MO - Grief & protests follow shooting of teen Michael Brown #3

[Frydaddy]

rsbm -

Respectfully, I wrote 'some people', so whether or not that is the reason you dismissed the testimony does not make my statement inaccurate. You're just not part of the 'some' I mentioned.

Fair enough! Any comment on the video interview?

 

[TaylurRose02]

NO charges have been filed against Police Officer Darren Wilson. Is there evidence that Officer Wilson fired without cause and Michael Brown is a victim?

Has a verdict already been reached?

Michael is dead. He was unarmed. Shot multiple times. Left in the road uncovered as documented by neighbor's video. Daren Wilson is on paid leave. Neither stealing nor jaywalking is punishable by death. We don't know if he reached for the officers gun or about the assault on Wilson. I'm not going to depend on witness statements or the officers because I don't think either is objective. Based on the things we DO know, yeah I'd say Michael is a victim.

 

[Linda7NJ]

If a guy you are referring to is the same guy, I was hearing...
He said (paraphrasing), I heard a shot, then ___, so I started recording.
IOW, he did NOT SEE THE FIRST SHOT, just HEARD THE FIRST SHOT.

How could he know what LEO or MB were doing, leading up to the first shot, and actually at the time of the first shot?

If he was already at the window and looking out the window in approp direction, and saw what LEO & MB were doing at time of shot,
it would seem natural, imo, that he would have said, 'I SAW the shooting' NOT, 'I HEARD a shot'

Maybe I'm referring to someone other than the guy you heard. IDK.

JMO, IMO, MOO

Are we all talking about the same speaker?

There are two... A guy off in the distance and the guy videoing


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[cady]

I agree with what you wrote, but I would have to add that 'I'm afraid for some people it doesn't really matter what happened -- they want this officer exonerated.' I've read countless posts here that reject all witness statements given thus far because they simply cannot believe that a LEO would shoot someone unjustifiably as has been reported. I can't judge the shooting or the LEO at all at this point -- we simply do not have the facts.

THANKS!! My sentiments, exactly. It appears that the majority here do not accept eye witness statements, nor do they accept the determination that the officer was not responding to MB as a robbery suspect. If the evidence eventually proves that MB assaulted the officer,it may turn out that the officer was justified in shooting him. I don't know, and neither does anyone else. The initial shot may be justified, but that, and the following shots and their justification should be determined within the justice system. Not outside of it BY ANYONE or any GROUP. JMO

 

[Suthrnqt]

I recall when the WTO protests got hijacked by out of town "anarchists" and downtown businesses were vandalized, dumpsters were set on fire, police cars were damaged, and the SWAT teams used some of the same tactics (smoke and tear gas) to try to quell the violence, the MSM outlets practically cheered the SWAT teams, even though some of the police officers used much more brutal tactics against peaceful protesters than we've witnessed in this situation. In Seattle, some of the cops physically restrained the peaceful demonstrators, forcibly opened their eyes, and sprayed pepper spray directly into their eyes. It was brutal.

As far as I'm concerned, the SWAT teams in Ferguson have shown incredible restraint, yet the MSM outlets are collectively vilifying them, rather than trying to report an unbiased account of events.

This is why I appreciate the livestream coverage provided by the indy journalists on the ground that we've been watching the past couple of nights. Thanks to journalists like Tim Pool with Vice News, we've gotten to see for ourselves what's going on, rather than having to rely on the extremely filtered, agenda-driven pseudo-reporting of the MSM.

Well said. :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
I also watched the livestream last night. Seeing last night's events unfold live was eye opening and quite scary, imo.

 

[i.b.nora]

The bolded part is inaccurate. If I reject some or all of a witness statement, it is because they disqualify themselves with inconsistency or lack of credibility. For example...

Within minutes, this is one of the three witnesses, Piaget Crenshaw. Listen to her speak and tell me if you find any of her comments remotely odd. Her parts are from 1:16-1:32 and 1:45-1:56.

http://fox2now.com/2014/08/09/man-shot-killed-in-ferguson-apartment-complex/

I'll get to more of why I don't believe much of her statement eventually.

I would like to listen but I cannot get your link to work. I tried a couple of different ways and just get a godaddy page.

 

[sorrell skye]

The protesters are lucky that the curfew in their town is only from midnight - 5 a.m.

During the 1999 WTO protests in Seattle, the mayor (after declaring a state of civil emergency) imposed a curfew on downtown areas from 7 p.m. to 7:30 a.m.

I don't think a midnight - 5 a.m. curfew is unreasonable at all. That still provides plenty of time for the peaceful demonstrators to assemble, to march, to voice their grievances.

I think the elected officials in Ferguson and in the state of Missouri are bending over backwards to provide a public forum for protest and to respect the civil rights of the citizens.

 

[Tawny]

Regarding MB being a victim or not based on charges filed/verdict reached:

MB is dead. Regardless whether the person who shot him has been charged, he is a victim, be it of murder or involuntary manslaughter or some other charge. He was shot and died in the street.

Plenty of victims die with no charges brought to those who caused the death. They are still victims. There should be no question whether MB is a victim or not. JMHO!

 

[TaylurRose02]

I was one of the posters on here who spoke out against the police arresting the journos in the McD's. I was outraged that it appeared that the police (under the direction of the FPD and the StL County PD) were trying to infringe upon 1st amendment rights of the peaceful protesters and the press. The police response in those instances was wrong, IMO.

I was up half the night on Friday and watched Tim Pool's livestream (Vice News) of the looting of the stores on Friday night, and I saw the group of peaceful protesters form a line to try to protect one of the stores. I was applauding them when they did so. They put themselves in danger and thankfully no one was harmed.

I'm a devout advocate of civil rights. I've marched in numerous protests. I've been active politically in my community (attending caucuses and getting elected as a delegate for my presidential candidate). I will always support someone's right to peacefully assemble. I will always support a free press.

I will not support looting, vandalism, or violence as an expression of 1st amendment rights. Most of the demonstrators are peaceful, but there are those who are looking for an excuse to cause mayhem and destruction.

Under Captain Johnson's authority, the police stood down Friday night. As a result, some business owners lost literally everything.

I appreciate that Captain Johnson wants to build a relationship with the community and I admire some of his leadership qualities. But that doesn't mean that LE should be rendered impotent in the face of the lawlessness that we witnessed Friday night. Thank Goodness Captain Johnson realized that the kinder, gentler approach wasn't going to work. Thank Goodness the governor declared a state of emergency and imposed a curfew.

While citizens have the right for their grievances to be heard and to do so in a respectful, peaceful manner, citizens also have the right to feel safe in their communities. Business owners have the right for their livelihoods to be protected from looters and vandals.

I'm glad you're a fellow supporter of journalists! I don't support looting or destruction in the name of protesting either. I was just responding to your post about the media only focusing on the LE being hostile towards the peaceful protesters. I was explaining that LE was hostile towards journalists as well as peaceful protesters, which is why I thought they might have focused on it so much in the news. I think they might have taken it personally. Just my thoughts! I too agree that LE should rightfully place those who hurt businesses and steal in jail. I just meant that those who were peacefully protesting were tear gassed and shot with rubber bullets. The group that included the state senator were tear gassed, shot with rubber bullets, and subjected to noise makers for sitting in the street. Supposedly someone threw something at the police. Even if that did happen, that's still a bit excessive to subject an otherwise peaceful group to IMO. IMO, the anger of the public is only being further ignited by the extreme tactics LE is taking. With so much existing animosity between the community and police, it's no wonder there's so much unrest. Again, I am NOT excusing anyone who used the protest as means to steal or damage businesses. I am however saying the LE's approach to crowd control was excessive, forceful, and added flames to an already burning fire.

 

[scottiemom]

Is Dan McDermott of Google a media source? He has some stuff that gives Officer Wilson's side.

 

[Amber29]

Michael is dead. He was unarmed. Shot multiple times. Left in the road uncovered as documented by neighbor's video. Daren Wilson is on paid leave. Neither stealing nor jaywalking is punishable by death. We don't know if he reached for the officers gun or about the assault on Wilson. I'm not going to depend on witness statements or the officers because I don't think either is objective. Based on the things we DO know, yeah I'd say Michael is a victim.

Yes Michael Brown is a victim. Although I don't know what is being implied by "Daren Wilson is on paid leave". Has Wilson been tried and convicted of a crime? That's the whole problem here, we don't know all the facts and there is a presumption of innocence that should apply to Wilson. Yet it seems to be forgotten because in the court of public opinion many have tried and convicted him and nothing will exonerate him.

 

[katydid23]

Is Dan McDermott of Google a media source? He has some stuff that gives Officer Wilson's side.

He writes for Huffington Post. That seems like msm.

 

[scottiemom]

If they are google links, can I post them? One has been out since this morning, but he has a transcript of the video....but if you have tender ears, watch out!

 

[Foxfire]

That wasn't my point. I saw the video. What I'm wondering is if he thought it wasn't robbery because he had no gun or knife and because of the dollar value of the item he took. iow, did he believe it was only a misdemeanor with a slap-on-the-wrist consequence? His demeanor on the tape is in sharp contrast to the one painted by friends and teachers.

I am a little skeptical about the cost amount of the cigars stolen. MB was suspected of stealing a $48.99 box of cigars. That seems very close to the threshold amount between a misdemeanor and felony offense. Imo, this amount may have been to minimize the offense to shoplifting... At a minimum, imo MB would have been charged with assault and battery on the store clerk....

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

When one consider the excessive amount of bullets that went into Mike Browns body, with a final shot to the forehead, I don't understand how many aren't outraged.

After the first shot when Mike Brown was surrendering, instead of emptying his weapon, he should have arrested him. Since he took that final shot to the forehead (as stated by DJ and Wilson's lady friend) I think this will prove very damning to Wilson.

Is it possible that Wilson acted out of anger? Sure in my mind he could. He felt disrespected that DJ and MB didn't immediately get out of the street as they were told.

I worry this could be me or any of my children. I don't believe an officer of the law needs to kill someone who is unarmed. He could have held MB at gunpoint as he calls for back up. Then MB would be under arrest but alive...

 

[fran]

NO charges have been filed against Police Officer Darren Wilson. Is there evidence that Officer Wilson fired without cause and Michael Brown is a victim?

Has a verdict already been reached?

This is about the death of MB. Yes, he is a victim.

It is true, Officer Darren Wilson has not been arrested or convicted of a crime. He was the shooter, but under the color of authority.

There are several LE agencies investigating this matter. Hopefully they'll conclude their investigation sooner rather than later. Until then, no one knows the answers.

hth
fran

 

[Frydaddy]

I would like to listen but I cannot get your link to work. I tried a couple of different ways and just get a godaddy page.

Works for me when I click it. Did you try to cut and paste into your browser or type the url in your browser? Or, you can Google - Teenager shot, killed in Ferguson apartment complex and look for link to Fox 2 story, video is embedded.

 

[Lovejac]

That wasn't my point. I saw the video. What I'm wondering is if he thought it wasn't robbery because he had no gun or knife and because of the dollar value of the item he took. iow, did he believe it was only a misdemeanor with a slap-on-the-wrist consequence? His demeanor on the tape is in sharp contrast to the one painted by friends and teachers.

I understand what you're getting at, BUT, it is wrong to steal, period. If MB was thinking it was a misdemeanor, that's too much thinking for me.

My kids think it is wrong to take something that doesn't belong to you without paying for it. They don't think about whether it is a misdemeanor or more serious.

 

[mdana]

Let's see what I can find:

Here is one that seems to apply mainly to Europe:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sidesho...qs-dropped-14-points-over-last-180634194.html

I do read the Daily Mail so it's possible I read about a European study. I didn't remember where I heard or read the statistic, so that's why I said "so I've heard". Thank you for reminding me why it's good to find a link for things. If it's a European study I shouldn't say it's from the US. I find it hard to believe that IQ is up and not down based on what I see around me, but of course people would argue about what is a good IQ test.

