35' - essentially no valuable information.    Is there residue on the clothing?   That's a question for the state pathologist who had access to the clothing.

For the sake of argument (not saying this happened in the Brown case, not saying it didn't either), imagine two people are rushing at you with apparent intent to make you be not alive any more.  At what range are you allowed to shoot them? 

Don't forget that it is universally accepted that within 21', an attacker can run at you and lay hands on you before you can draw put a bullet in them.  That's about 2 seconds.

The autopsy results that were released showed that Brown didn't show signs of being in a physical struggle. Would the examiner be able to see evidence on his knuckles if he punched the officer so hard he broke his orbital bone?

Also, the autopsy showed all shots occured from at least 2-3 feet away (or further). Not sure what that means except that shots were not fired from a range closer that 2-3 feet.

Being more precise: The autopsy found no residue evidence the shots were within 2 feet, however they conceded they did not have access to Brown's clothes, which is where the residue would be found.

2 feet is prime punching range.

Devil's advocate mode:

Brown breaking the cop's eye socket means nothing. They could have had a confrontation in the car, and that injury could have happened. Then maybe Mike Brown tried to run away. Then maybe he thought better and started to surrender. Maybe the cop was so angry, he executed him for it.

In that sequence of events, sure, Mike Brown injures the cop, but it's still murder if that's the way things played out, and not the cop defending himself.

The significance is that the "hands up" witnesses stated that the officer opened his door into Brown, then grabbed him around the neck pulling him into the cruiser. They stated Brown's hands stayed outside the cruiser. The family attorneys denied there was any assault on the officer by using the autopsy to show "no signs of struggle" (despite agreement there WAS a struggle).

The damage to the officer's face lends credibility to the claim that Brown punched the officer, and also supports the claim that Brown was capable of inflicting deadly force despite being unarmed. It will likely be argued based upon the claim that Brown was strong enough to fracture the cop's skull with a punch...

Something to watch out for here is "Yeah, but..." tactics. This is where one side or the other responds to overwhelming evidence against part of their claims by conceding the point in a "yeah, but..." manner. By way of example, remember when Trayvon Martin's family denied he attacked Zimmerman? When the evidence proved he *did*, they conceded by saying "yeah he attacked Zimmerman, but it was self defense"

Despite the fact this means they are refuting their own claims, they will continue to argue the balance if their claims and pretend the disproven claim is somehow irrelevant is unimportant. In a self defense case, the fact that the shooter was attacked by the now-dead person is 100% relevant and important. They will also argue that the other evidence or testimony (from the same source that was disproven) should still be considered as gospel. Until they have to concede another "yeah, but..."

If a witness makes a claim that is disproven, the rest of that witness' claims also becomes suspect.

If this eye injury report turns out to be true, expect the family attorney to concede the eye injury but still stick to that same witness' "hands up" claim as if being proven wrong is irrelevant to her credibility.

A Monty Python-esque example:

Knight: "I have captured a dragon!"

Crowd: "That isn't a dragon! It has udders!"

Knight: "Errr, yes, it has udders. It is a dragon with udders"

Crowd: "and it is nursing a calf"

Knight: "The dragon killed the calf's mother and adopted it"

Crowd: "it just mooed"

Knight: "it is a rare mooing dragon!"

To the people who say the prosecutor is biased against black people, biased towards the police, and therefore unfit to run the Brown case....

He has been voted into that position repeatedly for 23 years now.  The conditions that "prove" his bias existed 23 years ago (cop family, wanted to be a cop, dad killed by black man when he was 12).   Why was he not too biased to hear the last 23 years of cases, yet suddenly he's too biased to hear this one?

The one case people keep quoting in which he refused to charge two cops for shooting an unarmed black man...  The information I have is that that case was referred for federal investigators and they agreed with the prosecutor.  If anyone has more detail then please share.

Let's assume it's true that Brown punched the officer in the face and broke his orbital bone, and that Brown was the one the initiated the struggle.

 

Why wouldn't the FPD release that information quickly to attempt to diffuse over a week of rioting and looting?  To date FPD hasn't released anything of the sort.

 

If there were 12 eye witnesses that could confirm the officers story wouldn't at least one of them had granted an interview with national news by now?  It's not like they are sworn to secrecy.  The large news networks will pay a good sum of money for an exclusive interview on a story that has national attention.

 

There must be more details somewhere, but these don't exactly add up.

 

I did hear the woman that called into the radio station, but that was a 3rd person account.  She said she wasn't a witness and was repeating what she was told.

