Michael Brown shooting

[Steve Butters]

Who cares how far the body was from the car? Irrelevant fact. The sky was blue that day too. Guilty.

Dude assaults cop, then runs away... You think the cop isn't going to chase him? You know for proven fact 100 percent that the cop never left the immediate area of his car? I'm interested to see your source for that?

[Steve Butters]

Because now we have several stories..

Cop shoots him from car.

Cop chases, he turns around charges gets shot

Cop shoots him in the back then stands over his body and executes him

If you have proof of your claims, I'm sure there's some people in Missouri that would be interested in hearing them

Edited August 21, 2014 by Steve Butters

[Tpoppa]

Who cares how far the body was from the car? Irrelevant fact. The sky was blue that day too. Guilty.

Dude assaults cop, then runs away... 

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..    

Edited August 21, 2014 by Tpoppa

[Tpoppa]

Because now we have several stories..

Cop shoots him from car.

Cop chases, he turns around charges gets shot

Cop shoots him in the back then stands over his body and executes him

If you have proof of your claims, I'm sure there's some people in Missouri that would be interested in hearing them

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.   

Edited August 21, 2014 by Tpoppa

[Steve Butters]

But its still not a relevant fact.....distance of body to police car means nothing if we dont know anything more than distance from police officer to dead body was "more than 2-3 feet"

 

Heres a hypothetical: brown starts running, cop has to get out of police car which gives brown a few second head start. brown runs 40 ft with the officer in tow at 20 feet since brown got a head start. brown stops running, turned to assault officer, gets shot. body is now 35 feet from patrol car and officer is 25ft from patrol car but within 10 feet of brown.

 

not saying that happened, just throwing it out there as a hypothetical. the car means nothing in this equation is what im getting at. if you cant understand that, then youre thinking with too much prejudice or just in denial that your statements of fact could be flawed. i have a hard time believing you know exactly what happened, down to the details, even though you have had no information other than what has been posted by the media (which is full of bias, misinformation, and bullshit - about every topic, apparently aside from this one, in which they report only proven facts??)

 

If it was as cut and dry, black and white (no pun intended) as you're claiming - then it would have been solved by now.

 

I'm not taking a side either way. Disgruntled police have been known to kill people unjustly. And thugs have been known to assault police and get killed. Theres not enough info to make such definitive statements as you are making. If you dont understand that concept, there's nothing more for us to have a discussion about

[mango_sv]

You also have to take into account Missouri law. Someone had posted it on a firearm forum I read. If I understand it correctly, officers are allowed to use deadly force to take down a felony suspect. Assaulting an officer is a felony. Now you have that whole mix of legislation to dig thru to know if it's justified or not.

[Scruit]

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.

 

 

Are you going to answer the question?

 

Pasted again:

 

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]

Are you going to answer the question?

 

Pasted again:

 

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.

 

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?

[madcat6183]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/20/missouri-cop-was-badly-beaten-before-shooting-michael-brown-says-source/

 

 

Interesting, if this is the case then game over, case closed. 

[Tpoppa]

Heres a hypothetical: brown starts running, cop has to get out of police car which gives brown a few second head start. brown runs 40 ft with the officer in tow at 20 feet since brown got a head start. brown stops running, turned to assault officer, gets shot. body is now 35 feet from patrol car and officer is 25ft from patrol car but within 10 feet of brown.

 

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.

[ohiomike]

I haven't heard anyone here mention what effect adrenaline has on either of the people.  Once its amped up, it can cause either to do extraordinary things. LIke a person being shot repeatedly and continuing to run, or a shooter so amped up that he'she cannot come down enough to make a consciously smart decision, like feeling threatened by an upclose and in your face fight (for your life) then having the other party take off running while you are still trying to get your shit together.  Training or not, when this happens the mind takes over and can cause all sorts of actions to occur, strange as they may be.

 

Another thing I have wondered.  Was there ever an established crime scene investigation or was the area compromised because of the emotional responses of bystanders and the like?  I cannot imagine having to try and reconstruct a scene like this so it can be critically drawn out to establish what really happened, step by step.

[Tpoppa]

I haven't heard anyone here mention what effect adrenaline has on either of the people.  Once its amped up, it can cause either to do extraordinary things. LIke a person being shot repeatedly and continuing to run, or a shooter so amped up that he'she cannot come down enough to make a consciously smart decision, like feeling threatened by an upclose and in your face fight (for your life) then having the other party take off running while you are still trying to get your shit together.  Training or not, when this happens the mind takes over and can cause all sorts of actions to occur, strange as they may be.

 

Another thing I have wondered.  Was there ever an established crime scene investigation or was the area compromised because of the emotional responses of bystanders and the like?  I cannot imagine having to try and reconstruct a scene like this so it can be critically drawn out to establish what really happened, step by step.

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.  

[Scruit]

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?

 

Proximity cannot justify shooting an unarmed, charging person...?   Well, that's a definitive answer at least.  Not one that any CHL holder or cop will agree with, though.   If someone lays hands on while you are armed then that gun is now thier weapon as much as it is yours - your hesitation has created a 50/50 chance that your attacker will get the gun and potentially use it on you.   (Better than 50/50 ifhte guy is 6'4" and 300lbs)

 

So you won't consider the shooting justified even if the "charging" claim is proven?

 

 

 

Quid pro quo:

If someone is trying to shoot me in the back and I have no place to hide, what do I do?       Run.  Every step increases distance and reduced the chances of being shot.

 

 

Of course that is generally speaking, because in the Brown case the claims that he was shot in the back have been disproven.  (the hands-up witnesses clearly stated that he reacted to being shot)

Edited August 21, 2014 by Scruit

[Tpoppa]

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.

[Scruit]

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.

 

I did not hear any of the claims in support of the officer's position state that he fired upon Brown as Brown was moving away from the cruiser.  The claims I heard were that he shouted "freeze" and Brown & friend turned around an taunted him with "What are you going to do? Shoot me?" *

 

Not saying it didn't happen...

 

 

The shot on the top of his head does not conclusively support either side.  I feel it's very likely that the shots were fired in a manner that resulted in Brown falling forward by the time the last shot hit him - that would be consistent with either the "hands-up" story or the "charging" story.  

 

The witnesses have not been clear on how much time passed between the first 5 shots that hit him and the last shot to the top of the head.  Were they all fired quickly enough that the officer could not have been expected to the change in his posture from charging to falling?  Or did Brown fall to his knees and the officer waited several seconds before firing the last shot? (as claimed by Michael Brady)   Or was Brown always in a passive surrender stance so the first shot wasn't even justified?

 

 

* = If this is true, best last words EVAR.    

Edited August 21, 2014 by Scruit

[cOoTeR]

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.

It seems you're assuming the cop never left the car. Which doesn't seem logical even if he was trying to "kill" brown no matter what like you seem to believe. Why wouldn't he get closer and make a sure shot if Brown was giving up?

How many shots were fired at Brown from behind? We know none hit him in the back. If your being shot at and unarmed why would you stop running if you haven't been hit? I would stick to what's working. Mainly I would stick to what has worked my entire life and not screw with the cops and not resist them at all. Seems to work pretty far.

[Scruit]

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.

 

 

Ok, so proximity plus charging can be justified?  Generally speaking?

 

The family's pathologist stated all shots that hit Brown went "front to back", except to the top of the skull which was directly downwards.  The shot that went from his eye downwards through his jaw and into his shoulder was fired from the front and deflected downwards by the bone at the top of Brown's eye cavity. 

 

The family attorneys made claims that were at odds with the finding of the pathologist, stating the shot to the top of Brown's head was "back to front" proving he was shot from behind.  They also stated he was shot through the palm of the hand, indicating he had his hands up.  They alternately claimed the shot through his eye came (A) through the back of his head and out his eye and (B) directly downwards through a bullet hole at the hairline above his eye (an abrasion not listed as a gunshot wound by the pathologist).  the attorneys had claimed the downwards shots proved Brown was on his knees surrendering and was executed, however no witness claimed he was on his knees until after the autopsy results were released.

 

The pathologist's finding prove and disprove some things, and don't help with others:

 

Proven:

- Brown was shot to death

- He was shot approximately 6 times, with some bullets entering and re-entering, all survivable except the shot to top of head

- All shots that hit him were fired from the front  (top of head shot must have been at the end because it was an "instant kill shot" after which he could not have stopped running and turn around and put his hands up - both narratives had final shots fired from front, so this shot must have been one of the last ones)

 

Disproven:

- Two eyewitness claims that he was shot in the back, visibly reacting to this, and that this is what prompted him to surrender

 

Neither proven or disproven, but not inconsistent with:

- Hands up

- Charging

- Punched officer

- Struggled for gun

- Was surrendering

 

 

I can run faster than someone can run and aim.   They can either run and not aim, or aim and not run, or do both in fast-walk-and-aim-relatively-well - but nobody is going to run at full speed and aim with full accuracy at the same time.  

Edited August 21, 2014 by Scruit

[Scruit]

It seems you're assuming the cop never left the car. Which doesn't seem logical even if he was trying to "kill" brown no matter what like you seem to believe. Why wouldn't he get closer and make a sure shot if Brown was giving up?

How many shots were fired at Brown from behind? We know none hit him in the back. If your being shot at and unarmed why would you stop running if you haven't been hit? I would stick to what's working. Mainly I would stick to what has worked my entire life and not screw with the cops and not resist them at all. Seems to work pretty far.

 

Also consider the body was found on the passenger side.  If the officer fired from inside the cruiser he'd have had to shoot through the passenger window.  And would have a cruiser full of shell casings...

 

Witnesses agree that Wilson gave chase, and that the final shooting took place within a few feet.  Some say it was front-to-back while Brown was standing facing the officer, one (Michael Brady) said it was while Brown was on his knees incapacitated, and at least one unnamed witness claimed the officer was standing directly over Brown firing downwards.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Scruit

[Tpoppa]

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.

[Tpoppa]

It seems you're assuming the cop never left the car.

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

[ohiomike]

My uncle lives in Mo., but nowhere close to the shooting.  But he says he is hearing, and actually believes, that this kid was also shot by someone other than the Leo.  Have they done ballistics tests to prove where (which weapon) each bullet in Brown came from?

Edited August 21, 2014 by ohiomike

[Steve Butters]

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

Then why keep mentioning the car as a relevant fact? What if these dudes were in great shape and the foot pursuit went a half mile instead of 35ft... Then what? Please explain to me the relevancy of the distance between car and body... I'm open to hear it because I seriously cannot comprehend any idea that it's relevant in any way how close the body was to the car

[Tpoppa]

Then why keep mentioning the car as a relevant fact? What if these dudes were in great shape and the foot pursuit went a half mile instead of 35ft... Then what? Please explain to me the relevancy of the distance between car and body... I'm open to hear it because I seriously cannot comprehend any idea that it's relevant in any way how close the body was to the car

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.

[Steve Butters]

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.

Shots came from front. Meaning the foot chase ended, brown turned around, and potentially became a threat once again.

The only thing we have to go by as far as officer shooting at Brown while he ran is bullshit "eye witnesses" that change their story every day... Maybe they're not lying, not enough facts to know, but when you change your story every time it gets debunked (shot in back rather than shot at) you lose credibility. How do you know this shooting while fleeing claim is valid?

[Tpoppa]

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!