Autopsy shows Missouri teen shot 6 times, including twice in head; unrest continues

The cop and the PD both need to get good lawyers, cuz the cop is going to jail, and the family will sue the pants off the PD. It's only right.

US police can be opretty brutal. Even at a banal level, just need to watch some of those cop shows (the reality ones) to see how in your face policing is in the states.

What this article doesn't tell about the autopsy report you is that none of the shots were to his back. Four of the six shots entered his right arm from the front, two shots entered his head. Here's the report...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/us/michael-brown-autopsy-shows-he-was-shot-at-least-6-times.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

I guess the eye witness (whom I believed 100%) was mistaken about Brown being shot in the back.

People complain about how slimy and lazy police are in japan, but that's nothing compared to the thug-like gang that is the US police force. All they want is power over people and if you refuse to give it to them, they go off just like this officer did. Absolutely reprehensible that they still have NOT arrested this blatant murderer. Even if brown literally jumped IN his car and started strangling the officer, even THEN it couldn't explain those bullet wounds... Nothing can... Arrest the trash.

Cop may or may not be convicted, but ... he was banged on the head, and may plead confusion, as to why so many shots ... google 'police firearms training "keep shooting" ' and you will get a lot of versions of "Once police turn to their guns, protocol is to aim for the chest or head and to keep shooting until the threat is removed".

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=2213&issue_id=102010

Handling Officer-Involved Shootings

Multiple Shots

The FBI study In the Line of Fire: Violence against Law Enforcement—A Study of Felonious Assaults on Law Enforcement Officers shows that 41 percent of officers who fired in the study hit their intended targets, and the average distance to the target was 21 feet.4 Although this is a limited study, these averages are fairly consistent with the multiple shooting data available.

During court proceedings concerning an officer-involved shooting, the number of rounds fired by the officer or officers involved will be released to provide full disclosure. Grand juries often question why numerous rounds were fired. It is important, especially in handgun shootings, to show that (1) immediate incapacitation of the target with handgun rounds is not a reliable factor, even if there is a direct central nervous system shot; and (2) direct shots that cause lethal blood loss are also not immediate. There is sufficient oxygen within the brain to support full, voluntary action for 10 seconds to 15 seconds after the heart has been destroyed.5 A determined individual who has received a fatal shot may continue to function because of adrenalin, sheer emotion, or stimulants in their system. Law enforcement personnel are taught to shoot at center mass and to continue until the threat is removed. Under stress, it is difficult to fire accurate shots that strike vital organs, and, in the average shooting, less than half of the shots fired hit the intended target. As the distance increases, more shots may be fired by officers to compensate for decreased accuracy.

Bullets do not physically knock people to the ground. Jury participants often have limited weapons knowledge or experience and base their perceptions on novels, TV shows, or movies in which the hit ratio is high and bodies fall violently after being shot. It is important to explain that a fired round’s impact on the body is no more than recoil from the weapon. Sir Isaac Newton proved this in the seventeenth century with his hypothesis: for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. To stop a determined threat, multiple rounds are often needed. To stop shooting also causes a delay because the officer’s senses must send a message to their brains to stop the physical movement of trigger pulls.

but that's nothing compared to the thug-like gang that is the US police force

There is no such thing as "the US police force". Police forces are all local. The US federal law inforcement agencies are the FBI, the U.S. Marshal's Service as well as some specific crime related services like the INS and ATF.

People complain about how slimy and lazy police are in japan, but that's nothing compared to the thug-like gang that is the US police force.

That was a very offensive statement! I have a brother who is a police officer and I know for a fact, the majority of police are NOT thugs! Yes, you do have your over zealous, idiots, but you have that everywhere, but the majority of police are good people, maybe you had a bad experience with them or got into some trouble with the police in the States perhaps?

All they want is power over people and if you refuse to give it to them, they go off just like this officer did.

No, they want you to comply and if you don't, they have every right to use means to get you to disperse. They represent the law and if the cop tells you to go, then you go, if you get pushed or shoved, that's your own fault. I don't understand why libs have such a problem with authority.....No, wait..I do.

Absolutely reprehensible that they still have NOT arrested this blatant murderer. Even if brown literally jumped IN his car and started strangling the officer, even THEN it couldn't explain those bullet wounds... Nothing can... Arrest the trash.

Again, we don't know this! Guilty until proven innocent, if the officer killed him in cold blood, the facts will come out and then we will let the justice system take it's course and he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law or maybe There was more to what happened in the altercation between the cop and Brown and the officer had reasonable cause and fear for his life, then again, that would change things. The public can't think they are going on torch and pitchfork vigilante hunt and think that they will prevail over the police, IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN!

@sensei258

I guess the eye witness (whom I believed 100%) was mistaken about Brown being shot in the back.

Yes and no. Remember that more than 6 bullets may have been fired, not all of them hitting Michael Brown. The police have not said how many shots were fired from the gun but police were removing bullets from the walls at the apartment complex after the shooting. So I think the most the eyewitness is intending to say might be that shots were fired at Michael Brown at the time his back was turned (Since the witness couldn't definitively know which bullets struck him and which did not).

This is pure armchair speculation, but it could make perfect sense... he's running away, officer can't get an accurate first shot and misses, Brown turns around and stops after the first shot is fired, officer unloads 6 more shots very closely spaced shots (4 on the right arm) on a stationary target.

This is pure armchair speculation, but it could make perfect sense... he's running away, officer can't get an accurate first shot and misses, Brown turns around and stops after the first shot is fired, officer unloads 6 more shots very closely spaced shots (4 on the right arm) on a stationary target.

Right, no one though wants to look at that probable possibility. This is another scenario that could have happened.

No, they want you to comply and if you don't, they have every right to use means to get you to disperse. They represent the law and if the cop tells you to go, then you go, if you get pushed or shoved, that's your own fault.

It's a free country pal.

Whether you know it or not (and you should know) you have a right to stand where you please and the cops don't have blanket authority to tell you to move or get lost.

Legally, if they don't have a warrant and you've committed no crime, they have no authority to tell you to leave a certain area or move or whatever.

Police are servants of the people and the rights of the people are absolute.

anyway this guy had a history of crime and he just robbed somebody when he step out and was confronted by a police officer....

@erbaviva

Other than video that just came out, there was never any record of Michael Brown doing anything wrong. Whether or not his has done something wrong before is anyone's guess.

What history are you talking about?

Yes and no.

No, just no. He was not shot in the back, plain and simple. Shots may have been fired when he had his back to the officer, but the fact remains he was not shot in the back. None of this exonerates the officer (or convicts him) in any way, but it does call into question the eye witness' statement.

Legally, if they don't have a warrant and you've committed no crime, they have no authority to tell you to leave a certain area or move or whatever.

So many armchair lawyers, so little knowledge.

I agree 6 shots shouldn't be needed.

Q: Didn't the Cop have a Tazer/Stun gun?

Can't comment more till more data is available, also surprised there had to do a 2nd autopsy.

Tazers is for whites, boy. Don't want to waste no 'lectricity on them other "folk"....

Odds of the officer, who shot an unarmed teen over a confrontation that happened because two Black teens were walking on a public road, are almost certainly zero (even with direct video evidence of the use of excessive force by an officer against an unarmed citizen, aquittals are the norm) Odds of effective police reforms coming out of this incident (changes in training and practices to reduce the likelihood of confrontation between officers with a sense of a need to establish total dominance in an interaction and a population with a sense of being oppressed and harassed by officers) are also almost certainly zero.

a state rep murdered an unarmed citizen, plain and simple. Could of used non lethal proven to be effective, force. Citizens in prisons are also murdered, custody of the state.

The state must be held accountable. One shot was one too many. Six? whats going on here?

Looting, rioting, is not acceptable, but neither is murder by the state. Insane.

5petals: "The state must be held accountable. One shot was one too many. Six? whats going on here?"

Yeah, including TWO to the head!! Unbelievable!

It's a free country pal.

Free doesn't mean you can do as you please. There are always rules and consequences to a persons actions..

Whether you know it or not (and you should know) you have a right to stand where you please and the cops don't have blanket authority to tell you to move or get lost.

Oh, yes, they do and if the officer feels that there is enough reason to make you leave and tells you to go, you go, if not, he can use reasonable force and if you don't like it, later, you can always file a report, but if you go against a cop and think that you can push and prevail against the officer, I will say, only if you carry a firearm, but then you would get thrown in prison.

Legally, if they don't have a warrant and you've committed no crime, they have no authority to tell you to leave a certain area or move or whatever.

True, but you can sort all that out if you feel that the officer violated your civil rights and police DO sometimes make the wrong call and some idiotic decisions, but if you don't want to escalate any situation, just follow their instructions and file a former complaint later.

Police are servants of the people and the rights of the people are absolute.

Yes and they also carry a firearm and you should never give a cop ANY reason to threaten you with it. Believe me, I totally agree with you on every point, but I just can never understand people that try to defy the police, it never ends well and I think cooler heads prevail, rather than bucking the police, it just never works, it just brings more cops to help bring about order.

This is just terrible at every level.

I agree 6 shots shouldn't be needed.

Then you need to be in a potentially life threatening situation sometime.

Police are not taught to shot once and then wait to see if that one shot was enough. The decision to use their gun should mean that they feel a life is in danger and thus they are taught to keep firing until they are sure the threat has been neutralized.

Mike.

I have been in such situations both during my service and private.

We were taught to double-tap or a 3 shot burst with out automatic weapons.same as we were trained never to fully empty a clip.

I have had a number of family members work in law enforcement, and have known many people who worked in same. Many were/are very honorable and respectable, and some were/are socio-pathic thugs. Many law enforcement agencies attempt to screen out those who are most inclined to blatant, reckless violence, but there is a difference between the attempt and what is actually accomplished.

I remember some events from my own youth, back during the protests for civil rights, and against the Vietnam War. Protests started out peaceful, but two things happened that contributed to their turning violent. First, many sheriffs and police needlessly turned violent against citizens exercising peaceful civil disobedience. There is a normal human reaction to want to respond to violence with violence. It is not easy to take a beat down from a socio-pathic cop and not want to respond in kind, but that is what one has to do, if one follows the teachings of Dr. Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi.

Secondly, reports of demonstrations and violence act as magnets to those in society who are looking to make trouble. I was disgusted by the arrival of non-students who were drawn to reports of demonstrations for the intent of causing violence.

So far as we ever found out, there was only one student killed during our demonstrations. He was trying to stop the setting of fires by non-students, some policemen came upon the scene in a pickup truck, and a rookie cop shot him dead while still riding in the bed of the pickup that was carrying the police. This story came out years later, reported in the very conservative, establishment newspaper of the area. The policeman in question was made to resign from the force, without prosecution, and that was the extant of justice for the willful killing of a young man who was trying to stop violence and the setting of fires.

If the officer can prove he was a threat after each shot he was justified. 4 shots in the arm and he still approaches leaves you with not many choices. IF indeed he was threatened by Michael Brown. Again, I am not supporting the actions but the TRUE FACTS are not all in. Earlier today it was 8 shots and some in the back. You cannot trust witnesses who don't like law enforcement.

The rioters, looters, and shooters in Furgeson are scum! Ever changing facts leave lots of questions. They are no better than the officer if he actually was overreactive. Judges, juries, and penalizing the community and law enforcement. .......and they don't know the truth!

I would also like to point out that I have known law enforcement officers who tried to prevent brother officers from committing wanton violence, and I have known officers who bragged about beating up civilians. I also personally knew a very young, good cop, married and with kids, who was shot in the back and murdered by a felon from Down South.

Life and the truth are not simple, and blanket statements are likely to cover up as much truth as they reveal, but the recent trend toward increased violence among local American law enforcement agencies is troubling.

This execution was carried out in broad daylight on a Saturday afternoon. Little kids could have witnessed this, and we don't know if any did.

Let's suppose I'm a citizen cleaning my rifle in my front room on that Saturday, and I see two neighborhood kids (whom I recognize) walking down the street as I've seen many times before. Suddenly, I see a cop car stop near them, the guy inside yelling something and then start to drive on. (I'm quickly getting my rifle ready now, just in case.)

Then, just as suddenly, he puts the car in reverse and swings it crossways to block traffic and tries to confront the bigger of the two without getting out of his vehicle. I see a scuffle and then the big guy starts to run away with the officer shooting and then getting out of his car. (My window is open and I'm bringing my loaded rifle to take aim.)

There are about 10 feet now between the suspect and the police officer, and the suspect is on his knees with his hands (clearly no weapon) raised in the air. The officer aims his weapon and fires another shot. (It is the last shot he'll ever get off.)

Why is it the cop is guilty until proven innocent?

Again, I don't know how it all went down. Neither do you! It is not unreasonable to accept the cop was justified.

When the investigation concludes we can judge.

@yabits: Then you would be charged with murder. But this was not the case the officer was responding to an APB something you would not know in your scenario. It is conjecture like yours that has brought about the rioting and looting we see now. Using emotion vice logic in this case will only incite rash actions. I find it equally interesting that you would make such a conjecture based on your previous posts on JT on how you are opposed to guns and those who have them and how they should be banned.

This was not a case as you described, but a police incident that got out of hand. Interesting how when the facts start to come out, therightous indignation tends to shift from the local case to the overall relationship between police and blacks. Nevermind that a young man made a foolish decision and it cost him his life, and some responsibility needs to be placed on his actions as well as the cops.

Equally interesting is how now some are saying J-cops are not all bad and "gung ho" as US cops yet these are the same who say that they didn't do enough to stop a crazed stalker but only gave them a chat before they wind up killing their victim.

I find it equally interesting that you would make such a conjecture based on your previous posts on JT on how you are opposed to guns and those who have them and how they should be banned.

Ape, you have allowed yourself to bamboozle yourself again. You are confusing me with someone else.

Then you would be charged with murder.

I would accept the charge and plead my case before a jury of my peers. The Michael Brown case just made it easier to win mine. (Actually, the case I had in mind was the helicopter gunner in Vietnam who turned his gun towards his own troops, threatening to fire on them to get them to stop slaughtering women and children at My Lai. He was vilified for years, but eventually given a medal. It often takes many years for cooler heads to prevail and for most people to come to see the right thing. People who are easily bamboozled may never see it.)

But this was not the case the officer was responding to an APB something you would not know in your scenario.

It would not matter one bit. If I saw a cop getting ready to fire upon someone from 10 feet away, if that someone is on his knees with his hands raised, and I have the power to stop him, that's it. At the point before the evil starts, both lives are precious to me. But once one of them gets ready to take the life of a person in the circumstance I described, he's done. A higher power would hold me accountable for witnessing what I did and not taking the action I did to save a life. That's all there is to it. The young suspect might have made a mistake, but the police officer is about to make a very big mistake.

This was not a case as you described, but a police incident that got out of hand.

You don't know that. It's the way the witnesses described it. And I am using their report to paint a hypothetical scenario with me as a witness to it, with a loaded rifle in my hands.

to the overall relationship between police and blacks

I purposely left out color in my scenario. A citizen in America has to accept the possibility that a government agent could seriously harm another citizen -- those whom they have sworn to protect and to serve. Accepting that possibility means mentally and physically preparing for it, should the time arise.

What we are witnessing now are the adherents of a corrupt system scrambling to defend it. It's the system that has to win -- justice be damned for innocent victims of it.

There are those who think nothing of killing another human being not even in a war zone, whatever the crime. An endemic problem in a developed (?) nation with an endemic gun culture.

@It's ME

We were taught to double-tap or a 3 shot burst with out automatic weapons.same as we were trained never to fully empty a clip.

And if they're still charging at you?

As sensei258 pointed out, the autopsy shows that Brown was not shot while his hands were in the air in a "surrender" position. The autopsy (requested by the Brown family) supports the officers' description of the events far more than it does the witness testimony, especially that given by Brown's accomplice in the robbery.

My suspicion is that Brown was shot while charging the officer. That would fit the shooting pattern, the number of shots fired, and even the shot in the top of the head (probably the last shot fired, where the trigger was being pulled just as Brown was falling as he was finally succumbing to the other five shots).

Typically, charging someone who is pointing a gun - or shooting - at you is the behavior of someone who is under the influence of a drug. But I don't think the autopsy revealed anything in Brown's system, and he didn't have Arizona Iced Tea or Skittles in his pockets.

I have been in such situations both during my service and private.

Oh, so even though none of us know what the situation was, you know you have been in such situations.

We were taught to double-tap or a 3 shot burst

Isn't a double-tap different than a 3 shot burst? So which were you trained to do? And what were you trained to do if that double-tap or 3 shot burst didn't stop the threat?

we were trained never to fully empty a clip.

And do you know that the officer in this case fully emptied his clip? Also if you were so trained then what were you trained to do if firing every round except the last one in your clip didn't stop the threat? I mean you were trained not to empty the clip, so what were you trained to do at that point?

I may be wrong but police are not supposed to aim for the head. They aim for the body to stop someone that is coming at them. He may have hit him in the head once by accident - but twice? Makes me wonder if he was in a panic. He better have a good explanation for this. I do not like at all the idea of a policeman shooting more than a few shots to stop someone. They should fire once or twice then re-evaluate. This guy seemed panicked. I've got a problem with that.

We hold policemen to a high standard - thats what makes the job hard. It's also why policeman are generally respected. But they are human and can make a mistakes. If he made a mistake he will have to pay for it. I still don't see anything racial about this incident yet. Time will tell when more evidence comes out. The policeman's past - like the black teenagers robbery of the store and intimidation of the clerk - is relevant. If the cop has a history of proven racial incidents he has a problem. We haven't heard any of that at this point.

Why 4 shots into one arm, 2 shots into a thigh/leg would stop him and .

It would not matter one bit. If I saw a cop getting ready to fire upon someone from 10 feet away, if that someone is on his knees with his hands raised, and I have the power to stop him, that's it

@ yabts: There is a report that among the bystander videos, a conversation was captured between two people on the shooting. To sum it up, the witnesses state that Brown was running away and then turned back on the cop (after the altercation in the car). So if he was hit and kept coming, then it would be reasonable for the cop to continue to shoot for self defense. Just take a look at the case in FL where a man was so high on bath salts that he withstood multiple shots and tazers before being taken down. I admit that the cop in question had no way to determine if this was the case with Brown, and that is up to a board of inqury to find out, but if I were a cop in that situation, I would want to make sure that I came home and not wound up dead if someone was coming after me after they had been shot.

You and others (not only here but in the US media) are trying to change the narrative and make this shooting fit a certain agenda. Black kid vs.white cop. However, facts are starting to come out that shows that there is more to the story than would fit the original story and the more we find out, the more it may look like it could be ruled justifiable. Where are the riots when there is black on black, or brown on black (i.e. the war not reported in LA among the black and latino gangs that have seen many innocent blacks killed for just being in an area)? But let a white cop shoot a minority, and a city burns.

Again, many on here will be quick to blast the US cops as being too agressive, and say that they should be more like the J-cops, but they are the same ones who will berate the J-cops when they do nothing to stop a stalker and he kills a victim. Criminals don't play by the rules. Not saying that this guy (Brown) was a criminal, he may have just had a wrong "moment" to go off the rails but it cost him. Sad to say, that is what happens. In the USA as a black man I am fully aware of the hazards even I face if stopped by the police. Is it right, probably not but you learn to deal with it just like the foreigners here in Japan do. Case in point, I have seen many Japanese men take a "whizz" in public, accepted behavior. On the other hand, I have seen Sailors arrested by J-cops and turned over for doing the same thing. Is that fair, probably not, but that's just how the game is played here and there, and it is wise to learn how to play the game.

This execution was carried out in broad daylight on a Saturday afternoon. Little kids could have witnessed this, and we don't know if any did.

You failed to mention the video tape of this gigantic thug, because now we know that is what he was, grabbed the case of cigars, didn't pay. Pushed the store owner out of the as if he was a rag doll and causally walked out. Mistake number 1. He set his own self up for his downfall, so it WAS basically HIS fault, his actions are what got him in the situation.

Let's suppose I'm a citizen cleaning my rifle in my front room on that Saturday, and I see two neighborhood kids (whom I recognize) walking down the street as I've seen many times before. Suddenly, I see a cop car stop near them, the guy inside yelling something and then start to drive on. (I'm quickly getting my rifle ready now, just in case.)

You don that (thought you hated guns...whatever) and see what will happen, I guarantee you, I know who'll win that one and it won't be you sadly.

Then, just as suddenly, he puts the car in reverse and swings it crossways to block traffic and tries to confront the bigger of the two without getting out of his vehicle. I see a scuffle and then the big guy starts to run away with the officer shooting and then getting out of his car. (My window is open and I'm bringing my loaded rifle to take aim.)

You are painting a typical exaggerated Al Sharpton hypnosis of what MAY have happened, again people like you are part of the problem, with your constant speculation.

There are about 10 feet now between the suspect and the police officer, and the suspect is on his knees with his hands (clearly no weapon) raised in the air. The officer aims his weapon and fires another shot. (It is the last shot he'll ever get off.)

And then you will either be dead yourself, locked up for life on 23 hour lockdown or on death row. That would be your call and your choice how to bow out of society assuming you fire at a peace officer.

@night knight

Come on, bud ! The unarmed guy got 6 (six) bullets and you are telling us fairy tales about "good guys in police" ? If not thugs, who are they? Angels, maybe?

Brown was definitely a thug who thought, F*** da police! He thought he was above law and could do whatever he wanted. Wrong move! Now I'm not on anyone's side, but with more of the evidence coming out, it looks, again, from the optics, it looks like the officer MAY have had reason to fire 6 shots. Regardless, the truth will come out sooner or later and until then, I will withhold my judgement until then.

@bass4funk and old hawk

Michael Brown was only hit six times. The police officer shot more bullets than six. They were also pulling bullets out walls and trees at the scene.

This would support the witnesses who claim he was being fired on as he was running away and might have been hit in the back. It would also support getting hit in the arm as he turned to surrender and the cop was still firing. When he turned around and raised his arms, the shots could have hit his arms and upper torso causing him to drop to knees or bend over. That would explain the shots to the top of his head.

No one runs as afar as they can from bullets then turn around to charge them as they are still firing. It was more likely he was giving up after being fired upon. No gun powder was found on his body, but most of his wounds were on exposed parts of the body from wearing a t-shirt. He was definitely hit at a distance. The witnesses said 20 feet.

There were reported to be a dozen witnesses. Three have been in the media. They have all claimed to have seen similar events. Despite Dorian's suspect testimony, at least some of what he said must be true.

To sum it up, the witnesses state that Brown was running away and then turned back on the cop (after the altercation in the car). So if he was hit and kept coming

I saw the video. Witnesses agree that Brown turned back towards the police officer and his car as his initial sign of surrendering himself. There is no evidence or witness testimony that says he turned on the police officer at that point -- at least none that supports the out-of-control officer's alleged report. That is folks speculating again. Witnesses say he dropped to his knees with his hands raised. I just watched the news conference with Dr. Baden and the forensic pathologist -- they say that the wounds are consistent with witness reports.

The first of the two head wounds, which was at the hairline and exited the right eye socket before entering at the shoulder, would have probably stopped Brown if he was coming at the officer. (And it's consistent with witnesses who say he had his hands up before being hit and kneeling forward with hands down on the pavement.)

You and others (not only here but in the US media) are trying to change the narrative and make this shooting fit a certain agenda.

Different sides are doing it. Your speculation that Brown might have been on something -- bringing up the bath salts as you did. The same thing was done in the Trayvon Martin case -- speculating that black people don't drink tea or eat candy, but mix it up into some drug. Until the medical report came in that Martin wasn't on any drugs that night, nor was there evidence of any drug another than marijuana use no less than a few days prior.

Not saying that this guy (Brown) was a criminal, he may have just had a wrong "moment" to go off the rails but it cost him

The witnesses contend that it was the cop who went off the rails. I've seen angry whites dealing with folks they consider beneath them and not worthy of their respect.

You failed to mention the video tape of this gigantic thug, because now we know that is what he was,

That is certainly what he was to white racists who are afraid of him. If he really wanted to, he could have put major hurt on the store owner. Unlike Trayvon Martin, Brown didn't play football. He was certainly big enough and folks tried to get him to play -- but all report that he was too timid for the game, and so he never played. We're supposed to believe the white supremacists' take on it and not that of the people who knew him? Oh right, they're all Black and always lie.

I guarantee you, I know who'll win that one and it won't be you sadly.

One fewer out-of-control cop, I guarantee you, in that scenario. Wouldn't even know what hit him. Winning means the young kid he tried to murder is wounded, but still alive.

And then you will either be dead yourself, locked up for life on 23 hour lockdown or on death row. That would be your call and your choice how to bow out of society assuming you fire at a peace officer.

When lawmen break the law, then there is no law. I fear only the Almighty. If saving a life means taking out someone witnessed in the act of firing into a person on his knees and surrendering, the fact they are wearing a uniform means nothing. Take a good look at the people you perversely call "peace officers." Full military gear, out to slaughter the public. Violent crime rates at the lowest levels in decades and these "peace officers" are hiding behind more layers of armor. Cowards don't deserve a lot of respect.

Brown was definitely a thug who thought, F*** da police!...He thought he was above law...I will withhold my judgement until then.

Yes, here you are again presuming you know what people think. Listen to yourself. You're not withholding judgment at all. Citizens have to consider the possibility that some whites are completely deranged and out of control -- that they claim to know what black people are thinking to give them justification to kill them.

And what gets overlooked? Continually?? The fact that this so-called "peace officer" never attempted to initiate the contact with two jaywalkers with an ounce of respect or friendliness, but with just the opposite. It was the cop who was rude and out of control, and spoiling for a confrontation. Wilson was acting "thuggishly" at the point this whole thing started. Some "peace officer."

Everything is so premature. I don't understand why anyone (especially the rioters in Ferguson, and even the posters here) could draw so many conclusions based on so little knowledge of what happened. That's what sucks about this whole thing. And do you know who is driving this whole "Guilty until proven innocent" notion? ....that's right; the victim's family, their lawyer, and the media.

@Alphaape

You and others (not only here but in the US media) are trying to change the narrative and make this shooting fit a certain agenda.

I would agree, but the narrative more often than not doesn't favor the Black victims depending on which station or website we are talking about. Just like the police department posting video at the same time as releasing the cops name. However, the is a narrative or pattern shows that White criminals and suspects get better treatment in the media than Black victims.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/14/media-black-victims_n_5673291.html

@Educator60

The autopsy report also showed the location of the wounds. Most of the wounds were to exposed areas of the body like lower arm and top of the head. Remember he was wearing a t-shirt, so there is a good chance he was shot at distance like the 3 witness claim. They said about 20 feet.

@bass4funk

Brown was definitely a thug who thought, F*** da police! He thought he was above law and could do whatever he wanted. Wrong move! Now I'm not on anyone's side, but with more of the evidence coming out, it looks, again, from the optics, it looks like the officer MAY have had reason to fire 6 shots. Regardless, the truth will come out sooner or later and until then, I will withhold my judgement until then.

Wow, I didn't know you read minds! You really know a lot about the personality and thinking of someone you never met before! Other than this recent incident, I don't believe there were any prior incidents of him saying f;&( the police or him being a thug. Stereotype much?

Why 4 shots into one arm, 2 shots into a thigh/leg would stop him and .

That statement shows a complete lack of firearms training.

This would support the witnesses who claim he was being fired on as he was running away and might have been hit in the back.

It would support him being fired at as he was running away, but the autopsy arranged for by his family shows he WASN'T hit in the back.

No gun powder was found on his body

Yeah, that means 4 feet away or so, also since as you agree he was wearing a shirt no residue on his body doesn't mean much at all.

No one runs as afar as they can from bullets then turn around to charge them as they are still firing.

Unless they figure they have a better chance rushing the shooter rather than getting shot in the back.

When he turned around and raised his arms, the shots could have hit his arms and upper torso causing him to drop to knees or bend over. That would explain the shots to the top of his head.

Or he turned around to rush the officer and the shots hit his arm (the autopsy doesn't show any shots hit his torso) and just like a football player he lowered his head when charging. That would explain the shot to the top of the head, again the autopsy shows a single shot to the top of the head, the other head wound was not to the top.

We can speculate all day and come up with a thousand possiblities, some that support one side, some that support the other. But it is a waste of time as speculation gets things no closer to what really happened.

at least some of what he said must be true

Why MUST some of what he said be true? And even if some of it is true, why couldn't it be the parts that support the officers story?

There is no evidence or witness testimony that says he turned on the police officer at that point

Well except the video tape that records a witness saying he turned and charged back at the officer.

Don't be fooled by all the hot air about the riots.

The police in Ferguson are out of control. They continue to threaten journalists covering the unrest:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/08/18/officer-appears-to-threaten-cameraman-covering-chaos-ferguson/

This is so bad, fricken Amnesty International is sending in observers. A rare event indeed, more akin to boing to Sudan, East TImor or Bagdad. " Riot police," pointing loaded weapons at Americans from gun turrets and tooling about on armored vehicles that can resist f%$& landmines. This is America?

Even some crazy right wingers get this don't play in Peoria.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/cruz-ferguson-killing-tragic-110010.html

Paul explicitley linked the oppression and police outrages to race,

Yeah, race. Rand Paul.

But none the Republicans here have enough guts to overcome their racism and tell it like it is.

We don't know the order of the shots. Also waiting for the CSI report after they did their reenactment of the incident.

@mike o brien

Well except the video tape that records a witness saying he turned and charged back at the officer.

You misunderstood his point. There was no evidence that he turned around to charge the police officer. Simply he turned around. Once again supporting the witnesses statement. Notice I said witnesses not witness.

Why MUST some of what he said be true? And even if some of it is true, why couldn't it be the parts that support the officers story?

Obviously, if both sides say the same thing then yes it could support the police officers side. No no one doubted or debated that point. You are not really making any point here. We are talking about the differences in testimony.

It would support him being fired at as he was running away, but the autopsy arranged for by his family shows he WASN'T hit in the back.

At the press conference, Dr. Baden emphasized that one of the wounds to the arm could have come from a bullet fired from behind Brown. It could also have come to a raised arm, or an arm placed in a position to protect his face.

I don't understand why anyone (especially the rioters in Ferguson, and even the posters here) could draw so many conclusions based on so little knowledge of what happened.

They are not conclusions, they are speculations. The vast majority of people in Ferguson who are angry over this are not rioters. They do not trust the same system that allowed this cop to kill this kid to supply them with the facts regarding this matter. And with good reason, based on what happened in Sanford, Florida.

And do you know who is driving this whole "Guilty until proven innocent" notion? ....that's right; the victim's family, their lawyer,

Oh, those evil people who want justice, and are unwilling to accept that justice was delivered to their son on that street. Until all the facts are in the officer should be a suspect. That's right, a suspect. As a suspect, being considered legally innocent does not mean that charges can't be filed against him. The sooner, the better.

They do not trust the same system that allowed this cop to kill this kid to supply them with the facts regarding this matter.

So they are going to trust a lawyer and the media who will jump at anything little chance for a story? I can understand that they don't trust the local police force, but that's why the FBI is involved.... but they are still investigating.

Until all the facts are in the officer should be a suspect. That's right, a suspect. As a suspect, being considered legally innocent does not mean that charges can't be filed against him. The sooner, the better.

That would be true if this were considered to be a homocide case. But right now, amidst all this chaos and buzz created by people who weren't even at the scene, which only adds to the confusion, that is the first thing the FBI needs to figure out; whether this was a homocide, or an officer acting in the line of duty.

So they are going to trust a lawyer and the media who will jump at anything little chance for a story? I can understand that they don't trust the local police force, but that's why the FBI is involved.... but they are still investigating.

Listen to yourself, won't you? The FBI would never have gotten themselves involved if the community and media didn't rise up and put this story front and center. (The FBI initially declined the request to get involved.)

That would be true if this were considered to be a homocide case.

And who initially decides whether or not it's a possible homicide case? That's right, the same local government trying to protect its own. We're talking a possible homicide case.

How often are jaywalkers executed in broad daylight? I consider an unarmed man being shot six times and twice to the head to be an execution. For jaywalking.

At their initial meeting, did the officer act like a public servant and show even the slightest bit of respect to the two young men? According to one of them, the officer cursed them out. That's how this "peace officer" chose to initiate these events, which ended up in his eventually killing the unarmed young man. Blowing his brains out on his own street. There's no speculation about that.

How often are jaywalkers executed in broad daylight? I consider an unarmed man being shot six times and twice to the head to be an execution. For jaywalking.

Be as inflammatory as you want. He wasn't shot for jaywalking or for stealing cigarillos. It was for fighting a cop.

In the article below, a witness is caught on background audio describing what he saw, soon after the event, and a friend of the cop describes what the cop told her about the incident.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2727321/Conversation-recorded-bystander-just-moments-Michael-Brown-shooting-casts-doubt-claims-teen-surrendered-Officer-Darren-Wilson.html

Previously unnoticed audio from a video recorded in the chaotic moments after Michael Brown's fatal shooting last Saturday in Ferguson, Missouri, could help back up Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson's version of events.

Overheard while one man films the gruesome aftermath of Brown's daylight shooting, the barely discernible audio is of one unseen man recounting the alleged version of events that he saw to another man, off camera, while bystanders scream and shout at police to assist the stricken 18-year-old.

Begins at 6:28/6:29 of video. Man 1: 'How’d he get from there to there?' Eyewitness: 'Because he ran, the police was still in the truck – cause he was like over the truck. But him and the police was both in the truck, then he ran – the police got out and ran after him. Then the next thing I know he doubled back toward him cus - the police had his gun drawn already on him.' Man 1: 'Oh, the police got his gun' Eyewitness: 'The police kept dumpin on him, and I’m thinking the police kept missing – he like – be like – but he kept coming toward him (crosstalk). Police fired shots – the next thing I know – the police was missing.' Man 1: 'The Police?' Eyewitness: 'The Police shot him' Man 1: 'Police?' Eyewitness: 'The next thing I know … I’m thinking … the dude started running … then something about he took it from him'

While this version of events does not match most of the eyewitness accounts, it does seem to tally up in a small part with the account of what occurred given by a friend of Wilson.

'He pulled up ahead of them. And then he got a call-in that there was a strong-arm robbery. And, they gave a description,' said the friend in an interview with Josie on The Dana Show.

'And, he’s looking at them and they got something in their hands and it looks like it could be what, you know those cigars or whatever. So he goes in reverse back to them. Tries to get out of his car. They slam his door shut violently. I think he said Michael did. And, then he opened the car again. He tried to get out. He stands up. And then Michael just bum-rushes him and shoves him back into his car. Punches him in the face and them Darren grabs for his gun. Michael grabbed for the gun. At one point he got the gun entirely turned against his hip. And he shoves it away. And the gun goes off. Well, then Michael takes off and gets to be about 35 feet away. And, Darren’s first protocol is to pursue. So, he stands up and yells, 'Freeze!# Michael and his friend turn around. And Michael taunts him… And then all the sudden he just started bumrushing him. He just started coming at him full speed. And, so he just started shooting. And, he just kept coming. And, so he really thinks he was on something.'

Be as inflammatory as you want. He wasn't shot for jaywalking or for stealing cigarillos. It was for fighting a cop.

Be as moronic as you want. When unarmed, and realizing the cop is armed, it's hard to fight him from 20 feet away.

The "barely discernible" audio.... Does it come with an interpreter?

'He pulled up ahead of them. And then he got a call-in that there was a strong-arm robbery. And, they gave a description,' said the friend in an interview with Josie on The Dana Show.

Do you know how readers can tell this is a lie? Because the chief of police admitted that the robbery played no part in the officer's actions. Try again, turbotshat.

My heart goes out to the poor family of the slain young man. What an unimaginable tragedy. But I do not think the officer shot in cold blood. It sounds like he panicked when faced by unexpected violence in a routine encounter. Either way it is an awful tragedy.

yabits:

20 feet away, and advancing. The cop doesn't have to wait for him to complete the distance to start shooting.

Does it need an interpreter? Multiple articles are reporting this, including Daily Mail. They said "barely discernible", not "we needed an interpreter".

All of a sudden you're believing the chief of police? On this one point, because it agrees with you? Anyway, the police chief changed his story.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/15/ferguson-missouri-police-michael-brown-shooting/14098369/

August 15, 2014 ... In an afternoon press conference, Ferguson, Mo. Police Chief Thomas Jackson said Wilson did not initially make a connection between the robbery and Brown,whose death spurred violent protests and unrest in the St. Louis suburb over the past week.

Wilson stopped Brown and a friend because "they were in the middle of the street, blocking traffic," Jackson said.

Hours later, however, Jackson told a slightly different story to CNN and NBC, saying that Wilson noticed Brown was carrying a box of cigars that had been reported stolen. Wilson, he said, initially stopped Brown for blocking traffic, but as he began driving past Brown, he noticed Brown was holding cigars.

At that point, Wilson "made the connection" that Brown might have been involved in a theft that had just been broadcast on police radio, Jackson said.

How often are jaywalkers executed in broad daylight?

In my entire life I have never heard of a single case. And that includes this one.

I consider an unarmed man being shot six times and twice to the head to be an execution.

I don't. Excessive use of force or an unjustified shooting I could agree with but execution, no. If Mr. Brown was in custody and the officer put one in the back of his head then I would agree; but nothing I have heard so far would suggest that was the case.

For jaywalking.

Mr. Brown was approached by the officerwhile walking down the middle of the street with a companion, a series of events ensued that resulted in Mr. Brown being fatally shot. The exact nature of those events has yet to be clearly verified. So to state unequivocally that Mr. Brown was summarily executed by the police officer for the act of jaywalking is a logical fallacy.

Regardless of Brown's jaywalking or strong-arm robbery, once he got into a physical altercation with the officer he became subject to treatment under this statute. Attempting to grab an officer's weapon is likely a felony in Missouri and in any event can get you killed most anywhere. Note the "AND"s and "OR"s in the statute.

Missouri statute on law enforcement officer's use of deadly force:

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/chapters/chap563.htm

563.046. 1. A law enforcement officer need not retreat or desist from efforts to effect the arrest, or from efforts to prevent the escape from custody, of a person he reasonably believes to have committed an offense because of resistance or threatened resistance of the arrestee. In addition to the use of physical force authorized under other sections of this chapter, he is, subject to the provisions of subsections 2 and 3, justified in the use of such physical force as he reasonably believes is immediately necessary to effect the arrest or to prevent the escape from custody.

The use of any physical force in making an arrest is not justified under this section unless the arrest is lawful or the law enforcement officer reasonably believes the arrest is lawful.

A law enforcement officer in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody is justified in using deadly force only

(1) When such is authorized under other sections of this chapter; or

(2) When he reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested

(a) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony; or

(b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon; or

(c) May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.

The exact nature of those events has yet to be clearly verified.

Yeah, and why is that?

Over one week ago, an American was shot by police. And that department has not told us their version of the events.

One week.

Do you know how long after a shooting the officer must file a report of the incident? No more than one day.

And yet, here we are, NINE DAYS after the killing. And still no official version of the events.

Yeah, why is that?

Yabits: What Kuya 808 said.

Mr. Brown was approached by the officerwhile walking down the middle of the street with a companion, a series of events ensued that resulted in Mr. Brown being fatally shot. The exact nature of those events has yet to be clearly verified. So to state unequivocally that Mr. Brown was summarily executed by the police officer for the act of jaywalking is a logical fallacy.

Yabits, I am not for or against the officer in question. I am waiting for the smoke to clear and the truth to come out. All I'm saying is that if the victim's family wants justice, they could do so without all of this publicity (which just ignites the mob mentality of some people). Instead, they've turned it into a drama, or a circus of distractions, which probably will end up making the truth come out later than sooner.

And yet, here we are, NINE DAYS after the killing. And still no official version of the events. Yeah, why is that?

"St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Bob McCulloch said a grand jury could begin hearing evidence in the case as early as Wednesday to determine whether Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson will face criminal charges." http://news.yahoo.com/ferguson-live-updates-115432700.html

Prosecution attorneys delay reports often. We don't know if is them or the police delaying a report. Can't assume it to be issued immediately with all the controversial events and reports.

I hope the police weren't in the wrong here. I also have sympathy for an 18 yo man and his family. Both likely were wrong in how then handled themselves. Who was wrong in the eyes of the law is what is important here.

As for the protestors. Wait for the facts! Keep it peaceful and don't lot anymore stores or burn them down. The POTUS has made comments on this case. And you know Holder wants an investigation. Let the investigation proceed.

Over one week ago, an American was shot by police. And that department has not told us their version of the events.

Actually, at 10:00 am on August the 10th. (the day after the shooting incident) St. Louis County Police Chief Joe Belmar stated in a news conference that Mr. Brown physically assaulted the officer in question and during the struggle reached for the officer's gun. One shot was fired inside the police vehicle followed by more shots outside the vehicle.

That was the police department's version of events, given less then 24 hours after the shooting took place. Quite obviously, that was not what a lot of people wanted to hear; but that was what they said.

I'm sure that the legitimacy of the Ferguson police department's initial statement will be revealed (one way or another) by the on going investigations at the State and Federal level; and therefore will reserve my condemnations until I hear more of the facts.

Listening to the latest news, The Brown family has admitted that it was Brown in the store video stealing the cigars. This is very key for a few reasons.

Up until then, he was shoplifting and under MO law, a crime but not a felony. However, once he shoved the shop keeper, it became in effect a "strong armed robbery" and a felony. The responding cop, may not have known this at the time and he was only reacting to the situation that he was confronted with. But, Brown knew what he had done and probably knew if caught, he would face tougher charges.

Hypothetical I admit, but it does cause some concern. We will never know if that is what he thought of at the time, but it does raise some doubts.

@Alphaape

You and others (not only here but in the US media) are trying to change the narrative and make this shooting fit a certain agenda. Black kid vs.white cop. However, facts are starting to come out that shows that there is more to the story than would fit the original story and the more we find out, the more it may look like it could be ruled justifiable.

The only narrative I see getting played is mostly from the conservative side and police side. Like bass4funk, they are pushing a narrative that he was thug, so it was ok to kill him. Look at the picture being promoted in the conservative media. They are showing a picture of Joda Cain a convicted criminal and saying it is Michael Brown to spin a narrative you are talking about.

Are they trying to ruin his image? Why would they need to if he is guilty?

Are they just saying all Black people look like?

http://www.inquisitr.com/1418488/ferguson-michael-brown-shooting-video-may-support-bum-rush-claim-video/

@JTDanMan

And yet, here we are, NINE DAYS after the killing. And still no official version of the events.

I agree the police need to publish the incident report. I understand that this is a huge event but they need to get their act together.

@Kuya

Actually, at 10:00 am on August the 10th. (the day after the shooting incident) St. Louis County Police Chief Joe Belmar stated in a news conference that Mr. Brown physically assaulted the officer in question and during the struggle reached for the officer's gun. One shot was fired inside the police vehicle followed by more shots outside the vehicle.

That is just a statement for the press without any details. That is not the police report.

@Alpha

The responding cop, may not have known this at the time and he was only reacting to the situation that he was confronted with. But, Brown knew what he had done and probably knew if caught, he would face tougher charges.

It's obvious that his robbing of the convenience store 15 minutes before encountering the policemen would influence Brown's behavior. He would have assumed that the clerk called the cops and that he was being pursued. He knew he wasn't just an innocent bystander. His behavior is irrational in the sense that he did not seek to avoid the police. He actually invited attention to himself by walking down the middle of the street right after robbing a store. You've got to wonder what Brown was thinking?

@yabits

I saw the video. Witnesses agree that Brown turned back towards the police officer and his car as his initial sign of surrendering himself. There is no evidence or witness testimony that says he turned on the police officer at that point -- at least none that supports the out-of-control officer's alleged report. That is folks speculating again. Witnesses say he dropped to his knees with his hands raised. I just watched the news conference with Dr. Baden and the forensic

Did you also watch the video of him STEALING the cigars?

The first of the two head wounds, which was at the hairline and exited the right eye socket before entering at the shoulder, would have probably stopped Brown if he was coming at the officer. (And it's consistent with witnesses who say he had his hands up before being hit and kneeling forward with hands down on the pavement.)

So now the person that hates guns is an expert on guns and firearms in general?

You and others (not only here but in the US media) are trying to change the narrative and make this shooting fit a certain agenda.

Very true.

Different sides are doing it. Your speculation that Brown might have been on something -- bringing up the bath salts as you did. The same thing was done in the Trayvon Martin case -- speculating that black people don't drink tea or eat candy, but mix it up into some drug. Until the medical report came in that Martin wasn't on any drugs that night, nor was there evidence of any drug another than marijuana use no less than a few days prior.

Martin was on a you don't tell me S*** trip! Thugs like him and Brown think they can buck the system and therefore they have a right to get into the cops face or any person with a higher authority.

Not saying that this guy (Brown) was a criminal, he may have just had a wrong "moment" to go off the rails but it cost him The witnesses contend that it was the cop who went off the rails. I've seen angry whites dealing with folks they consider beneath them and not worthy of their respect.

Of course Brown was a criminal, if he were not, then he would have paid for those cigars.

You failed to mention the video tape of this gigantic thug, because now we know that is what he was, That is certainly what he was to white racists who are afraid of him.

So if a Black person calls him a thug what does that make him? An Uncle Tom?

If he really wanted to, he could have put major hurt on the store owner. Unlike Trayvon Martin, Brown didn't play football. He was certainly big enough and folks tried to get him to play -- but all report that he was too timid for the game, and so he never played. We're supposed to believe the white supremacists' take on it and not that of the people who knew him? Oh right, they're all Black and always lie.

All the more reason the store owner should have had a gun and shot him, has nothing to do with color I know you libs want to make it always about race or skin color. It's obvious libs are the ones that are racists. I have heard more racism and intolerance from liberals than any other group.

When lawmen break the law, then there is no law.

And when people rob and loot there is no law, you failed to mention that as well.

I fear only the Almighty. If saving a life means taking out someone witnessed in the act of firing into a person on his knees and surrendering, the fact they are wearing a uniform means nothing.

So then let's all break the law and have anarchy! Sodom and Gomorrah!!

Take a good look at the people you perversely call "peace officers." Full military gear, out to slaughter the public. Violent crime rates at the lowest levels in decades and these "peace officers" are hiding behind more layers of armor. Cowards don't deserve a lot of respect.

And from your rants, this is why cops have to ensure their safety as well, while doing their duty, but you say they get no respect. As a cop, if I know you are going to or you would try to take me down, I have a family, I'm going to make sure, my kids will see me, that you can rest assured!

Yes, here you are again presuming you know what people think. Listen to yourself.

But you know what the officer was thinking? Yabits, come on now!!!

You're not withholding judgment at all. Citizens have to consider the possibility that some whites are completely deranged and out of control -- that they claim to know what black people are thinking to give them justification to kill them. And what gets overlooked? Continually??

It goes both ways, Yabits.

The fact that this so-called "peace officer" never attempted to initiate the contact with two jaywalkers with an ounce of respect or friendliness, but with just the opposite. It was the cop who was rude and out of control, and spoiling for a confrontation. Wilson was acting "thuggishly" at the point this whole thing started. Some "peace officer."

The cop doesn't have to ask Brown nicely, he stole the cigars he broke the law, he made his bed and now he's dead, yeah, the cop could possibly be guilty, maybe, but Brown is ultimately responsible for his own demise, had he not done what he did, he would still be alive, bottom line.

Are they trying to ruin his image? Why would they need to if he is guilty?

I don't think any conservative media is trying to ruin his image, but to bring out what may have caused his actions. Let's look at the cop in this case. What is the first thing that was asked whenever a cop is involved in a shooting? What was his past service record like? Did he have a histroy of excessive violence towards minorities and were charges filed against him and had he been suspended for brutality? Those are legitimate questions to ask, that could lead to some conclusions on his actions and character.

So why is it wrong to bring into question Brown's character. At first, the media narrative was that he was just an innocent bystander, on his way to start technical school the next week and he was gunned down in the street by the cops. Now we are finding out that he did have some issues in his past that may have caused some question to his intentions. That's not smearing him, just bringing up facts on his life. Could they be related to this case, possibly. But it is not out of bounds to bringit up as to trying to determine his chracter at the time. After alll, they are doing it with going into this cops background.

@Silvafan:

Michael Brown was only hit six times. The police officer shot more bullets than six. They were also pulling bullets out walls and trees at the scene. This would support the witnesses who claim he was being fired on as he was running away and might have been hit in the back.

It does no such thing. The only thing it confirms is that some of the officer's shots missed Brown. You know what would prove he was shot in the back? Bullet wounds entering his back. Two autopsies so far, and neither have shown that.

When he turned around and raised his arms, the shots could have hit his arms and upper torso causing him to drop to knees or bend over.

Face the mirror and raise your arms over your head, surrender-style. What do you see? The backs of your arms. Also, none of the shots hit Brown's torso. How are you making these arguments after the autopsy reports?

It was more likely he was giving up after being fired upon.

He was standing still and hit in the arm and head? Police officers are trained to shoot for center-mass. (Carry permit holders too, from my personal experience.) Twenty feet, no movement from the target, and the target is 6'4" and 300-lbs? Who could miss that?!?

Meanwhile, how many blacks have been killed by other blacks in Chicago or LA since this shooting? And none of the race-hustlers show any concern or are trying to do anything about it. Not Obama, Holder, Sharpton, Jackson, anyone on MSNBC, or JTDanMan.

Personally, I'm not even sure that was Brown because the guy in the store was wearing shorts but the photo of Brown dead face down shows him wearing longer pants?

@ zichi: Brown's family has admitted that it was him in the video. It has been reported.

Of course Brown was a criminal, if he were not, then he would have paid for those cigars.

@ bass4funk:Earlier in this thread, yabits mentioned to me I need to seek mental help since I could not stand behind the likes of Brown to protest police brutality. Obviously he needs to do a bit of reading on the Civil Rights movment, specfically with the Rosa Parks incident. Rosa Parks was not the first person who was "sick and tired of being sick and tired" when she made her actions of sitting in the whites only section of the bus, but she was someone Rev. King and the movement could get behind. An upstading citizen, no problems with the police in the past, and she presented a clean image. Seeing that type of person as well as seeing children having dogs and fire hoses turned on them helped them to win the image war.

Looking at this case, a young man, who is caught on video stealing a box of cigars to use in the smoking of pot (still illegal in MO) is not what I would call a poster image of fighting the cuase for police brutality. Not saying he should be just guned down in the street, no one deserves that, but he is not a role model. I can understand that when this all started, tempers were hot and some protests could be justiied (not the lootin) but now that we have seen more evidence and have a better understanding, I think that it is time for these trouble makers to leave and let due process occur.

A tragedy that a young man lost his life, but this is not a case of just some rouge cops shooting at a black person.

@oldhawk

It does no such thing. The only thing it confirms is that some of the officer's shots missed Brown. You know what would prove he was shot in the back? Bullet wounds entering his back. Two autopsies so far, and neither have shown that.

Bullets don't only enters someone's back!

You probably didn't see the news conference last night or morning in the US with the Doctors who did the autopsy. They specifically said on TV that some of his wounds in his lower arm could have been made while being fired on from behind and/or while raising his hand to surrender.

Which means it would support the claims of the witnesses!

@Oldhawk

Meanwhile, how many blacks have been killed by other blacks in Chicago or LA since this shooting? And none of the race-hustlers show any concern or are trying to do anything about it. Not Obama, Holder, Sharpton, Jackson, anyone on MSNBC, or JTDanMan.

Lets's take a look at your weak argument or "false equivalency"! Read carefully so you can understand, ok?

On a regular basis I am attacked with false comments about the idea of “Black on Black Crime.” It’s here on Japantoday, the “NEWS,” the comment section of…well, everything. Two days ago I saw a comment that read “The greatest enemy of the Black man is the Black man.” The best part? This was written in the comment section of a story about some racist guy posting racist anti-Obama signs.

I will provide the readily available links for those that are to lazy to do their own homework. Yes, I am talking to you Mr & Mrs. Racist who speaks without knowledge. Let’s get started, shall we?

Are Black people killing off other Black people? Yep, we sure are. Only problem is, so are white people. 1980-2008 Homicide Stats (Pg 13).

Who’s Killing Who:

84% of white homicide victims were killed by white people 93% of Black homicide victims were killed by Black people

Those numbers are pretty darned close, don’t ya think? Now before you do something silly like try to point out that Black people are doing it more, let me point out that these are the percentages of total crimes committed by race on race homicide. What does this have to do with anything? Well, white homicide accounts for over 50% of all homicides over this survey period. Still confused? Okay, there are far more white people being killed. Although the white on white homicide percentage is slightly lower, the actual number of murders is much, much higher. This makes sense of course since white people make up a larger percentage of America, right? Wrong. You have to take two things into account, one- the number of white people being murdered is almost three times that of Black people. When you look at 84% of that number, you’ll see that although the percentage of Black on Black homicide is slightly higher, white on white homicide numerically is more than double that of all Black homicides, not just Black on Black but all of it put together. Two- The fact that there are more white people shouldn’t really be taken into account here. At least not for those that love to point to “Black on Black” crime as proof that Black people are animals. The fact is, even if America were 99% white, if there was a race that were truly superior, the crime rate would be low no matter how many there were, right?

Let’s keep it moving. Now, we look at crimes of violence (Table 42).

Total Number of Victims:

White- 2,788,600 Black- 570,550

There are those pesky numbers again. Those who may still be confused about my above statements might be able to see more clearly in this section.

Crimes of violence:

White on white- 67.4% Black on Black- 64.7%

Interesting huh? I’ll take this opportunity to fully explain what I was saying above. We see here that once again, the percentages are fairly close. However, let’s look at how this percentage breaks down numerically.

The Breakdown-White People:

Total number of white victims = 2,788,600. Total percentage of white on white violent crime = 67.4% Total number of white on white violent crime victims = 1,879,516.4

The Breakdown-Black People:

Total number of Black victims = 570,550 Total percentage of Black on Black crime = 64.7% Total number of Black on Black crime victims = 369,145.85

Let’s break this down a little further:

There are approximately 225,720,713 white people in America There are approximately 40,755,128 Black people in America

That breaks down to 1 in every 120.095 white people has committed a violent crime against another white person. While 1 in every 110.403 Black people has committed a violent crime against another Black person.

The really interesting thing is that in the same table that provided this information, you can also see the full breakdown of other crimes. Interesting fact- white on white violent crime heavily outweighs Black on Black violent crime. While Black on Black robbery and petty thievery far outweighs white on white robbery and petty thievery.

So tell me, why are Black people continuously being portrayed as violent animals?

@Alphaape

I don't think any conservative media is trying to ruin his image, but to bring out what may have caused his actions.

Really?! You honestly believe that using the image of another person smoking, drinking, holding a gun with Michael Brown's name underneath is really trying to find the truth in this situation.

In fact, the person in the picture is not Michael Brown but Joba Cain who was arrested in 2013. Did you even look at the link provided above?

The witness's video has finally been released not with the help of the police. 1.) Notice how the police had the video but refused to release it at the same time as the Michael Brown video and officer's name. 2.) Notice how she thought he was hit from behind. Doctor already said in the news conference the injuries on his arm support that claim. Check it out:

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

Now we are finding out that he did have some issues in his past that may have caused some question to his intentions.

