The web of lies in Ferguson

[Loren Pechtel]

Rhea is right, you don't realize how ridiculous it sounds.

2) Mace is useless against people on some drugs.

First you need to prove that. Secondly and more importantly, how come the police officer wasn't worried about possibly getting aids from any sprayed blood or that the bullet on this drug-infused raging scary black man would not stop his attempts to successfully kill the police officer?

Do you really think this particular police officer (whose interviews do not seem to indicate he is even a shallow thinker) used "logic" to guide his reactions?

You think there are cops around that don't know that mace has no effect on crazies on drugs that make them not feel pain? Being slow has nothing to do with this.

 

[Rhea]

Rhea is right, you don't realize how ridiculous it sounds.
First you need to prove that. Secondly and more importantly, how come the police officer wasn't worried about possibly getting aids from any sprayed blood or that the bullet on this drug-infused raging scary black man would not stop his attempts to successfully kill the police officer?

Do you really think this particular police officer (whose interviews do not seem to indicate he is even a shallow thinker) used "logic" to guide his reactions?

You think there are cops around that don't know that mace has no effect on crazies on drugs that make them not feel pain? Being slow has nothing to do with this.

...leaving no room in his tiny brain to know that driving right up to a guy you wouldn't dream of macing and hitting him with your door is a stupid (although supremely macho, albeit dickish) thing to do? Or to know that pulling a gun on a guy you're afraid to mace because of his proximity is even more stupid?

 

[laughing dog]

Rhea is right, you don't realize how ridiculous it sounds.
First you need to prove that. Secondly and more importantly, how come the police officer wasn't worried about possibly getting aids from any sprayed blood or that the bullet on this drug-infused raging scary black man would not stop his attempts to successfully kill the police officer?

Do you really think this particular police officer (whose interviews do not seem to indicate he is even a shallow thinker) used "logic" to guide his reactions?

You think there are cops around that don't know that mace has no effect on crazies on drugs that make them not feel pain? Being slow has nothing to do with this.

I think there are police officers around who know your responses on this are fucking ridiculous (an exact quote from a police officer). This police officer's actions make it pretty clear he knew just about nothing.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You think there are cops around that don't know that mace has no effect on crazies on drugs that make them not feel pain? Being slow has nothing to do with this.

...leaving no room in his tiny brain to know that driving right up to a guy you wouldn't dream of macing and hitting him with your door is a stupid (although supremely macho, albeit dickish) thing to do? Or to know that pulling a gun on a guy you're afraid to mace because of his proximity is even more stupid?

Once again the confusion between compliance tools and defense tools.

Cops don't have those non-lethal weapons for defense, they have them to avoid having to wrestle the guy to the ground or drag him away or the like.

 

[Rhea]

...leaving no room in his tiny brain to know that driving right up to a guy you wouldn't dream of macing and hitting him with your door is a stupid (although supremely macho, albeit dickish) thing to do? Or to know that pulling a gun on a guy you're afraid to mace because of his proximity is even more stupid?

Once again the confusion between compliance tools and defense tools.

Cops don't have those non-lethal weapons for defense, they have them to avoid having to wrestle the guy to the ground or drag him away or the like.

Right. Making him triply stupid to back up his car so he can be within arm's reach of a person he can't decide needs complianace tools or defense tools. And which also makes my point - from the very first picosecond, "compliance" was never his goal. He was anticipating lethal self defense from the moment he guaranteed his need for it.

 

[Davka]

Rhea is right, you don't realize how ridiculous it sounds.
First you need to prove that. Secondly and more importantly, how come the police officer wasn't worried about possibly getting aids from any sprayed blood or that the bullet on this drug-infused raging scary black man would not stop his attempts to successfully kill the police officer?

Do you really think this particular police officer (whose interviews do not seem to indicate he is even a shallow thinker) used "logic" to guide his reactions?

You think there are cops around that don't know that mace has no effect on crazies on drugs that make them not feel pain? Being slow has nothing to do with this.

Loren, you're spewing total unadulterated bullshit.

Again.

Ever been maced? It's not about the pain - the chemicals in that shit affect your autonomic respiratory system, leaving you gasping for air. It doesn't matter what drugs you're on, mace will incapacitate you because your body will be struggling to pull in enough air to keep you alive, whether you are feeling pain or not.

I swear to god, sometimes I think you're stuck in a bad 1960s PSA about the Ebils of Mary-jew-wanna.

 

[EPresence2]

You think there are cops around that don't know that mace has no effect on crazies on drugs that make them not feel pain? Being slow has nothing to do with this.

Loren, you're spewing total unadulterated bullshit.

Again.

Ever been maced? It's not about the pain - the chemicals in that shit affect your autonomic respiratory system, leaving you gasping for air. It doesn't matter what drugs you're on, mace will incapacitate you because your body will be struggling to pull in enough air to keep you alive, whether you are feeling pain or not.

I swear to god, sometimes I think you're stuck in a bad 1960s PSA about the Ebils of Mary-jew-wanna.

There are numerous documented instances when pepper spray didn't work on a assailant. A quick google search should refine your understanding.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Loren, you're spewing total unadulterated bullshit.

Again.

Ever been maced? It's not about the pain - the chemicals in that shit affect your autonomic respiratory system, leaving you gasping for air. It doesn't matter what drugs you're on, mace will incapacitate you because your body will be struggling to pull in enough air to keep you alive, whether you are feeling pain or not.

I swear to god, sometimes I think you're stuck in a bad 1960s PSA about the Ebils of Mary-jew-wanna.

There are numerous documented instances when pepper spray didn't work on a assailant. A quick google search should refine your understanding.

Exactly. Mace is less prone to this but it's still not a defense against someone going for your gun.

 

[Davka]

Loren, you're spewing total unadulterated bullshit.

Again.

Ever been maced? It's not about the pain - the chemicals in that shit affect your autonomic respiratory system, leaving you gasping for air. It doesn't matter what drugs you're on, mace will incapacitate you because your body will be struggling to pull in enough air to keep you alive, whether you are feeling pain or not.

I swear to god, sometimes I think you're stuck in a bad 1960s PSA about the Ebils of Mary-jew-wanna.

There are numerous documented instances when pepper spray didn't work on a assailant. A quick google search should refine your understanding.

Pepper spray is not mace. The confusion may stem from the fact that there is a brand-name of pepper-spray called "mace," but it's not the same as actual mace.

Mace vs. Pepper Spray

The Basics: Mace and Pepper Spray are two DIFFERENT self defense products

Mace is classified as an irritant and is similar to tear gas.
Pepper spray is classified as an inflammatory agent and will immediately
incapacitate an assailant.
Commonly, Mace has no affect on criminals under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Pepper spray will take down and cause temporary pain to those under the influence.
Unlike pepper spray, Mace will NOT cause inflammation of the capillaries of the eyes and skin causing temporary blindness, nausea, breathing difficulties and an intense burning sensation.
It is important to note that Mace is also a brand name associated with pepper spray products.

What is pepper spray? What does it do?
A 1-Second blast of Pepper Spray will render an individual incapacitated for 15 minutes to over an hour. Pepper Spray is an inflammatory agent it will IMMEDIATELY: induce coughing, choking, nausea, it will dilates the capillaries of the eyes causing temporary blindness, the mucous membranes will swell to the point of cutting off all but life support breathing, causes intense burning and an assailant to be temporarily incapacitated. Remember that Mace is also a brand of pepper spray in today's self defense products market.

source

The temporary blindness and gasping for breath are not affected by any other drugs in your system. That shit shuts you down, period.

Tear gas/mace can be ignored. Pepper spray cannot. 2 seconds of real-life experience and you'd know this.

 

[Davka]

More information, this time in a bulletin circulated to the Berkely Police Department:

Because Pepper Spray causes a number of physiological
effects on a person—even those with elevated pain tol-
erance due to prior use of alcohol and/or other drugs—
it is different than Mace, which relies mainly on pain
compliance. Individuals, such as the mentally disturbed
or those under the influence of intoxicants, who have a
high tolerance to pain, are still subject to the inflamma-
tory effects of Pepper Spray. It is important to under-
stand that teargas does not paralyze.Your attacker may
still be able to walk, run, or try to grab you.

source

If someone is hit full in the face with pepper spray, they will not be able to see. They might try to attack, but they'll be pretty disabled, whether they are on drugs or not. The physiological effects of pepper spray - temporary blindness and shortness of breath - will occur no matter how high or crazy or both the victim is.

 

[tupac chopra]

Yes, that is a good point. I am being too harsh when I call their testimonies "lies." The phenomenon is probably best characterized as statements misleadingly bent to fit a systematic bias. Many of them clarified in favor of the truth after being critically examined.

Not really.

I'd call the below out and out lies:

(snip)

The fact that ApostateAbe didn't consider these lies, despite calling his thread "the web of lies" and his passive aggressive responses, makes me afraid that things are going to get worse before they get better.

 

[EPresence2]

To prevent continuing another derail, I'll repost something from another thread that is relevant here.

I had to correct someone on the forum about the sequence of events in the Wilson testimony that she characterized as implausible. The missing bit of information made it plausible but she didn't seem to notice.

She noticed that you didn't make the case that you seem to think you made.

No, you left out a critical part of the testimony - why is that I wonder?

Already answered over there.
I didn't have the testimony until you posted it.
Once you did, it didn't make his actions any more reasonable.
I said that clearly.
[/derail]

I think you missed an answer to your question on this thread. I'm reposting this to just tie up some loose ends. Or maybe you could point me to where you said it clearly after my post below. Thanks!

According the Wilson testimony, the shot in the hand happened after the gun grab and subsequent maneuver by Wilson to orient gun away from his hip for a shot at Brown's silhouette. From reading the testimony, it sounds like the first shot was made while both were grappling for control of the gun in the new position (away from officers hip) and resulted in the hand wound on Brown. It was indicated that Brown had only one hand on the gun, so the off-hand could have been hit. Now here is your revised description of event portion in question - you make it sounds like the gun was still pointed in Wilson hip when the shot was made. This is incorrect according to the testimony.

so:
- he was sitting in his car
- with his gun holstered
- - - because he only reacted to Brown's aggression and therefore would never have arrived with a drawn gun
- and Brown reached inside the car
- and Wilson grabbed his arm to try to control him
- across Wilson's body
- and went for the gun and started hitting Wilson
- which and Wilson drew
- and turned on Brown
- who pinned his gun against Wilson's left hip
- within the car
- and Wilson pivoted the gun, held in his right hand, pointed at his own left hip
- and shot Brown in the front of the hand
- without hitting himself
- or anything inside of his car and apparently shot through his own door, breaking the window

So try that.
-

 

[Rhea]

To prevent continuing another derail, I'll repost something from another thread that is relevant here.



I think you missed an answer to your question on this thread. I'm reposting this to just tie up some loose ends. Or maybe you could point me to where you said it clearly after my post below. Thanks!

According the Wilson testimony, the shot in the hand happened after the gun grab and subsequent maneuver by Wilson to orient gun away from his hip for a shot at Brown's silhouette. From reading the testimony, it sounds like the first shot was made while both were grappling for control of the gun in the new position (away from officers hip) and resulted in the hand wound on Brown. It was indicated that Brown had only one hand on the gun, so the off-hand could have been hit. Now here is your revised description of event portion in question - you make it sounds like the gun was still pointed in Wilson hip when the shot was made. This is incorrect according to the testimony.

so:
- he was sitting in his car
- with his gun holstered
- - - because he only reacted to Brown's aggression and therefore would never have arrived with a drawn gun
- and Brown reached inside the car
- and Wilson grabbed his arm to try to control him
- across Wilson's body
- and went for the gun and started hitting Wilson
- which and Wilson drew
- and turned on Brown
- who pinned his gun against Wilson's left hip
- within the car
- and Wilson pivoted the gun, which was held in his right hand, pointed at his own left hip
- and shot Brown in the front of the hand
- without hitting himself
- or anything inside of his car and apparently shot through his own door, breaking the window

So try that.
-

perhaps you are anxious about my grammar? Add the phrase "which was" to the red line. That's what that construction meant. At the time he turned the gun, it was held in his right hand, crossing his body, pointed at his left hip. Now try that yourself and see what it feels like to point the gun up toward the grabber's hand. Just try that with, like, a book or stick.

And remember that Dorian Johnson's testimony still makes sense as truth: the gun grab was in response to Wilson pointing it at Brown. No grab happened until after Wilson was pointing the gun at Brown.

 

[EPresence2]

And remember that Dorian Johnson's testimony still makes sense as truth: the gun grab was in response to Wilson pointing it at Brown. No grab happened until after Wilson was pointing the gun at Brown.

That's a possibility that is not refuted by the physical evidence. And it's also part of the misunderstanding I thought was already cleared up between us.

To prevent continuing another derail, I'll repost something from another thread that is relevant here.



I think you missed an answer to your question on this thread. I'm reposting this to just tie up some loose ends. Or maybe you could point me to where you said it clearly after my post below. Thanks!

According the Wilson testimony, the shot in the hand happened after the gun grab and subsequent maneuver by Wilson to orient gun away from his hip for a shot at Brown's silhouette. From reading the testimony, it sounds like the first shot was made while both were grappling for control of the gun in the new position (away from officers hip) and resulted in the hand wound on Brown. It was indicated that Brown had only one hand on the gun, so the off-hand could have been hit. Now here is your revised description of event portion in question - you make it sounds like the gun was still pointed in Wilson hip when the shot was made. This is incorrect according to the testimony.

so:
- he was sitting in his car
- with his gun holstered
- - - because he only reacted to Brown's aggression and therefore would never have arrived with a drawn gun
- and Brown reached inside the car
- and Wilson grabbed his arm to try to control him
- across Wilson's body
- and went for the gun and started hitting Wilson
- which and Wilson drew
- and turned on Brown
- who pinned his gun against Wilson's left hip
- within the car
- and Wilson pivoted the gun, which was held in his right hand, pointed at his own left hip
- and shot Brown in the front of the hand
- without hitting himself
- or anything inside of his car and apparently shot through his own door, breaking the window

So try that.
-

perhaps you are anxious about my grammar? Add the phrase "which was" to the red line. That's what that construction meant. At the time he turned the gun, it was held in his right hand, crossing his body, pointed at his left hip. Now try that yourself and see what it feels like to point the gun up toward the grabber's hand. Just try that with, like, a book or stick.

You are still leaving out the part after the gun being initially pinned against Wilson's left hip. He pushed the gun away from his hip and toward the door handle - It's all in the testimony, which isn't to say it's all true (or false).

 

[Rhea]

- and Wilson pivoted the gun, which was held in his right hand, pointed at his own left hip
- and shot Brown in the front of the hand
- without hitting himself
- or anything inside of his car and apparently shot through his own door, breaking the window

So try that.


perhaps you are anxious about my grammar? Add the phrase "which was" to the red line. That's what that construction meant. At the time he turned the gun, it was held in his right hand, crossing his body, pointed at his left hip. Now try that yourself and see what it feels like to point the gun up toward the grabber's hand. Just try that with, like, a book or stick.

You are still leaving out the part after the gun being initially pinned against Wilson's left hip. He pushed the gun away from his hip and toward the door handle - It's all in the testimony, which isn't to say it's all true (or false).

E2 - I know that. I even said so right there - I've put it in green. And I'm saying try that pivot thing out and see how it ends up shooting the hand of the gun grabber. it really should shoot his forearm, yanno? I just find that so weird and improbable. Sure, it could be true. And it still puzzles me, as I said in my first post about it.

 

[ksen]

if brown's hand was on the gun how did he get shot in the thumb?

 

[EPresence2]

You are still leaving out the part after the gun being initially pinned against Wilson's left hip. He pushed the gun away from his hip and toward the door handle - It's all in the testimony, which isn't to say it's all true (or false).

E2 - I know that. I even said so right there - I've put it in green. And I'm saying try that pivot thing out and see how it ends up shooting the hand of the gun grabber. it really should shoot his forearm, yanno? I just find that so weird and improbable. Sure, it could be true. And it still puzzles me, as I said in my first post about it.

It's described as more of a thrust and pivot forward toward the door handle, and it's not specified whether Brown had both hands on the gun. So he may not have shot the hand holding the gun. Brown's left hand could have been close to the door handle. That also addresses Ksen's question, as a exclusive possibility. I can envision both men (being right-handed?) wrestling for the gun on the drivers side and not necessarily hitting a forearm.

As for the gun grab, maybe Brown thought the officer was getting out of the car to arrest him for the robbery. After all, there was a short time after the exchange of words that Wilson continued driving, then backed up to confront Brown. It really doesn't matter whether Wilson actually knew or not. Maybe Brown had no intention of being brought in by this goofy looking cop not much older (looking) than him. He'd get some bad-ass credit for shooting a cop after robbing a store. And if the cop is dead, he very well can't be identified by him. It may also be that Brown thought the cop meant to shoot him for just talking smack and blocking his door. He managed to escape but then turns around to face the cop who then shoots him dead, as he feared when the gun was pulled out the first time. Either version makes one or the other look demonic. I hope you can see more where I'm coming from now - I'm still waiting for a clear case of probable cause.

