Looting and Rioting in St. Louis (Merged)

seamus · 25-11-2014 05:11PM

Too Tough To Die wrote: »

Of course his arms weren't raised for some of the shots, how could anyone keep their arms raised under those circumstances.

Now you're into the realm of supposition - "I suppose he couldn't have kept his arms raised while the officer fired."

Not that I disagree, just trying to work on the facts. He could have lowered his hands to his chest immediately when he was shot, which would account for the location of the two shots in his right arm, but there are no facts to indicate that's what he did. That's just supposition. We don't know that a big guy with his hands raised will definitely drop them if hit in the chest.
With the exception of the bullet that killed him, we don't know in what order the shots hit him - i.e. we can't say whether he was hit in the chest or the arm first.
If we make the assumption that his hands were raised, then we are assuming that he dropped them after being hit and also assuming that there was enough time between the shots for his arm to drop and be hit.
The more assumptions you have to make about a specific version of events, the less likely it is to be correct.

Granted I looked at summaries of the eyewitness accounts, but none of the ones who claimed his arms were raised in surrender, could account for the two bullets which hit his right arm while it was lowered.

The only facts we know are that his right arm was lowered when at least two of the shots were fired. Which effectively contradicts the eyewitness testimony as it's presented.

Also worth noting that there are allegedly eyewitness reports that support the "arms lowered" claim, including video recordings of people at the scene. But apparently they're afraid to be named for fear of reprisals from the community.

Yarf Yarf · 25-11-2014 05:12PM

Amazingfun wrote: »

Except the supposed "racism" in this case is against white men.

The grand jury looked at all the available evidence and based on that decided not to indict. There is no anti-black racist angle here but that doesn't matter to those of you who insist on creating it.

Ah, yes. "It's not minorities who are victims of racism anymore, it's the racists!"

Orwell would be proud of you.

Putinovsky · 25-11-2014 05:12PM

Amazingfun wrote: »

So what? Plenty of families the world over operate in the same way often going into similar professions. Proves absolutely nothing.

Are you serious?

His mother, father, brother, uncle and cousin were all members of the police force he was charged to prosecute.

Imagine if your mother was killed by someone. Now imagine the prosecutor for that case was the murderer suspects father/son/brother. Are you telling me you would be fine with that?

Peist2007 · 25-11-2014 05:15PM

Amazingfun wrote: »

Because racism? LOL. Give me a break.

Racism?! In a US police Department?!

Rodney King says hi

Yarf Yarf · 25-11-2014 05:17PM

Peist2007 wrote: »

Racism?! In a US police Department?!

Rodney King says hi

Or the MOVE organisation who were burned in their home by the Philadelphia police force. Nobody went to prison for that either.

Putinovsky · 25-11-2014 05:17PM

Nodin wrote: »

......the "savages" as you called them at the time. You also said that you thought South Africa was better off under white apartheid rule at one stage. I'm sure those facts and the way you've greeted developments in this case with actual glee aren't unrelated.

I didn't know that poster said that. Thanks for the info I wont be engaging with him in future.

Amazingfun · 25-11-2014 05:18PM

Nodin wrote: »

......the "savages" as you called them at the time. You also said that you thought South Africa was better off under white apartheid rule at one stage. I'm sure those facts and the way you've greeted developments in this case with actual glee aren't unrelated.

Who knew Nodin , someone I rarely (thankfully) interact with on this board...is taking such close notes of comments I may or may not have made on threads weeks or months ago. Frankly I can't recall a single thing you've ever said :pac:

Nerdlingr · 25-11-2014 05:20PM

Peist2007 wrote: »

Racism?! In a US police Department?!

Rodney King says hi

Rodney King is dead. Maybe it was his ghost who said "Hi".

Yarf Yarf · 25-11-2014 05:21PM

Amazingfun wrote: »

Who knew Nodin , someone I rarely (thankfully) interact with on this board...is taking such close notes of comments I may or may not have made on threads weeks or months ago. Frankly I can't recall a single thing you've ever said :pac:

"I don't recall exactly what I said or did."

