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

[Wake]

I've spoken with various police officers during my time in the health care field, and also when hammering out issues with neighbors (A jerk tried to run me off the road last month, so I called the cops when I saw he lived across the street).

Having talked with them face-to-face, I can't even imagine trying to punch or scratch an officer in the face. That's just wrong. I'd like to see some photos of Mr. Wilson's face.

 

[ScarletRage]

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.

Then they'll test his clothes and find the residue... oh wait...

I'm not "grasping" at anything. I haven't formed an opinion.

 

[Wake]

Witnesses can and frequently do describe those similarly.

While I can understand and appreciate that bit of information, they're still two very different things.

For one, is it more or less likely to get away when held by the neck or held by a shirt collar?

Mr. Brown could pull himself out of his shirt. He cannot pull himself out of his neck.

 

[Rotagilla]

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.

Good luck with THAT.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.

Thats the biggest line of bullshit I've ever read.
Wilson didnt just attack Dirt Nap. Dirt Nap disobeyed a lawful order and attacked officer Wilson.
And he sure as hell can shoot an unarmed fleeing man that just committed felony assault on a police officer.

 

[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.

Then they'll test his clothes and find the residue... oh wait...

I'm not "grasping" at anything. I haven't formed an opinion.

I don't care whether you have formed an opinion or not...all you bring is "what if.." and "maybe this"..."maybe that"...

There's the law right in front of you in black and white...He committed 2 felonies against a LEO and was legally shot and killed for it.

 

[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.

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.

The constitution? LMAO...Post that clause? LMAO...
Get serious...the constitution has no language whatsoever regarding use of deadly force against fleeing felons.

The Missouri statutes, however, address it SPECIFICALLY...as I showed you several posts back.
Brown committed 2 felonies on a LEO.....good, legal shoot

 

[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.

The constitution? LMAO...Post that clause? LMAO...
Get serious...the constitution has no language whatsoever regarding use of deadly force against fleeing felons.

The Missouri statutes, however, address it SPECIFICALLY...as I showed you several posts back.
Brown committed 2 felonies on a LEO.....good, legal shoot

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...TWRbSh5fQtXtTx5zg&sig2=57LFVrjN9qAc8hHNu07s7g

Also, one is allowed to use self-defense as well. If it was self-defense, no felonies were committed.

 

[ScarletRage]

You can't ignore the constitution because it doesn't allow for killing unarmed black men without provocation. It comes down to the evidence. Was Brown defending himself or not?

Calling Brown "Dirt Nap" only undermines your position.

 

[auditor0007]

The New York Times has just published an account of the shooting of Michael Brown from Officer Darren Wilson. The 18-year-old was shot on August 9th in Ferguson Missouri. A prayer vigil turned into a demonstration seeking justice for Brown’s death. The police response to the looting drew in the attention of the nation.


Many eye witnesses have come forward. But, so far, no one except the Grand Jury in the case has heard from Officer Darren Wilson. According to the New York Times Wilson has told federal civil rights investigators his account of what happened that Saturday afternoon.

Wilson says he was pinned in his car and feared for his life as he struggled for his gun with Michael Brown. He says that during the scuffle Brown reached for his weapon. Two gunshots were fired in the car, one bullet hit Michael Brown in the arm, the second bullet missed.

New York Times publishes Officer Darren Wilson 8217 s account of the Michael Brown shooting FOX2now.com

Yet more evidence bolstering Wilson's side of the story.

Looks like Michael Brown wasn't such a gentle giant.

Maybe the lynch mob will have a change of heart? Doubtful.

Even if there was a struggle in or around the car, the fatal shots were fired long after that, at a time when Michael Brown was giving himself up. Just because you are pissed off, you don't all of a sudden have the right to kill the person. Had Brown been shot and killed at close range, then I would have no problem with Wilson's stance that he feared for his life. However, everything I have heard indicates that the shots that killed Brown were from a distance and Brown had given himself up.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

You can't ignore the constitution because it doesn't allow for killing unarmed black men without provocation. It comes down to the evidence. Was Brown defending himself or not?

Calling Brown "Dirt Nap" only undermines your position.

Does it allow the killing of an unarmed white man? Dont look now but your racism is showing.
And fuck Dirt Nap Mike! I dont give a shit what color he was,he attacked Officer Wilson and got his ass shot because of it. To fucken bad for him.

 

[Brain357]

The New York Times has just published an account of the shooting of Michael Brown from Officer Darren Wilson. The 18-year-old was shot on August 9th in Ferguson Missouri. A prayer vigil turned into a demonstration seeking justice for Brown’s death. The police response to the looting drew in the attention of the nation.


