Michael Brown was 148 feet from Wilson as he was shot to death

[Publius1787]

Hey look, 35 feet or 135 feet doesnt matter. No matter the length Brown could've closed the distance instantly because he was strong as Hulk Hogan and faster than Usain Bolt oh...and had the look of a black demon. Any shot is a good shot...just say you were scared from 100 feet away.

Just curious. Have you ever fired a hand gun? I'm a damned good shot and 100' would be a stretch.

40' is more along the lines of an acceptable distance to try to hit anything with a handgun.

I'm sorry but the body was where it was...are you saying Browns body was moved further away or something?

I'm saying that you are claiming that the distance from the SUV is the distance Wilson shot him at that, that sir is a lie.

Read page 226 of the GJ testimony

Grand Jury Volume 5

And Wlson CLEARLY states that he chased Brown before Brown turned and he ended u shooting him. He did NOT jump out of the car and shoot Brown from 148 feet away you fucking idiot.

he'd be a good damn shot if he did.

 

[Marianne]

It's really simple to measure the distance, and quite accurately:




Those who measured started at the fire-hydrant that was near the police car from which officer Wilson fired the deadly shots:

Distance from the driver's side door (when officer Wilson claims he fired the shots) to the fire hydrant: 17 feet.

Distance from the fire hydrant to the spot where Michael Brown was standing when he was shot: 131 feet.

131 +17 = 148.

Now, there is an angle involved between the cop car and the hydrant, which means that actual distance of 17 feet, calculated as a straight line, will be somewhat less, maybe one third less. So, the true distance may be 140 to 141 feet. The angle represented by the yellow line looks to be about 35 degrees to the plain, if you consider the straight path of the sidewalk next to the hydrant to be the plain.

The police report says 35 feet. And a police officer said TWICE in a press conference that the distance was 35 feet:



(1:13 and 6:01)

35 feet and 148 are nowhere close to each other in terms of distance. 148 feet = 49 yards, or just about one-half of a football field.

The film clearly documents the start and end points, and they can be confirmed by police photos and photos shot by witnesses on that day.

35 feet could be an argument for immediate danger for a police officer. But 148 feet? No way.

Why did the Ferguson police lie about this detail?

And if the Ferguson police have lied about this, then we must ask what else they have lied about?

You know, sometimes it's all about simple math. The Ferguson police can lie for a while, but they cannot change geography and they cannot undo so many photos and videos.



Discuss.

Does a suspected perpetrator who is 148 feet away from an officer represent a danger to that officer's life?

Explain to me why am I supposed to give a shit about the thug Michael Brown over this guy who's just trying to earn a living?

 

[Publius1787]

Please provide the autopsy evidence where any expert said Brown was shot from the rear. But, of course, you cannot. Why? Because all three experts testified otherwise.

That's never a problem for those of us in the reality-based community. Bypassing the media spin, I'll go right to the autopsy.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documen...1215/michael-brown-private-autopsy-report.txt
---
An entrance perforation through the back of the right forearm about seven
inches from the elbow that proceeds horizontally through the ulna bone and
exits through the front of the forearm;
---

Yes, I understand you never looked at the actual autopsy report. It's that conservative thing, relying on media spin instead of hard data.

You said: "And if you're going to deny the hard physical evidence ... go away, cultist." Nice, now provide the evidence.

So why do you think most the media and the "experts" misrepresented the autopsy?

Anyways, you've been shown the hard evidence. What you do with it now will demonstrate what you're made of. If the normal conservative reality-denial pattern holds, you'll instantly handwave it away simply because it doesn't agree with your predetermined conclusion.

Given that the person who conducted the private autopsy has been shown to be a fraud , no one cares what he ruled. The OFFICIAL autopsy coupled with CREDIBLE eyewitness accounts proves Brown was not shot from behind.


But , here is a little something for your stupid ass to think about, in Missouri a police officer can LEGALLY shoot a fleeing felon in the back anyway.

Dumb fuck

Don't tell me he posted the evidence from the fake doctor??? HALARIOUS !!!

