Re: Michael Brown

[Teallaura]

The initial findings of the family's autopsy are not inconsistent with the first shots being fired from behind if Brown was running away or being shot with his arms in the air. Baden and his assistant have said this in their press conference and subsequent interviews.

True, but that is at odds with the known accounts that have him either being shot in the back or charging at the officer. For him to have been shot merely from behind while fleeing would mean that all EWA were false.

The autopsy does rule out the 'shot in the back' version and the 'shot with hands up' version.

[JimL]

You asked for a link to support the fact that the Ferguson police report was heavily redacted and I provided it for you.

Show me the redactions Robrecht, there is nothing on it, it is blank, not heavily redacted. Also, there is no reason for hiding the report unless there are falsehoods in it that may incriminate the officer down the line. If the officer acted according the law then he can not incriminate himself by filing and releasing the report.

There is one press report, by NBC, that Wilson did not file a report, but that very well may be in error. It has apparently not been picked up by any other media sources, since on the same day the 'heavily redacted' report by was finally released to the public. I think you will eventually find that Wilson gave a statement soon after the shooting, possibly on tape. Just because it has not been released to the public does not mean it does not exist. Time will tell. The allegation that there was an altercation and struggle for the officer's gun is of key importance, just as is also the question of whether or not Brown was in the process of surrendering when Wilson killed him. If there were no altercation, there would be no valid reason for Wilson to begin shooting while Brown was running away. You really do not see the importance of this?

Not sure why you keep calling it "heavily redacted". Do you see any redactions? There is nothing on it, its blank. And a statement is not an incident report. Also, if Brown was in the process of surrendering as was testified to by many witnesses, then whether or not there was an altercation or struggle for the gun is irrelevant.

[JimL]

That's just dumb. Something somebody actually DID is much more relevant than something somebody allegedly was GOING to do, but hadn't. Why is that such a difficult concept for you?

You brought it up CP. My point is that neither has anything to do with this case.

Your mob mentality buddies' testimony doesn't matter Jimmy, until they are sworn in and testify UNDER OATH, subject to CROSS EXAMINATION. And that is IF this goes to court, which is not a sure thing.

"Mob mentality buddies?" Careful CP, your racist nature is showing again.

[tabibito]

Show me the redactions Robrecht, there is nothing on it, it is blank, not heavily redacted. Also, there is no reason for hiding the report unless there are falsehoods in it that may incriminate the officer down the line. If the officer acted according the law then he can not incriminate himself by filing and releasing the report.

Not sure why you keep calling it "heavily redacted". Do you see any redactions? There is nothing on it, its blank. And a statement is not an incident report. Also, if Brown was in the process of surrendering as was testified to by many witnesses, then whether or not there was an altercation or struggle for the gun is irrelevant.

The department released what it had to. Given that the matter is under judicial investigation, nothing has to be released that might prejudice or compromise a fair trial (in the event that a trial is conducted), and the department gets to decide what might do that. All of which was pointed out long since. The information that was released shows that a report has been processed: ergo, a report was filed.

[Cow Poke]

"Mob mentality buddies?" Careful CP, your racist nature is showing again.

Are you suggesting that a "mob" is necessarily BLACK, you prejudiced racist bigot?

Jimmy, you must have opened a whole new can of dumb.

[Cow Poke]

You brought it up CP. My point is that neither has anything to do with this case.

No, YOU brought up the hokey notion that Saint Michael was "enrolled in college", not me. I didn't even KNOW that he was supposedly going to coll--- I mean trade school.

And that has ZERO to do with the incident, but his criminal behavior DOES.

[robrecht]

True, but that is at odds with the known accounts that have him either being shot in the back or charging at the officer. For him to have been shot merely from behind while fleeing would mean that all EWA were false.

The autopsy does rule out the 'shot in the back' version and the 'shot with hands up' version.

Parcells, the assistant to Dr Baden for the family autopsy, said their preliminary findings were consistent with the eye-witness account of Tiffany Mitchell. I saw them both interviewed on the same program. You were speaking previously of 'shot from behind', not 'shot in the back'.

[robrecht]

Show me the redactions Robrecht, there is nothing on it, it is blank, not heavily redacted. Also, there is no reason for hiding the report unless there are falsehoods in it that may incriminate the officer down the line. If the officer acted according the law then he can not incriminate himself by filing and releasing the report.

Not sure why you keep calling it "heavily redacted". Do you see any redactions? There is nothing on it, its blank. And a statement is not an incident report. Also, if Brown was in the process of surrendering as was testified to by many witnesses, then whether or not there was an altercation or struggle for the gun is irrelevant.

I call it heavily redacted because the ACLU, who requested and ultimately sued to have the incident report made public, calls it "heavily redacted." See the link I provided to you earlier. I presume they know what they are talking about. For example, one way to redact a document might be to cover a section when photocopying. I don't think there is a law that says you can only redact a document by using a black sharpie.

What significant difference are you trying to make between an incident report and a written and/or recorded statement. The officer would be incriminating himself in either if he says anything that is subsequently shown to be untrue.

The altercation and struggle for the gun is indeed relevant with respect to whether or not the initial use of deadly force was justified. But I, of course, agree that if Brown was clearly surrendering subsequently there was no justification for the continued use of justifiable force.

[Teallaura]

Parcells, the assistant to Dr Baden for the family autopsy, said their preliminary findings were consistent with the eye-witness account of Tiffany Mitchell. I saw them both interviewed on the same program. You were speaking previously of 'shot from behind', not 'shot in the back'.

1) Okay

2) Sorry, misspoke earlier. Should have been 'shot in the back' since that was the allegation.

[Cow Poke]

The altercation and struggle for the gun is indeed relevant with respect to whether or not the initial use of deadly force was justified. But I, of course, agree that if Brown was clearly surrendering subsequently there was no justification for the continued use of justifiable force.

If he was "clearly surrendering", that's one thing, and I agree. One of the allegations is that he was MOCKINGLY "surrendering", and taunting the officer with "what ya gonna do, shoot me", while still intimidating him. We shall see -- IF this goes to trial -- if that testimony surfaces and withstands cross.

[robrecht]

If he was "clearly surrendering", that's one thing, and I agree. One of the allegations is that he was MOCKINGLY "surrendering", and taunting the officer with "what ya gonna do, shoot me", while still intimidating him. We shall see -- IF this goes to trial -- if that testimony surfaces and withstands cross.

Yeah, I heard that version too. That's why I said 'clearly' as there may be some room for interpretation here. It seems to me there are about three credible but different accounts of what might have happened but each have their difficulties. This is typical for eye-witness testimony. I am hoping that additional forensic evidence, eg, from Brown's clothing, might be of some help in clarifying what took place. Otherwise, we may never know the full story.

[Cow Poke]

Yeah, I heard that version too. That's why I said 'clearly' as there may be some room for interpretation here. It seems to me there are about three credible but different accounts of what might have happened but each have their difficulties. This is typical for eye-witness testimony. I am hoping that additional forensic evidence, eg, from Brown's clothing, might be of some help in clarifying what took place. Otherwise, we may never know the full story.

And I would stipulate that IF there was NOT actually as much damage to Wilson's face as is hinted (but not yet proved), then there may well be a problem with the use of deadly force. It has been hinted that there is proof on the officer's duty weapon (fingerprints, DNA, whatever) that prove Brown actually fought for the weapon. It will be interesting to see if that proves true.

So, yeah, I don't think some folks here have any idea how unreliable "eyewitness testimony" can be, especially in a highly emotional and fast moving event.

[Psychic Missile]

If they were true Wilson would have been put into the position of having to stop Brown. That Brown died in the process was unfortunate but might not have been avoidable given the circumstances.

Would he have? Again, assuming all of those statements are true, if Brown was so dangerous that Wilson was forced to kill him, there is still a point in time that stand out as a fork. Wilson would have stepped out of his car knowing Brown would resist arrest and his own life would be in danger, so he essentially stepped out of his car with the aim to kill. So in that case, why not call for back-up and follow him from inside his car? We have a police officer putting his own life in danger when he didn't have to and killing a person when he didn't have to.

Pepper spray is way overrated. In some cases it has merely enraged the assailant. Mace OTOH... But that leads to the problem that many community activists have been vigorously protesting the use of tasers as well as mace (because of its potentially toxic nature).

I don't think community activists have a problem with tasers or mace. I think they have a problem with tasers and mace being used unnecessarily.

The call in armed units, but often AFTER one of their own, or somebody they are protecting, is dead.

Okay, I'll take your word for it.

Please stop imagining, and step into the world of reality.

This is nowhere close to a fair criticism. Unarmed unit work in the UK. Their tactics should work in the US. I'm all ears if you can argue otherwise.

So, JUST FOR GRINS, let's say Saint Michael had a juvenile arrest record involving second degree murder. Would that matter with regards to the current issue?

Not for me. To me the issue concerns two ideas. One, police using lethal force when they don't have to. Two, racism. The former is concerned primarily with the shooting, and the latter is concerned primarily with the aftermath.

[Zymologist]

Would he have? Again, assuming all of those statements are true, if Brown was so dangerous that Wilson was forced to kill him, there is still a point in time that stand out as a fork. Wilson would have stepped out of his car knowing Brown would resist arrest and his own life would be in danger, so he essentially stepped out of his car with the aim to kill. So in that case, why not call for back-up and follow him from inside his car? We have a police officer putting his own life in danger when he didn't have to and killing a person when he didn't have to.

I'm not following you here. How would Wilson know this?

[Psychic Missile]

what? did you not read my post at all. I was showing that a gun might have prevented the entire incident and that an unarmed person can indeed harm or even kill a person. Assume he killed my brother, took his gun and began shooting everyone? If my brother's partner did not have a gun that might have happened.

Your brother had a gun and was assaulted by an unarmed assailant. A gun didn't help your brother outside of it being used by his partner.

No.

Interesting. They must have felt that all the necessary precautions already exist.

perhaps.

How so?

Do you expect every police officer to be Bruce Lee or something? It is what you sound like.

Not at all. I expect every police officer to forgo shooting someone when other solutions are available and known to work.