You're starting to sound a bit like an American cop there!

Amazingfun · 25-11-2014 05:21PM

Putinovsky wrote: »

Are you serious?

His mother, father, brother, uncle and cousin were all members of the police force he was charged to prosecute.

Imagine if your mother was killed by someone. Now imagine the prosecutor for that case was the murderer suspects father/son/brother. Are you telling me you would be fine with that?

He was "charged to prosecute" ?? For what??

And again: plenty of professions have numerous family members in them.
So what?

Peist2007 · 25-11-2014 05:25PM

Amazingfun wrote: »

Who knew Nodin , someone I rarely (thankfully) interact with on this board...is taking such close notes of comments I may or may not have made on threads weeks or months ago. Frankly I can't recall a single thing you've ever said :pac:

Why the :pac: at the end of every post? You think this is funny?

Peist2007 · 25-11-2014 05:29PM

Amazingfun wrote: »

And again: plenty of professions have numerous family members in them.
So what?

Cant stop laughing at that reasoning. Imagining you with a fistful of straws there tbh

Amazingfun · 25-11-2014 05:31PM

Peist2007 wrote: »

Why the :pac: at the end of every post? You think this is funny?

Yes I find it hilarious

Standman · 25-11-2014 05:32PM

Many people seem quick to give Mike Brown the benefit of the doubt, but not the police officer. Why is this?

Phibsboro · 25-11-2014 05:33PM

Killer Wench wrote: »

Firstly, this was not a criminal trial. This was a decision as to whether to indict or not to indict. This was based on probable cause that a crime was committed. This is a much lower standard than beyond a reasonably doubt or preponderance of the evidence. Is there reasonable belief that a crime was committed?

The reason why people--including numerous legal scholars--are upset with this case is because a prosecutor presents evidence to a Grand Jury with the intention of leading to an indictment. This prosecutor presented all evidence which is rarely presented to a Grand Jury; instead, all evidence is presented at a trial. This prosecutor presented all evidence because he did not want an indictment, and he presented this to a Grand Jury knowing they are less likely to indict when it is an officer involved shooting.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/

Secondly, Wilson fired twelve shots. Between the first/second and eleventh/twelth shot, the risk of imminent harm was reduced. It was overkill on the part of Wilson yet the prosecutor brushed this aside.

Thirdly, the prosecutor blamed the victim, blamed the media, blamed protesters, and blamed social media for their interest in the case. Everyone else was in the wrong but not the police officer.

Fourthly, the police department allowed for Brown's body to stay in the middle of the street for 4.5 hours during a hot summer day. His mother and family were not permitted to go to his body and the police did not respect the family's request to at least cover his body as they continued their investigation. This is what inflamed the community.

The shots fired thing is probably a red herring - there were shots fired during an altercation in the police car already, the cop's story is that after initially running off the lad turned and came towards him. So at that point we have a 6'4 bloke, over 20 stone, bearing down on a copper who has already shot him in the hand - I don't think i'd be leaving any bullets in the chamber at that point, cos I figure i'd be a dead man if he got to me before I downed him.

Interestingly, the testimony for the grand jury is out now and this witness's take is pretty much exactly what the cop says happened. It is taken from a handwritten journal kept by one of the witnesses...

"The cop got out left hand on face Right hand on gun. The Cop Screamed but I could not understand. Everyone was Screaming ... The big kid turned around had his arms out with attitude. The cop just stood there dang if that kid didn't start running right at the cop like a foot ball player Head down. I heard 3 bangs but the big kid wouldn't Stop ... Cop took a couple steps forward then backwards and the gun went off 2 more times. The last one on the top of the kids head. OMG the blood."

The testimony (and pics/other evidence) is available at

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/11/25/us/evidence-released-in-michael-brown-case.html?_r=0

Overall, this is starting to look like my initial reaction (on seeing the video of him strong-arm robbing the store before he got shot) was correct - a bullying thug who picked on the wrong cop this time and paid for it...

Sclosages · 25-11-2014 05:39PM

The shots fired are a red herring? Lol. Do you know what a red herring is?

