Michael Brown shooting

[Josh1234]

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.

[Steve Butters]

I thought we were past the whole "cop stood over the body and executed him" thing.... Oh wait, let's ignore facts

[ohiomike]

I heard a tape where witness's to the shooting were saying he (Brown) had his hands up but would not stop and drop when the officer continually kept ordering him to do so.  Instead the kid kept moving forward toward the officer.  If this did happen I would take it this was considered to be threatening and since he was not going down with any of the shots that was also considered threatening.  So the officer kept firing.

[Tpoppa]

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.  

[cOoTeR]

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.

The police aren't going to make the mistake the media did and release information until they figure it all out. They need to take their time to go through all the information they gave and interview several witness to get a clear picture. The media just ran in and interviewed a guy that's starting to look like he's an accomplice to the events leading up to Brown being shot.

Do you really think the media is out looking for people that will contradict the "news" they released that caused all the current issues? Why would they do that the rioting and looting is giving them all kinds of stuff to cover.

[cOoTeR]

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.

It could only take 1 punch to break an eye socket. One punch isn't necessarily going to tear up your knuckles. The cop could have had his head slammed into something in the cruiser. There is a lot of hard stuff in there. No signs of a struggle could be no hits landed on Brown hard enough to bruise him.

Shots being fired further than 2-3 feet says nothing. 2-3 feet is perfect striking range for someone 6'+

[ScubaCinci]

It could only take 1 punch to break an eye socket.

Or an elbow which would leave even less evidence on the attacker.

[Tpoppa]

Or an elbow which would leave even less evidence on the attacker.

Or a door knob back at the police station.

[Scruit]

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!"

[Scruit]

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.

[Tpoppa]

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. 

[Scruit]

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.

[Josh1234]

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...

 

 

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.

 

The witnesses saying there was a struggle doesn't matter, and whether or not Brown punched the officer doesn't matter.  Sure, Brown was capable of inflicting deadly force, just like you said. And yes, it'll be argued that Brown was strong enough to fracture the cop's skull...

 

But I'm talking about whether or not Brown tried to surrender and the cop chose to shoot him anyway.  

 

In any event, some actual facts or forensic evidence will carry far more weight than 18 million eyewitnesses who are all telling conflicting stories to each other, and then changing them every ten minutes on top of that.

[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?

Edited August 20, 2014 by Scruit

[cOoTeR]

Some more Facebook "information". Found this article on Facebook from a friend posting it up. It is obviously a political news site so I wouldn't take it for 100% accuracy. If it is true this will make things interesting.

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2014/08/19/breaking-report-dorian-johnson-recants-media-statement-tells-authorities-big-mike-did-try-for-officers-gun-acquittal-probable/

[Scruit]

After the autopsy was released yesterday, a new witness (Michael Brady) has come out with a slightly new version of events that matches the autopsy perfectly.

 

The new version is that there was a tussle at the cruiser that the witness could not characterize as to who was the aggressor.  The witness did not hear a shot from inside the vehicle.  Brown set off running and was shot at twice while running away with no visible impact.  Then the witness said he went outside, losing sight of the scene for a few seconds, and by the time he made it outside Brown was facing the officer with his hands crossed in front of him and tucked into his armpits as if he had been shot - then Brown went down to hits knees with his head facing down, not as if in surrender but as if he was incapacitated.  Then as he was on his knees, the officer shot him in the head.  He stated he did not see hands up but suggested it could have happened while he was out of sight.  He stated there was no rushing at the officer, but did NOT suggest it could have happened while he was out of sight.

[Scruit]

The family attorneys appear to be laying the groundwork for a "Yeah, but..." regarding the struggle for the gun.

 

The attorney was on CNN earlier stating that police use of force situations are very dynamic and the officer may be in a situation where shooting is justified, but in seconds it would switch to a situation where shooting is no longer justified.  This is a very interesting departure from their original stated position that Brown did nothing wrong at any time.  I suspect we may hear that there is evidence that supports the claim that Brown struggled for the gun and a concession that Brown did that  "Yeah, But" his subsequent hands-up surrender marked the end of any justification to use force.

 

This goes back to the whole; "Our witness was wrong about this key fact, but we will still rely on them for other key facts" thing

[Scruit]

Some more Facebook "information". Found this article on Facebook from a friend posting it up. It is obviously a political news site so I wouldn't take it for 100% accuracy. If it is true this will make things interesting.

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2014/08/19/breaking-report-dorian-johnson-recants-media-statement-tells-authorities-big-mike-did-try-for-officers-gun-acquittal-probable/

 

Interesting report, but I feel you are right to take it with a grain of salt.  I have only seen "corroborating" stories that refer back to this post.  If this was true then I'd think the MSM would be all over it.  For now I will consider this to be just another "claim".

[Tpoppa]

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.

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.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Tpoppa

[Scruit]

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.

 

At what range do you think an officer is justified in shooting a charging man intent on doing them harm?  Obviously 50' is too far, and 3 feet is too late.

[Tpoppa]

At what range do you think an officer is justified in shooting a charging man intent on doing them harm?  Obviously 50' is too far, and 3 feet is too late.

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.  

[Scruit]

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.  

 

I am not convinced of it either.  It's just another claim.  We're speaking hypothetically here, trying to establish if you would accept "he was charging" as a justification to shoot an unarmed person even if it was proven.   Do you feel that an officer, in general, is ever justified in shooting an unarmed person?  Or must the officer scale back his response and fight without weapons?  or just without deadly weapons.   If you believe than an unarmed person should never be shot at all under any circumstances ever then the whole "charging" or not becomes a moot point.

 

Hypothetically speak, someone is charging at me after having already fought me for my gun - I'm going light him up if he gets within 10'.  That only gives me one second to incapacitate him.  Visible blade = 21 feet.

[Tpoppa]

I am not convinced of it either.  It's just another claim.  We're speaking hypothetically here, trying to establish if you would accept "he was charging" as a justification to shoot an unarmed person even if it was proven.   Do you feel that an officer, in general, is ever justified in shooting an unarmed person?  Or must the officer scale back his response and fight without weapons?  or just without deadly weapons.   If you believe than an unarmed person should never be shot at all under any circumstances ever then the whole "charging" or not becomes a moot point.

 

Hypothetically speak, someone is charging at me after having already fought me for my gun - I'm going light him up if he gets within 10'.  That only gives me one second to incapacitate him.  Visible blade = 21 feet.

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.

 

Edited August 21, 2014 by Tpoppa

[Steve Butters]

How can you make such definitive statements when there's 40 different stories out there and 0 facts presented....?

[Tpoppa]

How can you make such definitive statements when there's 40 different stories out there and 0 facts presented....?

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.