 

[Rhea]

E2 - I know that. I even said so right there - I've put it in green. And I'm saying try that pivot thing out and see how it ends up shooting the hand of the gun grabber. it really should shoot his forearm, yanno? I just find that so weird and improbable. Sure, it could be true. And it still puzzles me, as I said in my first post about it.

It's described as more of a thrust and pivot forward toward the door handle, and it's not specified whether Brown had both hands on the gun. So he may not have shot the hand holding the gun. Brown's left hand could have been close to the door handle. That also addresses Ksen's question, as a exclusive possibility. I can envision both men (being right-handed?) wrestling for the gun on the drivers side and not necessarily hitting a forearm.

As for the gun grab, maybe Brown thought the officer was getting out of the car to arrest him for the robbery. After all, there was a short time after the exchange of words that Wilson continued driving, then backed up to confront Brown. It really doesn't matter whether Wilson actually knew or not. Maybe Brown had no intention of being brought in by this goofy looking cop not much older (looking) than him. He'd get some bad-ass credit for shooting a cop after robbing a store. And if the cop is dead, he very well can't be identified by him. It may also be that Brown thought the cop meant to shoot him for just talking smack and blocking his door. He managed to escape but then turns around to face the cop who then shoots him dead, as he feared when the gun was pulled out the first time. Either version makes one or the other look demonic. I hope you can see more where I'm coming from now.

You've extolled at length all the possible things Brown could have been thinking or planning. Some of which condemns him, some of which is more neutral.
No curiosity to speculate about Wilson's thoughts? It's an interesting omission.

 

[EPresence2]

It's described as more of a thrust and pivot forward toward the door handle, and it's not specified whether Brown had both hands on the gun. So he may not have shot the hand holding the gun. Brown's left hand could have been close to the door handle. That also addresses Ksen's question, as a exclusive possibility. I can envision both men (being right-handed?) wrestling for the gun on the drivers side and not necessarily hitting a forearm.

As for the gun grab, maybe Brown thought the officer was getting out of the car to arrest him for the robbery. After all, there was a short time after the exchange of words that Wilson continued driving, then backed up to confront Brown. It really doesn't matter whether Wilson actually knew or not. Maybe Brown had no intention of being brought in by this goofy looking cop not much older (looking) than him. He'd get some bad-ass credit for shooting a cop after robbing a store. And if the cop is dead, he very well can't be identified by him. It may also be that Brown thought the cop meant to shoot him for just talking smack and blocking his door. He managed to escape but then turns around to face the cop who then shoots him dead, as he feared when the gun was pulled out the first time. Either version makes one or the other look demonic. I hope you can see more where I'm coming from now.

You've extolled at length all the possible things Brown could have been thinking or planning. Some of which condemns him, some of which is more neutral.
No curiosity to speculate about Wilson's thoughts? It's an interesting omission.

Selective focus isn't necessarily interesting. I'm not sure what to say about Wilson's thoughts that contradicts his testimony. And we don't have any testimony from Brown, for obvious reasons. The second possibility for what Brown was thinking suggests Wilson was a hot-head who really thought "black lives don't matter." Maybe you could elaborate more on what Wilson could have been thinking to substantiate the second possibility.

 

[EPresence2]

E2 - I know that. I even said so right there - I've put it in green. And I'm saying try that pivot thing out and see how it ends up shooting the hand of the gun grabber. it really should shoot his forearm, yanno? I just find that so weird and improbable. Sure, it could be true. And it still puzzles me, as I said in my first post about it.

It's described as more of a thrust and pivot forward toward the door handle, and it's not specified whether Brown had both hands on the gun. So he may not have shot the hand holding the gun. Brown's left hand could have been close to the door handle. That also addresses Ksen's question, as a exclusive possibility. I can envision both men (being right-handed?) wrestling for the gun on the drivers side and not necessarily hitting a forearm.

To correct myself (looking at the autopsy illustrations), it was Brown's right hand that was wounded and not his left. Unless Brown was pulling away as the shot was fired, it is more difficult to imagine how the hand wound could have happened while gripping the gun. It's also not clearly implausible based on the "theater of the mind" reinactments of the imperfect testimony.