Ferguson, Missouri

Come here to talk about topics that are not related to development, or even Kansas City.
Post Reply
LenexatoKCMO
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 14667
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 3:34 pm
Location: Valentine

Re: Ferguson, Missouri

Post by LenexatoKCMO »

AllThingsKC wrote:
phxcat wrote:video of the actual shooting, yes. Video of an unrelated event, no.
Oh, but could be related. If you had just shoplifted and were high and a cop approaches you, you would probably think it had something to do with the shoplifting or being high. So, it wouldn't be illogical to think Brown's actions with the cop (whatever they were) could have been impacted by his actions 10 minutes earlier. Maybe he would have reacted differently if he hadn't just shoplifted or been high. If Wilson goes to trial, I'm willing to bet the defense would make that argument. It's not a strong argument, but not necessarily unrelated either.

It goes back to my point that when someone is involved in questionable activity, the chances of something bad and unfair happening are much higher than if they had obeyed the law the whole time. It's unfair and unfortunate, but that's life sometimes.
So let me see if I can follow your point ...
Since he stole some cheap cigars we can logically infer that he was motivated to murder a policeman?

aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12264
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: Ferguson, Missouri

Post by aknowledgeableperson »

Giving any credence to an anonymous call to a radio talk show and using that to question multiple eyewitness accounts, and to further claim that the perception that he was shot in the back may have been incorrect casts doubt on the rest of their stories is giving more credence to one story over the other.
I am not the only one addressing the issue of conflicting stories. Many in the press also are holding back judgment. Even witnesses that seem to favor Brown have conflicts in their stories. So again I will let the pros do their work in their case and wait for their conclusions on what the evidence is.

With regards to eyewitness accounts here is an interesting take on CNN, Anderson Cooper 360.
http://cnn.it/VHlpjo
Several eyewitnesses have stepped forward with their accounts of the altercation between Michael Brown and Officer Darren Wilson. One thing that stands out: none of the accounts agrees precisely with all the others. Some paint entirely different pictures of what happened. AC360 assembled several witness accounts so you can see for yourself.

Anderson discussed the reliability of eyewitnesses with Iowa State University psychology professor Gary Wells, who has written extensively on the subject

User avatar
AllThingsKC
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9237
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2004 10:57 am
Location: Kansas City, Missouri (Downtown)
Contact:

Re: Ferguson, Missouri

Post by AllThingsKC »

LenexatoKCMO wrote:So let me see if I can follow your point ...
Since he stole some cheap cigars we can logically infer that he was motivated to murder a policeman?
Wow, you guys seem really sensitive with people who have a different opinion than you. That is NOT AT ALL what I'm saying.

I am saying:
If Wilson goes to trial, both the defense and prosecution could build their cases on this argument:

1. The cop may not have known what Michael Brown did 10 minutes earlier. But Michael Brown did.

2. Assuming the altercation with the cop started when the cop asked them (or told them) to get out of the street, it wouldn't be illogical for Michael Brown to think the cop was there because of what had just happened 10 minutes earlier.

3. Being under the influence, Michael Brown could have reacted in either a more threatening way or a more relaxed way (depending on what affect marijuana had on him). Either way, being high could have caused him to act in a manner in which he normally may not have acted. THIS DOES NOT MEAN HE WAS MOTIVATED TO MURDER THE COP. Maybe he was more relaxed with the cop because he was high or maybe he was more threatening with the cop because he was high. Who knows?

4. Michael Brown could have thought, "Oh, crap! I'm high and just stole! I'm going to jail." I suspect that would be a pretty common reaction from others in the same situation. For all Michael Brown knew, the cop was there to arrest him. So, Brown's actions (or lack there of) during the altercation could have been impacted by what he thought was about to happen. Being high may have also impacted his judgement one way or the other.

Does that make sense or am I over thinking this?

phxcat
Hotel President
Hotel President
Posts: 3454
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 5:11 pm
Location: Phoenix

Re: Ferguson, Missouri

Post by phxcat »

aknowledgeableperson wrote:
Giving any credence to an anonymous call to a radio talk show and using that to question multiple eyewitness accounts, and to further claim that the perception that he was shot in the back may have been incorrect casts doubt on the rest of their stories is giving more credence to one story over the other.
I am not the only one addressing the issue of conflicting stories. Many in the press also are holding back judgment. Even witnesses that seem to favor Brown have conflicts in their stories. So again I will let the pros do their work in their case and wait for their conclusions on what the evidence is.

With regards to eyewitness accounts here is an interesting take on CNN, Anderson Cooper 360.
http://cnn.it/VHlpjo
Several eyewitnesses have stepped forward with their accounts of the altercation between Michael Brown and Officer Darren Wilson. One thing that stands out: none of the accounts agrees precisely with all the others. Some paint entirely different pictures of what happened. AC360 assembled several witness accounts so you can see for yourself.

Anderson discussed the reliability of eyewitnesses with Iowa State University psychology professor Gary Wells, who has written extensively on the subject
Again, what you are doing is claiming to be the unbiased observer by trying to poke holes in one side while leaving the other alone. If you were try to look for the holes in both sides you would have some credibility. I have seen the eyewitness accounts, and they are not entirely different. Different on the details (and some of those detail indicate slightly different time frames), but not on the big picture, which is that Brown was not a threat when he was shot.

aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12264
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: Ferguson, Missouri

Post by aknowledgeableperson »

I have already posted my thoughts on the shooter. No need to go further. Anyway you already feel his side is lying so why reinforce your argument.

With regards to Brown being a threat, again that is what the FBI agents and the grand jury will determine when it comes time to file charges or not. And if charges are filed the court system will make that determination.

phuqueue
Penntower
Penntower
Posts: 2400
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: Ferguson, Missouri

Post by phuqueue »

AllThingsKC wrote:
phuqueue wrote: The point is that they aren't relevant and only serve to turn people against Brown as a person.
Can't the same be said of the "eye-witnesses" in that they only serve to turn people against Wilson as a person?
If Wilson feels his name is being dragged through the mud by eyewitnesses who describe his killing of an unarmed person, he probably shouldn't have killed an unarmed person. If Brown had, say, committed an armed robbery and was killed in the act or while trying to flee or whatever, the robbery would be germane. What Brown is alleged to have actually done is committed petit larceny which, due to a shove at the end of the act, might be second degree robbery ("forcibly" stealing property), but which the cops have consistently called "strong-arm robbery" (an offense that does not exist in MO, but that definitely sounds worse than "he stole fifty dollars worth of cigars and shoved the clerk on his way out"). And by the cops' own admission, Wilson did not know about the alleged robbery at the time of the shooting, which means that it is not pertinent in any way. It doesn't matter whether it happened ten minutes or ten years before he was killed. The only reason to bring it up is to paint Brown as a "bad person," which makes it much easier for some people to accept that he was killed. None of this is actually germane to why or how Wilson killed him. On the other hand, why and how Wilson killed him is certainly germane to why and how Wilson killed him. I can't believe this has to be explained.
Oh, but could be related. If you had just shoplifted and were high and a cop approaches you, you would probably think it had something to do with the shoplifting or being high. So, it wouldn't be illogical to think Brown's actions with the cop (whatever they were) could have been impacted by his actions 10 minutes earlier. Maybe he would have reacted differently if he hadn't just shoplifted or been high. If Wilson goes to trial, I'm willing to bet the defense would make that argument. It's not a strong argument, but not necessarily unrelated either.

It goes back to my point that when someone is involved in questionable activity, the chances of something bad and unfair happening are much higher than if they had obeyed the law the whole time. It's unfair and unfortunate, but that's life sometimes.
If you were walking in the middle of the street and a cop approaches you and tells you to get the fuck out of the street you would probably think his approaching you had something to do with your being in the middle of the street, actually. As far as I'm aware, there is no evidence that Brown was high at the time of his death. Even the reprehensible NYT "he was no angel" article explicitly says that he "dabbled," which suggests infrequent and irregular use. That marijuana came up in his toxicology screen means pretty much nothing, since marijuana remains in your system for some time after use. Of course, this is all secondary to the fact that harping on his marijuana use is more dog whistle bullshit. When white people use marijuana, they're portrayed as silly, docile, hungry idiots. When black people use marijuana, we suddenly act like it's the same thing as PCP.

