world

As Missouri violence continue, fingers point to outsiders

51 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2014.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

51 Comments
Login to comment

So the majority of the 15,000 black residents in Ferguson are not involved in the looting or riots?

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Yeah, the great majority. 56 - 15 is only the count arrested of Missourians, so total wouldn't be close to 15,000.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Even IF the 'majority' come from outside Missouri, who cares? It's an issue that has always affected the US, and it's an issue that needs to be properly addressed by the nation, not just the people of Missouri and certainly not just the police in Ferguson. Now if POLICE had come from outside Missouri and tried to arrest then shot an unarmed Ferguson teen six times, THAT would have something to do with jurisdiction and what not, but other people coming in to protest? Sorry it puts more egg on the face of the cops, but that's their problem.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

I think zichi is trying to make the point that the majority of black people in general, including residents of Ferguson, are good. We said nothing about the people who came from outside Missouri to agitate.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Do we know the shooting was not justified yet? The man shot was a big man and that alone is a threat for the safety of the officer. 6 shots especially if 4 were in the arm is not going to stop anyone physically. That is IF he was engaged in a possible police assault. We don't know yet.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

And now there is evidence Michael Brown paid for the cigarillos. Which would explain why he was walking in the middle of the street.

So, all those folks claiming he got what he deserved because he was a criminal need to take a look.

"Ferguson Cops Busted? New Video Seems To Show Brown Paying For Cigarillos (Video)"

http://crooksandliars.com/2014/08/ferguson-cops-busted-new-video-seems-show

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Not a great idea to steal, then run from the police.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

And now there is evidence Michael Brown paid for the cigarillos. Which would explain why he was walking in the middle of the street.

The person alleged to be Brown is certainly spending a lot of time at the cashier's counter. If this store is like many, tobacco products are not accessible to customers directly. They must ask for what they want and hand over the money to pay for the product.

The man shot was a big man and that alone is a threat for the safety of the officer.

From 30 feet away, and unarmed?

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Not "evidence". A bunch of "supposes" from a blog poster.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Racism in America remains a major problem which still hasn't been addressed. We also need to look at why people riot and loot which isn't just limited to the black communities.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

@turbostat

Not "evidence". A bunch of "supposes" from a blog poster.

LOL! It is the same video the police released to the public. It is a longer version. How convenient this wasn't released on Friday, right?

It corroborate the store owner who said they never called the police! Why would they if he paid for them like the video shows?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

The storekeeper pursuing Michael Brown and being shoved aside is not explained. Either way if he approached the officer in the manner he did the storekeeper that may be a justified shooting.

And if you protest the 6 shots into Brown, look into Police and defensive training methods. You try for a good shot placement and you stop the threat. 1 shot or 100! Whatever it takes to defend your perceived threat.

What needs to be proved if Michael Brown was a life threat to the officer. Shot in the back has been debunked, what other mistaken witness accounts were inaccurate. I yearly do doubt he was "executed" as some believe. And by executed I mean hands up on his knees or any one of the two if he was not approaching the officer.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Silvafan:

How do you know what the police released? Here is Fox video on youtube from four days ago showing the long video. It says it was released by the police.

The video at your crooks and liars link is a shortened AND cropped 0:43 segment of the longer videos available on the web for days. Besides shortening and cropping the video, the crooks and liars article says "may have paid" and "seems to purchase". And ignores anything in the video that suggests robbery.

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

http://fox2now.com/2014/08/15/video-timeline-of-surveillance-video-purportedly-showing-michael-brown-robbing-convenience-store/

The following information is based on police reports given to FOX2 Friday. The video show who police say is Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson inside the Ferguson Market. Brown told the clerk he wanted cigars. As the clerk put the cigars on the counter, Brown grabbed a box of swisher sweets cigars and handed them to Johnson. The clerk told Brown he had to pay for the cigars first. Brown reached across the counter and grabbed numerous packs of cigars. He then headed for the door. The clerk says he was trying to lock the door so Brown couldn’t leave with the cigars. The video shows Brown grab the clerk and forcefully push him away. The clerk tried to stop him again. Brown turned and walked aggressively toward the employee. As the clerk backed away, Brown and Johnson left. The report says the clerk called police.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@MarkG

Having an attitude doesn't justify shooting an unarmed young man. People tend to believe if you don't follow the cops directions then they can shoot you. That also include some cops.

No, you get booked or charged with something but it isn't a license to kill.

Respect goes both ways!

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

And now there is evidence Michael Brown paid for the cigarillos.

There is no such evidence.

Why do you think the store clerk was trying to stop this guy from going out?

Why did Michael Brown swat him away?

Why did he struggle with the police officer and try to grab his gun before running away?

Why did he then turn around and charge at the police officer?

If Michael Brown is the saint he is being made out to be, then his behavior is certainly bizarre!!

3 ( +6 / -3 )

The storekeeper pursuing Michael Brown and being shoved aside is not explained. Either way if he approached the officer in the manner he did the storekeeper that may be a justified shooting.

Well the officer apparently suffered a broken face, specifically a blowout to the eye socket, as a result of the encounter, so given Brown's size, aggression and his alleged attempt to wrestle the gun away from the officer as corroborated by a line up of witnesses, I would say more likely than not that would have been a justified shooting.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/65412

2 ( +4 / -2 )

As Missouri violence continue, fingers point to outsiders

It is the outsiders that are prolonging the crisis in Ferguson. Turmoil always attracts opportunists. There are the ever present opportunists like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and the contemptible Eric Holder. Their concerns are self aggrandizement and their personal agenda's and not the safety of the individuals suffering under America's stagnated economy. They will further divide the country generate ever more distrust and hatred then move on to the next opportunity that their efforts will surely bring about.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

It was just released that the officer had sustained a fractured skull around the eye, plus numerous other injuries. It was also stated by witness' there at the time this man had rose with his hands in the air, the officer's pistol in one of them, shouting that he had taken the pistol from him before the officer drew his back-up weapon and shot him.

The 'actual' facts are being released that shows that man had robbed a store, assaulted it's owner plus a customer then walked outside with his friend that was with him inside and was jay walking across the street which is why the officer had stopped in the first place not know the store had just been robbed.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

SilvafanAUG. 20, 2014 - 10:23AM JST @MarkG

Having an attitude doesn't justify shooting an unarmed young man. People tend to believe if you don't follow the cops directions then they can shoot you. That also include some cops.

No, you get booked or charged with something but it isn't a license to kill.

Respect goes both ways!

Having an attitude is again an assumption. If the cop was 6'4" 280-300 lbs. and Brown was of normal stature it was likely not justified. But the other way around the cop felt terrified by the 6"4" big man aggressively approaching. IF he approached in a threatening manner.

Don't you read or understand this? Police are not gods, they are people who are trained and armed to protect citizens among other things and that includes themselves.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

MarkG: he was shot TWICE in the head, the one shot indicating he had surrendered and must have been on his knees LE back for the bullet to have gone in the top of his head. Bottom line.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Racism is taught by parents, the media, you name it. So what are we going to do? Blame it on the government? Point fingers? Start a riot? How about educating people of all backgrounds and cultures to start accepting each other as brothers and sisters of the human race? It can start with you and me. We're all human, we're all on the same planet, and we'll all die someday. And we had all better learn that heaven and hell are colorblind. (If you're going to talk about racism, make sure you mention everyone, not just one particular heritage that's been dealt wrong.)

3 ( +3 / -0 )

There is no such evidence.

Seriously, where do people get these stories from? It's almost insulting thinking the public is that naive!

Why do you think the store clerk was trying to stop this guy from going out?

Why did Michael Brown swat him away?

Why did he struggle with the police officer and try to grab his gun before running away?

Why did he then turn around and charge at the police officer?

If Michael Brown is the saint he is being made out to be, then his behavior is certainly bizarre!!

Excellent points, libs don't even think about questioning. Everyone is just making excuses that poor Brown was just gunned down for NO REASON WHATSOEVER and if he stole some cigars.....ahh, who cares, it's just a petty crime. The far left and their constant bias and excuses, would be funny if it weren't so serious.

@smith

he was shot TWICE in the head, the one shot indicating he had surrendered and must have been on his knees LE back for the bullet to have gone in the top of his head. Bottom line.

Yes, and we weren't there, to me it would indicate that Brown more than likely charged the officer, but if could be wrong, but it seems to be the more reasonable explanation.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Having an attitude doesn't justify shooting an unarmed young man. People tend to believe if you don't follow the cops directions then they can shoot you. That also include some cops.

Maybe you didn't hear about this but it was also said that Michael Brown may have bumrushed the officer and grabbed his gun which justifies a shooting armed or unarmed. If he was running away, a shooting is not justified. That's why cops carry taser guns.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

And if you protest the 6 shots into Brown, look into Police and defensive training methods. You try for a good shot placement and you stop the threat. 1 shot or 100! Whatever it takes to defend your perceived threat.

Latest info out of the area is that now the cop has eye injuries consistent with a beating. Again, people are going to say why didn't the cop use less than lethal methods and that is why we have inquiry boards. But to put it in perspective, just because someone is "unarmed" doesn't mean that they are not dangerous even if you have a gun. Case in point, last Friday, an LA county sheriff deputy was savagely beaten and kicked in the head by an unarmed assailant.

The deputy didn't get a chance to use his gun and as a result he was severly stomped in the head and is suffereing major wounds and may not be the same again. Luckily bystanders were able to pull the guy off the deputy and rescue him. So, if any of you on here were police officers, and knew things like this could happen to you would you be more concerned about the public "perception" of what would happen if you used deadly force, or would you want to be able to come home at the end of your shift alive and in good health? I would take the second choice.

So many times when police are involved we get the same,old drill on why was a gun used. In this case we will probably see that the cop took some of a beating and as I stated a case where a cop didn't use his gun and is in serous condition, you get a new perspective on this whole issue, and maybe those outside protestors need to go somewhere else and find something more to protest and loot.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

It is the outsiders that are prolonging the crisis in Ferguson. Turmoil always attracts opportunists. There are the ever present opportunists like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and the contemptible Eric Holder..

Is it true what they say that Al never worked a day, in his life And Momma, some bad talk goin' round town sayin' that Al had three outside children And another wife, and that ain't right Heard them talking ‘bout AL doing some store front preachin' Talked about saving souls and all the time reaching Dealing in dirt, and stealing in the name of the law Momma just hung her head and said... Al was a shyster... Son

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I think Jessie Jackson had some integrity in his early days. He had heart and passion for his cause. Then it seems he started to see himself as a new Martin Luther King, but was impatient with the progress his fame and prestige progressed. He seemed to lack the intestinal fortitude to expend the sweat and toil required to be seen as a person of integrity or greatness. He then sold himself out to the special interest groups and fringe causes like a politician. He as pretty much degenerated to an ambulance chaser and media whore, who plies the race card at every opportunity to get attention.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Bah! This situation is full of scumbags.

The police are playing with their little toys and looking like militants in the process. Machine guns on armored vehicles? Are you dumb? There is ample video of police officers arresting journalists who are doing nothing more than writing stories. The police officers are out of control.

On the other hand, we have the "gentle giant" who is obviously a local thug. The media is once again going out of their way to sanitize a minority to make the story more sensational. Believe it or not sometimes black people can be violent thugs.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I think Jessie Jackson had some integrity in his early days. He had heart and passion for his cause. Then it seems he started to see himself as a new Martin Luther King, but was impatient with the progress his fame and prestige progressed. He seemed to lack the intestinal fortitude to expend the sweat and toil required to be seen as a person of integrity or greatness. He then sold himself out to the special interest groups and fringe causes like a politician. He as pretty much degenerated to an ambulance chaser and media whore, who plies the race card at every opportunity to get attention.

You encapsulated and understand exactly what this man is all about, I couldn't have said it better myself. Spot on!

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

As Missouri violence continue, fingers point to outsiders

These are just trouble makers. They are different bleeds from the 60th Civil Rights activists who were mostly law students.

My brother was a law student in University of Indiana who was heavily involved in the Civil Rights Act movement. He went down to Alabama protesting against Gov. Wallace. Later my brother became a Honorable Judge for the State of Colorado for many years. These outsiders to Ferguson today do not share this quality in justice.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Sorry - I can't understand one thing - why six shooting ?

One is not enough to STOP the man ? When you shooting at point blank ?

In 90th after USSR collapsed - crime rate in Russia was VERY high (some sort of wild wild East)

But to shoot in the person for police officer - it was extremely rare occasion

And one shoot with hitting the target - it was always more than enough

6 shooting ?

Inability to use weapons ?

Low qualification of shooter ?

Psychological problems ?

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Olegek@The cop fired six bullets because that was the capacity of his revolver.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

GalapagosnoGairaishu

Yes, he shot the entire drum of revolver

Why ?

He is not owned himself ?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

smithinjapanAUG. 20, 2014 - 11:51AM JST

MarkG: he was shot TWICE in the head, the one shot indicating he had surrendered and must have been on his knees LE back for the bullet to have gone in the top of his head. Bottom line.

In his report to the Brown family and media, Dr. Michael M. Baden noted that the location of the wound to the top of Mr. Brown’s head could indicate that his head was bent forward when he was hit. In his words “It can be because he’s giving up, or because he’s charging forward at the officer.” Dr. Baden has given us two very plausible conclusions that can be drawn from the evidence. Very different in their implications, but at the same time, equally plausible.

Dr. Baden also stated that the two shots to Mr. Brown’s head would have caused instant incapacitation and were likely the last to wounds inflicted. The diagram, that Dr. Baden exhibited indicating the location of all the wounds, shows four injuries to Mr. Brown’s right arm; a grazing wound to the palm of his hand, a solid impact to his forearm, another grazing wound to his inner upper arm and finally another solid impact to his upper arm near his shoulder. What is telling about the wounds to his arm is that they all appear to be clustered in a relatively small area. The diagram shows a fairly large pattern but the diagram also shows the human form with the arm straight down at the side and palms forward. I doubt very much that Mr. Brown was in that position at the time of the shooting. But if his arm was bent at the elbow with his hand and forearm extended to the front, the pattern of his wounds starts to make sense. At least six shots, fired in rapid succession to roughly the same point of aim. One bullet after another all going into an area about the size of a large dinner plate. The combined shock and trauma of four rapid impacts to his arm, especially the one near his shoulder, would definitely have the capacity to rob Mr. Brown of the use of his legs and cause him to fall forward; bringing his head into the path of the fusillade that was being directed in his direction. Momentum would then carry Mr. Brown to the pavement face down, which was the position that he was in on everybody’s television screen. Of course this conjecture would only hold water if Mr. Brown was moving towards the police officer.

If you subscribe to the theory that Mr. Brown was shot in the top of the head while kneeling in submission; then the scenario above will gain no traction with you. But I think we all do a disservice to the truth if we are unwilling look at things in a way that challenges that, which we want to be true.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Dr. Baden has given us two very plausible conclusions that can be drawn from the evidence. Very different in their implications, but at the same time, equally plausible.

But there were five eyewitnesses to the shooting -- four of them independent -- whose stories match on a critical aspect. None of the five have Brown moving towards the police officer in any way resembling a "bum-rush." None of them.

All of them have Brown initially trying to run away with the cop chasing him, then as a shot is fired, Brown turns in the direction of the officer with his hands raised, and than a bunch more shots follow. As Brown realizes he's hit, he starts to go down and the bullets keep coming. The eyewitnesses don't have Brown moving towards the cop to any significant distance indicating an attack.

Two of the eyewitnesses were getting ready for work and didn't know Brown at all. They saw the entire event from the time Brown struggled to break free from the police officer's hold. So, why are these stories not being given consideration, when the "bum-rush" explanation isn't supported by any independent eyewitness?

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

But there were five eyewitnesses to the shooting -- four of them independent -- whose stories match on a critical aspect. None of the five have Brown moving towards the police officer in any way resembling a "bum-rush." None of them.

And likewise, there were a few people that saw something different from the officers perspective. Again, as protocol, the officer was debriefed that goes without saying, there are a lot of things that don't add up, the truth is somewhere in the middle I assume, but I will NOT go by and just go by the witnesses words without doing a formal investigation first. I'm not going to listen to an uncivilized rioters to impede a proper investigation.

Yabits, keep digging, dude. No one cares. The ONLY thing, ONLY thing that matters is what the police, the Grand Jury and the prosecutor and the ultimate investigation by the people that know and trained at this kind of work. I will leave it up to them and NOT a bunch of libs screaming they want justice for a thug, which was already determined. I have said it many times and I will say it again, Brown has NO ONE else to blame but himself.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

a lot of justifications,, each time the story starts between the black guy and the white cop at the end the black guy gets kill,, the American have seen this story several times.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

And likewise, there were a few people that saw something different from the officers perspective.

