I don't see the problem with believing the guy is guilty. It's not like we're judges. As you said above, just because someone's been cleared in court doesn't necessarily convince you that he's innocent.
I do not see myself ever believing he's innocent, mainly because the evidence I see convinces me that this doesn't add up. I'm not going to wait for the court system, which is heavily weighted in favour of the cop, to prove the guy innocent.
I don't see the problem with believing the guy is guilty. It's not like we're judges. As you said above, just because someone's been cleared in court doesn't necessarily convince you that he's innocent.
I do not see myself ever believing he's innocent, mainly because the evidence I see convinces me that this doesn't add up. I'm not going to wait for the court system, which is heavily weighted in favour of the cop, to prove the guy innocent.
Appreciate the response, disagree with the sentiment. But you're right something doesn't add up, just not sure for who.
On one hand an office decided to straight up execute a teenager in front of potentially a ton of witnesses in the middle of the day only to later find out that the teen and his friend (who was left unharmed) were coincidentally involved in a robbery only 10 minutes before.
Or a teenager decided it was a good idea to piss off the police 10 minutes after robbing a store and sacrificed his life over 50 dollars worth of cigars.
Both cases are extremely bizzare and there's not exactly hard evidence to discredit either. Think making up your mind up at this point simply comes down to what biases someone has.
The Following User Says Thank You to Oling_Roachinen For This Useful Post:
Long is not once mentioned in the article. Stop distorting facts, the media on both sides will do that for us.
But once again, more possible evidence that aligns with 0 of the witnesses or stories. If true, Brown was not shot once near the vehicle and then again later nor was he shot once in the back before turning around.
How am I distorting facts? I've heard the Audio recording.
I was just saying what I heard in the Audio and a link to the story.
Don't snap at me I'm not biased for either side right now. I posted new Information that police are using as evidence now In a thread I created. Updating is not necessarily my reflected views.
Last edited by combustiblefuel; 08-27-2014 at 05:09 PM.
I don't see the problem with believing the guy is guilty. It's not like we're judges. As you said above, just because someone's been cleared in court doesn't necessarily convince you that he's innocent.
I do not see myself ever believing he's innocent, mainly because the evidence I see convinces me that this doesn't add up. I'm not going to wait for the court system, which is heavily weighted in favour of the cop, to prove the guy innocent.
How am I distorting facts? I've heard the Audio recording.
While 'long' is subjective, the pause was about 3 seconds. There's a reason long wasn't used in the article. It was noticeable, not long. And I don't really know who's side it favours anyways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by combustiblefuel
Don't snap at me I'm not biased for either side right now. I posted new Information that police are using as evidence now In a thread I created. Updating is not necessarily my reflected views.
Not biased:
Quote:
Originally Posted by combustiblefuel
I think he was 100 percent wrong. That's an execution he performed.
Sure.
You can't go around saying the cop was 100% wrong then claim not to be biased.
You think the officer executed Michael Brown, you've said so. That's fine, you're being honest and it may even end up being the case. But don't try and pretend you're not being biased. You've been condemning the officer from day 1.
While 'long' is subjective, the pause was about 3 seconds. There's a reason long wasn't used in the article. It was noticeable, not long. And I don't really know who's side it favours anyways.
Not biased:
Sure.
You can't go around saying the cop was 100% wrong then claim not to be biased.
You think the officer executed Michael Brown, you've said so. That's fine, you're being honest and it may even end up being the case. But don't try and pretend you're not being biased. You've been condemning the officer from day 1.
I did for a little while . Yes, which is why I just said "right now I am not". More information is out there. I generally do show distain for lethal force tho unless the suspect has a gun or another form of weapon.
Last edited by combustiblefuel; 08-27-2014 at 07:03 PM.
Let's get to the actual case and let the officer defend himself(and the prosecutor present his case against) before we make up our minds.
I might be more apt to believe the officer if he'd actually attempted to defend himself, shown his face anywhere at all, or at the very least filed an incident report about an altercation in which a man ended up dead.
As it is, we've heard from some "friend" of his that wasn't even present at the moment of the shooting, and not a single peep out of the officer responsible for the shooting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by V
All I see is there were 10 shots. 10. At an unarmed man. That's freaking insane. I can't think of one possible scenario where 10 shots at an unarmed man could be remotely acceptable. If that doesn't tell you that the officer was out of control, I don't know what will.
And this sums it up completely. I have a hard time believing that a trained officer can't stop an unarmed man without 10 shots, 6 of which connected. He may or may not be racist, he may or may not be a murderer, but he almost definitely used excessive force on an unarmed man, and that is a major issue with police in this country; if nothing else, hopefully this will draw some attention to the issue.
I might be more apt to believe the officer if he'd actually attempted to defend himself, shown his face anywhere at all, or at the very least filed an incident report about an altercation in which a man ended up dead.
It's in his best interest to do so. He's been told not to talk. As more evidence comes out, the more scrutiny the eye witnesses will be under as their statements don't seem to match entirely with other evidence. When you're dealing with the potential to end up in jail, it's best to play it safe and listen to your lawyer.
Quote:
And this sums it up completely. I have a hard time believing that a trained officer can't stop an unarmed man without 10 shots, 6 of which connected. He may or may not be racist, he may or may not be a murderer, but he almost definitely used excessive force on an unarmed man, and that is a major issue with police in this country; if nothing else, hopefully this will draw some attention to the issue.
I was under the impression that the autopsies seem to suggest the fatal shot was likely the last fired (the one on the top of the head). Unfortunately, it's both consistent with falling down and charging towards the officer and doesn't really support one side. The 'murder' camp will claim the eye witnesses were more or less right and he was shot one more time in the head while collapsing to the floor while the 'self-defence' side will claim it was consistent to the candid video conversation that Michael Brown was shot at and continued to charge toward the officer until the final blow to the head.
This was posted in the Funny pics thread, but belongs here. Pretty powerful segment by Jon Stewart in which he breaks a couple times while getting upset during it.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to jayswin For This Useful Post:
It's in his best interest to do so. He's been told not to talk. As more evidence comes out, the more scrutiny the eye witnesses will be under as their statements don't seem to match entirely with other evidence. When you're dealing with the potential to end up in jail, it's best to play it safe and listen to your lawyer.
Understandable, but again: how did he not file an incident report? How is it that his weapon was fired 10 times and a man ended up dead, and he never even filed a report about it? What do you have go on for evidence on his side if there isn't an incident report filed?
But again, this is a police force which doesn't bother to file citizen complaints about its officers, so I'm sure incident reports are deemed unnecessary as well. Regardless of whether the homicide was justifiable or not, the entire force needs a major overhaul to their methods, both in the field and with regards to paperwork. There needs to be some kind of accountability.
Quote:
I was under the impression that the autopsies seem to suggest the fatal shot was likely the last fired (the one on the top of the head). Unfortunately, it's both consistent with falling down and charging towards the officer and doesn't really support one side. The 'murder' camp will claim the eye witnesses were more or less right and he was shot one more time in the head while collapsing to the floor while the 'self-defence' side will claim it was consistent to the candid video conversation that Michael Brown was shot at and continued to charge toward the officer until the final blow to the head.
And had the officer filed an incident report, we would have a more valid explanation than a "friend of the officer" who wasn't present, who merely called into a radio show. As it is, all there is to go on is autopsy and eyewitness reports, because the officer hasn't actually in any official way stated his side of the story.
Regardless of what shot was the fatal shot--a trained officer should be able to stop an unarmed man without needing a fatal shot. Fatalities from police should be a rarity--in this country we shrug our shoulders and figure it's all part of life and we move on. That is not acceptable anywhere, and especially not in a country that likes to tout itself as the Best Country in the World.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to wittynickname For This Useful Post:
I might be more apt to believe the officer if he'd actually attempted to defend himself, shown his face anywhere at all, or at the very least filed an incident report about an altercation in which a man ended up dead.
As it is, we've heard from some "friend" of his that wasn't even present at the moment of the shooting, and not a single peep out of the officer responsible for the shooting.
And this sums it up completely. I have a hard time believing that a trained officer can't stop an unarmed man without 10 shots, 6 of which connected. He may or may not be racist, he may or may not be a murderer, but he almost definitely used excessive force on an unarmed man, and that is a major issue with police in this country; if nothing else, hopefully this will draw some attention to the issue.
The photos of the officers injuries (if they exist) will very likely be shown during a trial or if he's cleared by the Attorney General. Releasing evidence prior to the trial is a no no as it can harm a persons right to a fair trial (still can't believe the Police there released the video of Brown in the store).
