How does vandalism and looting accomplish anything???

[Lisa loves Pooh]

If ballistics show he was shot in the back, from more than 10 ft away as witnesses as describing, will any of you really care, or still think he got what he deserved for being a "thug" committing a petty theft?

I would want to know what preceded that.

However, shooting in the back isn't often justified for an unarmed person.

I would also want all witness testimony to line up.

If he was shot from the front, would you find the officer even just a little bit justified?

 

[sunshinehighway]

I just read an a account from the officer's POV with alleged witnesses to back it up. If there is credence to the account, it isn't the cold blooded killing as depicted. As I'm not sure the veracity of the claim or the background of the website that has it posted, I can not link it here. But it is interesting. It could also be fiction.

But remember, there were many witnesses that day. And you nor I were one of them.

Also, there are calls for the officer's death, now. Why is this okay?

Why can't you link it here? I'd be interested in reading it.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Why can't you link it here? I'd be interested in reading it.

Where I found it, it was a comment on a politically charged site. Someone referenced a link for a website I am not familiar with. I will go see if that site is political. If it is, I don't want to risk argument or points.

ETA: not able to link it. Thought there was a weblink, but there isn't. Like I said, it could be a fairy tale, but in a nutshell, it is a version that shows Mike Brown as the aggressor, eventually walking away, but then challenging the officer and running towards him. Ballistics would easily disprove that theory, but the claim is that it is from someone who was there. As I said--likely it is fiction, but we do not have all the pieces to the puzzle. Anything that shows the shooting as justified will be very poorly received on this community.

 

[OurBigTrip]

If ballistics show he was shot in the back, from more than 10 ft away as witnesses as describing, will any of you really care, or still think he got what he deserved for being a "thug" committing a petty theft?

If that turns out to be the case, I would be in favor of the officer being prosecuted.

And I don't believe that anyone here as said or implied that Michael Brown deserved to be killed because he was thug. But you can't help but wonder what would have happened if he and his friend had just moved out of the street when they were directed to do so, instead of continuing.

 

[TLSnell1981]

.

But remember, there were many witnesses that day. And you nor I were one of them.

Also, there are calls for the officer's death, now. Why is this okay?

Remember, eyewitness accounts often differ and can be unreliable.

The original victim in the strong armed robbery was blamed and threatened too. The surveillance tape was altered...wasn't Brown. Oh wait, it WAS him, but on a different day, etc.

 

[OurBigTrip]

If he was shot from the front, would you find the officer even just a little bit justified?

To me, this is where the trajectory of the bullets come into play.

According to his cousin, who did a dramatic re-enactment during a press conference last week , Michael Brown was on his knees, his arms raised, when he was shot. In the photo showing Michael Brown's body lying in the street, it doesn't appear to me that he fell the way someone would if they were on their knees, but there are any number of reasons that could be.

Analysis of the trajectory of the bullets should be able to show the vertical position of the weapon relative to Michael Brown's body. If the evidence shows that he was facing the officer, but on his knees, I can't see how the shooting could be justified.

 

[OurBigTrip]

You already know the answer.

I think that's unfair - most of the people on this thread, myself included, have been very clear in saying that we want the determination whether or not to charge the officer made after a thorough investigation of all of the evidence.

But I'm not prepared to charge a police officer with murder based on what has been released so far.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

To me, this is where the trajectory of the bullets come into play.

According to his cousin, who did a dramatic re-enactment during a press conference last week , Michael Brown was on his knees, his arms raised, when he was shot. In the photo showing Michael Brown's body lying in the street, it doesn't appear to me that he fell the way someone would if they were on their knees, but there are any number of reasons that could be.

Analysis of the trajectory of the bullets should be able to show the vertical position of the weapon relative to Michael Brown's body. If the evidence shows that he was facing the officer, but on his knees, I can't see how the shooting could be justified.

Depends if he was shot only after he was on his knees.

And I must ask--was the cousin there?

 

[OurBigTrip]

And I must ask--was the cousin there?

Nope - just going on what the witnesses have said so far.

Thus the LOL

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Remember, eyewitness accounts often differ and can be unreliable.

The original victim in the strong armed robbery was blamed and threatened too. The surveillance tape was altered...wasn't Brown. Oh wait, it WAS him, but on a different day, etc.

That's because snitches get stitches in that area apparently.

Yes--eyewitness accounts differ. But those initial accounts had a confrontation at the car. But oh wait--he was minding his own business in the street.

Somewhere in all that is the truth.

Am I the only one wondering if there is dash cam footage?

 

[Anchored]

I would want to know what preceded that. However, shooting in the back isn't often justified for an unarmed person. I would also want all witness testimony to line up. If he was shot from the front, would you find the officer even just a little bit justified?

No, because even Sadam Hussein got a fair trial. There is no reason to KILL an unarmed kid, even if they pulled back/resisted arrest, refused to get out of the street, or committed petty theft. None of these are punishable IN AMERICA by public execution by gunfire. Even the Colorado theater shooter was apprehended not killed. And he was armed and dangerous.

They could have used their taser, or let him keep running (as many many witnesses have affirmed he was doing when he was shot in the back)

 

[TLSnell1981]

I just read an a account from the officer's POV with alleged witnesses to back it up. If there is credence to the account, it isn't the cold blooded killing as depicted. As I'm not sure the veracity of the claim or the background of the website that has it posted, I can not link it here. But it is interesting. It could also be fiction.

But remember, there were many witnesses that day. And you nor I were one of them.

Also, there are calls for the officer's death, now. Why is this okay?

Are you referring to the video conversation, that was accidentally recorded, immediately after the shooting? An eyewitness account can be heard in the background. Initially, Brown ran, but turned back to the officer. He repeatedly said, that Brown kept coming toward him (Wilson). Also said, the officer's gun was drawn.

 

[OurBigTrip]

No, because even Sadam Hussein got a fair trial. There is no reason to KILL an unarmed kid, even if they pulled back/resisted arrest, refused to get out of the street, or committed petty theft. None of these are punishable IN AMERICA by public execution by gunfire. Even the Colorado theater shooter was apprehended not killed. And he was armed and dangerous.

First, he wasn't a kid; he was a full grown man.

Second, there most certainly are legal defenses to killing an unarmed person.

Third, I've seen the Colorado theater shooter meme quite a bit this weekend, and it's an invalid comparison. I would happily bet a year's salary, that had uniformed police officers been in the theater when the shooting started, the shooter would have been wounded, if not killed, inside the theater. When apprehended at the back of the theater, he didn't raise his weapon or resist arrest. Had he done so, again, he would have been wounded or killed.

The bottom line is that none of us know what happened in that street a week ago - that's why there needs to be a thorough investigation, and any decision to prosecute or not needs to be based on evidence, not unsubstantiated conjecture.

I'm willing to go with that, and let the chips fall where they may - are you?

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

No, because even Sadam Hussein got a fair trial. There is no reason to KILL an unarmed kid, even if they pulled back/resisted arrest, refused to get out of the street, or committed petty theft. None of these are punishable IN AMERICA by public execution by gunfire. Even the Colorado theater shooter was apprehended not killed. And he was armed and dangerous.

They could have used their taser, or let him keep running (as many many witnesses have affirmed he was doing when he was shot in the back)

So you know for a 100% fact without autopsy, ballistics, or other evidence that Mike Brown WAS NOT, at all, in any way a threat in the moments leading up to him being shot?

While this may be the case, as of yet, evidence has not been presented for you to claim it was an execution. Witness accounts provide a piece to the puzzle, but it isn't the whole picture.

Colorado theater shooter surrendered.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Are you referring to the video conversation, that was accidentally recorded, immediately after the shooting? An eyewitness account can be heard in the background. Initially, Brown ran, but turn back to the officer. He repeatedly said, that Brown kept coming toward him (Wilson). Also said, the officer's gun was drawn.

Me personally? No. It was a comment I read elsewhere. I have no idea the source or whether it is a fake. Autopsy results would determine if it is even remotely plausible.

So why is the account you post not being talked about?

 

[Wendy31]

Earlier in the thread at least one poster was commenting on how much of a "thug" Michael Brown looked like and how he did not look like a college student. I came across this piece on NPR this morning and thought immediately of this thread. Some food for thought.

There is a twitter campaigned called #iftheygunnedmedown . NPR interviewed some of the people who posted with that hashtag earlier this week.

