Policing Thread

[Dazey]

For clarification. The only scenario in which the shooting would be justified would be IF Brown had charged the cop as has been suggested. Shooting a fleeing suspect would be a tad dodgy to say the least.

[Jackie Moon]

i don't trust that kid.

team police.

[downzy]

so not interested in the Bridge?

If the other end of the bridge leads to reality, I think you might need it more.

[downzy]

For clarification. The only scenario in which the shooting would be justified would be IF Brown had charged the cop as has been suggested. Shooting a fleeing suspect would be a tad dodgy to say the least.

Yeah, I think that's the defining issue. Nobody would take issue with the officer if, during a physical altercation provoked by Brown, shots were fired and Brown ended up dead. But if Brown truly was fleeing after the altercation, then the altercation really doesn't matter anymore.

It reminds me of the first episode of The Wire, where Avon Barksdale admonishes his nephew D, who shot a guy down because he couldn't take a beating. Perhaps the officer just couldn't get past the punch to the face and wanted to remind those involved who was "the man" in the situation.

[bran]

For clarification. The only scenario in which the shooting would be justified would be IF Brown had charged the cop as has been suggested. Shooting a fleeing suspect would be a tad dodgy to say the least.

Yeah, I think that's the defining issue. Nobody would take issue with the officer if, during a physical altercation provoked by Brown, shots were fired and Brown ended up dead. But if Brown truly was fleeing after the altercation, then the altercation really doesn't matter anymore.

It reminds me of the first episode of The Wire, where Avon Barksdale admonishes his nephew D, who shot a guy down because he couldn't take a beating. Perhaps the officer just couldn't get past the punch to the face and wanted to remind those involved who was "the man" in the situation.

this is how i feel as well. it would be different if a suspect had a weapon and ran away since he could hurt someone, but if an unarmed person is fleeing the scene, chase him and call in back up if need be.

[Dazey]

For clarification. The only scenario in which the shooting would be justified would be IF Brown had charged the cop as has been suggested. Shooting a fleeing suspect would be a tad dodgy to say the least.

Yeah, I think that's the defining issue. Nobody would take issue with the officer if, during a physical altercation provoked by Brown, shots were fired and Brown ended up dead. But if Brown truly was fleeing after the altercation, then the altercation really doesn't matter anymore.

It reminds me of the first episode of The Wire, where Avon Barksdale admonishes his nephew D, who shot a guy down because he couldn't take a beating. Perhaps the officer just couldn't get past the punch to the face and wanted to remind those involved who was "the man" in the situation.

I posted this earlier in the thread.

For the record I dont know for sure what happened here more than anybody else to be honest. Im not taking sides as much as playing devils advocate and putting the opposing case to those who seem to have it all figured out, case closed.

Personally I think that this was nothing more than a series of unfortunate coincidences that escalated out of the control of any of the participants. I dont think its beyond any sensible person to piece together most of the events that led up to the shooting just by using simple logic and common sense.

Based on the reports weve heard from both sides we know at least some of the facts. Heres what I suspect happened for what its worth.

Brown and his buddy were walking home down the middle of the street when the cop spots them. The cops story is that he asks them to get onto the sidewalk whereas Dorian Johnson claims the cop was abusive and they simply told him they were nearly home and walked off.

Reading between the lines there, the cop probably got mouthy and told them to get the fuck out of the road and got a bunch of attitude and a fuck you in return.

The cop says that he then attempted to get out of his car and was attacked whereas the witness says that the cop skidded his car in front of them and smacked the door into the big guy. Again I suspect that the witness side of the story is probably closer to the truth.

Both accounts agree that a struggle then occurred and a shot was discharged in the car. They differ in that the cop says that Brown pushed him back into the car and tried to grab for his gun. Johnson says that the cop grabbed his buddy around the neck from through the drivers window and tried to pull him into the car.

Now to me Id be inclined to think that the cops account was more plausible at that point. Perhaps the big guy saw red after having the door slammed into him and lashed out? I mean that would certainly seem more likely would it not?

I cant see the logic in trying to pull a guy twice your size into the front seat of the car through the window when you're still sitting in it. More to the point how the fuck do you reach his neck from a sitting position when he's 6 feet fucking 4?

Both accounts then say that after the shot was fired the two guys ran away from the car at which point the cop drew his weapon and stepped out of the car.