Many eye witnesses have come forward. But, so far, no one except the Grand Jury in the case has heard from Officer Darren Wilson. According to the New York Times Wilson has told federal civil rights investigators his account of what happened that Saturday afternoon.

Wilson says he was pinned in his car and feared for his life as he struggled for his gun with Michael Brown. He says that during the scuffle Brown reached for his weapon. Two gunshots were fired in the car, one bullet hit Michael Brown in the arm, the second bullet missed.

New York Times publishes Officer Darren Wilson 8217 s account of the Michael Brown shooting FOX2now.com

Yet more evidence bolstering Wilson's side of the story.

Looks like Michael Brown wasn't such a gentle giant.

Maybe the lynch mob will have a change of heart? Doubtful.

I really don't get all this. Last I checked Darren Wilson had a good record as a cop. Michael Brown had just robbed a store and then was walking down the middle of the street endangering people(could easily have caused an accident). Then when a cop tries to stop him some people actually think this was when he decided to obey the law? I doubt it.

 

[Brain357]

The New York Times has just published an account of the shooting of Michael Brown from Officer Darren Wilson. The 18-year-old was shot on August 9th in Ferguson Missouri. A prayer vigil turned into a demonstration seeking justice for Brown’s death. The police response to the looting drew in the attention of the nation.


Many eye witnesses have come forward. But, so far, no one except the Grand Jury in the case has heard from Officer Darren Wilson. According to the New York Times Wilson has told federal civil rights investigators his account of what happened that Saturday afternoon.

Wilson says he was pinned in his car and feared for his life as he struggled for his gun with Michael Brown. He says that during the scuffle Brown reached for his weapon. Two gunshots were fired in the car, one bullet hit Michael Brown in the arm, the second bullet missed.

New York Times publishes Officer Darren Wilson 8217 s account of the Michael Brown shooting FOX2now.com

Yet more evidence bolstering Wilson's side of the story.

Looks like Michael Brown wasn't such a gentle giant.

Maybe the lynch mob will have a change of heart? Doubtful.

Even if there was a struggle in or around the car, the fatal shots were fired long after that, at a time when Michael Brown was giving himself up. Just because you are pissed off, you don't all of a sudden have the right to kill the person. Had Brown been shot and killed at close range, then I would have no problem with Wilson's stance that he feared for his life. However, everything I have heard indicates that the shots that killed Brown were from a distance and Brown had given himself up.

Don't the wounds show that he was probably charging the cop? How is that giving up?

 

[Gracie]

Blacks did NOT think OJ was innocent. They just wanted him found not guilty cuz the two victims were white.

 

[ricechickie]

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.

Really?

If you want to play it that way, it wouldn't have happened if Officer Wilson hadn't decided to yell at some kids for crossing the street.

 

[MikeK]

What really angers me is how some of these witnesses deliberately lie.

More than deliberate it is reflexive. Instinctual.

 

[Brain357]

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.

Really?

If you want to play it that way, it wouldn't have happened if Officer Wilson hadn't decided to yell at some kids for crossing the street.

Every report says he was walking down the middle of the street. We have laws against that for public safety.

 

[ricechickie]

Really?

If you want to play it that way, it wouldn't have happened if Officer Wilson hadn't decided to yell at some kids for crossing the street.

Every report says he was walking down the middle of the street. We have laws against that for public safety.[/QUOTE]

I love how jaywalking, a crime that Mother Teresa would commit, becomes a "dangerous act" in this scenario.

 

[Brain357]

Really?

If you want to play it that way, it wouldn't have happened if Officer Wilson hadn't decided to yell at some kids for crossing the street.

Every report says he was walking down the middle of the street. We have laws against that for public safety.

I love how jaywalking, a crime that Mother Teresa would commit, becomes a "dangerous act" in this scenario.[/QUOTE]

We have laws against it for a reason. This guy robbed a store, walked down the middle of the road, and assaulted a cop. That is 3 crimes in a very short period of time. Wounds show he was probably charging the cop when he was killed. I don't see why anyone would want to go after the cop in this case.

 

[ricechickie]

We have laws against it for a reason. This guy robbed a store, walked down the middle of the road, and assaulted a cop. That is 3 crimes in a very short period of time. Wounds show he was probably charging the cop when he was killed. I don't see why anyone would want to go after the cop in this case.

The officer did not know that Brown had robbed a store, and he confronted Brown before Brown allegedly assaulted him.

Therefore, the cop decided that jaywalking was such a big deal that he had to stop and make a fuss.

Where I come from, jaywalking isn't something you stop a person for. Police have real crimes to worry about.