An inconvenient truth

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Uh, no, doesn't work - There's not enough swing room in a car window to hit hard the back of the jaw, on either side, if the guy is facing you and inside the car. Try it yourself.

Having Brown do something like push his head into the steering wheel, makes sense - but does not justify his mortal fear, or agree with his testimony. If Wilson stuck his head out of the car window and Brown hit it with a left and banged it back into the frame, that would also make sense for all the bruising - account perfectly for it all, now that I think about it - but again, fail to agree with Wilson's testimony or justify the ensuing gunfire.

Police officers are not allowed to kill people for punching them, and they are not allowed to shoot people they are not allowed to kill. That may be Wilson's problem here, as he searches for the right story.

That is a fact. That's one of the differences between a rigged hearing like this and a trial - Wilson was in no danger of self-imcrimination, as he would have been at a trial.

As I pointed out to you earlier, you obviously don't know what a grand jury hearing is for. No: cross examination of witnesses even, much less defendants, is not something a grand jury member is expected to do or even be able to do. They don't even see the defendant, usually. Lawyers prepare for cross examinations very carefully and for days or weeks beforehand, in a big trial. They have to - no one can cross-examine a witness in a complicated case without thorough preparation.

There was no "answer" provided by any judicial process. Hence the problem - riots, etc, seem to be justified, in cases where the citizenry seems to have been denied ordinary justice and legal protections.

What I'm convinced of is the appearance of Officer Wilson's guilt, of some degree. So is everyone else who is acknowledging the physical facts - they look bad. But there may be an explanation, that exonerates Officer Wilson: that's why we need a trial. A trial would be the only way to clear Officer Wilson's name, from the imputation of guilt and incompetence and bad character that is the inevitable effect of the facts as established.

That would be an error. Casings are ejected, as well as thrown by hand movement and kicked around etc, and they roll on pavement (which is probably not flat, btw). If you look at where the casings fell from the shots fired from inside or nearer the car (according to Wilson), you can see how far they can travel on pavement even without being kicked etc. Meanwhile, the audio recording analysis professionals say all ten shots from the two bursts were fired from within a three foot circle. That is also consistent with almost all eyewitness testimony, whereas a Wilson running backwards fast enough to keep distance between himself and a "charging" Brown is not. (23 feet in 3 seconds, which is what you would need to square Wilson's testimony with even the gap between the two bursts, is over 5mph backwards).

That is the kind of disparity in evidence that one expects to have cleared up at trial. Maybe there's something wrong with that audio recording or analysis. Does anyone expect a grand jury to handle that issue during a hearing?

Without a trial, we are left with the impression that Wilson is an incompetent policeman and a carefully coached liar, who got away with panic and manslaughter due to the careful manipulations of a friendly prosecuting attorney. That is not so good, eh? An innocent Wilson will never have the chance to clear his name, now.

But of course, he doesn't need to clear his name in his own circles and among his own kind of people, does he. Shooting a young black thug on the street is nothing he needs to justify, to 27% of the American public.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You're aware of those cases because they are reported upon. Frequently, and with a certain sense of satisfaction on the part of those doing the reporting.

Must be. We should train them to be less human.
What I said was:
"What should be a concern is the ease with which the common populace decides its ok to defy police. That the police are forced to carry guns at all, or that they are often placed in a position where to shoot first is often a survival mechanism, more than a reaction to what is presented to them."

At what point is the fact that the population are being educated to have less respect for law enforcement become relevant? When Bells and Tiassa decide it is?

And what type of person, Kremmen, is the "wrong type of person"?
How often do you think the "right type of person" volunteers to be a police officer, particularly with the likes of Bells and Tiassa hounding them at every available opportunity?
Speaking of hounds... how many times must one kick a dog before he becomes a hound? I suppose, rather, that it is the other dogs who observe hounds being kicked. Publically. Often. Until it becomes the common view that they are all hounds.

In Australia, there were once height requirements and a certain physical presence taken into account, when selecting police officers. That was back when being a police officer was actually a respectable occupation, one commanding respect.
It was known that physicality demanded respect, you see. And it often did. A police officer was once able to walk his beat, confront a bad guy and the bad guy would surrender on the spot. Not always, but often enough so that it had an impact.

Those were the days when a police officer was seen as a community member, not as an armed assassin waiting for the opportunity to shoot someone, and in dire need of some serious training.