Browns buddy then says that they ran and the cop shot his friend in the back at which point he turned around and was shot a further five times. This we know not to be the case as the autopsy proves that all shots were fired from the front.

I think that up to this point the above is not an unreasonable assumption thinking about it logically.

After that point we now have two scenarios.

The first as per the cops account is that Michael Brown charged him and he fired in self-defence.

The second is that he shot an unarmed civilian in cold blood.

Basically I think that there's plenty of evidence of provocation on both sides but the part at the end is what makes a difference one way or the other. That's what I hope will be clarified in the investigation.

Edited August 19, 2014 by Dazey

[magisme]

By many accounts, Brown and his friend were running away from the officer. Eye witness accounts from individuals not involved have stated that the police officer shot at Brown and Johnson as they ran. Unless everyone but the cop is lying, then we're talking about murder. If the several eye witness accounts are accurate, then the police officer's safety is no longer at issue. Even if one wants to accept the police officer's account of a physical altercation, it has little bearing on whether the use of deadly force was justified with a fleeing suspect.

The autopsy report clearly indicates that Brown was shot in the front of the body! That is conclusive proof that all those "eyewitnesses" are liars with an agenda.

Does the autopsy report indicate range fired? If the shots are point blank, then yes, it would corroborate the police's position. But many of the accounts that I've read indicate that Brown turned and faced the officer after he started firing. That would explain why the entry wounds are on the front of the body. Unless, of course, you believe that an unarmed man, having ran away from the office, made the conscientious decision to stop, turn around, and the began charging the shooting officer who had his gun drawn.

Autopsy report indicated shots were not fired at close range.

[Not An FSB Agent]

EDIT: comment was probably too soon. Another idiot gets shot by cops in St Louis.

http://q13fox.com/2014/08/19/another-officer-involved-shooting-in-st-louis-near-ferguson/

No. If shots were fired during the physical altercation between the police officer and Brown, then yes, the officer could argue that it was the "abiguities" of the situation. But police training clearly states that you do not fire on an armed man who is fleeing a scene.

By ambiguity, I was referring to the initial staments made by police.

They have been rioting for over a week! I submit that the authorties have been lenient, and need to put an end to this shit. It is one thing to protest, but to have a state of anarchy in streets?

Crack down, and crack down hard! Bring in the water cannons and pepper foggers and end this. Arrest anyone that riots or breaks curfew. There is only a few hundred instigators causing most of the problems. Get them off the streets.

Are you saying water cannons have not been used so far? I didn't really followed this see. In my country and mostly my city those cannons would have been used right away. That's how we clean the streets when (football) rioting is going on. If they haven't been used so far, I don't get it. It's basicly the fastest and easiest way to stop riots.

I haven't seen any employed. The police in the US don't have water cannons, per se, but have to get the local fire departments to employ their firefighting apparatus in these kinds of situations. Police and fire don't always work well together, and it is two separate agencies, so a fire chief can veto their use.

Edited August 19, 2014 by Not An FSB Agent

[Dazey]

My main issue with these kind of events is that we have loonies on both sides of the argument when the truth is never so black and white..................

The fact remains is that this police officer shot him because he was a big black guy and nothing else.

This is America man, if a cop tells you to stop and you keep running he can shoot you if he wants to.

[magisme]

They have been rioting for over a week! I submit that the authorties have been lenient, and need to put an end to this shit. It is one thing to protest, but to have a state of anarchy in streets?

Crack down, and crack down hard! Bring in the water cannons and pepper foggers and end this. Arrest anyone that riots or breaks curfew. There is only a few hundred instigators causing most of the problems. Get them off the streets.

Are you saying water cannons have not been used so far? I didn't really followed this see. In my country and mostly my city those cannons would have been used right away. That's how we clean the streets when (football) rioting is going on. If they haven't been used so far, I don't get it. It's basicly the fastest and easiest way to stop riots.

Water cannons were used on black protesters during the civil right movement, and since everyone responsible is now out of power, making it safe to wag fingers, water cannons have a real bad connotation in the States. We're OK with tanks and assault rifles of course, just not water cannons.

Amazingly, but not so surprisingly, many of the arguments against Ferguson protesters here and elsewhere are exactly the same as those that were used against civil rights activists.

[bran]

i dont think anyone has a problem with protesting, i think most have problems with the burning down people's businesses and looting.

