How does vandalism and looting accomplish anything???

[sunshinehighway]

I don't know that it's that simple. First question: Was there a camera installed on that vehicle? Also, do all vehicles in the department have them, and if not, was Wilson's that day one of them? Secondly, was it functional that day? Then, if one was present, and it was operational, then the question would be "Was it turned on during the incident?" In some cases, the officer has to start and stop it. I've heard that it's also common to have the cameras record whenever the vehicle's emergency lights are on. So, if I heard the accusation correctly, it might be a matter that people thought there should be video, and there later upon checking it was determined, for any number of reasons, there was none.

I've read that they have them but none are installed in any vehicles.

 

[agame2323]

The clothing Mike Brown was wearing during the shooting is going to tell a lot. Or ... should I say the lack of gun residue will tell the story as it relates whether Mike Brown was "charging" forward in an attempt to harm the officer.

The officer has to feel that his life was in danger in order to justify shooting (at least) 6 times and killing Mike Brown.

Personally, I don't see or understand how someone could feel his or her life is in danger after shooting someone more than once or twice. As I said, the gun powder residue will tell us a lot. So, if Michael Brown was say, less than 3ft away from the officer, the officer may be able to justify the shooting / killing. However, if Officer Wilson was 12ft away it becomes hard to justify shooting a unarmed person and claiming your life was in danger.

 

[sam_gordon]

I don't know that it's that simple. First question: Was there a camera installed on that vehicle? Also, do all vehicles in the department have them, and if not, was Wilson's that day one of them? Secondly, was it functional that day? Then, if one was present, and it was operational, then the question would be "Was it turned on during the incident?" In some cases, the officer has to start and stop it. I've heard that it's also common to have the cameras record whenever the vehicle's emergency lights are on. I wonder if Wilson ever flipped the lights on? So, if I heard the accusation correctly, it might be a matter that people thought there should be video, and there later upon checking it was determined, for any number of reasons, there was none. Or maybe the protestor was right and the FPD just deleted it after they said they had it because they realized it showed Brown being gunned down in cold-blood.

The other question is where did the altercation happen in relation to how the camera (if the was one, if it was operational, etc) pointing.

The clothing Mike Brown was wearing during the shooting is going to tell a lot. Or ... should I say the lack of gun residue will tell the story as it relates whether Mike Brown was "charging" forward in an attempt to harm the officer.

The officer has to feel that his life was in danger in order to justify shooting (at least) 6 times and killing Mike Brown.

Personally, I don't see or understand how someone could feel his or her life is in danger after shooting someone more than once or twice. As I said, the gun powder residue will tell us a lot. So, if Michael Brown was say, less than 3ft away from the officer, the officer may be able to justify the shooting / killing. However, if Officer Wilson was 12ft away it becomes hard to justify shooting a unarmed person and claiming your life was in danger.

There's a big difference between 12ft & 3ft. IIRC, gun residue is only going to go out about 4-5 feet. So *IF* Brown was at 12 feet, started charging Wilson, got shot in the arms, kept coming, then finally got shot in the head at 5ft, you would have no residue, but I could see where Wilson thought he was in danger.

I'm not sure if someone got shot in the arm if that would necessarily stop him.

NOTE: I'm not saying any of this is what happened. Just throwing out a hypothetical that fits (at least some) of the facts as we know them.

 

[OurBigTrip]

The officer has to feel that his life was in danger in order to justify shooting (at least) 6 times and killing Mike Brown.

Personally, I don't see or understand how someone could feel his or her life is in danger after shooting someone more than once or twice. As I said, the gun powder residue will tell us a lot. So, if Michael Brown was say, less than 3ft away from the officer, the officer may be able to justify the shooting / killing. However, if Officer Wilson was 12ft away it becomes hard to justify shooting a unarmed person and claiming your life was in danger.

It doesn't matter how many bullets someone has in them; if they keep coming, they are potentially still a threat. According to Dr. Baden, while painful, none of the shots to the arm would have been fatal, so IF Michael Brown was still heading towards Officer Wilson, then additional shots would seem justified. Additionally, how was Officer Wilson supposed to know that Michael Brown was unarmed?


To me, it's obvious that Michael Brown was either falling or charging, head down, when the final two shots were fired - there is no other way for the bullet to have entered his eye and exited his jaw, nor for the last bullet to have entered the top of his head.