At this point, those "few people" are mythical. There is no evidence whatsoever that they exist. Why present this a fact, when it is not? The eyewitnesses who did come forward are on record -- and that is a fact.

the truth is somewhere in the middle I assume,

Four independent eyewitnesses say Brown made no rush whatsoever at the officer, with no independent eyewitnesses coming forward to claim otherwise. Several of them are seriously traumatized by what they witnessed. Your "assumption" is actually a hope. You don't want to believe this police officer took that young man's life in the manner that four independent eyewitnesses claim.

I'm not going to listen to an uncivilized rioters

Why would anyone? What is that about? The story of what happened is part of the community. The vast majority of them are peaceful and deeply concerned that justice be done in this case. They are correct (in Ta-Nehisi Coates' assessment) that the police are not accountable to them. The police would not have left one of their own, or any white person, laying on the ground with his brains splattered out for hours -- for the entire community to see.

he ONLY thing, ONLY thing that matters is what the police, the Grand Jury and the prosecutor and the ultimate investigation by the people that know and trained at this kind of work. I will leave it up to them...

No, that is the only thing that matters to you. I have no reason whatsoever to believe that these public officials can be counted on or assumed to perform their work impartially. There are equally good people who know the work and who will not be biased in favor of the police officer -- who should be providing oversight. Otherwise, they'll risk engineering the same gross miscarriage of justice as was done in the Zimmerman case of 2013. (Again, physical evidence that was overlooked or disregarded proved Zimmerman's version of the key event to be a total lie. It was he who assaulted Martin first.)

It is only because of the independent eyewitnesses -- the two women especially, who are intelligent and articulate -- that I believe this case will be very difficult for the organization that took Brown's life to turn in their favor. Not that they won't try to pull every dirty trick in the book to turn it.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

At this point, those "few people" are mythical. There is no evidence whatsoever that they exist. Why present this a fact, when it is not? The eyewitnesses who did come forward are on record -- and that is a fact.

But that's it, doesn't mean, that people believe them or take their word verbatim, that is also a fact.

Four independent eyewitnesses say Brown made no rush whatsoever at the officer, with no independent eyewitnesses coming forward to claim otherwise. Several of them are seriously traumatized by what they witnessed. Your "assumption" is actually a hope. You don't want to believe this police officer took that young man's life in the manner that four independent eyewitnesses claim.

Again, we shall see after the investigation is completed if their eyewitness is credible or relevant to the case.

Why would anyone? What is that about? The story of what happened is part of the community. The vast majority of them are peaceful and deeply concerned that justice be done in this case. They are correct (in Ta-Nehisi Coates' assessment) that the police are not ACCOUNTABLE to them. The police would not have left one of their own, or any white person, laying on the ground with his brains splattered out for hours -- for the entire community to see.

Brown wouldn't be the first to have that happen. Remember, I hope you know that after Brown was killed that whole street became a crime scene which would explain why his body was kept there on the street.

No, that is the only thing that matters to you.

No, justice is and you guys are not allowing that to happen.

I have no reason whatsoever to believe that these public officials can be counted on or assumed to perform their work impartially.

You have NO choice or say in the matter.

There are equally good people who know the work and who will not be biased in favor of the police officer -- who should be providing oversight.

See, you just assumed that I am on the cops side. This is exactly what I was talking about. Fairness ONLY works when liberals say it does.

Otherwise, they'll risk engineering the same gross miscarriage of justice as was done in the Zimmerman case of 2013. (Again, physical evidence that was overlooked or disregarded proved Zimmerman's version of the key event to be a total lie. It was he who assaulted Martin first.)

That is how YOU see it, but there are many people that think the exact opposite.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@GalapagosnoGairaishuAUG. 20, 2014 - 05:56PM JST

Olegek@The cop fired six bullets because that was the capacity of his revolver.

Rather he is a trigger-happy coward. Only a coward can shoot an unarmed civilian.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

I'm not going to listen to an uncivilized rioters to impede a proper investigation

Do you have any reason to believe that the eyewitnesses who said Brown was not moving towards the police officer when he was shot were uncivilized rioters?

I hope you know that after Brown was killed that whole street became a crime scene

What crime was committed, do you think?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

But that's it, doesn't mean, that people believe them or take their word verbatim, that is also a fact.

The question was this: Why bring up mythical eyewitnesses as though their existence was a fact? No independent witness has come forward to claim that Brown charged at the police officer.