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

The robbery did have nothing to do with Wilsons indictment. The question of the indictment was whether or not Wilson committed one of the 4 crimes indicated. With that said, the Police Chief is not a lawyer nor is he the person in question before the jury. Now, you and I both know that in an effort to successfully prosecute Wilson a prosecutor would likely need to prove that Wilson had no probable cause to profile Brown. The radio traffic proves that he did. Eat it!

Wait what? I'd like to see a link to anything that repeats this...Not even the prosecutor suggested crimes and thats why there was no indictment.

The prosecutors job is not to indict, contrary to popular belief, but to seek justice. With the evidence presented, there shouldn't have been an indictment all. If this was normal case, without bands of ignorant blacks who don't know the facts screaming for a lynching of the Police Officer, it would have never made it as far as it did. The prosecutor, knowing that the evidence led nowhere, accounted for his professional bias and allowed the jury to chose from a list of 4 charges.

Where'd you get the 4 crimes indicated line you just threw out there?

And yes a prosecutors job is to suggest charges to a GJ...this one was different tho...He didnt.

But maybe he did and you know more than the Prosector himself....So where'd you get that "4 crimes" thing from?

No it is not the prosecutors job to suggest charges. Its the prosecutors job to determine whether to prosecute or not. He can do this in a number of ways. He can suggest charges, the can allow the jury to suggest charges, or he could allow the jury to pick from a list of charges. In fact, he could have skipped the whole grand jury altogether and went straight to trial if he wanted to (They did that to Zimmerman). It is not his job to do one way over the other in accordance with your wishes. His only true job is to see that justice was served. He did that.

So again did you just make up the 4 crimes thing or what? I'll address this only after I know whether or not I'm talking to someone willing to bold face lie.

Thanks

what 4 crime thing are you talking about?

Prior to being shot Brown had

1. Robbed a store
2. Assaulted a store owner
3. Assaulted a police officer
4. Battered a police officer
5. Reached for a police officer's gun
6. Refused a lawful order from a police officer
7. Fled from a police officer.

Oh, and he was on drugs.

 

[RKMBrown]

Wait what? I'd like to see a link to anything that repeats this...Not even the prosecutor suggested crimes and thats why there was no indictment.

The prosecutors job is not to indict, contrary to popular belief, but to seek justice. With the evidence presented, there shouldn't have been an indictment all. If this was normal case, without bands of ignorant blacks who don't know the facts screaming for a lynching of the Police Officer, it would have never made it as far as it did. The prosecutor, knowing that the evidence led nowhere, accounted for his professional bias and allowed the jury to chose from a list of 4 charges.

Where'd you get the 4 crimes indicated line you just threw out there?

And yes a prosecutors job is to suggest charges to a GJ...this one was different tho...He didnt.

But maybe he did and you know more than the Prosector himself....So where'd you get that "4 crimes" thing from?

No it is not the prosecutors job to suggest charges. Its the prosecutors job to determine whether to prosecute or not. He can do this in a number of ways. He can suggest charges, the can allow the jury to suggest charges, or he could allow the jury to pick from a list of charges. In fact, he could have skipped the whole grand jury altogether and went straight to trial if he wanted to (They did that to Zimmerman). It is not his job to do one way over the other in accordance with your wishes. His only true job is to see that justice was served. He did that.

So again did you just make up the 4 crimes thing or what? I'll address this only after I know whether or not I'm talking to someone willing to bold face lie.

Thanks

what 4 crime thing are you talking about?

Prior to being shot Brown had

1. Robbed a store
2. Assaulted a store owner
3. Assaulted a police officer
4. Battered a police officer
5. Reached for a police officer's gun
6. Refused a lawful order from a police officer
7. Fled from a police officer.

Oh, and he was on drugs.

All in one day. This guy was productive as hell.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

How did Brown get powder residue on him if he was 50 yards away?

When the first shot went off they were both in the car.

That was my point. He was first shot in the car so this 148' and no threat thing is bullshit.

 

[Publius1787]

Please provide the autopsy evidence where any expert said Brown was shot from the rear. But, of course, you cannot. Why? Because all three experts testified otherwise.

That's never a problem for those of us in the reality-based community. Bypassing the media spin, I'll go right to the autopsy.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documen...1215/michael-brown-private-autopsy-report.txt
---
An entrance perforation through the back of the right forearm about seven
inches from the elbow that proceeds horizontally through the ulna bone and
exits through the front of the forearm;
---

Yes, I understand you never looked at the actual autopsy report. It's that conservative thing, relying on media spin instead of hard data.

You said: "And if you're going to deny the hard physical evidence ... go away, cultist." Nice, now provide the evidence.

So why do you think most the media and the "experts" misrepresented the autopsy?

Anyways, you've been shown the hard evidence. What you do with it now will demonstrate what you're made of. If the normal conservative reality-denial pattern holds, you'll instantly handwave it away simply because it doesn't agree with your predetermined conclusion.

Here is what I asked for

"Please provide the autopsy evidence where any expert said Brown was shot from the rear. But, of course, you cannot. Why? Because all three experts testified otherwise"

Yeah, which autopsy report is this? I can find no ones name affixed to it. Its a bunch of words on a screen. WHERE IS THE REPORT? And it also isn't enough to show the report, but to see if the Dr. who wrote the report collaborated with the theory of a back shot (WHICH IS WHY I ASKED FOR THE TESTAMONY YOU KNUCKLEHEAD). Unfortunately this report has no ones name on it so we can see his testimony now can we? Did any of the corners testify to the effect of a back shot? I doubt it there buddy.

 

[RKMBrown]

How did Brown get powder residue on him if he was 50 yards away?

When the first shot went off they were both in the car.

That was my point. He was first shot in the car so this 148' and no threat thing is bullshit.

Who said no threat. The point to the 150' thing was that the boy was trying to escape. It wasn't till the cop got out of the car and began chasing/shooting that Brown decided eff it if I'm gonna die I'm gonna die facing my killer. If he wanted to kill Wilson he would've done it while he was in the car not by "charging" him in some dumb as suicide by cop routine. Same with that clerk. If he wanted to hurt the clerk he wouldn't barely touch the guy. Nor would he back off after the clerk stumbled. Wilson barely had a scratch on him. Brown was shot EIGHT TIMES.

 

[CowboyTed]

Maybe he deserved to be arrested and should have gotten a fair trial and a judgement. That's what the law says.

Do you not believe in the rule of law.

I believe in Law and Order. Criminals do not deserve to be treated with any level of decency or respect. The American legal system is a farce In my mind. It has no value at all.

Saw a 4 year old littering the other day, should have gunned him down like a pig...

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

How did Brown get powder residue on him if he was 50 yards away?

When the first shot went off they were both in the car.

That was my point. He was first shot in the car so this 148' and no threat thing is bullshit.

Who said no threat. The point to the 150' thing was that the boy was trying to escape. It wasn't till the cop got out of the car and began chasing/shooting that Brown decided eff it if I'm gonna die I'm gonna die facing my killer. If he wanted to kill Wilson he would've done it while he was in the car not by "charging" him in some dumb as suicide by cop routine.

What a load of shit. He turned and charged the cop. Wilson's testimony says that. Credible eyewitness testimony says that, the EVIDENCE says that

He was TEN feet from Wilson when he died. TEN FEET , and had been hit MULTIPLE times. He was trying to escape alright, by killing the cop.

 

[RKMBrown]

How did Brown get powder residue on him if he was 50 yards away?

When the first shot went off they were both in the car.

That was my point. He was first shot in the car so this 148' and no threat thing is bullshit.

Who said no threat. The point to the 150' thing was that the boy was trying to escape. It wasn't till the cop got out of the car and began chasing/shooting that Brown decided eff it if I'm gonna die I'm gonna die facing my killer. If he wanted to kill Wilson he would've done it while he was in the car not by "charging" him in some dumb as suicide by cop routine.

What a load of shit. He turned and charged the cop. Wilson's testimony says that. Credible eyewitness testimony says that, the EVIDENCE says that

He was TEN feet from Wilson when he died. TEN FEET , and had been hit MULTIPLE times. He was trying to escape alright, by killing the cop.

