The web of lies in Ferguson

[ApostateAbe]

Yes, all we absolutely know from the angular trajectory is that Brown was leaning forward at the time. He could have been either falling forward or charging forward, but the account that Brown was charging forward was put on the table by Darren Wilson and six of the witnesses, but the account that he was shot while FALLING forward was NOT put on the table by ANY of the witnesses. It is merely an ad hoc explanation. You can find ad hoc explanations for absolutely anything, to make anyone innocent or guilty per your design.

There was a question by laughing dog about what the forensic evidence itself shows, so I was referring primarily to that and not witness testimony.

Yes, I know. Corroborating evidence means that not all explanations for a single piece of evidence are equally likely.

 

[Shadowy Man]

There was a question by laughing dog about what the forensic evidence itself shows, so I was referring primarily to that and not witness testimony.

Yes, I know. Corroborating evidence means that not all explanations for a single piece of evidence are equally likely.

True, but when faced with all kinds of conflicting and inconsistent witness testimony, which is notoriously unreliable or biased, we have to lean more heavily on the forensic evidence and our own reasoning, which also can be biased if we're not careful. That's why I find it difficult to believe that he was charging into a hail of bullets with his head so far down. It stretches credulity that someone would charge into a hail of bullets in the first place and also that one can actually maintain a forward charge with their head so far down. I'm not saying it's impossible, but regardless of witness testimony it feels unlikely to me. And there's the incident in the car, which started the whole thing -- there's no unbiased witness testimony about what happened there.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Yes, I know. Corroborating evidence means that not all explanations for a single piece of evidence are equally likely.

True, but when faced with all kinds of conflicting and inconsistent witness testimony, which is notoriously unreliable or biased, we have to lean more heavily on the forensic evidence and our own reasoning, which also can be biased if we're not careful. That's why I find it difficult to believe that he was charging into a hail of bullets with his head so far down. It stretches credulity that someone would charge into a hail of bullets in the first place and also that one can actually maintain a forward charge with their head so far down. I'm not saying it's impossible, but regardless of witness testimony it feels unlikely to me. And there's the incident in the car, which started the whole thing -- there's no unbiased witness testimony about what happened there.

If we had Darren Wilson's account all by itself, it does not count for much. If we had the one fact of forensic evidence all by itself, it does not count for much. If we had the witnesses all by themselves, it does not count for much. But, if we have all three together, it counts for a helluva lot. It should be considered a fact at this point: Michael Brown really did charge toward Darren Wilson before he was shot on the street. The plausibility problem of willingly running into gunshots is present but very small. Michael Brown at that point is already confirmed to have physically assaulted the same man with the same gun in the police vehicle.

 

[RavenSky]

It's an interpretation to go from "leaning forward or moving forward" to "charging forward". The word "charging" has connotations beyond that which is mentioned in your indented text. I would further submit that the trajectory at the top of the head is also consistent with Mr. Brown *falling* forward.

Yes, all we absolutely know from the angular trajectory is that Brown was leaning forward at the time. He could have been either falling forward or charging forward, but the account that Brown was charging forward was put on the table by Darren Wilson and six of the witnesses, but the account that he was shot while FALLING forward was NOT put on the table by ANY of the witnesses. It is merely an ad hoc explanation. You can find ad hoc explanations for absolutely anything, to make anyone innocent or guilty per your design.

The bolded is incorrect. It was Darren Wilson and only THREE witnesses (and one of them actually said "I thought he was trying to charge him at first" which sounds like maybe not)

Then we have the other witnesses:

"and he started feeling the pain or something like that, where like he couldn't you know, pick up his pace because of the shot. "

"and then he started going down."

"like he was stumbling and like I said, the officer lets out some more shots and that's when he hit the ground.”

"and he just went all the way down as the shots hit him.”

“And so by the time I made it to where I could see what was going on, Michael Brown was on his knees.”

"it appears to me that he was just catching his balance."

"And next thing I know, I don't know where it hit, but when the boy fell"

"he turned around, and I'm assuming that he was just stunned, that's how it appeared to me. That he looked down at his hands and he saw blood.

So we actually have SEVEN witnesses (not zero as you stated) that testified to some version of "falling forward" plus one more stating that Michael Brown was looking down at his wounds.

 

[laughing dog]

How does the forensic evidence show that Wilson acted reasonably and that his fear for his life was reasonable?

The evidence has been discussed earlier in the thread.

EDIT: No, that was another thread, I will repost it.

- - - Updated - - -

This excerpt is from the interview of an associate professor of forensic pathology on PBS.org, to confirm the account of the shooting while Brown was reaching for the gun:

What I got from the report was that there’s a gunshot wound of the thumb that is going from the tip of the thumb towards the wrist.

And that particular wound, they had microscopic sections of. So this is new information. There’s particulate material in that wound that is consistent with gunpowder. And we now know that there have been gunshots, one or two gunshots in the vehicle.

So that is most likely the shot that occurred while the struggle was occurring in the vehicle. And it indicates that the hand was in line with the gun, meaning that the thumb was pointing towards the muzzle of the gun, for that trajectory to make sense.​

A second excerpt, to confirm the account of the shooting while Brown was charging forward:

And it also shows us that there is a downward trajectory at the top of the head, which really makes sense under these circumstances, if Mr. Brown is leaning forward or moving forward with his head down. So, that way, the top of his head is exposed to the bullet and to the officer who is shooting at him.​

And you think this exonerates Mr. Wilson because....?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No. The problem is not blacks per se, it's the criminal subculture. Those who get shot by the police are generally from that subculture, it's no surprise they have friends and relatives who don't give a hoot about the truth.

I would expect to see the same sort of pattern if a KKKer were shot by a black policeman--fellow white supremacists would jump to his defense, right or wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

While in general I agree with you I do think some of this testimony is deliberate lying.

The identities of the witnesses in the grand jury are secret. So how can you or Apostate Abe conclude that it is the black witnesses that are lying?

See the word "black" in my statement?

I said it looks like some of the witnesses were lying. Their skin color is unknown.

So, this wasn't you

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.

You're drawing an invalid conclusion here.

I said that in a case like this you can expect some lying black "witnesses". I also concluded that some of the witnesses in this case lied. That's not the same thing as saying the particular witnesses are black. The list of witnesses is obviously not complete.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the 'blue wall of silence.' The criminal conspiracy by which police cooperate to foil any and all investigations of police wrongdoing.

And the blue wall could teleport bloodstains?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

No. The problem is not blacks per se, it's the criminal subculture. Those who get shot by the police are generally from that subculture, it's no surprise they have friends and relatives who don't give a hoot about the truth.

I would expect to see the same sort of pattern if a KKKer were shot by a black policeman--fellow white supremacists would jump to his defense, right or wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

While in general I agree with you I do think some of this testimony is deliberate lying.

The identities of the witnesses in the grand jury are secret. So how can you or Apostate Abe conclude that it is the black witnesses that are lying?

See the word "black" in my statement?

I said it looks like some of the witnesses were lying. Their skin color is unknown.

So, this wasn't you

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.

You're drawing an invalid conclusion here.

Wrong. I'm asking a question, I haven't drawn the conclusion ... yet.

I said that in a case like this you can expect some lying black "witnesses".

As opposed to lying white witnesses? If you meant a criminal subculture why did you say black?

I also concluded that some of the witnesses in this case lied. That's not the same thing as saying the particular witnesses are black. The list of witnesses is obviously not complete.

Loren, you can't dig your way out of a hole

So again I ask

Loren. do you think black people have a special predisposition to lie?

 

[Axulus]

So again I ask

Loren. do you think black people have a special predisposition to lie?

I wouldn't say a "special predisposition" to lie, but rather a somewhat ordinary post-disposition to given the nature of this case.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Yes, all we absolutely know from the angular trajectory is that Brown was leaning forward at the time. He could have been either falling forward or charging forward, but the account that Brown was charging forward was put on the table by Darren Wilson and six of the witnesses, but the account that he was shot while FALLING forward was NOT put on the table by ANY of the witnesses. It is merely an ad hoc explanation. You can find ad hoc explanations for absolutely anything, to make anyone innocent or guilty per your design.

The bolded is incorrect. It was Darren Wilson and only THREE witnesses (and one of them actually said "I thought he was trying to charge him at first" which sounds like maybe not)

Then we have the other witnesses:

"and he started feeling the pain or something like that, where like he couldn't you know, pick up his pace because of the shot. "

"and then he started going down."

"like he was stumbling and like I said, the officer lets out some more shots and that's when he hit the ground.”

"and he just went all the way down as the shots hit him.”

“And so by the time I made it to where I could see what was going on, Michael Brown was on his knees.”

"it appears to me that he was just catching his balance."

"And next thing I know, I don't know where it hit, but when the boy fell"

"he turned around, and I'm assuming that he was just stunned, that's how it appeared to me. That he looked down at his hands and he saw blood.

So we actually have SEVEN witnesses (not zero as you stated) that testified to some version of "falling forward" plus one more stating that Michael Brown was looking down at his wounds.

I think maybe you misunderstood. Everyone actually agrees that Michael Brown fell on the ground. No disagreement there. The relevant claim is that Michael Brown was shot as he was falling. Such a witness testimony is the only way that explanation would not be completely ad hoc. Out of that list, there is one such testimony, though it is ambiguous: "and he just went all the way down as the shots hit him." So there is something, not nothing. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

So again I ask

Loren. do you think black people have a special predisposition to lie?

I wouldn't say a "special predisposition" to lie, but rather a somewhat ordinary post-disposition to given the nature of this case.

Please elaborate because you are perilously close falling into Loren's hole.

 

[ksen]

So again I ask

Loren. do you think black people have a special predisposition to lie?

I wouldn't say a "special predisposition" to lie, but rather a somewhat ordinary post-disposition to given the nature of this case.

good god, not you too

 

[ApostateAbe]

I wouldn't say a "special predisposition" to lie, but rather a somewhat ordinary post-disposition to given the nature of this case.

Please elaborate because you are perilously close falling into Loren's hole.

I think you are trying to root out and shame racist thinking. Do it with me, instead. There was a rule against expressions of racism in the old IIDB forum, but I don't see the rule in this one, so it may be cool.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Please elaborate because you are perilously close falling into Loren's hole.

I think you are trying to root out and shame racist thinking. Do it with me, instead. There was a rule against expressions of racism in the old IIDB forum, but I don't see the rule in this one, so it may be cool.

All I want is an answer to the question. If the answer is upsetting,that's not my fault.

 

[ApostateAbe]

I think you are trying to root out and shame racist thinking. Do it with me, instead. There was a rule against expressions of racism in the old IIDB forum, but I don't see the rule in this one, so it may be cool.

All I want is an answer to the question. If the answer is upsetting,that's not my fault.

I think it is an offensive question, like any question along the lines of "Do you violate this dogma that may destroy your standing in this society if this question is answered in even a partial affirmative?" But, I am not asking you to take responsibility for it. I am only asking you to direct the inquiry to me, instead.

 

[laughing dog]

I think it is an offensive question, like any question along the lines of "Do you violate this dogma that may destroy your standing in this society if this question is answered in even a partial affirmative?" But, I am not asking you to take responsibility for it. I am only asking you to direct the inquiry to me, instead.

Dude, your "standing in society", you would not have posted this massively offensive "That includes at least the black community of Ferguson, Missouri, with their false claims motivated by a racial identity".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So again I ask

Loren. do you think black people have a special predisposition to lie?

Did you not note the post where I said KKKers would react in a similar fashion when a white was shot by a black policeman?

 

[laughing dog]

So again I ask

Loren. do you think black people have a special predisposition to lie?

Did you not note the post where I said KKKers would react in a similar fashion when a white was shot by a black policeman?

KKKers are a fringe group. Black people are not. So I find it hard to believe your comment is meant to be taken seriously.

 

[ApostateAbe]

I think it is an offensive question, like any question along the lines of "Do you violate this dogma that may destroy your standing in this society if this question is answered in even a partial affirmative?" But, I am not asking you to take responsibility for it. I am only asking you to direct the inquiry to me, instead.

Dude, your "standing in society", you would not have posted this massively offensive "That includes at least the black community of Ferguson, Missouri, with their false claims motivated by a racial identity".

I completely agree.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

All I want is an answer to the question. If the answer is upsetting,that's not my fault.

I think it is an offensive question,

Well, aren't we lucky I did not ask it of you.

like any question along the lines of "Do you violate this dogma that may destroy your standing in this society if this question is answered in even a partial affirmative?" But, I am not asking you to take responsibility for it. I am only asking you to direct the inquiry to me, instead.

Nothing has be done to stop you from answering the question you find offensive, and yet you have not answered it.

Loren has made certain statements. I would like clarification of those statements. Are you now owning Loren's statements? And if so which ones?

- - - Updated - - -

So again I ask

Loren. do you think black people have a special predisposition to lie?

Did you not note the post where I said KKKers would react in a similar fashion when a white was shot by a black policeman?

Yes or no Loren, and after the yes or no, feel free to explain.

 

[ApostateAbe]

AthenaAwakened, I have read a lot of scientific racist literature, much of which I largely agree with, but none of it claims that blacks on average are innately more likely to tell lies than other racial groups, and there is likewise little to lead me to believe such a thing. There is, however, evidence of the tendency to lie about a limited topic: drug abuse. It came to my attention when it was claimed somewhere on Facebook that blacks are equally likely to use drugs as whites. I looked into it, and I found a counter-argument that the statistic was based on self-reports and assumed racial equality of truth-telling, and a different study found that blacks were far more likely than other races to lie about their own drug abuse, comparing their statements to blood or urine tests (I will hunt down that study tomorrow if interested). It could easily be attributed to the black tendency to distrust white authorities, and not such a good argument for the tendency for blacks to lie about all topics generally, let alone the INNATE tendency to lie generally. It remains possible, but the evidence seems scarce to me at this point. I would attribute the lies among the Ferguson witnesses to an in-group-vs-out-group mentality, as Ferguson is an environment with a common perception (if not a reality) of white police abuse against blacks.