Michael Brown Shooting and Aftermath

[Toni]

Really? You're going to come to the defense of Loren's racism?

ETA: Sorry, I may have been too quick on the draw to recognize the sarcasm.

It's not racism. It's a well recognized phenomenon of blacks tending to defend their own, especially when in conflict with the police. See the already described racial disparity in how OJ case is viewed but also reactions to other cases like Kenneth Harding for example. Note that in that case one of the bystanders took the gun to be able to claim the thug was "unarmed" even though in fact he had shot himself while firing at the police.

How does this differ from whites/hispanics/Asians/Muslims/Jews/Christians/Southerners/New Yorkers/Germans/Poles/and so on defending their own against 'others?'

P.S. My father was convinced OJ was innocent.

 

[laughing dog]

It's not racism. It's a well recognized phenomenon of blacks tending to defend their own, especially when in conflict with the police.

I didn't realize Loren Pechtel was black. By whom is this phenomenon "well recognized"? Is it by the same people who do not recognize white privilege?

 

[Derec]

I didn't realize Loren Pechtel was black.

A strange non-sequitur as that conclusion is not suggested by anything I wrote.

By whom is this phenomenon "well recognized"? Is it by the same people who do not recognize white privilege?

By pretty much everyone. I even recall listening to the local black radio station many years ago and the topic had the host asking whether blacks should take the side of other blacks even if they are in the wrong. That they are doing it was accepted as universally known truth.

- - - Updated - - -

How does this differ from whites/hispanics/Asians/Muslims/Jews/Christians/Southerners/New Yorkers/Germans/Poles/and so on defending their own against 'others?'

Not nearly to that extent or that blatantly.

P.S. My father was convinced OJ was innocent.

Assuming your father is white, there are always outliers.

 

[Underseer]

Really? You're going to come to the defense of Loren's racism?

ETA: Sorry, I may have been too quick on the draw to recognize the sarcasm.

It's not racism. It's a well recognized phenomenon of blacks tending to defend their own, especially when in conflict with the police. See the already described racial disparity in how OJ case is viewed but also reactions to other cases like Kenneth Harding for example. Note that in that case one of the bystanders took the gun to be able to claim the thug was "unarmed" even though in fact he had shot himself while firing at the police.

Kind of like how racists jumped to the defense of that idiot cattle rancher who was trying to get free handouts from the gubment?

Oh wait. He and his defenders were all white, so it would be wrong to make a generalization like that.

 

[ZiprHead]

Jesus! You people know blacks are also the victims of most crimes. To think they would hide the offenders because they are black is just stupid.

 

[Toni]

A strange non-sequitur as that conclusion is not suggested by anything I wrote.

By whom is this phenomenon "well recognized"? Is it by the same people who do not recognize white privilege?

By pretty much everyone. I even recall listening to the local black radio station many years ago and the topic had the host asking whether blacks should take the side of other blacks even if they are in the wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

How does this differ from whites/hispanics/Asians/Muslims/Jews/Christians/Southerners/New Yorkers/Germans/Poles/and so on defending their own against 'others?'

Not nearly to that extent or that blatantly.

Really? What evidence do you have to back that up? Because that is certainly not my experience nor my observation, even on just this forum.

P.S. My father was convinced OJ was innocent.

assuming your father is white, there are always outliers.

Oh, he was an outlier, all right but just not the way you are thinking. He was also a real bigot and fairly racist so I was surprised when he defended OJ. Most people I know who are over a certain age (i.e., older than I am or more conservative) thought OJ was innocent. The planted evidence or perception that evidence was planted or tampered with pretty much sealed the deal. Plus, OJ was a football hero and very telegenic. That meant a lot in those days.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

It's not racism. It's a well recognized phenomenon of blacks tending to defend their own, especially when in conflict with the police. See the already described racial disparity in how OJ case is viewed but also reactions to other cases like Kenneth Harding for example. Note that in that case one of the bystanders took the gun to be able to claim the thug was "unarmed" even though in fact he had shot himself while firing at the police.

How does this differ from whites/hispanics/Asians/Muslims/Jews/Christians/Southerners/New Yorkers/Germans/Poles/and so on defending their own against 'others?'

P.S. My father was convinced OJ was innocent.

And both my parents were convinced he did it.

