Michael Brown

[NegaStoat]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/us...imes.html?_r=0

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Nocsucow]

Originally Posted by capco [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

With riots raging in Ferguson, MO following the shooting death by police of an unarmed African-American youth, the nation has turned its eyes toward social injustice and the continuing crisis of race relations. Here are The Onion’s tips for being an unarmed black teen in America:

• Shy away from dangerous, heavily policed areas.
  
• Avoid swaggering or any other confident behavior that suggests you are not completely subjugated.
  
• Be sure not to pick up any object that could be perceived by a police officer as a firearm, such as a cell phone, a food item, or nothing.
  
• Explain in clear and logical terms that you do not enjoy being shot, and would prefer that it not happen.
  
• Don’t let society stereotype you as a petty criminal. Remember that you can be seen as so much more, from an armed robbery suspect, to a rape suspect, to a murder suspect.
  
• Try to see it from a police officer’s point of view: You may be unarmed, but you’re also black.
  
• Avoid wearing clothing associated with the gang lifestyle, such as shirts and pants.
  
• Revel in the fact that by simply existing, you exert a threatening presence over the nation’s police force.
  
• Be as polite and straightforward as possible when police officers are kicking the shit out of you.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/tip...view:1:Default

Lol'd hard as fuck

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by Sidelle [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The point is, he was portrayed as Mr. Innocent just minding his own business...

Yeah that was the big thing about it early on, setting off demonstrations.. and then lootings and assaults etc. Last I heard even one guy in the hospital in critical condition. Because this guy was a saint... uh-huh. One minute he is assaulting a clerk at a liquor store and stealing some stuff. Next minute he is taking on a cop, same deal. Can't say they are not related, the guy was a menace on a path of rage.

---
The cop shot in self-defense
---
(background conversation on the video)

#1 How’d he get from there to there?
#2 Because he ran, the police was still in the truck – cause he was like over the truck
{crosstalk}
#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 –

[there is dispute here whether he says "doubled back" or "coming back."]
#1. Oh, the police got his gun
#2 The police kept dumpin on him, and I’m thinking the police kept missing – he like – be like – but he kept coming toward him
{crosstalk}
#2 Police fired shots – the next thing I know – the police was missing
#1 The Police?
#2 The Police shot him
#1 Police?
#2 The next thing I know … I’m thinking … the dude started running … (garbled something about “he took it from him”)

[Gaffin 7.0]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5GuHd0AteU

[MrSparkle001]

What "eyewitnesses" will say now is that he was shot in front while had his hands up saying "don't shoot"

[MrSparkle001]

and that doesn't mean the cop was correct in using deadly force. Apparently the autopsy shows that he was shot at a distance (something about gunpowder residue, which I remember from the Trayvon case). So how can deadly force be used appropriately vs someone unarmed at a distance?

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by MrSparkle001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

and that doesn't mean the cop was correct in using deadly force. Apparently the autopsy shows that he was shot at a distance (something about gunpowder residue, which I remember from the Trayvon case). So how can deadly force be used appropriately vs someone unarmed at a distance?

Apparently you didn't go directly to the source of the info. All they could determine so far was that he was at least 2 feet from the officer. Could be 2, could be 30, could be a quarter mile. I think if someone who was 300 lbs was charging at you, you'd be right to shoot even from 30 feet.

As for eyewitnesses changing their stories to match the facts, nobody is going to buy it. We now can discount any eyewitness who claimed he was shot while running away (does such a person exist?) That's how an investigation works. Forensic science can help us determine which eyewitnesses are most credible in order to determine things that can't be determined through forensic science alone.

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by MrSparkle001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What "eyewitnesses" will say now is that he was shot in front while had his hands up saying "don't shoot"

Well originally it was claimed he was a saint running away from an ebil cop that just shot him in the back for lolz, lots of rage generated. Even the DOJ held back the video from the crime at the liquor store that shows he was no saint but just another thug. Now it's confirmed he wasn't shot in the back, and not only testimony that he was coming at the cop with the cops weapon drawn on him, but a video that confirms this with with eyewitness bystander speaking about what happened in the background of the video.

I think the most disturbing thing is why did the DOJ hold back the video? That would be Holder and/or 0bama (blunder or intentional?). imo so many years of them generating greater and greater divisions in the nation, along racial lines, seems more like a flashpoint they have been waiting for to take advantage of a manufactured situation.

[MrSparkle001]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Apparently you didn't go directly to the source of the info. All they could determine so far was that he was at least 2 feet from the officer. Could be 2, could be 30, could be a quarter mile. I think if someone who was 300 lbs was charging at you, you'd be right to shoot even from 30 feet.

As for eyewitnesses changing their stories to match the facts, nobody is going to buy it. We now can discount any eyewitness who claimed he was shot while running away (does such a person exist?) That's how an investigation works. Forensic science can help us determine which eyewitnesses are most credible in order to determine things that can't be determined through forensic science alone.

I watched the news conference live. I think the medical examiner was the same guy from the Trayvon case but I'm not positive (I know I've seen him talk about this sort of thing before).

He mentioned that the lack of gunpowder residue meant he was not shot up close, which brings into question any statements that he was going after the officer's gun.

And yes I agree about eyewitnesses, I'm just predicting what will be said by some people. There are people who are automatically finding the officer guilty and exonerating Brown and they'll say whatever's necessary to confirm it.

What's funny is during the news conference Brown's lawyer said the autopsy confirms the accounts that Brown was facing away and the kill shots were back to front, claiming a small bullet wound on top of the head led to an exit wound out the right eye. The medical examiner took the podium after and said something different, that it exited the eye and re-entered the jaw, like he was shot with his head down not back to front.

Here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhHh...tailpage#t=492

[MrSparkle001]

Originally Posted by MrSparkle001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

that it exited the eye and re-entered the jaw

I mean re-entered near the collarbone.