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

[PredFan]

The evidence was put in front of the Grand Jury.
Many witnesses were involved.

The Grand Jury found Wilson was innocent of wrong doing.

It's hilarious that idiots like Stats think that they know better.

You missed the point entirely. You are incapable of reading for content. All you do is to bray like a savage, exactly what I expect from most righties. Carry on.

You have no point, other than the one between your ears, moron.

 

[PredFan]

It doesn't matter if he was 20 miles away. Why are you doing this? Do you think that you can find out some evidence that the Grand Jury didn't? They hear the actual testimony from the experts and the witnesses, you did not and will not. YOU will accept anything gleaned off the internet unvetted in any way, as long as it promotes your narrative.

Yes it matters. You can't claim an imminent threat to your life if that threat is nowhere near you. So if you see a person walking on a sidewalk 200 feet away from you minding their own business that you believe is an imminent threat to your life, you can just start shooting them? What if that person walking was YOU?

Brown had already beaten Wilson and was coming back for more, Brown wasn't fleeing he was attacking. Wilson defended himself, and the distance is irrelevant.

 

[RKMBrown]

Did stats even try to consider the statistical improbability of his pathetic claim?

There was no statistics involved in it. If you disagree, amuse us all by explaining precisely how "statistics" entered into estimating distance from a photograph.

I must say I am impressed by the right's creativity here, in regards all the new ways they've thought up to disregard the evidence. They're reaching new heights in reality-denial.

Brown was over 140 feet away frpm the car when shot. You can dispute the exact number, but it was way, way, way over 35 feet.

The police said he was 35 feet away, over and over.

Thus, the police lied, over and over.

That would be the point. The police lied, which casts major doubt on their credibility.

He was not 140 feet from WIlson when he was first shot you fucking fool, he was 140 , or so, feet from Wilson's SUV , but wilson himself was 80 or so feet from the SUV when Brown turned back and charged him, and THAT is when Wilson started shooting him.

WHY, WHY can't you people be honest?

I don't think it's dishonesty. I think it's confusion over the detailed story line. Pretty sure the cop backed up some 50' or so while Brown was charging back to him.
<suv>............................................<brown>
<suv>....<wilson>--> ............................<brown>
<suv>......................<wilson>--> .................<brown>150' and turns
<suv>......................<wilson>--> .................<brown>first blood splatter
<suv>............<wilson>--> ...................<brown>
<suv>........<wilson>--> ...........<brown>
<suv>......<wilson>--> ....<brown> hits the ground

Then they shouldn't be commenting Mike, all that does is make things worse. It's BEYOND clear that most of those screaming about this being murder have NOT studied the facts.Arguing a point without a basic knowledge of the facts IS dishonest.

To be fair the facts change depending on who tells the tale. I'd say it's more rash to judgement than dishonesty. I would seem we are all guilty of rash judgement from time to time.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Pants up don't loot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Did stats even try to consider the statistical improbability of his pathetic claim?

There was no statistics involved in it. If you disagree, amuse us all by explaining precisely how "statistics" entered into estimating distance from a photograph.

I must say I am impressed by the right's creativity here, in regards all the new ways they've thought up to disregard the evidence. They're reaching new heights in reality-denial.

Brown was over 140 feet away frpm the car when shot. You can dispute the exact number, but it was way, way, way over 35 feet.

The police said he was 35 feet away, over and over.

Thus, the police lied, over and over.

That would be the point. The police lied, which casts major doubt on their credibility.

He was not 140 feet from WIlson when he was first shot you fucking fool, he was 140 , or so, feet from Wilson's SUV , but wilson himself was 80 or so feet from the SUV when Brown turned back and charged him, and THAT is when Wilson started shooting him.

WHY, WHY can't you people be honest?

I don't think it's dishonesty. I think it's confusion over the detailed story line. Pretty sure the cop backed up some 50' or so while Brown was charging back to him.
<suv>............................................<brown>
<suv>....<wilson>--> ............................<brown>
<suv>......................<wilson>--> .................<brown>150' and turns
<suv>......................<wilson>--> .................<brown>first blood splatter
<suv>............<wilson>--> ...................<brown>
<suv>........<wilson>--> ...........<brown>
<suv>......<wilson>--> ....<brown> hits the ground

Then they shouldn't be commenting Mike, all that does is make things worse. It's BEYOND clear that most of those screaming about this being murder have NOT studied the facts.Arguing a point without a basic knowledge of the facts IS dishonest.