Remember, I hope you know that after Brown was killed that whole street became a crime scene which would explain why his body was kept there on the street.

If a police officer was lying dead in the street with a shot to the head, the street would become just as much a crime scene. Are you claiming that an officer's body would be allowed to lay out there like that for hours?

No, justice is and you guys are not allowing that to happen. You have NO choice or say in the matter.

If i have no say in the matter, how could I possibly prevent justice from happening?

See, you just assumed that I am on the cops side.

I would never make any assumptions about you. I don't believe you even know which way is up. I make the assumption that the department and the justice system in that area will protect their own at all costs. There are hundreds of examples -- becoming more apparent with each passing week, thanks to the ubiquity of video-capable smart phones -- of police grossly abusing their authority and causing the death of or serious injury to innocent citizens. The actual number of successful convictions of police officers for these crimes is very small.

Remember: This is the police force we are dealing with. This case is every bit as relevant to their behavior as any other piece of evidence:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/15/the-day-ferguson-cops-were-caught-in-a-bloody-lie.html

That is how YOU see it, but there are many people that think the exact opposite.

That is how the physical evidence proves it. The altercation could not have happened where Zimmerman claims it did. He simply had to lie about that. People who've reviewed the findings have not been able to counter them; they are that conclusive. On the other hand, there are people who think that Zimmerman identified himself to Martin (when Zimmerman himself told the cops he never did). -- so what can be said about their basic ability to think?

The invention of the falsehood that a watch identified himself to a person he was stalking, or the invention of counter-eyewitnesses and presenting their existence as a fact are clear signs of bias. Then, this is followed by the sheer denial of bias -- a person who is completely blind to his own contradictions.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

But there were five eyewitnesses to the shooting -- four of them independent -- whose stories match on a critical aspect. None of the five have Brown moving towards the police officer in any way resembling a "bum-rush." None of them.

Three of the independent eyewitnesses also stated that Mr. Brown was shot in the back. The independent autopsy commissioned by the family and performed by Dr. Michael Baden concluded that all the wounds were received from the front. In direct contradiction to the statements given. Plus, an audio recording captured in the aftermath of the shooting has one, so far unnamed, eye witness telling another person that Mr. Brown was rushing at the officer when he was shot.

The eyewitnesses don't have Brown moving towards the cop to any significant distance indicating an attack.

What would you consider a “significant distance”? How far apart were they when the shooting started? How far away from the officer did Mr. Brown’s body finally come to rest on the pavement? I have seen some witness accounts that put the distance at around 20 feet when Mr. Brown turned towards the officer. I have seen other accounts that put Mr. Brown’s final resting place within 6 feet of the officer. If we take both accounts at face value they would indicate that Mr. Brown moved a distance of at least 14 feet in the direction of the officer.

So, why are these stories not being given consideration,

By whom? The mainstream media certainly has spent a lot of energy on them. The whole “hands up, don’t shoot” meme that has swept the US is a direct result of the intense coverage these eye witness accounts have received..

when the "bum-rush" explanation isn't supported by any independent eyewitness?

But is supported by the forensic evidence as revealed by Dr. Baden’s autopsy report.

Eye witness accounts, independent or otherwise, are best to be taken with a grain of salt. Just because a witness is deemed to be independent does not certify that what they say is unbiased and/or accurate. Do a Google search for “accuracy of eye witness accounts”

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Three of the independent eyewitnesses also stated that Mr. Brown was shot in the back.

You will have to supply a source for that claim. I have carefully listened to all of the reports. There is no way I would expect any eyewitness to determine, from a distance, if a bullet actually entered a person. The medical examiner, Dr. Baden, and forensic pathologist, Prof. Parcells, both agreed that one of the wounds could have come from behind. (The wound on the forearm. Why are you disregarding that part?)

Here is what an eyewitness could tell: That one of the shots fired by the police officer came when Brown was running away from the officer. In other words, "shot at while his back was to the officer." One minute of cross-examination of the eyewitness would establish that: "You say you saw the officer fire at Mr. Brown as he was running away. Could you tell if Mr. Brown had been struck by that bullet?" (More than likely, they would answer what most human beings would: "I couldn't actually tell, but just by the way he reacted by turning around I thought he might have been hit. But I'm not sure.") That would not change our scenario of what actually happened one iota.

