Re: Michael Brown

[Teallaura]

So you're thinking that this report is not the report that was written by the officer at the time but possibly a dummy report created as a pro forma nonresponse response to a FOI request?

No, it's likely a redaction or a partial. And there likely is a more in depth report - but if it was in a different reporting format the FOIA request may not have covered it at all.

[robrecht]

No, it's likely a redaction or a partial. And there likely is a more in depth report - but if it was in a different reporting format the FOIA request may not have covered it at all.

What other kind of format are you speaking of that would not have been covered by a FOI request?

By 'partil' do you mean redacted?

[Teallaura]

What other kind of format are you speaking of that would not have been covered by a FOI request?

By 'partil' do you mean redacted?

An FOIA has to be specific - if they request Report X when they really need Report Y they get X. You have to know what you are asking for.


Redacted and partial are different things. A redacted report has be edited. A partial report is covers only part or is still incomplete.

[robrecht]

Why so grumpy, Purple Pants?

[Cow Poke]

Why so grumpy, Purple Pants?

Cuz I doesn't know if there was more to the report or not --- that department isn't exactly forthcoming with details, Sunshine!

[robrecht]

Cuz I doesn't know if there was more to the report or not --- that department isn't exactly forthcoming with details, Sunshine!

Yeah, it does seem a little suspicious, at least curious. Not saying they are hiding something; maybe they just did not think a report was necessary, but even the latter would seem to indicate a poor attitude toward the incident.

[lilpixieofterror]

How do you know that?

He read it from the same news service that lied about him getting shot in the back repeatedly, so of course it must be true because well... the news always is the bastion of truth and accurate reporting (well, that is when it agrees with Jimmy and isn't Fox News).

[Littlejoe]

Texas is the only state where "he needed killing" is a legitimate defense

Yep, for instance, this man allegedly killed the drunk driver who ran into the back of his out of gas pickup, killing his 2 sons. The Jury decided, there just wasn't enough evidence to convict....

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

or they thought he just needed killing...

[JimL]

So I presume you are conceding the other two points. The officer in the press conference was the one asked to lead the investigation. He based his statements on what he had learned so far from limited interviews with Officer Darren Wilson and others at that point. He mentioned that he had not yet had as much access to Darren Wilson as he would have wanted. It was the very beginning of an investigation, as he noted. It seems your implication is that Wilson or the police only thought of this 'charging' element of his story later. OK, that's possible; we don't really know that, but it's possible. All we know of Wilson's side of the story at this point is from a friend of his who happened to call into a radio show. Personally, I wouldn't draw any conclusions yet.

The law is a bit ambiguous, but i don't think that the accusation of scuffling for the gun and then fleeing would hold up as good reason to use deadly force. The officer, if he ever was in harms way, was not so when the victim was fleeing. According to the witness it was the officer who grabbed hold of the soon to be victim and started the scuffle in the window of the cruiser. Nobody has testified to the fact that Mr. Brown was all the way inside the cruiser reaching down for the officers holster to get at his gun, including the officer himself who as I said never filed an incident report. If anything the officer drew his weapon during the scuffle and Brown probably pushed it away from himself. When he pushed the gun away he fled in fear of being shot. That is hypothetical of course, but i find it highly unlikely that anyone is going to reach all the way into the cruiser and attempt to take the gun out of the officers holster. But again, if, as was the testimony of the eyewitnesses, after being shot at, hit or not, the victim turned with his hands in the air and the officer continued to shoot him and kill him, then that, is not justifiable homicide, that is murder.

[Cow Poke]

The law is a bit ambiguous, but i don't think that the accusation of scuffling for the gun and then fleeing would hold up as good reason to use deadly force. The officer, if he ever was in harms way, was not so when the victim was fleeing. According to the witness it was the officer who grabbed hold of the soon to be victim and started the scuffle in the window of the cruiser.

So, you actually believe that Wilson pulled up to Brown, reached up and grabbed him by the throat, and tried to pull him into the front seat of the patrol vehicle? SERIOUSLY?