Why are the police slow to release details?   Sub Judice or "Under judgement"   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub_judice   Releasing evidence publicly can negatively effect the outcome of a trial, leading to a miscarriage of justice.  The police / prosecution tend to hold evidence until it has been through the investigation / grand jury process.  MSM and local witnesses are under no such limitation so only one one side tells their story, then suddenly the actual investigation/indictments hearing goes ahead using both sides of the story, and there's a 50/50 chance that the public, biased by hearing only one side, will simply not believe the other side.

If eyewitness evidence is released too early in the process then it can be easily claimed that further eyewitnesses heard the story in the media and are simply repeating it - undermining their credibility.  The same reason that court witnesses are not allowed to watch the court hearing until they are dismissed.  If multiple witnesses all bring the same story independently then that is much more telling.  Right now you have an entire community of people marching under the "hands up" mantra, retelling as if it was gospel - they all heard it on the news and they all demand the course of justice to conform to their one-sided story as a condition of peace.  How is that justice?

If I lived in Ferguson and saw all the violence, looting and protesters shooting each other... and I had eyewitness testimony that exonerated the officer...  I would want to remain anonymous for fear of my safety.  The money I get for an exclusive interview won't keep me alive, not will it prevent the community from ostracizing me. 

Another interesting report... Again, can't vouch for source so take with a grain of salt:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/08/boom-reporter-a-dozen-witnesses-confirm-ferguson-cops-version-of-brown-shooting/

http://nypost.com/2014/08/19/witnesses-say-ferguson-teen-attacked-cop-before-shooting/

https://twitter.com/ChristineDByers

Please don't fall victim to confirmation bias (wherein you accept and claims that support your opinion over claims that do not, regardless of the merits of the claims themselves).  I'm trying hard to stay impartial, but it is becoming difficult.

Can't vouch for the source, so don't take this as gospel:

http://mrconservative.com/2014/08/47924-officer-sustained-orbital-blowout-fracture-to-eye-socket-during-brown-attack/

So I just saw an article that said the officer in the Brown shooting suffered orbital fractures. Pretty sure that counts as serious bodily harm.

Link?

There's quite a few issues that would come with that. First where is the money for that going to come from? Most law enforcement agencies are already having trouble paying for gas to patrol with and ammo to train with.

It could be argued that filming could violate 4th amendment rights. People don't want to be filmed every time they interact with police. Some places have laws against filming people without their consent. Changing the law to allow police to do it would open all kinds of issues with general publics ability to film people without their consent. If the cops can do it why can't everyone else? Also Miranda rights issues can come from it.

It would be quite a pain in the ass to film all day. Making sure the battery hasn't died or the memory card isn't full. If you say they fire it up every time the cop interacts with someone that's not feasible. Cops often have to make instant reactions to situations. Fucking around with a camera doesn't need to be an issue added into it.

The taser camera system is plugged into a dock at the station after shift and it recharges and downloads. 

- Officer arrives back at the station after his shift, unclips the camera and plugs it into one of the slots on the central dock

- A red light appears on that camera that means the camera is downloading and/or recharging, so don't use it

- Once the camera is charged/downloaded its light turns green

- Next officer to go out on shift grabs any available green camera, clips it on and goes to work.  The camera is the size of a whiteboard marker.

- Video is categorized and stored for some statutory amount of time based upon what they caught on video, then eventually purged.

http://www.taser.com/products/on-officer-video/axon-flex-on-officer-video

4th Amendment:  The police can already record their interactions with people, although wiretap laws in various states present a challenge if the officer's mic picks up conversations he is not party to.  Accidental is no problemo, but intentional is an issue.

If the residents are unhappy with the people voted in, then vote in different people, right?

There is an overwhelming contingent of people who are protesting peacefully and their voices should be heard.  There is a small subset of those intent on causing trouble.

The police have to be prepared to deal with the trouble, yet they can't know who the troublemakers are until they do something.

The CNN reporter last night was pointing out that the police were armed and ready for a riot, without acknowledging the fact that the police know the riot is coming.  Does he expect the police to pack away their shields, gas masks and guns, then get them back out again when the rioting starts?

How about his:  Community leaders and police/government leaders stand in between the protestors and the police.  They actively talk and co-ordinate with each other so that the police leaders can ask community leaders to calm down certain protestors, and the community leaders can ask the police leaders to have the officers back off from aggressive stances, pointing weapons etc.  Make it a human to human communication between senior community members on both sides rather than an entrenched screaming at-each-other thing.  