What part of he ran away before he turned and charged the cop that was chasing him is confusing you big guy? I'm reading from Wilson's testimony. Should I be reading from some other testimony?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

How did Brown get powder residue on him if he was 50 yards away?

When the first shot went off they were both in the car.

That was my point. He was first shot in the car so this 148' and no threat thing is bullshit.

Who said no threat. The point to the 150' thing was that the boy was trying to escape. It wasn't till the cop got out of the car and began chasing/shooting that Brown decided eff it if I'm gonna die I'm gonna die facing my killer. If he wanted to kill Wilson he would've done it while he was in the car not by "charging" him in some dumb as suicide by cop routine.

What a load of shit. He turned and charged the cop. Wilson's testimony says that. Credible eyewitness testimony says that, the EVIDENCE says that

He was TEN feet from Wilson when he died. TEN FEET , and had been hit MULTIPLE times. He was trying to escape alright, by killing the cop.

What part of he ran away before he turned and charged the cop that was chasing him is confusing you big guy?

What part of a cop has a duty to chase a fleeing felon confuses you?

 

[RKMBrown]

When the first shot went off they were both in the car.

That was my point. He was first shot in the car so this 148' and no threat thing is bullshit.

Who said no threat. The point to the 150' thing was that the boy was trying to escape. It wasn't till the cop got out of the car and began chasing/shooting that Brown decided eff it if I'm gonna die I'm gonna die facing my killer. If he wanted to kill Wilson he would've done it while he was in the car not by "charging" him in some dumb as suicide by cop routine.

What a load of shit. He turned and charged the cop. Wilson's testimony says that. Credible eyewitness testimony says that, the EVIDENCE says that

He was TEN feet from Wilson when he died. TEN FEET , and had been hit MULTIPLE times. He was trying to escape alright, by killing the cop.

What part of he ran away before he turned and charged the cop that was chasing him is confusing you big guy?

What part of a cop has a duty to chase a fleeing felon confuses you?

None. What part of my statements make you think I'm confused?

 

[theHawk]

Apparently libtards think cops are chained to their squad cars.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You didn't read it did you?

"At 11:29 a.m. on Aug. 9, a dispatcher asked Wilson to help other officers search for a man who had reportedly threatened to kill a woman. At 11:47 a.m., Wilson said he would respond to a call for a 2-month-old with breathing problems. Wilson drove his police SUV from the west side of West Florissant Avenue to Glenark Drive, east of Canfield Drive and Copper Creek Court, where the fatal encounter would soon occur.

At 11:53 a.m., a dispatcher reported a “stealing in progress” at the Ferguson Market. The 911 operator was still talking to the caller in the background. In a second broadcast, 19 seconds later, the dispatcher says the suspect is a black male in a white T-shirt running toward QuikTrip, and had stolen a box of Swisher cigars.
About four minutes later, there’s more detail: the suspect is wearing a red Cardinals hat, a white T-shirt, yellow socks and khaki shorts, and is accompanied by another man.

At noon, Wilson reports that he’s back in service from the sick-baby call. He then asks the officers searching for the thieves – units 25 and 22 – if they need him. Seven seconds later, an unidentified officer broadcasts that the suspects had disappeared."

The Chief said that the video and the robbery had nothing to do with Wilson and the incident. Wilson knowing about it and the robbery having something to do with the incident are 2 different things.

*QUOTE* At the same time, the police released a packet of information on a crime in which they said Mike Brown was a suspect, a "strong-arm" robbery in the second degree. In a separate press conference later in the day, chief Jackson said that officer Wilson had no knowledge of Brown as a suspect when he shot Brown. *QUOTE*

But since everyone had their story straight 100 days later and there was no report taken on scene....obviously this is about Browns witness

The robbery did have nothing to do with Wilsons indictment. The question of the indictment was whether or not Wilson committed one of the 4 crimes indicated. With that said, the Police Chief is not a lawyer nor is he the person in question before the jury. Now, you and I both know that in an effort to successfully prosecute Wilson a prosecutor would likely need to prove that Wilson had no probable cause to profile Brown. The radio traffic proves that he did. Eat it!

