Circumstances similar to Ferguson

[aGameOfThrones]

How so? I see a lot of similarity:

• 
  [*]Someone called the police for alleged criminal activity in both cases.
• Both the unidentified Florida deputy and Darren Wilson claimed the alleged perp grabbed for the officer's weapon, but there is no corroborating evidence in either case.
• Both officers went unidentified immediately after the event.
• I would assume that both officers claimed fear for their safety in using their firearm. There is practically no other claim they can make.
• Both stories of officer safety imperiled seem dubious in both cases. Corroborated eyewitness accounts suggest Brown had his hands up. The idea of lighting a truck on fire is possible, but I will bet it did not happen. I will also bet that the 46 year old woman did not grab a stun gun and point it at the deputy. Sounds more improbable than possible. Bad shit and lies stink just the same.
• Dead people tell no tales.

 

[maybemaybenot]

How so? I see a lot of similarity:

• Someone called the police for alleged criminal activity in both cases.
• Both the unidentified Florida deputy and Darren Wilson claimed the alleged perp grabbed for the officer's weapon, but there is no corroborating evidence in either case.
• Both officers went unidentified immediately after the event.
• I would assume that both officers claimed fear for their safety in using their firearm. There is practically no other claim they can make.
• Both stories of officer safety imperiled seem dubious in both cases. Corroborated eyewitness accounts suggest Brown had his hands up. The idea of lighting a truck on fire is possible, but I will bet it did not happen. I will also bet that the 46 year old woman did not grab a stun gun and point it at the deputy. Sounds more improbable than possible. Bad shit and lies stink just the same.
• Dead people tell no tales.

I hate cops as much as anyone, I want cameras on them, but I'm not throwing Darren Wilson under the bus over it. There is corroborating evidence that Brown grabbed his gun (with the caveat that all of this is leaks, and technically we don't know any evidence): an autopsy report concluded that a gunshot to the hand was at close range (because of gun powder right by the wound itself?), and 6 black witnesses have told the grand jury that Brown reached into the vehicle and started the violent altercation. I don't know anything else, I'm not saying Wilson was right or wrong for firing shots after that, but there is evidence for Brown starting the altercation and trying to grab the gun.

Your only logic is that cops lie so stop trusting them, which really just amounts to cops not being allowed to kill when their life is in danger, because then you'll just assume it was murder and ignore their explanation (and forensic and eyewitness evidence that doesn't fit your predetermined view of the officer). Whether Wilson is a criminal or not, Michael Brown is a criminal for robbing a store and attacking an officer. He does not deserve the presumption that he was acting reasonably and innocently after initiating all of the violence in the first place (and he's not on trial, so f*ck the presumption of innocence, Wilson gets the presumption of innocence because he's the one whose freedom is on the line now).

 

[aGameOfThrones]

I hate cops as much as anyone, I want cameras on them, but I'm not throwing Darren Wilson under the bus over it. There is corroborating evidence that Brown grabbed his gun (with the caveat that all of this is leaks, and technically we don't know any evidence): an autopsy report concluded that a gunshot to the hand was at close range (because of gun powder right by the wound itself?), and 6 black witnesses have told the grand jury that Brown reached into the vehicle and started the violent altercation. I don't know anything else, I'm not saying Wilson was right or wrong for firing shots after that, but there is evidence for Brown starting the altercation and trying to grab the gun.

Your only logic is that cops lie so stop trusting them, which really just amounts to cops not being allowed to kill when their life is in danger, because then you'll just assume it was murder and ignore their explanation (and forensic and eyewitness evidence that doesn't fit your predetermined view of the officer). Whether Wilson is a criminal or not, Michael Brown is a criminal for robbing a store and attacking an officer. He does not deserve the presumption that he was acting reasonably and innocently after initiating all of the violence in the first place (and he's not on trial, so f*ck the presumption of innocence, Wilson gets the presumption of innocence because he's the one whose freedom is on the line now).

the aggressor changed?

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

There is corroborating evidence that Brown grabbed his gun[/B] (with the caveat that all of this is leaks, and technically we don't know any evidence)

What evidence is that? The anonymous woman to the radio call in show whose story quickly unraveled? The broken eye socket that never materialized? The "$50 box of cigars" that actually turned out to be packs of cigars with an undetermined value? The false claim of Brown "bullrushing" Wilson that was not substantiated by anyone?

an autopsy report concluded that a gunshot to the hand was at close range (because of gun powder right by the wound itself?),

That's not evidence that Brown grabbed the gun or even reached for it. Brown could have stuck up his hand in a defensive posture. The only autopsy conclusion that can be possibly be drawn is the distance.

and 6 black witnesses have told the grand jury that Brown reached into the vehicle and started the violent altercation

No, that is totally inaccurate.

I don't know anything else

You have been totally inaccurate so far, so you might as well say you don't know anything at all.

Michael Brown is a criminal for robbing a store

No.

Michael Brown is a criminal for...attacking an officer.

No.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Your only logic is that cops lie so stop trusting them,

Everything I posted is based on evidence.

...because then you'll just assume it was murder and ignore their explanation

What explanation is that? Wilson has presented no public explanation. The police report narrative describing the incident is completely blank.

(and forensic and eyewitness evidence that doesn't fit your predetermined view of the officer).

My opinion is based on the autopsy and listening to the eyewitness accounts. Did you read the autopsy or just a the report about the autopsy? Did you listen to any of the eyewitness accounts?

 

[SeanTX]

That's not evidence that Brown grabbed the gun or even reached for it. Brown could have stuck up his hand in a defensive posture.

I still think that the other guy's story may be true, that Wilson pulled up next to them and slammed his car door into Brown (which would be assault if any of us lesser beings did such a thing). I've seen video of a cop intentionally slamming a car door on somebody's leg -- it's not outside the realm of possibility for a cop to do something so stupidly aggressive like that.

And Brown then reacted to that by pushing back and may have tried to get in a punch or two through the open window (which of course is wrong, mundanes are never allowed to assault officers who have assaulted them, he should have just said "yas suh, please don't hit me no mo suh" and then gone to his knees).

Since Brown had just stolen some cigars he was probably on edge already thinking that he was about to go down for that, so when that door hit him he went into total fight or flight mode, maybe thinking he was about to die like so many others have when stopped by the police.

As far as cop lies go, "the suspect tried to grab my gun" ranks right up there with cops yelling "stop resisting!" whle they beat the snot out of somebody who is curled up in a fetal position compliantly taking the beating.

I think Wilson was totally frightened that for once somebody tried to fight back against his bullying, so much that he panicked and went into mag dump mode -- with a final kill shot when Brown had retreated 30 feet away. And afterwards he knew he had an "out" by trotting out the old "he was going for my gun" line .

 

[maybemaybenot]

What evidence is that? The anonymous woman to the radio call in show whose story quickly unraveled? The broken eye socket that never materialized? The "$50 box of cigars" that actually turned out to be packs of cigars with an undetermined value? The false claim of Brown "bullrushing" Wilson that was not substantiated by anyone?




That's not evidence that Brown grabbed the gun or even reached for it. Brown could have stuck up his hand in a defensive posture. The only autopsy conclusion that can be possibly be drawn is the distance.

You've been watching the grand jury proceedings?

"But more than a half-dozen unnamed black witnesses have provided testimony to a St. Louis County grand jury that largely supports Wilson’s account of events of Aug. 9, according to several people familiar with the investigation who spoke with The Washington Post."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/new-evidence-supports-officers-account-of-shooting-in-ferguson/2014/10/22/cf38c7b4-5964-11e4-bd61-346aee66ba29_story.html

And a gunshot wound close to the hand, combined with eyewitness testimony that he reached into the car, is evidence that he attacked the officer first. I'm not talking about ppl calling into radio shows.

 

[Wooden Indian]

What the hell people.

LEO's job is talk down armed and threatening people. They are peace officers not war officers. If they are good at their jobs they should be able to get through life with naught but a truncheon.

It is reasonable for you to shoot when threatened, you are not a professional. It is not reasonable for a cop to shoot first ever.

One of the large differences between America and most of the west is that getting on the wrong side of the law in the US is game over. Elsewhere you murder someone, in rage or accidentally, you get ~5-10 years and rehabilitated, so you are much more likely to turn yourself in. When you get out you are probably a better citizen than when you went in.

In the US just getting arrested and charged is quite possibly the end of your productive life. There is no motive or expectation to co-operate with law enforcement. There is an insane mentality of 'never gonna take me alive' because the system is so extreme.

Again, I don't just not "like" cops... I outright HATE them, their profession anyhow.
So, when I say this, it is not in defense of their policies, profession, or anything in between, but once a taser or a firearm is pointed directly at them, I am okay with them firing. Why? Once we lose muscle control, that firearm is hitting the dirt and him right a long with it. Does the shooter flee or grab it and finish me off?

If they chose door number 2, they are dead. No coming back. No more Turkey dinners, no more birthday cake, no more catch with the kids. Dead. While, I would rather they not exist in the first place, being that they do, when placed in actual mortal danger, I take no issues with them firing first.

Pointing a taser at a man with a gun is bat-shit crazy. Now, if this were a knife at 10+ feet, I'd be bitching.

Now, that I have defended a cop... I feel dirty. Need to take a shower with a brillo pad and some bleach. Be back later.

 

[morfeeis]

Since Brown had just stolen some cigars he was probably on edge already thinking that he was about to go down for that, so when that door hit him he went into total fight or flight mode, maybe thinking he was about to die like so many others have when stopped by the police.

From a psychological point of view this is the main things that have never sat well with me when looking at the brown case. This kid has never been in any type of physical assault problems and even in the video he uses his size to intimidate the store clerk and doesn’t use brutal force even when he had a clear advantage. But moments later he starts punching a cop and grabs his gun for a small beef over a box of smokes, that fits no profile I’ve ever read.


But since the powers that be say it is so, it must be right?

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

You've been watching the grand jury proceedings?

No. And neither have you unless you are physically present at the court.

And a gunshot wound close to the hand,...is evidence that he attacked the officer first.

No, it is not.

combined with eyewitness testimony that he reached into the car

There is no publicly available eyewitness testimony that Brown reached in the car. There are no eyewitness accounts stating that Brown reached into the car. The only eyewitness account that discusses this, in fact, states that Brown's hands were outside the car, and that Wilson was pulling Brown into the car.

I'm not talking about ppl calling into radio shows.

You're talking about anonymous sources who told a newspaper that Wilson's account is supported by some grand jury witnesses. That's the extent of it.
The radio show woman was also anonymous. That woman's third hand story has since been shown to be completely at odds with no less than six eyewitnesses who contradicted her.




.

 

[Occam's Banana]

LEO's job is talk down armed and threatening people.

The job of LEOs is to (1) facilitate the collection of revenues for "civil authorities" (including themselves) by issuing citatations for statutory violations, conducting "asset forfeiture" seizures, etc., and (2) apply force (up to and including lethal force) in order to achieve, for whatever reason, compliance with and submission to "civil authorities" (including themselves).

Here are just a few examples, right off the top of my head (myriad others abound, as anyone who reads these forums regularly will no doubt be aware):
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?463401-More-Policing-for-profit-in-Tennessee
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...l-Care-So-Police-Kill-Him-in-His-Nursing-Home
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ath-by-cops-over-(unfound)-untaxed-cigarettes

They are peace officers not war officers.

Tell that to them: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?381476-Inside-the-mind-of-a-SWAT-cop

 

[maybemaybenot]

No. And neither have you unless you are physically present at the court.





No, it is not.





There is no publicly available eyewitness testimony that Brown reached in the car. There are no eyewitness accounts stating that Brown reached into the car. The only eyewitness account that discusses this, in fact, states that Brown's hands were outside the car, and that Wilson was pulling Brown into the car.





You're talking about anonymous sources who told a newspaper that Wilson's account is supported by some grand jury witnesses. That's the extent of it.
The radio show woman was also anonymous. That woman's third hand story has since been shown to be completely at odds with no less than six eyewitnesses who contradicted her.




.

I've already said "technically, none of us have seen any evidence." Buy an anonymous source describing grand jury testimony is more credible than someone open/nonanonymous, who won't even testify before a grand jury. Testimony under oath comes with the risk of perjury and jailtime, which is an extremely high risk when there are dozens of witnesses to the same crime (and therefore witnesses to the perjury).

And grand jury testimony is normally kept secret (it'll be released in this case specifically), so our only access is anonymous sources speaking to a news organization, you'll never get better access to it (except in a couple days for this case specifically, lol).

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I've already said "technically, none of us have seen any evidence." Buy an anonymous source describing grand jury testimony is more credible than someone open/nonanonymous, who won't even testify before a grand jury.

The source you posted doesn't describe anything. It just said the testimony supports Wilson. That's it.

The "open/nonanonymous" people are also testifying before the grand jury. They actually described the incident in somewhat detail on national television.

Testimony under oath comes with the risk of perjury and jailtime, which is an extremely high risk when there are dozens of witnesses to the same crime (and therefore witnesses to the perjury).

Merely describing your perceptions of an event is difficult, if not virtually impossible, to prosecute. Perjury rarely, if ever, applies to this type of testimony. It's low to no risk.

 

[idiom]

The job of LEOs is to (1) facilitate the collection of revenues for "civil authorities" (including themselves) by issuing citatations for statutory violations, conducting "asset forfeiture" seizures, etc., and (2) apply force (up to and including lethal force) in order to achieve, for whatever reason, compliance with and submission to "civil authorities" (including themselves).

Here are just a few examples, right off the top of my head (myriad others abound, as anyone who reads these forums regularly will no doubt be aware):
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?463401-More-Policing-for-profit-in-Tennessee
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...l-Care-So-Police-Kill-Him-in-His-Nursing-Home
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ath-by-cops-over-(unfound)-untaxed-cigarettes



Tell that to them: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?381476-Inside-the-mind-of-a-SWAT-cop

Like I said, the recent US is divergent from a functioning western democracy. Citing the USA is effectively straw-manning any argument.

US LEO's have long since departed the tradition of any sort of community policing and operate simply as a uniformed mafia.

It doesn't make it true for history or the world.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Like I said, the recent US is divergent from a functioning western democracy. Citing the USA is effectively straw-manning any argument.

US LEO's have long since departed the tradition of any sort of community policing and operate simply as a uniformed mafia.

It doesn't make it true for history or the world.

What are you talking about? No one has said anything about "history" or "the world" except you. This thread is about the possibile similarities between two cases in the US. "Citing the USA" is not straw-manning anything - the entire context of the discussion is that of policing in the USA.

You admonished us in general - "What the hell people" - and then proceed to assert without further preface that "LEO's job is talk down armed and threatening people. They are peace officers not war officers." This is manifestly and demonstrably not true - and "policing in Timbuktu" has got nothing to do with it.

 

[maybemaybenot]

The source you posted doesn't describe anything. It just said the testimony supports Wilson. That's it.

The "open/nonanonymous" people are also testifying before the grand jury. They actually described the incident in somewhat detail on national television.






Merely describing your perceptions of an event is difficult, if not virtually impossible, to prosecute. Perjury rarely, if ever, applies to this type of testimony. It's low to no risk.

Yes, we won't know the details til its made public, I've said this. Now youre saying perjury is rare/impossible for this? There were multiple witnesses. The part of the confrontation I keep talking about it objective: did Michael Brown reach into the car. So no, this isn't the kind of case where its hard to prosecute for perjury, this is precisely the case where perjury would come into play. So why are you saying perjury would be harder for a case like this?