According to Alphaape's train of thought, the same can be said of the Ferguson Police's shady past. Check it out:

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

Fact: In a report leaked to the press this week, records show that while Whites make up nearly a third of Ferguson’s population, they account for only 12.7% of stops made by the police department last year. In comparison, African-Americans made up 93% of arrests following car stops, despite the fact that Whites have been noted as more likely to actually contain contraband upon being searched. African-Americans were also more likely to be assigned tickets than their White counterparts within Ferguson, with Hispanics following behind in the number of citations and warrants issued. It was also reported to not be an outlier.

So now the person that hates guns is an expert on guns and firearms in general?

Nope. It's what the medical examiner (Dr. Baden) and forensic pathologist (Prof. Parcells) pointed out after doing the autopsy of Brown. Got that?

Martin was on a you don't tell me S*** trip!

You conveniently forgot to mention you were 100% wrong about your claim that Zimmerman identified himself to Martin in any way.

But you know what the officer was thinking? Yabits, come on now!!!

Wrong again. I never claimed to know what the officer was thinking.

Excessive use of force or an unjustified shooting I could agree with but execution, no.

To a person in the neighborhood looking out their window and seeing a man on his knees with hands in the air being continuously shot until he leans forward -- probably to get into a prone position -- and receives two final shots to the head, it would appear as an execution. Excessive use of force which leads to the death of a person is murder.

For all the talk of "black-on-black" crime, Brown's murder was the first one in Ferguson this year.

As for the theft of the cigars and the pushing of the store clerk, neither of those is a capital offence. Brown, being as big as he was, was probably well-known in the neighborhood. The clerk may have seen him in the store before. Anyway, it should have been relatively easy for a couple of officers to pick him up without killing him. As Ta-Nehisi Coates writes:

Among the many relevant facts for any African-American negotiating their relationship with the police the following stands out: The police departments of America are endowed by the state with dominion over your body. I came home at the end of this summer to find that dominion had been. This summer in Ferguson and Staten Island we have seen that dominion employed to the maximum ends—destruction of the body. This is neither new nor extraordinary. It does not matter if the destruction of your body was an overreaction. It does not matter if the destruction of your body resulted from a misunderstanding. It does not matter if the destruction of your body springs from foolish policy. Sell cigarettes without proper authority and your body can be destroyed. Resent the people trying to entrap your body and it can be be destroyed. Protect the home of your mother and your body can be destroyed. Visit the home of your young daughter and your body will be destroyed. The destroyers of your body will rarely be held accountable. Mostly they will receive pensions.

It will not do to point out the rarity of the destruction of your body by the people whom you pay to protect it. As Gene Demby has noted, destruction is merely the superlative form of a dominion whose prerogatives include friskings, detainings, beatings, and humiliations. All of this is common to black people. All of this is old for black people. No one is held accountable. The body of Michael Brown was left in the middle of the street for four hours. It can not be expected that anyone will be held accountable.

We are being told that Michael Brown attacked an armed man and tried to take his gun. The people who are telling us this hail from that universe where choke-holds are warm-fuzzies, where boys discard their skittles yelling, "You're gonna die tonight," and possess the power to summon and banish shotguns from the ether. These are the necessary myths of our country, and without them we are subject to the awful specter of history, and that is just too much for us to bear.

Black people are not above calling the police—but often we do so fully understanding that we are introducing an element that is unaccountable to us. We introduce the police into our communities, the way you might introduce a predator into the food chain. This is not the singular, special fault of the police. The police are but the tip of the sword wielded by American society itself. Something bigger than Stand Your Ground, the drug war, mass incarceration or any other policy is haunting us. And as long we cower from it, the events of this week are as certain as math. The question is not "if," but "when."

@Oldhawk

And none of the race-hustlers show any concern or are trying to do anything about it. Not Obama, Holder, Sharpton, Jackson, anyone on MSNBC, or JTDanMan.

LOL! Don't let Metaphile's pesky facts get in your way!

In fact, the person in the picture is not Michael Brown but Joba Cain who was arrested in 2013. Did you even look at the link provided above?

@ biglittleman: Not talking about that picture. If the media made a mistake they need to own up to it. But the family of Brown has said that it was him in the store video.

The witness's video has finally been released not with the help of the police. 1.) Notice how the police had the video but refused to release it at the same time as the Michael Brown video and officer's name.

At least the Ferguson PD waited and released it dur to FOI requests. The video shows Brown doing a wrong act. If they would have just put that out at first, it would seem like that it would have been a smear tactic to shift focus. But delaying, they had time to verify with family and in fact announce that it is him. Seems like good police work in trying to get the right evidence out.

There was a witness video released today, shot by Piaget Crenshaw, but it was started after the shooting so only shows the aftermath, including Wilson pacing around.

(The article at link below says "presumably Wilson"; it does look like photos of him from another article.)

http://www.ibtimes.com/new-video-mike-brown-shooting-released-witness-paiget-crenshaw-they-killed-him-1661840

The store owners may feel they have to say that in order to continue living in an area under curfew and riots.

Didn't his family, his family's lawyer, and his mate Dorian Johnson already say Brown and Dorian were the men in the store video?

News now says Ferguson store owners are guarding their own stores, having been abandoned by the police.

Store in neighboring Dellwood was looted (CCTV vid shown of looters). City thought highway patrol would be guarding Dellwood but they were next door in Ferguson.

http://fox2now.com/2014/08/18/business-owners-cleaning-up-after-another-night-of-looting/

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/385561/ferguson-business-owner-police-prevented-me-returning-my-store-while-it-was-being

“As far as I know my business is burning down, I’m getting calls from the alarm left and right, you got to get here, you got to get here,” he says. “They [the alarm company] called the police. The police said, ‘We cannot come help you because it’s not our job anymore. We got kicked out.’”

@Alphaape

Not talking about the picture. If the media made a mistake they need to own up to it.

I have noticed. You probably will not talk about the other article about the Ferguson Police force lying or the statistics about their arrest record. Very convenient, right?

If the media made a mistake they need to own up to it.

A mistake by the conservative media, right? Because they are the only ones pushing that narrative, it is quite convenient when conservative outlets make these convenient "mistakes". Knowing full well most people can't unsee what has alreDy been seen.

At least the Ferguson PD waited and released it dur to FOI requests. The video shows Brown doing a wrong act. If they would have just put that out at first, it would seem like that it would have been a smear tactic to shift focus. But delaying, they had time to verify with family and in fact announce that it is him. Seems like good police work in trying to get the right evidence out.

Yeah, then why didn't they release the witnesses video at the same time as the others. The witness has stated she gave it to the police on the same day as the incident. That video was also requested to be released at the same as the others. Therefore, you are saying the police are choosing which request to fulfill, but they all fall under the FOI act. That doesn't make a sense! It supports the speculation that the police did do it as a smear tactic to shift focus. Just like the picture you are choosing not to talk about.

The witness finally had to finally release it on her own today.

https://tv.yahoo.com/news/michael-brown-shooting-witness-releases-video-knew-not-143600436.html

You mean this police department! Like bass4funk, you can't make assumption about Michael Brown based on his past without doing the same for the police department. The information you choosing not to talk about like their arrest history or the link below.

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

I have noticed. You probably will not talk about the other article about the Ferguson Police force lying or the statistics about their arrest record. Very convenient, right?

@ Silvafan: You are making my point. I said that for a cop shooting, the first thing people will do is look into the background of the cop, to see if he had a history of excessive force. They did with the cop in this case, and with the Ferguson PD. I have no problems with that. But what I have a problem with is that when wants to apply the same scrutinty to the victime, it is taboo. If Brown was as pure as the driven snow, then of course his past would be brought up and used by the media as an outrageous act by the police to kill a truly innocent person. But looking at the past and incident leading up to the shooting, it appears that he was not what they were reporting him to be. Still no cause for him to be shot, unless he was doing something that would do harm to the officer, and that is what a board of inquiry will determine.

People need to understand that sometimes the truth will not be what you want it to be. If it comes out that the cop had a history of excessive force and was not justified in the shooting, then he should be held accountable. If not, then people need to face up to the fact, brown was shot due to his own actions, and that the rioting and looting was just an act put on by people who really had no interest in the welll being of the area and just out to cause mayhem.

@Alphaape

But what I have a problem with is that when wants to apply the same scrutinty to the victim, it is taboo.

My point is you are claiming to be fair about the incident. Yet you keep avoiding or downplaying the fact that the scrutiny you are describing as being fair involved the Police holding back information as a smear tactic to change the focus and only the conservative media using false images to show the same narrative as the police about Michael Brown.

Where is your outrage with that? The issues at the heart of this "same scrutiny" you are swearing by is the Ferguson police have lied and mistreated Black suspects in the past, withheld certain information for their advantage, and the conservative media putting up false images of the victim.

Has the proponents for Michael Brown done the same? Are people posting false images of Darren Wilson in KKK attire on major media outlets? Are people lying about the report discussing the Ferguson arrest records towards Blacks? Are people in the court records lying about when the Ferguson police arrested the wrong man, realized they arrested the wrong man, arrested him anyway, filed false charges against him, beat him, and lied about all of it?

Where is your sense of fairness in that, again?

Q Silvafan: If the police held back the video from the store showing Brown, that would make the protestors seem me rightous than the cops. Why should they release anything before they have had a chance to thoroughly go through and sift all the evidence. Wouldn't that be fair to do if you are going to send someone to trial over this? One would want to make sure that the is "beyond a reasonable doubt" that evidence suggested that the cop did wrong.

But in this case, they held on, and the evidence will show that they cop may (I say may) have been justified and the rioters and looters are wrong. Why rush to judgement without the facts.

@Metafile:

On a regular basis I am attacked

You mean "confronted with"? Please lay off the hyperbole.

This was written in the comment section of a story about some racist guy posting racist anti-Obama signs.

How are the signs racist? Why is there no link? I'm not lazy, but geez, the internet is huge.

Are Black people killing off other Black people? Yep, we sure are. Only problem is, so are white people. 1980-2008 Homicide Stats (Pg 13).

Pardon me while I snip off the majority of your link-less strawman argument. At no point did I ever claim that white people don't kill white people, or that only black people kill other blacks. So your entire post was a waste of time and space. Go back and read my post again. I said the race hustlers don't care about blacks killing other blacks. But find a (very) rare case of a young black man being shot to death by a white man (or "white Hispanic", if you are desperate to make reality fit your media template), and here come the race hustlers to get their camera time.

Jackson and Sharpton have been playing their game about as long as I've been alive. I've never seen them have any positive result other than enriching themselves with money and power. They don't want to solve a single problem because then they'll lose their livelihood, which is exploiting others for financial and political gain. I was able to figure that out when I was 8 years old. Why can't the people who shove cameras and microphones in their faces see something so obvious? Why can't the people who march behind these frauds see something so obvious?

But hey, if you really want to talk about race, then consider the crime statistics of New York City, where guns are heavily regulated. (Only the wealthy and politically connected can get permits to even purchase a handgun, which in New York means "white people". That was the original intention of gun control in America: Democrats wanted to prevent newly-freed slaves from owning guns. It was the NRA that fought those laws and taught blacks proper gun safety.) The statistics are pretty consistent there: 96% percent of all shooting victims are black or Hispanic. However, 97% of shootings are committed by blacks or Hispanics.

Now in fairness, you could make the claim that Hispanics are a disproportionate percentage of those statistics. And you might be right, with the spread of MS-13 as a result of our unenforced borders.

But it gets worse. when it comes to robberies in New York City, blacks are described as suspects in 70% of the cases, while they are victims in only 33% of the cases.

(How about those pesky facts, Silvafan?)

Link: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nypd-statistics-show-96-percent-shooting-victims-black-hispanic-minority-groups-represent-89-percent-murder-victims-article-1.1152838

How racist of the crime statistics to portray minorities as violent animals! Why, the SPLC should label those crime statistics as a hate group! Sharpton should protest! Jackson should shake them down for a few million! Holder should... actually, Holder has made it clear he'll do what ever he pleases.

So tell me, why are Black people continuously being portrayed as violent animals?

Don't look at me. I don't glorify the thug life. You should ask the people who profit from portraying black people as violent criminals. The filmmakers. The rappers. The news media. Oh wait, they're all Democrats. Coincidence?

If you think blacks aren't given the respect they deserve, I agree. Thomas Sowell, Allen West, Condaleeza Rice, and many others have been unfairly disrespected by those who refuse to allow any substantive solutions for blacks in general. The best thing - or at least the first thing - the general populace can do is rid themselves of the race hustlers and be more careful about who they vote for.

Oh, and you want to know something else? The guy who mugged me was white.

'the autopsy shows that Brown was not shot while his hands were in the air in a "surrender" position. The autopsy (requested by the Brown family) supports the officers' description of the events far more than it does the witness testimony, especially that given by Brown's accomplice in the robbery.

Where did you get that information? Check the following link: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/17/justice-department-autopsy-brown-ferguson/14196559/

It's not a he says she says you say mumbo jumbo. It is what the person who conducted the autopsy says. You can't quote what the person didn't say. The question is how many shots were fired, and if one hit the underside of his arm when he lifted his arm while running away. That then would be the bullet that caused his body to shudder (as the witnesses said), and him to turn around, as he realized he could not escape. There were more than 6 shots fired, but only 6 appeared to have hit the body.

Also, there was a wound to his palm consistent with someone surrendering. Most likely he had his hands up and head bowed, and that's when the officer fired and cracked his skull. He was taller than the cop so he must have held down his head to be shot in the apex. Those are my speculations. Really want to see the federal's autopsy.

@oldhawk

Meanwhile, how many blacks have been killed by other blacks in Chicago or LA since this shooting? And none of the race-hustlers show any concern or are trying to do anything about it. Not Obama, Holder, Sharpton, Jackson, anyone on MSNBC, or JTDanMan.

Why aren't the Whites outraged? I just showed you in my last post that "White on White" violence is a more serious problem than "Black on Black" violence. I don't see Conservatives using that as topic changer whenever racism is brought up.

You whole post sounds like the rambling of a crazy person! I would need to simple quote the whole thing. You are rambling about MS-13, New York, and Hispanics. What does that have to do with the article or my post?

Don't look at me. I don't glorify the thug life. You should ask the people who profit from portraying black people as violent criminals. The filmmakers. The rappers. The news media. Oh wait, they're all Democrats. Coincidence?

But not the conservative networks who preach Obama wants to take your guns, you need to take your country back, Hispanics are destroying this country, and real America = White/Christians. Yeah, right!

Here are the links to my information. These are statistics for the whole country not one particular place like your source to get my point across. (All Americans)

1980-2008 Homicide Stats (Pg 13)

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

crimes of violence (table 42)

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus08.pdf

Straw man argument? Your entire post was based on anecdotal evidence and on particular location (New York) that supported all my facts based on real research. You provided no real connection to this article or my post.

My post:

The really interesting thing is that in the same table that provided this information, you can also see the full breakdown of other crimes. Interesting fact- white on white violent crime heavily outweighs Black on Black violent crime. While Black on Black robbery and petty thievery far outweighs white on white robbery and petty thievery.

You obviously didn't read carefully or really don't understand what was typed. This is why conservatives tend to not like facts! It requires critical thinking skills and independent thought. It is also the reason why moderate Conservatives are being marginalized by their own!

@oldhawk

What facts are you talking about? Your posts shows lots of anecdotal evidence. On top of that, you jump from Blacks to Hispanics to MS-13 to Blacks killing Blacks to Blacks robberies with no real logic. You do realize these are not the same topics, right? For example, New York is not the whole country.

I don't need say anything else because MetaPhile took you task already.

@zichi

A suspect is someone arrested for a crime, and then charged but only becomes a criminal after a fair trial and found guilty. Personally, I'm not even sure that was Brown because the guy in the store was wearing shorts but the photo of Brown dead face down shows him wearing longer pants

Zichi, now you sound like the Blacks that were saying back when OJ sliced and diced his wife and Ron Goldman up, it probably wasn't OJ, I think HE (OJ) knows who's responsible, maybe it was his son and he's protecting his son. Sorry, if you look at the video and look at the hat and clothing he was wearing during the robbery and on tape, it was without a doubt him.

@yabits

Nope. It's what the medical examiner (Dr. Baden) and forensic pathologist (Prof. Parcells) pointed out after doing the autopsy of Brown. Got that?

But you were the one going off on guns.

You conveniently forgot to mention you were 100% wrong about your claim that Zimmerman identified himself to Martin in any way.

You don't know that, you weren't there, Zimmerman said he was. So how is it that you know for a fact that Zimmerman didn't identify himself to Martin, but you know for a fact that the officer that shot Brown did so with malice and intent. Yabits, keep on digging dude. ROFL.

Wrong again. I never claimed to know what the officer was thinking.

But you know what Brown was trying to convey to the officer and you knew what Martin was thinking, right?

To a person in the neighborhood looking out their window and seeing a man on his knees with hands in the air being continuously shot until he leans forward -- probably to get into a prone position -- and receives two final shots to the head, it would appear as an execution. Excessive use of force which leads to the death of a person is murder. For all the talk of "black-on-black" crime, Brown's murder was the first one in Ferguson this year.

Again, we weren't there and we don't know what happened, but what is apparent is the fact that Brown brought this all on himself. He should've never attempted to rob a store and the blatant disregard for the store owner and authority in general is crime in itself. Don't rob people and you don't has to worry that someone will have to scoop up your brains one day.

As for the theft of the cigars and the pushing of the store clerk, neither of those is a capital offence. Brown, being as big as he was, was probably well-known in the neighborhood. The clerk may have seen him in the store before. Anyway, it should have been relatively easy for a couple of officers to pick him up without killing him.

I had no idea you were an expert in policing big people and I had no idea, moving someone with a few people were that easy.'

The body of Michael Brown was left in the middle of the street for four hours. It can not be expected that anyone will be held accountable.

And? It wasn't going anywhere. That's the reason we use forensics.

We are being told that Michael Brown attacked an armed man and tried to take his gun. The people who are telling us this hail from that universe where choke-holds are warm-fuzzies, where boys discard their skittles yelling, "You're gonna die tonight," and possess the power to summon and banish shotguns from the ether. These are the necessary myths of our country, and without them we are subject to the awful specter of history, and that is just too much for us to bear.

Again, we don't have all the facts, Guilty until proven innocent. Let the system sort it out. Being defiant, rioting and looting won't get you the result you want. I guarantee it.