As for filing an incident report, many departments require a supervisor or other officer to fill out the report for a few reasons. First, the subject officer may be providing evidence against themselves by filling out the report. They may be unable to fill out the report due to physical or mental trauma (being involved in shooting is incredibly stressful) and finally the optics of a police officer writing a report on an incident where they used lethal force on someone is not good.
There isn't a peep from the officer likely because his lawyer told him not to speak. Just like lawyers tell every other person who is the subject of an investigation to not say anything.
Finally the 6 - 10 shots. We don't know the range, angle, proximity or if there was a struggle for the weapon. It's absolutely impossible to determine what happened when there isn't a clear picture of the incident. During a shooting, parties involved will experience a massive adrenaline dump, often audio and visual impairment as well as confusion. Human beings aren't paper targets, you can't "count holes" in a person like you can on a target at a secure gun range during a training session. There are instances of officers recounting a shooting and thinking that they weren't hitting the perpetrator because they weren't stopping when in reality their rounds did hit. A service pistol is a short barreled weapon, very small errors in grip, sight alignment or stance can result in poor accuracy at distance.
Everyone here is playing armchair quarterback. Th investigation will reveal what happened.
The Following User Says Thank You to Zulu29 For This Useful Post:
I agree, possibly shady about the incident report. His lawyer told him not to. Shady, not necessarily 100% racist broaddaylight murderer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wittynickname
Regardless of what shot was the fatal shot--a trained officer should be able to stop an unarmed man without needing a fatal shot. Fatalities from police should be a rarity--in this country we shrug our shoulders and figure it's all part of life and we move on. That is not acceptable anywhere, and especially not in a country that likes to tout itself as the Best Country in the World.
As for this, officers in the states are not trained to incapacitate when shooting. If they fire their gun they are risking lethal force on the person. Trained to shoot at the target until the threat is removed. I don't know if it's that necessarily wrong, I do agree it should be extremely rare for an officer to fire their gun, but when they do I do think they should be 'planning' (poor word choice) on it being lethal force. Not making judgment on this particular incident whether it was reasonable or warranted.
Last edited by Oling_Roachinen; 08-27-2014 at 08:07 PM.
I was under the impression that the autopsies seem to suggest the fatal shot was likely the last fired (the one on the top of the head). Unfortunately, it's both consistent with falling down and charging towards the officer and doesn't really support one side. The 'murder' camp will claim the eye witnesses were more or less right and he was shot one more time in the head while collapsing to the floor while the 'self-defence' side will claim it was consistent to the candid video conversation that Michael Brown was shot at and continued to charge toward the officer until the final blow to the head.
How do you actually picture this going down?
You say yourself that the autopsies suggest the shot in the top of his head was the one that killed him (I have no idea if that's true) but the guy has been shot five times by then and then he's charging from several meters away like The Rhino from the old Spidey cartoons?
__________________
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to RougeUnderoos For This Useful Post:
You say yourself that the autopsies suggest the shot in the top of his head was the one that killed him (I have no idea if that's true) but the guy has been shot five times by then and then he's charging from several meters away like The Rhino from the old Spidey cartoons?
I certainly don't know what's more likely, but it seems like the two stories being presented (at least prior to the court):
Either a teenager is shot in the back, turns around, pleads for his life with his hands up and is executed in front of several potential witnesses. Coincidentally, and unknowingly, the teen had resorted to violence and intimidation only 10 minutes prior. A couple eye-witnesses present (more-or-less) this. Too bizarre for me to accept at complete face value.
Or that the man was shot multiple times, and continued to charge at the officer. A candid conversation caught on tape between 2 unknown men seem to indicate this as a possibility. http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/17/un...#ixzz3BeKUmIH8
Quote:
“He was like, over the truck, [garbled] so then he ran. Police got out, and ran after he him,” said the witness. After running, the witness said that Brown stopped and turned back around. “Next thing I know he’s coming back towards the police. The police had his gun drawn on him,” the witness said. “Police kept dumping on him, I’m thinking that the police missed him,” he continued, saying that he heard “at least five shots” and saying that “police are…this far from him.” “Next thing I know,” the witness said, “I think…dude start running, kept coming toward the police.”
Too bizarre for me to accept at complete face value either.
