MO - Grief & protests follow shooting of teen Michael Brown #19

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnhB-_cIxKM

I watched this quite a few times, and while I obviously and definitely support ODW, if I were in that video, either of the two men who raised their arms ... If I were shrugging at someone to ask "What's up?" or responding "I dunno," I would not raise my hands up in the air as those two did. Lift my shoulders and my hands in the air, palms up and extended a bit out from my body, but I don't think they would be any higher or very much higher than my shoulders. Of course, if I were actually there, and with gunshots ... that would prob cause a rush of adrenaline, and there's no telling how high my hands would go! My feet would probably leave the ground, too!

So, since these men have spoken (I hadn't heard that), did they say why the arms in the air? Were they interviewed on TV?
 
teedie2 said:
So, since these men have spoken (I hadn't heard that), did they say why the arms in the air? Were they interviewed on TV?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that at some point -- possibly just as he turned around, or just after he turned around -- MB did have his hands either up or out.

According to the NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/20/us/shooting-accounts-differ-as-holder-schedules-visit.html
According to his account to the Ferguson police, Officer Wilson said that Mr. Brown had lowered his arms and moved toward him, law enforcement officials said.
​

I would guess either arms were up in a fake-out surrender, or arms were out in a threatening or mocking stance that could be interpreted by people as "arms up" in surrender.

Then MB lowered his arms and charged OW -- or bum-rushed, stumbled, staggered, or walked at a steady pace, but whatever, he lowered his arms and advanced on OW.

Remember, the arms are very mobile parts of the body. They can be up one second, then down a second later, then punching you in the face a second after that. This all happened very quickly.

Even the most honest, non-politically-motivated witnesses are going to notice & remember certain things but not others.

You said, "I watched this quite a few times." Because you wanted to see for yourself exactly what the CW was doing with his arms, and it happened so quickly that it took you several viewings. Me too. But the CWs didn't have the luxury of rewinding and watching again and again as MB ran, turned around, raised his arms, lowered his arms, and charged OW. Neither did PC, or TM, or any of the other witnesses. They saw it happen exactly once, while shooting was going on. Their attention was, at best, split between OW & MB, and my guess is they were also looking around sort of in general to see if there was anyone else in the immediate area around MB & OW, and their brains were splitting attention between seeing and thinking, trying to figure out what was happening.

Nobody took all these witnesses and sat them down in comfy chair in a safe place and prepared them by saying, "You're about to see something happen. Regardless of what else is going on, please carefully watch the large man's arms so that you can be a reliable witness as to exactly what he did with his arms and when."

Almost all the witnesses -- all except DJ & TM -- say that MB moved toward OW. Arms up or down or out, skipping, hopping, stumbling, staggering, zombie-walking, while singing a nursery rhyme, doesn't matter. He was advancing on a police officer that he had just assaulted a few seconds previously. We get that from almost all of the witnesses.

We'll probably never know, for sure, exactly how MB held his arms before lowering them, and we'll probably never know, for sure, exactly what his movement toward the officer looked like. Unless by some miracle it does turn out that there's video of the actual incident as it happened. But given the totality of the witness statements, we know, with close to 100% confidence, that MB turned and moved toward OW.
 
Muffet said:
Before I go, I also wonder why so few acknowledge lately that even Piaget said MB never got his hands above chest level...?
Click to expand...

katydid23 said:
I think that is MAJOR that she said he never got his hands above his mid-chest area.
Also, she said he may have taken a step about a centimeter towards OW. Sorry Piaget, but a man that is 6ft4 and 300 lbs, cannot move just a centimeter in one step. If he took a step, then he took a step. And they were pretty close together at that point.
Click to expand...

Piaget has a very definite and very obvious political & racial perspective on this. She's trying so very hard to stick with the narrative. But the truth seeps out anyway. It leaks out around the edges.
 
reedus23 said:
Meh. The witnesses are what they are. I am sure if their interpretations favored OW, some wouldn't mind the politically charged interpretations.
Click to expand...

Politically charged interpretations by people who are not expert witnesses in what they're interpreting should never be considered "evidence" and should never be relied upon as evidence in an attempt to put someone in prison. Even if a person's reason for doing so is, "Well, other people do it."
 
sonjay said:
I'm pretty sure that at some point -- possibly just as he turned around, or just after he turned around -- MB did have his hands either up or out.

According to the NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/20/us/shooting-accounts-differ-as-holder-schedules-visit.html
According to his account to the Ferguson police, Officer Wilson said that Mr. Brown had lowered his arms and moved toward him, law enforcement officials said.
​

I would guess either arms were up in a fake-out surrender, or arms were out in a threatening or mocking stance that could be interpreted by people as "arms up" in surrender.

Then MB lowered his arms and charged OW -- or bum-rushed, stumbled, staggered, or walked at a steady pace, but whatever, he lowered his arms and advanced on OW.

Remember, the arms are very mobile parts of the body. They can be up one second, then down a second later, then punching you in the face a second after that. This all happened very quickly.

Even the most honest, non-politically-motivated witnesses are going to notice & remember certain things but not others.

You said, "I watched this quite a few times." Because you wanted to see for yourself exactly what the CW was doing with his arms, and it happened so quickly that it took you several viewings. Me too. But the CWs didn't have the luxury of rewinding and watching again and again as MB ran, turned around, raised his arms, lowered his arms, and charged OW. Neither did PC, or TM, or any of the other witnesses. They saw it happen exactly once, while shooting was going on. Their attention was, at best, split between OW & MB, and my guess is they were also looking around sort of in general to see if there was anyone else in the immediate area around MB & OW, and their brains were splitting attention between seeing and thinking, trying to figure out what was happening.

Nobody took all these witnesses and sat them down in comfy chair in a safe place and prepared them by saying, "You're about to see something happen. Regardless of what else is going on, please carefully watch the large man's arms so that you can be a reliable witness as to exactly what he did with his arms and when."

Almost all the witnesses -- all except DJ & TM -- say that MB moved toward OW. Arms up or down or out, skipping, hopping, stumbling, staggering, zombie-walking, while singing a nursery rhyme, doesn't matter. He was advancing on a police officer that he had just assaulted a few seconds previously. We get that from almost all of the witnesses.

We'll probably never know, for sure, exactly how MB held his arms before lowering them, and we'll probably never know, for sure, exactly what his movement toward the officer looked like. Unless by some miracle it does turn out that there's video of the actual incident as it happened. But given the totality of the witness statements, we know, with close to 100% confidence, that MB turned and moved toward OW.
Click to expand...

bbm All I need to hear. jmo
 
http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/08/did-mo-law-allow-for-deadly-force-arrest-of-mike-brown/

This discusses the MO police officer's use of deadly force statutes we've already seen, but toward the bottom also cites the specific jury instructions regarding the same given by the judge during a court trial:

"First, if the defendant was a law enforcement officer (making) (or) (attempting to make) a lawful arrest (or what he reasonably believed to be a lawful arrest) or [name of victim] for the crime of [name of crime] and the defendant reasonably believed that use of force was necessary to effect the arrest of to prevent the escape of [name of victim] and
Second, the defendant reasonably believed that [name of victim] (was attempting to escape by the use of a deadly weapon) (or) (would endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay) [emphasis added], and the defendant reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was immediately necessary to effect the arrest of [name of victim], then the defendant’s use of force was lawful.
The state has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entitled to use force as a law enforcement officer. Unless you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entitled to use force as a law enforcement officer against [name of victim], you must find the defendant not guilty (under Count ____).
As used in this instruction, the term “serious physical injury” means physical injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes serious disfigurement or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any part of the body."
 
reedus23 said:
Meh. The witnesses are what they are. I am sure if their interpretations favored OW, some wouldn't mind the politically charged interpretations.
Click to expand...

I am pretty certain there are far more people invested in the statements of Johnson, Crenshaw, and Mitchell than those invested in witnesses favorable to Wilson. Without those three and the manufactured gentle giant theme, this case never sees national attention. Since all three have been largely discredited and the gentle giant theme has been exposed as tactic, not truth, it is even more bizarre how many people are operating on the assumption that this case still is what it originally was. I see virtually no evidence in the indict Wilson bucket.
 
DebinGA said:
http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/08/did-mo-law-allow-for-deadly-force-arrest-of-mike-brown/

This discusses the MO police officer's use of deadly force statutes we've already seen, but toward the bottom also cites the specific jury instructions regarding the same given by the judge during a court trial:

"First, if the defendant was a law enforcement officer (making) (or) (attempting to make) a lawful arrest (or what he reasonably believed to be a lawful arrest) or [name of victim] for the crime of [name of crime] and the defendant reasonably believed that use of force was necessary to effect the arrest of to prevent the escape of [name of victim] and
Second, the defendant reasonably believed that [name of victim] (was attempting to escape by the use of a deadly weapon) (or) (would endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay) [emphasis added], and the defendant reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was immediately necessary to effect the arrest of [name of victim], then the defendant’s use of force was lawful.
The state has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entitled to use force as a law enforcement officer. Unless you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entitled to use force as a law enforcement officer against [name of victim], you must find the defendant not guilty (under Count ____).
As used in this instruction, the term “serious physical injury” means physical injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes serious disfigurement or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any part of the body."
Click to expand...