[Not An FSB Agent]

My main issue with these kind of events is that we have loonies on both sides of the argument when the truth is never so black and white..................

This is America man, if a cop tells you to stop and you keep running he can shoot you if he wants to.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has cleared police that have used that tactic. To me it's simple when someone is shot in the back, it is a crime. Remember the old spaghetti westerns? it was the lowest of low scoudrel that shot someone in the back.

[magisme]

i dont think anyone has a problem with protesting, i think most have problems with the burning down people's businesses and looting.

Reports from Ferguson indicate there's people who can arrest you who have a problem with protesting. They're just gathering people up in some places and figuring out who they are later, and a number of media members have been arrested as a result.

[bran]

i dont think anyone has a problem with protesting, i think most have problems with the burning down people's businesses and looting.

Reports from Ferguson indicate there's people who can arrest you who have a problem with protesting. They're just gathering people up in some places and figuring out who they are later, and a number of media members have been arrested as a result.

i thought you were talking about more in line with people following coverage and commenting on the story. yeah the cops have been pricks in all this no doubt. they have been making some weird rules and then reversing them just to make even stranger rules

[Apollo]

Downzy, Think again,

operative word "think", instead of believing everything you read.

Your bible, CNN NEEDS this to be a white cop overreacting and shooting an unarmed black teen. ratings are through the roof.

Wouldn't the more likely scenario be the cops story that he pulled alongside "Mr." Brown and asked him and his hoodlum partner to get out of the road and onto the sidewalk,

and when they didn't and or wised off to him the officer did what any officer would and should do and went to get out of the car to confront them. "Mr." Brown stopped him from getting out of the car by holding or closing the door back on him, and by the cops story even punched him in the face through the window, he has injuries to that effect. The cop also claimed he grabbed "Mr." Browns arm and tried to hold him when he punched him, at which time "Mr." Brown tried to reach in and take his gun. Not being able to he then broke free and took off running. Now the cop is within his right to get out of the car and shoot him. Clear and present danger to the public would be described to me at least as someone willing to punch a cop and try to take his gun, I want that person off the streets, no? And as you saw in the video at the convenience store "Mr." Brown doesn't like to be challenged, he turns and confronts his challengers. And in this case he comes running like a wild man toward an armed man. results may vary if you do that.

Exactly.

The sad thing is that all of this could have been avoided. If the guy would have simply did what the cop asked him to do, if he hadn't thrown punches at the cop, if he hadn't tried to grab the cops gun, if he didn't try and flee the police.........I'm pretty sure he'd be out chillin with his buddies right now.

Edited August 19, 2014 by Groghan

[Zint]

KK, can you link me to the footage of the actual incident that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Michael Brown didn't try to grab the gun, didn't shove the police car door back on the officer, didn't get in to a scrap with him through the window, didn't continue to walk brazenly down the middle of the road shouting intimidations, didn't turn around and charge the officer, because I can't seem to find it online.

Subsequently, I also can't find the footage of the actual incident that shows Michael Brown merely running away because he was scared (for being told to get on the sidewalk?).

Again, I'm not condoning nor suggesting he deserved to be shot to death, but you just seem so cocksure about the facts of what went down in the middle of that road.

I've seen his friend's initial interview where he basically said they were two local angels minding their own business, doing nothing wrong and not hurting anybody (physically or psychologically) just walking through the middle of traffic enjoying the sunny afternoon and a cop rolled up and emptied six bullets into his friend's back.

I've also seen his interview where he's standing next to his lawyer sounding like he is reading from a teleprompter with a revised script of events (after the video was released showing what they had been up to not ten minutes earlier).

Help me out man, can you hook me up with the proof of what went down one way or the other?

Thanks

[\thread]

Sorry, I'm usually in the same boat as Zint and Dazey on most issues, but I've got to back up KK on this one. It's not just Michael Brown's friend, Dorian Johnson, who's account of police brutality that leads to Brown's death, but several others.

If the police officer had shot Brown during the course of the struggle then Brown's death would have caused as much attention as it has. By many accounts, Brown and his friend were running away from the officer. Eye witness accounts from individuals not involved have stated that the police officer shot at Brown and Johnson as they ran. Unless everyone but the cop is lying, then we're talking about murder. If the several eye witness accounts are accurate, then the police officer's safety is no longer at issue. Even if one wants to accept the police officer's account of a physical altercation, it has little bearing on whether the use of deadly force was justified with a fleeing suspect.

Also let's examine how the police have responded since the death. They first made a statement that the involved officer was responding to the burglary report. That statement was later rescinded, with the police acknowledging that the burglary was not a motive for why the officer stopped Brown and Johnson. Also notice how it took six days for the police to name the officer involve. And when the name was finally revealed, they paired with the robbery video that had nothing to do with why the involved police officer stopped Brown and Johnson. We've also seen the police's complete over-reaction to demonstrators that has escalated the situation in Ferguson to the fever pitch it exists today.

Look, I'm sure Brown was no angel and probably threw a lot of attitude towards the cop's direction when the cop made the initial stop. But based on what we know so far (and CNN does a pretty count job covering this here), it's highly probable that we're talking about a incident of police brutality that resulted in a young man's death. I'm sure more will come out, but how it looks right now, I definitely think KK's opinion better aligns itself with what happened.

"if" "probable" "highly probable"

I would suggest that KK's opinion a few pages back of "until proven guilty" is a tad askew considering he seemingly can not provide definites as to how the series of events in the middle of that road went down. That is my initial point.

Well, there is no conclusive video footage of the event. That you are correct.

But since we're just a bunch of assholes writing on an internet forum and (hopefully) not part of the jury, let's not be disingenuous and act like the accounts of both sides hold up equally as well to scrutiny.

If we are to believe the police's version, we'd have to discount the testimony of several eye witnesses. We'd also have to accept the possibility that someone would turn and charge a police officer who has their gun drawn. Is is possible that everyone but the cops is lying and that Brown was a maniac who thought he could dodge bullets? I guess. Is it likely? To me, not much.

let's not be disingenuous and act like the accounts of both sides hold up equally as well to scrutiny.

Exactly my point, yet KK has the cop in prison already.

All accounts have to be taken in to consideration.

I was initially fed the report that Michael was a scholarly graduate about to continue his higher education, was a good boy who never got in to trouble and was a shining pillar of the community, the only photo given to the press was Michael in his graduation gown, days later I watched a video of him involved in a strong arm robbery using physical intimidation to commit a crime, and then come the photos of him throwing gang signs and giving the finger...and yet I'm not supposed to consider that just maybe, minutes later, he leaned in the cop car window and cracked the cop upside the head? (there is a report that the cops face was swollen).

So, a cop pulls up to two guys walking down the middle of the road, gets attitude from them, ends up in a physical exchange with one and gets punched in the face, a report comes over the police radio of a store robbery blocks away, Michael's holding a handful of cigars and starts to run, the cop gets out of the car and tells him to stop, having only the initial info on the robbery (ie: has to wonder..does this kid have a weapon on him or not)...thinking about that as the kid charges at him, he makes a snap decision in the chaos of the split seconds unfolding in front of him. I am not to think that is a plausible scenario? I'm not passing judgement on that scenario, but I can not wholly dismiss it as not being a possible, plausible account of events

And to be clear, I am not dismissing eyewitness accounts of two guys walking down the middle of the road, a cop pulls up and starts wailing on the kid for that reason only, the kids start running so the cop steps out of his car and puts six slugs in to him...for walking in the road. It is possible, but I can't post in this thread that the cop should be in jail based solely on that account of events.

Think what you want mate, but one of those scenarios sounds slightly less dodgy than the other.

Look, I know there's bad cops (of which there is apparently not a blemish on this guy's record) but I also know there a shitload of people in this world who would stretch the truth to throw a "fucking pig" under the bus. I've seen it all before. Innocent people do go to jail based on eyewitness accounts, there's a long legal history of it.

I'm not on either side of this case atm because quite frankly I'm finding it difficult to find finite plausibility as of yet from either side.

Perhaps a kid running at an armed cop didn't happen (but it has happened), perhaps "the cops photoshopped that video to make that guy look like Michael" didn't happen as some have claimed on CNN and elsewhere, but like you said, we're just tossing thoughts around right? However, some of us have the cop tossed in jail already, some of us are just saying "hang on a minute"... where does the right and wrong in that land?

[Ace Nova]

I apologize for some of my excessive rants last evening (especially to Bran, Zint and Dazey....I was somewhat belligerent towards you guys, touche)....I tend to get over emotional about subjects, especially after drinking a few beers.

