Jump to content
Paulding.com
Sign in to follow this  
HardwareDJ

Officer's version of Ferguson shooting revealed

Recommended Posts

This is all being told as a very different story in other places. I just returned from Mexico, and the news there is all about the rioting here because a cop killed a gang member, and all the gangs are rioting.

I found it strange that they have a totally different version of the entire matter. It certainly shows how our news is always sort of "Candy Coated" to portray what the media wants us to hear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Yeah, stradial, but the word enraged is not correct. the adrenaline fueled kid was fleeing until the warning shot, where he turned around to surrender.

 

We disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea how many shots were fired. I do know that I have never ever heard of police using warning shots.

 

Due to the high cost of ammo and sequestration, warning shots are no longer permitted.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Liberal: The police are evil.

Liberal: The police are racist.

Liberal: The police target blacks.

Liberal: The police kill blacks.

 

Liberal: Why aren't there more blacks in the police department?

 

Liberal: The police are evil.

 

I know conservatives will get this....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Due to the high cost of ammo and sequestration, warning shots are no longer permitted.

 

And seeing as how celebratory gunfire is illegal, I'd have to imagine that no police officer who follows the law would fire a warning shot, as the shot would have to go somewhere. Even a bullet fired in the air (like celebratory gunfire) will come back down at a high velocity and hit something, and in some cases has, which is why such gunfire is illegal.

 

But we both know that logic like that is lost on some folks, Glassdogs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Yeah, stradial, but the word enraged is not correct. the adrenaline fueled kid was fleeing until the warning shot, where he turned around to surrender.

You know that for a fact with evidence that can't dispute otherwise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And seeing as how celebratory gunfire is illegal, I'd have to imagine that no police officer who follows the law would fire a warning shot, as the shot would have to go somewhere. Even a bullet fired in the air (like celebratory gunfire) will come back down at a high velocity and hit something, and in some cases has, which is why such gunfire is illegal.

 

But we both know that logic like that is lost on some folks, Glassdogs.

I don't know of a single police department in this country that instructs its officers to fire a warning shot. That's a definite loose round going somewhere and no telling what it's going to hit. If you fire a shot in the air, it's going to come down somewhere and there is the possibility it will hit someone and kill them. If you fire the round into the ground, it could ricochet and hit the person firing the weapon or someone else. The liability of firing a warning shot is too great. TP just doesn't get that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lmao @ the postman posting a video taken in freakin rotterdam to prove his point that police shoot warning shots! Try again, pal! This is the United States, warning shots are not authorized ANYWHERE.

 

Once again, the usual suspects on this website (i.e. pubby, postman, etc) can't wait for the actual facts of the case... hey hmmm, how about waiting for forensic results like maybe, hmm... if Brown's DNA on the officer's holster/weapon or not?! Ummm, maybe waiting to see, I don't know... maybe there turns out to be gun powder residue insider the police cruiser indicating a shot was fired inside the vehicle as rumored?!

 

The usuall suspects don't want to wait for that. Same crap they pulled on here with slandering of the Paulding County deputy who supposedly left the poor ole family on the side of the road in the freezing cold last year (which turned out to not be true).

 

A general rule in life that I cannot for the life of me fathom how some of you have made it this far without learning your lesson... wait for both sides of the story and THEN form an opinion... how hard is that?!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We know there were six shots in the youth.

 

We know there was one shot discharged in the police car.

 

I have heard one shot hit a house.

 

I suspect the officer had a glock with 15 rounds.

 

Were seven shots fired? Were eight shots fired or were 15 shots fired? ... or 9 or 10 ??? That information, which is

 

What difference does it make? Well what if that warning shot wasn't a warning shot ... just a miss or maybe two or three misses. The reports are the officer exited his car and headed after the youth ... if there was a shot fired before the youth turned around, then the SCOTUS decision regarding use of deadly force may come into play.

 

As far as the protests being the result of gangs ... I doubt that the Mexican media sent anyone there and I also don't think with the massive amount of coverage there and the 'sympathy' that a gang connection would have afforded the police, someone here wouldn't have discovered that and reported it. I.e. if they were saying such in the Mexican media, they were projecting their social reality on the situation.

