KCRag Forum

A reputable source has reported that as a verified fact rather than as what the police department or anonymous sources have claimed?

Haven't anonymous sources been used and accurate in the past on other issues? No saying in this case they are true and accurate but at the same time they shouldn't be discounted either just because they are anonymous.

aknowledgeableperson wrote:

A reputable source has reported that as a verified fact rather than as what the police department or anonymous sources have claimed?

Haven't anonymous sources been used and accurate in the past on other issues? No saying in this case they are true and accurate but at the same time they shouldn't be discounted either just because they are anonymous.

Except there are conflicting anonymous sources that say he didn't sustain these injuries. If he was really injured, and given that his alleged injury is central to his case, there should be actual evidence of this beyond an anonymous he said/she said. Certainly this shouldn't be enough to boldly assert that "the fact of the matter" is that these injuries occurred. You can argue that the security camera footage isn't great quality, and it's not (side note: how is it 2014 and this is still apparently the state of the art in surveillance cameras?), but there is nothing in those images that would appear to support the assertion that he suffered broken cheek bones and orbital fractures. That's stronger evidence against the alleged injuries than exists to support them.

Except there are conflicting anonymous sources that say he didn't sustain these injuries.

And that can be said for Brown's actions also. True, people have spoken publicly about what Brown did or didn't due but who is to say if they are telling the truth or just repeating what someone else said or just trying to be famous. In other words just because they are willing to speak publicly doesn't mean they are telling the truth especially with conflicting accounts in their statements.

There is enough being said about what did or did not happen that it appears the physical evidence is needed to shed some light on what is actually the truth here.

Is it safe to assume that a Grand Jury will have better access to his medical records than the press trying to sell their point of view?

No

droopy wrote:Is it safe to assume that a Grand Jury will have better access to his medical records than the press trying to sell their point of view?

Sadness. We have no safe assumption. Justice is being divided like Solomon's child.

aknowledgeableperson wrote:

Except there are conflicting anonymous sources that say he didn't sustain these injuries.

And that can be said for Brown's actions also. True, people have spoken publicly about what Brown did or didn't due but who is to say if they are telling the truth or just repeating what someone else said or just trying to be famous. In other words just because they are willing to speak publicly doesn't mean they are telling the truth especially with conflicting accounts in their statements.

There is enough being said about what did or did not happen that it appears the physical evidence is needed to shed some light on what is actually the truth here.

Wow, a complete non sequitur. You haven't got anything to say about Wilson's alleged injuries, so you deflect back to something we've already been through ad nauseam. Okay, fine. Even if you bizarrely believe that somebody who's willing to put their name next to their account is no more trustworthy than someone taking anonymous shots, there are also contemporary recordings of, for instance, the construction workers who witnessed the whole thing saying in the moment that Brown had his hands up, before any sort of narrative had taken off in the media. Incidentally, those construction workers actually chose to remain anonymous too (ie not "just trying to be famous"), but a video of them at the scene must carry more weight than somebody calling into a radio station -- unless you're desperate to believe that Wilson didn't do anything wrong.

The video doesn't prove or disprove injuries. With regards to the construction workers here is some of what they say. From Fox 2 News in St. Louis:

Two key witnesses to the police shooting of Michael Brown are construction workers who just happened to be working nearby.

The two unidentified men, who were working for a Jefferson County construction company, watched Michael Brown die from half a football field away.

One witness spoke to Fox 2′s Shirley Washington on August 12. The other spoke to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch’s Jeremy Kohler for an article published Friday.
...
The eyewitness who spoke to Fox 2 described hearing two pops, then looked up to see Brown.

“I saw him staggering and running and when he finally caught himself he threw his hands up and started screaming OK OK OK OK OK and then the three officers come through the thing and the one just started shooting,” the worker told Fox 2`s Washington on August 12.
...
The witness who spoke to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch said Brown’s hands started going down after the third shot and he reportedly “moved about 25-feet toward Wilson, who kept backing away and firing.”

From the workers’ vantage point, about 50 yards away, the worker who talked to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch said he could not tell if Brown’s motion toward Wilson after the shots was “a stumble to the ground” or “OK, I’m going to get you, you’re already shooting me.”

So, according to one there were three officers at the scene with one firing the shots. The other doesn't know if Brown was surrendering or attacking the officer but he was moving toward Wilson. A lot of clarity there.

A good summary from the St. Louis Post Dispatch story on the interview:

But his account does little to clarify perhaps the most critical moment of the confrontation, on which members of the grand jury in St. Louis County may focus to determine whether the officer was justified in using lethal force: whether Brown moved toward Wilson just before the fatal shots, and if he did, how aggressively.

At least one witness has said Brown was not moving. Others didn’t mention him moving, while still others have said he was heading toward Wilson.

In other words it is as clear as mud.

phuqueue wrote:I suppose you have proof that he had broken cheek bones and eye socket fractures? A reputable source has reported that as a verified fact rather than as what the police department or anonymous sources have claimed?

I thought it was pretty common knowledge by now, just like the fact that Brown robbed a store and assaulted a grown man moments before being killed?

aknowledgeableperson wrote:The video doesn't prove or disprove injuries. With regards to the construction workers here is some of what they say. From Fox 2 News in St. Louis:

Two key witnesses to the police shooting of Michael Brown are construction workers who just happened to be working nearby.

The two unidentified men, who were working for a Jefferson County construction company, watched Michael Brown die from half a football field away.

One witness spoke to Fox 2′s Shirley Washington on August 12. The other spoke to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch’s Jeremy Kohler for an article published Friday.
...
The eyewitness who spoke to Fox 2 described hearing two pops, then looked up to see Brown.

“I saw him staggering and running and when he finally caught himself he threw his hands up and started screaming OK OK OK OK OK and then the three officers come through the thing and the one just started shooting,” the worker told Fox 2`s Washington on August 12.
...
The witness who spoke to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch said Brown’s hands started going down after the third shot and he reportedly “moved about 25-feet toward Wilson, who kept backing away and firing.”

From the workers’ vantage point, about 50 yards away, the worker who talked to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch said he could not tell if Brown’s motion toward Wilson after the shots was “a stumble to the ground” or “OK, I’m going to get you, you’re already shooting me.”

So, according to one there were three officers at the scene with one firing the shots. The other doesn't know if Brown was surrendering or attacking the officer but he was moving toward Wilson. A lot of clarity there.

A good summary from the St. Louis Post Dispatch story on the interview:

But his account does little to clarify perhaps the most critical moment of the confrontation, on which members of the grand jury in St. Louis County may focus to determine whether the officer was justified in using lethal force: whether Brown moved toward Wilson just before the fatal shots, and if he did, how aggressively.

At least one witness has said Brown was not moving. Others didn’t mention him moving, while still others have said he was heading toward Wilson.

In other words it is as clear as mud.

Funny that you keep harping on how witnesses aren't reliable, could just be repeating what they've heard elsewhere, etc, and then you cite an interview done a month after the event to discredit their contemporary comments. But hey, whatever works, right?

im2kull wrote:

phuqueue wrote:I suppose you have proof that he had broken cheek bones and eye socket fractures? A reputable source has reported that as a verified fact rather than as what the police department or anonymous sources have claimed?

I thought it was pretty common knowledge by now, just like the fact that Brown robbed a store and assaulted a grown man moments before being killed?

Common knowledge? Even the pro-Wilson camp hasn't consistently agreed on what injuries he allegedly sustained. But that surveillance video sure looks like a guy with broken cheek bones and fractured orbitals!

Funny that you keep harping on how witnesses aren't reliable, could just be repeating what they've heard elsewhere, etc, and then you cite an interview done a month after the event to discredit their contemporary comments. But hey, whatever works, right?

Just points out how unreliable they are no matter when they talk. Anyway, one interview was just a few days after, not a month after.

One witness spoke to Fox 2′s Shirley Washington on August 12.

Anyway, I guess you choose to ignore what all of the witnesses have established so far. Which is what I harp on.

But his account does little to clarify perhaps the most critical moment of the confrontation, on which members of the grand jury in St. Louis County may focus to determine whether the officer was justified in using lethal force: whether Brown moved toward Wilson just before the fatal shots, and if he did, how aggressively.

At least one witness has said Brown was not moving. Others didn’t mention him moving, while still others have said he was heading toward Wilson.

About that convenience store robbery...

im2kull wrote:About that convenience store robbery...

I keep forgetting that he deserved it. Thanks for reminding me.

aknowledgeableperson wrote:

Funny that you keep harping on how witnesses aren't reliable, could just be repeating what they've heard elsewhere, etc, and then you cite an interview done a month after the event to discredit their contemporary comments. But hey, whatever works, right?

Just points out how unreliable they are no matter when they talk. Anyway, one interview was just a few days after, not a month after.

One witness spoke to Fox 2′s Shirley Washington on August 12.

Yeah, and the one that was a few days after has the interviewee unequivocally repeating that "he threw his hands up and started screaming OK OK OK OK OK." The one that says he "could not tell" if Brown was surrendering or preparing to rush Wilson took place a month later. And, because there were two construction workers and neither offered his name, it isn't at all clear whether the latter is the same person as the former, or which one was recorded at the scene stating emphatically that "he had his fucking hands up." It's possible that all three are the same person, or that the recording and the Sept interview are the same person, and that the very phenomenon you are so wary of -- witnesses being influenced by the media narrative -- affected his story a month later, except not in the way that you would love to prove it has affected the other witnesses. Or it's possible that the recording and Aug interview were the same guy, and the Sept interview was the other guy, and his story actually never changed, and then we can only speculate on why he couldn't tell about what seems to have been clear to the other guy, such as that he was watching from a different angle, or something was partially obstructing his view, or whatever. Inconsistency in eyewitness statements is not new, we've already been over it again and again in this thread.

Anyway, I guess you choose to ignore what all of the witnesses have established so far. Which is what I harp on.

But his account does little to clarify perhaps the most critical moment of the confrontation, on which members of the grand jury in St. Louis County may focus to determine whether the officer was justified in using lethal force: whether Brown moved toward Wilson just before the fatal shots, and if he did, how aggressively.

At least one witness has said Brown was not moving. Others didn’t mention him moving, while still others have said he was heading toward Wilson.

And we've been over this, too. None of the witnesses unequivocally say that Brown was clearly moving toward Wilson. From my own old post: "even some of the publicly identified witnesses you've disparaged have noted that Brown 'moved toward' Wilson, but that he appeared to be stumbling forward after being hit, not rushing at Wilson." Whether he was "moving toward Wilson" doesn't, on its own, mean anything at all. What sort of intent (and capability) he had as he moved toward Wilson, if in fact he did, is what matters. Nobody who was verifiably present except for Wilson himself has claimed that Brown was moving toward him in an aggressive way. Some witnesses saw a stumble and others didn't, which is reasonable enough considering different vantage points and distances from which they each viewed the shooting.

chaglang wrote:

im2kull wrote:About that convenience store robbery...

I keep forgetting that he deserved it. Thanks for reminding me.

It feels like such an ad hominem -- and just general bad board etiquette -- to simply call somebody a fascist in lieu of direct response, but is there really any other way to answer kull's garbage posts in this thread? Maybe fascist isn't even strong enough. For fifty bucks worth of cigars, even Saudi Arabia would only take your hands.

Well, it's not like Wilson was found innocent but that the grand jury felt (whatever the vote) there wasn't enough evidence to charge. What was interesting in the press conference announcing the grand jury decision was the statement about how so-called witness statements did not agree with the evidence presented, how some witnesses changed their statements over time, how some admitted they did not actually see the incident, how some witnesses could not be located along with other items concerning statements.

Guess two things remain. One, what charges, if any, will come from the federal investigation. And two, what actions the Brown family will take with regards to civil actions against Wilson/police department/city of Ferguson.

A third thing might remain. How people will look at the evidence, slice and dice it, and interpret it.

And through it all Justice means different things for different people.

If anybody's interested, here's a recorded compilation of the testimony and evidence: http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interacti ... -shooting/

And regardless of views on the case itself, can we at least agree that the actions of the rioters and looters over this night are inexcusable?
I'm curious to see how the community will recover after this.

I'm curious to see how the community will recover after this.

All one has to do is look at what happened to communities that were affected by rioting in the past. Many took years to recover, some didn't.

IraGlacialis wrote:And regardless of views on the case itself, can we at least agree that the actions of the rioters and looters over this night are inexcusable?

Not at all. Since Micheal Brown's final acts were looting and roughing up a cop, it seems fitting that the looters and rioters are doing the same in Michael Brown's "honor."

Burning down AutoZone = JUSTICE!

&

A local justice system broken enough to spark rioting can't hold one of its own accountable? Shocking. Isn't this how every movie about Mississippi in the 1930's begins?