Michael Brown - Discuss the facts and the truth

[Devon97]

yeah the video isnt playable on this...

Trying to see how its directly related to my post above.

Im sure its all fact based... lol

You're doing EXACTLY what he predicted you would 

[Ron]

So he did not get shot with his hands up???  Based on this, he was running back to them? But still, 6 shots, 2 to the head?

Begins at 6:28/6:29 of video

Man 1: 'How’d he get from there to there?'
Eyewitness: 'Because he ran, the police was still in the truck – cause he was like over the truck'
Eyewitness: 'But him and the police was both in the truck, then he ran – the police got out and ran after him'
Eyewitness: 'Then the next thing I know he doubled back toward him cus - the police had his gun drawn already on him'
Man 1: 'Oh, the police got his gun'
Eyewitness: 'The police kept dumpin on him, and I’m thinking the police kept missing – he like – be like – but he kept coming toward him
(crosstalk)'
Eyewitness: 'Police fired shots – the next thing I know – the police was missing'
Man 1: 'The Police?'
Eyewitness: 'The Police shot him'
Man 1: 'Police?'
Eyewitness: 'The next thing I know … I’m thinking … the dude started running …  then something about he took it from him'

[mr.turbo]

pretty sure I have this whole scenario on lock - any questions let me know

basically the local keystone cops are a bunch of peckerwoods

unfortunately such is life in small town USA

[Option D]

How is are the number of shots relevant?  Do you understand how an officer is trained to shoot his weapon?  

no i dont. Not trained as a police officer..

I figured 6 shots might be excessive.. but maybe im wrong

[Archer77]

no i dont. Not trained as a police officer..

I figured 6 shots might be excessive.. but maybe im wrong

You're basing the entirety of your argument on Brown being unarmed and six bullets.   

[Archer77]

So he did not get shot with his hands up???  Based on this, he was running back to them? But still, 6 shots, 2 to the head?

I have no idea how you gathered his hands were up.    Brown doubled back toward the cop and kept approaching.

[Soul Crusher]

but its like Fact... The unarmed kid was shot 6 times and killed. no?

Meaningless nonsense.

So lets say I have no weapon and I see a cop on the street and physically attack him or get in a fight with him - guess what probably gonna happen?  

[mr.turbo]

So he did not get shot with his hands up???  Based on this, he was running back to them? But still, 6 shots, 2 to the head?

Hate to contradict the forum opinion but, according to the forensics expert (who did the second autopsy) there is in-fact a possibility of a shot from behind and with arms raised.  

As getbiggers know the arm is mobile so hard to determine where it was exactly.

4 shots went into the arm 2 into TOP the head.

[240 is Back]

It doesn't matter how many times the police officials change the story.

I disagree.   I think the shoot was legal and the rioters should be imprisoned.

But I disagree about the police being able to change stories.  IMO, if a police report changes on something like "Why did we approach this kid", it's VERY DANGEROUS.

It's how dangerous trends get started.  It's how police stop people for RANDOM reasons then just change it to whatever they find.  It sets a dangerous precedent.

People act like I'm defending the kid that got shot or the rioters - I'm not.   I just greatly dislike any situation where police continually amend a report in response to public pressure.  "I stopped a jaywalker" to "I stopped a robber".   It could be any of us, with cops just randomly shaking us down then inventing a reason.  How many people a day "jaywalking" does this cop engage with?  

[Agnostic007]

Locally, a cop shot an "unarmed" man who was struggling with the officer for his weapon, had wrapped the radio mic cord around the officers neck and was chocking the officer. The officer shot the subject. The officer was not indicted.

Locally, a cop chases a person after that person attempted to commit fraud at a bank the detective was at investigating a earlier robbery. The chase ends in the plainclothes officer struggling with the individual. The gun in the officers had goes off during the struggle/taking the individual into custody striking the subject in the back of the head. Officer was indicted.   

Two cases of an unarmed subject shot by police. Two different outcomes. This current situation could be either of these versions with either outcome. We (you and I) don't have enough facts to determine which it will be as of yet, and people like Option D are just showing how warped a persons sense of reality can be when hatred overtakes rational thinking... No offense to Option D

[Archer77]

Hate to contradict the forum opinion but, according to the forensics expert (who did the second autopsy) there is in-fact a possibility of a shot from behind and with arms raised.  

As getbiggers know the arm is mobile so hard to determine where it was exactly.

4 shots went into the arm 2 into TOP the head.

I read the report and I didn't read the possibility of a shot from behind.

Like the Ferguson shooting of Michael Brown, there appears to be no police camera video.