To be fair the facts change depending on who tells the tale. I'd say it's more rash to judgement than dishonesty. I would seem we are all guilty of rash judgement from time to time.

Facts don't change Mike, they are what they are. If one thousand witnesses swear up and down that kid was 500' away and on his and knees begging for his life, but there is a video showing different and ballistics show differently, those 500 peoples' testimony is not factual.

What you have instead is people choosing to IGNORE facts, mostly in favor of confirmed lies. Like the poster earlier who posted a quote from the private autopsy which directly conflicts with the official autopsy, even though we know for a FACT that the person who did the private autopsy is a fraud.

 

[PredFan]

So what have we learned about the left so far:

1. Many don't know anything about forensic science.
2. The rest think that all there is to it is an autopsy.
3. They think that they can find evidence that the professionals cannot.
4. Anything that scientists, or witnesses, or investigators said that doesn't agree with their view, is wrong.
5. Evidence and fact is racist.
6. The "witnesses" who made claims that were refuted by evidence are telling the truth.
7. Liberals are insane.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

SmarterThanTheAverageBear, name one fact that I ignored. There are two stories at play here. One is that the kid was a POS that got what he deserved. The other is that we as a society have decided that gunning down POS kids in the street is an acceptable punishment.

This kid was not shot as punishment. He was shot to prevent a second assault on a police officer.

THAT is what you are being dishonest about. Wilson didn't shoot him for committing a crime, he didn't shoot him for being a thug he didn't eve shoot him to prevent his escape (read the testimony Wilson says his initial goal was just keep site of him for 30 seconds while back up arrives) and by the way legally he could have jumped out and shot the kid in the back. He was a fleeing felon, that is unquestioned. But he didn't , instead he ONLY fired when the kid who frankly had already kicked his ass, charged at him. And he was yelling get down the whole time , stopped firing once when it seemed Brown was complying and then only resumed firing when Brown charged again.

Damn right, he fired until the kid stopped charging. Brown could have chosen to stop charging at any time but didn't until he was dead.

His intent was to kill Wilson, that is clear.

It's not clear to me from evidence provided that there were no shots fired after the initial shot and that the officer waited to shoot again until after the kid had turned back to charge the officer. I've not seen clear facts that lead to that conclusion. It's a part of the story that seems fuzzy even from the testimony that is on the cop's side.

Have you seen "clear facts" that lead you to believe this?

You say, "this kid was not shot as punishment. He was shot to prevent a second assault on a police officer." I agree with that statement 100%. Then you follow with "THAT is what you are being dishonest about." Uhmmm I agree with you 100% Thus you are probably miss-reading something I said. My issue isn't with the first 10 shots, it's with the last two to the head.

 

[PredFan]

The whole premise of the OP is an outright lie. Brown was not 148 feet away from Wilson when he was shot.

Wilson and his squad car are not one and the same. I guess liberals have never seen a cop get out of his vehicle and pursue a suspect before.

Meh, they are just idiots. I prefer to just point and laugh at them.

 

[PredFan]

Brown signed his death warrant when he reached into the squad car for Wilson's gun.

Everything beyond that point is merely prelude to the summary execution for that offense.

Brown got his justice, right there in the street.

 

[PredFan]

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.

A fucking idiot is exactly what he is.

 

[PredFan]

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?

Everything having to do with common sense confuses him.

 

[RKMBrown]

There was no statistics involved in it. If you disagree, amuse us all by explaining precisely how "statistics" entered into estimating distance from a photograph.

I must say I am impressed by the right's creativity here, in regards all the new ways they've thought up to disregard the evidence. They're reaching new heights in reality-denial.

Brown was over 140 feet away frpm the car when shot. You can dispute the exact number, but it was way, way, way over 35 feet.

The police said he was 35 feet away, over and over.

Thus, the police lied, over and over.

That would be the point. The police lied, which casts major doubt on their credibility.

He was not 140 feet from WIlson when he was first shot you fucking fool, he was 140 , or so, feet from Wilson's SUV , but wilson himself was 80 or so feet from the SUV when Brown turned back and charged him, and THAT is when Wilson started shooting him.

