Michael Brown Shooting and Aftermath

[Derec]

If the information being released has no bearing on the actual crime being prosecuted, all it does is add another layer of confusion and bullshit to our incomplete understanding of what happened, when it happened, and why it happened.

It has total bearing on the incident (we do not know if it is a crime yet) being investigated. The robbery happened only minutes before the shooting and makes Officer Wilson's version of events much more believable. Whereas the fiction of the "gentle giant" was disseminated by the family to make it appear ludicrous that their "baby" (family shyster's words) could ever have done such a thing.

Case in point: the slander about Martin you cited.

Slander: "the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation."
I did not speak it but wrote it and more to the point, it was not a "false statement". Also you can't slander the dead. So fail on three counts.

What does Martin's suspension for excessive tardiness have to do with Zimmerman killing him

The family wanted to downplay the three suspensions as being for "tardiness" but it turned out to be false. He was suspended for vandalizing school property among other things. Traces of illicit drugs were also found on him.

What does one person's suspicion that a screwdriver was a burglary tool have to do with it?

Not just a screwdriver, but a screwdriver together with some stolen jewelry that Trayvon feebly claimed that he was holding for a "friend".
And the relevance is that Z observed Trayvon walking slowly (indeed the time stamps of the incident show that it took him more than twice as long to walk from the 7/11 than it should have) "looking at houses" as if he was casing them. Him being suspected of a previous burglary is highly relevant here.

What does Martin's occasional pot-smoking have to do with it? Nothing, nothing, and nothing, and yet it's now part of the narrative, inserted there in order to vilify the unarmed teenaged victim.

Not just smoking but selling as well. And not just marijuana, but also codeine, which is an opiate. In any case it shows a tendency toward law-breaking and goes against the portrayal by the family of Trayvon as a good kid. And remember the most outrageous thing in this entire case which is the media persistently using old photos of Trayvon when he was about 13 and 14 years old. Indeed in the original FRDB thread on the case some of the posters thought Trayvon was only 13 when he was shot due to the photos used by CNN and others. A similar (but less obvious) thing is happening with Michael Brown case with media preferring the older photo of Brown wearing Beats headphones at an arcade (that one looks as if he was 15 or 16 years old) rather than the newer photos of him where he looks much more intimidating.

If word comes out that the cop was reprimanded for several instances of arriving late for Roll Call, had "borrowed" hedge trimmers in his car, and was known to go skinny-dipping in the reservoir at night, would you call that relevant?

No. I would not call similar incidents relevant if Brown had done them either. But surely things like history of unjustified violence, criminal behavior or illegal drug use would be relevant for both. And we have all three of those for Brown and none for Officer Wilson.

 

[Derec]

Being in Australia it can be hard to get enough information about these incidents.

I am curious as to whether the policeman was injured during the shooting incident. I have no idea about that.

Someone leaked information about him having a broken eye socket, which would imply a serious impact blow from the person shot dead. The right-wing may be backing away from that claim now. But he had swelling! Serious swelling! It was so bad he went to the hospital but wasn't admitted.

It doesn't matter if the socket was broken or not or that he wasn't hospitalized. If the eye swelling was due to the attack by Brown it corroborates his version of the events and impeaches the eyewitnesses that contradict it.
There is no requirements of broken bones or hospitalization for a police officer to use deadly force in response to a direct physical attack.
Now of course it is possible that the initial shots were justified but the latter ones (that killed him) were not. However, if the witnesses, out of a desire to help Brown's case, lied about the initial confrontation that impeaches their testimony about him surrendering as well.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Do you actually believe that he might believe that?

Yes.

 

[Bronzeage]

Someone leaked information about him having a broken eye socket, which would imply a serious impact blow from the person shot dead. The right-wing may be backing away from that claim now. But he had swelling! Serious swelling! It was so bad he went to the hospital but wasn't admitted.

It doesn't matter if the socket was broken or not or that he wasn't hospitalized. If the eye swelling was due to the attack by Brown it corroborates his version of the events and impeaches the eyewitnesses that contradict it.
There is no requirements of broken bones or hospitalization for a police officer to use deadly force in response to a direct physical attack.
Now of course it is possible that the initial shots were justified but the latter ones (that killed him) were not. However, if the witnesses, out of a desire to help Brown's case, lied about the initial confrontation that impeaches their testimony about him surrendering as well.

Brown doesn't have a case, as he is dead. What evidence do we have that Brown actually inflicted the injury on the policeman? If he decided to depend upon your "don't touch the officer or he'll shoot you," doctrine, it's to his advantage to claim his contusion was caused by Brown. Since this is not supported by people who saw the incident, why not consider he may have hit his head on the patrol car door. The known facts show he was in an excited state and may have been less than careful.

 

[Derec]

Brown doesn't have a case, as he is dead. What evidence do we have that Brown actually inflicted the injury on the policeman? If he decided to depend upon your "don't touch the officer or he'll shoot you," doctrine, it's to his advantage to claim his contusion was caused by Brown. Since this is not supported by people who saw the incident, why not consider he may have hit his head on the patrol car door. The known facts show he was in an excited state and may have been less than careful.