The community leaders also need to convince the protestors to distance themselves more clearly from the troublemakers.  When it devolves into violence the real protestors should choose go home.  That will leave the troublemakers with the choice of rioting without the safety-in-numbers of the legitimate protestors, or just slinking away into the night.  If the troublemakers leave then the violence stops.  If they stay then it's open season on the idiots and legitimate protestors are not caught in the crossfire. 

BTW:  The most stupid thing I heard on CNN last night, a protestor argued with the presenter reporting a molotov cocktail being thrown at police:   "That wasn't a molotov cocktail!  It was just a water bottle that ignited when it hit the police." 

We'll be dealing with a whole new problem of "The camera wasn't working" or "we lost the data". Which, obviously, is possible....but it won't stop people from speculating or throwing accusations around.

Buddy of mine from Missouri was harassed by a cop who threatened to assault my friend and boasted that he could "say you resisted arrest or something"  (was on CNN any everything) and it only came to light because my buddy had a camera running.   When the FOIA request for dashcam footage came in, the officer's dashcam was found to have "malfunctioned".   Uh-huh.  Yeah.  Right.

You can find it on Youtube.  Brett Darrow and Sgt. James Kuehnline

2014 Rodney King...

 

I wish LEO's would just wear chest-mounted GoPro cameras at all times, and be done with it. 

The companies that make LE body cameras are about to have a bumper sales year.

Now there is an allegation that he had a bullet wound through the palm of Brown's hand.

If true, it would support the witness claims that he had his hands up.   However, no bullet wound on his palm was noted on the autopsy report...?

If this were to go to trail, this is what it will come down to.  The more confusion about facts, conflicting stories, and ability to reduce credibility of witnesses will ultimately favor the officer.  Juries overwhelmingly believe police officers, even though cops lying under oath has been well documented.  

 

There is going to be lingering tension in Ferguson regardless of what happens.  It's going to be difficult to live there or to be a police officer there.      

Being fair, criminals and witnesses lie under oath too... 

Family attorney:  "One of the bullets entered the back of his head and came out through his eye".   Yet autopsy diagram shows no bullet wounds to the back of his head...?

It is getting more confusing.

 

He's 6'4," if the shot that hit him on the top of the head exited toward the front of his face, wouldn't that mean that he was facing the officer in a position like kneeling with his head bent forward?    

The one shot to the top of his head didn't exit, they say. 

The shot that went through his eye went directly downwards from his eye through his jaw and into his shoulder - but the pathologist and attorney appear to disagree on the direction of travel of the bullet prior to hitting the eye.  Pathologist says front to back and it ricocheted off the bone behind his eyebrow, turning downwards.  Attorney says there was another bullethole directly above his eye, just behind the hairline, (that the pathologist did not label as a bullethole), and the the bullet was already travelling downwards when it made contact with his head.

Hitting the top of his head could be any number of speculative things:

 - His head was bowed in surrender

 - His head was tucked in a charge / tackle

 - His entire body was falling forward in response to the earlier shots

Confused even more now.

The autopsy that the family performed is reported to have stated that Brown was shot 6 times, 2 head, 4 arm, all from the front.

The family's attorney just has a press conference stating that the two shots to the head were fired from the back.

Shot #1:

 - The autopsy reportedly said this shot was in a front/back & downwards trajectory into his the top of his head.

 - The family attorney stated this was "The kill shot" and it was in a back/front & downwards trajectory.

Shot #2: 

 - The autopsy reportedly said one shot hit his right eye socket, was redirected downwards behind his cheek, out the bottom of his jaw and into his shoulder.  

 - The attorney said this shot actually entered into the top of his head, emerged from his eye, went into his jaw (and presumably out again) then his hit shoulder, in a directly downwards trajectory.

 - The attorney also said that the two head shots prove that he was shot in the back as he was running away.

Shots #3-6: (Arm)

 - The autopsy reportedly said the shows were front to back and hit him in the bicep/shoulder, and inside his forearm.