Black people are not above calling the police—but often we do so fully understanding that we are introducing an element that is unaccountable to us. We introduce the police into our communities, the way you might introduce a predator into the food chain. This is not the singular, special fault of the police. The police are but the tip of the sword wielded by American society itself. Something bigger than Stand Your Ground, the drug war, mass incarceration or any other policy is haunting us. And as long we cower from it, the events of this week are as certain as math. The question is not "if," but "when."

Blacks are ultimately responsible for their own neighborhoods and doing what they are doing now, clashing with the police doesn't help their cause or makes them look good. Now you rant basically saying, all these problems that are affecting the Black community is really the fault of the White man, every time, all the time! Yabits, you are a very funny guy.

You don't know that, you weren't there, Zimmerman said he was. So how is it that you know for a fact that Zimmerman didn't identify himself to Martin,

Yet again, another reason not to have faith in a system defended by the ignorant and cravenly dishonest. I know for a fact that Zimmerman never identified himself to Martin because the police asked him if he ever did and Zimmerman said "No." (You see, I actually took time to look over the evidence and read all of the police interviews, which are part of the public record.) When they asked Zimmerman why he never even tried to identify himself, Zimmerman replied that he was "scared." So you went and made up something to further frame the victim as someone out to defy authority, when the fact is that Martin was given no clue that the guy in the truck following him represented any kind of authority. But you claimed to know that Zimmerman identified himself and that Martin attacked him.

Just as you and other white supremacists willingly overlook the physical evidence that proves that the altercation did not start the way the killer claimed it did. (Disregard anything that might make Martin appear like an innocent young man walking home from the store, and being assaulted by a man who followed him and refused to identify himself.) So perhaps you will admit you were totally wrong when you claimed that Martin was asked to show his ID and decided to defy authority. Just as you are totally wrong about much else.

all these problems that are affecting the Black community is really the fault of the White man, every time, all the time!

There is not a single problem that affects Black Americans as a group that white Americans don't bear a major share of the responsibility for. 250 years of slavery, the passage from Africa taking the lives of millions -- total white responsibility. 90 years of Jim Crow and terrorism by rope and burning -- total white responsibility. 60 years of "separate but equal" -- total white responsibility. 35 years of state-sanctioned red-lining -- near-total white responsibility.

The Ferguson case recalls the first case I studied involving police executions of black suspects -- which happened during the 1967 Detroit uprising -- when Detroit police executed three 17-year old unarmed black men who were obeying curfew and had taken refuge at the Algiers Motel annex.

Let the system sort it out.

The "system" mainly works for the predominant white supremacist culture. That's precisely why you are so willing to let it sort things out. The three Detroit patrolmen were exonerated by "the system" for executing 3 unarmed black teens. (Through legal procedures which prevented key evidence from appearing at trial. That's how the system works.) Just as "the system" exonerated Zimmerman while overlooking crucial physical evidence. This corrupt legal system is nearly totally the responsibility of whites.

As one white racist put it, there are only two types of blacks in America: The "Rice-West-Sowell" types, and everyone else, typified by Black Panthers, looters, gangstas rap artists, etc. This ignores the fact that the majority of black people don't fall into either category, but are hard-working, decent, honest inheritors of a very tragic legacy -- and who don't endorse white supremacy.

Without all of the facts, it is impossible to say with absolutely certainly what exactly happened. However, I would seriously question any police officer causing the death of someone that was unarmed. There has to be training that would allow a police officer to subdue an unarmed suspect without killing them. Also, I see a troubling trend in the way some US police forces are reacting to incidents involving the general public. My concern for people there started with the marathon bombing and the reaction of the police to basically shut down a whole city area not allowing people to leave their homes in much the way one would expect to see a military force reacting in a warzone. The tear-gassing of the media and bystanders in this latest incident is equally troubling to see for people there.

Even if it was Brown in the store, whatever happened there is unrelated to the shooting and murder of Michael Brown

This is the basic point. The suspected robbery and the shooting are not related and should not be thought of as related. They really do have absolutely nothing to do with each other. All that matters is what happened during the interaction between the suspect and the officer.

@yabits

Yet again, another reason not to have faith in a system defended by the ignorant and cravenly dishonest. I know for a fact that Zimmerman never identified himself to Martin because the police asked him if he ever did and Zimmerman said "No." (You see, I actually took time to look over the evidence and read all of the police interviews, which are part of the public record.) When they asked Zimmerman why he never even tried to identify himself, Zimmerman replied that he was "scared." So you went and made up something to further frame the victim as someone out to defy authority, when the fact is that Martin was given no clue that the guy in the truck following him represented any kind of authority. But you claimed to know that Zimmerman identified himself and that Martin attacked him.

Regardless if you looked at the evidence or not and who says that's factual, the only people that truly and honestly knew what happened that night was Martin and Zimmerman. Bottom line, Martin had an attitude, he thought, he could beat the crap and muscle Zimmerman and Martin got shot. The moral of the story, you don't walk up to anyone, get in their face and think, this is going to be an easy win, you don't know what the other person knows or has in his hands.

The same goes for Brown, had he NOT stolen the cigars, he would still be alive today.

Just as you and other white supremacists willingly overlook the physical evidence that proves that the altercation did not start the way the killer claimed it did. (Disregard anything that might make Martin appear like an innocent young man walking home from the store, and being assaulted by a man who followed him and refused to identify himself.) So perhaps you will admit you were totally wrong when you claimed that Martin was asked to show his ID and decided to defy authority. Just as you are totally wrong about much else

The same goes to you libs as well, thinking that Brown is innocent when he clearly wasn't. If anyone points that out, well, you are a racist, but it know a lot of a Blacks that also agree that it's his fault that he got himself shot, so I will ask you again, would you call them Uncle Tom's? How about sadly misguided? It's just unthinkable that Blacks could even remotely find Brown guilty of anything, poor Black kid, got a bum deal, if he stole some measily cigars for $40 who cares, the store owner should just let it go, Blacks had it fought and if they rob and loot it's bent up frustration and we owe it to allow them to vent their anger and frustration. Whites should always hang their head in shame and always give Blacks a pass on everything in life. Gotcha!

There is not a single problem that affects Black Americans as a group that white Americans don't bear a major share of the responsibility for. 250 years of slavery, the passage from Africa taking the lives of millions -- total white responsibility. 90 years of Jim Crow and terrorism by rope and burning -- total white responsibility. 60 years of "separate but equal" -- total white responsibility. 35 years of state-sanctioned red-lining -- near-total white responsibility.

Speak for yourself, I'm not buying it. Whites of today have NOTHING to do with what their ancestors did hundreds of years ago. So all Blacks deserve 40 acres and a mule now? Jim Crow was bad, all of that is bad, but I have news for you. Our president is Black!!! You think he got there ONLY by the Black vote? Whites also played a huge part, very huge part in getting Obama elected.that goes to show America and MOST White people are NOT the racists, I think more Blacks nowadays are sadly the REAL racists.

The Ferguson case recalls the first case I studied involving police executions of black suspects -- which happened during the 1967 Detroit uprising -- when Detroit police executed three 17-year old unarmed black men who were obeying curfew and had taken refuge at the Algiers Motel annex.

That probably did happen and it was a different time and very tragic, indeed, but we are way beyond that. We don't do executions and we don't live in the 60's. Obama and many Blacks have made race relations worse by targeting and accusing every white person of being a racist and many feel now that Obama is president whites owe me.

The "system" mainly works for the predominant white supremacist culture.

I had NO idea OJ was White.

That's precisely why you are so willing to let it sort things out.

Because we have a "legal system," if we didn't, we would still be living in the Wild West.

The three Detroit patrolmen were exonerated by "the system" for executing 3 unarmed black teens.

OR the jury couldn't find any reason based on the evidence they saw to convict the officers that would change the entire situation.

(Through legal procedures which prevented key evidence from appearing at trial. That's how the system works.) Just as "the system" exonerated Zimmerman while overlooking crucial physical evidence. This corrupt legal system is nearly totally the responsibility of whites.

And you actually believe that? Lol

As one white racist put it, there are only two types of blacks in America: The "Rice-West-Sowell" types, and everyone else, typified by Black Panthers, looters, gangstas rap artists, etc. This ignores the fact that the majority of black people don't fall into either category, but are hard-working, decent, honest inheritors of a very tragic legacy -- and who don't endorse white supremacy.

So why are so many Blackmen in jail, why is the unemployment the highest for Blacks in the states, why do so many Blacks drop out of school, why do most Black households have a single parent, if what you say is true, many are, but the perception and image that they give to the world is the exact opposite.

zichi: Even the store owner says it wasn't him? ... Even if it was Brown in the store, whatever happened there is unrelated to the shooting and murder of Michael Brown.

I've only seen articles saying the store owners, through their attorney, said: 1) they did not call the police, it was a customer, 2) they did not provide video to police until police returned with a warrant, 3) they are only complying with police orders in providing the video, and 4) they hope to continue serving the local community.

Not that it wasn't him. Do you have a link saying they said it's not him?

But don't look it up unless you're interested, because even if you have a link, I'd say the store owners might say "it wasn't him" under duress to customers and maybe change tune talking to cops. I'm sure they got lots of questions from the neighbors AND police, doesn't necessarily mean they didn't change story for different audiences.

However, surrounding stores and that particular store have been looted and/or burned out since the owners' attorney's comments, so their attorney's statement didn't help too much.

As far as "unrelated", I highly doubt Wilson's defense attorney won't try to bring it up. And he'll have a point. Brown was in a bad mood. Brown was disposed to violence, even strong-arm robbery shortly before assaulting his client. Brown knew he was a suspect in robbery and battery just before shooting. Brown walking down middle of street and not running from cop indicated he was ready to start trouble. Brown wasn't the angel depicted by family prior to release of the video. And whatever else defense can come up with. But not "unrelated".

http://fox2now.com/2014/08/15/store-owners-talk-about-surveillance-released/

And he'll have a point.

I'm not so convinced.

Brown was in a bad mood.

Even if true, this does not warrent being shot and killed by police while unarmed.

Brown was disposed to violence, even strong-arm robbery shortly before assaulting his client.

Even if true, this does not warrent being shot and killed by police while unarmed.

Brown knew he was a suspect in robbery and battery just before shooting.

Even if true, this does not warrent being shot and killed by police while unarmed.

Brown walking down middle of street and not running from cop indicated he was ready to start trouble.

Even if true, this does not warrent being shot and killed by police while unarmed.

Brown wasn't the angel depicted by family prior to release of the video.

Even if true, this does not warrent being shot and killed by police while unarmed.

None of the above statements, even if true, justify a police officer using deadly force. I cannot believe this is what seems to have been the first method used on an unarmed individual. That is one thing all sides agree on. This individual was unarmed.

zichi: Were did you get that info! more from Faux News

My guesses as to Wilson's defense attorneys' points, in trial, if any.

slumdog: (x5) Even if true, this does not warrent being shot and killed by police while unarmed.

All 5 those points were in response to zichi's assertion that the robbery was not material to the shooting. None of them were posited as a 'warranting being shot and killed by police while unarmed'.

For THAT, see the paste of Missouri statute on when use of deadly force by law enforcement officer is legal, above.

The officer's claim is that Brown assaulted him and went for his gun. Witnesses say the side of the cop's face was swollen after the incident.

THAT is what Brown was shot for, not jaywalking, not strong-arm robbery. The robbery and jaywalking were part of the escalation ending in fatal shooting but were not the final event resulting in shooting. According to state law the shooting was justified, even if Brown was running away, as he had just committed a serious violent felony and was trying to escape.

Multiple posters are ignoring all that when they say "executing for jaywalking!" or "executed for stealing a box of cigars!"

Because they DO have access to the information that says he was shot for assaulting an officer and trying to get his gun.

From Kuya 808's post:

Actually, at 10:00 am on August the 10th. (the day after the shooting incident) St. Louis County Police Chief Joe Belmar stated in a news conference that Mr. Brown physically assaulted the officer in question and during the struggle reached for the officer's gun. One shot was fired inside the police vehicle followed by more shots outside the vehicle.

cafeteria style. pick the legal expert whose opinion you like.

http://www.newsweek.com/how-strong-legal-case-against-darren-wilson-265675

How Strong Is the Legal Case Against Darren Wilson?

Johnson claims his friend was shot in the back. Forensics prove that was not true. He also made the claim that Brown never went for the officer’s gun. If that were true, how did he get shot in the arm? Had the first shot been to the head, Brown would have been unable to run away as Johnson claims. If he was trying to reach the officer’s gun, he would have been hit in the arm.

Baden determined that the fatal shot to Brown was made as his head was down. Now, as you read this, stand up and pretend you are running at someone. You head is facing down.

Another thing, who in their right mind would fire at Brown while they are holding him by the neck? He’d be more likely to hit himself than he would have hitting Brown.

Johnson claims his friend was shot in the back. Forensics prove that was not true.

This is a foolish and untrue statement. Johnson claims the police officer fired while Brown was running away. The shot may have missed. The medical examiner asserted that one shot could have come from behind, the arm being very mobile. Why are you asserting that forensics proved that was not true when the examiner (Dr. Baden) definitely counted it as a possibility?

He also made the claim that Brown never went for the officer’s gun. If that were true, how did he get shot in the arm?

Ludicrous speculation. Several witnesses describe a scenario of a "tug-of-war" where the officer was trying to pull Brown towards him, and Brown was trying to get away. As soon as Brown broke free, he ran in the opposite direction.

Baden determined that the fatal shot to Brown was made as his head was down. Now, as you read this, stand up and pretend you are running at someone. You head is facing down.

Utter stupidity. Pretend you are starting to run at someone from 20 feet away, as Brown was. You don't put your head down from that distance because it would be too easy for your "target" to move out the way with the top of your head facing it. No. You keep your eyes on your target which means you keep your head up. You only keep your head down when you get down on your hands and knees, in a position of surrender. OR you get within five feet or so of your target and have some chance of making contact. For an unarmed person going up against an armed and trained police officer in that scenario would be highly unlikely.

The first shot to Brown's head exited through his right eye, which means Brown's head was completely down.

Another thing, who in their right mind would fire at Brown while they are holding him by the neck? He’d be more likely to hit himself than he would have hitting Brown.

Wow, where the heck are you coming up with this? There's plenty to aim at without fearing hit one's own arm.

yabits Aug. 20, 2014 - 05:15AM JST This is a foolish and untrue statement. Johnson claims the police officer fired while Brown was running away. The shot may have missed. The medical examiner asserted that one shot could have come from behind, the arm being very mobile. Why are you asserting that forensics proved that was not true when the examiner (Dr. Baden) definitely counted it as a possibility?

There were three witnesses who said that Brown was fleeing with his “hands up”: Dorian Johnson, Tiffany Mitchell, and Piaget Crenshaw. All three also had another element of their story in common: they said that Brown was shot from behind.

According to Dorian Johnson, Wilson pulled Brown and him over to the side of the road, where he then attempted to pull the 6’4”, 300 lb. Brown through the window of his patrol vehicle. Johnson stated, “The second time he says, ‘I’ll shoot,’ a second later the gun went off and he let go. That’s how we were able to run at the same time.” “The officer pursued Brown and fired another shot, which struck Brown in the back.”

Similarly, Mitchell stated that Wilson “was trying to pull him in” to the car. She added that after a shot went off, Brown ran. She then stated that after Brown ran perhaps 20 feet, “Michael jerks his body, as if he’s been hit.”

Crenshaw tells the same story: she says, “I saw the police chase him…down the street and shoot him down.” Both Crenshaw and Mitchell say that when Brown turned around, Wilson continued firing.

The autopsy released on Monday demonstrated that Brown was not in fact shot in the back. He had no wounds to the back whatsoever, despite Brown family attorney Daryl Parks allegedly lying in his press conference that it was “clear” that “the direction of the bullet was in a back-to-front direction.” That prompted Crenshaw to change her story on CNN regarding Brown being shot in the back.

And Dorian Johnson’s story was chock full of holes. It somehow neglected the fact that he and Brown allegedly participated in a strong-arm robbery of a convenience store shortly before they were pulled over by Officer Wilson. Johnson also said that after Brown was shot and “fell dramatically into the fatal position,” he was “hurt…I could see it in his eyes. It was definitely like being shot like an animal.” Dr. Michael Baden, who performed an autopsy for the family, stated clearly that Brown did not feel pain after he was shot in the head.

@yabits

This is a serious topic and I call it like I see it.

You should be able to hear my eyes rolling at this point.

As minorities in a power structure that continuously disfavors them on the basis of their color, I don't blame them a bit.

So you approve of Sharpton and Jackson's race-hustling and extortion practices. Interesting. About that racist power structure:

1) Who is president of the United States?

2) Who is the Attorney General, the highest law enforcement officer in the country?

It is that vast majority you are maligning by pointing to their voting pattern.

And? Earlier, you said:

As one white racist put it, there are only two types of blacks in America: The "Rice-West-Sowell" types, and everyone else, typified by Black Panthers, looters, gangstas rap artists, etc.

Except that nobody said that. Now I'm "maligning" people by their voting patterns? It's more like: If you're going to insist on voting for Democrats, then don't blame the Republicans for your problems. That's what Metafile was doing earlier. As you've already demonstrated, you just blame all white people.

The link you provided contains a racist quote by Harry Truman that is nearly a century old. And we're supposed to take you and your question seriously?

You're cherry-picking again? Well, knock me down with a feather.

You have not provided any evidence.

You've done that. One only has to click on your name.

This would suggest that it is not Brown in the convenience store.

See? Classic yabits. You're clearly responding to someone else, but I'll take this. Was that you earlier, claiming Brown was wearing shorts in the store, but pants in the street? I've seen the photos. Perhaps you're even less fashion aware than I am, but those are shorts in both the store video and the street photo. They're the long shorts fashionable with young people these days, but they don't reach the feet, so they are shorts by modern standards. Even his own family isn't denying that it's him.

A swollen face means he went for his face, not his gun.

It means he physically assaulted an armed police officer.

The angry cop, who was just slapped hard by Brown, exaggerated the story in order to take his revenge on the big black kid who just disrespected him. He'd have to go back to the department and explain that to his colleagues.

So you're a mind-reader now?

According to the other primary witness, all of these shots came very suddenly and rapidly.

You mean as though the officer was in a panic? As though a 6'4", 300-lb 18-year-old was charging towards him?

Witnesses definitely have Brown on his knees with hands raised. Hard to bum-rush in that position.

Hard to miss a large man's torso (aka center mass) from that distance in that position too. Especially at that distance.

This is a foolish and untrue statement. Johnson claims the police officer fired while Brown was running away. The shot may have missed.