Wait what? I'd like to see a link to anything that repeats this...Not even the prosecutor suggested crimes and thats why there was no indictment.

The prosecutors job is not to indict, contrary to popular belief, but to seek justice. With the evidence presented, there shouldn't have been an indictment all. If this was normal case, without bands of ignorant blacks who don't know the facts screaming for a lynching of the Police Officer, it would have never made it as far as it did. The prosecutor, knowing that the evidence led nowhere, accounted for his professional bias and allowed the jury to chose from a list of 4 charges.

Where'd you get the 4 crimes indicated line you just threw out there?

And yes a prosecutors job is to suggest charges to a GJ...this one was different tho...He didnt.

But maybe he did and you know more than the Prosector himself....So where'd you get that "4 crimes" thing from?

The Grand Jury had 4 crimes to choose from as to whether to indict, perhaps if you read more then those articles supporting the idea that Brown was murdered you would already know this.

 

[2aguy]

Yeah, what evidence was shown to the grand jury and what did the 7 black witnesses say....

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

That was my point. He was first shot in the car so this 148' and no threat thing is bullshit.

Who said no threat. The point to the 150' thing was that the boy was trying to escape. It wasn't till the cop got out of the car and began chasing/shooting that Brown decided eff it if I'm gonna die I'm gonna die facing my killer. If he wanted to kill Wilson he would've done it while he was in the car not by "charging" him in some dumb as suicide by cop routine.

What a load of shit. He turned and charged the cop. Wilson's testimony says that. Credible eyewitness testimony says that, the EVIDENCE says that

He was TEN feet from Wilson when he died. TEN FEET , and had been hit MULTIPLE times. He was trying to escape alright, by killing the cop.

What part of he ran away before he turned and charged the cop that was chasing him is confusing you big guy?

What part of a cop has a duty to chase a fleeing felon confuses you?

None. What part of my statements make you think I'm confused?

I don't think you're confused, I think youre simply being dishonest here Mike.

It's one thing to be a Luddly and just be stupid, but you're not stupid, you are WILLFULLY ignoring the facts here. As such, this will be my last response to you on the topic.

 

[Ravi]

How did Brown get powder residue on him if he was 50 yards away?

When the first shot went off they were both in the car.

That was my point. He was first shot in the car so this 148' and no threat thing is bullshit.

Who said no threat. The point to the 150' thing was that the boy was trying to escape. It wasn't till the cop got out of the car and began chasing/shooting that Brown decided eff it if I'm gonna die I'm gonna die facing my killer. If he wanted to kill Wilson he would've done it while he was in the car not by "charging" him in some dumb as suicide by cop routine.

What a load of shit. He turned and charged the cop. Wilson's testimony says that. Credible eyewitness testimony says that, the EVIDENCE says that

He was TEN feet from Wilson when he died. TEN FEET , and had been hit MULTIPLE times. He was trying to escape alright, by killing the cop.

What part of he ran away before he turned and charged the cop that was chasing him is confusing you big guy? I'm reading from Wilson's testimony. Should I be reading from some other testimony?

Why was the cop shooting a fleeing suspect? It's not like the guy had killed anyone or was thought to be a danger to the community.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Yeah well thats what happens in the GJ....Cops get off.

Seems like this is the new "Fair Trial" justice system that avoids a trial altogether...oh, just for police tho because thats the meaning of fair

 

[mamooth]

BULLSHIT! IF that had been the case, he would have been indicted.

Unless the fix was in, and the prosecutor was actively trying to avoid an indictment.

Signs of that would be bringing in the suspect to testify extensively on his own behalf, without cross-examining him at all about the multiple inconsistencies in his story. Grand juries essentially never have the suspect testify. They especially don't have them testify without cross-examination. For unexplained reasons, that rule was broken here.

So, is anyone here willing to embarrass themselves by telling us why the lack of cross-examination is justifiable? That is, why did the prosecutor just flat out abdicate his job?

McCullough's post-decision public meltdown is also a big clue. Normally, prosecutors don't feel the need to publicly whine about how everyone is picking on them. It's hard to imagine more unprofessional behavior.