[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

The problem is that the eyewitness reports have all been pretty consistent with each other.

The other eye witnesses came after Michael Brown's friend's recount of the story was public. They may be completely true. They may be misremembering a bit after hearing the account on TV - our memories are far from perfect - and their own biases may influence them. But that's actually the point, if all the eye witnesses claimed he was shot in the back from a distance running away and the coroner report disproves this, doesn't that mean the eye witnesses shouldn't be taken as fact? (And the opposite holds true).

The story coming from police has been a whole lot less so. First he had stolen a candy bar, then he hadn't stolen anything, now they have tape of him stealing cigars. But they didn't even realize that he was even a suspect in that robbery until after his death. The officer was not responding to the robbery. If the officer wasn't responding to the robbery, why did he interact with Brown? And in those three minutes before the other officer arrived, just what happened?

Michael Brown had just committed a robbery. For some reason, probably because as already proven he was an #######, he was holding up traffic in the middle of the street. The officer interacted with him over this. The officer was not aware Michael Brown had committed a violent crime. Was Michael Brown aware that the officer wasn't aware? We don't know.

There are zero answers to anything in those three minutes.

My whole point of waiting for evidence.

Police were all too happy to point out that Brown had just committed a crime--but there is zero information from the shooting itself,

Pointing out a person had just committed a violent crime obviously lends credence to the side of the officer, which is why they wanted to point it out. There's not a ton of information, but the officers side has been told.

which is what has caused such community uproar. Again--the police did not realize until after Brown was dead that he was involved in a crime.

You're right. But we do have a violent criminal getting into confrontation with the police. I say wait for evidence, as always, but removing the racial issues and lack of evidence, why should the violent criminal be given credibility and not the police?

What reasoning did the officer have to shoot Brown?

According to the police, Brown went for his gun.

What prompted the confrontation?

Walking in the middle of the road.

Those are huge questions that are being completely ignored in favor of pointing out "but look, look! He just stole stuff!" Pretty sure minor assault and theft doesn't warrant deadly force.

Never said it did. In fact I explicitly said it doesn't. However, a violent criminal had just committed a violent crime moments before interacting with an officer who has said he went for his gun.

And if the officer actually was injured, if he actually was acting in self-defense, why is there no report from the officer himself?

There is, and there will be a coroner report and other information that will come to light. Maybe in favour of the officer, maybe against. Again, my argument is let that stuff come out before jumping to conclusions.

This police force hasn't proven to be very trustworthy, and in the days following, they've proven to enjoy using excessive force. Some transparency of this investigation would go a long way toward diffusing the situation, only the entire process looks a whole lot like a coverup.

The FBI has been brought into investigate. Ferguson police force used unnecessary force and made themselves look stupid but that has nothing to do with the actual confrontation.

Also, after a single night of reprieve, riot cops are back, threatening to arrest protesters and media alike. "Arrest or other actions," is the threat. Not sure what "other actions" could mean.

Again, a result of the incident but nothing to do with the actual confrontation.

Edit: Apparently there is rioting happening now. This whole thing is just a disaster.

Agreed