Nobody has testified to the fact that Mr. Brown was all the way inside the cruiser reaching down for the officers holster to get at his gun, including the officer himself who as I said never filed an incident report.

Jimmy, Brown didn't HAVE to be "all the way inside the cruiser" to reach for or obtain the officer's duty weapon. Try this, Jimmy... find somebody who's 6'4" tall, and ask them to stand outside your vehicle (if you have a vehicle) and reach in the window and see if they can touch the console between the front seats. I'll bet you your next paycheck (if you get one) that they can.

If anything the officer drew his weapon during the scuffle and Brown probably pushed it away from himself.

You don't know that.

When he pushed the gun away he fled in fear of being shot. That is hypothetical of course,

Well, SURE it is, it's coming from YOU.

but i find it highly unlikely that anyone is going to reach all the way into the cruiser and attempt to take the gun out of the officers holster.

I find it highly unlikely that somebody would rob a store, assault the clerk, start to walk away, then turn back and intimidate the clerk before exiting the store with the stolen goods and walk right down the middle of the street in broad daylight, but ya know what? That's EXACTLY what Brown did.

But again, if, as was the testimony of the eyewitnesses, after being shot at, hit or not, the victim turned with his hands in the air and the officer continued to shoot him and kill him, then that, is not justifiable homicide, that is murder.

IF this goes to trial, those witnesses will be subject to cross examination, and I'm guessing their stories will CONTINUE to change.

[robrecht]

The law is a bit ambiguous, but i don't think that the accusation of scuffling for the gun and then fleeing would hold up as good reason to use deadly force. The officer, if he ever was in harms way, was not so when the victim was fleeing. According to the witness it was the officer who grabbed hold of the soon to be victim and started the scuffle in the window of the cruiser. Nobody has testified to the fact that Mr. Brown was all the way inside the cruiser reaching down for the officers holster to get at his gun, including the officer himself who as I said never filed an incident report. If anything the officer drew his weapon during the scuffle and Brown probably pushed it away from himself. When he pushed the gun away he fled in fear of being shot. That is hypothetical of course, but i find it highly unlikely that anyone is going to reach all the way into the cruiser and attempt to take the gun out of the officers holster. But again, if, as was the testimony of the eyewitnesses, after being shot at, hit or not, the victim turned with his hands in the air and the officer continued to shoot him and kill him, then that, is not justifiable homicide, that is murder.

You're avoiding my question. Do you concede these two points?

1. It is not true that the claim that Michael Brown was going for his gun originated 2 weeks after the incident. See the video.

2. It is not true that an officer can only use deadly force if there is reason to suspect that a fleeing felon is an immediate threat to others including other officers. See the Supreme Court decision that also allows for deadly force if "there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm."

[JimL]

So, you actually believe that Wilson pulled up to Brown, reached up and grabbed him by the throat, and tried to pull him into the front seat of the patrol vehicle? SERIOUSLY?

No, I don't, I think the officer grabbed him and a scuffle ensued at the window of the cruiser, not that he tried to pull him into the front seat. None of the witnesses said that Mr Brown was in the front seat, they said that they saw them scuffling through the window. Now let me ask you CP, do you actually believe that Mr Brown, an 18 year old kid, of his own volition, attacked the officer, climbing into the front seat in order to get the officers gun? SERIOUSLY?

Jimmy, Brown didn't HAVE to be "all the way inside the cruiser" to reach for or obtain the officer's duty weapon. Try this, Jimmy... find somebody who's 6'4" tall, and ask them to stand outside your vehicle (if you have a vehicle) and reach in the window and see if they can touch the console between the front seats. I'll bet you your next paycheck (if you get one) that they can.

Did you see the size of the kid CP? For one thing he probably couldn't even fit through the cruiser window. Second, there is no evidence that he was inside the cruiser. Third, the very notion that anyone would reach inside a police cruiser and attempt to unholster an officers weapon is a very difficult one to take seriously.

