Just saw this article: http://www.ijreview.com/2014/08/168698-eyewitness-recalls-important-detail-background-video-mins-ferguson-shooting/ It's a video taken directly after Browns death (so a warning: his body is in the street, uncovered) that caught a background conversation between a neighbor and someone who witnessed the incident. It's kind of hard to hear, as there's talking over the background conversation... But basically, the man is saying that after Brown ran from the cop, he didn't stop and surrender like so many others are saying... He ran back at that cop. So the officer was shooting Brown as he was running toward him and hitting him, but it wasn't stopping him. This line of events corroborates what Darren Wilson said happened, who speculates Brown wasn't feeling the shots because he was on some type of drug. I guess we'll find that out when the toxicology report comes back. This was the first witness testimony recorded, before the "he said, she said" started.. So if this witnesses account is accurate, it could change the entire investigation. I don't know what to believe anymore.
You hear him say, "he ran back at the cop"? I hear him say, "the next thing I know he was coming back toward [the cop], [snip] I was thinking the police must be missing, then he kept coming toward him." I don't see that impeaching the other witnesses at all. The only thing he doesn't say is Brown's hands were up. I have a hard time believing that Brown would turn and attack a man shooting at him. I have an easier time believing Brown turned around to surrender. Whether the cop thought Brown was surrendering or attacking, only the cop knows. It wouldn't surprise me to find out the cop, with an adrenalin blurred brain, imagined Brown was attacking and not surrendering, or believed some little inadvertent movement of Brown's was reaching for a weapon, or that something looked like a weapon in Brown's hand. If the officer expected surrender to be without turning around, he could have interpreted turning around in and by itself as an aggressive move.
Not saying it's the case, but I have a deputy friend who got the shit beat out of him by a man on pcp as the deputy was emptying his 9mm into the assailants chest. We use 40's now, so that's a little less of a problem
They've done studies. It really doesn't matter what caliber you've using. If the person you're shooting is less then 40 feet away, he's not going to have any problems reaching you, if you don't hit something instantly fatal. PCP or no.
But we have no evidence Brown was high on anything, let alone crazed on PCP. You are talking about what Wilson might have imagined. He could have imagined he saw a gun in Brown's hand. (Which is a mistake I think Wilson should be held accountable for but to what degree depends on if the autopsy shows Brown's arms were raised or not.) He might have just kept pulling the trigger in a rage that he was punched and his authority not obeyed. The issue I noted here is, the witness statement in this video does not say "charging at the officer" and is not inconsistent with closer standing witnesses' statements that Brown turned to surrender.
One of autopsies has been released. While the shots are all from the front, keep in mind the diagram is for anatomical purposes, with the palms unnaturally facing forward. It isn't clear from the drawing but the coroner will know if those arm hits were likely with the arms at one's side with the palms toward the body or facing backward, or if they were more likely with the arms help up, palms are then naturally facing forward. Just looking at the drawing, I'd say it's more likely those arms were up, with palms facing the shooter.
Two people, Johnson and Mitchell, thought he was hit from behind. But Mitchell actually only said, "he jerked like he was hit from behind". So regardless of what they said they saw, that there were no wounds in the back only tells us the cop was a bad shot at ~30+ feet. It doesn't impeach any witness testimony. I'm much more interested in the autopsy report than in the details of what the witnesses saw. I believe the witnesses. I think Johnson was likely to have fudged a bit, that's natural. But Mitchell is very credible that is what she saw. What one believes one saw vs what actually occurred is never going to be exact. That's the nature of eye-witness testimony. But the physical evidence is another story. It can be wrong, as we've seen from the claims that bite marks matched when they didn't. And sometimes the jury discounts physical evidence they shouldn't have, such as the DNA evidence in the OJ trial. But here, given the autopsy, I think combined with the blood and/or powder evidence on the clothing which this examiner has not yet had access to, I think we will have a more definitive answer if Brown's arms were raised or not.
All speculation. What likely happened, since we are all speculating here, is that the cop in question was in a state of agitation, had a young male disobey a command to move out of the street when he told him to, and on top of that started mouthing off to him. This enraged the cop, so he pulled out his gun and shot him to death. This is not a common occurrence, but this occasionally happens when you have males jockeying for authority, getting angry, and one of them or both have guns. They will get drawn and someone will start shooting.
I've already been seeing stories that say, because the bullet entered near the top of Brown's head, he must have been running toward the cop.... But according to the autopsy report, it could have been that he was running toward him or surrendering.. There's still no proof of what happened. I'd like to believe the witnesses.. especially because it took the police so long to give their side of the story. If it was a justified shooting, why not come out and say it right away? It took a long time before I learned of the officer's side of the story, something he still hasn't been interviewed for. It seemed like they were waiting for the witnesses to come forward and say what they saw, so that the police could twist it to seem like they were in the right. I don't know what's going on. I just want it under control and over with.
From the CNN medical examiner they have on as an expert, unless you believe he was charging like a bull, a 6'4'' man shot twice in the head, both consistent with top down trajectory, show he was getting down or falling down. The 'charging like a bull' scenario is far fetched. The expert on CNN even rolled his eyes at that speculated scenario. Also from this morning's press conference with the medical examiners that did the second autopsy, one of the arm wounds could have been from the back, they cannot tell and it was the NYT reporter who mistakenly said all the shots were from the front. They need the clothing and initial X-rays of the bullet locations in the body to determine the position the body was in when the bullets hit. The eye wound was particularly Spoiler: gruesome The bullet entered at the eyebrow, came out the eye then back into the jaw, out then in near the collar bone. Only the shot in the top of the head was fatal. They didn't say for sure but it looked like none of the arm wounds, including the one that re-entered the chest, would have caused Brown to fall. That only leaves the far-fetched charging like a bull, or getting on the ground ducking or surrendering.
This: http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2014/08/18/john_oliver_on_ferguson_missouri_and_police_militarization_video.html Brilliant. Long, but a great watch.
The scariest article I've read so far. The woman mentioned at the end is from Jerseyville, Illinois... That is literally ten minutes away from where I grew up my entire life. http://www.buzzfeed.com/joelanderson/what-it-was-like-in-the-streets-on-fergusons-worst-night?bffbnews
This case has reached a point where the truth is impossible. Supporters of the victim will refuse to accept any other story than the one they want to believe, so even if a toxicology report showed he was on drugs, there will be protests calling it a coverup. Every piece of evidence from now on that may contradict his innocence will be called a coverup and a lie, regardless if it is or not. This case has reached the point where people will only believe in the story they have already invested in.
There is evidence. Some people (including myself) are looking at the evidence. If the evidence supports Wilson I'm more than willing to change my current conclusion. But right now three witnesses and the preliminary autopsy do not support what we have been given as Wilson's version of events. Wilson's version has only been given to us via the police chief, (second or third hand), and via "Josie" who called in a radio program saying she was a friend of Wilson's fiancé and gave a third hand account CNN claimed to have vetted. If you have an evidence based version, or some reason none of the witnesses or the autopsy provide relevant data, let's hear it. But it's just as wrong to dismiss people who actually are looking at the evidence as it would be to only cherry pick what confirms one's biases.
There you go again @GingerCoffee. You're failing to read what I'm writing. I'm not dismissing the evidence or the people who are looking. Where did you even get that idea? Of coarse there is evidence. An established bias is exactly what I'm talking about. I'm saying that for many in the angry crowd any evidence contrary to their belief of what happened will be rejected as a conspiracy or lie in order to cement their current view of the incident and their fight for their version of justice based on that view. We've passed the point of reasonable objectivity amongst a proportion of the population. Anything less than a murder conviction will not appease them, even if that conviction is actually wrong. They will attack any evidence that the victim may have been threatening police or provoking an attack as victim blaming, even if that IS what happened. At what point did my opinion of what happened come into play?
yep, all because I left out the word some. A writerly lesson for me. But you'd think that would go without saying.
My take on the evidence.... Unless Brown had a gun pointed at the officer, or something that looked a lot like a gun, there was no reason for the officer to use deadly force to take him down. But then again, I don't believe there's ever cause for deadly force. I think that police should carry guns with rubber bullets to immobilize suspects, not kill. I don't believe there is EVER a justification to kill someone, unless it's an extreme case of you or them. In other comedic news: http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/2014/08/19/mike-brown-being-misidentified-on-social-media/14273807/ A photo of "Brown" has been circulating that shows him holding a gun with a wad of cash in his mouth... Turns out, that's not Brown. An officer in Kansas City posted the image of his Facebook saying it was brown. He's now facing disciplinary action. It's amazing how far some people will go to smear the victim.
I accept your clarification and apologize for my false assumption. There are times when adding the modifier, some, is unnecessary and tedious. But in certain discussions where people are debating or discussing a politically divided controversy, it's probably more necessary than not. People are divided into two factions on this one, just as they were with Trayvon Martin's killing. Both sides believe they are looking at the evidence. The problem is most either have an underlying bias that police frequently lose their tempers and have an issue when their authority is challenged, or see every young black man as a thug. A shove of a store clerk becomes "roughing the clerk up" and an assault. (Should every kid on the playground that shoves another kid be charged with assault?) Evidence of petty theft and pot use means a young black man is surely capable of murdering a cop. I do have an underlying bias. I have seen a number of videos of police with anger issues beating and shooting surrendering suspects. And a lot of kids commit petty crimes and smoke pot. It is not evidence of being a gang-banger or murderous thug. It's possible to recognize one's underlying biases and still properly evaluate the evidence. There is evidence the cop was angry and out of control: Three witnesses we've heard give first hand accounts and the motive of Johnson admitting they didn't get out of the street when told. And 6 shots into an unarmed teen suggests it as well. I've yet to see any evidence Brown was more than a petty criminal. Then there is the autopsy: no evidence of Brown's fist having hit anything like Wilson's face, and two bullets that went from the top of Brown's head in a downward trajectory. Brown was 6'4''. The only way that happened is if Brown was trying to get on the ground surrendering or if he was bull rushing Wilson with his head down. It's also been suggested Brown could have tripped, but that's as bad as shooting him after he was surrendering. Maybe a football player runs in that position, but it's a tad far fetched to think Brown did. Three witnesses corroborate Brown trying to surrender. Maybe Johnson's story had some self-serving fudging, it's to be expected. But he freely admitted from the beginning that they didn't get out of the street and that Brown had stolen the cigarillos. One of the witnesses has altered her version to fit the autopsy finding. I suspect in a trial she won't make a good witness. Then there is Tiffany Mitchell. She gave a very credible account, completely consistent with with autopsy, she was very close to the event. I've heard a rumor there are "six witnesses" that corroborate Wilson's account. And we haven't heard from Wilson directly or gotten the rest of the autopsy which might shed more light on the position of the arms when struck. Fine, show me the evidence. But right now, it looks like excessive use of force and criminal negligence.
It is very common for somebody to shield their face from possible damage by tucking their chin to their chest. Think about how you would run through a cornfield. It is also very common for people who are not trained fighters to tuck their head even if they are on the offensive. I believe your only two possible scenarios have been greatly simplified in order to confirm your bias.
Tucking one's head suggests fear, surrender, or whatever, not aggressively coming at Wilson. But regardless, your comment dismisses the fact I said the autopsy findings plus the eye witness accounts. The bias is in assuming every black person is going to lie to make the cops look bad. Tiffany Mitchell, at this point unless something else is revealed, is a very credible witness, didn't know Brown, didn't live in the neighborhood, owns a business and was coming to pick up her employee, came forward right away, and was standing very close to the events (10-20 feet away by her estimate). If something turns up that impeaches her testimony, fine. But there is no reason to think she's lying unless you think being black makes a witness suspect.
No. It means you are protecting your face, which is a natural tendency whether you are on the attack or retreat. I suggest witnessing a street fight between untrained fighters. Even some trained fighters will lose their cool and tuck their head and begin windmilling. If not that, walk in the snow or rain. Do you hold your head up? No? Does that mean you are scared of the precipitation? I haven't seen the autopsy to know the angles, but any bullet entering the frontal bone and coming close to the occipital would show a downward angle. Even for a 6'4" man (which I am one of) wouldn't require that much of a tuck.
His head was down, that's not in question. You are describing one reason that might be. I don't disagree. Keep in mind the one fatal head wound was at the very apex of the head according to the press conference with Dr Baden who did the autopsy. Why are you not also considering the eye witnesses?