If the shot missed, then it didn't hit him in the back. This witness, Johnson, is he a credible witness? Is this the same Johnson who said he and Brown robbed the store moments before? How do you think he's going to hold up under cross? How is Crenshaw holding up so far?

There's plenty to aim at without fearing hit one's own arm.

So why wasn't Brown hit in the torso, if he was on his knees with his arms in the air? See? Even you don't find your own arguments logical.

Now to recap some of your recent gems:

the out-of-control officer's

But hey, you're not rushing to judgment.

There is not a single problem that affects Black Americans as a group that white Americans don't bear a major share of the responsibility for.

You don't say. I'm shocked that you went there.

250 years of slavery, the passage from Africa taking the lives of millions -- total white responsibility.

"Total white responsibility"? With the exception of the slave traders, who kidnapped and sold their fellow blacks to the Democrats. Say, what religion were those slave traders?

90 years of Jim Crow and terrorism by rope and burning -- total white responsibility.

Again, Democrats.

60 years of "separate but equal" -- total white responsibility.

Democrats.

35 years of state-sanctioned red-lining -- near-total white responsibility.

Democrats.

Geez, just one of your sentences is a gold mine of race-baiting:

Just as the KKK

More Democrats.

is raising funds ("reward money") for Wilson, we've got the police force

Which is headed up by a black Highway Patrol Captain.

allegedly planting stories about more than a dozen witnesses who support Wilson.

Allegedly. So far, only by you. This isn't 1964. You (and Sharpton, and Jackson) need to stop pretending it is, if you ever want to make any true progress in race relations. Which would you rather do? Make progress, or complain about (and live in) the past?

@Silvafan:

LOL! You whole post is a joke! What story? Darren Wilson never filed a report.

Are you saying that Wilson hasn't been so much as debriefed since the shooting?

Christine Byers, if she is a good reporter then she will talk to those witnesses herself.

But then you say...

If they have witnesses then let him go to trial and we can hear all of it.

Yes, I believe that's the point.

Please stop replying to other readers' posts sentence by sentence. A general reply will suffice. And no more bickering.

Interesting article, related to this subject: http://feministing.com/2014/08/19/fatal-hypothesis-how-belief-in-a-just-world-is-killing-us/

@oldhawk

On point! The problem with Yabits and many liberals or like-minded is that automatically without any evidence, knowing the full facts or any possible indictment, the officer is guilty, he had it in for Brown and he maliciously killed him. Forget the fact, Brown was a criminal and stole cigars from a store, pushed the owner aside as if he was a toy and then thinking he didn't have to comply with whatever the police are saying, which led to his death. If you don't allow your feelings and emotion cloud your judgement any person would acknowledge that, but for some reason people like them don't. They think the police ride around through the neighborhoods looking for and targeting Blacks. Now, I will say, it could very well be that the officer made a tragic mistake. He said, Brown was charging for him and the officer felt at that moment his life was in danger and he used deadly force after Brown didn't follow his instructions. Ok, let the facts come out and see, until then, the officer has a right to be heard, debriefed and to have a fair and partial investigation. Personally, I'm not taking any sides, but I also refuse to believe that Brown was an innocent kid, not buying that for a second.

Allegedly. So far, only by you. This isn't 1964. You (and Sharpton, and Jackson) need to stop pretending it is, if you ever want to make any true progress in race relations. Which would you rather do? Make progress, or complain about (and live in) the past?

These people are the absolute worst of the worst scum ever! They bring more division, more hate and try to change the narrative, inciting and putting more kerosine on an already tense situation. Even Brown's parents are pleading with the rioters to stop, it's taking the focus off of him, which is true. But as you said, liberals and Democrat and their polices have completely destroyed the Black communities and the said thing is, they still don't realize it, at least the majority of them.

Forget the fact, Brown was a criminal and stole cigars from a store, pushed the owner aside as if he was a toy and then thinking he didn't have to comply with whatever the police are saying, which led to his death.

This is not fact, it is speculation.

If you don't allow your feelings and emotion cloud your judgement any person would acknowledge that, but for some reason people like them don't.

Because it's not fact, it's speculation.

let the facts come out and see, until then, the officer has a right to be heard, debriefed and to have a fair and partial investigation.

This I agree with. Everyone rushing to judgement, yourself included, is doing so prematurely.

Personally, I'm not taking any sides, but I also refuse to believe that Brown was an innocent kid, not buying that for a second.

The second half of your sentence shows the first half to be untrue. You have most definitely taken sides, as evidenced throughout all your posts on the matter, not just the above sentence.

@zichi

Again you repeat the same statement when firstly Brown had previous convictions and according to the constitution and law a person can only become a criminal after receiving a fair trial and found guilty. That's a point you continually seem to ignore and follow the pattern of guilty until proven innocence when the Justice system operates the other way, innocence until proven guilty. Until that point, arrested people are suspects and not criminals.

Zichi, then please apply that to the officer as well, thank you.

You are the one who needs to forget the fact that Brown was a criminal and since he's now dead, there won't be a trial and he'll be buried without any kind of criminal record.

Doesn't take away the fact that he committed a crime a criminal act and now he's dead.

According to you the white cop who shot Brown is entitled to a fair hearing but not Brown who even without a trial you claim was a criminal? The majority of black people in Ferguson are not involved in looting and riots so they shouldn't all be painted with the same brush. There are about 15,000 black people living Ferguson.

But many are and it's given the city and black community a bad rep.

Coming from the U.S I can tell you first hand..."Police are to be feared!. That punch line "To Serve and Protect" is exactly how I'm describing it...."A line of BS allowing the police to PUNCH you to death" or better yet like this "Punch you full of holes".

How could this happen? George Zimmerman got off. So will this guy! Zimmerman was a flashlight cop at best and he got off the hook.

I understand why Fergusan citizens are chanting "war crime". Last I heard Osama Bin Laden was also capped in the head. He was a full-on terrorist. This kid deserved the same fate as Osama?

This won't end here. African-Americans know why this is happening to them too. They've been slack in regards to their civil rights. We haven't had a leader like Martin Luther King Jr. in years. Not sure if this will galvanize any sort of movement but people sure have their eyes wide open now.

@bass4funk and old hawk

Yes, the truth is coming out. Ferguson police's attempts to demonize Michael Brown may have hit a small snag.

Supposedly, the video shows Brown robbing the store, taking a box of cigars. However, the attorney for Ferguson Market says that it was not anyone from the store that called police to report a robbery. In fact, a customer called to report what he viewed as a robbery.

How, then, did police get the tape? According to St. Louis News, the attorney said, "‘during the course of Ferguson's investigation, the police department from Ferguson, came to the store and asked for to review the tape." In other words, the tape was not viewed by police until after Michael Brown was dead in the street.

In their fervent effort to cast Brown in a negative light, they missed that the video seems to show Brown paying for the Swisher Sweets.

While it is difficult to be 100% certain, the video appears to show Brown purchasing some cigars, but lacking the money for the amount he wished to buy. Brown seems to purchase some cigarillos, pay for them, attempt to buy more, then replace the ones he could not afford.

The confrontation between Brown and the clerk may have been because Brown impatiently reached across the counter. Perhaps it was wrong for Brown to shove the employee (it is impossible to know what words were exchanged) but this footage seems to exonerate him. It is important to note that Brown only shoved the clerk after he put his hands on him.

In any case, neither the employee nor the store owner called law enforcement–something that would surely happen if Brown committed a "strong-arm robbery."

At this point, the police portrayal of the video and strategic release have had the desired effect. Right-wingers have labeled Brown a "thug." Somehow, those who are determined to hate every African-American murdered by police (or anyone, for that matter) have managed to form an opinion that a simple theft is worthy of a death sentence if one's skin is

not light enough.

"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

Ferguson police dept has 50 white cops but only 3 black ones in an area which is 67% black! or 94% of the cops are white, 6% black. But the city's population of 21,000, 67% are black.

@ zichi: The reason for the disparity in Ferguson and the fact that the mayor is white in a majority black town is because only 5% of the blacks vote. The last election showed terrible numbers for black voter participation. If this case were to go to a trial in Ferguson, then the jury pool would be mostly white since they come from registered voters.

As I have said in different posts on this topic, if Brown had a criminal record in the past, then it would not be an issue if he were just a person walking down a sidewalk and randomly shot. but his prior actions of strong arming a store, and walking inhte middle of the street and his actions against the cop can bring into the discussion the state of his intent and his prior actions could be looked at as part of the whole.

The same for the cop. So in the past the Ferguson PD may have been heavy handed when dealing with blacks. But was this cop invoved in any of those cases? What if he was a "good cop" and treated persons fairly and had a clean record that should be taken into consideration as well as if he was one of the cops who had previous charges of abuse.

The backgrounds of both individuals may have to come to play in this case. Just a simple fact.

The autopsy released on Monday demonstrated that Brown was not in fact shot in the back. He had no wounds to the back whatsoever, despite Brown family attorney Daryl Parks allegedly lying in his press conference that it was “clear” that “the direction of the bullet was in a back-to-front direction.” That prompted Crenshaw to change her story on CNN regarding Brown being shot in the back.

You are wrong. You are confusing "in the back" with "from the back." Here's what the medical examiners had to say:

Prof. Parcells said a wound on Brown’s right arm was “consistent with a witness statement” that Brown was first shot while facing away from Wilson, but he stressed that he and Dr. Baden could not determine conclusively the trajectories of the bullets that hit Brown—or which direction he was moving—when he was shot. The wounds “could be consistent with going forward or going backward,” Dr. Baden said.

First shot while facing away from Wilson. Meaning his back was towards Wilson.

And Dorian Johnson’s story was chock full of holes. It somehow neglected the fact that he and Brown allegedly participated in a strong-arm robbery of a convenience store shortly before they were pulled over by Officer Wilson.

How do you know for a fact that Brown was involved in a robbery? Because the organization that murdered Brown told you? How do you claim a person "neglects a fact" when any participation in a robbery is alleged? Why did you turn what you admit is an allegation into a "fact" that shoots holes in a story? Can you explain why you are doing that?

Forget the fact, Brown was a criminal and stole cigars from a store,

I have not seen the evidence that Brown actually stole cigars. I have you on record, bass4funk as claiming that as a "fact." Not only that, that you said the clerk should have had a gun and shot Brown for a petty theft.

While it is difficult to be 100% certain, the video appears to show Brown purchasing some cigars, but lacking the money for the amount he wished to buy. Brown seems to purchase some cigarillos, pay for them, attempt to buy more, then replace the ones he could not afford.

In many of these stores, tobacco products are usually behind barriers and not accessible to customers. Customers tell the cashier what they want, hand over the money, and then get handed the product. In the video, the person alleged to be Brown is spending a lot of time with the cashier for it to be a "robbery." It's almost certain some money is being exchanged.

In any case, neither the employee nor the store owner called law enforcement–something that would surely happen if Brown committed a "strong-arm robbery."

Of course, this is what makes no sense. Brown lived in the neighborhood and might well have been a regular customer of the store. How could he expect to get away with a "strong-arm robbery?" Has the store owner accused him?

Personally, I'm not taking any sides, but I also refuse to believe that Brown was an innocent kid, not buying that for a second

Wow. Talk about a statement that contradicts itself.

Why are there only three black cops?

The ratio of white to non-white police officers should have little if any correlation to voter registration or elections. The ratio should somewhat reflect the general population.

Unless something is wrong.

@yabits and silvafan

Yes, the truth is coming out. Ferguson police's attempts to demonize Michael Brown may have hit a small snag.

They don't have to, Brown did it to himself, with the help of Sharpton, and Jackson as well.

How, then, did police get the tape? According to St. Louis News, the attorney said, "‘during the course of Ferguson's investigation, the police department from Ferguson, came to the store and asked for to review the tape." In other words, the tape was not viewed by police until after Michael Brown was dead in the street.

Ok, sure. There was another big Black guy 6'3 at the same time, at the same store wearing the same clothes. Gotcha!

In their fervent effort to cast Brown in a negative light, they missed that the video seems to show Brown paying for the Swisher Sweets.

Lol and OJ didn't do it either.

I have not seen the evidence that Brown actually stole cigars. I have you on record, bass4funk as claiming that as a "fact." Not only that, that you said the clerk should have had a gun and shot Brown for a petty theft

That's because, you choose NOT to see and want to know the facts. Petty theft so that's the excuse term we are using now? Hey, maybe the cop that shot Brown wasn't the person you claim to have shot this guy? It too, could have been mistaken identity or do you want to say, all Whites look alike???

In many of these stores, tobacco products are usually behind barriers and not accessible to customers. Customers tell the cashier what they want, hand over the money, and then get handed the product. In the video, the person alleged to be Brown is spending a lot of time with the cashier for it to be a "robbery." It's almost certain some money is being exchanged.

Once again, the left are comical at making the funniest excuses for criminality. Well, if you put it like that, then you are perfectly admitting it's ok, if a store clerks fire and use any reasonable force to get these goons out of their stores and to stop them from robbing them or take action on anyone that goes behind the counter, whether they can reach a product that they are NOT authorized to touch.

While it is difficult to be 100% certain, the video appears to show Brown purchasing some cigars, but lacking the money for the amount he wished to buy. Brown seems to purchase some cigarillos, pay for them, attempt to buy more, then replace the ones he could not afford.

Honestly, WOW, dude!

The confrontation between Brown and the clerk may have been because Brown impatiently reached across the counter. Perhaps it was wrong for Brown to shove the employee (it is impossible to know what words were exchanged) but this footage seems to exonerate him. It is important to note that Brown only shoved the clerk after he put his hands on him.

Your justification of Brown's criminal actions is getting worse.

In any case, neither the employee nor the store owner called law enforcement–something that would surely happen if Brown committed a "strong-arm robbery."

So to you it doesn't matter if he stole something, it doesn't matter, he's just a poor misunderstood Black boy.

At this point, the police portrayal of the video and strategic release have had the desired effect. Right-wingers have labeled Brown a "thug." Somehow, those who are determined to hate every African-American murdered by police (or anyone, for that matter) have managed to form an opinion that a simple theft is worthy of a death sentence if one's skin is Not light enough?

Ok, I know progressives, Democrats and other looney liberals, add to that Eric Holder and the President have now taken this racial thing to a whole new different dimension. It sickens me to the core that these people are the absolute worst race manipulators around.

But again, none of you guys ever can or will answer my question: there are many Blacks that thing Brown was in the wrong and was a thug. So what are these Black people to you. Uncle Tom's? Selling out their own race? Confused Blacks or misguided Blacks. I keep forgetting White liberals think that Blacks are a monolithic group and any disagreeing will put a bullseye mark on your back. Again, it's not the Whites that are racist and not even most conservative Whites.

It sickens me to the core that these people are the absolute worst race manipulators around.

i think you are sickened because they put you in touch with your own feelings of deep-rooted hatred.

But again, none of you guys ever can or will answer my question: there are many Blacks that thing Brown was in the wrong and was a thug. So what are these Black people to you. Uncle Tom's?

There are many people of all races who need the help of mental health professionals. Regarding Brown, the fact he has no record with the police -- and if he had, I'm sure the police would have released it by now -- makes it harder to buy the claim that all he was was a thug. He was a young man and naturally big, and so that may give some people license to hang that description on him.

There are four independent witnesses -- five total at this point, including Brown's friend -- who all agree that at no time did Brown, once he ran away from the car, ever turn back to rush at the officer. All agree that Brown had raised his hands and turned to face the officer -- who kept firing. The two young women, neither of whom knew Brown and were on their way to work, are emphatic in their telling that Brown never moved towards the police officer in any way that could be construed as an attack.

These women's attention was directed to the scene as soon as they saw Brown and the police officer struggling at the car, so they saw the events as the played out from that point. Why is their version not being taken seriously?

If the "bum-rush" is a lie, how much more lies are being concocted by the side who wants this police officer to get away with murder? To the eyewitnesses who have come forward to report this, that is what it looked like to them. The bigger question is why are some people so willing to accept thuggish and criminal behavior on the part of the police?

therefore you refuse to see how the police constantly preys on the black community.

Leaving Micheal Brown's body lying out on the concrete for four hours seems to add to their message of profound lack of respect for the community. Would they have left a police officer's dead body lying out there like that?

In your opinion, luvjpfam, based on the information available, would you agree that many in the African American community regard Michael Brown as a "thug?" The word "many" suggests a widely-held opinion.

The word "thug" seems to come out as a way to dehumanize a human being in order to make their murder appear justified. Even with all the facts in on a previous well-known case, some folks actually believed that Zimmerman identified himself to Trayvon Martin, and asked him for his ID. Which, of course, is a falsehood designed to purposely dehumanize the victim. We're witnessing the same behavior here.

What do we call people who dehumanize others to justify murdering them? Would "thug" apply?

i think you are sickened because they put you in touch with your own feelings of deep-rooted hatred.

No, I just let the liberals marinade in the hate department, they practically invented the word "deep-rooted hatred."

There are many people of all races who need the help of mental health professionals. Regarding Brown, the fact he has no record with the police -- and if he had, I'm sure the police would have released it by now -- makes it harder to buy the claim that all he was was a thug.

Actually NO it doesn't. He stole something, stealing is a crime, some countries, you would get your hands chopped off, some a lengthy prison sentence. You take something that is NOT yours or you didn't pay for it, makes you a criminal.

These women's attention was directed to the scene as soon as they saw Brown and the police officer struggling at the car, so they saw the events as the played out from that point. Why is their version not being taken seriously?

Because probably, the feds want to do a proper investigation and maybe their witnesses weren't as believable.

He was a young man and naturally big, and so that may give some people license to hang that description on him.

If the shoe fits....

Leaving Micheal Brown's body lying out on the concrete for four hours seems to add to their message of profound lack of respect for the community. Would they have left a police officer's dead body lying out there like that?

You don't know the reason why they left him out there the way they did anything you say, is purely speculation at this point.

In your opinion, luvjpfam, based on the information available, would you agree that many in the African American community regard Michael Brown as a "thug?" The word "many" suggests a widely-held opinion.

Not opinion FACT. Because that's what he was a THUG.

The word "thug" seems to come out as a way to dehumanize a human being in order to make their murder appear justified. Even with all the facts in on a previous well-known case, some folks actually believed that Zimmerman identified himself to Trayvon Martin, and asked him for his ID. Which, of course, is a falsehood designed to purposely dehumanize the victim. We're witnessing the same behavior here.

What do we call people who dehumanize others to justify murdering them? Would "thug" apply?

If it WERE indeed the case, sure.

like that? In your opinion, luvjpfam, based on the information available, would you agree that many in the African American community regard Michael Brown as a "thug?" The word "many" suggests a widely-held opinion.

