Michael Brown Shooting and Aftermath

[Derec]

prove your compelling interest in court. Oh yeah, that was just tried and it FAILED.

And judges never get things wrong, either by honest mistake or improper bias?

Because there is nothing in those records that had anything to do with the shooting that day. and since the officer did the shooting, if anyone's record need to be opened, it is the officer's.

It would tell us about what kind of a man Brown was. Which is very relevant to the shooting. The officer claims that Brown attacked him and went for his gun. Brown's friend says that the officer tried to pull Brown in for no reason. Obviously whether Brown is a "gentle giant" or a teenage criminal has bearing as to which version is more believable.

By the way, if it were up to Michael Brown defenders (including the very biased DOJ) we would not even have the video of the robbery and all we would have would have been the inaccurate statements by the family shyster.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Juvenile records are usually sealed. And they usually stay sealed and to get them unsealed, you have to prove a compelling interest other than nosy Parkers in the internet wanting to hate on a dead young man.

There is a compelling interest in knowing what kind of criminal activity this "gentle giant" (NOT!) was involved in in the last few years of his life.

Please expand on this. All accounts show that the suspect was surrendering. Please, I want you to argue what exactly you think in his juvenile records which the officer had no knowledge of, made him a person who was dangerous while surrendering. What could have made Michael Brown different than any other man his age that warranted shooting while surrendering?

It would allow us to paint a more accurate picture of the young man than is available from merely listening to what the family shyster (same as Trayvon's family shyster by the way) is feeding us. That in turn would allow us a better understanding of his frame of mind during his altercation with the police.

No it sounds like you want to defame Michael Brown which makes no sense as even if he had been a super bad guy, still does not warrant being shot and killed while trying to surrender. Remember, even criminals have civil rights.

Far from being a gentle young man who was minding his business when the evil police officer rudely told him to get off the road we already know that he had just robbed a store and has an unspecified criminal history before turning 18. That makes it much more likely that he indeed attacked the police officer and went for his gun precipitating the shooting. It is very unlikely that the police officer just decided to kill himself a black youth just because he was walking in the middle of the road.

It doesn't matter if he had attacked the police officer. Brown had civil rights. I seriously doubt the officer "decided to kill himself a black youth", but do believe that he snapped, and killed/executed a man.

 

[ksen]

What could have made Michael Brown different than any other man his age that warranted shooting while surrendering?

melanin levels

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Because there is nothing in those records that had anything to do with the shooting that day. and since the officer did the shooting, if anyone's record need to be opened, it is the officer's.

It would tell us about what kind of a man Brown was. Which is very relevant to the shooting. The officer claims that Brown attacked him and went for his gun.

And if he did get the gun, how did the officer use it to shoot Brown while surrendering? Seems like your scenario fails as Brown would no longer be a threat and was surrendering.

Brown's friend says that the officer tried to pull Brown in for no reason. Obviously whether Brown is a "gentle giant" or a teenage criminal has bearing as to which version is more believable.

Really, because one of those versions is very unbelievable. Even if Brown went for the officers gun, he did not get it and was no longer a threat. This is not the Dolamite Martin/Zimmerman tussle. The officer had his gun when he shot Brown surrendering at a considerable distance with many witnesses.

By the way, if it were up to Michael Brown defenders (including the very biased DOJ) we would not even have the video of the robbery and all we would have would have been the inaccurate statements by the family shyster.

But that still in no way justifies the killing of a suspect who is surrendering.

 

[Jarhyn]

And judges never get things wrong, either by honest mistake or improper bias?

Because there is nothing in those records that had anything to do with the shooting that day. and since the officer did the shooting, if anyone's record need to be opened, it is the officer's.

It would tell us about what kind of a man Brown was. Which is very relevant to the shooting. The officer claims that Brown attacked him and went for his gun. Brown's friend says that the officer tried to pull Brown in for no reason. Obviously whether Brown is a "gentle giant" or a teenage criminal has bearing as to which version is more believable.

By the way, if it were up to Michael Brown defenders (including the very biased DOJ) we would not even have the video of the robbery and all we would have would have been the inaccurate statements by the family shyster.

No. It doesn't change a thing. Actions are right or wrong when they are taken. The action was not taken with any evaluation of the kid'a character, so the actual character of Michael Brown does not factor into whether it was a good shoot. If you gun down an old lady for pleasure because you can, with no consideration of her character, you are guilty of being a murderer of old ladies. It does not make you a hero if you later find out she' less a serial killer. If you fail, it makes you no more a monster for not killing her. And failing to be the end for her reign of terror.

The cop similarly had no foreknowledge of whether brown was a bad person or a good one. He didn't care enough to find out and include that in his mental calculus. If I were a judge, I would throw out any testimony on the character
Of Michael Brown, because that had no bearing on the shoot.

 

[Sabine Grant]

I do not think Derec is grasping the nuance at play here : was Michael Brown a threat to Officer Wilson at the time Officer Wilson shot him several times to include 2 shots to the head one being fatal. The most recent video footage I linked to this a.m relates the spontaneous and immediate remarks made by 2 eyewitnesses to the shooting, within a short delay following the shooting. What one of the contractors exclaimed leaves NO room to interpret it any differently than his having witnessed Brown with his "hands up".

What derec is not getting is that no matter which criminal background Brown may have had, if he indeed indicated surrender by putting his hands up, Officer Wilson was to acknowledge it as such and NOT pursue to discharge his weapon on Brown to the culminating point of a fatal shot and resulting fatal wound to Brown's head.

 

[Malintent]

Those who are saying that Brown's character is irrelivant seem to be accepting the facts presented as the truth.. they may not be.. and that is where Brown's character comes into play... NOT because the cop could have acted one way or another, or justify actions based on this... but to determine which set of facts are more plausible. Browns character stops being relevant once the facts are established, for the reasons those posters suggest.

 

[Trausti]

Those who are saying that Brown's character is irrelivant seem to be accepting the facts presented as the truth.. they may not be.. and that is where Brown's character comes into play... NOT because the cop could have acted one way or another, or justify actions based on this... but to determine which set of facts are more plausible. Browns character stops being relevant once the facts are established, for the reasons those posters suggest.

Brown's assumed past character for bad behavior is relevant only to the extent it rebut claims of his past assumed good character. Otherwise, it should have no bearing in this situation.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Personally, I'd like to know where the guy was when he was shot each time.

Juvenile records are usually sealed. And they usually stay sealed and to get them unsealed, you have to prove a compelling interest other than nosy Parkers in the internet wanting to hate on a dead young man.

It is very unlikely that the police officer just decided to kill himself a black youth just because he was walking in the middle of the road.

Isn't this a strawman? I don't think anyone is suggesting that the killing was premeditated. A bad judgment in the field does not have to equate premeditation.

And enough of this "gentle giant" garbage. Stealing cigars doesn't jump right up to equating gangbanger.

Heck, Rodney King was guilty as heck of charges, yet, he didn't deserve getting beaten down. The question is, did the officer have a reasonable suspicion that his life was in immediate danger and could he have acted in no other way to preserve his own life.

 

[Trausti]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/10/us/ferguson-michael-brown-shooting-witnesses/index.html

An exclusive cell phone video captures their reactions during the moments just after the shooting.
"He had his f**n hands up," one of the men says in the video.
The man told CNN he heard one gunshot, then another shot about 30 seconds later.
"The cop didn't say get on the ground. He just kept shooting," the man said.

The video footage being a live recording of 2 eyewitnesses of the shooting and their reaction to what they just saw. If one could venture in invalidating the narrative of other witnesses by claiming that they were changing their story to fit a "hands up" scenario, this footage captures a spontaneous reaction to what happened only minutes after the shooting.

People in this media frenzy immediately jumped to their pre-biased positions using scant facts and unreliable and credibility-challenged witnesses. The limited pool of evidence did not reasonably justify calls for criminal charges or exoneration. Reliable evidence is important. Of all that has come out about this incident, I think that this video and two witnesses are the most convincing. Legally speaking, it's good evidence because it's a present sense impression. Unlike the other supposed witnesses, the contractor's statement in the video is assumed reliable because it was made before an opportunity, or motive, to fabricate. However, the two contractors apparently did not see events leading up to the gunshots. So Brown probably did assault the police officer; and the police officer might have been justified in shooting him. However, to continuing shooting may very well have been excessive force.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I do not think Derec is grasping the nuance at play here : was Michael Brown a threat to Officer Wilson at the time Officer Wilson shot him several times to include 2 shots to the head one being fatal. The most recent video footage I linked to this a.m relates the spontaneous and immediate remarks made by 2 eyewitnesses to the shooting, within a short delay following the shooting. What one of the contractors exclaimed leaves NO room to interpret it any differently than his having witnessed Brown with his "hands up".

What derec is not getting is that no matter which criminal background Brown may have had, if he indeed indicated surrender by putting his hands up, Officer Wilson was to acknowledge it as such and NOT pursue to discharge his weapon on Brown to the culminating point of a fatal shot and resulting fatal wound to Brown's head.