It actually makes much more sense to suggest that he would have acted differently if he had shoplifted or been high. Wouldn't somebody in that situation probably try to keep a low profile instead of becoming confrontational with the police? Would somebody whose alleged crime was to take fifty dollars worth of cigars immediately jump to thinking that he has to kill a cop to make his escape?

For those keeping score at home, the story put out by the cops + Wilson's supposed friend comes out this way:

Brown robbed a convenience store > jaywalked > started a fight with a cop > tried to steal the cop's gun > the cop shot at him during the fight > Brown ran away > then turned around and started taunting the cop that "you won't shoot me" > then charged the cop who had already fired at him once before and got killed

Yup, that all sounds very plausible, hangs together very well.
Being under the influence, Michael Brown could have reacted in either a more threatening way or a more relaxed way (depending on what affect marijuana had on him). Either way, being high could have caused him to act in a manner in which he normally may not have acted. THIS DOES NOT MEAN HE WAS MOTIVATED TO MURDER THE COP. Maybe he was more relaxed with the cop because he was high or maybe he was more threatening with the cop because he was high. Who knows?
Marijuana doesn't make people violent.
Anyway you already feel his side is lying so why reinforce your argument.
His "side" is an anonymous phone call purporting to be his friend. There hasn't even been any official endorsement of that story by Wilson or the police department. As far as I'm aware, the police department has not yet updated its official story, which is reasonably detailed up until the point where Wilson fires at Brown at the car. Then it skips to "more than a couple shots were fired" without explaining how Brown ended up 35 feet away, where Wilson was, or anything else. The police story differs greatly from Dorian Johnson's as to how the altercation began, who was the initial aggressor, etc, but none of these facts are actually pertinent if Brown ran away from the fight at the car. Even if the PD version up to this point is correct, it doesn't tell us anything re: whether or not Wilson's actions were justified. The fact that the PD has been silent on what happened next is telling in itself. In fact, the complete and utter lack of transparency on the part of the PD through this entire situation should not inspire any confidence.

User avatar
KCMax
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 24051
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 3:31 pm
Location: The basement of a Ross Dress for Less
Contact:

Re: Ferguson, Missouri

Post by KCMax »

Not Ferguson, but Jesus H. Christ:

http://gawker.com/lawyer-video-shows-co ... 1627942888
An attorney for the family of John Crawford III, the man fatally shot by police in an Ohio Walmart store, says surveillance video contradicts the police department's version of events. Officers say Crawford refused to drop the pellet gun he was holding, but the video allegedly shows them gunning him down "on sight."

Crawford, 22, was shopping at the Beavercreek, Ohio store on Aug. 5 when police responded to another customer's report that Crawford was carrying an AR-15 rifle. He was actually holding a pellet air rifle he had just picked up from a shelf in the store's toy department.
So now we have all these gun nuts running around restaurants and stores flaunting their weapons to show their love for the Second Amendment, but if a black guy picks up a toy gun, its "HE'S GOT A GUN! SHOOT HIM!"

brewcrew1000
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2748
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 10:10 am
Location: Broadway/Gilham according to google maps

Re: Ferguson, Missouri

Post by brewcrew1000 »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhAZlj1xRLo

The universe tends to unfold as it should. Maybe suburban cops just want some action, lock and load, wooo

aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12264
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: Ferguson, Missouri

Post by aknowledgeableperson »

The fact that the PD has been silent on what happened next is telling in itself. In fact, the complete and utter lack of transparency on the part of the PD through this entire situation should not inspire any confidence.
The reason why there hasn't been much said by the police is their information has been forwarded to the DA's office and will be part of the grand jury investigation.

Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/2 ... ent-report...
He added that the document contains only those details that the department is required to share by law. The rest of the information is "protected until the investigation is complete," he said


Time Magazine:time.com/3159680/ferguson-michael-brown-shooting-police-report
Schellman said that under the Missouri State “Sunshine” Law, the department was not required to release the information during a pending investigation. As a result, Wilson’s account of what happens will remain confidential unless it is presented by a prosecutor, Schellman said.