 

[Horatio Parker]

It seems that all parties agree that, whatever the charge, Wilson acted improperly, shooting and killing a man who was no threat to him, who had in fact surrendered and submitted. And it seems reasonable to say that Wilson has been less than truthful, if his story has been accurately represented.

But the first part of the incident, the struggle at the car, we have only Wilson and Dorian Johnson as witnesses. Considering that Johnson was truthful about what happened after the struggle, isn't it reasonable to assume that his version is more reliable than Wilson's?

 

[Sabine Grant]

It seems that all parties agree that, whatever the charge, Wilson acted improperly, shooting and killing a man who was no threat to him, who had in fact surrendered and submitted. And it seems reasonable to say that Wilson has been less than truthful, if his story has been accurately represented.

But the first part of the incident, the struggle at the car, we have only Wilson and Dorian Johnson as witnesses. Considering that Johnson was truthful about what happened after the struggle, isn't it reasonable to assume that his version is more reliable than Wilson's?

Horatio, even if there were eyewitnesses supporting Wilson's claim of having been attacked by Brown while Wilson was still in his vehicle, it does not under any way shape or form justifies Wilson discharging his firearm on Brown to the point of fatal wounds while Brown would not only not be a threat to Wilson at the time of the repeated firing but also showing the universal sign of surrender as in "hands up".

And that is why this most recent footage I linked to may very well make the balance tilt towards a Grand Jury indictment of Officer Wilson. Loren's previous one liner attempting to invalidate those 2 eyewitnesses' reaction being a total fail since they are not Black.(aside from his prejudicial approach regarding the reliability of eyewitnesses based on their Black ethnicity).

 

[Horatio Parker]

It seems that all parties agree that, whatever the charge, Wilson acted improperly, shooting and killing a man who was no threat to him, who had in fact surrendered and submitted. And it seems reasonable to say that Wilson has been less than truthful, if his story has been accurately represented.

But the first part of the incident, the struggle at the car, we have only Wilson and Dorian Johnson as witnesses. Considering that Johnson was truthful about what happened after the struggle, isn't it reasonable to assume that his version is more reliable than Wilson's?

Horatio, even if there were eyewitnesses supporting Wilson's claim of having been attacked by Brown while Wilson was still in his vehicle, it does not under any way shape or form justifies Wilson discharging his firearm on Brown to the point of fatal wounds while Brown would not only not be a threat to Wilson at the time of the repeated firing but also showing the universal sign of surrender as in "hands up".

And that is why this most recent footage I linked to may very well make the balance tilt towards a Grand Jury indictment of Officer Wilson. Loren's previous one liner attempting to invalidate those 2 eyewitnesses' reaction being a total fail since they are not Black.(aside from his prejudicial approach regarding the reliability of eyewitnesses based on their Black ethnicity).

Agreed. But my point is this: now that it's established that Wilson is a liar, why should anyone believe his version of events at the car?

 

[Sabine Grant]

Horatio, even if there were eyewitnesses supporting Wilson's claim of having been attacked by Brown while Wilson was still in his vehicle, it does not under any way shape or form justifies Wilson discharging his firearm on Brown to the point of fatal wounds while Brown would not only not be a threat to Wilson at the time of the repeated firing but also showing the universal sign of surrender as in "hands up".

And that is why this most recent footage I linked to may very well make the balance tilt towards a Grand Jury indictment of Officer Wilson. Loren's previous one liner attempting to invalidate those 2 eyewitnesses' reaction being a total fail since they are not Black.(aside from his prejudicial approach regarding the reliability of eyewitnesses based on their Black ethnicity).

Agreed. But my point is this: now that it's established that Wilson is a liar, why should anyone believe his version of events at the car?

I have not checked lately whether there was an actual statement from Officer Wilson himself. I do recall second hand information provided to the media when the Chief of Police had mentioned that Officer Wilson had sustained "several injuries" from the alleged scuffle in the vehicle as Brown allegedly attempted to grab Wilson's gun. Then, later, a female friend of Wilson having reported to the media that Officer Wilson would have called her and related that he had been attacked in his vehicle by Brown. The police report Officer Wilson was to fill out with the details of the incident and shooting revealed itself to not be detailed at all. When released to the media, there was very little information and a series of blanks! (very odd...).

Very odd because one would think that the said report would contain a detailed description of the alleged scuffle and alleged attempt by Brown to grab Officer Wilson's gun while he was still in his vehicle. Well, none of that.

Other oddity being the Chief Of Police claim of "several injuries" which he added necessitated Officer Wilson to be "checked in a hospital". However, the first video footage captured by a female witness shows Officer Wilson standing a few feet away from Brown's body, in communication with a second Police Officer and not behaving in a manner that would indicate having sustained "several injuries". I suppose the defense will be prepared to provide medical documentation showing that Officer Wilson was treated in a "hospital" for "several injuries". However, injuries may result from defense or attack.

Further, the DOJ investigation is well equipped to enlarge the footage of Officer Wilson to evaluate whether there was any visible trauma on his face.

What I am getting to is that there is a lot going on behind the stage. The "a lot going on" not being accessible to the public at this point. Officer Wilson will be testifying in front of the Grand Jury. IMO, the Grand Jury will have access to a multitude of forensic evidence we have no access to at this point. The absence of a detailed report filled out by Wilson is going to (IMO) impair a process of comparing his testimony in front of the Grand Jury with what he would have stated in writing in that report. Further, it will be difficult to detect inconsistencies since that first report is...well.... a series of blanks which in no way address the alleged scuffle and alleged gun grabbing from Brown in the vehicle.

It is possible that Officer Wilson was provided with legal counsel at the time he was to give a detailed report in writing. Was advised to not give any details as it could be held against him.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Agreed. But my point is this: now that it's established that Wilson is a liar, why should anyone believe his version of events at the car?

I have not checked lately whether there was an actual statement from Officer Wilson himself. I do recall second hand information provided to the media when the Chief of Police had mentioned that Officer Wilson had sustained "several injuries" from the alleged scuffle in the vehicle as Brown allegedly attempted to grab Wilson's gun. Then, later, a female friend of Wilson having reported to the media that Officer Wilson would have called her and related that he had been attacked in his vehicle by Brown. The police report Officer Wilson was to fill out with the details of the incident and shooting revealed itself to not be detailed at all. When released to the media, there was very little information and a series of blanks! (very odd...).

Very odd because one would think that the said report would contain a detailed description of the alleged scuffle and alleged attempt by Brown to grab Officer Wilson's gun while he was still in his vehicle. Well, none of that.

Other oddity being the Chief Of Police claim of "several injuries" which he added necessitated Officer Wilson to be "checked in a hospital". However, the first video footage captured by a female witness shows Officer Wilson standing a few feet away from Brown's body, in communication with a second Police Officer and not behaving in a manner that would indicate having sustained "several injuries". I suppose the defense will be prepared to provide medical documentation showing that Officer Wilson was treated in a "hospital" for "several injuries". However, injuries may result from defense or attack.

Further, the DOJ investigation is well equipped to enlarge the footage of Officer Wilson to evaluate whether there was any visible trauma on his face.

What I am getting to is that there is a lot going on behind the stage. The "a lot going on" not being accessible to the public at this point. Officer Wilson will be testifying in front of the Grand Jury. IMO, the Grand Jury will have access to a multitude of forensic evidence we have no access to at this point. The absence of a detailed report filled out by Wilson is going to (IMO) impair a process of comparing his testimony in front of the Grand Jury with what he would have stated in writing in that report. Further, it will be difficult to detect inconsistencies since that first report is...well.... a series of blanks which in no way address the alleged scuffle and alleged gun grabbing from Brown in the vehicle.

It is possible that Officer Wilson was provided with legal counsel at the time he was to give a detailed report in writing. Was advised to not give any details as it could be held against him.

AFAIK, there has been no statement from Wilson, only hearsay. That's why I qualified my post with "if his story has been accurately represented".

 

[Sabine Grant]

Horatio, just to clarify, we are not in disagreement here. It is just that when you stated "why should anyone believe his version of events at the car?" I had to note that we do NOT have his version. We have second hand statements from 2 different parties. Female friend and Chief of Police. We do not know what his version was because the written report he submitted does NOT contain his version of what incident may or may not have happened while he was still in his vehicle. That written report was supposed to contain his own narrative regarding that specific. It is not there.

Just venturing into a theory here : Chief of Police might have constructed that scenario as a CYA tactic. When a police officer's integrity is on the line and then demonstrated to have been compromised, the entire PD is affected. They take care of "their own" in the Law Enforcement milieu. (similar to the military).

 

[Horatio Parker]

Horatio, just to clarify, we are not in disagreement here. It is just that when you stated "why should anyone believe his version of events at the car?" I had to note that we do NOT have his version. We have second hand statements from 2 different parties. Female friend and Chief of Police. We do not know what his version was because the written report he submitted does NOT contain his version of what incident may or may not have happened while he was still in his vehicle. That written report was supposed to contain his own narrative regarding that specific. It is not there.

Just venturing into a theory here : Chief of Police might have constructed that scenario as a CYA tactic. When a police officer's integrity is on the line and then demonstrated to have been compromised, the entire PD is affected. They take care of "their own" in the Law Enforcement milieu. (similar to the military).

We're not exactly in agreement. We don't know if we have his story or not. We don't have it from Wilson or his lawyer, but we have a story from the police represented as his. Obviously, they've gone about it a fashion designed to protect him, to avoid going on the record.

My question is based on the speculation that his story is largely known or IOW what he eventually says happened agrees with the accounts we have.

I'm not a lawyer(so lawyers please correct me if I'm wrong), but my understanding is that anything he said to the police can be used against him. If Wilson won't testify, whoever he told his story to can be called. The police may attempt to aid Wilson's defense by repudiating their own public statements. That would be another PR disaster, but they don't seem to mind those.

So when he says MB attacked him, and five or so eyewitnesses disagree, he's going to have a credibility problem that to my mind will compromise whatever he says happened at the car. But, can he now change the part about MB attacking him? I don't know....

 

[Derec]

This is why police get jumpy and trigger-happy when attacked.
Moral of the story: don't attack the police if you want to live.

 

[Sabine Grant]

This is why police get jumpy and trigger-happy when attacked.
Moral of the story: don't attack the police if you want to live.

I do not think anyone has been arguing that a law enforcement officer is not justified to use defense force, to include a firearm, if attacked. In this SPECIFIC case involving 2 parties known as Officer Wilson and Michael Brown, the most recent video footage I linked to shows 2 eyewitnesses to the shooting which resulted in Michael Brown's death. One of the eyewitnesses reacting to what he just saw and clearly communicating that Michael Brown had his hands up at the time Officer Wilson discharged his weapon to the point of fatally shooting him.

Most people are fully aware that an individual with his hands up is indicating surrender. There is NO justification for anyone, including a law enforcement officer, to shoot an individual whose body language (hands up) indicates surrender. The use of the universal sign for surrendering (hands up) removes any claim that the individual is attacking or being a threat.

I hope I do not have to explain the above again.

 

[Bronzeage]

This is why police get jumpy and trigger-happy when attacked.
Moral of the story: don't attack the police if you want to live.

Derec, put yourself in this situation: You are armed and a policeman orders you to stop and turn around. You are in a place where policemen are known to fire on unarmed citizens with little or no provocation. The sight of your weapon is very likely to cause the policeman to shoot you. Do you fire first, or wait to see if he fires at you? Do you see a viable third choice, such as lying face down with your hands behind your head? You know people have been shot while trying to lie down because it was seen as a threatening gesture.

 

[RavenSky]

What exactly does this:

"This attack was an ambush. Our troopers were ... shot without warning and really had no chance to defend themselves," Noonan told reporters Saturday afternoon.

The troopers were ambushed around 10:50 p.m. Friday as one of them was leaving the barracks in Blooming Grove, Pike County, and another was arriving. The barracks is in a wooded area, surrounded by state game lands.

have to do with a police officer in his vehicle who chose to confront the pedestrians, chose to exit his vehicle, and then chose to shoot at an unarmed man who was 25 feet away with his arms up in surrender?

Oh that's right... not a damned thing.

 

[laughing dog]

This is why police get jumpy and trigger-happy when attacked.
Moral of the story: don't attack the police if you want to live.

This is really disturbing logic. Police are supposed to be trained professionals. That means holding their emotions in check and being able to quickly and accurately assess a situation for danger. If a police officer cannot distinguish between an ambush and someone with his hands in the air over 20 feet away, that officer should not be on the police force. It really is that simple.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Should we expect better behavior from the police? Yes, because we have entrusted the police with the use of legitimate violence up to and including deadly force.

Therefore their use of of legitimate violence must be rare and above reproach.