So, if the case goes to trial, look for the defense to bring in evidence regarding how fast the weapon fires.

As with everyone else, simply speculation.

 

[NotUrsula]

I don't know that it's that simple. First question: Was there a camera installed on that vehicle? Also, do all vehicles in the department have them, and if not, was Wilson's that day one of them? Secondly, was it functional that day? Then, if one was present, and it was operational, then the question would be "Was it turned on during the incident?" In some cases, the officer has to start and stop it. I've heard that it's also common to have the cameras record whenever the vehicle's emergency lights are on. I wonder if Wilson ever flipped the lights on? So, if I heard the accusation correctly, it might be a matter that people thought there should be video, and there later upon checking it was determined, for any number of reasons, there was none. Or maybe the protestor was right and the FPD just deleted it after they said they had it because they realized it showed Brown being gunned down in cold-blood.

Ferguson owns the cameras, but never installed them; they are still in their boxes. My understanding is that they got the cameras from a grant, but it didn't come with funds to cover the installation, and they say that they can't afford it.

Won't matter by New Year's, anyway. The city of Ferguson will go bankrupt over this, and there will be no more Ferguson police dept. Mechanics who work for the country will install those cameras somewhere or another, if they are not sold as part of the city's liquidation.

 

[TLSnell1981]

Ferguson owns the cameras, but never installed them; they are still in their boxes. My understanding is that they got the cameras from a grant, but it didn't come with funds to cover the installation, and they say that they can't afford it.

Won't matter by New Year's, anyway. The city of Ferguson will go bankrupt over this, and there will be no more Ferguson police dept. Mechanics who work for the country will install those cameras somewhere or another, if they are not sold as part of the city's liquidation.

So, the end result will be, what the community wants....no law enforcement officers.

 

[NotUrsula]

So, the end result will be, what the community wants....no law enforcement officers.

No, there will be police, just not a local police dept. They will do what several other local municipalities do, pay the St. Louis County Police Dept. to provide law enforcement for the area.
My guess is that all of the current officers employed by Ferguson will then be hired by the County. They will continue to patrol the same streets, just in different uniforms and probably at reduced pay, since they will have lost seniority in the transfer. You will be pleased to know that all of the County's patrol vehicles DO have installed cameras, though.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I don't know that it's that simple. First question: Was there a camera installed on that vehicle? Also, do all vehicles in the department have them, and if not, was Wilson's that day one of them? Secondly, was it functional that day? Then, if one was present, and it was operational, then the question would be "Was it turned on during the incident?" In some cases, the officer has to start and stop it. I've heard that it's also common to have the cameras record whenever the vehicle's emergency lights are on. I wonder if Wilson ever flipped the lights on? So, if I heard the accusation correctly, it might be a matter that people thought there should be video, and there later upon checking it was determined, for any number of reasons, there was none. Or maybe the protestor was right and the FPD just deleted it after they said they had it because they realized it showed Brown being gunned down in cold-blood.

I read in some article that no, none of be cars are equipped. They didn't have the budget. They did get some kind of grant but have not moved forward with the cameras. Not sure the timeline of that or the reasons why.
But no Feguson police cars had dash cam at the time of Mike Brown's death. So nothing to delete.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

The clothing Mike Brown was wearing during the shooting is going to tell a lot. Or ... should I say the lack of gun residue will tell the story as it relates whether Mike Brown was "charging" forward in an attempt to harm the officer.

The officer has to feel that his life was in danger in order to justify shooting (at least) 6 times and killing Mike Brown.

Personally, I don't see or understand how someone could feel his or her life is in danger after shooting someone more than once or twice. As I said, the gun powder residue will tell us a lot. So, if Michael Brown was say, less than 3ft away from the officer, the officer may be able to justify the shooting / killing. However, if Officer Wilson was 12ft away it becomes hard to justify shooting a unarmed person and claiming your life was in danger.

If Brown was coming at the officer, the officer was correct to fire until Brown stopped coming. Period.


The question is whether or not Brown was in fact coming at the officer.

 

[brunette8706]

So funny. I especially like the " on others. You do realize that all opinions here on the bullet wounds and what they could show is all speculation , right?

*
Yes of course. And "others" meant every single person on this thread including myself.

 

[agame2323]

It doesn't matter how many bullets someone has in them; if they keep coming, they are potentially still a threat. According to Dr. Baden, while painful, none of the shots to the arm would have been fatal, so IF Michael Brown was still heading towards Officer Wilson, then additional shots would seem justified. Additionally, how was Officer Wilson supposed to know that Michael Brown was unarmed?