@yabits Nope, havent heard anyone call him a thug. Dont know where bass is getting his stats from. As a Black man myself, I sympathize with folks grieving over this situation. No matter how educated and cleancut you are, Black people are targets. We are born targets. I had a friend who got roughed up by a cop 'cause he "fit the description". Turns out he wasn't the culprit, fancy that.

That being said, notice how i said police in general, prey on the Black community, not just White, Black, Hispanic, etc. That has to change.

@luvjpfam -- Thank you for responding. I just didn't know if there might be some rogue enclave of black folks out there who are directly channeling bass.

Grieving over this gross injustice is not a matter of skin color, I assure you, sir. Since i first pored over the details of the executions of three young black men in the Algiers Motel incident (Detroit - 67), I have been grieving ever since. I have come to see this system for what it is. Compared to Truth, skin color is irrelevant.

It IS changing, however slowly. As Dr. King said: "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice." This great lie can't go on much longer.

luvjpfamAug. 21, 2014 - 12:31AM JST Back people are targets. We are born targets. I had a friend who got roughed up by a cop 'cause he "fit the description". Turns out he wasn't the culprit, fancy that.

Yes, targets of what? Annually, 7,000 blacks are murdered in the U.S. However, 98 percent of the murder is blacks killing each other. And the cops? only two percent? Where do you think the real problem is? Single parents?

Shouldn't have run.

@yabits

Thank you for responding. I just didn't know if there might be some rogue enclave of black folks out there who are directly channeling bass.

Again, throwing race into the argument? Yabits, what is it with you and race??? I just don't get it.

Grieving over this gross injustice is not a matter of skin color, I assure you, sir.

I never said, it was an injustice, I just have a problem with you coming on JT and trying the officer, when our justice system is always the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial to to be heard before your peers and NOT let the public dictate how our judicial system works.

Since i first pored over the details of the executions of three young black men in the Algiers Motel incident (Detroit - 67), I have been grieving ever since. I have come to see this system for what it is. Compared to Truth, skin color is irrelevant.

No, you are seeing what you want to see and you don't mention that most Blacks kill other Blacks, the Black on Black crime is out of control! And NO one wants to address that point. Not even Al Sharpton or Jessie Jackson. Why? Because they make too much money race baiting.

It IS changing, however slowly. As Dr. King said: "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice." This great lie can't go on much longer.

So that means, that Sharpton will FINALLY admit that Blacks are overwhelmingly responsible for killing other Blacks.

I never said, it was an injustice, I just have a problem with you coming on JT and trying the officer, when our justice system is always the presumption of innocence

This from the person who tried and convicted Brown as a "thug" who got what was coming to him. Call me old-fashioned, but I don't believe police officers should be summarily executing unarmed teenagers from 25 feet for jaywalking (or shoplifting).

and you don't mention that most Blacks kill other Blacks

I don't mention that for two reasons: 1) This topic is not about that, and 2) most Black people go through their lives without killing anyone. The reason you made that mistake is because you subconsciously view most black people as murderers. It's right there plain as day. (And logged.) Kindly ask those "many" black people whom you claim say Brown was a "thug" if they've killed anyone lately.

@ tubotsat

THAT is what Brown was shot for, not jaywalking, not strong-arm robbery. The robbery and jaywalking were part of the escalation ending in fatal shooting but were not the final event resulting in shooting. According to state law the shooting was justified, even if Brown was running away, as he had just committed a serious violent felony and was trying to escape. Multiple posters are ignoring all that when they say "executing for jaywalking!" or "executed for stealing a box of cigars!" Because they DO have access to the information that says he was shot for assaulting an officer and trying to get his gun.

From Kuya 808's post: Actually, at 10:00 am on August the 10th. (the day after the shooting incident) St. Louis County Police Chief Joe Belmar stated in a news conference that Mr. Brown physically assaulted the officer in question and during the struggle reached for the officer's gun. One shot was fired inside the police vehicle followed by more shots outside the vehicle.

You stated all of that as if they were facts. The preliminary autopsy report said there were no signs of struggle on the body. What you are saying then is that he struggled with the officer, tried to take his gun and didn't even end up with a bruise on his arm. Very credible. Hope you are not studying law.

I think it's best to find the information you want, from a credible online source, and post the link here, than just quoting from another commenter. That will help your argument to have some clout in it.

The police are above the law they beat a homeless White man to death in Fullerton California black or white or Hispanic th cops are out of control!

The right-wing media are pushing black-on-black crime to deflect from the shooting of Michael Brown. There's no such thing as black-on-black crime because in the large majority of crimes the victims and offenders share a racial identity. The majority of murdered whites are killed by other whites. 1976-2005, 94% of black victims were killed by black offenders but that's also true for white-on-white crimes with 86% of whites were killed by whites. The FBI data shows that white cops killed a black person about twice a week.

Nice way to spin that information. Here is another:

Of the nearly 770,000 violent interracial crimes committed every year involving blacks and whites, blacks commit 85 percent and whites commit 15 percent. Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Forty-five percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are black, and 10 percent are Hispanic. Blacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder, and eight times more likely to commit robbery. When blacks commit crimes of violence, they are nearly three times more likely than non-blacks to use a gun, and more than twice as likely to use a knife.

The behavior of the Ferguson community to have peaceful protest is everyone's right, but to loot, destroy, vandalize and victimize their own community is wrong. Ask the local residences how they can justify this behavior. Allowing people from outside Ferguson such as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to express their own personal agenda is wrong.

@bass4funkAUG. 21, 2014 - 09:17AM JST

Actually NO it doesn't. He stole something, stealing is a crime, some countries, you would get your hands chopped off, some a lengthy prison sentence. You take something that is NOT yours or you didn't pay for it, makes you a criminal.

The problem is that many black victims weren't criminals but easy targets for trigger-happy cops-idiots.

night knight Aug. 22, 2014 - 07:56AM JST The problem is that many black victims weren't criminals but easy targets for trigger-happy cops-idiots.

Yes, there are many assertions that blacks are unfairly victimized by police. The blacks are much more likely to be killed by another black person than they are by a cop. Facts are more whites than blacks are victims of deadly police shootings, but whites also represent a much bigger chunk of the total population.

Over the last decade, approximately 3,600 whites died compared to 1,500 blacks. There are different theories as to why the black rate is so much higher. Blacks might be more likely to have a violent encounter with police because they are convicted of felonies at a higher rate than whites. Felonies include everything from violent crimes like murder and rape, to property crimes like burglary and embezzlement, to drug trafficking and gun offenses. This has more to do with income than race. The felony rates for poor whites are similar to those of poor blacks. Felony crime is highly correlated with poverty, and race continues to be highly correlated with poverty in the U.S. If you defer and don’t try to challenge a police officer, he may insult you but he won’t kill you.

My take on the current trend of cops killing innocent people in Ferguson, Missouri. Imagine if you will, a rich white person walking down the street jay-walking, (as they "own" the street anyhow) and a BLACK cop pulls over and does what D.Wilson did, and ends up shooting rich white kid! Now imagine how this plays out in the press. First, black cop would have been immediately charged for leaving a crime scene and tampering with evidence in driving away the car, and then arrested for shooting a fleeing suspect (illegal--supreme court ruled on this one), and then the moaning of what a good boy and wonderful future this young man had only to be taken by a "rogue" cop. Yes--face it folks, THIS is how the discourse would be different if the "actors and races" were switched! Remember it is all about race and if there is no justice served, (and there WILL be NONE as this cop will be 100 percent acquitted), then each and every cop becomes something to be feared, as many only have a high school degree! I like to see a series of statues of Mike placed throughout the city, and for others who have died or been beaten up so that cops are SHAMED, maybe it will cause them to think as some many do not seem to be thinking while they are acting!

The spin you put on it is by quoting figures from the "Color of Crime" published by the right-wing New Century Foundation and written by the white separatist author Jared Taylor. The figures used in the Color of Crime are from 1994.

I took it from here, which claims it is from a 2005 edition. Which would be inline with your post using data from 1976-2005. http://www.colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.html

Jared Taylor is the founder and editor of American Renaissance, a webzine that has been described as a white supremacist journal and a "forum for writers disparaging the abilities of minorities".

I could already guess the writer would have to be a white supremacist to bother writing all those facts. My point was simply to show there is much more black-on-black crime overall than white-on-white crime. Comparing the repective ratios of black-on-black crime vs white-on-white crimes doesn't really make any sense in supporting your claim of "The right-wing media are pushing black-on-black crime to deflect from the shooting of Michael Brown".

Not surprising that without definitive video evidence we must suffer from a Rash-omon of opinion. But it doesn't have to be that way because video capture of police work is technically feasible ,is already being used in some police deparments in the US, and has been in use in the UK for over a decade. G**gle "Police Cameras Can Shed Light, but Raise Privacy Concerns" an article in the New York Times. In a report "Police Officer Body-Worn Cameras" sponsored by the US DOJ comes the following quote: "When you put a camera on a police officer, they tend to behave a little better, follow the rules a little better. And if a citizen knows the officer is wearing a camera, chances are the citizen will behave a little better.”– William A. Farrar, Chief of Police, Rialto (California) Police Department

CraigHicks

Maybe the insurers for police and fire departments can get it done by raising rates for non-compliers, nationwide. If they try. Think San Francisco still has their recording device ban in place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Flight_OZ214#Response_from_the_San_Francisco_Fire_Department

... One had allegedly been pulled from the aircraft by a firefighter and left near the plane's wing[42] where she was said to have been run over by an airport crash tender after being covered in fire-fighting foam.[43] On July 19, 2013, the San Mateo County Coroner's office confirmed that the girl was still alive prior to being run over by a rescue vehicle, and was killed due to blunt force trauma.[44][45] On January 28, 2014, the San Francisco city attorney's office announced their conclusion that the girl was already dead when she was run over.[46][47] ...

Response from the San Francisco Fire Department ... Chief of the San Francisco Fire Department Joanne Hayes-White stated that the department's 2009 ban on video recording devices has now been extended to include any devices mounted on helmets that record emergencies. Helmet-recorded images were taken at the crash scene and resulted in inquiries regarding the death of one victim struck by an emergency vehicle.[143] There will be no charges filed for the accidental death involving the firetruck.[144]

0ne shot in each leg will put some one down, but the cop must be a crap shot, why? the shots are in the arm rather than in the chest which is a bigger target, trying to shoot some one in the arm at a longish range is going to put other people in the danger zone, because if he misses the bullets can carry on going until they hit something or some one. the tension will go on for a very long time and will they trust in the cops be 100%? i doubt it!

0ne shot in each leg will put some one down, but the cop must be a crap shot, why? the shots are in the arm rather than in the chest which is a bigger target,

Supposedly they are trained to shoot to kill once they decide to use their gun. That being said, I don't know how he could hit him in the head but miss his chest, unless he was somehow blocking them with his arms.

@Brian Wheway

Do you really believe that the police officer was shooting AT the arm? Gee you have a skewed sense of how gunfire works.

I don't know how he could hit him in the head but miss his chest

Easy. The target was moving, reports indicate he had just been seriously injured in the head and despite what movies seem to make some people believe firing a gun at a specific target does not mean the bullet will hit that target.

Meanwhile, the Ferguson Police Dept. has yet to file an incident report on the killing of Michael Brown. Highly irregular, and does nothing to decrease the suspicion Ferguson residents have of the police.

Easy. The target was moving

Or, the shooter was moving. Eyewitnesses claim the frontal shots came after Brown turned to face the oncoming officer, with his hands raised. No witness has Brown making a threatening move towards the officer.

Or, the shooter was moving.

Well yes that is another possibility. I didn't see the reason to list the hundreds of reasons why the shots may have impacted where they did.

No witness has Brown making a threatening move towards the officer.

Well except for the witness who is recorded as saying that Brown moved back toward the officer. But why should the truth matter when a lie serves your bias better.

Well yes that is another possibility. I didn't see the reason to list the hundreds of reasons

Why leave out the reason cited by all of the eyewitnesses who had the officer chasing after Brown and firing? Why leave out the fact that the officer was 20 more feet from his vehicle when the final shots were fired -- meaning he had moved? There aren't hundreds of reasons, Mikey. Only a few pretty obvious ones -- although not the one that serves your bias.

Well except for the witness who is recorded as saying that Brown moved back toward the officer.

Your bias shows in your inference that those words conflict with the other independent eyewitnesses. Remember, none of them -- including your witness has Brown making a "threatening" move towards the office. "Moved back toward" can mean what all the other witnesses confirm: That Brown turned around and faced the officer with his hands raised, and appeared to stumble forward as he was being hit with bullets -- and going down quickly.

But why should the truth matter when an egregious and obvious lie serves your bias better?

Of the nearly 770,000 violent interracial crimes committed every year involving blacks and whites, blacks commit 85 percent and whites commit 15 percent. Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Forty-five percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are black, and 10 percent are Hispanic.

Whites are 6 times as likely to be murdered by another white person as by a black person; and overall, the percentage of white Americans who will be murdered by a black offender in a given year is only 2/10,000ths of 1 percent (0.0002).

Any given black person is 2.75 times as likely to be murdered by a white person as any given white person is to be murdered by an African American.

Whites are 5 times more likely to lie (commit perjury) than any other race.

Why leave out the reason cited by all of the eyewitnesses who had the officer chasing after Brown and firing?

Many people believe that human memory works like a video recorder, that the mind records events and then, on cue, plays back an exact replica of them. On the contrary, memories are reconstructed rather than played back each time we recall them. Even questioning by a lawyer can alter the witness’s testimony because fragments of the memory may unknowingly be combined with information provided by the questioner, leading to inaccurate recall. Many investigators have created false memories in normal individuals, and what is more, many of these subjects are certain that the memories are real.

Most jurors place heavy weight on eyewitness testimony when deciding whether a suspect is guilty. Although eyewitness reports are sometimes accurate, jurors should not accept them uncritically because of the many factors that can bias such reports. Jurors tend to give more weight to the testimony of eyewitnesses who report that they are very sure about their identifications even though most highly confident eyewitnesses are generally only slightly more accurate, and sometimes no more so than those who are less confident. Adhering to specific rules for the process of identifying suspects can make that testimony more accurate.

Many people believe that human memory works like a video recorder, that the mind records events and then, on cue, plays back an exact replica of them.

I don't know that many people believe that. Based on my own experience as a human being, I tend to remember things that are deeply implanted due to the level of trauma involved. Your post is full of abstractions and almost-meaningless generalities. So let me present a scenario to you and have you use your assertions above to comment on it:

On a given day in July, you are eating a salad and happen to notice a severed finger in it. If asked about it two days later, would you change it to a toe? A month later would it become an eye? Or, would it be more likely that your mind would not forget that it was indeed a finger?

If you were to bring a case against the restaurant, would you believe it would be valid if their attorneys asked you how many olives were in the salad as a way of undermining your memory? Or. perhaps they will try to determine if you could tell if it was a pinkie, thumb, forefinger, etc. as a way of undermining your ability to tell that it was a finger. You think that's valid too? (This is how your assertions strike me.)

Jurors tend to give more weight to the testimony of eyewitnesses who report that they are very sure about their identifications even though most highly confident eyewitnesses are generally only slightly more accurate

In an attempt to mine through the drivel, are you claiming that the eyewitnesses might be confusing Brown and Wilson with some other black person and Ferguson police officer?

I would wager this: That more than once in your past you experienced or witnessed an event that was extremely traumatic, and can recall details of it with crystal clarity.

yabits Aug. 23, 2014 - 08:19AM JST I don't know that many people believe that. Based on my own experience as a human being, I tend to remember things that are deeply implanted due to the level of trauma involved.

Since the 1990s, when DNA testing was first introduced, Innocence Project researchers have reported thatover 70 percent of the 240 convictions overturned through DNA testing were based on eyewitness testimony. One third of these overturned cases rested on the testimony of two or more mistaken eyewitnesses. How could so many eyewitnesses be wrong?

One third of these overturned cases rested on the testimony of two or more mistaken eyewitnesses. How could so many eyewitnesses be wrong?

Because there are millions of stories in the naked country. There are many, many thousands of convictions that are rock solid, based on eyewitness testimony.

Instead of dealing with abstract generalities, why don't you apply your assertions to the specific evidence in this case? You think any of the eyewitnesses are wrong when they claim to have witnessed a shooting by a police officer? What then, is the specific detail that you think they could all be wrong about? Can you tell us?

yabitsAug. 23, 2014 - 09:21AM JST You think any of the eyewitnesses are wrong when they claim to have witnessed a shooting by a police officer? What then, is the specific detail that you think they could all be wrong about? Can you tell us?

That is what grand jury is for. Holder met Michael Brown's father and said Brown said he would welcome a complete investigation and can wait until October. Holder has promised a fair and unbias investigation.

The location of the wounds shows that Brown was a minimum of 10 meters from the officer at the time of the shooting. It also shows that Brown didn't have his hands up.

Looking at the locations they start about 20cm apart, decreasing to about 10cm, in a rising patter from right forearm to the right eye showing a leftward drift. This pattern should be familiar to anyone who has been on a shooting range. The first shot hits where you intend, then the gun kicks back and rises by a about a degree (in the hands of a moderate experienced shooter - an expert can manage a tighter grouping) and the next shot is a little higher. At 10m one degree is about 18cm, which matches the wound pattern.

It disproves the officer's claim that Brown was assaulting him, at 1m (the reach of a 6 foot male) the officer's gun wouldn't have been possible of the 45 degree arc of movement required to produce that pattern of wounds. Anything under 3 meters (9 feet) is impossible. Why? Because of a little thing called velocity. At extreme close range (1-3 meters) the bullets would have punched straight through Brown, showing none of the skewing (eg the entry wound to the upper right arm editing in the chest).

Nope, the bullet wounds clearly show that Brown was a minimum of 10 meters from the officer (possibly double that) when he was shot. He was unarmed and far enough away no to be a threat.

The officer is a murderer. No doubt about it.

@ Frungy

Looking at the locations they start about 20cm apart, decreasing to about 10cm, in a rising patter from right forearm to the right eye showing a leftward drift. This pattern should be familiar to anyone who has been on a shooting range. The first shot hits where you intend, then the gun kicks back and rises by a about a degree (in the hands of a moderate experienced shooter - an expert can manage a tighter grouping) and the next shot is a little higher. At 10m one degree is about 18cm, which matches the wound pattern.

Very interesting observations.

I have never fired a gun, so I'm learning here.

However, from your speculations, how would you account for the wound in his palm if he didn't have his hands up? Also, seeing that the teen was very tall, if his head wasn't bent forward at, at least a 70-90 degrees angle, how could he be shot in the top of the head?