Isn't it completely marvellous that rhetoric can change perception so completely. The pen is indeed mightier than the sword.... unfortunately, while use of the sword is so often subject to question, use of the pen, while no less harmful when applied injudiciously, has become completely liberal.
<and that may be, to this date, one of the more enlightening things I've ever written>

Nowadays, the Police take whatever they can get. Those kind of people who really don't mind being metaphorically spat upon in the media and in public as often as deemed necessary in order to further an agenda. Which was, incidentally, a point I made earlier. It is largely the fault of those who demand perfection of police, as human beings as well as officers of the law, that those very same officers are what they are.

Those who would best govern, don't usually want to.
You work with the tools you have.

 

No. That's your game, and it can be played ad infinitum, with no clear winner.
You know I saw it as well as I do.

A "hard liner sheik"?
I would have thought, in Australia, that one who is in power was so because the population wills it so.
So how is this person a sheik? Unless...

You link an article about some Muslim leader calling for a through investigation, and for "systems being put in place" to prevent such events.
Firstly, the call for a "thorough investigation" can be read as someone wanting to shift blame elsewhere. That's the norm, these days. Far be it for the Muslim community to investigate themselves, and how their own lifestyles might be alienating them from the general community. Let us never examine that too closely. No. Because being "left on the outside of society" is all our fault. We should investigate. We should accommodate.

You see, those very same "Muslim leaders" are arguing that they should be allowed to conduct their affairs exactly as they did in the places they left behind, notwithstanding that they left those places largely because of how they conducted their affairs. So what "systems" are they putting in place to ensure their own children aren't listening to their own "leaders", or to prevent the same cultural issues from arising here as they did there?
Any thoughts? Any links?

Why don't you speak to them, and find out for yourself how they really feel about the separation of church and state as a political goal? Have you ever done that? I have.
I wouldn't expect an honest, direct answer. Sometimes, those honest answers do have a tendency to trickle out, though. You'll find those in the media, too, if you look hard enough. And, of course, in those conversations. That is, of course, if you take the time to hear.

You need to learn how to read, Bells. By which I mean, look behind the words. Read.
Not just absorb.

I'm not. That does seem to be a fairly concise description of events. I'm not sure why you think that in any way invalidates what I said, though.
Your newspaper quotes are your narrative. And those of the authors. Not mine.
I am far less susceptible to emotional influence than you appear to be, and that is primarily why you, those like you, and the types of "reporters" who write this... news, are never going to convince me I'm wrong.

Emotion, Bells, serves a purpose. That purpose was relevant far more in millennia past than it is now, but ingrained instinct is not so easily rid of. I don't have the patience to expound upon that any further at this point. Suffice to say it is still relevant, but needs to be tempered... dampened, in order to retain that relevance.

You know what racism really is, Bells? It's the actions of those who claim they are morally against it, as much as those of the actual racists.
Because, underlying all your rhetoric, there lies the simple belief that those you claim to be defending aren't every bit as smart as you are.

And they know you.
As long as they believe they are victims, there are those among them who will ensure they remain so.
They are the real enemy.

And here we go again.
Such a lovely article. Melancholy, sad. Designed specifically for the likes of you.
Alright, I'll play, for a time. Bit by bit, byte by byte... soooo boring. Nonetheless.

Children, too? How much do you think they understood what had just happened?
Were they carrying little placards reading "Allah Akbar", or some such? Or didn't they go that far?
They have before, of course.

From who? It isn't really clear, is it? Who was it, exactly, inflaming the situation and inciting comment?
You've filled in the blanks yourself, haven't you?

Right in front of the media? Really?
How did they manage to get this quote... were they dressed in Hajib or something? He used the term "your guys". Who did he think he was speaking to?
Does that qualify as entrapment?

Were the media paying as much attention to detail inside the mosque as they were outside it?
Or weren't they allowed in, so that they could get this kind of quote? Did they even bother looking for one?

Right out in public, on the asphalt. With all those neighbours apparently watching.
That isn't aggressive at all, is it.

Awww.
Now tell me exactly how this gives any insight into what she was thinking.
Or any of the others.

Little of this you've quoted is news, Bells. Little of it fact.
It's an opinion piece, aimed at you.
It's these continued attempts to try to represent it as such which makes me disgusted with you.

 

Only those with the capability of thought outside their own ideals. Perhaps I'll aim a little lower, and say those with the ability to read between the lines.
So, no. Not many at all.
I persevere, nonetheless.