To me, it's obvious that Michael Brown was either falling or charging, head down, when the final two shots were fired - there is no other way for the bullet to have entered his eye and exited his jaw, nor for the last bullet to have entered the top of his head.

So, if the case goes to trial, look for the defense to bring in evidence regarding how fast the weapon fires.

As with everyone else, simply speculation.

I don't know how or why someone would go "charging at someone (head down) who has a weapon drawn.

Eyewitness accounts all seem to suggest that Brown attempted to flee, was shot while running and then turned around with his hands in the air. No one has mentioned anything about him running towards the officer with his HEAD DOWN, unable to see what was in front of him.

This idea of someone suddenly becoming a "Ram" is the biggest reach for justification I've heard in a while. Its comical.

And then you ask how was the officer suppose to know he was unarmed? "Hands UP! Don't Shoot!"

 

[agame2323]

If Brown was coming at the officer, the officer was correct to fire until Brown stopped coming. Period.


The question is whether or not Brown was in fact coming at the officer.

agreed

 

[robinb]

So, the end result will be, what the community wants....no law enforcement officers.

What a ridiculous statement.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I don't know or why someone would go "charging at someone (head down) who has a weapon drawn.

Eyewitness accounts all seem to suggest that Brown attempted to flee, was shot while running and then turned around with his hand in the air. No one has mentioned anything about him running towards the officer with his HEAD DOWN, unable to see what was in front of him.

This idea of someone suddenly becoming a "Ram" is the biggest reach for justification I've heard in a while. Its comical.

And then you ask how was the officer suppose to know he was unarmed? "Hands UP! Don't Shoot!"

When did the witnesses come forward and decide he verbalized not to shoot
From the diagram--and I acknowledge this is speculation---

Having actually run a few miles in my life--the only part or the arm potentially exposed from behind is the forearm. That part of the arm does come back in such a way that the short in the forearm could possibily behind.
Not sure how flexible anyone else is, but elbow up, that part of the arm doesn't present in such a way for a front entry bullet to have been possible from behind.

And for me injuries, my instinct is to stop (or struggle to escape the situation causing injury of warranted). Never to turn around and issue a command. But I've never been shot. Certainly never tried to run away from police. But I tend to freeze, evaluate what just got injured, and then figure things out. (How it was when I broke my ankle.)

In other words, I'm having a difficult time reconciling: officers are trained to shoot to kill with a scenario that allowed time for Mike Brown to turn around and continue getting shot. Even with the explanation that there were a few shots, a pause, then a few more.

Mr Brown must have been really tough after the shots the arm. I would have crumbled to the floor. So to me--him being shot and standing completely still asking to not be shot does not sound plausible to me.

All that said--in the confusion and mayhem, it seems that all parties agree that he was in motion. What conflicts is the direction he was moving.

Another thing--is it possible that maybe his arms went up and some bystanders yelled the request to not shoot?

 

[Disneychick75]

Who held off releasing the autopsy because it didn't for their narrative? I think you are confused. This autopsy that was realized is the one done at the request of the family. The first autopsy is the one that hasn't been realized and its law enforcement who haven't realized it. They said early on that they wouldn't.

They knew from the start that Brown was not shot in the back. Had that information been released right away, it might have helped to tamp down some of the violence.

For all of you saying it doesn't fit the narrative, you are just picking out what works for you.
It doesn't fit the idea he was running away but it does fit with him having his arms raised. Look where those bullets to the arm are. The easiest way for bullets to hit there would be with his arms raised..not out running or lunging at someone.

No, It doesn't. Put your arms up. Your triceps are what face forward. Brown's wounds were near his biceps.

I've read that they have them but none are installed in any vehicles.

correct

The clothing Mike Brown was wearing during the shooting is going to tell a lot. Or ... should I say the lack of gun residue will tell the story as it relates whether Mike Brown was "charging" forward in an attempt to harm the officer.

The officer has to feel that his life was in danger in order to justify shooting (at least) 6 times and killing Mike Brown.

Personally, I don't see or understand how someone could feel his or her life is in danger after shooting someone more than once or twice. As I said, the gun powder residue will tell us a lot. So, if Michael Brown was say, less than 3ft away from the officer, the officer may be able to justify the shooting / killing. However, if Officer Wilson was 12ft away it becomes hard to justify shooting a unarmed person and claiming your life was in danger.

