home

Potential New Audio of Michael Brown Shooting

Driving this afternoon and listening to CNN on Sirius, the main story was not ISIS or Syria, it was a new audio of the Michael Brown shooting that a passer-by captured on his cell phone while video-chatting with a woman. As he tells her how fine she looks, there are gunshots in the background. Either 10 or 11, depending on the guest they were interviewing. But all could clearly hear about a three second pause between the first round of five or six, and the final ones. They then replayed four interviews of eye witnesses, all of whom said there was a pause in the shooting as Brown turned around and put his hands up.

The significance? Unclear, since it's not been confirmed the tape is authentic or reliable, and obviously, the network doesn't have the original recording. The FBI has also been given a copy.

Here's a thread for all topics related to the Brown shooting.

< Identifying James Foley's Executioners | Wednesday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    From the open thread (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by MO Blue on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 07:11:45 PM EST
    Brown's family (none / 0) (#172)
    by ragebot on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 03:40:54 PM CST
    situation is probably not probative in a specific case.  On the other hand there is a high correlation between growing up in a two parent family and low chance of going to jail (and by implication committing a crime).
    Not saying kids like Brown or Martin don't get the short end of the stick by not having a stable family environment to grow up in.  Just that kids that grow up in that family situation are more likely to wind up in jail.

    Are you aware that Wilson was NOT raised in a two parent home? Google his early childhood. By the same standards you have applied to the Brown family, Wilson, "who grew up in that family situation" is more likely to have committed a crime.

    I have seen several blurbs (none / 0) (#4)
    by ragebot on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 07:24:44 PM EST
    about Wilson's early life.  His Mother was accused and I think convicted of some type of fraud.  His Dad seemed to be a straight arrow.

    But my point was there was a greater chance of jail for someone raised in a single parent home, not that everyone raised in a single parent home would go to jail.

    Parent

    After his mother died, according to reports (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by MO Blue on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 07:57:56 PM EST
    he was under the guardianship of the first of his two step fathers from the time he was 16 until he was 18. No mention of his "straight arrow natural father" being in the picture.

    People who know him describe him as someone who grew up in a home marked by multiple divorces and tangles with the law.

    If there was a greater chance of Brown committing a crime based on his home environment, Wilson also had a greater chance of committing a crime since it has been reported and confirmed by his friends that he had little or no structure in his home life. In fact, there is a chance that Brown's home environment was more stable than Wilson's.

    Regardless, to quote Zorba:

    It does not seem to have anything to do with the question of whether the police response was appropriate or not.


    Parent
    I think I'm waiting for the decision of the... (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by crimebird on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 10:10:20 PM EST
    Grand Jury. This is another bit of evidence that people on either side of the fence are going to do their best to weave into their respective theories about what happened. Heck we don't even know if it has been authenticated yet. The one thing I am very sure of in this is that there is a lot more information and evidence that has not yet been publicized and will probably knock everyone's pet theories about what happened into a cocked hat.

    Authenticated (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 07:26:03 AM EST
    Heck we don't even know if it has been authenticated yet.

    He wouldn't be foolish enough to turn it in to the FBI, nor would his lawyer allow him to, if his lawyer had not authenticated it first.

    10 minutes after the shooting an ear witness described on the infamous video what is heard on this tape -- a volley of shots then a pause and a finishing volley.

    Though there may be only a half dozen eye witnesses, it was a Saturday at noon on a nice day. So I'll bet there were a whole lot of people outside gardening  or walking who can testify to sounds of gunfire with the damning pause in between that is heard on that tape.

    Parent

    Why would he need a lawyer (3.50 / 2) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 07:38:04 AM EST
    to turn in a tape??

    And what is so shocking about this, even if you assume, which the LAPD guy on CNN did not, assume it isn't a fake?? No one doubts Brown was shot by Wilson.

    As to the pause, that's simple.

    Wilson shot at Brown. He had no idea how many times he had hit him... Wilson paused. Brown kept coming. Wilson shot him again.

    You know, this isn't a movie. In the real world bad things happen very very fast.

    Parent

    Yes, and cops are suppose to be trained (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 07:40:40 AM EST
    So that they don't let these things happen in the first place.

    Parent
    Brown kept coming. (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 08:07:03 AM EST
    Brown kept coming.

    Evidence, please

    Parent

    You Are the One to Supply the Evidence (none / 0) (#80)
    by RickyJim on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 11:04:43 AM EST
    that he didn't keep coming.  The defense only has to find one reasonable, innocent explanation for the evidence.  It doesn't have to prove innocence.  You, Wilson's prosecutor, have to refute all such explanations.

    Parent
    This is not a trial ... (5.00 / 4) (#82)
    by Yman on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 11:12:25 AM EST
    ... and Uncle Chip is not the prosecutor.  But when someone makes a claim that when Wilson paused, Brown kept coming at him, they should be willing to provide some evidence to support their claim, ... or have it properly ignored as sheer, unsupported speculation.

    Parent
    What's starting to become telling to me.... (none / 0) (#86)
    by magster on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 11:36:45 AM EST
    about the Wilson supporters since the release of the tape is that: 1) the tape is bogus or unreliable; and 2) if it's not bogus, we are standing on our claim that after the pause, Michael Brown kept coming at Wilson in such a threatening posture that Wilson had to kill him.

    In other words, the tape is very damaging to Wilson because 1 is probably wrong (though it's fair to wait for the authenticators to bless the tape) and two just seems like an outlandish defense.

    If Wilson did give a statement that is inconsistent with the audio after the audio is authenticated, I don't see how he avoids indictment for something if the Grand Jury is being used in good faith by the county prosecutor.

    Parent

    Note that the framing is that (5.00 / 4) (#100)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 12:38:45 PM EST
    Brown "kept" coming, planting the idea that Brown was always moving toward Wilson and therefore, the shooting was justified.

    We may not know the specifics of the struggle inside the vehicle, but we do know this: Brown ran away from that confrontation; he did not stick around to assert his physical domination over Wilson. A domination that would seem to be more threatening in the confines of the SUV than out on the sidewalk from whatever distance the fatal shots were fired.

    He ran away - as did Johnson.  The threat to Wilson ends at that point.

    And we know that, instead of securing himself inside his vehicle or calling for assistance once Brown ran off, Wilson got out and went in pursuit of Brown, firing his weapon at him.

    Why is he doing that?  Wilson's seen no evidence that Brown is armed; Brown, even though he's had opportunities to use a weapon, doesn't because he doesn't have one.  

    Apparently, Wilson's not thinking, he's just reacting to a threat that he created and which Brown does not pose.

    I don't know what the gap is all about; I'm sure it means something - maybe Wilson is checking to see how many more bullets he has left.  

    If it turns out that it was during the pause that Brown said "I'm not armed: stop shooting!" I think Wilson's in deep, deep doo-doo.  As well he should be.

    Parent

    Thank you, Anne (3.50 / 2) (#146)
    by Palli on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 04:07:06 AM EST
    I would not be surprised if the cop training/law says that's a serious enough threat to fire on.

    Parent
    And if Wilson had shot and killed (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 01:28:46 PM EST
    Brown during the struggle in the SUV, I'm pretty sure most people would acknowledge the threat as real and be able to justify the shooting (even if what started the confrontation was Wilson's decision to escalate a situation that had no threat in it at the beginning).

    But all we think we know is that "the gun went off;" I don't think anyone's really sure if that was an accidental discharge or a deliberate effort to address the threat.  Brown can't tell us, Johnson couldn't see into the vehicle and Wilson's not talking.  

    But there's one thing we do know: Brown wasn't struggling to get Wilson's gun after the weapon discharged.  Bang!  And he took off.  In the other direction.  Where he couldn't get Wilson's gun.

    Does the police training manual say, "always run toward the threat?"  

    If Wilson thought Brown was a threat to him, it makes no sense why he would run toward that threat.  Just one more in a series of bad decisions.


    Parent

    I don't argue with much of that. (2.00 / 0) (#115)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 01:42:55 PM EST
    My hunch, however, is that Wilson's training/the law, says that he can/should fire on Brown, even after the supposed tussle for the gun had ended.

    My hunch is that his training/the law says the threat is the actor, not the actions of the actor, so once the actor proves himself a serious threat, the po po does stop the threat. Or something similar.

    I really don't know jack about the law, the above is based on what I'vegathered over the years, so please disregard the above as complete nonsense if you do know the law and know that the above ain't it.

    Parent

    I would not be surprised if (5.00 / 0) (#116)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 02:10:21 PM EST
    the cop training/law says that's a serious enough threat to fire on.

    only if the struggle is still going on, maybe

    But in this case the alleged struggle  was now ancient history -- the alleged struggler has run away.

    The threat, if there had been one, has ended.

    Parent

    Ricky Jim (none / 0) (#84)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 11:34:30 AM EST
    The defense only has to find one reasonable, innocent explanation for the evidence.

    Good luck with that.

    His only defense is temporary insanity and that does not fall in the category of "reasonable".

    Parent

    Brown kept coming after having already been.... (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by magster on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 10:28:47 AM EST
    shot, but then Jim reminds us "this isn't a movie". LOL. Michael Brown is The Terminator!