We also know that he attacked a store owner just minutes earlier. I would say he was in a much more "excited state" (has just committed a violent felony, is confronted by a cop) than the officer.

 

[marc]

We also know that he attacked a store owner just minutes earlier.

No we don't as the store owner never reported a crime.

 

[Derec]

We also know that he attacked a store owner just minutes earlier.

No we don't as the store owner never reported a crime.

He didn't need to as a customer did it for him. In any case, a crime (robbery in a second degree, a felony) did occur, with Brown as the perp.
That is indisputable. No apologetics in the world will make it go away.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Someone leaked information about him having a broken eye socket, which would imply a serious impact blow from the person shot dead. The right-wing may be backing away from that claim now. But he had swelling! Serious swelling! It was so bad he went to the hospital but wasn't admitted.

It doesn't matter if the socket was broken or not or that he wasn't hospitalized. If the eye swelling was due to the attack by Brown it corroborates his version of the events and impeaches the eyewitnesses that contradict it.
There is no requirements of broken bones or hospitalization for a police officer to use deadly force in response to a direct physical attack.

A broken orbital bone would most certainly imply that Brown had physically assaulted the officer and the officer would have a pretty closed case for self-defense. "Swelling" which hasn't even been documented isn't necessarily a case for violent self-defense.

- - - Updated - - -

Brown doesn't have a case, as he is dead. What evidence do we have that Brown actually inflicted the injury on the policeman? If he decided to depend upon your "don't touch the officer or he'll shoot you," doctrine, it's to his advantage to claim his contusion was caused by Brown. Since this is not supported by people who saw the incident, why not consider he may have hit his head on the patrol car door. The known facts show he was in an excited state and may have been less than careful.

We also know that he attacked a store owner just minutes earlier. I would say he was in a much more "excited state" (has just committed a violent felony, is confronted by a cop) than the officer.

Didn't the officer tell him to get the "fuck off the road"?

 

[Derec]

I agree the broken bone would have made for a clearer case. But it is not required for the scenario where Brown attacks and attempts to gain control of the cop's gun because he had just committed a robbery and is confronted by a cop.

Didn't the officer tell him to get the "fuck off the road"?

We only have Johnson's (Brown's buddy and partner in crime) word for the use of profanity.
In any case the two were walking in the middle of the street, blocking the traffic, and thus the police officer was certainly justified in telling them to move to the sidewalk. In any case, even if profanity was used that does not justify Brown attacking the officer and trying to take his gun.

 

[Toni]

I agree the broken bone would have made for a clearer case. But it is not required for the scenario where Brown attacks and attempts to gain control of the cop's gun because he had just committed a robbery and is confronted by a cop.

Didn't the officer tell him to get the "fuck off the road"?

We only have Johnson's (Brown's buddy and partner in crime) word for the use of profanity.
In any case the two were walking in the middle of the street, blocking the traffic, and thus the police officer was certainly justified in telling them to move to the sidewalk. In any case, even if profanity was used that does not justify Brown attacking the officer and trying to take his gun.

What evidence do you have that there was any 'traffic' to be blocked by two teens walking down the street?

More importantly, what 'evidence,' aside from the shooter's word, is there that Brown tried to take the officer's gun? Further, what 'evidence' is there that justifies the officer shooting Brown from a distance at which he could not possibly have posed any physical threat to the officer or to any other person?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I agree the broken bone would have made for a clearer case. But it is not required for the scenario where Brown attacks and attempts to gain control of the cop's gun because he had just committed a robbery and is confronted by a cop.

Didn't the officer tell him to get the "fuck off the road"?

We only have Johnson's (Brown's buddy and partner in crime)

what crime?

word for the use of profanity.
In any case the two were walking in the middle of the street, blocking the traffic,

what traffic?

and thus the police officer was certainly justified in telling them to move to the sidewalk. In any case, even if profanity was used that does not justify Brown attacking the officer and trying to take his gun.

and jaywalking justifies summary execution?
Why do you believe the cop?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Sounds like Michael Brown had become the new combat trained master criminal! I understand Swisher Sweets is how the Gulf Cartel got its start. This cop is a hero.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I agree the broken bone would have made for a clearer case.

Clearer as in pretty hard to for consequences not to justify self-defense. Odd that the lie came out in the first place, because if the truth was on the officer's side, why leak info about a very serious facial injury.

But it is not required for the scenario where Brown attacks and attempts to gain control of the cop's gun because he had just committed a robbery and is confronted by a cop.

It does seem a bit odd for a person who just committed a crime to confront a cop instead of try to get away and not be caught.

Didn't the officer tell him to get the "fuck off the road"?

We only have Johnson's (Brown's buddy and partner in crime) word for the use of profanity.

Of course, the idea that the officer suffered any injury is impeached because of the lie about the orbital bone being broken.