 - The family attorney said this proves his hands were up when the shots while running away

Either the reports on the content of the autopsy are incorrect, or the family attorneys don't agree with their own pathologist's findings on the directionality of the bullets...?     I also don't agree that the downwards trajectory of the two headshots prove he was shot while running away, nor does a bullethole in the front of the bicep prove his hands were up.   It does not prove he was attacking either - just that he was facing the officer.    If his hands were up I'd expect the holes to be in the inside of the bicep upper (arms out horizontally with forearms up) , or even in the tricep (reaching for the sky)

The also stated that the shot in the top of the head would have killed him instantly.  However the attorneys say the two headshots went from back-to-front and are consistent with witness claims of being shot in the back as he was running - The witnesses say he was shot in the back and THEN he turned and put his hands up.    If the head shots were were fired while he was running away (as attorney claimed), and those headshots were the "kill shot" that  "killed him instantly" with "no suffering" (as attorney claimed), how could he have turned and put his hands up to surrender?

Keep in mind that police officers are well schooled on what need to be said to make a shooting sound justified.  In addition to the autopsy done by the state, there will also be on performed by a federal examiner.  I expect that will answer many questions.

 

 

On a different note, they are now brining in the National Guard to deal with rioters.   

Many people are well schooled on how to appear to be the good guy.  Police, CCW, criminals etc.  

Examples:

 - Gang members in a single area will wear identical clothing so that if the police are chasing one of them he or she can easily get lost in a crowd

 - "Stop resisting"   (Well, he must have been resisting otherwise they wouldn't have been shouting that, huh?)      (Stop resisting the beating I'm giving you!)

 - "Stop attacking me!"

 - "Hands-up" fighting stance 

Even when they make no attempt to appear to be the victim, it can make little or no difference.     Remember the Stillwagon shooting in Delaware?  Stillwagon was on his motorcycle and shot at the driver of a pickup?   I spoke with a direct eyewitness to that event who said "The guy on the bike was walking towards the unarmed pickup driver, shooting over and over, while shouting; 'You're gonna die'".   The case was ruled self-defense.  

NOTHING that an eyewitness says should EVER be taken as gospel.  EVER.

Oh, and yes - the National Guard is going to make that whole thing much more interesting.  The rioters did not respond well to the local 'miltarized' police, nor did they respond well to the kid-gloves approach for the State Police (looting that the police did not attempt to stop).  Now they're going to be dealing with the National Guard.

I wonder if the National Gaurd's rifles will be loaded...

The folks who are in in those positions were voted in, correct?  Is there any claim of disenfranchisement?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/17/us/missouri-teen-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Some details from the independent autopsy report released.  Brown was hit 6 times.  4 in right arm, 2 in head.  All from the front.  

This calls into question the claim he visibly reacted to being hit in the back as he was running away.  It does not refute the claim he was shot *at* while running away.  

Nor does it support or refute either side of the the competing claims that he was either surrendering or charging at the officer.

If any of the shots in the arm hit the underside of his arms then it would lean towards his right arm being up.  If they hit the tops of his arm then that hints at his arm being down.  If the bullet traversed up his arm wherein the entrance wound was relatively distal and the exit wound was relatively proximal then that would suggest his arm was reaching towards the officer. 

http://www.brennerbrief.com/witness-michael-brown-bum-rushed-cop/

 

I listened to the two guys in the background talking.  They clearly stated that Brown "doubled back on" the officer.  That's interesting.

On one side you have witnesses claiming the officer shot Brown in the back, then shot him when he surrendered then stood over his and shot him while he was lying on the ground.  On the other hand you have witnesses (excluding radio show girl who was not a witness) discussing the fact Brown advanced on officer rather than indicated surrender.

See what I mean by these situations being in flux?  Nobody should have strong opinions on what actually transpired until the investigation is complete.

http://eaglerising.com/7996/breaking-story-friend-missouri-cop-shot-teen-tells-officers-side-story/#ku4W8aAbdMYUS3FI.01

Here's a different side of the story.

That account differs from the eyewitness reports that shots were fired while Brown was running away and that he clearly reacted as if he'd been hit.  The story told by the "friend of the officer" was that the the officer chased Brown, but made no mention of shooting as Brown was running away.    The autopsy should reveal if Brown was shot in the back.  If so then that supports the eyewitness claims.  If no shots in the back then either the officer did not shoot, or shot and missed.

If the two of them rushed the officer then that would be grounds to shoot, however the only thing more unreliable than eyewitness testimony is testimony of the accused.  The officer will need some kind of proof that Brown was charging him.  That's a tall order.

A video from the scene:

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2014/08/16/nd-ferguson-cell-phone-video-mike-brown-body-on-ground.cnn&hpt=hp_t1&from_homepage=yes&video_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F%3Fhpt%3Dsitenav

In this video claims are made that the officer "stood over his and shot him while he was laying on the ground".  This is a new claim I haven't heard thus far.