 

Finally, the suggestion that Dorian Johnson, the friend with the Brown youth, has recanted his version is being called pure propaganda.

 

Again, misinformation is rampant.

 

pubby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Misrepresentation is rampant, and you are part of the problem. Go read a lot of your posts on this subject. You have the officer guilty and based on what?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw MB's funeral on the news yesterday and while I completely understand his family's grief, to see Al Sharpton give a eulogy for a person he didn't know and call him a 'gentle giant', was nauseating. MB is no martyr or hero and for him to be portrayed as one is beyond me.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zorro:

 

I suspect the officer based on the plain fact that an armed man shot and killed an unarmed man who was at one time running away.

 

For someone to turn and run into gun fire, serious injury and likely death is only rational if you expect gun fire, serious injury or death if you continue to run or even surrender.

 

pubby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Misrepresentation is rampant, and you are part of the problem. Go read a lot of your posts on this subject. You have the officer guilty and based on what?

 

 

Based on human nature, fear factor, lack of empathy, and anger. there was some instinct going on. As smart as the kid was in school, he was not dumb enough to charge an officer who had a gun trained on him. He may have been a bully, but even a bully will surrender to a gun. The Brown kid was not suicidal like the one in St. Lewis.

 

Punch some officers, and they will want to kill you, whether they do or not, E Z!

 

A shot or two, or three, or four, caused the kid to turn around, and try to surrender. The cop didn't want to shoot him in the back, but when he turned around he was slaughtered. Either lying face down, or falling almost to the ground the officer got in one more shot to the kid's head. The entry into the top of the kid's head, and exiting his eye, means the officer was standing close. It was an execution.

Edited by The Postman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Based on human nature, fear factor, lack of empathy, and anger. there was some instinct going on. As smart as the kid was in school, he was not dumb enough to charge an officer who had a gun trained on him. He may have been a bully, but even a bully will surrender to a gun. The Brown kid was not suicidal like the one in St. Lewis.

 

Punch some officers, and they will want to kill you, whether they do or not, E Z!

 

A shot or two, or three, or four, caused the kid to turn around, and try to surrender. The cop didn't want to shoot him in the back, but when he turned around he was slaughtered. Either lying face down, or falling almost to the ground the officer got in one more shot to the kid's head. The entry into the top of the kid's head, and exiting his eye, means the officer was standing close. It was an execution.

 

That is supposition TP ... based on the un-sworn, unchallenged accounts of the witnesses. Put the information and counter-information from the officer and put that information in front of a jury and their verdict will be considered the truth. It will be then that the officer may or may not be convicted.

 

Given the strength of that narrative to the observable facts means the case deserves a trial.

 

pubby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have incontrovertible video evidence that MB had just committed aggravated robbery and assault. Yet he gets a pass from the media.

 

I've never read one word about the officer's employment history and evaluations. Given the silence on that subject from all the whiney-butt media, one can only conclude that the officer was an exemplary employee and LEO. Because, for sure, if there were ANYTHING on his record to indicate one iota of instability, anger, inexperience, or bias, the lame-stream racist media whores would be all over that.

 

Their silence tells a LOT about the LEO.

 

That's an observable fact that tells me there is no case except in the minds of the low-information folks who blindly believe anything coming out of the mouths of CNN and Al Sharpton.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That is supposition TP ... based on the un-sworn, unchallenged accounts of the witnesses. Put the information and counter-information from the officer and put that information in front of a jury and their verdict will be considered the truth. It will be then that the officer may or may not be convicted.

 

Given the strength of that narrative to the observable facts means the case deserves a trial.

 

pubby

 

 

Certainly, it is, Pubby!

 

But, my speculation is as direct as anyone elses. I weigh what facts available, and come of with a supposition. Is that not what everyone else is doing.

 

It's not going to depend on facts, but how well the lawyers present their case. The forensic evidence may be so polluted that it only serves the police department. Of course, they will need to be a little bit negligent, for the sake of not being PERFECT!

 

And, you know about perfection.

Edited by The Postman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have incontrovertible video evidence that MB had just committed aggravated robbery and assault. Yet he gets a pass from the media.