You don't know that.

No i don't, but that the officer drew his own weapon is the most likely scenario.

Well, SURE it is, it's coming from YOU.

Correct, and you don't do hypotheticals right CP?

I find it highly unlikely that somebody would rob a store, assault the clerk, start to walk away, then turn back and intimidate the clerk before exiting the store with the stolen goods and walk right down the middle of the street in broad daylight, but ya know what? That's EXACTLY what Brown did.

You have a point there, but i wouldn't equate that with attacking an armed police officer.

IF this goes to trial, those witnesses will be subject to cross examination, and I'm guessing their stories will CONTINUE to change.

The problem you have is that they are independent witnesses whose stories all match in the essential details. "There was a scuffle at the police cruiser window, Mr. Brown broke away, the officer got out shooting, Mr. Brown turned with his hands in the air, the officer fired another four or five rounds at him until he fell dead." What do you think they will change of that? Now it would have been nice if the officer had filed an incident report like he was supposed to do so we could see if and how his story differs from those eyewitness accounts, but he didn't. Now why do you suppose he didn't do that?

[JimL]

You're avoiding my question. Do you concede these two points?

1. It is not true that the claim that Michael Brown was going for his gun originated 2 weeks after the incident. See the video.

Alleged by who? The officer himself never filed an incident report. And even should that be his defense, now that he has had time to think it over, there is no corraborating evidence to that being the case.

2. It is not true that an officer can only use deadly force if there is reason to suspect that a fleeing felon is an immediate threat to others including other officers. See the Supreme Court decision that also allows for deadly force if "there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm."

Again there is no evidence to that being the case. Brown didn't attack the officer, the officer attacked Brown, according to the eyewitness, and Brown got away and fled. Trying to escape is not inflicting or threatening to inflict serious physical harm on the officer.

[Epoetker]

Alleged by who? The officer himself never filed an incident report.

Having to be hospitalized for an orbital blowout fracture and then having to relocate yourself and your family due to massive rioting tends to interrupt normal police procedure, yes.

And even should that be his defense, now that he has had time to think it over, there is no corraborating evidence to that being the case.

So it's a crappy case all around to build any big protests over.

Again there is no evidence to that being the case. Brown didn't attack the officer, the officer attacked Brown, according to the eyewitness, and Brown got away and fled. Trying to escape is not inflicting or threatening to inflict serious physical harm on the officer.

I'll believe that fellow gang members make reliable eyewitnesses when you can say "I was wrong and I'm sorry for making an idiot of myself."

[tabibito]

No, I don't, I think the officer grabbed him and a scuffle ensued at the window of the cruiser, not that he tried to pull him into the front seat. None of the witnesses said that Mr Brown was in the front seat, they said that they saw them scuffling through the window. Now let me ask you CP, do you actually believe that Mr Brown, an 18 year old kid, of his own volition, attacked the officer, climbing into the front seat in order to get the officers gun? SERIOUSLY?



Did you see the size of the kid CP? For one thing he probably couldn't even fit through the cruiser window. Second, there is no evidence that he was inside the cruiser. Third, the very notion that anyone would reach inside a police cruiser and attempt to unholster an officers weapon is a very difficult one to take seriously.



No i don't, but that the officer drew his own weapon is the most likely scenario.



Correct, and you don't do hypotheticals right CP?



You have a point there, but i wouldn't equate that with attacking an armed police officer.



The problem you have is that they are independent witnesses whose stories all match in the essential details. "There was a scuffle at the police cruiser window, Mr. Brown broke away, the officer got out shooting, Mr. Brown turned with his hands in the air, the officer fired another four or five rounds at him until he fell dead." What do you think they will change of that? Now it would have been nice if the officer had filed an incident report like he was supposed to do so we could see if and how his story differs from those eyewitness accounts, but he didn't. Now why do you suppose he didn't do that?

JimL has lead a sheltered life. I envy him.