WHY, WHY can't you people be honest?

I don't think it's dishonesty. I think it's confusion over the detailed story line. Pretty sure the cop backed up some 50' or so while Brown was charging back to him.
<suv>............................................<brown>
<suv>....<wilson>--> ............................<brown>
<suv>......................<wilson>--> .................<brown>150' and turns
<suv>......................<wilson>--> .................<brown>first blood splatter
<suv>............<wilson>--> ...................<brown>
<suv>........<wilson>--> ...........<brown>
<suv>......<wilson>--> ....<brown> hits the ground

Then they shouldn't be commenting Mike, all that does is make things worse. It's BEYOND clear that most of those screaming about this being murder have NOT studied the facts.Arguing a point without a basic knowledge of the facts IS dishonest.

To be fair the facts change depending on who tells the tale. I'd say it's more rash to judgement than dishonesty. I would seem we are all guilty of rash judgement from time to time.

Facts don't change Mike, they are what they are. If one thousand witnesses swear up and down that kid was 500' away and on his and knees begging for his life, but there is a video showing different and ballistics show differently, those 500 peoples' testimony is not factual.

What you have instead is people choosing to IGNORE facts, mostly in favor of confirmed lies. Like the poster earlier who posted a quote from the private autopsy which directly conflicts with the official autopsy, even though we know for a FACT that the person who did the private autopsy is a fraud.

That doesn't mean the person that re-posted the fraud, knew it was a fraud. It just means they are not yet up to speed with all of the issues. For the longest time I thought ampersands looked like & and meant "and." Now I know there is also a symbol called epsilon that can also be used to represent ampersands. My initial reaction was no that's not the ampersand. Now I know I was wrong. There are a number of different symbols that represent ampersand.

 

[PredFan]

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.

He wasn't fleeing when he was shot stupid.

 

[PredFan]

FFS! Brown got himself killed. Whine away. That isn't going to change a God damned thing!

Forensics, witness testimony alone vindicate Wilson. Brown's thuggishness doesn't even have to be introduced.

You've got nothing but sore assholes!

The butthurt is very strong. I don't think that they had gotten over being wrong about Zimmerman yet and now this.

 

[PredFan]

Did stats even try to consider the statistical improbability of his pathetic claim?

There was no statistics involved in it. If you disagree, amuse us all by explaining precisely how "statistics" entered into estimating distance from a photograph.

I must say I am impressed by the right's creativity here, in regards all the new ways they've thought up to disregard the evidence. They're reaching new heights in reality-denial.

Brown was over 140 feet away frpm the car when shot. You can dispute the exact number, but it was way, way, way over 35 feet.

The police said he was 35 feet away, over and over.

Thus, the police lied, over and over.

That would be the point. The police lied, which casts major doubt on their credibility.

He was not 140 feet from WIlson when he was first shot you fucking fool, he was 140 , or so, feet from Wilson's SUV , but wilson himself was 80 or so feet from the SUV when Brown turned back and charged him, and THAT is when Wilson started shooting him.

WHY, WHY can't you people be honest?

Because facts and truth are never in the left's favor.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

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?

Does a suspected perpetrator who is 148 feet away from an officer represent a danger to that officer's life? Yes. And great shot by Wilson nailing the charging gorilla in the top of the head.

 

[PredFan]

Did stats even try to consider the statistical improbability of his pathetic claim?

There was no statistics involved in it. If you disagree, amuse us all by explaining precisely how "statistics" entered into estimating distance from a photograph.

I must say I am impressed by the right's creativity here, in regards all the new ways they've thought up to disregard the evidence. They're reaching new heights in reality-denial.

Brown was over 140 feet away frpm the car when shot. You can dispute the exact number, but it was way, way, way over 35 feet.

The police said he was 35 feet away, over and over.

Thus, the police lied, over and over.

That would be the point. The police lied, which casts major doubt on their credibility.

He was not 140 feet from WIlson when he was first shot you fucking fool, he was 140 , or so, feet from Wilson's SUV , but wilson himself was 80 or so feet from the SUV when Brown turned back and charged him, and THAT is when Wilson started shooting him.

WHY, WHY can't you people be honest?