What kind of logic would you put to that?

I'm wondering why did the officers, immediately following the shooting, went around and confiscated videos and photos? They are not state property. If videos are so important, why wasn't Wilson wearing one in the first place?

I know the officer will walk, but not as soon as I thought. It's going to the grand jury.

Shanique SmithAug. 23, 2014 - 03:32PM JST Very interesting observations.

Thank you.

I have never fired a gun, so I'm learning here.

Really? I'm not pro-gun, but I've fired everything from fully automatic rifles to revolvers, all at shooting ranges and all completely legally, and I'm a fair shot, not great.

However, from your speculations, how would you account for the wound in his palm if he didn't have his hands up?

First a disclaimer. I haven't seen the body, and all I have to go on is the very poorly annotated autopsy diagram. That being said...

It is perfectly possible to have your palms towards someone without your hand beings up. An entry wound in the palm doesn't prove he had his hands up, and the hands-down theory still makes a lot more sense based on the wound pattern, in fact it is the only shooting pattern that makes any sense unless the officer fired three shots, stopped, restabilised his weapon and then fired another 3 shots. Either way it makes him a murderer.

Also, seeing that the teen was very tall, if his head wasn't bent forward at, at least a 70-90 degrees angle, how could he be shot in the top of the head?

As I said before, the autopsy diagram is unclear, but the doctor did annotate entry and exit wounds (but commonly there are errors in determining exit and entry wounds as they can be difficult to decisively determine), and it appears that the wound on the top of his head is a exit wound, not an entry wound. Low calibre ammunition (e.g. 9mm rounds like in a semi-auto pistol) will deviate 45 to 90 degrees from their trajectory on entering flesh, depending on range, ammunition type, the number of grains in the round (for custom rounds), etc.

Sorry, I know that's a grisly statement, but if you look on youtube you can find videos of people shooting into gel blocks to illustrate the phenomenon. The science behind it is called terminal ballistics.

The bottom line is that if Brown was really standing right next to him then there would be two problems:

The distance between the locations is too wide for the normal range of movement.

The high velocity of the rounds at that range would have resulted in less deviation and straighter trajectories, which doesn't match the entry and exit wound patterns.

The wound pattern much more closely matches a medium range (10~20 meters) pattern, as does the amount the rounds deviated.

What kind of logic would you put to that?

Does that logic satisfy you?

I'm wondering why did the officers, immediately following the shooting, went around and confiscated videos and photos? They are not state property. If videos are so important, why wasn't Wilson wearing one in the first place?

Well, as I understand it anything can be confiscated as "evidence", and it is supposed that the police are neutral in most cases, but obviously this is questionable when it is an officer-involved shooting. As for Wilson not wearing one... well, it probably comes down to "budget".

I know the officer will walk, but not as soon as I thought. It's going to the grand jury.

In all probability he will walk. The U.S. general public (the people on the jury) seem to be terribly sympathetic to anyone in a uniform, and unfortunately jury trials are more about popularity contests than about the legal issues. Remember, if that jury is statistically normal then half the jurors will be of below average intelligence and probably completely unable to understand the legal complexities, and so for them it becomes about, "Do we like this guy? Is he our type of person? Do we like the victim? Is he our kind of person?". That's what the entire cigar stealing thing is about, it is trying to ensure that everyone knows the victim was a thief, and the chances of ANYONE in the state not having heard about that are slim to none. That prejudices the entire trial, even if the judge tells them to forget about it.

@Shanique

Whites are 6 times as likely to be murdered by another white person as by a black person; and overall, the percentage of white Americans who will be murdered by a black offender in a given year is only 2/10,000ths of 1 percent (0.0002). ...

You are missing the point. I was replying to why the media reports a lot on black crimes. By far the largest portion of violent crimes in the US involves black people. The statistics you quote show nothing about the overall percentage of crimes involving white or black people.

First off, I don't believe in a police state and I think the US has become one due to the arming of police by the Federal government.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/24/us/in-washington-second-thoughts-on-arming-police.html

That being said...

The truth starting to come out and when it fully does come out I just hope folks will accept it. But, knowing how some folks would rather live in a world of fanciful conspiracy theories I am certain many will not.

Let us begin.

First Dorian Johnson, the guy who was the star witness that started all this. Well, the guy can't keep his story straight.

First he said the officer executed Brown, then he said the officer killed Brown after Brown fought with the officer. Now, the dear young lad is silent fearing he might go to jail again.

Dorian Johnson has been known to tell some porkies in his past and he was known to be a violent little yob.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2732122/Revealed-Key-Michael-Brown-shooting-witness-Dorian-Johnson-arrest-warrant-theft-busted-lying-cops.html

Next, oh oh, there is a recording out there moment after the attack on the officer and the shooting. Dorian's story starts falling apart.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2727321/Conversation-recorded-bystander-just-moments-Michael-Brown-shooting-casts-doubt-claims-teen-surrendered-Officer-Darren-Wilson.html

Then the dear innocent stellar citizen changes his story...

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/899567-dorian-johnson-witness-in-michael-brown-shooting-changed-his-story-radio-station-backs-off-claim/

Then ole Holder and the Liberal left's stellar example of what citizens should be like turns out to be a teller of whopper porkies.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/082214-714559-dorian-johnson-the-boy-who-cried-wolf.htm

The fact is that officer Williams was attacked by Brown and during that attack Brown tried to take the officer's gun. The officer was beaten pretty bad and his face wasn't pretty.

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2014/08/ferguson-police-officer-darren-wilson---who-shot-michael-brown---had-serious-facial-injury-source-sa.html

Was Michael Brown a poor innocent good kid brutally gunned down the an evil white officer? No, he wasn't

Did the officer kill Michael Brown in cold blood? No, the officer didn't.

What happened and what people think happened are two totally different things. Michael Brown was a thug and a bully who used violence when it suited him and he met his end because of this.

His friend Dorian Johnson told a story and because of it started the ball rolling. The media smelled blood in the water and did their best to make the story explode and it did. Michael Brown became a poster boy for the oppressed and the left ran in as quickly as they could to blow their trumpets.

Wherever the media is, wherever their is a story (now a tale) of oppression and evil white people there will always be certain people. The usual characters arrived and did their best to make things worse. Al "Tawana Brawley" Sharpten, and the rest of his cast of misfits joined in and things got worse.

Peaceful protests turned into riots and the rioters began looting whatever they could. Get as much free stuff as you can because we deserve it.

The real tragedy is that the truth was swept under the rug all in the name of a good story and a few chances to write a new book.

And now, after all the destruction and theatrics there is calm and some reasoning returning to Ferguson and to the nation. The media, the politicians and the usual leftist instigators will point fingers and try to blame someone for what happened. They will blame the officer for defending himself, they will blame Dorian Johnson for telling a lie and they will blame the public for becoming a mob.

But, they will not blame themselves for their part in all this.

Sure the sharks want their pound of flesh and yes they will get it from the officer and from Dorian Johnson and we will never hear of this ever again.

This story reminds me of Tawana Brawley fiasco. If you never heard of this tale or how it was spun in the media, well here is your chance. Enjoy the read......

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/03/al-sharpton-s-long-bill-of-goods-from-tawana-brawley-to-primetime.html

http://fox2now.com/2014/08/22/calm-in-ferguson-but-fight-over-conflicting-stories-goes-on/

JoeBigs - witnesses are people. People get confused, lie, and don't always understand what they've seen. Police officers are also people and the same applies. Therefore this case needs to be judged on the physical evidence.

You talk about a Brown assaulting the officer but there's no proof the assault took place. The officer may have gone back to the station and had a buddy hit him in the face. Certainly none of the video or photographic evidence from the scene shows any injury to his eye.

What do we know? An unarmed kid was shot dead. The ballistic evidence strongly suggests he was at least 10m from the cop, facing the cop. That's what we really KNOW. The rest is just speculation.

First off, I don't believe in a police state and I think the US has become one due to the arming of police by the Federal government.

Republican-libertarian talking points. As long as police keep abusing the non-whites and the poor, you don't care how they are armed.

This story reminds me of Tawana Brawley fiasco. I

If so, it means that Darren Wilson is playing Brawley. Brawley didn't have any witnesses that could back up her story and neither does Wilson. At least none who have come forward at this point.

You make a great effort to attack the credibility of Dorian Johnson. That's fine but there are four more independent witnesses in addition to him. That's nothing like the Brawley case.

The fact is that officer Williams was attacked by Brown and during that attack Brown tried to take the officer's gun. The officer was beaten pretty bad and his face wasn't pretty.

Here's where video evidence will prove you wrong. One of the eyewitnesses, Tiffany Mitchell, filmed the aftermath of the shooting and Officer Wilson can be seen pacing back and forth by the body of Brown. The quality is quite good and neither side of his face appears to be injured. Not at all. There was a medical crew at the scene, and there's been no mention of them checking out Wilson for injuries. If he was really injured, you can bet the police would have released evidence of that.

But Mitchell's video proves you wrong.

Ferguson police waited six days to publicly reveal the name of the officer and documents alleging Brown robbed a convenience store shortly before he was killed. Police Chief Thomas Jackson said the officer did not know Brown was a robbery suspect when he encountered him walking in the street with a friend.

This is what I take issue with. Ferguson police were stalling.

Shoot (6) times first, ask questions later. US police is so militarized. What happened to tazers? Don't these officers know the basics of how to de-escalate a situation? 6 shots to the body? what happened to warning shot to the ground/air. and then to the feet?

america is still a land of cowboys and no rule.

SaiakuAug. 25, 2014 - 02:24AM JST Shoot (6) times first, ask questions later. US police is so militarized. What happened to tazers? Don't these officers know the basics of how to de-escalate a situation? 6 shots to the body? what happened to warning shot to the ground/air. and then to the feet?

Perhaps you've never had instruction in how to use a gun, but you don't draw a gun to fire it into the ground. The round can bounce up at more than half velocity and still kill some random person 10 meters away. It is just a bad, bad idea to use a gun like that.

The bottom line is that a gun has only one purpose, to kill. Even a shot to the shoulder can kill from the shock. In fact over 50% of shots to so-called "non-lethal" locations result in deaths. The idea that shooting someone in the shoulder or leg is "safe" just reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of anatomy. Arteries run to every limb of the body and you can bleed out in under 30 seconds if a major artery is hit... like brachial artery (arms) or the femoral artery (legs).

Let me be perfectly clear, there are no "safe" shots. The moment this officer drew his gun his intention was to kill. If he didn't intend to kill that gun should have stayed in its holster. Now he has to justify that to a court of law. Brown had no weapon, and was standing far away. That means the officer murdered a defenseless civilian in cold blood.

america is still a land of cowboys and no rule.

At least the cowboys had rules. Your opponent had to draw first, or you were a murderer. If anything the USA seems to have less rules today than it did two hundred years ago.

Let me be perfectly clear, there are no "safe" shots.

Yes, but..... From 30 feet, a charging rhino can be very dangerous. We are shown the video tape of Michael Brown savagely attacking a store owner -- pushing him through a plate glass window and then pummeling him to death with his bare hands.

Unsatisfied with this, he was looking for a bigger challenge, and he found it in an armed police officer. He savagely beat the police officer who, for some unknown reason, parked his car to block the big black man. Then, Brown decided to distance himself to about 30 feet from the car and mount an assault on it. He surely would have done so had he not been shot six times. He had already killed a store owner, so the cop surely would have been next.

@Silvafan

In any case, neither the employee nor the store owner called law enforcement-something that would surely happen if Brown committed a "strong-arm robbery."

Really? So how did the police know this "strong-arm robbery" took place? Were they stalking Michael Brown all along? Or did they just collect surveillance videos from every store in town until they found something with Brown in it?

yabitsAug. 25, 2014 - 03:46AM JST

Apparently you're getting your news from some really, really bad sources...

Yes, but..... From 30 feet, a charging rhino can be very dangerous. We are shown the video tape of Michael Brown savagely attacking a store owner -- pushing him through a plate glass window and then pummeling him to death with his bare hands.

... The shop owner was assaulted, but is alive and well. He was not beaten to death.

In fact the shop owner doesn't even think it was Michael Brown who did it, and was alive and well enough to say that. The guy in the security tape footage was wearing the same shirt and sandals as Michael Brown... just like hundreds of other people.

There are two other important facts here:

The officer knew nothing about the robbery, he stopped Michael Brown for jaywalking.

Michael Brown has not been found guilty of the store robbery. The evidence is sketchy at best.

So you're mistaken from the word go here.

Unsatisfied with this, he was looking for a bigger challenge, and he found it in an armed police officer. He savagely beat the police officer who, for some unknown reason, parked his car to block the big black man.

Savagely beat? Where is the evidence for this? Because we DO have evidence showing the officer walking back and forth after the shooting with no visible injuries, no limp, no broken limbs. There was no "savage beating".

Then, Brown decided to distance himself to about 30 feet from the car and mount an assault on it. He surely would have done so had he not been shot six times. He had already killed a store owner, so the cop surely would have been next.

He hadn't killed the store owner. There's no evidence he hit the cop. There's no evidence anyone was in danger... except Michael Brown.

... and if you want to attack a car you don't back up like a Rhino.. do I need to draw you a picture to illustrate the difference between a 2 ton rhino and a 100kg human being? For one thing a pistol round wouldn't have even penetrated a rhino's hide. There are other small clues to the difference (does Michael Brown have a big horn on his nose? No, then he's probably not a rhino).

Honestly, I'd suggest you go back and read some more news, this time not from the "What a man in the pub told me" source.

@Frungy

Does the word sarcasm have to be spelled out to you?

yabitsAug. 24, 2014 - 10:51AM JST If so, it means that Darren Wilson is playing Brawley. Brawley didn't have any witnesses that could back up her story and neither does Wilson. At least none who have come forward at this point.

I never make a statement to back it up..... You should know me by now.....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2727321/Conversation-recorded-bystander-just-moments-Michael-Brown-shooting-casts-doubt-claims-teen-surrendered-Officer-Darren-Wilson.html

yabitsAug. 24, 2014 - 10:51AM JST You make a great effort to attack the credibility of Dorian Johnson. That's fine but there are four more independent witnesses in addition to him. That's nothing like the Brawley case.

It doesn't take a great effort to attack the credibility of someone like Dorian Johnson, Read up on his past and his changing tale and you too might not trust what this stellar Liberal citizen has to say.

yabitsAug. 24, 2014 - 10:51AM JST Here's where video evidence will prove you wrong. One of the eyewitnesses, Tiffany Mitchell, filmed the aftermath of the shooting and Officer Wilson can be seen pacing back and forth by the body of Brown.

Yes, she filmed the aftermath and not the actual moment of what happened. Once again, the aftermath. She said what she thought happened and not what happened. She was sure that the officer shot Brown in the back and he didn't.

yabitsAug. 24, 2014 - 10:51AM JST The quality is quite good and neither side of his face appears to be injured. Not at all. There was a medical crew at the scene, and there's been no mention of them checking out Wilson for injuries. If he was really injured, you can bet the police would have released evidence of that.

Did you see how far she was from the ground floor? Next, if she was so sure something was strange why didn't she start shooting her film until after, yes, after it all happened?

Let us see what she said.....

Mitchell said Brown had started running from the police officer, and the officer ran after him, firing his gun. Then, she said, “the kid’s body jerked as if he was hit from behind and he turned around and he puts his hands up like this and the cop continued to fire, and he just dropped down to the ground.

So, he was hit from behind? Oh, wait, he wasn't........Opps

If she did shoot a video of the actual shootingcould you please provide it? video you so rapidly claimed to be your evidence, I won't hold my breath......She didn't take any video as it happened she did afterwards.......

So, if I am wrong and she did videotape what happened as it happened please by all means prove me wrong. As far as I know Michael Brown wasn't shot in the back as she said and all she has is what she saw after the shooting.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/08/15/tiffany_mitchell_eyewitness_to_michael_brown_shooting_speaks.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/13/tiffany-mitchell-michael-brown_n_5677003.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=advkpZIuq2U

BTW, sounds like she knows Michael..... Things that make you say Hm...... Unbias witness?

Again, if you have a different video that she shot of the actual shooting, please by all means provide a link.

yabitsAug. 24, 2014 - 10:51AM JST Republican-libertarian talking points. As long as police keep abusing the non-whites and the poor, you don't care how they are armed.

Have you ever heard of Social Libertarianism, look it up if you haven't, you may get a surprise.

yabitsAug. 24, 2014 - 10:51AM JST As long as police keep abusing the non-whites and the poor, you don't care how they are armed.

When did anyone say it was okay to abuse the poor or the non-whites? That is just plain silly.

Giving someone a pass just because of the color of their skin is also as silly. You break the law you must expect to pay for it, common sense.

Michael Brown was a thug and his social networking post prove it, also strong arming a store owner proves it. He lived the life of a thug and he died as one.

But, to most Liberals thugs, terrorists and murderers should be hugged and not prosecuted.

@JoeBigs

The DailyMail link on the video in which the man seems to cast doubt on the "surrender" is itself not very well understood. He says several times -- very clearly -- that the police shot Brown "for nothing." If he clearly says they shot him for nothing, it would cast doubt on any interpretation that has Brown charging the officer, and would actually support the other eyewitness accounts. That's what cross-examination is for. "Double-back" might mean "stopped and turned around" to face the officer, which is what all the accounts have Brown doing.

BTW, sounds like she knows Michael..... Things that make you say Hm

Your statement about how Tiffany Mitchell might know Brown is absolutely false and shows painfully poor reasoning ability. By the time her interview made CNN, where the anchor places the incident (wrongly) at "night," Mitchell knew the man's name was Brown. In one of her first interviews to a local channel, she describes Brown not by name but as "the kid." It's very clear she doesn't know him personally. Your attempt to impugn that she does reveals your clear bias.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbyNLVgvh9o

Again, this is nothing like the Tawana Brawley case and it is stupid to suggest so.

Your big attempt to claim falsehood on the eyewitness claim that Brown appeared to be shot from behind will not fly based upon the autopsy report. Note that Mitchell reports Brown jerking "as if he had been hit from behind. Hopefully you know what the two words "as if" means. Dr. Baden and the forensic examiner both agreed that the would to Brown's right forearm could have come from behind. If that was the case, then it was the shot that caused Brown's body to appear to jerk to the eyewitness.

Your failure to count the possibility of the forearm wound as coming from the rear, as the autopsy professionals noted, also confirms your bias.

But, to most Liberals thugs, terrorists and murderers should be hugged and not prosecuted.

Yes, gross bias, pure and simple.