    Parent
    Everything is simple... (none / 0) (#88)
    by sj on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 11:43:46 AM EST
    As to the pause, that's simple.
    ...to you isn't it? I guess that simplistic kind of thinking gives the brain neurons a rest? Requires less neurons? I don't know. Not being a neuroscientist I couldn't say for sure.

    Parent
    Well let me see (1.00 / 1) (#99)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 12:37:39 PM EST
    Why the snark???

    And none of you know what Brown was doing after the first shots.

    I say he kept coming.

    Wilson fired again to stop him.

    You can't prove me wrong.

    What we do know and can prove that Brown's reactions when challenged at the store was to turn and attack the owner/clerk.

    And if you look and listen to this video you can see that Brown has fallen with his head towards the police car indicating that he wasn't running away, which is also confirmed by the ME who said he was shot in the front.

    And if you listen you can hear a witness say that he was running away and then turned towards the police car.

    2 But him and the police was both in the truck, then he ran - the police got out and ran after him

    {crosstalk}

    #2 Then the next thing I know he doubled back toward him cus - the police had his gun drawn already on him -

    Link

    Parent

    "You can't prove me wrong" (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by magster on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 12:53:14 PM EST
    Numerous witnesses who have said he wasn't coming at Wilson is proof.

    There's also physiology -- if a human being (maybe you don't think Brown is human) is wounded with 5 gun shot wounds before the kill shot to the head, science would dictate that an unarmed human being is no longer capable of being a threat.

    Look at the autopsy sketch again. Brown was a one armed one eyed person before the shot to the head. You said above, this isn't the movies. You've seen too many Steven Segall movies where the bad-guys never die until they've been shot 20 times.

    Parent

    That's not what the tape says. (2.00 / 0) (#121)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 03:40:51 PM EST
    So who's wrong??

    And putting movies aside, I've seen, heard and smelled people terribly hurt function and live for longer that I would have believed had I not seen it.

    Parent

    @jimaka seeing severely wounded people.... (2.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Palli on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 04:44:02 AM EST
    Which is also why Wilson should have checked Michael for signs of life, instead of calmly going back to car and driving it to a new location that served essentially no traffic or investigative  purpose. But did open up the viewing vista to apartment building and the open space across the street.  Classic intimidation display of the dead.

    Parent
    I agree (1.00 / 1) (#176)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 12:22:41 PM EST
    he should have but he probably observed the wounds and lack of breathing and ASSUMED he has dead.

    Tell you what. We'll suspend him for a week and make him attend a First Aid class.

    Class BS from you.

    Parent

    I agree (1.00 / 1) (#177)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 12:22:42 PM EST
    he should have but he probably observed the wounds and lack of breathing and ASSUMED he has dead.

    Tell you what. We'll suspend him for a week and make him attend a First Aid class.

    Class BS from you.

    Parent

    The Great Social Liberal Speaks (4.00 / 3) (#106)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 12:53:41 PM EST
    What we do know and can prove that Brown's reactions when challenged at the store was to turn and attack the owner/clerk.

    Challenged?  How about being blocked from exiting?

    And as always with you property is more valuable than certain human life, and should be protected at all costs. Of course for you Human life is not all equal..


    Parent

    No, squeaky (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 09:18:29 PM EST
    The video shows him brushing by the small, probably 5' 110 pound owner and then turning around and coming back.

    Watch for yourself.

    Parent

    The owner wasn't in the store (4.25 / 4) (#141)
    by MO Blue on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 09:56:08 PM EST
    Okay, then the clerk. (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 08:16:32 AM EST
    Does that make you feel better.

    Parent
    Accuracy always makes me (5.00 / 3) (#158)
    by MO Blue on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 08:18:30 AM EST
    feel better. You might want to try it on a regular basis.

    Parent
    Picking fly manure out of the pepper (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 12:18:11 PM EST
    is always a tactic when someone wants to try and throw up a smoke screen.

    Fact. He went back.

    Now, does THAT make you feel better?

    Parent

    I agree that you are the expert at picking fly (5.00 / 3) (#186)
    by MO Blue on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 12:58:11 PM EST
    Manure out of the pepper.  

    Prime example is your link which states the clerk called police.

    Another piece of totally inaccurate data that you are promoting as fact. The clerk did not call the  police.

    The owner of the store dispute the claim that they or an employee called 911,

    I also question the relevancy of Brown walking back towards the clerk to the issue of Wilson shooting an unarmed teenager. No report was issued that the suspects were armed and dangerous since at no point did the person in the video point any type of weapon at anyone in the store. Nor did he strike or punch anyone in the store. He pushed the clerk out of the way.


    Parent

    I See (4.25 / 4) (#142)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 09:57:27 PM EST
    And as far as you are concerned that warrants a death sentence?

    Parent
    Nope, and I am glad to see that you (2.25 / 4) (#159)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 08:20:13 AM EST
    agree that he turned around and came back to intimidate the store person... clerk or owner...

    What it does show is Brown's personality. It shows a young man who believes he can take what he wants.. do what he wants and if someone objects he can just bully his way through it.

    Speaks volumes to why he turned around when Wilson commanded him to stop.

     

    Parent

    You're probably as correct about that (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 08:21:31 AM EST
    As you were when you stated that I never fired a gun in my life.

    That is, not at all.

    Parent

    "when Wilson commanded him to (4.25 / 4) (#165)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 09:17:20 AM EST
    stop?"

    When was that?

    I know it's pointless to ask this, but can you provide a link to any credible source or report that indicates Wilson "commanded" Brown to stop?

    Parent

    Good job, Jack 203, staying away (5.00 / 3) (#191)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 01:46:19 PM EST
    from that "1" rating...

    Since I would have thought you'd have jumped at the chance to produce the links I was asking for, but apparently don't have them any more than jim does, what's so objectionable about my comment - that I called jim on his BS?

    Golly, and here you guys were thinking you were getting away with this nonsense.

    Curses! Foiled again!

    Parent

    Fact. (1.00 / 1) (#178)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 12:24:05 PM EST
    Brown turned and doubled back.

    Parent
    When did Wilson "command" Brown (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 12:48:50 PM EST
    to stop?  Where are the links to witnesses who heard Wilson commanding Brown to stop and put his hands up?

    That was your claim, jim - that Brown was commanded to stop and put his hands up; I haven't seen or heard that reported anywhere - and you can bet if people heard it, it would be all over the news to support Wilson's justification for continuing to fire on Brown.

    So, either post a link to what you're claiming is fact, or STFU about it.

    Parent

    Anne (1.00 / 1) (#198)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 02:30:38 PM EST
    The fact is the video proves he doubled back.

    All you want to do is try and blow smoke to cover by picking on a moot point.

    STFU yourself.

    BTW - You keep on with the potty mouth. Speaks a lot about you.

    Parent

    The fact is, jim, that you cannot (5.00 / 2) (#201)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 02:54:16 PM EST
    substantiate your assertion that Wilson ever commanded Brown to stop and put his hands up: that is the issue at hand here, jim, not whether Brown turned around.

    This isn't Fox News, jim; we don't just start believing the nonsense you spew just because you say it over and over and over; adding "it's a fact that" doesn't spin straw into gold.

    Sorry if it upsets you to be outed for your fabrications; you could always go peddle that baloney somewhere else where it would be greeted with cheers and praise.

    Parent

    You know (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by sj on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 03:00:06 PM EST
    you could always go peddle that baloney somewhere else where it would be greeted with cheers and praise.
    If he did go elsewhere to peddle his baloney it would also be greeted here with cheers and praise.


    Parent
    BTW (none / 0) (#200)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 02:47:25 PM EST
    Here's the video

    Here's the video.

    You can plainly here that Brown doubled back.

    Parent

    No snark, really (none / 0) (#110)
    by sj on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 01:00:16 PM EST
    Just free association on my part. I see that you frequently view complex issues as being simple. Just free associating as to why that may be.

    But, as I said, I am hardly an neuroscientist. I am probably completely wrong as to why you so need to see things as "very simple" that you discard inconvenient nuance and complexity.

    So why on Earth would I try to prove your opinion "wrong"? It's an opinion, not a fact. And I completely concede that your opinion and your interpretation are yours to hold as near and dear to your hardened, little heart as you wish.

    Parent

    DId you ever hear of (none / 0) (#123)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 03:48:10 PM EST
    Occam's Razor or study scientific modeling??

    Of course studying Brown's earlier actions, the position of his body, the ME's report and the tape saying he doubled back is just soooooo simple.

    Sarcasm intended.

    Parent

    Occams Razor?! (4.25 / 4) (#126)
    by magster on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 03:53:15 PM EST
    You are telling us to apply Occams Razor while telling us that a guy shot 5 times was still charging Wilson?!

    FFS.

    Parent

    You've never had to deal (5.00 / 0) (#190)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 01:34:18 PM EST
    with one of those bucks when they have a head full of hop and a head full of steam the way Jim has.

    A lot of time your other Klan brothers have to get directly involved.

     

    Parent

    I see that sarcasm (2.00 / 0) (#137)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 09:09:37 PM EST
    is lost on you... Try reading the thread.