Like the Ferguson shooting of Michael Brown, the officer shot the victim “multiple times”

Like the shooting of Michael Brown, the officer in the Dallas shooting stated that:

The man moved toward the officer in “a manner perceived to be dangerous to the officer”

Shed any tears for this guy, OptionD?  Even bother to find out about him?   No, because he doesn't fit into your narrative.   Did people use his death as an excuse to steal and destroy property hard working people paid for?

http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/2014/08/dallas-police-investigating-officer-involved-shooting.html/

[The Ugly]

but its like Fact... The unarmed kid was shot 6 times and killed. no?

You said "guilty." Cop shot an unarmed man, that is your entire basis for guilt? You can't imagine a scenario where this might be justified, a "gentle giant" and all? I'm not gonna offer one, because I don't want to insult your intelligence. This is a childish response, D, you're smarter than this.

"Six times" is another lazy distraction. Please show me a video where a cop just shoots once or twice. They always unload, because they're trained to fire only when their life is in danger, which means shoot to kill. If he's pulling the trigger, he's firing until the man drops.

 

[Lustral]

Locally, a cop shot an "unarmed" man who was struggling with the officer for his weapon, had wrapped the radio mic cord around the officers neck and was chocking the officer. The officer shot the subject. The officer was not indicted.

Locally, a cop chases a person after that person attempted to commit fraud at a bank the detective was at investigating a earlier robbery. The chase ends in the plainclothes officer struggling with the individual. The gun in the officers had goes off during the struggle/taking the individual into custody striking the subject in the back of the head. Officer was indicted.   

Two cases of an unarmed subject shot by police. Two different outcomes. This current situation could be either of these versions with either outcome. We (you and I) don't have enough facts to determine which it will be as of yet, and people like Option D are just showing how warped a persons sense of reality can be when hatred overtakes rational thinking... No offense to Option D

But what colour were they?

[mr.turbo]

I read the report and I didn't read the possibility of a shot from behind.

The pathologist, Shawn Parcells said it at press conference

[Agnostic007]

But what colour were they?

In both cases suspects were black. In the one indicted the officer was white. Not sure about the other

[Archer77]

The pathologist, Shawn Parcells said it at press conference

They also stated that browns body being in motion while the officer was firing would account for the entry point on the top not the back of the head

[mr.turbo]

he said one of the arm shots was possibly from behind

[The Ugly]

He was shot six times but that is meaningless. It's also meaningless that Brown didn't have a gun.  And your trying to find a reason why the officer is an evil white racist who killed a person because they were black.   The fact you can't see your own hypocrisy is very sad.

Should have read this before I responded. Pretty much exactly what I posted.

[Archer77]

he said one of the arm shots was possibly from behind

I would wager it wasnt fired from behind as that wouldn't be consistent with the other shots.

[Option D]

You said "guilty." Cop shot an unarmed man, that is your entire basis for guilt? You can't imagine a scenario where this might be justified, a "gentle giant" and all? I'm not gonna offer one, because I don't want to insult your intelligence. This is a childish response, D, you're smarter than this.

"Six times" is another lazy distraction. Please show me a video where a cop just shoots once or twice. They always unload, because they're trained to fire only when their life is in danger, which means shoot to kill. If he's pulling the trigger, he's firing until the man drops.

 

About the "guilty" word.  I would say the police officer is "responsible" based on what i knew about the case.

6 times to me seems excessive. I thought 2 was enough.. Didnt know about the whole "empty the clip" stuff

[240 is Back]

About the "guilty" word.  I would say the police officer is "responsible" based on what i knew about the case.

6 times to me seems excessive. I thought 2 was enough.. Didnt know about the whole "empty the clip" stuff

Yes.  you fire until the person is no longer a threat. If he was "IN" the car being shot, the last headshot was to an already dead man.  Head fully slumped.  And I'd bet more than a few bullets went thru the windshield, missing bad guy.

I'm missing this detail - was the head of the victim INSIDE the car when he was shot? 

[The Ugly]

Didnt know about the whole "empty the clip" stuff

Until the threat is eliminated, as far as I know. Big dude, plenty of adrenaline, small caliber, two might not do the job. Perhaps Agnostic can clarify.

Then Ron can confirm his clarification.

[Option D]

 you fire until the person is no longer a threat. 

did not know that. I assumed (my fault) that you shoot to injure.

[Soul Crusher]

did not know that. I assumed (my fault) that you shoot to injure.

That is a retarded assumption to make

[Option D]

Until the threat is eliminated, as far as I know. Big dude, plenty of adrenaline, small caliber, two might not do the job. Perhaps Agnostic can clarify.

Then Ron can confirm his clarification.

is there are a thing called "Proper Esclation of force"

I asked because a cop told me that regarding this other kid that just got killed named Ezell Ford by the cops the other day here