 

I've never read one word about the officer's employment history and evaluations. Given the silence on that subject from all the whiney-butt media, one can only conclude that the officer was an exemplary employee and LEO. Because, for sure, if there were ANYTHING on his record to indicate one iota of instability, anger, inexperience, or bias, the lame-stream racist media whores would be all over that.

 

Their silence tells a LOT about the LEO.

 

That's an observable fact that tells me there is no case except in the minds of the low-information folks who blindly believe anything coming out of the mouths of CNN and Al Sharpton.

 

 

Blindness, of the kind you speak of, Gd, is more concentrated in the conservative world than it is in the mainstream media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
American Police Beat Magazine apparently posted this piece on their Facebook page.

Please read the entire letter.


Today I stopped caring

by Lt. Daniel Furseth, DeForest Police (WI)


Today, I stopped caring about my fellow man. I stopped caring about my community, my neighbors, and those I serve. I stopped caring today because a once noble profession has become despised, hated, distrusted, and mostly unwanted.


I stopped caring today because parents refuse to teach their kids right from wrong and blame us when they are caught breaking the law. I stopped caring today because parents tell their little kids to be good or “the police will take you away” embedding a fear from year-one. Moms hate us in their schools because we frighten them and remind them of the evil that lurks in the world. They would rather we stay unseen, but close by if needed, but readily available to “fix their kid”.


I stopped caring today because we work to keep our streets safe from mayhem in the form of reckless, drunk, high, or speeding drivers, only to be hated for it, yet hated even more because we didn't catch the drunk before he killed someone they may know. Never less, we are just another tool used by government to generate "revenue".


I stopped caring today because Liberals hate the police as we carry guns, scare kids, and take away their drugs. We always kill innocent people with unjust violence. We are called bullies for using a taser during a fight, but are condemned further for not first tasing the guy who pulls a gun on us. And if we do have to shoot, we are asked “why didn’t you just shoot the gun out of their hand?” And when one of us is killed by the countless attacks that do happen (but are rarely reported in the mainstream media) the haters say, "Its just part of the job".


I stopped caring today because Conservatives hate us as we are “the Government”. We try to take away their guns, freedoms, and liberty at every turn. We represent a “Police State” where “jackbooted-badge wearing thugs” randomly attack innocent people without cause or concern for constitutional rights. We are Waco, Ruby Ridge, and Rodney King all rolled into one lone police officer stopping to help change an old lady's tire.


I stopped caring today as no one wants us around, but instantly demands answers, results, arrests, when a crime takes place. If a crime isn't solved within the allocated 60 minutes it takes CSI on television, we are inept, incompetent, or covering something up. If we do get “lucky” it was just that and everyone with a Facebook account can post wonderful comments of how “they” would solve the case and how “we” and not nearly as clever.


I stopped caring today because a video of a cop six states away, from a department that you never heard of, screws up and forgets his oath of honor, thus firing up an internet lynch-mob of cop haters because “we all do the same things” even though 99% of us work twice as hard not to end up in the news and to still be “the good guys”. We are "militarized" because we wear body armor and kevlar helmets when shots are fired or rocks thrown at us and carry scary looking rifles even though everyone knows that they are easier to shoot and are more accurate than a handgun or a shotgun.


I stopped caring today because the culture of today’s instantly connected youth is only there to take and never give back. To never accept responsibility for ones actions, but to blame everyone else instead of themselves. To ask “what is in it for me?” versus “what can I do for you?” To idolize gangsters, thugs, sexual promiscuous behavoir, and criminals over hard work, dedication, and achievement. To argue that getting stoned should be a right, yet getting a job or an education is a hassle. To steal verus earn. To hate versus help.


Yes, I stopped caring today.


But tomorrow, I will put my uniform back on and I will care again.


Lt. Daniel Furseth

DeForest Police (WI)

February 7, 2014

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zorro:

 

I suspect the officer based on the plain fact that an armed man shot and killed an unarmed man who was at one time running away.

 

For someone to turn and run into gun fire, serious injury and likely death is only rational if you expect gun fire, serious injury or death if you continue to run or even surrender.

