Riots in St. Louis after Police kill Teen

[Distruzio]

"The police are fucked up! How can we possibly address this?"
"... lets destroy shit!"
"That sounds like a good plan!"

[Magna Libero]

What, you shouldn't shot someone if your not certain.

Let me restate:

Self-defense is not a form of punishment.

It's fully possible for an entirely innocent man to be killed in legitimate self-defense.

Self-defense (in most countries) hinges on the defendant having reasonable grounds to belief he is poised under threat of life and limb. This does not necessarily mean that the attacker deserves to die, or would be guilty of a crime in a court of law.

For example, a person aiming an airsoft gun at a police officer can get shot, and then it will be discovered he is innocent - but the shooting is still self-defense.

There is not - anywhere in the world - a death penalty for pushing a store attendant in the chest and walking away with cigars. Not even in Saudi Arabia.

On the other hand, if indeed it is true that Brown was physically struggling with the officer, then it may be that the officer is not guilty of murder.

That's not being innocent, is it? Someone pointing a gun at me, whether real or fake, seems rather like an attempted murder. Therefore, self-defense aka shooting the person with a gun is justified to save a life.

[Calisu]

Let me restate:

Self-defense is not a form of punishment.

It's fully possible for an entirely innocent man to be killed in legitimate self-defense.

Self-defense (in most countries) hinges on the defendant having reasonable grounds to belief he is poised under threat of life and limb. This does not necessarily mean that the attacker deserves to die, or would be guilty of a crime in a court of law.

For example, a person aiming an airsoft gun at a police officer can get shot, and then it will be discovered he is innocent - but the shooting is still self-defense.

There is not - anywhere in the world - a death penalty for pushing a store attendant in the chest and walking away with cigars. Not even in Saudi Arabia.

On the other hand, if indeed it is true that Brown was physically struggling with the officer, then it may be that the officer is not guilty of murder.

That's not being innocent, is it? Someone pointing a gun at me, whether real or fake, seems rather like an attempted murder. Therefore, self-defense aka shooting the person with a gun is justified to save a life.

But shooting them 6 times? Twice in the head?

[Organized States]

That's not being innocent, is it? Someone pointing a gun at me, whether real or fake, seems rather like an attempted murder. Therefore, self-defense aka shooting the person with a gun is justified to save a life.

But shooting them 6 times? Twice in the head?

You shoot them until they stop. The twice in the head are quite easily explained by the fact that if Brown was moving, his head could have been easily struck.

[Kouralia]

That's not being innocent, is it? Someone pointing a gun at me, whether real or fake, seems rather like an attempted murder. Therefore, self-defense aka shooting the person with a gun is justified to save a life.

But shooting them 6 times? Twice in the head?

You're assuming that the Officer deliberately placed every shot, with a pause between each in order to analyse the effect it had on the target. As opposed to firing as rapidly as possible until he was utterly sure any threat was neutralised.

[Calisu]

But shooting them 6 times? Twice in the head?

You shoot them until they stop. The twice in the head are quite easily explained by the fact that if Brown was moving, his head could have been easily struck.

Because the smallest part of the body moving quickly makes it easier to shoot?

[Kouralia]

You shoot them until they stop. The twice in the head are quite easily explained by the fact that if Brown was moving, his head could have been easily struck.

Because the smallest part of the body moving quickly makes it easier to shoot?

Because apparently the shots to the head occurred last - potentially as the charging teen fell forwards, bringing his head into the sight picture even if it was previously aimed at his heart.

[Calisu]

Because the smallest part of the body moving quickly makes it easier to shoot?

Because apparently the shots to the head occurred last - potentially as the charging teen fell forwards, bringing his head into the sight picture even if it was previously aimed at his heart.

Or as he was laying on the ground bleeding out?

[Kouralia]

Because apparently the shots to the head occurred last - potentially as the charging teen fell forwards, bringing his head into the sight picture even if it was previously aimed at his heart.

Or as he was laying on the ground bleeding out?

Do you have any evidence that the police officer took it upon himself to execute (with a shot to the top of the head, not to the back or side) a non-threat?

[Proskoya]

Because apparently the shots to the head occurred last - potentially as the charging teen fell forwards, bringing his head into the sight picture even if it was previously aimed at his heart.

Or as he was laying on the ground bleeding out?

I was under the impression that the autopsy was able to say that all shots were from a distance ... I'mma go look at the sources that I've seen.

[Calisu]

Or as he was laying on the ground bleeding out?

I was under the impression that the autopsy was able to say that all shots were from a distance ... I'mma go look at the sources that I've seen.

Maybe post your sources

[Proskoya]

I was under the impression that the autopsy was able to say that all shots were from a distance ... I'mma go look at the sources that I've seen.

Maybe post your sources

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/18/us/michae ... index.html

Not shot at close range

According to Baden's autopsy, the bullets that struck Brown were not fired from close range, as indicated by the absence of gunpowder residue on his body.

Some of the bullets left several wounds.

One of the bullets shattered his right eye, traveled through his face, exited his jaw and re-entered at his collarbone, according to the autopsy.

The last two shots were probably the ones to his head, family attorney Anthony Gray said. One entered the top of his Brown's skull, suggesting that his head was bent forward when he was struck.

That's just one for the moment, I'll see how many drag up that same paragraph.

The bullets did not appear to have been shot from very close range because no gunpowder was present on his body. However, that determination could change if it turns out that there is gunshot residue on Mr. Brown’s clothing, to which Dr. Baden did not have access.

(http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/us/michael-brown-autopsy-shows-he-was-shot-at-least-6-times.html?_r=0)

EDITED: Second Source

[Mavorpen]

Not really, distance isn't an automatic indicator of unjustified action. all 6 shots were from the front. 4 shots were not incapacitation shots, located in the extremities. 2 we're head shots. 1 in the eye socket, the other in the top of the head. with the top of the head being the final shot, which suggests Brown was falling forward when it was received. While not conclusive, it one contradicts the initial witness statement of him being shot in the back, most likely a lie to villify the police officer. Secondly it suggests brown was moving forward towards the officer and not away.

Sorry, but this is technically wrong, and you'd know that with a bit more research. The six shots you're talking about are explicitly shots that created both entry and exit wounds. In other words, they are the result of bullets completely entering and exiting Brown's body. There is, however, more to the autopsy than that. Specifically, I'm talking about:

Forensic pathologist Shawn Parcells, who assisted former New York City chief medical examiner Dr. Michael Baden during the private autopsy, said a bullet grazed Brown's right arm. He said the wound indicates Brown may have had his back to the shooter, or he could have been facing the shooter with his hands above his head or in a defensive position across his chest or face.

So yes, if we're going to be specific, it's not true that he was shot in the back, though I'm not sure why that matters overall. It could be that Brown was saw reacting to the bullet that grazed him and Johnson probably assumed it was in the back.

additionally, at a cursory glance (I could be wrong) it appears the entry wounds on the arm were on the top of the arm, not the underside, which means his arms were not up in "surrender" as "witnesses" claimed.

I have no idea what picture you're looking at, but the bullet wounds are clearly lateral.

All in all, the autopsy actually seems to support the officers account, that Brown rushed the officer, and he fired in self defense. If he did, the number of rounds, fired is actually fairly tame, given the bullet pattern. given the adrenaline factor it is unlikely Brown even felt the impacts,would have kept moving toward the officer, who kept firing until perceived threat was eliminated.

The autopsy does no such thing, really.

[Page]

Missouri authorities: Your First Amendment rights have been amended to include a curfew.
People: *stand with hands up*
Missouri authorities: *fires tear gas and flash grenades*

Next day
Missouri authorities: There's no more curfew, but you have to keep moving on the streets. Even though the streets are blocked off anyway, if you stand still you'll be arrested, because your right to peaceably assemble has been amended to mandate that you walk.
People: *walk to sidewalk to protest*
Missouri authorities: *fires tear gas and flash grenades at people on sidewalk, chase people down alleys with armored trucks and LRAD, close in on the designated zone for protests and arrest 70 people*

[James Deans]

Michael Brown was a cool cat, rest in peace, daddy-o. But who the fuck walks into a store and steals cigarettes? People act like the cop with a good record shot Brown for being Brown. Take it easy, Al Sharpton. God fucking damn, Clyde.

[Page]

Occam's razor is a heuristic not logic. Regardless, his past doesn't matter. The autopsy seems to suggest he was shot at distance several times by the officer. It will take more time and details before we see a bigger picture, but so far, it appears as though the officer was not justified in shooting Brown.

Not really, distance isn't an automatic indicator of unjustified action. all 6 shots were from the front. 4 shots were not incapacitation shots, located in the extremities. 2 we're head shots. 1 in the eye socket, the other in the top of the head. with the top of the head being the final shot, which suggests Brown was falling forward when it was received. While not conclusive, it one contradicts the initial witness statement of him being shot in the back, most likely a lie to villify the police officer. Secondly it suggests brown was moving forward towards the officer and not away.


additionally, at a cursory glance (I could be wrong) it appears the entry wounds on the arm were on the top of the arm, not the underside, which means his arms were not up in "surrender" as "witnesses" claimed.

All in all, the autopsy actually seems to support the officers account, that Brown rushed the officer, and he fired in self defense. If he did, the number of rounds, fired is actually fairly tame, given the bullet pattern. given the adrenaline factor it is unlikely Brown even felt the impacts,would have kept moving toward the officer, who kept firing until perceived threat was eliminated.


this is all of course, just an alternative analysis, and not necessarily what happened.

You do realize Brown was a breathing human being and not patient zero from the zombie apocalypse, right? No one reacts to gunfire from 30+ ft. away by rushing the shooter, and the idea that he was unfazed by a gunshot to the arm before two bullets went through his head is absurd.

Also considering that police are trained to aim for center body mass, a person's torso as a general rule, given the position of the bullets not only through his face but on his arm, the autopsy seems to indicate a deliberate summary execution.

[Calisu]

Michael Brown was a cool cat, rest in peace, daddy-o. But who the fuck walks into a store and steals cigarettes? People act like the cop with a good record shot Brown for being Brown. Take it easy, Al Sharpton. God fucking damn, Clyde.

Police Chief said in a press conference that Brown was not shot because of his involvement in the robbery the cop that shot him didn't even know he was a suspect.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Is there anything I am missing?

An unbiased nature, or presumption of innocence until guilt is proven.

But nah, it must be racism. The victim had only just committed assault and robbery, clearly it was beyond his motivation to do anything further wrong. Wilson must be a Grand Wizard of the KKK. Why even wait for a trial?

By the police's own admission:
1) Officer Wilson did not know of the robbery.

2) Mr Brown was unarmed

3) According to the autopsy, Mr Brown was shot a total of six times in the front and from a distance. Even if Officer Wilson, for whatever reason, needed to fire at Mr Brown, he still shot him six times, and that is assuming that firing a warning shot in the air isn't enough to deter him if...and this is an if that goes against most witness' report...he was rampaging and charging at an armed police officer with his bare hands.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Michael Brown was a cool cat, rest in peace, daddy-o. But who the fuck walks into a store and steals cigarettes? People act like the cop with a good record shot Brown for being Brown. Take it easy, Al Sharpton. God fucking damn, Clyde.

They did shoot Michael Brown for being a shade darker than the purest lily white.

Not only did they admit that the video is irrelevant to his shooting, but that is basically an admission of defaming Michael Brown's name.

[Spreewerke]

that is assuming that firing a warning shot in the air isn't enough to deter him if...

I am so, so, so, so, so glad you are not a peace officer.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

that is assuming that firing a warning shot in the air isn't enough to deter him if...

I am so, so, so, so, so glad you are not a peace officer.

It's better than firing at an unarmed civilian.

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

that is assuming that firing a warning shot in the air isn't enough to deter him if...

I am so, so, so, so, so glad you are not a peace officer.

Never thought I'd say this, but maybe anonymous is right. Maybe we should get body cameras.

[Mavorpen]

I am so, so, so, so, so glad you are not a peace officer.

Never thought I'd say this, but maybe anonymous is right. Maybe we should get body cameras.

I'm not sure why this is surprising to anyone. Body cameras, to me, seems to be one of the most obvious solutions to this problem. And they do work. Of course, it won't necessarily address the central problems of being poorly trained and such, but it's a nice step forward.

[Spreewerke]

I am so, so, so, so, so glad you are not a peace officer.

It's better than firing at an unarmed civilian.

Because firing blindly in a suburb of Saint Louis obviously has 0% chance of that bullet hitting someone/something else.

The only warning they get is a rifled tube ~0.38" or 0.40" in diameter pointed towards them and a verbal command.

[Scomagia]

Never thought I'd say this, but maybe anonymous is right. Maybe we should get body cameras.

I'm not sure why this is surprising to anyone. Body cameras, to me, seems to be one of the most obvious solutions to this problem. And they do work. Of course, it won't necessarily address the central problems of being poorly trained and such, but it's a nice step forward.

What are the odds that we'll be able to make body-cameras a requirement for the police, though? Considering how adamantly many police oppose civilians filming them, particularly when they are beating people, can we really expect to ever make body-cameras standard?