New York Times publishes Officer Darren Wilson’s account of the Michael Brown shooting

[HereWeGoAgain]

Dr Michael Baden said, "There was no gunshot residue, no stippling, no powders present around the entrance wounds, which indicates that the muzzle end of the weapon was more than a foot or two away at the time of discharge. It wasn't a close contact. It wasn't very close, as would have to be the case if they were fighting inside of a car."

Brown was also shot twice in the head, once in the crown and the other shot entering above the eye, exiting the bottom of his jaw and reentering around his collar bone. Which means most likely what? Either he was already down or he charged at Wilson with his head down while being at a distance still not close enough to leave gunshot residue. Which seems more likely?

Dirt Naps blood was on Officer Wilsons gun and on the driver side inner door panel.

Still is pretty consistent. The officer gets out. He tries to let Brown into the back doorof the squad car. A scuffle ensues. An officer can call for backup using his radio.

In some places in CAthe officers have car cams and personal cams.

Do you know anything about this case? He wasnt driving a car,it was an SUV.
And if Officer Wilson was trying to put Dirt Nap in the SUV it sure as hell wouldnt have been in the drivers seat.

 

[Wake]

I'll level with you Esmeralda that there are supporters of Darren Wilson in this very thread who are just as guilty of making biased assumptions.

We need more information.

 

[ScarletRage]

That type of submission manuever is easier than you think. The police grab by the collar and pull into the window. It is to indicate you will listen to me.

I have a hard time justifying anything else with the statements the bleeding was inside the drivers side door. Just where was the blood?

 

[Wake]

What I'd like to see is photo evidence regarding this:

The officer told authorities that Brown hit him and scratched him repeatedly, leaving bruises on his face and neck, according to The Times.

Michael Brown s blood found in officer s car on gun - CNN.com

Assuming this is true, you don't do this to police officers without taking on some risk.

 

[ScarletRage]

I'll level with you Esmeralda that there are supporters of Darren Wilson in this very thread who are just as guilty of making biased assumptions.

We need more information.

Wake why don't we make a thread where onlythe real evidence and theories about real evidence is placed?

 

[Wake]

That type of submission manuever is easier than you think. The police grab by the collar and pull into the window. It is to indicate you will listen to me.

I have a hard time justifying anything else with the statements the bleeding was inside the drivers side door. Just where was the blood?

The account is that Mr. Brown was grabbed by the neck. A large man of his size (very much like my own) probably has a big, thick neck. I do not think it is plausible to grab a man of that size by the neck and drag him into the squad car. Mr. Brown is bigger and heavier than Mr. Wilson, and Wilson isn't on his feet, unlike the former. Mr. Brown would easily be able to use his whole body, legs and feet included, to escape the grasp around his neck.

 

[Wake]

I'll level with you Esmeralda that there are supporters of Darren Wilson in this very thread who are just as guilty of making biased assumptions.

We need more information.

Wake why don't we make a thread where onlythe real evidence and theories about real evidence is placed?

If you make the thread, I'll oblige you.

 

[ScarletRage]

That type of submission manuever is easier than you think. The police grab by the collar and pull into the window. It is to indicate you will listen to me.

I have a hard time justifying anything else with the statements the bleeding was inside the drivers side door. Just where was the blood?

The account is that Mr. Brown was grabbed by the neck. A large man of his size (very much like my own) probably has a big, thick neck. I do not think it is plausible to grab a man of that size by the neck and drag him into the squad car. Mr. Brown is bigger and heavier than Mr. Wilson, and Wilson isn't on his feet, unlike the former. Mr. Brown would easily be able to use his whole body, legs and feet included, to escape the grasp around his neck.

That's getting into a hyper technical reading. Grabbing someone by the collar and dragging them would cause most to describe the grab as to the neck.

Hell even in legal terms, clothes and items worn are part of the person.

 

[Rotagilla]

In our system of law, the police don't get to kill a man and say well he desrved it even though I had no reason to suspect that at the time.

If you touch a cop's gun that is a felony.
If you punch or physically attack a cop that is battery on a LEO...another felony.

Brown committed at least 2 felonies...
Look at #3 below from the missouri statutes..

It was a good, legal shoot.



Law enforcement officer's use of force in making an arrest.
563.046. 1. A law enforcement officer need not retreat or desist from efforts to effect the arrest, or from efforts to prevent the escape from custody, of a person he reasonably believes to have committed an offense because of resistance or threatened resistance of the arrestee. In addition to the use of physical force authorized under other sections of this chapter, he is, subject to the provisions of subsections 2 and 3, justified in the use of such physical force as he reasonably believes is immediately necessary to effect the arrest or to prevent the escape from custody.

2. The use of any physical force in making an arrest is not justified under this section unless the arrest is lawful or the law enforcement officer reasonably believes the arrest is lawful.