 

pub

There are witnesses who have said Brown appeared to be beating on the officer and then walked away; not run, but walked. The officer got out of the car and commanded him to halt. Brown according to witnesses turned around and saw the officer pointing his gun at him and said, "What you going to shoot me?" The witnesses then said Brown rushed the officer and the officer shot him.

 

What we have here is conflicting statements from witnesses. Some say Brown was trying to surrender and some say he was attempting to attack the officer again. I'm not making a decision either way. I'm waiting to see what the grand jury and the evidence says. You on the other hand have your mind made up the officer is guilty.

 

 

Based on human nature, fear factor, lack of empathy, and anger. there was some instinct going on. As smart as the kid was in school, he was not dumb enough to charge an officer who had a gun trained on him. He may have been a bully, but even a bully will surrender to a gun. The Brown kid was not suicidal like the one in St. Lewis.

 

Punch some officers, and they will want to kill you, whether they do or not, E Z!

 

A shot or two, or three, or four, caused the kid to turn around, and try to surrender. The cop didn't want to shoot him in the back, but when he turned around he was slaughtered. Either lying face down, or falling almost to the ground the officer got in one more shot to the kid's head. The entry into the top of the kid's head, and exiting his eye, means the officer was standing close. It was an execution.

Are you really sure about that? Can you be absolutely positive that a person will surrender 100% of the time when a LEO has a gun pointed at him? I can tell you, without a doubt you are wrong on that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

American Police Beat Magazine apparently posted this piece on their Facebook page.
Please read the entire letter.
Today I stopped caring
by Lt. Daniel Furseth, DeForest Police (WI)
Today, I stopped caring about my fellow man. I stopped caring about my community, my neighbors, and those I serve. I stopped caring today because a once noble profession has become despised, hated, distrusted, and mostly unwanted.
I stopped caring today because parents refuse to teach their kids right from wrong and blame us when they are caught breaking the law. I stopped caring today because parents tell their little kids to be good or “the police will take you away” embedding a fear from year-one. Moms hate us in their schools because we frighten them and remind them of the evil that lurks in the world. They would rather we stay unseen, but close by if needed, but readily available to “fix their kid”.
I stopped caring today because we work to keep our streets safe from mayhem in the form of reckless, drunk, high, or speeding drivers, only to be hated for it, yet hated even more because we didn't catch the drunk before he killed someone they may know. Never less, we are just another tool used by government to generate "revenue".
I stopped caring today because Liberals hate the police as we carry guns, scare kids, and take away their drugs. We always kill innocent people with unjust violence. We are called bullies for using a taser during a fight, but are condemned further for not first tasing the guy who pulls a gun on us. And if we do have to shoot, we are asked “why didn’t you just shoot the gun out of their hand?” And when one of us is killed by the countless attacks that do happen (but are rarely reported in the mainstream media) the haters say, "Its just part of the job".
I stopped caring today because Conservatives hate us as we are “the Government”. We try to take away their guns, freedoms, and liberty at every turn. We represent a “Police State” where “jackbooted-badge wearing thugs” randomly attack innocent people without cause or concern for constitutional rights. We are Waco, Ruby Ridge, and Rodney King all rolled into one lone police officer stopping to help change an old lady's tire.
I stopped caring today as no one wants us around, but instantly demands answers, results, arrests, when a crime takes place. If a crime isn't solved within the allocated 60 minutes it takes CSI on television, we are inept, incompetent, or covering something up. If we do get “lucky” it was just that and everyone with a Facebook account can post wonderful comments of how “they” would solve the case and how “we” and not nearly as clever.
I stopped caring today because a video of a cop six states away, from a department that you never heard of, screws up and forgets his oath of honor, thus firing up an internet lynch-mob of cop haters because “we all do the same things” even though 99% of us work twice as hard not to end up in the news and to still be “the good guys”. We are "militarized" because we wear body armor and kevlar helmets when shots are fired or rocks thrown at us and carry scary looking rifles even though everyone knows that they are easier to shoot and are more accurate than a handgun or a shotgun.
I stopped caring today because the culture of today’s instantly connected youth is only there to take and never give back. To never accept responsibility for ones actions, but to blame everyone else instead of themselves. To ask “what is in it for me?” versus “what can I do for you?” To idolize gangsters, thugs, sexual promiscuous behavoir, and criminals over hard work, dedication, and achievement. To argue that getting stoned should be a right, yet getting a job or an education is a hassle. To steal verus earn. To hate versus help.
Yes, I stopped caring today.
But tomorrow, I will put my uniform back on and I will care again.
Lt. Daniel Furseth
DeForest Police (WI)
February 7, 2014