I don't think it's dishonesty. I think it's confusion over the detailed story line. Pretty sure the cop backed up some 50' or so while Brown was charging back to him.
<suv>............................................<brown>
<suv>....<wilson>--> ............................<brown>
<suv>......................<wilson>--> .................<brown>150' and turns
<suv>......................<wilson>--> .................<brown>first blood splatter
<suv>............<wilson>--> ...................<brown>
<suv>........<wilson>--> ...........<brown>
<suv>......<wilson>--> ....<brown> hits the ground

Then they shouldn't be commenting Mike, all that does is make things worse. It's BEYOND clear that most of those screaming about this being murder have NOT studied the facts.Arguing a point without a basic knowledge of the facts IS dishonest.

To be fair the facts change depending on who tells the tale. I'd say it's more rash to judgement than dishonesty. I would seem we are all guilty of rash judgement from time to time.

Wrong FACTS do not change. the stories may change but facts do not. Lies told by someone are not facts. If you have two people telling a different tale, then you need hard evidence to tell who's lying. The hard evidence supports Darren Wilson hands down.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

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.

SmarterThanTheAverageBear, name one fact that I ignored. There are two stories at play here. One is that the kid was a POS that got what he deserved. The other is that we as a society have decided that gunning down POS kids in the street is an acceptable punishment.

This kid was not shot as punishment. He was shot to prevent a second assault on a police officer.

THAT is what you are being dishonest about. Wilson didn't shoot him for committing a crime, he didn't shoot him for being a thug he didn't eve shoot him to prevent his escape (read the testimony Wilson says his initial goal was just keep site of him for 30 seconds while back up arrives) and by the way legally he could have jumped out and shot the kid in the back. He was a fleeing felon, that is unquestioned. But he didn't , instead he ONLY fired when the kid who frankly had already kicked his ass, charged at him. And he was yelling get down the whole time , stopped firing once when it seemed Brown was complying and then only resumed firing when Brown charged again.

Damn right, he fired until the kid stopped charging. Brown could have chosen to stop charging at any time but didn't until he was dead.

His intent was to kill Wilson, that is clear.

It's not clear to me from evidence provided that there were no shots fired after the initial shot and that the officer waited to shoot again until after the kid had turned back to charge the officer. I've not seen clear facts that lead to that conclusion. It's a part of the story that seems fuzzy even from the testimony that is on the cop's side.

Have you seen "clear facts" that lead you to believe this?

Yes, Wilson's testimony starting on page 227, where he states that he chased the kid , only intending to keep him in sight until back up could arrive. In fact he didn't even testify that he was yelling for him to stop running or to surrender, UNTIL Brown reached a lightpole and for whatever reason turned around and starting heading BACK towards Wilson, then he started yelling at him to surrender, and when he KEPT advancing he THEN started firing .

Grand Jury Volume 05

Then there is the physical evidence.

What Ferguson police collected at the scene - Washington Post

Two casing shells located near the SUV, the two rounds fired during the struggle inside the car. Then 10 spent shells 152' from the vehicle at it's nearest point. None in between.

This OBVIOUSLY indicates that Wilson's firearm was not fired from 1'-152' from his SUV. Corroborating his story that he chased the kid for quite a bit then Brown turned on him before he fired at him.

You say, "this kid was not shot as punishment. He was shot to prevent a second assault on a police officer." I agree with that statement 100%. Then you follow with "THAT is what you are being dishonest about." Uhmmm I agree with you 100% Thus you are probably miss-reading something I said.

Probably I misread then.

My issue isn't with the first 10 shots, it's with the last two to the head.

He was still alive and charging Wilson until the final shot. Which, again, would not be that uncommon. Adrenaline and drugs can give a person almost super human strength for a short time.

Wilson's testimony, and the evidence, shows that he stopped firing when the threat was over. And that is exactly what LEOs are trained to do if they have to shoot.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

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?

Does a suspected perpetrator who is 148 feet away from an officer represent a danger to that officer's life? Yes. And great shot by Wilson nailing the charging gorilla in the top of the head.

Get the fuck out of here you stupid piece of shit.

 

[PredFan]

Why don't we just wait for Eric Holder to finish his investigation right? He'll get to the bottom of this! Just like he did in the Zimmerman/Martin case. In fact he'll be bringing civil rights charges against George Zimmerman any second now. That's what the lefties here said was going to happen.