I think the officer can make a good case, that he considered the fleeing suspect, liable to endanger the lives of others, if he was not immediately stopped. Seconds after OW stopped his vehicle, and tried to exit, the subject reportedly rushed him, assaulted him violently, and then grappled over the gun, as the weapon went off. That is attempted murder of a LEO right there. And it came out of the blue. So he would make a quick assessment that the subject was erratic, impulsive, aggressive, and possibly under the influence/ and or mentally ill. But most important, he was violent. to the point of threatening the officer's life.

In that article, the author comes to a different conclusion, because he says that Michael Brown was not dangerous?

"And there we have it. Despite the plain-language reading of §563.046 that a law enforcement can use deadly force to make an arrest when he reasonably believes the person making the arrest has committed a felony, in the aftermath of Tennessee v. Garner and subsequent changes to Missouri case law and jury instructions, the use of deadly force to make an arrest of a non-dangerous fleeing felon is not permitted under Missouri law."

So how does the author decide that MB is 'non-dangerous'?
 
Regarding Reedus's and Truthy's posts last thread, how many witnesses do you think corroborate Wilson's account? And how many witnesses has the family attorney said they have?

This information has been posted multiple times with quotes and links. Per reports, more than a dozen witnesses support Wilson's account. Per the attorney, they have six. And as sonjay and others have pointed out, within those six Crump/Parks refer to, many actually confirm that Michael was advancing on the officer. Frankly, the two construction workers referencing a 25 ft advance while Darren retreated firing, is some of the most compelling released so far supporting that Darren did indeed consider Michael a threat.

His spokesman, Edward Magee, said prosecutors review several police shootings each year but rarely pursue charges, largely because laws give police a broad latitude to defend themselves and use deadly force if they believe they are in imminent danger.


As for the contention that this case should go before a jury to sort witness testimony, that's why there is a grand jury evaluating everything.

The prosecutor opted not to press charges and presented the case to the grand jury because of conflicting testimony from witnesses, his office said.
http://news.yahoo.com/st-louis-grand-jury-weighs-charges-ferguson-shooting-231928795.html
 
Vox is a political news site. Please do not use it for a referenced link in this thread. Thanks, Lambchop
 
katydid23 said:
I think the officer can make a good case, that he considered the fleeing suspect, liable to endanger the lives of others, if he was not immediately stopped. Seconds after OW stopped his vehicle, and tried to exit, the subject reportedly rushed him, assaulted him violently, and then grappled over the gun, as the weapon went off. That is attempted murder of a LEO right there. And it came out of the blue. So he would make a quick assessment that the subject was erratic, impulsive, aggressive, and possibly under the influence/ and or mentally ill. But most important, he was violent. to the point of threatening the officer's life.

In that article, the author comes to a different conclusion, because he says that Michael Brown was not dangerous?

"And there we have it. Despite the plain-language reading of §563.046 that a law enforcement can use deadly force to make an arrest when he reasonably believes the person making the arrest has committed a felony, in the aftermath of Tennessee v. Garner and subsequent changes to Missouri case law and jury instructions, the use of deadly force to make an arrest of a non-dangerous fleeing felon is not permitted under Missouri law."

So how does the author decide that MB is 'non-dangerous'?
Click to expand...

MB was not dangerous to OW as long as he was fleeing, but once MB turned around and came back toward him he was definitely dangerous to OW, as he'd already attacked him and fought over his gun. OW had every right to think MB was readying for round 2. In the store video MB behaved similarly by strong-arming the clerk, opening the door to leave, but then turning back and approaching the little man in fighting mode. If the clerk had drawn a gun then and shot MB dead would he have faced charges? I don't think so.
 
bettybaby00 said:
:facepalm:

What part of "investigated reports to be made public at the conclusion of the investigation," do these people not understand?

<modsnip>
Click to expand...

Transparently...?
But want to keep buried juvenile records.... Hmmmm


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 77 more.
Total: 3,328 (members: 78, guests: 3,250)

Online statistics

Members online
78
Guests online
3,250
Total visitors
3,328
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,112
Messages
17,963,392
Members
228,686
Latest member
Pabo1998
Back
Top