    Parent
    whew (none / 0) (#129)
    by sj on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 04:20:40 PM EST
    I'm sure glad sarcasm was intended, and that you weren't serious about your supposed application of scientific modeling.

    Parent
    He doesn't believe in Evolution (none / 0) (#140)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 09:21:10 PM EST
    But he knows "all about science".

    Parent
    Speaking of simple thinking (none / 0) (#161)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 08:22:27 AM EST
    and I thank you for baiting, it is obvious you haven't paid attention what I believe.

    Parent
    Sure I have. You don't believe in climate change (none / 0) (#163)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 08:44:39 AM EST
    and this is what one of your sources on AGW, Roy Spencer had to say about evolution:

    The meteorologist (as opposed to climatologist) who also claims that "theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution"?  He's been debunked so many times that actual climatologists can't even mention his name without laughing.(ed)He tried publishing a piece in Remote Sensing (a geography journal) trying to blame global warming on clouds.  It took only 3 days for actual climatologists to debunk his silly piece (the reason skeptics write opinion pieces rather than peer-reviewed studies) and show that the observations and data supported the IPCC models.  In fact, the Editor-in-Chief of Remote sensing was so embarrassed by the publishing of Spencer's joke of a "study" that he resigned.

    You yourself wrote this:

    Guess using scientific judges and lawyers is better than using scientific preachers and school board members.

    If evolution is so weak a theory that it can't stand up to intelligent design as a theory....

    If you've actually forgotten what you've written on the subject in the past, Google is your friend.............

    Parent

    You do realize that you are completely off (none / 0) (#173)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 12:16:14 PM EST
    subject..

    And again you misstate me.

    I believe in climate change and have stated time and again.

    It is Man Made Global Warming that I see as a hoax.

    Please quit making things up.

    Parent

    BTW - Why didn't you post what I was (none / 0) (#179)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 12:27:31 PM EST
    replying to rather than taking an out of context quote??

    That's dishonest. Tell you what.

    Bring this up on an Open Thread.

    Parent

    You brought up Occams razor (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 12:45:42 PM EST
    and as for accusations of dishonesty, I won't dignify them with a response to you on an open thread or elsewhere, James.  

    Your record is clear for anyone with access to Google and two brain cells to rub together.

    Parent

    And, BTW (5.00 / 3) (#183)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 12:48:36 PM EST
    you bring to mind this old saw:

    The dogs with the loudest bark are the ones that are most afraid.



    Parent
    Monrduggian88 you make things up (2.00 / 0) (#197)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 02:26:59 PM EST
    and then insult.

    And then act surprised when I call you down.

    Wow.

    Parent

    And, BTW (none / 0) (#185)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 12:52:14 PM EST
    Anyone who clicks on the link can view the whole thread and your precious "context" if they want to.


    Parent
    Hooey (2.00 / 0) (#195)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 02:23:04 PM EST
    We both know that people don't click the link. They just read and go on unless they are keenly interested.

    You quoted without context. You then doubled down on the CC.

    Bring it up, if you dare, on the next open thread.

    Parent

    At last he admits... (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by sj on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 02:54:58 PM EST
    We both know that people don't click the link.
    ...what he counts on.

    And that he actually thinks other people are as intellectually lazy as he is.

    Parent

    So you agree that (none / 0) (#162)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 08:24:20 AM EST
    you have to look into all the issues here??

    Good.

    Now do it.

    Parent

    Isn't it time for (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by sj on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 12:06:07 PM EST
    Yes, but I'm too busy showing (none / 0) (#172)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 12:11:45 PM EST
    that you have nothing to do but make wild claims in an attempt to cover up the facts that we do know.

    Parent
    I don't know why Jeralyn puts up with you.... (5.00 / 3) (#188)
    by magster on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 01:19:25 PM EST
    You're the dictionary definition of troll.

    Parent
    "we" do know.. (none / 0) (#189)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 01:25:32 PM EST
    like we know about Holder and the Black Panthers.

    And about all those America-hating climate scientists.

    Parent

    magster, squeaky, jondee (2.00 / 0) (#196)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 02:24:41 PM EST
    Quit attacking and I'll not respond.

    Parent
    Glide website confirms time stamp of (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by magster on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 01:49:53 PM EST
    shooting audio lines up with timing of shooting. Authentication.

    Authentication (5.00 / 2) (#193)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 02:09:44 PM EST
    So it has now been authenticated:

    In this case, the video in question was created at 12:02:14 PM CDT on Saturday, August 9th.

    What will the excuses be now????????????

     

    Parent

    Oh, ye of little faith...you can't seriously (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 02:19:16 PM EST
    imagine there will be any difficulty finding excuses, can you?

    The universe in which these people live abounds in them.

    Parent

    St. Louis County sheriff's office.... (4.25 / 4) (#118)
    by magster on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 02:53:57 PM EST
    Yes, you're correct (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by Zorba on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 03:02:37 PM EST
    Words fail.   :-(

    Parent
    Tells us a lot about the police in that community. (4.40 / 5) (#125)
    by Angel on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 03:52:30 PM EST
    Not that we didn't already have an inkling of just the type of people some of them are.  Seriously, the lack of dignity and respect shown for the family and loved ones and others in the community who had gathered in a spirit of kindness and love just astounds me.  How much hatred must a person have in their heart to either do that or allow that to happen?

    Parent
    let dog pee on Michael Brown spontaneous memorial (4.25 / 4) (#122)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 03:47:25 PM EST
    Talk about adding insult to injury --

    And mindnumbed pundits wonder why the community is mad???

    Parent

    I haven't seen a RW.... (none / 0) (#2)
    by magster on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 07:19:46 PM EST
    credible explanation for "THE PAUSE" that exonerates Wilson more than it hurts him. Anyone?

    Well, I don't know about "RW" (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 07:27:41 PM EST
    but you have seen several credible explanations, you just willfully refuse to accept them.

    Parent
    I was thinking Gateway Pundit, or Fox... (none / 0) (#8)
    by magster on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 07:36:03 PM EST
    or Wilson's racist supporters on his fundraising website -- the same crowd who were crowing about the non-existent orbital explosion.

    As for what I've heard from the previous thread, I saw the "I don't want to kill you, but after pausing, sorry, I gotta." and then your determination of Wilson saw a threat, which according to you doesn't have to be defined or identified because the use of the word threat is enough.

    Parent

    Ya, that's what I said. You got it. (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 08:07:19 PM EST
    The Pause (none / 0) (#6)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 07:26:52 PM EST
    After the Pause came the two kill shots to the head.

    Had Wilson stopped at the Pause Brown would be alive today.

    Parent

    He paused to reassess the need to keep shooting (none / 0) (#9)
    by toggle on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 07:49:30 PM EST
    And realized Brown was still a threat.

    This jibes with the autopsy, which showed that Brown wasn't incapacitated until the last couple shots.

    How's that?

    Parent

    So when he re-evaluated and (none / 0) (#10)
    by scribe on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 07:55:10 PM EST
    decided to keep shooting, instead of shooting him center-of-mass like he was taught, he shot him in the head.

    Or, more precisely, he shot him in the eye.

    Parent

    The same bullet that hit Brown in the eye (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by toggle on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 08:06:10 PM EST
    Ended up in his collar bone, which is pretty darn close to the center of mass--a foot or so at the most. The fatal wounds were both inflicted from an angle consistent with Brown leaning into them, which would have put the bullets higher in the body than they would otherwise have landed. It's also consistent with him lunging or charging forward. If a burst of rounds had been fired at Brown, several of which apparently hit him, why would he be moving toward the cop if he had no hostile intent?

    And there is no wound that would have caused him to fall forward for the fatal shots, as some have claimed.

    Parent

    How do you know this (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 08:18:51 PM EST
    And there is no wound that would have caused him to fall forward for the fatal shots, as some have claimed.

    And the accounts say he was bending over and taking a step forward.  You might easily do that to keep from falling if you are shot and in shock and feeling woozy.  There is nothing to prove he was "lunging"

    Parent

    He was shot six times (none / 0) (#43)
    by toggle on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 10:57:34 PM EST
    The first four hit him in the right arm, and at least one seems to have been at an angle consistent with him reaching forward. This is according to an editorial by a medical examiner, published on CNN.com Editorial link

    The arm wounds would not have caused him to fall forward to become "woozy" within that two-second pause.

    On the other hand I think it's possible that Brown may have been momentarily startled by being shot, which caused him to stop advancing for a moment. Or he could have decided to charge the cop only after being shot unprovoked. Doesn't seem very likely to me, but I guess it's possible. There's not any way to know whether all the arm wounds were inflicted in the same volley, though I think at least some of them had to come from that first volley given the total number of hits.

    Parent

    If he had leaned forward to protect himself, (none / 0) (#44)
    by Green26 on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 11:01:35 PM EST
    he would have likely fallen forward when the fatal bullets hit him. Explaining bullet entries based on charging forward are the same as leaning forward (i.e. putting his head down) to protect himself.

    Parent
    What Baden said was (none / 0) (#45)
    by ragebot on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 11:05:21 PM EST
    Explaining bullet entries based on charging forward are the same as leaning forward (i.e. putting his head down) to protect himself.

    As a result Baden said he could not draw any conclusion about what happened.

    Makes it a lot easier to sell reasonable doubt to a jury.

    Parent

    I just don't understand (none / 0) (#47)
    by toggle on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 11:09:49 PM EST
    How someone can "lean forward to protect himself" from bullets that are coming from in front of him.

    According to an editorial written by a medical examiner, the injuries to his arm are consistent with him reaching toward the gun when he was shot. Is this some gesture of surrender I'm not familiar with--head down, arm forward?

    Editorial link.

    Parent

    After going to great lengths to (none / 0) (#56)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 06:51:32 AM EST
    explain the limitations of Dr. Baden's autopsy as a result of him not being in on the case from the beginning, the author of the op-ed - who had even less information and access than Baden - goes on to speculate about the position of Brown's body at the time the last rounds were fired at him.

    I think it's entirely possible that more than one thing was going on with Brown at the same time.  I think he was feeling the effects of the bullets that had already hit him, and was perhaps unable to stay as upright, while also instinctively trying to protect himself from the bullets that were still coming at him.

    This is what the op-ed actually says, in part:

    To a forensic pathologist, the body diagram Brown's attorneys released tells a different story. The wound at the top of the head, the frontal wounds and angled right hand and arm wounds suggest that the victim was facing the officer, leaning forward with his right arm possibly extended in line with the gun's barrel, and not above his head.

    The image of a person standing upright with his hands in the air when he was shot does not appear compatible with the wounds documented on that diagram. Whether a forward-leaning position is a posture of attack or of surrender, however, is a matter of perspective.

    From the perspective of a witness, it could appear that the leaning person is complying with the officer and getting down. From the perspective of the officer, he may appear to be coming at him. Partial evidence yields partial answers, and a rush to conclusions based on one isolated set of data from a second autopsy only raises more questions.

    The perspective we don't have is Michael Brown's, since he can't explain anything.

    In any event, I do not see the phrase "consistent with" in the author's speculation about Brown's injuries.

    Parent

    Speculation it is not (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by toggle on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 10:25:53 PM EST
    Saying that wounds suggest a certain body position at the time they were inflicted is a reasoned conclusion based on evidence, pretty much the opposite of speculation.

    And "suggests" is stronger language than "consistent with," so I don't understand your concern about that.

    As to the bit about perspective, frankly I found it a bit of equivocation perplexing, as if the author knew what the only probable explanation for the wounds was, but she wanted to appear balanced by talking about what's possible. Now that's getting closer to speculation.

    Also, any educated layman can look at those arm wounds and say with near certainty that they did not cause Brown to faint from blood loss within two or three seconds. That suggestion is absurd.

    Parent

    How's That (none / 0) (#37)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 10:12:10 PM EST
    He paused to reassess the need to keep shooting

    and when he realized that Brown was still alive and he only had 5 rounds left he moved closer to Brown during "the pause" so that he could finish him off.

    How's that???

    Parent

    Since the first bullets only hit Brown in the arm (5.00 / 0) (#42)
    by toggle on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 10:56:08 PM EST
    It'd be remarkable for him to just stand there during that two-second pause and wait for the cop to come execute him. Do you think he bowed his head to make it easier, too?

    Parent
    At that point (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 07:12:42 AM EST
    he would have been shot atleast 4 times, losing blood, hurting, keeling over in pain, falling to his knees, and falling to the ground.  It's hard to hold your head up under those circumstances.

    Parent
    Oh, give me a break (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by toggle on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 10:40:02 PM EST
    It's been recorded over and over again that people who are shot, even mortally wounded (which Brown most definitely was not at that point) are able to function for minutes after the wounds are inflicted before they begin suffer severely from blood loss.

    Have you ever suffered a sudden, traumatic injury? Brown probably didn't even feel pain from those wounds within two seconds, much less faint.

    But he would have gotten a shot of adrenaline that would have kicked him into the classic fight or flight mode, assuming he wasn't there already.  And we know he didn't flee...

    I suppose it's possible that it happened as you suggest, but likely? That the cop decided to murder Brown for no reason, as he stood still, with his hands up, but he only managed to shoot Brown a couple times in the arm. I assume you don't think all four arm wounds were inflicted in the first volley, since some of them were inflicted while Brown's arm extended toward the gun and not the sky.

    Then Brown fell to his knees, leaned his head down, and raised his wounded arm to shield himself?

    In two seconds?

    This scenario might be theoretically possible, but probable it is not.

    Parent

    This functioning for minutes while wounded (5.00 / 5) (#150)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 05:21:42 AM EST
    I would think that police officers in good physical condition could easily take a wait and see approach, allow the wounding to take affect for a bit and incapacitate the dangerous people who are unarmed.

    But what I see anymore are a bunch of fata$$ mouth breathers afraid of shadows and trees scratching on the window who have jobs as law enforcement officers.  What happened to officers who exercised regularly and possessed strength of mind, body, and character?

    Seems like the only confidence the lard butt law enforcement officer has anymore is what he feels when he grasps his taser or a gun.

    Parent

    If only there was a completely (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 05:42:08 AM EST
    reliable means for a law enforcement officer to determine prior to using force, to determine whether the person was, in fact, "unarmed."  Constitutionally ordained right to carry a firearm seems to me to raise he likelihood a person is armed, depending on the state.  

    Parent
    The first clue that Brown was unarmed was (5.00 / 4) (#154)
    by MO Blue on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 07:30:29 AM EST
    that at no time did he pull a gun on Wilson.  He didn't have a gun in his hand when he ran away. He didn't have a gun in his hand when he turned around and according to witnesses tried to surrender and no gun was found on his body.

    Using your interpretation there is no need for a weapon to be displayed. The cop can just assume that every black person he encounters is armed and shoot away.

    SOP

    Parent

    I was not addressing this particular event. Or (none / 0) (#155)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 07:49:04 AM EST
    any particular event or ethinicity.

    Parent
    We were discussing a particular event (5.00 / 4) (#156)
    by MO Blue on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 08:15:00 AM EST
    here in MO and what happened here regarding shooting an unarmed teenager.

    In the last 5 years only 3 officers in the entire state of MO died in the line of duty from gunfire and one of those incidents was listed as accidental. No officer from Ferguson died in the line of duty during that time.

    You can generalize all you want, but 2 officers in 5 years does not exactly support your claim that officers here should assume that every person they encounter is armed and dangerous. The stats do not support it.

    Parent

    How come a United States soldier (5.00 / 4) (#164)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 09:08:29 AM EST
    Can accept the risk of being fired upon first....before firing at anyone, but police officers are so precious to the social structure that they can risk nothing?  They have to just open up on everything in order to remain more precious and safe than any of the rest of us will ever get to be?

    Why does law enforcement get to be such a bunch of riskless pussies?  

    You realize you currently have a better authority structure encouraging community and trust in war zones right now under Obama than you have in United States neighborhoods?

    Parent

    You need to make up your mind (5.00 / 4) (#152)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 07:03:04 AM EST
    what someone is or isn't capable of after being shot.

    You make the argument that the burst of adrenaline and the minor nature of the arm wounds would not have slowed Brown down or caused him to start to go to the ground, and yet you find it improbable that he'd be able to raise his wounded arm?  How does that work?

    And while we're talking about adrenaline, you might want to address Wilson's adrenaline levels, and how they affected his decision-making abilities.  

    And here's another puzzler: if Brown had been armed, and both of his arms/hands are free when Wilson allegedly grabs him and pulls his head into the vehicle, why is Brown's only defense an effort to get Wilson's gun so Wilson doesn't shoot him?  And then running away when a shot is fired?

    Is a reptile brain a prerequisite for employment in the Ferguson PD?

    Because I really think that the whole tussle inside the SUV wasn't about Brown trying to shoot Wilson, it was about Brown trying to keep a lunatic cop from shooting him.  And by "lunatic cop" I mean "cop whose decisions took a non-violent, simple and ordinary situation from zero to 60 in a matter of minutes."

    Amazes me the level of creativity that goes into fashioning these "the shooting was justified" theories, when a common-sense, logical examination of the decisions made by Wilson and the many opportunities he had to handle his interaction with Brown and Johnson without violence from the moment he encountered them, is sufficient to reach the opposite conclusion.

    Parent

    You may very well be ultimately correct-- (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 07:13:11 AM EST
    when the investigation is complete and the public has access to it and expert testimony under oath.

    Parent
    My understanding (none / 0) (#3)
    by ragebot on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 07:21:23 PM EST
    is that a LEO has to account for every round they are issued.  It should be easy to determine how many rounds were fired by Wilson.

    While the number of rounds fired is important as well as the time between shots I am not sure this is the most important evidence.

    The grouping of the shots is fairly well established from the pix of Baden's report and I am assuming the other two reports will mirror this.

    One explanation of the pattern that would make the group look a lot better is if Brown had lifted his arm to close to shoulder level so the hand/wrist shot is much closer to the upper arm/shoulder shots and the neck/head shots.  It is also possible the arm was down and the grouping was just wild shooting.

    I know there is the thirty five foot shooting distance claim, but that is based on how far the body was from the cop car which could be different from where Wilson or Brown was when the shots were fired.  