"Many of the tweets containing the hashtag juxtapose two images of the same person in very different contexts — reading a book in one, say, while blowing smoke and flashing a hand gesture in the other. The paired images effectively but implicitly present many questions about how we choose the images that come to represent the individuals we cover, and the effects of those choices."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch...ign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20140817

Interesting article! To an extent, I agree w/ what the people in the twitter campaign are saying.

W/ that in mind, here's another photo of Michael Brown that showed up in my Facebook feed this morning that illustrates the above point. I don't know if the link will work or not...

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...170332.-2207520000.1408292626.&type=3&theater

If it doesn't work, it's a photo of Brown w/ a gun in his hand pointed at the camera, a wad of money in his mouth, & a bottle of alcohol on the table (along w/ a 2-liter of Hawaiian Punch).

I think the media sensationalizes a lot.

However, it goes both ways. The photo used most often of Trevyor Martin wasn't a recent photo & wasn't a good representation of who he was at the time he was shot. (Disclaimer: I'm not saying what Zimmerman did was okay or that it was okay solely because Martin may have looked "thug-ish".)

Regarding Michael Brown, I don't care whether or not he looked liked a "thug." While I inwardly roll my eyes at young adults who try to look "gangsta," I'm not the type of person who thinks everyone who dresses like a thug is a criminal. And I've seen & been around enough college students to realize there is no one particular college "look."

However, Michael Brown *did* commit a criminal act - minutes before he was shot.

So, in this case, the persona is justified.

Now, whether or not the officer should have shot him.... I don't know. I don't know all the details & facts.

And, really, no one does. The investigation is still ongoing.

That's another issue I have w/ today's media. In the rush to get the story out, they often report false information. Remember Sandy Hook? And, in this case, all this inaccurate information does is escalate an already tense & volatile situation.

Regarding the eyewitnesses' accounts, I'm not sure they're reliable. If this particular community is so mistrustful of the police, their accounts are probably not accurate.

I once read somewhere that if 5 people witness the same event, you'll get 5 different eyewitness accounts of the event. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

 

[Wendy31]

No, because even Sadam Hussein got a fair trial. There is no reason to KILL an unarmed kid, even if they pulled back/resisted arrest, refused to get out of the street, or committed petty theft. None of these are punishable IN AMERICA by public execution by gunfire. Even the Colorado theater shooter was apprehended not killed. And he was armed and dangerous.

They could have used their taser, or let him keep running (as many many witnesses have affirmed he was doing when he was shot in the back)

Comparing the Colorado shooter to Michael Brown is like comparing the proverbial apples & oranges. And actually does a disservice to Michael Brown.

The Colorado shooter surrendered, right? And I also believe that had he resisted arrest, made any kind of move toward his gun, or made any kind of move at all, he would have been shot & killed on the spot.

 

[usd2bmd]

No, because even Sadam Hussein got a fair trial. There is no reason to KILL an unarmed kid, even if they pulled back/resisted arrest, refused to get out of the street, or committed petty theft. None of these are punishable IN AMERICA by public execution by gunfire. Even the Colorado theater shooter was apprehended not killed. And he was armed and dangerous.

They could have used their taser, or let him keep running (as many many witnesses have affirmed he was doing when he was shot in the back)

This. shooting him once, maybe even twice. But police officers are trained to be able to keep their heads even when they are faced with the chance of sever bodily harm.

If he was running or facing him on his knees why continue to shoot?

 

[Suger Mag]

Good morning everyone... well afternoon, I finished grading and am back. Here is my tidbit to the discussion:

Feds are going to do a second autopsy...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/17/michael-brown-second-autopsy_n_5685747.html


Question about trajactory... is that specific of a determination possible on a body? I know it is very specific (down to a degree or two) on hard objects like a wall or car where you have 2 bullet holes, but on a body? what if the officer was crouched in a shooter stance? would that not also affect trajactory? I personally do not know but get my data from my love of true crime shows...

 

[OurBigTrip]

This. shooting him once, maybe even twice. But police officers are trained to be able to keep their heads even when they are faced with the chance of sever bodily harm.

If he was running or facing him on his knees why continue to shoot?

We don't know that he did continue to shoot. We don't even know if Michael Brown was even on his knees.

As to running, it depends on whether he was running away from the officer or running towards the officer.

And no police officer is required to restrain themselves if they feel their life is in danger.