Ferguson Megathread

[Des-Bal]

And the Zimmerman trial kept Florida from rioting. Waste of money right?

Source?

[The Fascist American Empire]

Let me see if I can find the image again, but the bullet wounds on Michael Brown's autopsy would seem to imply that only three hits were fatal, and the neck and chin shots may not have been instantly fatal.

Only three shots were fatal. Just in case he's a zombie right? Three fatal shots, plus nine others, is over kill. No its ands or buts about it.

As I stated in my previous post, 12 shots is excessive regardless of the situation. I mean, come on, a dozen bullets is excessive for a bear! Like I said, if the kid knew his rights, then nothing would have happened, and he would still be alive. Probably in jail because robbed that store, but alive.

[Islamic State of UKIP]

Well judging from the grand jury statement the majority wanted an indictment but 4 or so jurors blocked the indictment. The evidence overwhelmingly shows this is a clear cut case of manslaughter, possibly murder as Wilson admits he refused to carry a taser and fired 12 rounds into him. You shouldn't need 12 rounds to kill anyone...

A grand jury requires a vote of 9-3 or better to indict. A trial requires a unanimous verdict to find someone guilty. If you can't get 9 out of 12 to say indictment is possible you absolutely can't get twelve out twelve to say he is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. That's not an error it's exactly how it's supposed to work.

Having done absolutely no plumbing into the depths of this thread I can say with certainty that several people have already explained you shoot someone until they no longer pose a threat. The witness testimony was WILDLY inconsistent and very fluid as more details came out and that probably had the most to do with why they reached the decision they did.

While I agree a trial would have dragged on the evidence shows that he did the crime. There is no disputing the evidence.

First off, you should never shoot anyone. Second, he was unarmed. A taser, pepper spray, or billy club would have been more than enough. If Wilson was a rookie the overreaction would make sense. He wasn't. His overreaction makes no sense and was completely out ofnplace. His testimony was wildly inconsistant, even with the autopsy, with that you are correct but that should have gotten the indictment and not the opposite. The decision, by the minority, was most likely reached due to prejudices of various sorts. Police always being gold guys, kids being up to no good, and racism. The evidence does not, and never will regardless of your posturing, support the decision.

[Inyourfaceistan]

Let me see if I can find the image again, but the bullet wounds on Michael Brown's autopsy would seem to imply that only three hits were fatal, and the neck and chin shots may not have been instantly fatal.

Only three shots were fatal. Just in case he's a zombie right? Three fatal shots, plus nine others, is over kill. No its ands or buts about it.

Have you fired a gun before?

You do realize its not like the movies and you just automatically know if you hit your target or not. The headshot is probably the shot that took Brown down, of course in the heat of the moment in the span of a few seconds he probably would have kept firing until he was sure the target was stopped in his tracks.

Furthermore, the fatal shots (with the exception of the forehead graze) appear (I am not a professional, but neither are most of you I bet) to be the last shots fired.
There is nothing "overkill" about it...

[Des-Bal]

While I agree a trial would have dragged on the evidence shows that he did the crime. There is no disputing the evidence.

First off, you should never shoot anyone. Second, he was unarmed. A taser, pepper spray, or billy club would have been more than enough. If Wilson was a rookie the overreaction would make sense. He wasn't. His overreaction makes no sense and was completely out ofnplace. His testimony was wildly inconsistant, even with the autopsy, with that you are correct but that should have gotten the indictment and not the opposite. The decision, by the minority, was most likely reached due to prejudices of various sorts. Police always being gold guys, kids being up to no good, and racism. The evidence does not, and never will regardless of your posturing, support the decision.

1.NO IT DOESN'T SHOW THAT. IT DOESN'T IN THE LEAST.

2. It wasn't an overreaction.

3. The testimony of the WITNESSES was inconsistent and it CHANGED when the autopsy came out.

[Gauthier]

I see you didn't even bother with nonsensical shit to try and distract from how I pointed out Zimmerman's trial is proof that your claims of extensive rioting from a full trial is full of it.

I thought it would be sufficient to point out the utter insanity of what you just said. Also you don't seem to understand how proof works as one incident not precipitating a riot does not mean that any similar incident is incapable of precipitating a riot.

Because even though Zimmerman was found Not Guilty, the fact that Florida bothered to go through with a trial in the first place showed the black communities in Florida that at least Trayvon Martin's life was worth bothering with a trial in the first place. While people bitched about the verdict, Florida didn't turn into a Great White concert. Contrast that with Ferguson, where the moment the official verdict of "Thug Had It Coming, Not Gonna Bother Finding Out If The Case Was Otherwise" resulted in the Bitch Being Burnt Down.

[Islamic State of UKIP]

Only three shots were fatal. Just in case he's a zombie right? Three fatal shots, plus nine others, is over kill. No its ands or buts about it.

As I stated in my previous post, 12 shots is excessive regardless of the situation. I mean, come on, a dozen bullets is excessive for a bear! Like I said, if the kid knew his rights, then nothing would have happened, and he would still be alive. Probably in jail because robbed that store, but alive.

Source for the robbery?

It's common knowledge that no robbery was ever called in nor did a robbery ever take place. The store owner admitted that after the police gave a conference where they revealed Wilson and accused Brown of robbing a store beforehand and said that was why he was stopped. Again, the police testimony was WILDLY inconsistant throughout.

[The UK in Exile]

Wildly inconsistent with what?

why, the officers testimony of course!

The physical evidence, each others testimony, the autopsy pretty much whatever you please.

Except, as we've covered before, they aren't. And as was repeatedly stated in the grand jury testimony, the Autopsy relies on witness testimony to reach its conclusion. So how the fuck is it inconsistent with the autopsy when its informs the outcome of it?

[Des-Bal]

Because even though Zimmerman was found Not Guilty, the fact that Florida bothered to go through with a trial in the first place showed the black communities in Florida that at least Trayvon Martin's life was worth bothering with a trial in the first place. While people bitched about the verdict, Florida didn't turn into a Great White concert. Contrast that with Ferguson, where the moment the official verdict of "Thug Had It Coming, Not Gonna Bother Finding Out If The Case Was Otherwise" resulted in the Bitch Being Burnt Down.

Go ahead and show me a source that says that the trial was both necessary and sufficient to prevent a riot.

[The UK in Exile]

Only three shots were fatal. Just in case he's a zombie right? Three fatal shots, plus nine others, is over kill. No its ands or buts about it.

Have you fired a gun before?

You do realize its not like the movies and you just automatically know if you hit your target or not. The headshot is probably the shot that took Brown down, of course in the heat of the moment in the span of a few seconds he probably would have kept firing until he was sure the target was stopped in his tracks.

Furthermore, the fatal shots (with the exception of the forehead graze) appear (I am not a professional, but neither are most of you I bet) to be the last shots fired.
There is nothing "overkill" about it...

Except he's shooting at a man who is running away....

[Gauthier]

Because even though Zimmerman was found Not Guilty, the fact that Florida bothered to go through with a trial in the first place showed the black communities in Florida that at least Trayvon Martin's life was worth bothering with a trial in the first place. While people bitched about the verdict, Florida didn't turn into a Great White concert. Contrast that with Ferguson, where the moment the official verdict of "Thug Had It Coming, Not Gonna Bother Finding Out If The Case Was Otherwise" resulted in the Bitch Being Burnt Down.

Go ahead and show me a source that says that the trial was both necessary and sufficient to prevent a riot.

What, do you have some physical inability to compare and contrast Sanford, Florida and Ferguson and need some academic literature to point out to you what common sense observation can see?

[Islamic State of UKIP]

While I agree a trial would have dragged on the evidence shows that he did the crime. There is no disputing the evidence.

First off, you should never shoot anyone. Second, he was unarmed. A taser, pepper spray, or billy club would have been more than enough. If Wilson was a rookie the overreaction would make sense. He wasn't. His overreaction makes no sense and was completely out ofnplace. His testimony was wildly inconsistant, even with the autopsy, with that you are correct but that should have gotten the indictment and not the opposite. The decision, by the minority, was most likely reached due to prejudices of various sorts. Police always being gold guys, kids being up to no good, and racism. The evidence does not, and never will regardless of your posturing, support the decision.

1.NO IT DOESN'T SHOW THAT. IT DOESN'T IN THE LEAST.

2. It wasn't an overreaction.

3. The testimony of the WITNESSES was inconsistent and it CHANGED when the autopsy came out.

Yeah, do some research first. Actually read the testimony and autopsy. It's not worth arguing with someone who clearly only believes what Faux says and doesn't actually research a topic. It was a clear cut case of manslaughter caused by an overreaction and then police changed their story every five minutes. The witnesses had differing accounts due to the fact that it is a stressful situation, different angles, possible intimidstion.

Do some reading, then we'll talk.

[The Cobalt Sky]

Only three shots were fatal. Just in case he's a zombie right? Three fatal shots, plus nine others, is over kill. No its ands or buts about it.

Have you fired a gun before?

You do realize its not like the movies and you just automatically know if you hit your target or not. The headshot is probably the shot that took Brown down, of course in the heat of the moment in the span of a few seconds he probably would have kept firing until he was sure the target was stopped in his tracks.

Furthermore, the fatal shots (with the exception of the forehead graze) appear (I am not a professional, but neither are most of you I bet) to be the last shots fired.
There is nothing "overkill" about it...

In the heat of the moment until he stopped firing? Sounds like overkill. Also sloppy police work. He should have more control over himself. Even if his story is somehow true.

[Inyourfaceistan]

While I agree a trial would have dragged on the evidence shows that he did the crime. There is no disputing the evidence.

First off, you should never shoot anyone. Second, he was unarmed. A taser, pepper spray, or billy club would have been more than enough. If Wilson was a rookie the overreaction would make sense. He wasn't. His overreaction makes no sense and was completely out ofnplace. His testimony was wildly inconsistant, even with the autopsy, with that you are correct but that should have gotten the indictment and not the opposite. The decision, by the minority, was most likely reached due to prejudices of various sorts. Police always being gold guys, kids being up to no good, and racism. The evidence does not, and never will regardless of your posturing, support the decision.

1.NO IT DOESN'T SHOW THAT. IT DOESN'T IN THE LEAST.

2. It wasn't an overreaction.

3. The testimony of the WITNESSES was inconsistent and it CHANGED when the autopsy came out.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/25/justice/f ... index.html

At least one witness supported Wilson's story.

Let me dig for more...

[Des-Bal]

Except, as we've covered before, they aren't. And as was repeatedly stated in the grand jury testimony, the Autopsy relies on witness testimony to reach its conclusion. So how the fuck is it inconsistent with the autopsy when its informs the outcome of it?

Because they autopsy is not DICTATED by the witness testimony if it were we just wouldn't do autopsies. Brown wasn't shot in the back, he wasn't executed when he was on the ground, he didn't have his arms up in surrender. Witness testimony on the other hand was dictated by the autopsy because as details became available witnesses changed their stories.

[Islamic State of UKIP]

Only three shots were fatal. Just in case he's a zombie right? Three fatal shots, plus nine others, is over kill. No its ands or buts about it.

Have you fired a gun before?

You do realize its not like the movies and you just automatically know if you hit your target or not. The headshot is probably the shot that took Brown down, of course in the heat of the moment in the span of a few seconds he probably would have kept firing until he was sure the target was stopped in his tracks.

Furthermore, the fatal shots (with the exception of the forehead graze) appear (I am not a professional, but neither are most of you I bet) to be the last shots fired.
There is nothing "overkill" about it...

You do realise he was using a Sig Sauer right? 12 shots from one of those is sufficient to take down a bear. There is literally no excuse for his overreaction.

[Des-Bal]

In the heat of the moment until he stopped firing? Sounds like overkill. Also sloppy police work. He should have more control over himself. Even if his story is somehow true.

Not really. Every single instance of someone being shot involves a few people confused about how guns work.

[Des-Bal]

You do realise he was using a Sig Sauer right? 12 shots from one of those is sufficient to take down a bear. There is literally no excuse for his overreaction.

Do you realize that Sig Sauer is a company not a type of gun? His weapon was .40 caliber and 12 shots might take down a bear if they all hit the right place.

[Jamzmania]

Have you fired a gun before?

You do realize its not like the movies and you just automatically know if you hit your target or not. The headshot is probably the shot that took Brown down, of course in the heat of the moment in the span of a few seconds he probably would have kept firing until he was sure the target was stopped in his tracks.

Furthermore, the fatal shots (with the exception of the forehead graze) appear (I am not a professional, but neither are most of you I bet) to be the last shots fired.
There is nothing "overkill" about it...

You do realise he was using a Sig Sauer right? 12 shots from one of those is sufficient to take down a bear. There is literally no excuse for his overreaction.

Here's something that might help:

As to preventing so-called "overkill" from shots that are fired after a threat is neutralized, Lewinski offers these observations:

"Twenty years ago officers were trained to 'shoot then assess.' They fired 1 or 2 rounds, then stopped to see the effect. This required 1/4 to 1/2 second, during which time the suspect could keep firing, if he hadn't been incapacitated.

"Now they're taught to 'shoot and assess,' to judge the effect of their shots as they continue to fire, an on-going process. This allows the officer to continually defend himself, but because the brain is trying to do 2 things at once-shoot and assess-a very significant change in the offender's behavior needs to take place in order for the officer to recognize the change of circumstances.

"A suspect falling to the ground from being shot would be a significant change. But by analyzing the way people fall, we've determined that it takes 2/3 of a second to a full second or more for a person to fall to the ground from a standing position. And that is when they've been hit in a motor center that produces instant loss of muscle tension.

"While an officer is noticing this change, he is going to continue firing if he is shooting as fast as he can under the stress of trying to save his life. On average, from the time an officer perceives a change in stimulus to the time he is able to process that and actually stop firing, 2 to 3 additional rounds will be expended.

"Shooting beyond the moment a threat is neutralized is not a willful, malicious action in most cases. It's an involuntary factor of human dynamics.

Source.

[The Cobalt Sky]

In the heat of the moment until he stopped firing? Sounds like overkill. Also sloppy police work. He should have more control over himself. Even if his story is somehow true.

Not really. Every single instance of someone being shot involves a few people confused about how guns work.

Note the heat of the moment part. That's pretty central to their point.

[Inyourfaceistan]

1.NO IT DOESN'T SHOW THAT. IT DOESN'T IN THE LEAST.

2. It wasn't an overreaction.

3. The testimony of the WITNESSES was inconsistent and it CHANGED when the autopsy came out.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/25/justice/f ... index.html

At least one witness supported Wilson's story.

Let me dig for more...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html

WaPo says at least six supported Wilson's claims.

[Inyourfaceistan]

You do realise he was using a Sig Sauer right? 12 shots from one of those is sufficient to take down a bear. There is literally no excuse for his overreaction.

Here's something that might help:

As to preventing so-called "overkill" from shots that are fired after a threat is neutralized, Lewinski offers these observations:

"Twenty years ago officers were trained to 'shoot then assess.' They fired 1 or 2 rounds, then stopped to see the effect. This required 1/4 to 1/2 second, during which time the suspect could keep firing, if he hadn't been incapacitated.

"Now they're taught to 'shoot and assess,' to judge the effect of their shots as they continue to fire, an on-going process. This allows the officer to continually defend himself, but because the brain is trying to do 2 things at once-shoot and assess-a very significant change in the offender's behavior needs to take place in order for the officer to recognize the change of circumstances.

"A suspect falling to the ground from being shot would be a significant change. But by analyzing the way people fall, we've determined that it takes 2/3 of a second to a full second or more for a person to fall to the ground from a standing position. And that is when they've been hit in a motor center that produces instant loss of muscle tension.

"While an officer is noticing this change, he is going to continue firing if he is shooting as fast as he can under the stress of trying to save his life. On average, from the time an officer perceives a change in stimulus to the time he is able to process that and actually stop firing, 2 to 3 additional rounds will be expended.

"Shooting beyond the moment a threat is neutralized is not a willful, malicious action in most cases. It's an involuntary factor of human dynamics.

Source.

Thank you!

[Des-Bal]

Note the heat of the moment part. That's pretty central to their point.

Right, you shoot until you no longer have to shoot. There's no such thing as "only kind of lethal force".

[The UK in Exile]

Except, as we've covered before, they aren't. And as was repeatedly stated in the grand jury testimony, the Autopsy relies on witness testimony to reach its conclusion. So how the fuck is it inconsistent with the autopsy when its informs the outcome of it?

Because they autopsy is not DICTATED by the witness testimony if it were we just wouldn't do autopsies. Brown wasn't shot in the back, he wasn't executed when he was on the ground, he didn't have his arms up in surrender. Witness testimony on the other hand was dictated by the autopsy because as details became available witnesses changed their stories.

no but he could have been shot AT whilst his back was turned and the injuries to his arms could have come A) whilst he was fleeing or B) when the officer fired during the stand-off whilst he was fleeing, which means that the only shots he recieved after he fled wouldn't indicate whether his hands where up or not.

Except we know they were, because a shit load of people saw them up.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Ex-members of Pussy Riot who took part in protests in New York are demanded to be deprived of US visas

Former members of the Russian punk group Pussy Riot were at the center of a scandal in the United States due to their participation in New York's protests against the police brutality (the reason was the murder of a young black man by police of Ferguson). After that, on the White House Web site appeared a petition to revoke their US visas so that they could no longer interfere in the internal affairs of Americans.

"Russian activists from the band "Pussy Riot" - Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, Maria Alekhina, Peter Verzilov - came to U.S. to promote vulgar, immoral, anti-Christian way of life and values. In Russia, they were convicted for shocking, offensive, immoral action in Christ the Savior Cathedral." - the document says.

Next, the text says that "Americans respect any position," but the Russians participation in unsanctioned protests in New York, was "the last straw of our patience"...

Ex-Pussies were quite blatant and didn't even attempted to hide their involvemnet in protest - posting selfies of their precious selves and twitting right and left.

Thanks for this great post.

Note how your source has already assumed its role of jury ("murder") ;

Also very much a pot calling the kettle black because would Americans be proven to partake in protests in Russia it would immediately be denounced as an American-Zionist-pig-dog-capitalist conspiracy against the Rightful Kingdom of Putin's Russia fighting against New World Order for all Slavic Russian humanity everywhereTM