Except when a black is shot you can pretty much count on black witnesses who say he was not a threat no matter what the facts are.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I do not think Derec is grasping the nuance at play here : was Michael Brown a threat to Officer Wilson at the time Officer Wilson shot him several times to include 2 shots to the head one being fatal. The most recent video footage I linked to this a.m relates the spontaneous and immediate remarks made by 2 eyewitnesses to the shooting, within a short delay following the shooting. What one of the contractors exclaimed leaves NO room to interpret it any differently than his having witnessed Brown with his "hands up".

What derec is not getting is that no matter which criminal background Brown may have had, if he indeed indicated surrender by putting his hands up, Officer Wilson was to acknowledge it as such and NOT pursue to discharge his weapon on Brown to the culminating point of a fatal shot and resulting fatal wound to Brown's head.

Except when a black

A black what, Loren? Is it so hard to say PERSON when talking about black people?

is shot you can pretty much count on black witnesses who say he was not a threat no matter what the facts are.

because all us black folk are liars? Is that it Loren?

 

[Mageth]

Except when a black is shot you can pretty much count on black witnesses who say he was not a threat no matter what the facts are.

And apparently you can pretty much count on white non-witnesses who say that "the black" was a threat no matter what black witnesses may say.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Except when a black is shot you can pretty much count on black witnesses who say he was not a threat no matter what the facts are.

 

[ksen]

Except when a black

A black what, Loren? Is it so hard to say PERSON when talking about black people?

is shot you can pretty much count on black witnesses who say he was not a threat no matter what the facts are.

because all us black folk are liars? Is that it Loren?

lol, good god.

(((Athena)))

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I do not think Derec is grasping the nuance at play here : was Michael Brown a threat to Officer Wilson at the time Officer Wilson shot him several times to include 2 shots to the head one being fatal. The most recent video footage I linked to this a.m relates the spontaneous and immediate remarks made by 2 eyewitnesses to the shooting, within a short delay following the shooting. What one of the contractors exclaimed leaves NO room to interpret it any differently than his having witnessed Brown with his "hands up".

What derec is not getting is that no matter which criminal background Brown may have had, if he indeed indicated surrender by putting his hands up, Officer Wilson was to acknowledge it as such and NOT pursue to discharge his weapon on Brown to the culminating point of a fatal shot and resulting fatal wound to Brown's head.

Except when a black is shot you can pretty much count on black witnesses who say he was not a threat no matter what the facts are.

Great point Archie.

 

[ksen]

I do not think Derec is grasping the nuance at play here : was Michael Brown a threat to Officer Wilson at the time Officer Wilson shot him several times to include 2 shots to the head one being fatal. The most recent video footage I linked to this a.m relates the spontaneous and immediate remarks made by 2 eyewitnesses to the shooting, within a short delay following the shooting. What one of the contractors exclaimed leaves NO room to interpret it any differently than his having witnessed Brown with his "hands up".

What derec is not getting is that no matter which criminal background Brown may have had, if he indeed indicated surrender by putting his hands up, Officer Wilson was to acknowledge it as such and NOT pursue to discharge his weapon on Brown to the culminating point of a fatal shot and resulting fatal wound to Brown's head.

. . . when a black is shot you can pretty much count on . . . he was . . . a threat no matter what the facts are.

I have taken the liberty of removing all the superfluous words in loren's posts in order to get to the heart of the matter.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Except when a black

A black what, Loren? Is it so hard to say PERSON when talking about black people?

is shot you can pretty much count on black witnesses who say he was not a threat no matter what the facts are.

because all us black folk are liars? Is that it Loren?

I didn't say all.

Just watch the news--if a black is shot with witnesses some will say he was no threat. Witnesses or not some will say he wouldn't have hurt anyone.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Except when a black is shot you can pretty much count on black witnesses who say he was not a threat no matter what the facts are.

You guys really don't like unpleasant truths, do you?

I'm not saying all blacks are racists or dishonest. I'm saying enough are that we see the bogus witnesses and character witnesses show up.

 

[Mageth]

You guys really don't like unpleasant truths, do you?

I'm not saying all blacks are racists or dishonest. I'm saying enough are that we see the bogus witnesses and character witnesses show up.

So you're saying that any "black" that does say that a "black" that gets shot was not a threat is a racist and/or dishonest. Gotcha, Archie. No black character witnesses allowed! They're all bogus! Tell the Judge!