So, once again, what have you actually got to refute what I said?
I stated that the lack of respect to police has in no small part to the disrespect shown by people like you, who seem determined to point out the many failings of police in support of their own ideals, and to state in response to their own argument that "more training" is the solution.
So it's ok for the populace to be stupid, misinformed, herd-orientated cretins. But to qualify as a police officer, one must be a paragon of virtue. Trained to be a Saint. Perhaps even subject to virginity tests.
Tell me, Bells. Where are the police going to come from? Do you think it might help if we specifically targeted Muslim women wearing Hijabs for recruitment into the police force, in order to gain the respect of that particular minority?
You know... so that the police gain respect not for upholding the law, but because they are upholding the law in the name if Islam, or something.

Irony... How ironic.

My goal? And I'm a liar. That, by the way, is becoming more and more a standard response from both you and Tiassa these days. Just call someone a liar.

I call you out on posting an opinion piece as fact that you demand in support of argument, and I'm a liar.
Par for the course, really.

Yes, that's what people like you are saying. But is it true?
Are we now to completely disregard the public themselves and resolve them of all blame?

Ok. So now the police are wandering around in riot gear and carrying heavy weaponry for highway patrols.
Yes, that would be bloody stupid.
Unfortunately for you, it isn't the case at all.
Is it, Bells.
I mean, I'm seeing police wandering around with Glocks at the hip. SOP, these days.
But I'm not seeing grenade launchers, or armoured anti-mine vehicles. On patrol.

Reality? Where the fuck are you, Bells?
Are you trying to convince me I'm losing it? Are you trying to convince them?
I'm as drunk as a monkey right now, and I still have a better grip on that reality thing than you do.
It's actually damned frightening.

I'm not making anything up, Bells. I've seen what I've seen.
You, on the other hand, only see what you want to.

And had you done any reading, you'd have found that the fact that someone said "it was only a BB gun" was not communicated in time to the officers on the scene.
Liar.
That's ok now, right? To call you a liar?

You want facts? You want reality, Bells?
THIS is an airsoft gun:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airsoft_gun

THIS is what those police were confronted with.
Hows's that for a fucking link.

Do NOT try to fuck with me. And DO NOT try to tell me that when I stick one of those in your face, you'll consult your goddamned manual to see if it's a real threat or not.
It has you scared.

STOP trying to intimate that this thing was a toy.
Having a real one pointed at you doesn't have you consulting a recognition manual in order to find out if it fires real bullets.

Give one to your kids, if you think it's a toy. Tell them it's ok to point it at strangers. Particularly if those strangers are police officers. Particularly in a place where police officers are confronted with this kind of thing often enough to make them wary of the fact that they might become a statistic.

Give one to your kids, and tell them its ok. And then tell the police and the media that the police shot your kid because they didn't have enough training.
Sue for compensation.
And then sell your story to Women's Weekly for 50 grand.

Is this all you are now?
I thought you were more, once.

 

The wrong type of person, is someone who acts without thinking.
A person who panics under stress.
Or who seeks confrontation.

You are right that it is difficult to get selection right 100% of the time,
but 100% is the requirement. The Danish Police seem to be able to do it.

Danish Police also carry guns, but not on their person.
They have to get it from a secure place in their cars.

 

Isn't it absolutely confounding that those who purport themselves most in support of humanity, of empathy, don't recognise it when it's shoved in their faces.

They'll twist it and subvert it, misrepresent it and use it, in support of their own ideals, but god help you, if you do the same.

And those who are accused of a lack of humanity, of empathy, are left to try to defend it.
If they have the patience. Or the stamina.

 

I would have thought that confrontation is the embodiment of improvement. History would bear that out.
You're only speaking of confrontation where that same confrontation is against what you consider an ideal. Social evolution does not agree.

Don't bother. There are reasons for that too. Those reasons don't support the arguments being presented here.

 

The only person who was accused of a lack of empathy was Photizo.
He seemed to be saying that if a person does not obey a police officer,
then they are responsible for their own deaths.
Some of the police are taking the same line with dogs.
If the dog growls it gets shot.
Some of them get shot for aggressive licking.
In the UK, if the police started shooting dogs, there would be a national outcry.
We love dogs more than people.

 

@Marquis
I'm not sure what your opinions are.
Do you think there is a problem?
If so, what do you think should be done about it?

 

Fortunately the grand jurors were presented with and considered a more complete set of evidence and testimony than we have here in this thread thus far.