In any case the two were walking in the middle of the street, blocking the traffic, and thus the police officer was certainly justified in telling them to move to the sidewalk.

The officer is right in telling them to get off the road. I remember attending a protest as an observer and an officer politely told me to go onto the sidewalk. He didn't tell me to get the fuck off the road. Courtesy goes a long way.

In any case, even if profanity was used...

The use of profanity by an officer because of jaywalking in inexcusable.

...that does not justify Brown attacking the officer and trying to take his gun.

The use of profanity would not justify an attack... if an attack occurred.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

and jaywalking justifies summary execution?

He wasn't killed because he was jaywalking. He was killed because... umm... because... do we even have an official Police version of the story yet? Any information on the shooting officer that is actually official?

 

[ksen]

Why do you believe the cop?

OH! OH! I know why!

 

[Arctish]

If the information being released has no bearing on the actual crime being prosecuted, all it does is add another layer of confusion and bullshit to our incomplete understanding of what happened, when it happened, and why it happened.

It has total bearing on the incident (we do not know if it is a crime yet) being investigated. The robbery happened only minutes before the shooting and makes Officer Wilson's version of events much more believable. Whereas the fiction of the "gentle giant" was disseminated by the family to make it appear ludicrous that their "baby" (family shyster's words) could ever have done such a thing.

If it can be shown that the incident at the store had any bearing on the jaywalking incident, then it's relevant. But it's not at all clear that they're related. Apparently Officer Wilson's Incident Report is incomplete, and was not filed for several days. The statements it contains are unreliable.

<snipped doubling down on slanderous bullshit>

If word comes out that the cop was reprimanded for several instances of arriving late for Roll Call, had "borrowed" hedge trimmers in his car, and was known to go skinny-dipping in the reservoir at night, would you call that relevant?

No. I would not call similar incidents relevant if Brown had done them either. But surely things like history of unjustified violence, criminal behavior or illegal drug use would be relevant for both. And we have all three of those for Brown and none for Officer Wilson.

We don't know that. We have allegations, and a highly suspect story from Wilson in an incomplete Incident Report that was filed several days after the killing. We don't know what factors were at play when Officer Wilson pulled up next to Brown and his friend to confront them from his patrol car.

BTW, aren't you the one who was demanding we all wait for the investigation to be finished before jumping to conclusions? Why the rush to conclude Brown had a "history of unjustified violence, criminal behavior or illegal drug use", and that it had any bearing on the confrontation that began with Officer Wilson sitting in his car while confronting a pair of jaywalkers?

 

[Bronzeage]

Brown doesn't have a case, as he is dead. What evidence do we have that Brown actually inflicted the injury on the policeman? If he decided to depend upon your "don't touch the officer or he'll shoot you," doctrine, it's to his advantage to claim his contusion was caused by Brown. Since this is not supported by people who saw the incident, why not consider he may have hit his head on the patrol car door. The known facts show he was in an excited state and may have been less than careful.

We also know that he attacked a store owner just minutes earlier. I would say he was in a much more "excited state" (has just committed a violent felony, is confronted by a cop) than the officer.

Yes, you would say that, but with no more support from the physical evidence, or witnesses than the claim that Brown assaulted the officer.

 

[Jayjay]

We also know that he attacked a store owner just minutes earlier.

No we don't as the store owner never reported a crime.

The police report says otherwise.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/236914260/Michael-Brown-Police-Report

Page 3. Note that "willing to prosecute" checkbox is ticked.

 

[Bronzeage]

No we don't as the store owner never reported a crime.

The police report says otherwise.

If the policeman was responding to a call about a store robbery, why would he let a suspect get close enough to his car to reach in the window and hit him?

 

[Toni]

Someone leaked information about him having a broken eye socket, which would imply a serious impact blow from the person shot dead. The right-wing may be backing away from that claim now. But he had swelling! Serious swelling! It was so bad he went to the hospital but wasn't admitted.

It doesn't matter if the socket was broken or not or that he wasn't hospitalized. If the eye swelling was due to the attack by Brown it corroborates his version of the events and impeaches the eyewitnesses that contradict it.
There is no requirements of broken bones or hospitalization for a police officer to use deadly force in response to a direct physical attack.
Now of course it is possible that the initial shots were justified but the latter ones (that killed him) were not. However, if the witnesses, out of a desire to help Brown's case, lied about the initial confrontation that impeaches their testimony about him surrendering as well.

No, it would not impeach the witness testimony. Remember, there was more than one witness who stated that there was a struggle. No one has stated conclusively what kind of struggle or who started it. One witness suggested Brown was in fear of his life, which seems reasonable considering the events which immediately followed.

Multiple witnesses have Brown at a distance from the officer when he was shot, and in the act of surrendering.

But since we know that black people are magic and can commit suicide with their hands handcuffed behind their backs by shooting themselves in the face with a gun they did not have and leaving no powder burns, then it is entirely possible that the officer was legitimately afraid for his life no matter how far away Brown was when Wilson shot him.