“We will not release it,” said Schellman, who noted that this is the county’s normal procedure. “This isn’t any different than a typical larceny from a local convenience store.”

Wilson never filed a report on the incident, according to the office of the St. Louis County prosecutor. The case was quickly turned over to the county at the request of local police. According to the document, the St. Louis County police entered the incident report on Aug. 19, 10 days after the shooting. It was approved for release the following morning.

phuqueue
Penntower
Penntower
Posts: 2400
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: Ferguson, Missouri

Post by phuqueue »

And yet they didn't think twice about sharing an entire narrative that runs right up to the point where Brown was actually killed. The best interpretation of that decision is that the PD implicitly acknowledges itself that everything else, the alleged robbery, the alleged assault, etc etc etc is all irrelevant, but it was important to make sure everybody heard those allegations so we could properly demonize Brown.

In any case, the point stands that there actually is no conflicting account about the shooting itself from anybody who claims to have actually seen it. Even "Josie," if she really does know Wilson, was passing secondhand information.

(as a side note, you would think Wilson's/the PD's attorneys would have told him not to go mouthing off about the case to his friends, but who knows!)

mean
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 10926
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 9:00 am
Location: Historic Northeast

Re: Ferguson, Missouri

Post by mean »

Based on the available evidence, it seems likely that Wilson is guilty of murdering Brown.

Based on the available evidence, it also seems likely that he will not be tried for it.

auntbigdog
Pad site
Pad site
Posts: 59
Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2014 9:08 pm
Location: North End

Re: Ferguson, Missouri

Post by auntbigdog »

KCMax wrote:So now we have all these gun nuts running around restaurants and stores flaunting their weapons to show their love for the Second Amendment, but if a black guy picks up a toy gun, its "HE'S GOT A GUN! SHOOT HIM!"
The reason my husband never, ever open carries. (Well, that and it's kind of an asshole thing for anyone to do, imo.)

User avatar
AllThingsKC
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9237
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2004 10:57 am
Location: Kansas City, Missouri (Downtown)
Contact:

Re: Ferguson, Missouri

Post by AllThingsKC »

phxcat wrote: If you were try to look for the holes in both sides you would have some credibility.
So, would it be fair to say that those who appear to be one-sided probably don't have much credibility?
phuqueue wrote:As far as I'm aware, there is no evidence that Brown was high at the time of his death. Even the reprehensible NYT "he was no angel" article explicitly says that he "dabbled," which suggests infrequent and irregular use. That marijuana came up in his toxicology screen means pretty much nothing, since marijuana remains in your system for some time after use.
You are absolutely correct that just because traces of marijuana were found in Brown's system, it doesn't mean he was high at the time of his death. That was unfair assumption on my part. I think marijuana can stay in the system for weeks.

I'm not an expert on drug use at all. But I have heard that the kind of cigars Brown stole are often used to to get high. I have no idea if that's true. But if that's why he stole them, that could suggest regular marijuana usage by Brown. Either way, regular or irregular usage doesn't make Brown a bad person and in 2 states, it wouldn't even be against the law.
phuqueue wrote:When black people use marijuana, we suddenly act like it's the same thing as PCP.
We do?
phuqueue wrote:Wouldn't somebody in that situation probably try to keep a low profile instead of becoming confrontational with the police?
Probably. Unless they thought the cop was there to arrest them for their activities just 10 minutes prior. Then one could be a little more aggravated. That is why his actions 10 minutes prior could be relevant to the altercation.
phuqueue wrote:Marijuana doesn't make people violent.
Not usually, no. And if Wilson goes to trial, I suspect the prosecution will use that. Or the defense will say Brown was more violent than usual because he wasn't high at the time.

aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12264
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: Ferguson, Missouri

Post by aknowledgeableperson »

phuqueue wrote:And yet they didn't think twice about sharing an entire narrative that runs right up to the point where Brown was actually killed. The best interpretation of that decision is that the PD implicitly acknowledges itself that everything else, the alleged robbery, the alleged assault, etc etc etc is all irrelevant, but it was important to make sure everybody heard those allegations so we could properly demonize Brown.

In any case, the point stands that there actually is no conflicting account about the shooting itself from anybody who claims to have actually seen it. Even "Josie," if she really does know Wilson, was passing secondhand information.

(as a side note, you would think Wilson's/the PD's attorneys would have told him not to go mouthing off about the case to his friends, but who knows!)
What you refer to was released was by the Ferguson PD. Investigation was turned over to the County after the shooting, from what I can gather to avoid a conflict of interest. So the Ferguson PD would not have anything to release after the shooting. The county was called at 12:43, 43 minutes afterwards so Ferguson PD would have nothing to release after that time. See below about what the county released.

phuqueue
Penntower
Penntower
Posts: 2400
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: Ferguson, Missouri

Post by phuqueue »

AllThingsKC wrote:
phuqueue wrote:When black people use marijuana, we suddenly act like it's the same thing as PCP.
We do?
Well, yes.
phuqueue wrote:Wouldn't somebody in that situation probably try to keep a low profile instead of becoming confrontational with the police?
Probably. Unless they thought the cop was there to arrest them for their activities just 10 minutes prior. Then one could be a little more aggravated. That is why his actions 10 minutes prior could be relevant to the altercation.
Assaulting a police officer and attempting to steal his gun is a dramatic escalation from stealing a few cigars, and the entire confrontation from initiation to Brown's death reportedly lasted only about three minutes. Even if he was afraid he was going to be arrested, it's an implausible explanation.
What you refer to was released was by the Ferguson PD. Investigation was turned over to the County after the shooting, from what I can gather to avoid a conflict of interest. So the Ferguson PD would not have anything to release after the shooting. The county was called at 12:43, 43 minutes afterwards so Ferguson PD would have nothing to release after that time. See below about what the county released.
County PD hasn't provided any more information than Ferguson PD did. They both released reports with a bare minimum of information and no narrative about what happened. The distinction between them is irrelevant. Your point was that there were conflicting accounts, my point is that there aren't. No police department has publicized their account, no police department has endorsed the account offered by "Josie."

phxcat
Hotel President
Hotel President
Posts: 3454
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 5:11 pm
Location: Phoenix

Re: Ferguson, Missouri

Post by phxcat »

aknowledgeableperson wrote:I have already posted my thoughts on the shooter. No need to go further. Anyway you already feel his side is lying so why reinforce your argument.

With regards to Brown being a threat, again that is what the FBI agents and the grand jury will determine when it comes time to file charges or not. And if charges are filed the court system will make that determination.
The thoughts you posted on the shooter were that many (not you) assume use of force was not justified, before you questioned how people will react if inquiries find that use of force was justified, and you questioned whether he had a taser and why he didn't use it. Throughout this thread you have pretended to be a neutral observer while consistently playing the devil's advocate against Brown. I do not feel his side is lying, I feel that his side has not made a statement. An anonymous phone call is not "his side" and caries no weight. I'm not a lawyer, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were not admissible in court. And as phuqueue said, youo would think that his attorneys would have advised him to keep his mouth shut.

phuqueue
Penntower
Penntower
Posts: 2400
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: Ferguson, Missouri

Post by phuqueue »

The phone call is absolutely inadmissible hearsay.

aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12264
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: Ferguson, Missouri

Post by aknowledgeableperson »

The officer involved in the shooting has voluntary testified in front of the grand jury. Testimony lasted 4 hours. Mixed opinions about why he testified.

User avatar
im2kull
Hotel President
Hotel President
Posts: 3302
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 4:33 pm
Location: KCMO

Re: Ferguson, Missouri

Post by im2kull »

aknowledgeableperson wrote:The officer involved in the shooting has voluntary testified in front of the grand jury. Testimony lasted 4 hours. Mixed opinions about why he testified.
If you're innocent would you leave another man to judge you based on our incidious media and all of the other hearsay going around..or would you speak up and be heard?

mean
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 10926
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 9:00 am
Location: Historic Northeast

Re: Ferguson, Missouri

Post by mean »

Even if true, that's a stupid argument. If testifying proved innocence, then every guilty person in the world would do it.

Post Reply