Anyway, it's hard to evaluate a study from a news article but that was a possible theory trying to make sense of incomprehensible behavior. You know how they publish headlines saying this is good to eat then not too long after, another study saying it will kill you. You have to look at the actual study and you also have to know who paid for it and who did it to know if there is any truth to it.

Here is info on lead in St. Louis - http://leadsafestlouis.org/
"One child in 20 in the City of St. Louis has a blood lead level at or above the CDC level of concern."

"90 percent of the housing stock in St. Louis City was built before 1978 and may contain lead based paint."
http://leadsafe.aphidesign.com/risk/could-my-home-have-lead/

Side effect of lead - "aggressive and violent behavior"
http://leadsafe.aphidesign.com/risk/why-is-lead-dangerous/

It's not my idea that this might be a factor in high crime rates, I've heard this talked about before. I'm not a scientist so I can't say how much effect it might have. Just something to consider when people see behavior that makes no sense and ask, "why"?

This is the actual study.

http://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/were-the-victorians-smarter-than-us.pdf

Quickly, scanning through it, there are 2 obvious problems.

1. The study is based on reaction times which has been shown to have a very weak (if any) correlation to intelligence. In addition, it is thought to be genetically linked which means it can not be altered by nutrition nor environment, which many researchers have proven has been the major reason for the gains since 1900.

2. The studies have self-selection problems, until at least the 1950s. Self-selections almost always are not representative of the population as a whole.

Other problems:

A. Reaction time is one factor out of many to test intelligence.

B. There are no controls of the population in terms of age. As the general population ages reaction times will increase. The average life expectancy now compared to the turn of the century has almost doubled.

1900- Male-46.3 Female-48.3
1998- Male-72.8 Female 79.5

C. There are no controls of the male female ratios, etc. The test done in 1889 had a 3-1 male to female ratio, the one done in 1984 had a 4-5 male to female ratio. They test the UK, US, Finland, Australia, and Canada, but the last three countries are only used once or twice and the samples that show decline are decades apart and the studies much larger than the previous study which may impact the reaction times.

I think this is just really shoddy research not worthy of the designation as academic. I would be really interested in the funding and the bias of these researchers.

As an an analogy, it would be like stating pitchers at the turn of the century were stronger than pitchers today because they pitched so many innings or there were so many 30-50 game winners. Not taking into account the rules changes in the game and the other myriad changes that have taken place. I went to the NATs game last night and every pitcher could throw consistently in the 90+mph range whenever they wanted. I doubt other than Cy Young there were more than 5-10 pitchers in 1900 that could throw that fast and consistently.

I will address the rest of you post later if I have more time and can dig up some pertinent lead analysis.

However, in short the lead levels at the turn of the century were multiples higher than the current CDC safe levels. There were three crime waves (crime rates spiked per 100k population) in this country roughly the late 1920s into the 1930s, the late 1960s into the 1970s, and the late 1980s and early 1990s. All three can be correlated to huge lead exposure approximately 15-25 years earlier. As, the lead was removed from houses, buildings, and gas the crime rate went down to previous or even lower levels than in the past.

 

[Linda7NJ]

When one consider the excessive amount of bullets that went into Mike Browns body, with a final shot to the forehead, I don't understand how many aren't outraged.

After the first shot when Mike Brown was surrendering, instead of emptying his weapon, he should have arrested him. Since he took that final shot to the forehead (as stated by DJ and Wilson's lady friend) I think this will prove very damning to Wilson.

Is it possible that Wilson acted out of anger? Sure in my mind he could. He felt disrespected that DJ and MB didn't immediately get out of the street as they were told.

I worry this could be me or any of my children. I don't believe an officer of the law needs to kill someone who is unarmed. He could have held MB at gunpoint as he calls for back up. Then MB would be under arrest but alive...

There's a awhile lotta opinion stated as fact....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk