Michael Brown Case

[cvp12gh5]

Opinions? Verdict predictions?

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/st-louis-edge-looming-grand-jury-verdict-michael-brown-case

 

[dogman6126]

The autopsy very much supported that brown did fight with the officer, that he did struggle for the gun, and that he was charging at the officer during the fatal head shots. The fact that the "witnesses" said that he was shot execution style is a perfect example of suggestibility, and I really hope that the jury does not fall for the false assumption that human declarative memory can be trusted. Therefore I expect and hope that he will be let off.

 

[muir]

The autopsy very much supported that brown did fight with the officer, that he did struggle for the gun, and that he was charging at the officer during the fatal head shots. The fact that the "witnesses" said that he was shot execution style is a perfect example of suggestibility, and I really hope that the jury does not fall for the false assumption that human declarative memory can be trusted. Therefore I expect and hope that he will be let off.

Hold on....

You just said he was fighting with the officer and that he struggled for the gun

But then you say he was charging the officer when he was shot...

So which is it?

Was he up close and 'fighting' with the officer or was he at a distance and charging the officer?

That article says brown was shot in the back of his arm; how would that happen if he was charging the officer?

6 witnesses said that he was running and then stopped and put his hands up (maybe after being shot in the back of his arm?); are you saying all 6 witnesses are lying?

 

[Stu]

Baden performed his autopsy in August at the request of Brown's family. His findings and the findings of the St. Louis County Medical Examiner's office seemed to differ on one key point: Baden said there was no gunpowder residue on Brown's body, indicating he was not shot at close range, though he said at the time he wasn't given access to Brown's clothing and the residue could be there.The county autopsy report showed that one wound, to Brown's thumb, was at close range. Wilson told investigators he felt threatened while fighting with Brown from inside a police SUV, where an initial gunshot was fired, according to information provided to several news outlets by people described as familiar with the investigation, but not otherwise identified.
Those same accounts said Wilson told investigators that after Brown fled the vehicle, he turned around in a threatening manner, prompting Wilson to fire the fatal shots. But some witnesses said Brown had his hands up as if he was trying to surrender.
The Justice Department, which is investigating both the case and the Ferguson police department, performed a third autopsy. Those results have not been released.
Crump said Baden had only limited access to information and has asked to review several other pieces of evidence before he testifies.

When the St. Louis Post-Dispatch somehow obtained the confidential autopsy report from the local medical examiner, the newspaper consulted Dr. Judy Melinek to analyze the report and draw some very basic conclusions on how exactly Officer Darren Wilson shot and killed Mike Brown on August 9 in Ferguson, Missouri.Her comments about the scuffle drew so much attention that one key point she made was totally missed. She says that the gunshot to the back of Mike Brown's upper arm could have come from behind while he was fleeing the scene, as described in the final three paragraphsof an MSNBC story:

All but one of the gunshots, Melinek said, seem to have struck Brown in the front of his body, which is consistent with witnesses who said Brown had been facing Wilson when he was shot. Depending on any witnesses physical proximity to the shooting, Brown could have been turning to Wilson in surrender, stumbling toward him after being shot or charging him.The shot to the back of Brown’s upper arm, Melinek said, suggested he could have been shot from behind.
​

Nearly a half-dozen witnesses say that after an initial altercation at Wilson’s car, Brown fled and that Wilson gave chase, firing at him from behind. At one point, they say, Brown turned with his hands up and Wilson fired the final, fatal shots. Unnamed sources quoted in both local and national news reports say Wilson has testified that he fired twice from his car and several times after Brown ran, turned, and then charged at him.
​

.

 

[dogman6126]

Ok, I'm guessing you didn't read the autopsy report, and your questions your asking are leading questions muir. Hardly productive to an unbiased discussion.

Hold on....

You just said he was fighting with the officer and that he struggled for the gun

But then you say he was charging the officer when he was shot...

So which is it?

The autopsy found gunshot residue in his injured thumb and blood on the gun. That can only happen if his thumb is near the gun when it was fired. After he got shot he started to run so the officer chased him, but then brown turned toward the officer. This can be determined because he was shot facing the officer and 30 feet from the car. That means he had to turn and run, then face the officer again. Then judging by the angle of the wound in his arm at this point, they can determine that his hands where NOT up palms outward as a surrender position, and the angle of the fatal head shot determines that he was falling forward toward the officer. This is the part that I'm not comfortable with. This could be that Brown lunged toward the officer, but this is not so sure. If he bent over as a pain response to his arm being shot, that might make sense, but usually that response would be to pull the arm towards the chest, but he was shot more in the chest. That would have caused shots in the arm potentially in my opinion. Another unpredictable factor is the fact that they did find brown was under the influence of THC, but to what extent his thinking was impaired or what effect that had on the incident, there's no way to know.

Was he up close and 'fighting' with the officer or was he at a distance and charging the officer?

That article says brown was shot in the back of his arm; how would that happen if he was charging the officer?

Urgh, now I wanted to recheck the actual autopsy report before responding to this, but I can't find it. You see, to say the back of the arm is subjective. Does it mean back of the arm relative to the person? If so, then how do they orient the arm in this case? Palm outward, or top of the hand outward. If you try this yourself, you will see the entire arm rotates depending on if the back of the hand or the palm is outward. So then if the shot was on the edge, which I can confirm that much from the news sources, then back of the arm can very well be misleading. Another way to judge back of the arm could be to say the inner arm and the outer arm where the outer arm is the back. But in respect to the person, that part of the arm is sideways. You see the difficulty?

Edit: there's also thumb outward as a possible orientation

6 witnesses said that he was running and then stopped and put his hands up (maybe after being shot in the back of his arm?); are you saying all 6 witnesses are lying?

This is the part that is a leading question muir. What I'm saying is that none of the witnesses are lying. They could very well all believe what they are saying is the exact truth. But that's just how declarative memory works. Here, watch this video:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1zwxcl_brain-games-remember-this-s01e03_shortfilms
this is a show called brain games that excellently demonstrates the unreliability of eye witness testimony and explains why it can't be trust, when it can't be trusted, and when it can be trusted.

 

[cvp12gh5]

Hold on....

You just said he was fighting with the officer and that he struggled for the gun

But then you say he was charging the officer when he was shot...

So which is it?

Was he up close and 'fighting' with the officer or was he at a distance and charging the officer?

That article says brown was shot in the back of his arm; how would that happen if he was charging the officer?

6 witnesses said that he was running and then stopped and put his hands up (maybe after being shot in the back of his arm?); are you saying all 6 witnesses are lying?

Both.

I think it's the last three minutes of the video. Listen carefully.

[video=youtube;VdL9dqkyjhM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdL9dqkyjhM&sns=em[/video]

Here is a transcript:

#1 How’d he get from there to there?

#2 Because he ran, the police was still in the truck — cause he was like over the truck

{crosstalk}

#2 But him and the police was both in the truck, then he ran — the police got out and ran after him


{crosstalk}

#2 Then the next thing I know he doubled back toward him cus - the police had his gun drawn already on him —

#1. Oh, the police got his gun

#2 The police kept dumpin on him, and I’m thinking the police kept missing — he like — be like — but he kept coming toward him

{crosstalk}

#2 Police fired shots — the next thing I know — the police was missing

#1 The Police?

#2 The Police shot him

#1 Police?

#2 The next thing I know … I’m thinking … the dude started running … (garbled something about “he took it from him”)

"Both accounts state that Michael Brown charged the officer after he had been told to freeze so he could be detained. This had happened after Brown had attacked the officer and the two had struggled for the officer’s firearm. When he would not stop charging the officer, he was shot and killed."

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

 

[cvp12gh5]

[MENTION=11455]dogman6126[/MENTION]

Brain Games. Love that show.

 

[muir]

Both.

I think it's the last three minutes of the video. Listen carefully.

[video=youtube;VdL9dqkyjhM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdL9dqkyjhM&sns=em[/video]

Here is a transcript:

#1 How’d he get from there to there?

#2 Because he ran, the police was still in the truck – cause he was like over the truck

{crosstalk}

#2 But him and the police was both in the truck, then he ran – the police got out and ran after him


{crosstalk}

#2 Then the next thing I know he doubled back toward him cus - the police had his gun drawn already on him –

#1. Oh, the police got his gun

#2 The police kept dumpin on him, and I’m thinking the police kept missing – he like – be like – but he kept coming toward him

{crosstalk}

#2 Police fired shots – the next thing I know – the police was missing

#1 The Police?

#2 The Police shot him

#1 Police?

#2 The next thing I know … I’m thinking … the dude started running … (garbled something about “he took it from him”)

"Both accounts state that Michael Brown charged the officer after he had been told to freeze so he could be detained. This had happened after Brown had attacked the officer and the two had struggled for the officer’s firearm. When he would not stop charging the officer, he was shot and killed."