    What is hard for me to understand is why Wilson would shoot a kneeling Brown in the hand and then a few times in the upper arm and then the neck and then the head with such a strange group.  If Wilson was a rogue cop why not just save ammo and only shoot him once in the head.

    This is why I am very interested in seeing the official autopsy report if it tested for GSR.  Not to mention any GSR test for the inside of the cop car.  There are multiple claims that Wilson's first shot was inside his car and if that is the case there should be GSR in the car.  Hard to understand how there was one shot inside the car with no delay before several other shots were fired outside the car.  I have seen no claims that there were multiple shots fired inside the car.

    Maybe the tape is probative but it seems to be in conflict with the idea that Wilson and Brown fought over the gun inside the car and a single shot was fired inside the car and the rest of the shots were fired outside the car.

    Just watched CNN's (2.00 / 1) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 07:31:59 AM EST
    Talking Head interview a LAPD retired policeman.

    She almost fainted when he said it could have been "punked" because it was just now coming out.

    Not satisfied with being shown up once she went back and he did it again... She then cut to another guy...

    What nonsense.

    The number of shots fired will be determined by how many Wilson had left in his gun.

    And the pause merely means that Brown didn't stop after being shot and Wilson fired again.

    Parent

    And the pause (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 08:04:12 AM EST
    merely means that Brown didn't stop after being shot and Wilson fired again.

    Didn't stop what -- breathing???

    Not one witness says that Brown was moving toward the officer but all the witnesses say that the cop was moving toward the kid -- including the crime scene.


    Parent

    No, the pause means only (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Green26 on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 08:11:12 AM EST
    that the officer paused and started shooting again. It says nothing about what Brown did, and certainly doesn't say that he didn't stop.

    Parent
    Maybe in your mind that's what the (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 09:00:08 AM EST
    pause means, but that's some pretty limited logic.

    It's alleged that Brown called out that he wasn't armed, "stop shooting;" since we know the last bullet is the one that killed him, it's possible Brown pleaded with Wilson during that pause - and then Wilson fired the remaining shots.

    I think it's entirely possible Brown was moving, whether he was turning around and beginning to go to the ground as a result of his injuries, it would make no sense for him, unarmed, to "bumrush" a cop who was already shooting at him - and hitting him.  

    The problem for me is that, as many bad decisions as Wilson made from the time of the initial interaction in the road, I get the feeling that  Brown could have turned into a statue and Wilson would have continued to fire on him.

    Parent

    The problem for me is that, as many bad decisions (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 11:58:43 AM EST
    as Wilson made from the time of the initial interaction in the road, I get the feeling that  Brown could have turned into a statue and Wilson would have continued to fire on him.

    YEP --

    Parent

    My guess was and is as good as yours (none / 0) (#95)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 12:19:17 PM EST
    And the pause merely means that Brown didn't stop after being shot and Wilson fired again

    Our collective biases do show, eh?

    Parent

    My comment was not a guess. (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Green26 on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 07:22:30 PM EST
    It was a fact based on the audio (if authentic). The only thing it showed is that the officer paused and then continued shooting. That is just a fact. I said nothing more. You speculated. That's fine, but please don't try to tell us that the pause proved anything else. It didn't.

    Combine with other evidence, it may ultimately support what is indicated by other evidence.

    Parent

    Actually, I think the very short time (none / 0) (#5)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 07:26:13 PM EST
    on the audio between shot one and two, does conflict with the idea Wilson fired the first shot in the SUV and then got out of the SUV and resumed firing.

    Parent
    Every witness (none / 0) (#12)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 08:00:26 PM EST
    including the chief of police and the officer's storytellers say the first shot, a lone shot, was at the SUV, and maybe even a second shot shortly after that, as Wilson was still in the SUV firing at the fleeing Brown.

    Then after Wilson got out of the SUV and chased after Wilson for a few seconds came this volley of 5/6 shots then the pause as Brown, 35 feet from the vehicle, turns around while Wilson moves closer and then the  final 4 shots.

    Rumor says there were 12 shell casings at the scene and I'm sticking with Rumor.

    Parent

    Are you saying that there was a shot (none / 0) (#13)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 08:05:24 PM EST
    previous to the first shot that is heard on today's released recording?

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#20)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 08:10:49 PM EST
    Yes absolutely

    The first shot was a lone shot resulting from this alleged struggle for the gun after which the two ran per virtually witness including the police chief.

    There was not a second shot for several seconds after that first one.

    Read the witness statements.

    Parent

    What if that was Wilson BS? (none / 0) (#22)
    by magster on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 08:17:06 PM EST
    Is the "you're so beautiful" tape an excerpt of a longer conversation or the beginning of the conversation.

    I am thinking that if there was a gunshot 3 or 4 seconds earlier, that tape excerpt would have been released. I don't know how many conversations start with "you're so beautiful", so I am thinking the excerpt started with the first shot fired.

    Parent

    I wasn't asking what the witnesses said, (none / 0) (#23)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 08:17:12 PM EST
    I was asking if YOU were saying that a shot occurred that was previous to the start of the audio recording, as I found what you wrote to be confusing. I agree that it is reasonable that the audio recording started after that first round was fired.

    Parent
    correction (none / 0) (#15)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 08:06:23 PM EST
    Then after Wilson got out of the SUV and chased after Wilson for a few

    chased after Brown -- you knew what meant.

    Parent

    Do we know for certain (none / 0) (#18)
    by Jack203 on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 08:09:14 PM EST
    The first shot in the audio was the first shot fired?  (Assuming the audio is legit)

    The 3 second pause hurts Wilson, but at this point I don't think by much.  The entire firing was over in less than 10 seconds.  I remember those that were so sure GZ was  guilty because of various minor pieces of evidence too.

    Does it conflict with Wilson's account of what happened?  

    What raises an eyebrow is that if this was the actual audio, I am wondering how a shot was still fired from the car.  And if a shot wasn't actually fired from the police car.  Why the hell did the police chief publicly say there was?  Ferguson police would lose all credibility in my eyes if there was not a shot fired in the police car.

    Parent

    Nope (none / 0) (#21)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 08:13:47 PM EST
    The first shot in the audio was the first shot fired?  (Assuming the audio is legit)

    Nope -- it's the first shot in that volley of 5 or 6 but not the first shot fired.

    The first was fired from the front seat in the alleged struggle for the gun.

    Parent

    I thought I read that (none / 0) (#17)
    by magster on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 08:07:50 PM EST
    a Glock was the standard gun in Ferguson. Does a Glock have a 10 bullet or 12 bullet clip (or more)?

    I know nothing about guns....

    The reason I ask is wondering whether Wilson just kept shooting after the pause until his clip was empty, or if he stopped after the kill shot.

    Parent

    I think I read that cops, within reason, (none / 0) (#19)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 08:10:47 PM EST
    are allowed to choose their own weapon. You can probably google the specific info you want.

    Parent
    Too many Glocks (none / 0) (#25)
    by ragebot on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 08:22:03 PM EST
    to answer your question.

    Mags range from nine to thirty three capacity I know of with third party options that may be larger.

    Most LEOs use the seventeen capacity models.

    Parent

    17?! That's a ton of bullets. (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by magster on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 08:35:03 PM EST
    What happened to six shooter revolvers? How big dimension wise is a 17 shot clip?

    I suppose part of my bias against Wilson is why would any cop need a 17 bullet clip in a suburban police force. I could see having the "big stuff" in the trunk for that mondo gun fight like that LA bank robbery 15 or so years ago, but just to patrol Ferguson MO??  I don't get it.

    Parent

    Here is a wiki link (none / 0) (#29)
    by ragebot on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 09:17:51 PM EST
    with dimensions for Glocks.  As you can see there are a lot models with even more options for magazines.

    The 15, 16, and 17 shot magazines don't stick out past the bottom of the grip.  The 30 and 100 capacity magazines do.  As a rule many shooters don't like anything bigger that 17 due to a greater chance of a malfunction.  

    link

    Parent

    A six shooter revolver? (none / 0) (#67)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 09:18:13 AM EST
    Probably not used by police since the time of Hill Street Blues was on the air.  Kinda hard to go up against gangs and thugs who are carrying semi-automatic and automatic weapons.....

    Parent
    Not uncommon (none / 0) (#69)
    by ragebot on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 09:49:58 AM EST
    for LEOs to carry something like a Sig, Glock, SW40 and also have a smaller body gun on their ankle like a six shot revolver on the lines of a

    SW Bodyguard

    Parent

    My understanding (none / 0) (#71)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 10:06:04 AM EST
    Is that six shooter revolvers are common for LEO's as their off-duty weapon.

    Parent
    If the first shot fired is not on the tape (none / 0) (#26)
    by ragebot on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 08:30:19 PM EST
    there will definitely be objections to it being admitted as evidence since there could be other things not on the tape.

    Given that there is not even agreement on how many gun shots are on the tape it is not a sure thing a judge will let the tape in.

    I don't think it would be excluded. (none / 0) (#28)
    by magster on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 08:35:57 PM EST
    Just impeachable evidence.