Brown was shot 4 times in the arm and he kept running towards Wilson. Most people would have stopped after being shot one time. That's why there is speculation that Brown may have been on drugs.

Ferguson owns the cameras, but never installed them; they are still in their boxes. My understanding is that they got the cameras from a grant, but it didn't come with funds to cover the installation, and they say that they can't afford it.

Won't matter by New Year's, anyway. The city of Ferguson will go bankrupt over this, and there will be no more Ferguson police dept. Mechanics who work for the country will install those cameras somewhere or another, if they are not sold as part of the city's liquidation.

The ruined businesses will be bringing in less revenue.

The residents were complaining about the curfew saying they wanted to take care of policing themselves. I say, let them. They've done a marvelous job over the past week.

 

[sunshinehighway]

When did the witnesses come forward and decide he verbalized not to shoot
From the diagram--and I acknowledge this is speculation---

Having actually run a few miles in my life--the only part or the arm potentially exposed from behind is the forearm. That part of the arm does come back in such a way that the short in the forearm could possibily behind.
Not sure how flexible anyone else is, but elbow up, that part of the arm doesn't present in such a way for a front entry bullet to have been possible from behind.

And for me injuries, my instinct is to stop (or struggle to escape the situation causing injury of warranted). Never to turn around and issue a command. But I've never been shot. Certainly never tried to run away from police. But I tend to freeze, evaluate what just got injured, and then figure things out. (How it was when I broke my ankle.)

In other words, I'm having a difficult time reconciling: officers are trained to shoot to kill with a scenario that allowed time for Mike Brown to turn around and continue getting shot. Even with the explanation that there were a few shots, a pause, then a few more.

Mr Brown must have been really tough after the shots the arm. I would have crumbled to the floor. So to me--him being shot and standing completely still asking to not be shot does not sound plausible to me.

All that said--in the confusion and mayhem, it seems that all parties agree that he was in motion. What conflicts is the direction he was moving.

Another thing--is it possible that maybe his arms went up and some bystanders yelled the request to not shoot?

I think there's just too many possible scenarios here and the wounds add a little to the confusion (especially that top of the head one).

We also don't know how many shots were fired. Brown ran away and tried to flee at some point. He turned back around before he died. What caused him to do that? Did he turn around to surrender because the officer fired at him? Did he decided he couldn't get away so he decided to charge him?

I think both Johnson and another witness have said all along that he verbalized not to shoot.

 

[OurBigTrip]

I don't know how or why someone would go "charging at someone (head down) who has a weapon drawn.

Eyewitness accounts all seem to suggest that Brown attempted to flee, was shot while running and then turned around with his hands in the air. No one has mentioned anything about him running towards the officer with his HEAD DOWN, unable to see what was in front of him.

The autopsy proves that false, as the shots all came from the front.

This idea of someone suddenly becoming a "Ram" is the biggest reach for justification I've heard in a while. Its comical.

At least one eyewitness said that Brown did turn and run back towards Wilson. If that's the case, and he was still running when the fatal bullet hit, then his head would have had to be down. My personal opinion is that he was falling as the bullet hit, but that's just conjecture on my part.

And then you ask how was the officer suppose to know he was unarmed? "Hands UP! Don't Shoot!"

IF Brown was still coming towards Wilson, what he said was irrelevant. No law enforcement officer would (or should) take the word of someone that is coming towards them during this type of encounter.

 

[brunette8706]

Tox report is not ready.

*
Thanks Gumbo.

 

[OurBigTrip]

The residents were complaining about the curfew saying they wanted to take care of policing themselves. I say, let them. They've done a marvelous job over the past week.

The other night, business owners were complaining that the police did nothing to stop the looting.

They can't make up their minds about what they want, but I'm in the "let the town burn" camp.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I think there's just too many possible scenarios here and the wounds add a little to the confusion (especially that top of the head one).

We also don't know how many shots were fired. Brown ran away and tried to flee at some point. He turned back around before he died. What caused him to do that? Did he turn around to surrender because the officer fired at him? Did he decided he couldn't get away so he decided to charge him?

I think both Johnson and another witness have said all along that he verbalized not to shoot.

I'm not sure I believe Johnson's account.

As far as top of the head--there is only one way that is possible based on how he landed on the ground.