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

Do you think the public are beginning to be afraid around cops?

If so do you think that they have reason to be afraid?

Do you think that some cops abuse their authority and that there is almost a desire in cop culture to use their gun in anger and that some members of the public are worried that they might be gunned down under spurious circumstances?

 

[dogman6126]

Do you think the public are beginning to be afraid around cops?

If so do you think that they have reason to be afraid?

Do you think that some cops abuse their authority and that there is almost a desire in cop culture to use their gun in anger and that some members of the public are worried that they might be gunned down under spurious circumstances?

Muir you are excellent at leading questions, lol
I think you have fallen prey to the fundamental attribution error, specifically the availability heuristic in combination with the negativity bias and confirmation bias.

 

[muir]

Muir you are excellent at leading questions, lol
I think you have fallen prey to the fundamental attribution error, specifically the availability heuristic in combination with the negativity bias and confirmation bias.

Niow don't tie yourself up in knots...keep your focus

 

[dogman6126]

Niow don't tie yourself up in knots...keep your focus

Haha, nice try to discredit what I'm saying, but very much insufficient. I am describing the context of your questions and your own natural bias that very well could sway someone else's opinion through the peripheral route of persuasion. It's convincing to people who don't know to look out for it, and its also down right manipulation on your part. Not conducive to a logical argument, and inherently flawed. Some might even say moral reproachable.

 

[Eventhorizon]

I dislike this. I dislike the world I live in because of it.
I wasnt there. If federal investigators determine there was a struggle in the car and that after that Brown at some point advanced toward the officer hands up or not, I fully understand why the officer droped him.
If brown on the other hand was simply running away to avoid capture even if he had just robbed a store, I think it was well over excessive force and should likely be consider murder UNLESS Brown robbed the store with a deadly weapon.

I do not like people saying Brown was a good innocent boy when he clearly was not. I think people on both sides believe what they want to believe and use it to fuel their disodence.

If riots occur after a not guilty verdict of the officer it should be made clear every last person found guilty of rioting will be manditorily held accountable to the fullest extend of the law.

 

[muir]

Lets get some insight into the culture that exists and is being encouraged in the increasingly militarised police; watch the cops laughing about havign shot a woman in the face with a rubber bullet....yeah hilarious guys...what a bunch of kids:

[video=youtube;G63FEamhpA0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G63FEamhpA0[/video]

The police are now being trained in a very militaristic way where killing is encouraged

This culture can be summed up nicely in the words of US Marine Corp general James Matthis who was a high up in NATO when he said to 200 assembled marines:

That said, there are some assholes in the world that just need to be shot. There are hunters and there are victims. By your discipline, cunning, obedience and alertness, you will decide if you are a hunter or a victim. ? It’s really a hell of a lot of fun. You’re gonna have a blast out here!

There are some good cops but also unfortunatly there are some A-hole cops who join up so that they can bully people from behind a badge; they develop an entitlement syndrome whereby because they have a badge they think they can treat everyone else like they are dirt

Some recent clips i saw of cops misbehaving include one where a cop pulled an ambulance over and began shouting abusively at the operators when they were trying to take a woman to hospital and another where the cop slapped a guy around the head for speaking back to the cop

Why do cops think people have no right to speak back to them? They are public servants whose wages are paid for by the public.

But because they are being trained in a military environment they are taking on the aspect of a marine staff seargent who will not tolerate beign spoken back to

We are going to see more and more confrontations between the militarily indoctrinated police and the misstreated public

Note in the clip below how the policeman calls his police car an 'emergency vehicle' as if the ambulance is not an emergency vehicle...what a prick

[video=youtube;1ILCDeRBPII]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ILCDeRBPII[/video]

Watch this bully thropw his weight around

[video=youtube;CrRjRXOZT5k]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrRjRXOZT5k[/video]

 

[muir]

Haha, nice try to discredit what I'm saying, but very much insufficient. I am describing the context of your questions and your own natural bias that very well could sway someone else's opinion through the peripheral route of persuasion. It's convincing to people who don't know to look out for it, and its also down right manipulation on your part. Not conducive to a logical argument, and inherently flawed. Some might even say moral reproachable.

No you are stating an opinion with no evidence

I said 'focus' in reply to you telling me to focus in another thread...and now you get all upset about it

 

[cvp12gh5]

Do you think the public are beginning to be afraid around cops?

If so do you think that they have reason to be afraid?

Do you think that some cops abuse their authority and that there is almost a desire in cop culture to use their gun in anger and that some members of the public are worried that they might be gunned down under spurious circumstances?

Since we are talking about Michael Brown, I think it's safe to say that he didn't seem too afraid of law enforcement. He committed strong-arm robbery, shut a police officer's door when he tried to exit his vehicle, then proceeded to try and take the officer's gun while he was still in the vehicle. When he didn't succeed in getting the officer's gun (and was accidentally shot due to his own actions) it was only then that he decided to run while the officer told him to freeze. And even then, he started running towards the officer. Put yourself in that officers shoes. I would have fired also.

An officer is legally justified in using force if he feels threatened or that his life is in danger. Michael Brown exhibited signs of aggressive and out of control behavior from the start.

 

[dogman6126]

No you are stating an opinion with no evidence

I said 'focus' in reply to you telling me to focus in another thread...and now you get all upset about it

ok so now your just throwing back at me what I said to you without it even being relevant. Lol, well then.


my description of your bias is based on what I quoted and how I've seen you reply in the past.

 

[muir]

Since we are talking about Michael Brown, I think it's safe to say that he didn't seem too afraid of law enforcement. He committed strong-arm robbery, shut a police officers door when he tried to exit his vehicle, then proceeded to try and take the officers gun while the officer was still in the vehicle. When he didn't succeed in getting the officer's gun (and was shot due to his own actions) it was only then that he decided to run while the officer told him to freeze. And even then, he started running towards the officer. Put yourself in that officers shoes. I would have fired also.

An officer is legally justified in using force if they feel threatened and their life is in danger. Michael Brown exhibited signs of aggressive and out of control behavior from the start.

We're not really talking about michael brown...

People are killed by the cops all the time but their stories don't receive this attention; this story is receiving attention because it is the spark that has ignited a tinder box that was waiting to go up

The tinderbox is public frustrations at police brutality and the spark has ignited in the black community who are often subject to police brutality

Micheal's story is just one in many

Regardless of the specifics of his case it is igniting tensions that were getting ready to light up anyway because the police are being militarised and are increasingly brutalising the public

 

[muir]

ok so now your just throwing back at me what I said to you without it even being relevant. Lol, well then.


my description of your bias is based on what I quoted and how I've seen you reply in the past.

No what you do is lose debates and then attack a person instead

You should join the police

 

[dogman6126]

No what you do is lose debates and then attack a person instead

You should join the police

Lol, wow. I suppose if you don't consider any of my points as remotely valid then you could reach the conclusion of loosing the debate, but if you where to actually fairly consider what I'm saying you would see that is not the case. Not even remotely. You didn't even have correct facts. And its unfair of you to play the attack the person card. I told you, it was misplaced aggression and I did apologize for it. It was in no way related to this discussion, it was because a roommate of mine was being a complete idiot while I was typing my response. Simple misplaced aggression. I never said I was perfect. however it is unfair and illogical of you to assume that in anyway shows my arguments to be less effective.

 

[muir]

Lol, wow. I suppose if you don't consider any of my points as remotely valid then you could reach the conclusion of loosing the debate, but if you where to actually fairly consider what I'm saying you would see that is not the case. Not even remotely. You didn't even have correct facts. And its unfair of you to play the attack the person card. I told you, it was misplaced aggression and I did apologize for it. It was in no way related to this discussion, it was because a roommate of mine was being a complete idiot while I was typing my response. Simple misplaced aggression. I never said I was perfect. however it is unfair and illogical of you to assume that in anyway shows my arguments to be less effective.

My issue with this whole Michael Brown thing...and don't get me wrong...it's terrible that a person has died here, but i hear about death a lot and what i'm really looking at is the backdrop to things

So the backdrop to the michael brown case is the public protests against police brutality that have followed in its wake but behind that is an even bigger backdrop and if you go back and look at my posts from the past you'll find i have been warning about government encroachment on public life and about the militarisation of the police and so on so for me michael brown is just another victim in a long line of victims i'm aware of and although the justice of his case is important for his family and community and the cop involved and so on from my perspective as someone sitting many miles away i am kinda more focussed on the justice of society at whole at the moment because i believe that a grave injustice is being done to all of us at the moment and that stories like michaels are simply the front line of a growing problem (michaels justice is of course linked to everyones justice as well)

Now you can sit around and talk about the specifics of michaels case but if you're smart you will realise that there are implications to all this that go way beyond the case of one man

It depends how you read reality....for me...i'm reading a bigger story here that is going to involve all of us...that does involve all of us