Plus, an audio recording captured in the aftermath of the shooting has one, so far unnamed, eye witness telling another person that Mr. Brown was rushing at the officer when he was shot.

You are wrong. I have heard the recording. There is no word "rushing" in it. You are supplying that word -- for your own reasons. Without actually questioning the eyewitness, it is impossible to tell who is running towards whom. The eyewitnesses say the police officer was running after Mr. Brown. Furthermore, on that audio you tout, the man can be heard saying the man"got shot for nothing" -- or something close to that. If Brown was rushing at the officer, the eyewitness would not likely have said he got shot for nothing. And since Brown didn't have a gun, and the officer did not sustain a gunshot wound, the person "who got shot for nothing" was, in fact, Brown.

What would you consider a “significant distance”? How far apart were they when the shooting started?

The distances I have heard are 25-30 feet. I will not say "when the shooting started," but rather when the officer left his vehicle to chase the victim. The eyewitnesses have the officer pursuing the victim, so if Brown stopped and turned, and the officer kept coming, the distance would decrease. The key question is how far the officer was from his car when the final shots were fired. More than 10 feet would suggest that the officer was not in fear of being attacked, but was on the attack himself. Your view has the officer stationary, with Brown closing in -- none of the eyewitnesses support that.

By whom?

By the people who claim that the police have "more than a dozen" witnesses who claim that Brown rushed the officer. By the people who claim the convenience store video proves something when the owner never reported anything.

Eye witness accounts, independent or otherwise, are best to be taken with a grain of salt. Just because a witness is deemed to be independent does not certify that what they say is unbiased and/or accurate. Do a Google search for “accuracy of eye witness accounts”

When you get more than three eyewitness accounts that agree on the key points, it's time for the accused to get a very good attorney. The community that hears these correlating reports has every reason to get VERY upset. And four independent eyewitnesses concur that Brown turned with his hands up and the officer kept firing even after Brown went down in a position of surrender. All for jaywalking. All as a result of an officer that could not treat two young men on their own street with the slightest amount of courtesy.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

If a police officer was lying dead in the street with a shot to the head, the street would become just as much a crime scene. Are you claiming that an officer's body would be allowed to lay out there like that for hours?

Probably, I have been to numerous crime scenes and I can tell it's not like they take the body away within an hour, sometimes it takes the entire day or night depending on the circumstances. Once again, you are trying to make this a race issue when it clearly is NOT.

If i have no say in the matter, how could I possibly prevent justice from happening?

Because you are NOT a law official designated to investigate what happened at this shooting.

I would never make any assumptions about you.

But you did. You called me a White racist. I would call that not only an assumption, but an accusation.

I don't believe you even know which way is up. I make the assumption that the department and the justice system in that area will protect their own at all costs.

That is what you believe, but you have NO factual proof that they do. So you are just speculating.

There are hundreds of examples -- becoming more apparent with each passing week, thanks to the ubiquity of video-capable smart phones -- of police grossly abusing their authority and causing the death of or serious injury to innocent citizens. The actual number of successful convictions of police officers for these crimes is very small.

You are right and thank God we could see on the video that Brown was NOT the good boy people portrayed hime to be, he was the exact opposite a thief that had total disregard for the law and thought that his giant size would be a deterrent to anyone that got in his way, until he ran up against a couple of bullets that brought his demise.

Yabits, keep on digging.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Sorry - I can't understand one thing - why six shooting ?

I think he had a 9 mm, which holds more than 6 rounds. Shooting a gun is not all like you see on TV, if you keep squeexing, multiple rounds will be fired. One thing you have to admit, i fhe did receive a beating in the face that resulted in an eye injury and still was able to fire off shots and hit his target, that is good shooting. Good shooting from the standpoint that he was not just shooting blindly and hitting innocent bystanders who were in the area. He had hits wits about him enough to keep aim and shoot.

Rather you agree with the shooting or not, you have to admit that at least he didn't hit any bystanders. But that point will not be brought up, I say that becuase in CA during a bank robbery and shoot out, a hostage/bystander was kiled by gunfire from the police, and these cops were taking aim and had not been hit in the face. But, you can imagine that if a bystander was hit in this case, there would be more riots.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Probably, I have been to numerous crime scenes and I can tell it's not like they take the body away within an hour

You've been to a crime scene with a dead police officer? (Obviously not.)