 

Unless you were ever a LEO, you haven't a clue to what he's talking about. I've eaten at restaurants while on duty and had on many occasions had parents tell their small children if they didn't eat all their vegetables, "that policeman over there will take you to jail." I kid you not. One time I had enough of it when a lady told her child that. I walked up to the table and told the little kid, "The police do not take people to jail because they don't eat everything on their plate. People can go to jail for lying though." I then walked away smiling.

 

I've had people complain because we didn't get there fast enough to answer their barking dog complaint. They didn't care we had to finish our last call first. I've pulled people over for speeding who responded with, "You don't have any real crime to fight so you gotta pick on motorists."

 

There are a lot of people out there who just hate cops. I've seen a couple on this forum.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This 18 year old boy's autopsy says a lot about the slaughter he went through.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/official-autopsy-michael-brown-had-marijuana-in-his-system-was-shot-

 

“The killer shot hit Mr. Brown at the apex of his head,’’ Parks said. “There was a second round near his hairline, which went in and came out. This supports what witnesses said: He tried to surrender. Why would he be shot in the top of his head? Those two things are ample evidence for this officer to be arrested." - Daryl D. Parks (lawyer)

 

Brown had no gun powder residue on him, which is consistent with being shot a distance away, rather than at close proximity. Brown may have been shot for as 30ft. away.

Edited by The Postman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New audio reveals pause in gunfire when Michael Brown was shot

 

(CNN) -- Could a newly released audio provide more clues on what led up to Michael Brown's shooting death?

 

Forensic audio expert Paul Ginsberg analyzed the recording and said he detected at least 10 gunshots -- a cluster of six, followed by four.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/26/us/michael-brown-ferguson-shooting/index.html

Edited by CitizenCain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This 18 year old boy's autopsy says a lot about the slaughter he went through.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/official-autopsy-michael-brown-had-marijuana-in-his-system-was-shot-

 

“The killer shot hit Mr. Brown at the apex of his head,’’ Parks said. “There was a second round near his hairline, which went in and came out. This supports what witnesses said: He tried to surrender. Why would he be shot in the top of his head? Those two things are ample evidence for this officer to be arrested." - Daryl D. Parks (lawyer)

 

Brown had no gun powder residue on him, which is consistent with being shot a distance away, rather than at close proximity. Brown may have been shot for as 30ft. away.

 

I notice you failed to mention is that Atty Parks ALSO stated, (on national tv) that the head shot came from back to front.

"At a news conference, lawyer Daryl Parks said: "They show that the direction of the bullet was in a back to front direction."

 

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-08-18/missouri-teen-was-shot-in-a-back-to-front-direction/

 

 

That is in direct contradiction to the ME who stated ALL the shots came from the front.

Yes, the ME too stated there was no gunpowder residue on the body, but that he has not examined the clothing.

 

The ME also said the shot could have been from 2 FEET away.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I notice you failed to mention is that Atty Parks ALSO stated, (on national tv) that the head shot came from back to front.

"At a news conference, lawyer Daryl Parks said: "They show that the direction of the bullet was in a back to front direction."

 

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-08-18/missouri-teen-was-shot-in-a-back-to-front-direction/

 

 

That is in direct contradiction to the ME who stated ALL the shots came from the front.

Yes, the ME too stated there was no gunpowder residue on the body, but that he has not examined the clothing.

 

The ME also said the shot could have been from 2 FEET away.

 

 

I read this, out of the repoert Am!

 

From two feet away doesn't seem suitable, unless the kid was on his knees or something of the shut. The fatal shot went downward toward the brain. So, if the kid was shot from 2 feet away, he was not a threat, unless the cop was a yellow bellied chicken.

 

How is a kid going to hurt an experienced cop, from a position of down that low, and already full of lead?