The overlooked audiotape of the Michael Brown shooting

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...oked-audiotape-of-the-michael-brown-shooting/

Relying on this testimony and the placement of the cone permits a calculation of the distance that Michael Brown traveled back towards Officer Wilson, to where he was finally killed. The police used the cone as the “baseline” for further measurements back up the street — point O for measuring where they found the evidence that they gathered. For example, the evidence report identifies Brown’s left foot as ultimately coming to rest 48 feet, 2 inches back up Canfield from the cone. So if Dorian Johnson and Witness 14 are believed, then Brown moved more than 48 feet back towards Wilson.


Some physical evidence confirms that Michael Brown generally followed the path from the area of the cone to his final resting point. Investigating police officers found in the street what was later identified as spots of Michael Brown’s blood — denoted by evidence markers 19 and 20 (vol. 24, 88:6). The blood spot identified by evidence marker 20 is 26 feet, 7 inches back up Canfield from the cone — or approximately 22 feet away from where Michael Brown’s body was found, as shown in the adjacent crime scene photograph (Figure 4).


The blood spatter also shows direction — specifically that Brown was moving towards Wilson — as is apparent from the physical appearance of the spots. (This commonsense conclusion is confirmed by experts. For example, Sunday’s story in The Post quotes Michael F. LaForte, a Florida-based forensics expert who examined the investigative reports, as concluding that “lood strikes the ground and then radiates out in the direction he was traveling.”) So the physical evidence shows Brown moved at least 22 feet generally away from the cone and towards Wilson.


These various pieces of information can be used to roughly calculate Brown’s speed. The 6.5 seconds that elapse on the audiotape from the first shot to the tenth (and final) shot provides some sense of time. And using Dorian Johnson’s testimony (as one way of giving Michael Brown the benefit of the doubt), the first shot “literally stopped [Brown] in his tracks and [he] turned around at that point” (vol. 4, 158:4). So according to Dorian Johnson’s account, Brown would have had 6.5 seconds to travel from where he turned around back to the point where we was finally killed — a total distance of 48 feet (the distance from the marker cone to his left foot). To again give the benefit of the doubt to Michael Brown, this calculation ignores the fact that the baseline of 48 feet is parallel to the street, while Brown was moving somewhat farther — i.e., diagonally towards the middle of the street. Conservatively calculating (by, for example, ignoring the likelihood that Brown paused — an issue discussed below), this works out to average movement of about 7.4 feet per second — very brisk movement. (For comparison, walking 3 miles per hour converts to 4.4 feet per second.)


Most important, starting from standing stop would produce a peak speed of more than the average speed — i.e., more than 7.4 feet per second. According to Johnson, Brown had to turn around before he could even begin moving towards the officer (vol. 4, 157:6). So even under Dorian Johnson’s testimony, Brown would have been moving very rapidly towards Wilson — contrary to the overall impression that Johnson tries to create. Indeed, Johnson even goes so far as to claim that Brown got only “half a step maybe” toward the officer (vol. 4, 157:13).


Compare Johnson’s testimony with Witness 10′s testimony. Witness 10 told police on Aug. 11 (two days after the shooting) — and later the grand jury — that Brown ran down Canfield Drive, made it to intersecting street, and then turned around and came back towards Wilson (vol. 6, 179:13). Witness 10 said that Brown was in a “full blown” charge towards Wilson and that Wilson fired when Brown was about 30 feet away (“10 yards,” at page 12 of the interview), and that at least one of the shots in the initial volley hit Brown.


Making the assumption that the two blood spatters (evidence markers 20 and then 19) occurred during the pause in the shooting — as seems plausible, given the time needed for blood to begin to flow from a wound — and then that Brown paused and began moving shortly before Wilson fired his first shot in the last volley, then Brown would have covered the distance between those spots and where his body finally came to rest in about 1.7 seconds. Giving him the benefit of the doubt and using marker 19 (found 31 feet up Canfield Drive), Brown would have closed 17 feet in that time — an average forward movement of 10 feet per second, with a likely peak speed of greater than that, since Brown had paused to some degree and thus his forward movement had to accelerate.


Officer Wilson’s own testimony also generally matches the audiotape. In his interview on Aug. 10 (the day after the shooting), Wilson said he fired a series of shots, then he “paused for second” and then resumed firing. Later in his FBI interview on Aug. 28, Wilson said that after a series of shots, Brown stopped briefly, but then started running at him again (vol. 5, 168:5). In his testimony before the grand jury, Officer Wilson gave more details. He testified that he pursued Brown down Canfield and that Brown stopped when he was “at that light pole” — i.e., the light pole depicted in the photograph above with tributes to Michael Brown around it (vol. 5, 227:3). Brown then turned, did a stutter step, and then started “running” toward Wilson (227:13). According to Wilson, he fired a “series of shots” — he wasn’t sure exactly how many (228:1). Wilson testified he then told Brown to get on the ground, Brown didn’t, and then he fired “another round of shots” (228:15). These shots didn’t work to stop Brown, who looked like he was “bulking up” to run through the shots (228:20). So Wilson fired “at least once,” he couldn’t recall how many, and managed to hit Brown in the head and bring him down (229:19). Wilson’s account is thus that there was some sort of a break in the continuous action (Brown’s “bulking up”) that conforms to the three second gap in the shots before what was the final and fatal volley.


The grand jury clearly recognized the significance of the audio evidence. In the last volume of grand jury, one of the grand jurors questioned the crime scene detective about the time that passed between the shots, saying “[w]e tried to approximate it, it was six or seven seconds, but do you know exactly?” (vol. 24, 88:25). The detective did not know, but the prosecutor referred to an FBI analysis (from Quantico) that confirmed that the sounds were apparent gunshots. A grand jury asked whether the FBI had constructed an exact a time line, and the prosecutor said it had not. That FBI report has apparently not been made public; I haven’t been able to locate it in the on-line sources I have examined.

So apparently Wilson’s complete testimony indicates that Brown’s forward motion was interrupted momentarily by his gunshots, which meant that brown wasn’t constantly moving forward during the 6.5 second period of shooting. As noted above, this means that Brown’s intermittent speed could have been 7+ mph over the 48 ft distance from where he turned to where he fell.

Jogging is running at a gentle pace. The definition of jogging as compared with running is not standard. One definition describes jogging as running slower than 6 miles per hour.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jogging#Definition

I guess now we can say with more confidence that Brown was likely running.

 

Photizo actually wasn't wrong, in many of the things he had to say. The trick, Kremmen, is to read carefully.

The standard operating procedure, here (and anywhere), seems to be that if one is perceived as a woo, then there is nothing of merit in anything he says.
Don't believe that. Woo is woo, but therein can often lie truth.

I'm an atheist, and the bible IMO is generally a pile of guano, but there was one quote in particular which actually struck me.
I might be in the mood to try and track it down, later, but right now... not an option.

Point is: discount nothing.
In spite of your conception as to whom the poster is or represents.

Cast your eye, instead, to how said poster is treated.
Bullying isn't immediately obvious, to those who are not the target or have no sympathy toward it.

 

Do I think there is a problem? Yes.
I thought I'd made it obvious that that problem does not necessarily lie with law enforcement itself, but rather in the perception of what law enforcement actually entails, or how it is by necessity carried out.

I don't know how many times I have to say it.
I don't have any concrete answers.

But I will never accept theirs.

 

There may be merit in some of what he says, but if so this thread isn't a good example of it.
Calling down the Apocalypse in support for a bad argument, was not convincing.

People should obey the police, and they shouldn't run away when they are being questioned,
and they shouldn't assault the officer.
But police nearly everywhere in the world, manage such people without killing them.
As do 99% of the police in the USA.
The punishment for being a criminal with a bad attitude should not be death.

 

If the distance is 15 feet over 6.5 seconds, he was walking slowly.
If the distance is 48 feet over 6.5 seconds, he was running.

@Bells
Where did you get the figure of 15 feet?

@Capracus
48 feet. Is that the distance between them when he turned, or when the shooting began?

Someone is giving me misleading information.
How am I supposed to solve crimes without the facts?

 

Are you saying that in the 6.5 seconds he moved from 15 feet away to, at best, 8 feet away?
That is even slower than Zimmer speed.
We are entering the realms of the Giant Galapagos Tortoise.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

One of the saddest tragedies about this case is defined by the officer's supporters, who in the early days of this debacle reminded that the shooter deserved his due process, and we ought not rush to judgment.

However, due process for Michael Brown was simply to drop dead, and as we see, what Wilson and his supporters got was not due process but something extraordinary. We should not at all be surprised that in the wake of this juristic travesty they are no longer demanding due process for the shooter.