    Parent
    Objections for sure (none / 0) (#30)
    by ragebot on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 09:26:21 PM EST
    based on the recording not containing the whole incident, and that is assuming it is not an obvious fake.

    The test is if the tape is more probative or prejudicial.

    Until more evidence comes in it is hard to guess how a judge will rule.

    Parent

    The audio of shots will be admitted if (none / 0) (#46)
    by Green26 on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 11:09:11 PM EST
    it is not a fake or altered and it can be shown where/when the sounds were recorded. An audio doesn't have to cover the whole incident to be admitted.

    Parent
    So the attorney for the recorder was on (none / 0) (#32)
    by magster on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 09:38:13 PM EST
    Lawrence O' Donnell, and she said the program was a video card site called Blade or Glade, and that the purpose was to send out like a 12 second video greeting. It just so happened that those 12 seconds were when the shots were being fired, and that if there was a shot in the car, that it would not have been recorded because of the limited duration of the recording.

    If the recording was (1.00 / 1) (#34)
    by ragebot on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 10:03:57 PM EST
    from an internet video site that just makes verification harder.

    I am leaning more toward exclusion.  First off the timing of someone close enough to record the shots and being on the web site at the exact right moment raises eyebrows.

    Even if the lucky timing is real I am not sure sending sound waves over the internet, processing them, and sending them back (or what ever method is used) may have resulted in compressing or other errors in the recording.

    Hard to see how this is more probative than prejudicial.

    Parent

    I've been 'on the web' (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 10:35:42 PM EST
    more than once when gunshots have gone off around me*. And if you think about it, with smart phones/tablets/lap tops, more and more people everyday are on the web a greater percentage of their day. And what is the difference between catch gunshots on a recording vs cell phone video someone shooting someone? And what's with this 'sound waves" crap? It's called audio as in voice/music/background noises. No different than the sound of gunshots. Seems the voice recording would have errors if the gunshots did . . .

    *and yes, one time it was a cop shooting someone dead


    Parent

    Not saying (none / 0) (#41)
    by ragebot on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 10:49:30 PM EST
    I don't believe you but am saying I would not try and sell that to a jury when having to remove all reasonable doubt.

    Parent
    I think it would be pretty darn easy. (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by nycstray on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 12:06:41 AM EST
    Between a time stamp when the recording was originated, the location of the cell and the location of the cop/dead person. And there will also be ambient sound etc . . .

    You do realize files have data, right? Any manipulation should be detectable and I'm sure with all the agencies involved, there must be at least one person qualified to properly verify the audio.

    Parent

    First thing to know (1.00 / 1) (#49)
    by ragebot on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 12:30:59 AM EST
    is that from what I read at CNN the lawyer gave CNN a copy of the file and CNN gave a copy to the FBI.

    According to the CNN site the lawyer said her client was on Skype and recorded a conversation.  The few words in the recording seemed to be a male talking to a female.  First he says she is pretty and then something about seeing her videos.  There are background noises that sounded like shots to me.

    But if I had to make a guess I would say the conversation sounded like a guy calling up an internet sex worker.  I have to wonder what would cause the guy to only record twelve seconds which just happen to be the twelve seconds.

    Sounds to more like he was embarrassed by what was being said when the first shot was being fired and edited the recording.  If that is the case a judge might well want whole recording if anything is admitted.

    Parent

    The first comment #32 (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by nycstray on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 12:49:16 AM EST
    explains the shortness of the recording. I'm guessing there's prob an original copy on their server also.

    And of course they are passing around copies to CNN etc. I'm sure the original will be evaluated if they (the authorities) feel it needs to be.

    If you are wondering why he happened to be recording those twelve seconds, it's called sh!t happens. I'm sure he really wants to be caught up in this. What I don't understand is how you can't seem to believe this could happen. Do you still live in the 90's?

    Parent

    What I am wondering (1.00 / 1) (#51)
    by ragebot on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 01:12:51 AM EST
    is why MSNBC is saying the twelve second recording was on a site called Blade or Glade while CNN which got a copy of the recording from the lawyer said the guy was on Skype.

    I have and still use Skype and know how it works.  You basically click to record.  It simply does not make sense to say the guy was talking to a girl on what sounds like a pron site and somehow clicks after the first shot, captures the ten or eleven shots, and then clicks to stop the recording.

    Parent

    Well, if it wasn't a video recording card (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by nycstray on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 03:02:21 AM EST
    from the blade or glade or whatever site (see comment 32), what are the chances they only released that bit? MSNBC could be wrong, it wouldn't be the first time ;) The CNN article I read did not identify what site he was on. Remember, anything you watch on the 24hr news channels prob contains a heck of a lot of speculation. They do have a lot of time to fill . . . heck, the article even contains to some of it from the on air show(s).

    Honestly, I'm more amazed no one caught the whole thing on their cell phone, or that there aren't  security  videos  floating around that can be pieced together. I think what is important here though is, the guy does not want to be identified (not a fame wh0re), the FBI have interviewed him and they are analyzing the recording.  And we should know more when the FBI wants us too . .  or not.

    Parent

    Google is your friend (none / 0) (#55)
    by ragebot on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 03:11:17 AM EST
    "The man was said to have been recording a Skype conversation at the same time as the deadly encounter nearby between Brown and the police officer, CNN said."

    Parent
    Sorry (none / 0) (#79)
    by nycstray on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 11:04:17 AM EST
    I went to CNN, as you referenced them. Read the article that was their top page story and linked it in my comment.

    Parent
    "Sound waves" is a... (none / 0) (#52)
    by unitron on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 01:38:24 AM EST
    ...perfectly acceptable way to refer to it outside a strictly technical setting for a layperson.

    And by the time you're sending it over the internet it's not audio anymore, it's a digitally encoded representation of an electrical analog of an acoustic event.

    And it's different from, not different than.

    Parent

    From, than. I'll be sure never (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by nycstray on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 02:13:22 AM EST
    to make THAT mistake again. . . .

    Parent
    Did you see the segment after that (none / 0) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 09:57:06 PM EST
    About the MO. Atty Gen. And the action he is taking because of the Post Dispatch front page you linked to yesterday?

    Missouri Attorney General announces policing workshop

    Parent

    No I turned it off for dinner. (none / 0) (#35)
    by magster on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 10:05:13 PM EST
    Going for a walk. I'll look for it when I get home.

    Parent
    Good idea magster... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by fishcamp on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 10:29:47 PM EST
    I'm going for a walk too but with both my cats.  Yep, they love night walking with me.  Very strange but true truth.

    Parent
    Heh, my kitties like to join me (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 10:38:26 PM EST
    when I'm out chatting with my neighbors. One tries to follow me to the store, but that is not allowed. I try and keep him on the block ;)

    Parent
    Interesting claim at hotair (none / 0) (#66)
    by ragebot on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 09:08:25 AM EST
    First time I have seen anyone say what Wilson was shooting with:

    "Sig Sauer P229, .40, 12+1."

    The 12+1 means the Sig magazine holds 12 rounds with an option to have one round chambered for a total of 13.

    Some training is along the lines of once you start shooting you fire till your magazine is empty.  That makes a lot more sense if you have extra magazines on your person, something most LEOs do.

    Not sure if Wilson did have this Sig, but if he did it would seem he did not empty his magazine.

    What is much, much more interesting (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by MO Blue on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 09:29:30 AM EST
    is your claim that:

    Some training is along the lines of once you start shooting you fire till your magazine is empty.

    So under your scenario, the cop continues to shoot a person regardless of the circumstances until his gun is empty. Per their training, the cop continues to shoot even if the suspect surrenders.

    Twelve shell casings--all from police weapons--were recovered at the scene. link

    Seems based on statements by witnessess, Wilson followed that training to the letter.

    Parent

    Not Shooting Until Gun Was Empty (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 10:09:20 AM EST
    There was a pause.

    Unless you think that the audio tape is bogus?

    Parent

    Don't think audio was bogus (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by MO Blue on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 10:59:07 AM EST
    Think training police officers to continue to shoot until gun is empty is inhumane.


    Parent
    If, in fact, the policy, (5.00 / 4) (#104)
    by NYShooter on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 12:51:44 PM EST
    "continue to shoot until gun is empty," proves to be true, and, I highly doubt that it is as simple as that, it would be wrong on so many fronts.

    First, it would be a big disincentive for the suspect to surrender. (I'm pretty certain that career criminals know what the law is, and, that cops violate it routinely.

    Second, it subverts the whole idea of there being a criminal justice system. I've read too many cases where the judge, reflexively, upholds the cop's right to have killed a suspect, even though any sentient human would have known it was wrong. The judge simply points to the police policy, as if it was inviolate, or, written in the Talmud.

    And, third, it makes the job just too damn easy for the cops. If you know the judge will uphold your version virtually 100% of the time, why bother using judgment, or, reason?

    Parent

    That's where the justice department steps in.... (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by magster on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 12:55:04 PM EST
    and brings a case against Ferguson PD and St. Louis County SD.

    Parent
    Are police trained to "shoot to kill"? (none / 0) (#108)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 12:57:23 PM EST
    Are police trained to "shoot to kill"?

    Brooks says that officers are not trained to "shoot to kill" but to shoot to "stop the threat." If an officer has made the decision to pull his or her weapon and fire, they are doing so to end the danger to themselves or the public. Officers are trained to pull out their gun only if there is a serious danger to themselves, their partners, or the public.  

    Why don't police "shoot to wound"?

    Mike Brooks says that when officers are trained with firearms they are trained to shoot at "center of mass."  Shooting at an arm or leg can be difficult in the situation, and may put bystanders or others at risk. Brooks says that if a suspect is wearing body armor, then some officers are taught to shoot for the head after shooting at the center of the body.

    Are police trained to empty out their gun magazine?

    Brooks says there is no "right" number of bullets. Officers are told to shoot until the threat is neutralized, down, and no longer a threat to themselves or the public. They are not trained to empty the magazine into a target. In the Michael Brown situation, the six shots may have been appropriate as four were superficial wounds to the arms. If Brown was rushing the officer, he may have continued on with those wounds.  
     



    Parent
    "shoot to stop the threat" (none / 0) (#109)
    by magster on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 12:59:58 PM EST
    define threat.

    jk. I'll be nice today ....

    Parent

    True there was a pause (none / 0) (#76)
    by ragebot on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 10:58:15 AM EST
    of three or four seconds depending on the source.  The whole tape is only twelve seconds long and ten or eleven shots in twelve seconds is fairly fast shooting.

    Maybe I am just getting old but twelve seconds is fairly fast to me and three or four seconds is not much of a pause.

    Parent

    Old (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 11:35:29 AM EST
    Well you may be getting old but not wiser.

    Some training is along the lines of once you start shooting you fire till your magazine is empty.

    I assume that does not mean taking your finger off the trigger.

    Are you suggesting that Wilson started firing his gun but it had a defective trigger that paused for three or four seconds, even though his was firing, and then it started up working properly again.

    Parent

    That's very disturbing.... (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by magster on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 11:40:26 AM EST
    I would think that using your gun to shoot is something requiring as a matter of policy a constant evaluation of the threat, rather than a "if I can shoot you once, I can shoot you 'til I'm out of bullets" policy.

    Parent
    This is bogus speculation re policy. Perhaps (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 02:44:49 AM EST
    derived from film, TV, and/or video games.

    Parent
    Automatic Weapons (none / 0) (#89)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 11:48:58 AM EST
    The trigger gets less wear so the user saves money to replace or repair it less often. And the bullet companies love Automatics because the bullets come out like rain.

    Like a Ray Gun.

    Parent

    This is a confusing comment to me. (none / 0) (#91)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 11:52:17 AM EST
    Semi-automatics fire one round with each "pull" of the trigger, just like a wild west revolver or a kid's cap gun.

    To shoot rapidly with a semi-auto you probably wouldn't ever "take your finger off the trigger," rather you squeeze it to fire, and then relax the pressure a little so the trigger can return back to the ready position, and then you squeeze it to fire again, then relax the finger, etc., etc.

    Are you confusing a semi-auto with an automatic? Which you squeeze and hold the trigger and the gun just keeps firing over and over automatically, like a machine gun?

    Parent

    Well Then (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 12:15:12 PM EST
    This comment also makes no sense:

    Some training is along the lines of once you start shooting you fire till your magazine is empty.

    If it were not automatic, why wouldn't this apply to every gun.

    Parent

    I think it would apply to every gun. (none / 0) (#94)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 12:18:36 PM EST
    automatic pistols?!

    Parent
    btw, my research says (none / 0) (#97)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 12:22:20 PM EST
    they're trained to fire until the threat is "stopped," whatever that may be interpreted to mean.

    Parent
    Sounded like it.. (none / 0) (#98)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 12:26:54 PM EST
    I could see the PBA lobbying for Automatic weapons in order to cut down PO tendonitis, AKA trigger finger fatigue..

    Parent
    Yeah, you're getting old... (none / 0) (#83)
    by magster on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 11:30:12 AM EST
    Seriously, I should get out my stopwatch and listen to it again.

    Parent
    I think the pause was around 2 or less (none / 0) (#101)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 12:39:20 PM EST
    If firing until the gun is empty (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 11:51:14 AM EST
    is what the police recruits are trained to do then the public need to know so that they can change the laws and bring the police under control.

    I heard the St Louis County Information Officer say that the law is that they are supposed to fire until the threat is neutralized.

    I think in this case that threat was neutralized:

    1] when the kids ran

    2] when Brown was 35 feet away running in the opposite direction with his back turned

    3] when after being hit he turned around and surrendered with his hands up at a distance of 35 feet

    4] when he was on the ground writhing in pain from 4 of the bullets he took

    5] during the pause when Wilson was moving closer to get his kill shot.

    Parent

    Good point (none / 0) (#70)
    by ragebot on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 10:00:15 AM EST
    I had seen the twelve casing stuff and just forgot.

    If the loverboy video chat indicates eleven shots and missed the supposed one shot in the car that would account for the twelve rounds.

    It would be nice to know how long it was between when the first shot was fired inside the car, something loverboy video does not contain.

    Parent

    Actually you missed the point entirely (5.00 / 4) (#73)
    by MO Blue on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 10:13:28 AM EST
    Think about it. Police trained to continue shooing until gun is empty regardless of circumstances.

    Hands in the air - gun not empty - keep shooting.

    Suspect not armed - gun not empty - keep shooting.

    Suspect down from gun shot wounds and no longer a threat - gun not empty - keep shooting.

    Suspect a child - gun not empty - keep shooting.

    Parent

    The theory (none / 0) (#75)
    by ragebot on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 10:54:40 AM EST
    is that if a LEO makes the decision to to discharge a weapon the situation is serious enough that he fires till the weapon is empty.

    The key thing is that LEOs are not suppose discharge their weapon unless the situation is very bad.

    Most folks would say if a child with their hands in the air was surrendering the situation was not bad enough to justify a LEO discharging their weapon.

    Parent

    "very bad" (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 11:03:29 AM EST
    Seems frighteningly subjective.

    Parent
    The theory stinks worse than (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by MO Blue on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 11:04:44 AM EST
    rotten fish. In the real world and not in the world of theory, cops discharge their weapons when the situation is not very bad on a fairly regular basis.

    Parent
    The "loverboy video"?? (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by sj on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 01:34:21 PM EST
    I guess the smear is already well under way.

    Parent
    It would be nice to know how long it was (none / 0) (#102)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 12:42:12 PM EST
    between when the first shot was fired inside the car, something loverboy video does not contain.

    That would be a lot easier to determine if Gumby had not gone back after the shoot and moved his SUV. I guess he missed the class on securing a crime scene.

    But I think that can be reconstructed from two basic things:

    The first being that both kids ran when the gunshot in the SUV went off

    And second when the first volley of shots ended Brown was turned around 35 feet from the SUV.

    So how long does it take a 292 pounder in flip flops to run the length of the SUV + 35 feet.

    Parent

    You are (none / 0) (#111)
    by ragebot on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 01:19:29 PM EST
    assuming facts not in evidence.

    Parent
    No facts in this case are in evidence -- (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 01:41:50 PM EST
    Yet

    Parent
    It is a fact (none / 0) (#135)
    by ragebot on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 05:49:26 PM EST
    that Brown is dead.

    Parent
    Called up an acquaintance of my mine (none / 0) (#124)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 03:52:15 PM EST
    who is a police detective in the local PD.

    He said that their training says fire until you believe the threat to you and/or others is over.


    Parent

    Josie?? Is that you? (5.00 / 4) (#127)
    by magster on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 03:54:03 PM EST
    But what about the policeman in this situation (4.25 / 4) (#131)
    by Angel on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 04:28:15 PM EST
    putting all those bystanders at risk?  What does your acquaintance have to say about that?  He was indiscriminately firing his gun and could have killed a person with every single shot he took.  Sheesh.  

    Parent
    With the number of bullets (5.00 / 4) (#134)
    by Zorba on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 05:36:32 PM EST
    that were apparently shot, it's a miracle that one didn't hit a bystander, or go flying into someone's house/apartment and kill or injure a resident.

    Parent
    Angel (4.40 / 5) (#133)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 05:32:40 PM EST
    But what about the policeman in this situation putting all those bystanders at risk?

    Well you see there are a lot of things that can be a threat to the police officer at a police shooting.

    Those bystanders are a threat to the officer as well because afterwards they might testify against him in a court of law.

    So the more witnesses he takes out with his indiscriminate shooting the better it is for him.

    Parent

    I didn't ask him (1.00 / 1) (#138)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 09:15:57 PM EST
    because I have no specific info re bystanders, location, etc.

    I suspect you don't either.

    Parent

    He said that their training says (4.00 / 3) (#130)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 04:21:51 PM EST
    fire until you believe the threat to you and/or others is over.

    Yeh we all know --

    In other words shoot the guy until you know he is dead and then deliver the crowning blow to his head to be sure.

    Because as long as he is alive and breathing even though neutralized, you might then have to perform CPR, or call the EMTs, or meet him again in court when he sues you.

    Parent

    Not sure if Wilson did have this Sig (5.00 / 4) (#117)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 02:14:27 PM EST
    but if he did it would seem he did not empty his magazine.

    He was saving his last round in case Brown owned a dog.

    Parent

    Ben Stein..... (none / 0) (#120)
    by magster on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 03:07:42 PM EST
    Oh, what an incredible (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by Zorba on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 04:17:13 PM EST
    @hole Stein is.  He's clueless, simply clueless.

    Parent
    Justification for open season on (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by MO Blue on Wed Aug 27, 2014 at 04:45:10 PM EST
    black men and boys.

    Any time a black person looks scary to you - just shoot them dead. Heck you might even walk away with a half a million dollars or more. God knows all you need to do is say you felt threatened and you are home free.

    Parent

    Where was the gun (none / 0) (#147)
    by Palli on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 04:29:12 AM EST
     as Wilson drove down the street?  shoulder holster? leg holster? on the seat?

     When did he put it in his hand (if it was)?  Why?

     First, why does anyone think Michael walked over to the car to   do anything more than talk, complain about harassment maybe?

     I doubt Michael would have reached in to the car for an unemployed gun.

     The "offense" of Jaywalking would have a ticket written by the cop.,,wondering about a ticket book. Seems more appropriate than a gun.

    Where was the gun??? (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 05:00:20 AM EST
    Now that's a very good question --

    And the other question is why did Gumby take it out of it's holster and have it in his hand because there is no way someone from outside the car would be able to unholster it from outside.

    Is that what the police training manual teaches about dealing with jaywalkers -- warn them to get out of the street and if they don't then take your gun out and threaten to shoot them.

     And if they argue with you then shoot them, and keep shooting them until they're dead no matter how far they run away.

    The fingerprint tests on that weapon will sure be telling.

    Parent

    fingerprints on Wilson's gun (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by Palli on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 09:29:50 AM EST
    Although it appears at this juncture, watching videos and listening to witnesses that are public knowledge, that a proper chain of evidence was never established.

    Did Wilson simply return the gun to his holster or did Wilson lay it inside the car when he moved his car after the shooting?  When? Did another cop take Wilson's gun from him and bag it?

    How and when did Wilson leave the scene? With another cop or unaccompanied and in what vehicle?

    Can any video be enlarged enough to make Wilson's holster visible as the cops stand around Michael's body?

    Thank you, Uncle Chip, for noticing my comment. The whole fact of a jaywalking offense that involves a gun has perplexed me ever since the shock of it all wore off.

    Doesn't the mere presence of a gun out of a holster in this short time frame indicate Wilson's gun was at the ready before he backed up to separate the boys and Michael walked over to the car door.

    Parent

    The Crime Scene (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 09:58:08 AM EST
    Yep --

    It appears that Wilson is the one who puts the white sheet over the body at about 12:16PM at the end of this tape about a minute after the County cops arrive:

    Post Shooting Video

    So he is still there at that time.

    It's hard to tell if he still has his gun in his holster at that point.

    But why is he allowed to walk back and forth through the crime scene at this point???  

    There are shell casings on the ground and he may be kicking them out of the way as he shuffles back and forth, or stepping on them and embedding them on the sole of his shoe -- not to mention the blood evidence that he may be walking through contaminating the crime scene.

    Parent

    I think thinking fingerprints (none / 0) (#168)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 11:13:40 AM EST
    would be a significant piece of evidence is impractical, and that our collective expectations of fingerprint significance is a product of too many tee vee shows and movies.

    My business has been broken into twice over the past 10+ years, and each time the police sent a fingerprint specialist who dusted the joint. As I watched and talked to the officer both times it was abundantly clear that the chances of a clear print was literally like finding a needle in a haystack.

    In the Ferguson case the gun was handled, a lot, by Wilson after the "tussle," so even if there were a clear Brown print made on the gun, I'd expect it was quickly and completely obliterated by Wilson.

    Parent

    Probably no fingerprints (none / 0) (#199)
    by ragebot on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 02:39:33 PM EST
    on the gun.  But it will be interesting to see.  On the other hand the if Brown did grab the weapon there is a better chance he left some DNA.  There is also a claim that Brown was cut on his right hand and that is explained by his grabbing the weapon while it was being fired.

    link

    I am still looking for a source confirming there was a cut on Brown's hand.  Anyone have such a link, or a link that there was no cut on Brown's hand.

    Parent

    Or (2.00 / 1) (#169)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 11:26:59 AM EST
    Just throwing this out there and expecting the usual (lame) ammunition from the usual suspects...

    First, why does anyone think Michael walked over to the car to   do anything more than talk, complain about harassment maybe?

    Since we're all dabbling in pure speculation around here - maybe someone who just allegedly committed a robbery and assault might be a little more sensitive to the presence of police - even a police officer who is getting on said person for "just jaywalking" - and may be having thoughts that the police officer might be there for more (like arresting him for robbery and assault) and may be more inclined to be agressive with said police officer.

    Parent

    agressive with said police officer??? (5.00 / 3) (#171)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 12:06:20 PM EST
    Get aggressive with the police over a handful of cigarillos???

    Nope --

    I think he  and any kid would be more inclined to be "kool man" or run away just like he did.

    Not be confrontational.

    Parent

    Or in such a case, (5.00 / 3) (#174)
    by Palli on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 12:17:15 PM EST
    said someone might walk away.
    Or in such a case, said someone might walk up to a cop car and try to reach in to get a gun or hit a cop thru the vehicle window. Now that's odd.

    Everything is tinged by the early aftermath of the killing; not just the length of time but, more telling, the explanation for the delay. A St. Louis County spokesman said the investigation couldn't start because "..."They couldn't do that right away because there weren't enough police there to quiet the situation."  "Sheer chaos", officials said, yet the various videos don't reflect that kind of activity.  Certainly the first cops to come and Wilson  are really just standing around without any apparent concern for the growing number of viewers.

    Parent

    The question is -- (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 01:05:00 PM EST
    Where was he when he called the shooting into the County Police at 12:43 when he should have made the call at 12:03.

    No one at the Ferguson PD called the County to send their police. The County dispatch heard it on the news at 12:07 and sent them in on their own and they began arriving at 12:15.

    That too might have made him nervous and caused his captain to advise him to leave the scene and go someplace to work on his injuries and excuses.

    If he was around when the County forensic team arrived at 1:30 I'll bet they would have checked him for injuries including swabbing that "swollen face" for DNA from Brown's fist.

    But the County Prosecutor said they knew nothing about injuries to his face.

    Parent

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by sj on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 12:40:46 PM EST
    "someone" who just committed a "robbery" is probably going get closer to a police officer to... do what exactly?

    Your pro-authority biases scattered throughout these threads make me shake my head. It appears it's more important for you to make the authorities be "right" than be compassionate or even sensible.

    Parent

    Before we get to the inaccuracies in (5.00 / 5) (#181)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 12:43:32 PM EST
    your scenario, I think we need to think about the logic of why someone feeling sensitive to the presence of police would be walking in the middle of the road where he would likely draw the attention of police, or of a private citizen who might call them to report a potentially dangerous situation.

    That makes no sense.  It makes so little sense that I wonder if more was made out of the incident in the store than was actually the case.

    As to the inaccuracies, I don't believe Brown walked over to the SUV, rather, Wilson drove up alongside Brown and Johnson to order them off the street.  Wilson then drove past them, slammed on the brakes, threw his vehicle into reverse, spun it in the opposite direction and came to a stop right up against Brown.  So close that when Wilson went to throw the door open, it hit Brown.  Brown either instinctively pushed back on the door, moving Wilson back onto the seat - or - the door bounced off of Brown with the same result.  That was when Wilson is alleged to have grabbed Brown and pulled him in through the window opening and further struggle ensued.

    It's all well and good to speculate, but it generally works better when the basis for the speculation isn't also speculative, don't you think?

    And I get why you feel defensive on this subject, but to preemptively label responses to your comment as "lame" just seems petty and, well, lame.

    Parent

    Once again, Anne, thank you. (none / 0) (#204)
    by Palli on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 05:54:24 PM EST

    If we are going to speculate, necessarily because Wilson is who he is and a completed incident report is apparently not forthcoming despite normal police procedure, I would like to add to your thoughts this:  

    Dorian said they were just going to Michael's aunt in the apartments seen in the videos, I believe.
    His uncle was the man who came out of those apartments and kept trying to get to his nephew Michael as he lay on the pavement.
    We  use the words down the middle of the street but the FPD said "jaywalking".  Jaywalking is crossing the street without a walkway marked or a corner.  I suspect the boys were making a diagonal path across the street when Wilson accosted them saying "get the fuck out of the street order.

    He didn't care where they were going, that they were near their destination. He passed them and then drove back, almost hitting them. Did he back up or turn around? Why? They walked too slowly. They gestured to his back window?  Why?

    We know a lot about the bully conduct of Ferguson cops now and these boys may have been seen as easy marks.  In addition, considering the outrageous about the targeted traffic/pedestrian policing and municipal court in Ferguson,  I wouldn't be surprised that the cops work on a quota system  for "fineable  offenses".)

    Another question (none / 0) (#205)
    by Palli on Thu Aug 28, 2014 at 06:16:04 PM EST
    I never heard: how did Wilson leave the scene? In what car? Alone?