MO - Grief & protests follow shooting of teen Michael Brown #12

[Linda7NJ]

Sigh... Caught up only to find nothing *new*


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CARIIS]

I think this notion

Because if you do one wrong move, they’ll shoot you. They’ll kill you.” does not need a skin color for anyone it is kind of common sense - in much the same way one would not mess with an armed burgler those guns have a tendency to change behaviros!

 

[katydid23]

Very important questions. Not a lot of people seem concerned about the extra 4-5 bullets sprayed around this residential neighborhood. Seems LE was a bigger threat to that neighborhood's safety than any civilian that day.

Thank you for this.

Yep. Maybe the cops should pull out of that neighborhood, I am sure they are much safer on their own.

 

[Irish_Eyes]

and IMO the notion that he was surrundering seems like the media seems to forget at this point he had been shot somehwhere so flailing of the arms could acutally be trying to "fight" falling down or balancing onesel as they are bleeding and feeling weak imo like if one were slipping

When things happen so fast like this it would be very easy for a witness - or even MB or the officer - to misinterpret what they are seeing.

I've considered that perhaps MB wasn't standing/running either directly towards or directly away from the officer. I suspect the bullet trajectory will tell us for sure. It's almost like a geometry problem: The distance between MB and the officer and what angles they were facing/moving, then the distance and angle of each witness's vantage point.

I have wondered if MB stopped and waved to Dorian with his hands up, like pushing him "Go! Run!" I've wondered if some of the witnesses who mostly did not hear the voices due to being indoors and such saw the hands up but didn't hear the "Run!" (DJ says MB told him to run). That could have looked like surrender to the witnesses in the windows, but not to the officer who heard the words. Or maybe for a second the officer thought that was a surrender too, then realized it wasn't. This might be one of those cases where once all the information comes out we will all go "Oh, now it all makes sense what happened" and it was clearly a good shoot or a bad one. Or it might be one of those cases where it's so muddy we never really get those answers.

 

[jggordo]

I think LE knows how many rounds were fired that day. It should be easy to quickly rule out that audio if the count is not correct. I also believe that some of these "witnesses" think that just because the FBI has interviewed that they have the "smoking gun" or "game changer" evidence. The interview itself is no more than that, it does not validate any information given. I'm sure the FBI has heard some real doozies by now.

JMO's

 

[Lovejac]

Sigh... Caught up only to find nothing *new*


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hey now!

New news is the "you are pretty, so fine" recording is being questioned by Parks regarding it's authenticity.

 

[aa9511]

O/T, but I really miss Larry King Live on CNN. The network just isnt't the same without him.

 

[bettybaby00]

parks on the Kelly File

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/the-kelly-file/index.html

 

[Linda7NJ]

Hey now!

New news is the "you are pretty, so fine" recording is being questioned by Parks regarding it's authenticity.

That's soooo last thread and last night..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[katydid23]

Judge Alex on the Don Lemon CNN panel is being the voice of reason. Well Done, imo. He is talking Sonny H. down from a ledge, where she tries to say the audio tape and the 5 witnesses PROVE this was a murder.

Judge Alex, an ex cop, said there are other witnesses which will corroborate the officers side. She says snarkily, " Not that I have heard yet."

And he calmly explains that the police will not want to release their side of the story until after the investigation/grand Jury and perhaps trial, BECAUSE WITNESSES WILL COME OUT OF THE WOODWORK WITH TAILORED TESTIMONY to the officers facts. :yes:

 

[Truthy]

Re: The autopsy- Baden said he could't know some things about distance and the trajectory (because bullets were removed, and skin swabbed/ cleaned) and on those points, he would need that info from the first autopsy.
IMHO, this is no way says anything about his judgement on the graze wounds at all. He was very specific about what hindered his autopsy findings from being more complete.

 

[CARIIS]

getting a dash silly , that too is a visual - both of em stuck!

Get ou ,t I cant, give me your gun I cant . trying to find his gun I cant see it because I am blocking your entrie tiny body. get off I cant breathe i cant i cant back out call for help i cant get to the radio well lets both just scream really loud no dont inhale you will crush me to death !IMO

Yeah, I don't think that will sit well with a grand jury, or eventual jury in any case. Even if you could suspend the laws of gravity and pull a 300 lb man in through your window and onto your lap, then what? He's between you and the steering wheel, so you're certainly not driving anywhere.

I think it's confirmation bias at work. Every witness seems to have seen the confrontation at the car. There is a tug of war going on between DW and MB. We've heard that the tug of war was DW trying to pull MB into the window, and we've heard that the tug of war was MB trying to go for DB's gun. There's no question the incident happened as every witness says it did, but I think confirmation bias played into some witnesses assuming something that made no sense over something that did.

 

[Truthy]

Hey now!

New news is the "you are pretty, so fine" recording is being questioned by Parks regarding it's authenticity.

Sadly, 'm waiting for someone to make "you are pretty, so fine" into a song on Youtube.

 

[aa9511]

I WISH the news networks would give a HEADS UP prior to that audio video telling their viewers to try to block out the main sounds and focus on the background shots. By the time my attention gets to the gunshots, they are already almost over.

 

[CARIIS]

New news is the "you are pretty, so fine"

Yeh come on when is last time any of us had chat of that nature live !! on nationial tv

 

[reedus23]

I haven't been able to find a free version to verify if this jury instruction has changed but thought I'd throw it out there on justification since we've talked about the statutes as well. For those not familiar, jury instructions are read to the jury at the end of a case and give the law that guides the jury when determining what the facts are and ultimately reaching a decision. In Missouri, they have Approved Instructions that are mandatory to use where appropriate. I found this article (have no idea who they are or their reliability) that provides the entire Missouri Approved Instruction.

306.14 JUSTIFICATION: USE OF FORCE BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER

PART A–GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

One of the issues (as to Count _____) (in this case) is whether the use of force by the defendant against [name of victim] was lawful. In this state, the use of force (including the use of deadly force) by a law enforcement officer in making an arrest or in preventing escape after arrest is lawful in certain situations.

A law enforcement officer can lawfully use force to make an arrest or to prevent escape if he is making a lawful arrest or an arrest which he reasonably believes to be lawful. An arrest is lawful if the officer (reasonably believes that the person being arrested (has committed) (or) (is committing) a crime) (is executing an arrest warrant which he believes to be valid).

In making a lawful arrest or preventing escape after such an arrest, a law enforcement officer is entitled to use such force as reasonably appears necessary to effect the arrest or prevent the escape.

A law enforcement officer in making an arrest need not retreat or desist from his efforts because of resistance or threatened resistance by the person being arrested.

But in making an arrest or preventing escape, a law enforcement officer is not entitled to use deadly force, that is, force which he knows will create a substantial risk of causing death or serious physical injury, unless he reasonably believes that the person being arrested is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon or that the person may endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay (emphasis added).

And, even then, a law enforcement officer may use deadly force only if he reasonably believes the use of such force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest or prevent the escape.

PART B–SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS

On the issue of use of force by a law enforcement officer (as to Count _____), you are instructed as follows:

First, if the defendant was a law enforcement officer (making) (or) (attempting to make) a lawful arrest (or what he reasonably believed to be a lawful arrest) or [name of victim] for the crime of [name of crime] and the defendant reasonably believed that use of force was necessary to effect the arrest of to prevent the escape of [name of victim] and

Second, the defendant reasonably believed that [name of victim] (was attempting to escape by the use of a deadly weapon) (or) (would endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay) [emphasis added], and the defendant reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was immediately necessary to effect the arrest of [name of victim], then the defendant’s use of force was lawful.

The state has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entitled to use force as a law enforcement officer. Unless you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entitled to use force as a law enforcement officer against [name of victim], you must find the defendant not guilty (under Count ____).

As used in this instruction, the term “serious physical injury” means physical injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes serious disfigurement or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any part of the body.

This also answers my question from ages ago about the prosecuting attorney presenting evidence that supports a defense. The instruction plainly puts the onus on the prosecuting attorney to establish BARD that the officer was not entitled to use force.

 

[Muffet]

Oh and the parks interview was......interesting.

She basically calls him out b/c he was trying to make it a big negative that the GJ takes so long, b/c I guess in his mind they should be doing jury selection for a murder trial.

Hopefully that segment goes up as well.

This drives me crazy. They bend over backwards to define obvious, legitimate things as being suspicious or a sign of a cover-up, while brushing off or attempting to cover up the things that are obviously illegal or violent when they're done by the people they represent or defend.

So grand jury = suspicious.
Assault, robbery, lying = not relevant.

I saw dozens of people today still saying MB paid for the cigars, for Pete's sake. :facepalm: I know at least some of them had the facts explained (DJ's confession) but it doesn't stop them from continuing to push the line.

There are a lot of people who prefer blinkered vision. It's scary.

 

[CARIIS]

I bet round three outht to be real helpful as well. There must be a limit as to how many a human body go through and provide any meaningful info IMO

Re: The autopsy- Baden said he could't know some things about distance and the trajectory (because bullets were removed, and skin swabbed/ cleaned) and on those points, he would need that info from the first autopsy.
IMHO, this is no way says anything about his judgement on the graze wounds at all. He was very specific about what hindered his autopsy findings from being more complete.

 

[Truthy]

That whole notion about the officer trying to pull him into the car just defies protocol IMO. What reason would a cop think " oh I want a 6 4 300 lb suspect in my car unhandcuffed" - forget the fact that common sense (just a visual would suffice !) would clearly indicate that it is just a alegbra/geometry problem!

Can C FIT into Y answer : Not on your life!!!

IMO that angle just lack a purpose!

I think it's a crazy scenario either way- I don't think Brown would do it either, judging on later actions. That he just wanted out and away from the cops.
I could see it as a reflexive action on OW's part to the door being shut on him when he tried to open it- just grabbing the arm without thinking. I could see if the door slam pissed him off. If he was going after a jay walker (street walker?) that hard, as his chief originally stated, then he might have been in a big mood. I live one of those places where jaywalking is never ever enforced though.

 

[LambChop]

Sorry I have not seen complaints- was wondering the same thing about those sleuthing the dead man's twitter, or quoting that "Josie" person- since she is at best, 3rd person gossip. I guess it's not worth even linking to her here, but I sure see a lot of people here treating it as gospel. :shrug:

I figured you had seen this, but.... here you go, LE changing their story:

Quote Originally Posted by reedus23 View Post
Here is an article on FPD saying first contact wasn't related to robbery, contradicting the theory that DW knew all along they were connected to the robbery.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...c1a_story.html

As to the report...page 15, nearly last entry on that page at 18:54:26.

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/pag...-robbery/1256/
This is so strange.... Right from the get go, I had a strange feeling about that chief, he was stuttering over his words, looking at others for answers... He didn't seem confident at all in answering questions... How could they have still been looking for the suspect to the robbery at that point in time. Doesn't make sense at all that they couldn't put 2 and 2 together.

First contact wasn't for the robbery, it was for them walking down the middle of the street. LE agrees, DJ agrees. That has not changed. Although it may have been misreported but I do not think that information has changed.

Is the page 15 the one from the incident report where they still have an active search for suspects. The links are bad. It sounds as if the dispatcher did not clear it from their records because they had not been notified that these two were the two they were looking for. DW may have suspected they were but he had other things to worry about after the shooting, plus he is not the investigator. Didn't they get the tape later on in the day or early evening? So it was not possibly cleared because there was no proof until they were able to get the tape that showed MB was indeed the suspect. Remember DJ said he had joined MB while he was walking down the street so investigators took his statement as the truth. jmo