3. A law enforcement officer in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody is justified in using deadly force only

(1) When such is authorized under other sections of this chapter; or

(2) When he reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested

(a) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony; or

(b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon; or

(c) May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.

4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.

 

[norwegen]

Well, we all know that police officers like to indiscriminately shoot people. It's a career booster.

 

[Rotagilla]

Calmly speaking and then not is consistent with escalation. Also if the officer thinks a suspect is willing to ride (not under "arrest") opens the door while guiding the suspects head in. Somepoint, someone freaks out. Brown changes his mind or never wanted to go. Tensions get high fast.

Yeah..that's plausible.. /sarc

 

[bucs90]

And to think, ALL of this would've been avoided....if Gentle Giant would've just not been walking in the middle of the damn street like some overgrown retard.

 

[ScarletRage]

Rotagilla the broadness of which you are interpreting your statute permits situations that violate Tennessee v Garner, (can't shoot an unarmed fleeing suspect in the back).

If Michael Brown was defending himself, then his actions do not consitute felonies as he does have the right to self defense. That would make the shooting not justified even under your larger theory.

 

[Rotagilla]

An interesting piece of news has emerged:

"FBI forensic tests showed the gun was fired twice in the car, with one bullet hitting Brown's arm while the second one missed, the newspaper said."

"Separate federal and local investigations are still ongoing, but the government officials said the evidence so far does not indicate that the officer violated any civil rights, The Times reported."

Michael Brown s blood found in officer s car on gun - CNN.com

This selective quote is very inconsistent with no gunshot residue being found on Brown.

Because he was wearing clothes...LMAO.....you're grabbing at straws now.

 

[Rotagilla]

Rotagilla the broadness of which you are interpreting your statute permits situations that violate Tennessee v Garner, (can't shoot an unarmed fleeing suspect in the back).

If Michael Brown was defending himself, then his actions do not consitute felonies as he does have the right to self defense. That would make the shooting not justified even under your larger theory.

I'm not "interpreting" anything. There it is in black and white...Missouri statutes.
Brown committed 2 felonies. It was a good, legal shoot.

 

[Wake]

You read one article and it's all settled in your mind. Great critical thinking skills. And we allow people like you to vote.

I think, since I have treated you with respect and fairness, you can do the same to me. I would appreciate it.

 

[Wake]

That type of submission manuever is easier than you think. The police grab by the collar and pull into the window. It is to indicate you will listen to me.

I have a hard time justifying anything else with the statements the bleeding was inside the drivers side door. Just where was the blood?

The account is that Mr. Brown was grabbed by the neck. A large man of his size (very much like my own) probably has a big, thick neck. I do not think it is plausible to grab a man of that size by the neck and drag him into the squad car. Mr. Brown is bigger and heavier than Mr. Wilson, and Wilson isn't on his feet, unlike the former. Mr. Brown would easily be able to use his whole body, legs and feet included, to escape the grasp around his neck.

That's getting into a hyper technical reading. Grabbing someone by the collar and dragging them would cause most to describe the grab as to the neck.

Hell even in legal terms, clothes and items worn are part of the person.

Grabbing you by the neck is different than grabbing you by the collar of your shirt.

There is certainly a difference there, because those two things are two different things.

 

[Rotagilla]

Let's just make it illegal for negroes to be arrested by white cops if they commit a crime.
That would prevent this from ever happening again. /sarc

 

[ScarletRage]

Rotagilla the broadness of which you are interpreting your statute permits situations that violate Tennessee v Garner, (can't shoot an unarmed fleeing suspect in the back).

If Michael Brown was defending himself, then his actions do not consitute felonies as he does have the right to self defense. That would make the shooting not justified even under your larger theory.

I'm not "interpreting" anything. There it is in black and white...Missouri statutes.
Brown committed 2 felonies. It was a good, legal shoot.

I'm telling you that Wilson attacked Brown, then no felonies were committed. Even if there were felonies, the officer is not permitted under the US Constitution to shoot an unarmed fleeing man.

 

[ScarletRage]

That type of submission manuever is easier than you think. The police grab by the collar and pull into the window. It is to indicate you will listen to me.

I have a hard time justifying anything else with the statements the bleeding was inside the drivers side door. Just where was the blood?

The account is that Mr. Brown was grabbed by the neck. A large man of his size (very much like my own) probably has a big, thick neck. I do not think it is plausible to grab a man of that size by the neck and drag him into the squad car. Mr. Brown is bigger and heavier than Mr. Wilson, and Wilson isn't on his feet, unlike the former. Mr. Brown would easily be able to use his whole body, legs and feet included, to escape the grasp around his neck.

That's getting into a hyper technical reading. Grabbing someone by the collar and dragging them would cause most to describe the grab as to the neck.

Hell even in legal terms, clothes and items worn are part of the person.

Grabbing you by the neck is different than grabbing you by the collar of your shirt.

There is certainly a difference there, because those two things are two different things.

Witnesses can and frequently do describe those similarly.