Sclosages · 25-11-2014 05:45PM

I actually witnessed an arrest in London. An absolutely stocious out of his mind wily fit white guy. As an observer, he seemed out of his head on drugs. He lunged, he fell, he ran. He was not shot dead. He wasn't even shot once. He was quite simply put to the ground and incapacitated. These cops - 8 of them in the heel of the hunt - never drew a batton. It took them 15 minutes to restrain him - hence the back-up. The guy was stocious, not murderous. They couldn't get cuffs on him with just two, so they restrained him. Even with cuffs on him, all 8 remained there. The guy had pissed on himself before the cops arrived and was apparently dodging traffic when they came to the scene. I'm not joking when I say they had trouble to contain him before back-up. He kept lunging and falling. He was not shot dead for his troubles though.

This is what I believe is the issue in St. Louis.

Amazingfun · 25-11-2014 05:47PM

Sclosages wrote: »

I actually witnessed an arrest in London. An absolutely stocious out of his mind wily fit white guy. As an observer, he seemed out of his head on drugs. He lunged, he fell, he ran. He was not shot dead. He wasn't even shot once. He was quite simply put to the ground and incapacitated. These cops - 8 of them in the heel of the hunt - never drew a batton. It took them 15 minutes to restrain him - hence the back-up. The guy was stocious, not murderous. They couldn't get cuffs on him with just two, so they restrained him. Even with cuffs on him, all 8 remained there. The guy had pissed on himself before the cops arrived and was apparently dodging traffic when they came to the scene. I'm not joking when I say they had trouble to contain him before back-up. He kept lunging and falling. He was not shot dead for his troubles though.

This is what I believe is the issue in St. Louis.

The issue in St. Louis is some one off arrest of a "wily white guy" in London?

wp_rathead · 25-11-2014 05:55PM

Standman wrote: »

Many people seem quick to give Mike Brown the benefit of the doubt, but not the police officer. Why is this?

which one was shot dead?

Beano · 25-11-2014 06:00PM

Sclosages wrote: »

I actually witnessed an arrest in London. An absolutely stocious out of his mind wily fit white guy. As an observer, he seemed out of his head on drugs. He lunged, he fell, he ran. He was not shot dead. He wasn't even shot once. He was quite simply put to the ground and incapacitated. These cops - 8 of them in the heel of the hunt - never drew a batton. It took them 15 minutes to restrain him - hence the back-up. The guy was stocious, not murderous. They couldn't get cuffs on him with just two, so they restrained him. Even with cuffs on him, all 8 remained there. The guy had pissed on himself before the cops arrived and was apparently dodging traffic when they came to the scene. I'm not joking when I say they had trouble to contain him before back-up. He kept lunging and falling. He was not shot dead for his troubles though.

This is what I believe is the issue in St. Louis.

so you are saying the Darren Wilson should have waited until 7 of his colleagues arrived and try to make the best of it until then?

seamus · 25-11-2014 06:02PM

Sclosages wrote: »

I actually witnessed an arrest in London. An absolutely stocious out of his mind wily fit white guy. As an observer, he seemed out of his head on drugs. He lunged, he fell, he ran. He was not shot dead. He wasn't even shot once. He was quite simply put to the ground and incapacitated. These cops - 8 of them in the heel of the hunt - never drew a batton. It took them 15 minutes to restrain him - hence the back-up. The guy was stocious, not murderous. They couldn't get cuffs on him with just two, so they restrained him. Even with cuffs on him, all 8 remained there. The guy had pissed on himself before the cops arrived and was apparently dodging traffic when they came to the scene. I'm not joking when I say they had trouble to contain him before back-up. He kept lunging and falling. He was not shot dead for his troubles though.

This is what I believe is the issue in St. Louis.

Apples and oranges to be fair.

8 coppers against an unruly drunkard, compared to one copper faced with a huge sober guy who has already tried to grab his weapon off him.