Because you are NOT a law official designated to investigate what happened at this shooting.

LOL! One of the organizations I'm affiliated with trains law enforcement officers. We'll use cases like this as case studies.

That is what you believe, but you have NO factual proof that they do. So you are just speculating.

There's enough evidence to see what is happening. You are easily fooled.

Brown was NOT the good boy people portrayed hime to be, he was the exact opposite a thief that had total disregard for the law and thought that his giant size would be a deterrent to anyone that got in his way, until he ran up against a couple of bullets that brought his demise.

The 18 years of Brown's life is not portrayed on that video, if that is who it is. (And where is the store owner's view of it?) I'll log these comments as additional evidence of your perverted self-delusion to project what other people are thinking.

Rather you agree with the shooting or not, you have to admit that at least he didn't hit any bystanders. But that point will not be brought up,

Just when I think it can't be done, you outdo Uncle Ruckus.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Just when I think it can't be done, you outdo Uncle Ruckus

@ yabits: Why are you so concerned about Uncle Ruckus and me? the truth hurts, and though it may not be the "PC" thing to say, if this cop would have shot someone who had nothing to do with the incident, this whole issue woud really be over the top. As it is now, nothing is being sad about what the cop faced, and how he got off shots that like it or not hit the target.

I heard a few looters comments on interviews, and one struck me as shameful saying that they deserved the right to loot and take to show their frustration. This was a fellow black like myself. So if you think my speaking the truth is an example of me wanting to be an "uncle Ruckus" I guess the ramblings of some of the looters and their justification for stealing anothers property is akin to King and his speeches.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the truth hurts, and though it may not be the "PC" thing to say, if this cop would have shot someone who had nothing to do with the incident, this whole issue woud really be over the top.

Your "truth" does not hurt. It makes me laugh, it's so ludicrous. Imagine that: the fact that the cop didn't hit any bystanders is a "point" that won't be brought up -- as if we're all supposed to say "Well done!" over that, while killing an unarmed 18-year old kid who had surrendered.

My hope is that the Boondocks folks employ a webcrawler.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

as if we're all supposed to say "Well done!" over that, while killing an unarmed 18-year old kid who had surrendered.

Right now it is looking like your assessment will be proven to be wrong. Even the Lt Gov of MO is saying that the Gov is out of line with his assumptions, and the evidence is pointing towards that facts that the cop was attacked first and that it was self defense.

You don't seem to get the Boondocks point at all. Yes they characterize Uncle Ruckus, but if you look closely at all the characters and the issues brought up, you woud see that if this case is made into an episode, it would show the futility and stupidity of black people burning down and destroying their own businesses, following charlatans like Sharpton (whom he did an excellent lampooning in an episode).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Right now it is looking like your assessment will be proven to be wrong. Even the Lt Gov of MO is saying that the Gov is out of line with his assumptions, and the evidence is pointing towards that facts that the cop was attacked first and that it was self defense.

Brown was 25 to 30 feet away. How could he attack the cop? If he struck the cop and ran away to get to that distance, that's one thing. But that does not justify the use of deadly force under Missouri law. The cop lost control.

Look at your words: "evidence pointing towards that facts." It makes no sense at all. It's actually goofy. The Lt. Governor was not at the scene, and no witnesses have come forward to corroborate any version that has Brown charging the officer. Too bad for your side.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The Lt. Governor was not at the scene, and no witnesses have come forward to corroborate any version that has Brown charging the officer. Too bad for your side.

@ yabits: It's not about sides. And besides the Gov was not there and he thinks the cop should be prosecuted. By the way, the people there now are saying that the county prosecutor should step down from this case. Why? Because when he was a kid back in the 50's his father (a cop) was shot by a black criminal and killed. They think that he will be on the side of the cop and try to block prosecution. Funny, that has never been brought up in the many years that he has been the Prosecutor, yet now, in this case it is an issue.

This case is developing to be more about political agendas than finding out what really happened. I post up statements and conjecture based on the evidence presented, and all you and your type do is realize that when the facts may be against what your agenda will be, out comes the names and usual banter. By the way, the Dem Gov of MO is at odds with the Dem prosecutor that I mentioned. Good to see some differences of opinions in the MO Dems and not that they are all just in lock step with no minds of their own.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites