Ferguson Megathread

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Wasn't really botched so much as people don't like the outcome.

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...

Refusing to carry a Taser never has been or will ever be grounds for refuting self-defense or proving criminal killing, ever.

As the fanbois of the theory that Wilson fired at Brown whilst he was running/facing away and missed themselves implicitly admit, the fact of a matter is that not every shot finds its target, especially during an incident where one is essentially fighting for their life. So they might just, you know, fire 12 rounds at someone knowing that they missed.

The county’s report also showed that Brown was shot six times, with gunshot wounds to the head and chest as the cause of death. An additional toxicology report detected marijuana in Brown’s blood.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/michael-browns-official-autopsy-report-actually-reveal/

What do you know, only 6 shots, so half, actually hit Brown.

[The UK in Exile]

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...

Refusing to carry a Taser never has been or will ever be grounds for refuting self-defense or proving criminal killing, ever.

As the fanbois of the theory that Wilson fired at Brown whilst he was running/facing away and missed themselves implicitly admit, the fact of a matter is that not every shot finds its target, especially during an incident where one is essentially fighting for their life. So they might just, you know, fire 12 rounds at someone knowing that they missed.

The county’s report also showed that Brown was shot six times, with gunshot wounds to the head and chest as the cause of death. An additional toxicology report detected marijuana in Brown’s blood.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/michael-browns-official-autopsy-report-actually-reveal/

What do you know, only 6 shots, so half, actually hit Brown.

Exactly, which might be why twelve people reported that the officer fired on Brown whilst he was running away.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

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.

pfft, I don't care, cops should obviously be trained to defeat biology so that they never -god forbid- fire 1 more shot than necessary *nods*

[Inyourfaceistan]

Refusing to carry a Taser never has been or will ever be grounds for refuting self-defense or proving criminal killing, ever.

As the fanbois of the theory that Wilson fired at Brown whilst he was running/facing away and missed themselves implicitly admit, the fact of a matter is that not every shot finds its target, especially during an incident where one is essentially fighting for their life. So they might just, you know, fire 12 rounds at someone knowing that they missed.



http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/michael-browns-official-autopsy-report-actually-reveal/

What do you know, only 6 shots, so half, actually hit Brown.

Exactly, which might be why twelve people reported that the officer fired on Brown whilst he was running away.

Then why would the bullet entry wounds prove he was facing officer Wilson when he was shot and killed?
Why would the ballistics show that Brown was hit while moving in significant forward motion towards officer Wilson?
Why would six people report that Brown charged Wilson?

[The UK in Exile]

Here's something that might help:



Source.

pfft, I don't care, cops should obviously be trained to defeat biology so that they never -god forbid- fire 1 more shot than necessary *nods*

Or used one of the two less lethal weapons he had on his person.

[The UK in Exile]

Exactly, which might be why twelve people reported that the officer fired on Brown whilst he was running away.

Then why would the bullet entry wounds prove he was facing officer Wilson when he was shot and killed?
Why would the ballistics show that Brown was hit while moving in significant forward motion towards officer Wilson?
Why would six people report that Brown charged Wilson?

1. Because he missed whilst he was running away and hit when he turned round?
2. They don't. or rather, they are inconclusive.
3. Ones the defendant, one's racist, the others mistook a slow movement for a fast one. At least 5 others explicity refute that event happening.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

pfft, I don't care, cops should obviously be trained to defeat biology so that they never -god forbid- fire 1 more shot than necessary *nods*

Or used one of the two less lethal weapons he had on his person.

which are.. ?

The only reasonable alternative to lethal force in SOME lethal force situations is a Taser, which from what I understand he wasn't carrying. So assuming he was in fact defending his life or against grave bodily harm what he did was not only justifiable, there was literally no effective "notch to go down" available at the moment.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Then why would the bullet entry wounds prove he was facing officer Wilson when he was shot and killed?
Why would the ballistics show that Brown was hit while moving in significant forward motion towards officer Wilson?
Why would six people report that Brown charged Wilson?

1. Because he missed whilst he was running away and hit when he turned round?
2. They don't. or rather, they are inconclusive.
3. Ones the defendant, one's racist, the others mistook a slow movement for a fast one.

oh wow, really?

At least 5 others explicity refute that event happening.

So essentially it's 6-1(defendant) so the word of 5 against the word of another 5?

[The UK in Exile]

1. Because he missed whilst he was running away and hit when he turned round?
2. They don't. or rather, they are inconclusive.
3. Ones the defendant, one's racist, the others mistook a slow movement for a fast one.

oh wow, really?

At least 5 others explicity refute that event happening.

So essentially it's 6-1(defendant) so the word of 5 against the word of another 5?

plus the 12 people who say he fired on him whilst running away.

Or used one of the two less lethal weapons he had on his person.

which are.. ?

The only reasonable alternative to lethal force in SOME lethal force situations is a Taser, which from what I understand he wasn't carrying. So assuming he was in fact defending his life or against grave bodily harm what he did was not only justifiable, there was literally no effective "notch to go down" available at the moment.

Mace or Baton.

[Jamzmania]

oh wow, really?



So essentially it's 6-1(defendant) so the word of 5 against the word of another 5?

plus the 12 people who say he fired on him whilst running away.

which are.. ?

The only reasonable alternative to lethal force in SOME lethal force situations is a Taser, which from what I understand he wasn't carrying. So assuming he was in fact defending his life or against grave bodily harm what he did was not only justifiable, there was literally no effective "notch to go down" available at the moment.

Mace or Baton.

He was defending himself against someone that he felt was significantly more powerful than him and was in fear of being knocked unconscious. In that situation, I'd have gone with the gun than the less-than-sure methods of removing the threat.

[The UK in Exile]

plus the 12 people who say he fired on him whilst running away.



Mace or Baton.

He was defending himself against someone that he felt was significantly more powerful than him and was in fear of being knocked unconscious. In that situation, I'd have gone with the gun than the less-than-sure methods of removing the threat.

Well unless your applying in St Louis I'd leave it off your police application form. Why then did the Officer consider using them earlier in the incident?

He must be a particularly intimidating gentleman if his retreating back was so terrifying.

[Dyakovo]

Exactly, which might be why twelve people reported that the officer fired on Brown whilst he was running away.

Then why would the bullet entry wounds prove he was facing officer Wilson when he was shot and killed?

Because hitting a target that is moving away from you is harder than hitting a target that is stopped or moving towards you.

[Jamzmania]

He was defending himself against someone that he felt was significantly more powerful than him and was in fear of being knocked unconscious. In that situation, I'd have gone with the gun than the less-than-sure methods of removing the threat.

Well unless your applying in St Louis I'd leave it off your police application form. Why then did the Officer consider using them earlier in the incident?

He must be a particularly intimidating gentleman if his retreating back was so terrifying.

There is absolutely no physical evidence to support that Wilson shot at Brown while he was running away.

[The UK in Exile]

Well unless your applying in St Louis I'd leave it off your police application form. Why then did the Officer consider using them earlier in the incident?

He must be a particularly intimidating gentleman if his retreating back was so terrifying.

There is absolutely no physical evidence to support that Wilson shot at Brown while he was running away.

There is no physical evidence to contradict it though, and twelve witnesses who saw it.

[Jamzmania]

There is absolutely no physical evidence to support that Wilson shot at Brown while he was running away.

There is no physical evidence to contradict it though, and twelve witnesses who saw it.

There is physical evidence to support that Brown was shot while facing the officer, and many witnesses have already been proven unreliable.

[Islamic State of UKIP]

plus the 12 people who say he fired on him whilst running away.



Mace or Baton.

He was defending himself against someone that he felt was significantly more powerful than him and was in fear of being knocked unconscious. In that situation, I'd have gone with the gun than the less-than-sure methods of removing the threat.

He was defending himself against someone running away from him. Seems legit. As was said multiple times, the testimony by Wilson and the police has been wildly inconsistant. Generally if one person can't keep a story straight you know they are either lying or are unsure. When the police can't keep their story straight it's a cover up. I mean who can forget the police announcing that Brown robbed a store only to have the store owner refute that and point out he never phoned in a robbery and released video proof that he was not robbed. Why in the hell should he have to prove he wasn't robbed in the first place? And why would the police say it was a robbery if no robbery had even been called in?

The evidence is conclusively behind Brown. I suggest ylh read all of it, it's quite interesting.

[Jamzmania]

He was defending himself against someone that he felt was significantly more powerful than him and was in fear of being knocked unconscious. In that situation, I'd have gone with the gun than the less-than-sure methods of removing the threat.

He was defending himself against someone running away from him. Seems legit. As was said multiple times, the testimony by Wilson and the police has been wildly inconsistant. Generally if one person can't keep a story straight you know they are either lying or are unsure. When the police can't keep their story straight it's a cover up. I mean who can forget the police announcing that Brown robbed a store only to have the store owner refute that and point out he never phoned in a robbery and released video proof that he was not robbed. Why in the hell should he have to prove he wasn't robbed in the first place? And why would the police say it was a robbery if no robbery had even been called in?

The evidence is conclusively behind Brown. I suggest ylh read all of it, it's quite interesting.

If the evidence was so in favor of Brown, how do you explain the Grand Jury's decision not to indict? Those jurors must have either been extremely racist or mentally incapable.

[Islamic State of UKIP]

Well unless your applying in St Louis I'd leave it off your police application form. Why then did the Officer consider using them earlier in the incident?

He must be a particularly intimidating gentleman if his retreating back was so terrifying.

There is absolutely no physical evidence to support that Wilson shot at Brown while he was running away.

There is a bullet graze going on his thumb going outwards. At the very least he was backing away. Cut and dry stuff there

[The UK in Exile]

There is no physical evidence to contradict it though, and twelve witnesses who saw it.

There is physical evidence to support that Brown was shot while facing the officer, and many witnesses have already been proven unreliable.

Yes. but I'm not disputing that he was hit whilst facing the officer, I'm suggesting that he was shot at whilst running away.

Have all 12?

[Jamzmania]

There is absolutely no physical evidence to support that Wilson shot at Brown while he was running away.

There is a bullet graze going on his thumb going outwards. At the very least he was backing away. Cut and dry stuff there

I'll remind you that Wilson fired two shots inside the vehicle (where he was being assaulted by Brown).

[Islamic State of UKIP]

He was defending himself against someone running away from him. Seems legit. As was said multiple times, the testimony by Wilson and the police has been wildly inconsistant. Generally if one person can't keep a story straight you know they are either lying or are unsure. When the police can't keep their story straight it's a cover up. I mean who can forget the police announcing that Brown robbed a store only to have the store owner refute that and point out he never phoned in a robbery and released video proof that he was not robbed. Why in the hell should he have to prove he wasn't robbed in the first place? And why would the police say it was a robbery if no robbery had even been called in?

The evidence is conclusively behind Brown. I suggest ylh read all of it, it's quite interesting.

If the evidence was so in favor of Brown, how do you explain the Grand Jury's decision not to indict? Those jurors must have either been extremely racist or mentally incapable.

You need 9 of 12 jurors to indict someone. The statement from the grand jury sounds as if the majority wanted an indictment but 4 jurors or so did not want to indict him. The statement literally says that Wilson was repsonsible for the "death and murder of Michael Brown". Murder is not a word you use if there is no belief a crime took place.

Again, read the evidence.

[Islamic State of UKIP]

There is a bullet graze going on his thumb going outwards. At the very least he was backing away. Cut and dry stuff there

I'll remind you that Wilson fired two shots inside the vehicle (where he was being assaulted by Brown).

One going on the outside of Brown's thumb. Proving that if he was doing anything "aggressive", he may have pushed the gun away from himself. Oh no, an innocent person is defending himself from deadly force! When Wilson did it's okay but not when Brown did!!!

There's literally no proof of Wilson being assaulted. The photos weren't taken to seriously judging by the transcript. It looks like he brushed some rogue on his cheek.

[Inyourfaceistan]

There is no physical evidence to contradict it though, and twelve witnesses who saw it.

There is physical evidence to support that Brown was shot while facing the officer, and many witnesses have already been proven unreliable.

And other witnesses have supported Wilson's story.

I mean there is physical evidence and eyewitness testimony on Wilson's side. There is just more eyewitness testimony on Brown's side.

[Cymrea]

He was defending himself against someone running away from him. Seems legit. As was said multiple times, the testimony by Wilson and the police has been wildly inconsistant. Generally if one person can't keep a story straight you know they are either lying or are unsure. When the police can't keep their story straight it's a cover up. I mean who can forget the police announcing that Brown robbed a store only to have the store owner refute that and point out he never phoned in a robbery and released video proof that he was not robbed. Why in the hell should he have to prove he wasn't robbed in the first place? And why would the police say it was a robbery if no robbery had even been called in?

The evidence is conclusively behind Brown. I suggest ylh read all of it, it's quite interesting.

The coroner's report shows Brown was shot in the chest at close range. The officer was one hell of a shot to manage that while Brown was running away. And with all those tremendously reliable witnesseses claiming the cop shot him as he ran.

Wildly inconsistent witness testimony - if they can't keep their stories straight, what does that indicate? - most of which is proven false with, you know, evidence and stuff. Evidence, instead of a "fuck the police" conspiracy mentality.

[The UK in Exile]

There is physical evidence to support that Brown was shot while facing the officer, and many witnesses have already been proven unreliable.

And other witnesses have supported Wilson's story.

I mean there is physical evidence and eyewitness testimony on Wilson's side. There is just more eyewitness testimony on Brown's side.

Except it isn't because the physical evidence does nothing more than say wilson shot Brown.

Which is what he's accused of anyway.