I don't disagree in the slightest that US cops are too quick to pull a weapon, and if they took a more hands off approach like we do in Europe, this kind of thing wouldn't happen every week.
But that's not entirely relevant in terms of whether the cop was right or wrong - this cop can't be blamed for the environment in which he operates. Where both he and the alleged offender know that he will use his gun if threatened, that means that an individual cop exercising the hands-off approach is a lot more dangerous than it is in Europe.

Nerdlingr · 25-11-2014 06:03PM

Sclosages wrote: »

I actually witnessed an arrest in London. An absolutely stocious out of his mind wily fit white guy. As an observer, he seemed out of his head on drugs. He lunged, he fell, he ran. He was not shot dead. He wasn't even shot once. He was quite simply put to the ground and incapacitated. These cops - 8 of them in the heel of the hunt - never drew a batton. It took them 15 minutes to restrain him - hence the back-up. The guy was stocious, not murderous. They couldn't get cuffs on him with just two, so they restrained him. Even with cuffs on him, all 8 remained there. The guy had pissed on himself before the cops arrived and was apparently dodging traffic when they came to the scene. I'm not joking when I say they had trouble to contain him before back-up. He kept lunging and falling. He was not shot dead for his troubles though.

This is what I believe is the issue in St. Louis.

What that got do to with anything?

Two totally different set of circumstances.

Peist2007 · 25-11-2014 06:04PM

Amazingfun wrote: »

The issue in St. Louis is some one off arrest of a "wily white guy" in London?

Nope it's an analogy, not a great one but an analogy all the same. Why are you pretending not to understand simple things like that?

creolebelle · 25-11-2014 06:04PM

Sclosages wrote: »

I actually witnessed an arrest in London. An absolutely stocious out of his mind wily fit white guy. As an observer, he seemed out of his head on drugs. He lunged, he fell, he ran. He was not shot dead. He wasn't even shot once. He was quite simply put to the ground and incapacitated. These cops - 8 of them in the heel of the hunt - never drew a batton. It took them 15 minutes to restrain him - hence the back-up. The guy was stocious, not murderous. They couldn't get cuffs on him with just two, so they restrained him. Even with cuffs on him, all 8 remained there. The guy had pissed on himself before the cops arrived and was apparently dodging traffic when they came to the scene. I'm not joking when I say they had trouble to contain him before back-up. He kept lunging and falling. He was not shot dead for his troubles though.

This is what I believe is the issue in St. Louis.

Exactly. Our police forces need to reevaluate they way they handle suspects.
Just wanted to note that it seems like people are arguing that because there is supposedly a high black on black crime rate(it's actually not significantly higher than white on white crime) the black community shouldn't be angered by aggressive violent police tactics

Nerdlingr · 25-11-2014 06:05PM

Peist2007 wrote: »

Nope it's an analogy, not a great one but an analogy all the same. Why are you pretending not to understand simple things like that?

It's a sh*t analogy in fairness.

Amazingfun · 25-11-2014 06:07PM

Short bit on how the physical evidence corroborates Wilson's account of what took place:

http://therightscoop.com/cnn-analyst-reads-crucial-evidence-that-destroys-the-lies-about-michael-brown-shooting/

Sclosages · 25-11-2014 06:18PM

Amazingfun wrote: »

Short bit on how the physical evidence corroborates Wilson's account of what took place:

http://therightscoop.com/cnn-analyst-reads-crucial-evidence-that-destroys-the-lies-about-michael-brown-shooting/

Oh you actually read something? From therightscoop? Good boy.

Sclosages · 25-11-2014 06:19PM

Nerdlingr wrote: »

It's a sh*t analogy in fairness.

It's not - I can't see any difference in the demeanour or threat of either my English lad or my American lad.
One was shot dead and one spent a night in the whacker probably.

Beano · 25-11-2014 06:20PM

Sclosages wrote: »

Oh you actually read something? From therightscoop? Good boy.

They read from the transcript of the grand jury. no editorialising.

Amazingfun · 25-11-2014 06:20PM

Sclosages wrote: »

Oh you actually read something? From therightscoop? Good boy.

It's video from CNN. What is wrong with you?

Looting and Rioting in St. Louis (Merged)

Comments