urbanSTL

TheNewSaintLouis wrote: I like to believe both Mike Brown & his cousin are guilty for stealing however this will never give his family justice for the shooting of their son but everything happens for a reason. I look at it like this. If Mike Brown & his cousin weren't walking in the middle of the street then none of this wouldn't of happened it's almost like they were asking for trouble on that very same day. On the other hand I don't think the excessive amount of shots being fired at Mike Brown will never warrant his death.
....
I really hope they get this right on both sides cause both are victims of something horrific however this could be a movement for bigger changes as i think we're already starting to see.

I just don't understand this line of thinking at all. "Everything happens for a reason"? "They were asking for trouble"? Really, that's your response to the shooting? That they had it coming? Reminds me a bit of people who say sexually assaulted women were "asking for it" for walking alone/at night/with revealing clothes on. "Both are victims of something horrific"? I fail to see how Darren Wilson is a victim in this situation. Perhaps a victim of his own recklessness, but not a victim in the sense of a young man being dead.

arch_genesis wrote:

hebeters2 wrote:A woman, referring to herself as "Josie" claims to be a friend of the officer named in the Michael Brown shooting calls in to tell his side of the story.
http://www.971talk.com/blogs/dana-show- ... s-his-side

So, according to Josie, a shot went off in the car which was enough to send Michael running. Almost home, 35 feet between him and Wilson, Wilson yells freeze and Michael halts turns around to taunt Wilson, and charge in the direction moments earlier he was just running from because the gun went off?

So he goes from fear to defiant to hostile in a matter of moments? An unarmed teenager. An officer with a gun.

Has anyone ever run from gun shots at a slight jog?

So I'm suppose to believe the kid's temper escalated? The one who ended up dead with multiple shots in him?
Not the cop that told them to get off the street, reversed back and engaged them, fired a shot in the car, got out of car to pursue a fleeing teenager, and ultimately shot the kid multiple times until he died?

How is that any less believable than the story of an unprovoked police officer, in a fit of rage, executing a surrendering teen in broad daylight and in front of multiple witnesses? Did you see how aggressive Mike was in the convenience store footage? He totally over powered that convenience clerk.

arch city wrote:

downtown2007 wrote:I would be surprised if the officer is convicted. The judicial system, fellow law enforcement, and politicians will stand by the police officer 99%. The deck is stacked against the victim.

Don't be surprised.

If the DOJ/FBI, based on forensics and eyewitness accounts, say Darren Wilson violated Brown's civil rights - it's a wrap.

This is why body and car cams should be a priority for police departments. It would protect them, cities and the public from police misconduct and lawsuits. Police would also be more accountable.

From David Simon....

At this point, let’s be frank about the advantages offered to any officer in a legal examination of any use of lethal force. We both understand, I am sure, that in presenting the facts of any police shooting to a grand jury, your prosecutors will be able to offer your officer the protection of legal standards that do not in any way address whether a given shooting was justified in a moral sense, or as a measure of good and careful police work. No, the standard for justifying a police shooting anywhere in these United States has come down to this: Did the officer have a reasonable belief that in using lethal force he was protecting himself or others from serious injury. That is hole enough for a pretty big truck, sir, and it allows all but the most egregious and unjustifiable police violence to remain free of criminal prosecution, if not administrative sanction....

.....But you must concede as well that the legal standard allows for the prosecutorial justification of all but the most outrageous misuses of police force — that the dynamic is already carefully protective of your individual officers. The game is already rigged against a legal lynching. And similarly, as already noted, anyone seeking to harm one of your officers in an extra-legal manner confronts not only a lone individual, but the combined authority and force of all of your officers, of the county and state police agencies, of your jurisdiction’s prosecutors and judges. In and out of court, no police officer ever stands alone and vulnerable — not in the manner of the average citizen. Say, Mr. Brown, for example.

http://davidsimon.com/the-end-game-for- ... ty-pt-iii/

^^Big difference between a convenience store clerk and an officer with a gun moorlander. Like you said, people are going to see things differently. That's fine, for the time being. I was just looking at things from my perspective.

As for unprovoked, all accounts say a gun went off in the car.

Arch, you bring up some good points. Why would brown run away after struggling in the car with Wilson get shot at, then decide to run back towards Wilson? Certainly a valid question. At the same time, it seems to me that brown clearly thought he would be arrested for his strong-arm robbery crime and was ready to resist arrest. When he then made the decision to attack/fight the cop, the cop has legal rights to use deadly force. I certainly wish he had picked a taser or mace, but perhaps this all happened so fast there wasn't enough time. From a recently released witness tape, before Dorian Johnson gave his testimony, the witness said brown doubled back and tried to attack Wilson, and that's why he kept shooting. Unless this cop was just so enraged and decided to essentially execute him with his hands up, but it seems far fetched for a six year veteran cop to decide to execute someone for no reason in broad daylight. It seems a lot of the witness testomonys seem to parrot Dorian Johnson's highly questionable version of events, post-robbery with his friend.
At first, the story seemed to be a rogue racist cop that executed an unarmed man with his hands up, pleading for the cop not to shoot, but after learning more, hearing the witness talk on the tape, prior to Dorians version, it seems clear that the cop acted in self defense, which is legal, even though he was unarmed because he attacked the cop. Even a fleeing felon suspect is legally allowed to be shot by police, as crazy as that sounds, look up SCOTUS Garner vs Tennessee.
I will be the first person to want to lock up a cop for life if he truly executed a person with their hands up while they were kneeling on the ground, but it doesn't seem to be the case. Obviously we should wait for the final case to be presented, but the early picture that was painted seems to be less and less accurate.
At the end of the day, I want all cops to wear cameras. I want to dig deeper into driving/walking while black. It's funny to see a number of white people not understand there is an actual difference how many blacks are routinely treated by police everyday in this country. We need to do more. And 3/53 black cops? That needs to change in ferguson and elsewhere. People need to be able to trust the police and work with them to make their own neighborhoods safer.

The scenario being put forward still is not entirely believably. It's hard to buy that Michael Brown started running back at the cop he had just escaped from 40ish eet away. I don't think he was that stupid, and the witnesses on the scene all say that he was surrendering when he was shot. They might all by lying, but that should be for a jury to decide.

What I don't understand is that if this "Brown doubled back to attack the officer" story is true--which would seem to me to make a conviction or even an indictment all but impossible--why haven't we heard it from the police yet? Or anyone else?

I just have a really uneasy feeling over all this now as it seems that the only thing the people outraged and protesting want is justice for Brown's family--i.e. the arrest/trial/imprisonment of D. WIlson. And right now I see a slim chance that Wilson gets tried and convicted, at least by St. Louis County and Bob McCulloch. I just don't think it's gonna be a good scene if/when the desired outcome doesn't occur. Something's gotta be done to channel this strong reaction about some legitimate issues of policing/racial divides into meaningful action to redress them.

Not sure how the feds would factor in, or whether a civil rights violation prosecution could be successful.

I think it's possible that those witnesses parroted the version from Dorian Johnson. How he got 35-40 feet away is certainly possible if brown broke away and ran. Theses cops are clearly mistrusted by the community and it's an us (citizens) versus them (cops). So it's not that hard to believe that people would want to protect brown over Wilson. I don't want to call anyone a liar, but clearly Johnson's version seems suspect post robbery with his friend. I also think there are enough cases of aggressive and unlawful cops to make people view them as the enemy and not protectors. the outcome should be to heal this mistrust by whatever means, more community meetings or workshops, etc.

First autipsy results. SIx shots all in front

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/us/mi ... mid=tw-bna

2 in the head, 4 in the arm. One in top of the skull, from when he was leaning forward. No gun residue on body found, so not at close range.

downtown2007 wrote:

arch city wrote:

downtown2007 wrote:The game is already rigged against a legal lynching. And similarly, as already noted, anyone seeking to harm one of your officers in an extra-legal manner confronts not only a lone individual, but the combined authority and force of all of your officers, of the county and state police agencies, of your jurisdiction’s prosecutors and judges. In and out of court, no police officer ever stands alone and vulnerable — not in the manner of the average citizen. Say, Mr. Brown, for example.

http://davidsimon.com/the-end-game-for- ... ty-pt-iii/

Thanks for posting. I believe the game is rigged. I've always believed that. Men of all backgrounds - but especially Black men know this. However, while the game is rigged, prosecuting an officer for murder or misconduct is not impossible. It has been done, Kym Worthy in Detroit (Wayne County) is notorious for going after crooked cops. Cops in the Rodney King beating were convicted after Bush I got involved. It can happen.

McCollough is pro-police. He comes from a police family and unfortunately, his father, who was an officer, was killed by a kidnapper decades ago. There's a petition circulating to get McCollough removed from the case. I hope it is successful.

Arch, are you open to the possibility that the cop was shooting in self defense? What about the tape of the witness recording at the scene? Again, I'm open to the theory that he shot brown dead, execution style, but it seems less likely as more evidence comes out. At first, I was extremely upset with what I knew at the time. It seems though, more and more, that the officer was justified. Or is that just me?

jcity wrote:Arch, are you open to the possibility that the cop was shooting in self defense? What about the tape of the witness recording at the scene? Again, I'm open to the theory that he shot brown dead, execution style, but it seems less likely as more evidence comes out. At first, I was extremely upset with what I knew at the time. It seems though, more and more, that the officer was justified. Or is that just me?

This eyewitness account seems to be somewhat in the middle. I'd like to know how many shots were discharged all together.

jcity wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z3Ahq4QwCN

Well, looks like there's one more person in the minority (you, Moorlander, me, anyone? Bueller?) willing to give the officer the benefit of the doubt. However, I think I need a break from all of the speculation and armchair investigating.

As I said before, people will believe whatever they want to believe. That's why there's Fox News in one corner and MSNBC in the other, with CNN somewhere in the middle but closer to the MSNBC side in my opinion.

I think the officer is likely to be exonerated, although part of me wonders if there isn't a 'two wrongs don't make a right' possibility. In other words, did Brown snap and attack the officer, and then, did the officer respond with excessive force? Who knows. I've tried to see both sides of this issue, but now it is so polarized, I find it more difficult to have a proper discussion, not just here, but anywhere in general.

And, yes, I believe the media are largely to blame as a whole. In my opinion, the Fourth Estate is pretty much history.

I'll reserve my comments for discussions related to what's next for St. Louis. To that end, I think it's interesting to see that Cincinnati leaders plan to talk with local authorities about how they handled the 2001 riots and the aftermath. I don't know much about Cincy, but I get the impression things have improved there in terms of police-community relations, as well as the Over-the-Rhine area itself. Hopefully this is a constructive start to the next phase, the answer to 'Where do we go from here?'.

I agree with you threonefour. This incident has quickly evolved from the beginning.

The autopsy does not support the officers story of Michael running at him.