 

"During the news conference at Greater St. Marks Family Church in Ferguson, Baden said his preliminary autopsy revealed there were no signs of struggle between Brown and the officer and that all of Brown’s gunshot wounds were survivable except one from a bullet that entered at the top of Brown’s head and went downward through his brain."

Edited by The Postman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I notice you failed to mention is that Atty Parks ALSO stated, (on national tv) that the head shot came from back to front.

"At a news conference, lawyer Daryl Parks said: "They show that the direction of the bullet was in a back to front direction."

 

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-08-18/missouri-teen-was-shot-in-a-back-to-front-direction/

 

 

That is in direct contradiction to the ME who stated ALL the shots came from the front.

Yes, the ME too stated there was no gunpowder residue on the body, but that he has not examined the clothing.

 

The ME also said the shot could have been from 2 FEET away.

 

 

The ME was stated that the shot to the top of the head would appear to be made with the victim below (as on the ground or on the way to the ground) the shooter as the bullet entered the back portion of the skull and exited the front of the face.

 

The story now becomes the one shot in the six shots in rapid succession followed by a pause and then four more.

 

We also know there was another shot - unless the officer was lying - while the youth and the officer struggled in the car.

 

Forensically, I'm having a hard time imagining how the ten shots equate to six wounds in that order knowing where the wounds were and hearing the rapidity of the reports. I.e. how quickly did the youth fall.

 

I do see from the crime scene photo that the kid had his pants down around his butt as is the style ... which tells me physically that if he was running, he sure wasn't running any direction very quickly. (And the length of time that it took officers to attend to youth, determine his death and then at least block the view was almost criminal in its lack of respect.)

 

Of course the law tilts the field of justice so overwhelmingly to the benefit of police that short of a conviction for blatant murder in the first, which would require evidence that the cop was involved with the youths girlfriend (or boyfriend) and the motive had nothing to do with police work but was a direct murder of passion over jealousy - which is a virtual impossibility - there will be no negative ramifications such as the city having to pay damages or the cop getting anything more than paid administrative leave.

 

Yes, according to an op-ed in today's NYTimes, the SCOTUS has setup rules of conduct through specific cases that take the city and taxpayer off the hook for even egregiously negligent exercises of authority. Here is an excerpt.

 

 

The most recent court ruling that favored the police was Plumhoff v. Rickard, decided on May 27, which found that even egregious police conduct is not “excessive force” in violation of the Constitution. Police officers in West Memphis, Ark., pulled over a white Honda Accord because the car had only one operating headlight. Rather than comply with an officer’s request to get out of the car, the driver made the unfortunate decision to speed away. The police chased the car for more than five minutes, reaching speeds of over 100 miles per hour. Eventually, officers fired 15 shots into the car, killing both the driver and a passenger.

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and ruled unanimously in favor of the police. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said that the driver’s conduct posed a “grave public safety risk” and that the police were justified in shooting at the car to stop it. The court said it “stands to reason that, if police officers are justified in firing at a suspect in order to end a severe threat to public safety, the officers need not stop shooting until the threat has ended.”

 

Another decision, the article states, makes it impossible for a person wronged by the system to gain compensation from authorities. The case involved a guy whom the state's attorney in New Orleans KNEW was innocent because blood evidence at the scene of the crime was the wrong blood type. However, the case was a couple of days from trial when the forensic evidence clearing the suspect was received and the DA decided to bury that evidence putting the guy on death row for 14 of his 18 years in prison before the error was discovered.

 

The state's courts awarded the guy 14 million dollars for his ordeal as an innocent victim who was not only innocent but provably innocent and that proof constitutionally had to be shared with the defense but was covered up by a DA. (Indeed, the DA didn't even share that there was blood evidence in the case at all and that there was blood evidence wasn't discovered - by accident - until just before the guy was to be executed. A stay was granted to allow for analysis of the blood evidence which eventually cleared the man.)

 

But the ROBERTS COURT, in 2011 overturned the civil verdict providing reparations to the man by a 5-4 vote with Clarence Thomas writing for the majority that because it wasn't the written policy of the city of New Orleans prosecutors to suppress evidence, the city wasn't liable and wouldn't have to pay. That the event happened 20 years ago and given the flood, normal turnover, etc. it would be impossible to determine 'who' in the DA's office suppressed the evidence (Leroy did it you know or maybe ... ) and those folks don't have the money to compensate their victim of injustice anyway.

 

Basically the SCOTUS sent the message that you're lucky to be alive 'cause if we had our way and eliminated the appeals, you'd have been dead a long time ago.

 

So don't think that Michael Brown's family is doing this to get a big payoff from the city of Ferguson or state of Missouri ... The Roberts Court has already fixed it so that at most, his family will get an apology if it is determined the state's agent committed murder.

 

pubby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I read this, out of the repoert Am!

 

From two feet away doesn't seem suitable, unless the kid was on his knees or something of the shut. The fatal shot went downward toward the brain. So, if the kid was shot from 2 feet away, he was not a threat, unless the cop was a yellow bellied chicken.

(Doesn't sound suitable? Are you serious?? The ME has determined the shot to the top of his head was the final shot. If the man was charging the officer with his arms out and his head down, this could explain the wounds he received to his arms as "warning shots" and when it became clear those weren't stopping him, and it became clear the officer was about to be body slammed by a now VERY angry giant of a man, the final shot to the top of the head. )

 

How is a kid going to hurt an experienced cop, from a position of down that low, and already full of lead?

 

 

"During the news conference at Greater St. Marks Family Church in Ferguson, Baden said his preliminary autopsy revealed there were no signs of struggle between Brown and the officer and that all of Brown’s gunshot wounds were survivable except one from a bullet that entered at the top of Brown’s head and went downward through his brain."

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The ME was stated that the shot to the top of the head would appear to be made with the victim below (as on the ground or on the way to the ground) the shooter as the bullet entered the back portion of the skull and exited the front of the face.

(That is not correct. What Dr. Baden stated was “It can be because he’s giving up, or because he’s charging forward at the officer")

 

 

 

The story now becomes the one shot in the six shots in rapid succession followed by a pause and then four more.

 

We also know there was another shot - unless the officer was lying - while the youth and the officer struggled in the car.

 

Forensically, I'm having a hard time imagining how the ten shots equate to six wounds in that order knowing where the wounds were and hearing the rapidity of the reports. I.e. how quickly did the youth fall.

(I don't think anyone has stated that every shot fired hit Brown)

 

I do see from the crime scene photo that the kid had his pants down around his butt as is the style ... which tells me physically that if he was running, he sure wasn't running any direction very quickly. (And the length of time that it took officers to attend to youth, determine his death and then at least block the view was almost criminal in its lack of respect.)

(There was a 4th "witness" (Emmanuel Freeman) who stated MB did not run. He mentioned the lowered shorts and the sandals as the reason. Well, we all saw the looters running from the stores with their sagging pants. They didn't have ANY trouble running.

This "witness" also stated MB was on his knees looking up at the officer, begging him not to shoot when the officer shot him 2 times, walked up to his body and shot him 4 more times. Looked at his eyes, paused for a minute and shot him 4 more times".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8BG-B50xHo

 

That would mean MB would have had no less than 9-10 bullets in his body, but he didn't.

Have you hear ANY other witness state he was on his knees?? I haven't, and if you have I will certainly check out any link you can provide)

 

 

pubby

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, the woman who drove up on the scene said that she saw Brown stop, turn around then begin to charge and then, went down on his knees. She is the one who said that he held his hands up when he turned around.

 

She also stated that during the time before Michael Brown turned, raised his hands and charged, the officer was chasing him which suggests that his aim may not have been accurate if he was running toward the youth.

 

I can say with certainty that I don't take any of the specific eyewitness reports as gospel.

 

Rather the information - and at this point we're talking pure data as to the location of entry wounds and exit wounds - which to be properly analyzed will require an animation to understand and will determine, by the trajectory of each bullet, the position of the gun vs. the position of the youth.

 

That further analysis, for instance, might suggest that a bullet that entered the back of the forearm was actually made from behind but was initially interpreted to have been made while the arm raised (as in hands up). The famous ME, when he made his initial finding known, suggested that was a possibility.

 

Bottom line, though, there are too many questions to leave this to a group of police investigators in a back room who are inclined to interpret any data surrounding the shooting only in manner favorable to the officer's defense and discount or ignore any data that may lead one to a different conclusion.

 

pubby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, the woman who drove up on the scene said that she saw Brown stop, turn around then begin to charge and then, went down on his knees. She is the one who said that he held his hands up when he turned around.

 

She also stated that during the time before Michael Brown turned, raised his hands and charged, the officer was chasing him which suggests that his aim may not have been accurate if he was running toward the youth.

 

I can say with certainty that I don't take any of the specific eyewitness reports as gospel.

 

Rather the information - and at this point we're talking pure data as to the location of entry wounds and exit wounds - which to be properly analyzed will require an animation to understand and will determine, by the trajectory of each bullet, the position of the gun vs. the position of the youth.

 

That further analysis, for instance, might suggest that a bullet that entered the back of the forearm was actually made from behind but was initially interpreted to have been made while the arm raised (as in hands up). The famous ME, when he made his initial finding known, suggested that was a possibility.

 

Bottom line, though, there are too many questions to leave this to a group of police investigators in a back room who are inclined to interpret any data surrounding the shooting only in manner favorable to the officer's defense and discount or ignore any data that may lead one to a different conclusion.

 

pubby

Is that what you think is going to happen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that what you think is going to happen?

In Pubby's mind, the officer is guilty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that what you think is going to happen?

I don't know. I want a full public trial to determine what happened.

 

BTW, as I pointed out in an earlier post, some 18 years ago, a prosecutor in New Orleans, got a lab report saying that John Thompson was not the robber in a case that left the clerk dead because the blood from the shooter was a different type. The prosecutor got that information from his lab days before the trial and had not shared the presence or availability of blood evidence with the defendants counsel. Only, in a last-minute appeal was the presence of blood evidence - true forensic evidence - made known to the defense (and the evidence that it didn't match the defendant was still hidden) but it was enough to gain him a last minute appeal. After DNA testing was done on the blood, it was determined that the defendant, who was within days of execution, was it discovered that he was not guilty. Beyond that, only further discovery in a civil case determined that the DA had suppressed not only the presence of blood evidence BUT THAT THE DA knew that the blood type didn't match the defendant that the public learned the prosecutor KNEW the defendant was innocent before the trial even started.

 

And those were the facts in a case in one of those rare cases that made it all the way to the supreme court (where they found for the city and said that since it wasn't the city's official policy to suppress information, the city was not liable for the mans 18 years, most of them served on death row.)

 

So, let me say that the confidence of the public is not 100 percent these days ... and I'm an old white guy. I'm sure it is even less in cities where 70 percent of the population is black and has been dealing with a city that is using its police force as a way to collect fines and fees (revenue) from the majority of the population who are a bit less well off.

 

As far as the general concept of facts being held sacred by LEO these days, the issue of testilying has been getting a great deal more press these days. Google is your friend.

 

pubby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If an investigation concludes the officer acted in self-defense, why should there be a trial?

 

To make the liberals and the blacks happy.

 

This won't be about right or justice, it will be about making people feel good.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, the woman who drove up on the scene said that she saw Brown stop, turn around then begin to charge and then, went down on his knees. She is the one who said that he held his hands up when he turned around.

 

She also stated that during the time before Michael Brown turned, raised his hands and charged, the officer was chasing him which suggests that his aim may not have been accurate if he was running toward the youth.

 

I can say with certainty that I don't take any of the specific eyewitness reports as gospel.

 

 

pubby

Tiffany Mitchell was the woman who drove up on the scene and I haven't seen an interview where she made that statement.

Can you provide a link?

 

Ms. Mitchell stated (in all 3 interviews I've seen) that after the initial gunfire, MB breaks away from the officer. "The officer gets out of his vehicle and pursues him as he's shooting his weapon. Michael jerks his body as if he was hit and he turns around facing the officer and puts his hands up and the officer continues to shoot him until he goes down to the ground."

 

Nothing about charging nor going down on his knees. Notice she said the officer shot"until" MB went down to the ground not before as you are trying to suggest.

 

 

Edited by Armymom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...