Not all the facts of this case are out yet.....but for the time being, my overall opinion stands....Brown (just like every other American citizen) is/was innocent until proven guilty.....and if the cop did indeed shoot him, with him being unarmed....and potentially just fleeing.....then it was wrong.

I'll reserve commenting any further until all the facts are out.

[mrandyk]

The officer came away with a swollen face after Brown assaulted him, and autopsy shows that Brown was only shot straight on (consistent with the claim that Brown charged the officer). Unless it comes out that the officer killed Brown execution style, these protesters look like a bunch of idiots.

[Zint]

I apologize for some of my excessive rants last evening (especially to Bran, Zint and Dazey....I was somewhat belligerent towards you guys, touche)....I tend to get over emotional about subjects, especially after drinking a few beers.

Not all the facts of this case are out yet.....but for the time being, my overall opinion stands....Brown (just like every other American citizen) is/was innocent until proven guilty.....and if the cop did indeed shoot him, with him being unarmed....and potentially just fleeing.....then it was wrong.

I'll reserve commenting any further until all the facts are out.

Brown (just like every other American citizen) is innocent until proven guilty

Well, that cop is an American citizen too, mate.

[bran]

on cnn they said their was a report that the officer suffered an eye socket injury, which is being described as an orbital fracture. i dont know how reliable this report is, just saw it on cnn.

[Ace Nova]

I apologize for some of my excessive rants last evening (especially to Bran, Zint and Dazey....I was somewhat belligerent towards you guys, touche)....I tend to get over emotional about subjects, especially after drinking a few beers.

Not all the facts of this case are out yet.....but for the time being, my overall opinion stands....Brown (just like every other American citizen) is/was innocent until proven guilty.....and if the cop did indeed shoot him, with him being unarmed....and potentially just fleeing.....then it was wrong.

I'll reserve commenting any further until all the facts are out.

Brown (just like every other American citizen) is innocent until proven guilty

Well, that cop is an American citizen too, mate.

Of course he is....that's why I'm holding back commenting until the entire story is out....or at least much more information.

Edited August 20, 2014 by Kasanova King

[downzy]

Downzy, Think again,

operative word "think", instead of believing everything you read.

Your bible, CNN NEEDS this to be a white cop overreacting and shooting an unarmed black teen. ratings are through the roof.

Wouldn't the more likely scenario be the cops story that he pulled alongside "Mr." Brown and asked him and his hoodlum partner to get out of the road and onto the sidewalk,

and when they didn't and or wised off to him the officer did what any officer would and should do and went to get out of the car to confront them. "Mr." Brown stopped him from getting out of the car by holding or closing the door back on him, and by the cops story even punched him in the face through the window, he has injuries to that effect. The cop also claimed he grabbed "Mr." Browns arm and tried to hold him when he punched him, at which time "Mr." Brown tried to reach in and take his gun. Not being able to he then broke free and took off running. Now the cop is within his right to get out of the car and shoot him. Clear and present danger to the public would be described to me at least as someone willing to punch a cop and try to take his gun, I want that person off the streets, no? And as you saw in the video at the convenience store "Mr." Brown doesn't like to be challenged, he turns and confronts his challengers. And in this case he comes running like a wild man toward an armed man. results may vary if you do that.

Exactly.

The sad thing is that all of this could have been avoided. If the guy would have simply did what the cop asked him to do, if he hadn't thrown punches at the cop, if he hadn't tried to grab the cops gun, if he didn't try and flee the police.........I'm pretty sure he'd be out chillin with his buddies right now.

Sure, but the onus isn't only on Brown to ensure that laws are executed faithfully. The greater responsibility is on the person given the special privilege to ensure that citizens, whether innocent or guilty of a crime, are not susceptible to arbitrary applications of the law. That person, of course, being the police officer involved.

There are altercations with cops all the time where no one gets killed. None of those things you've listed (doing what the cop told him, thrown punches, attempt to grab the cop's gun, fleeing the scene) - even if that is what exactly happened, warrants being shot six times resulting in Brown's death.

We repeatedly see protestors and demonstrators at various rallies use civil disobedience and outright violence towards security personnel. But it's still the responsibility of the police to protect not only the wellbeing of the innocent but also the guilty. The police are not suppose to encompass all processes of the law. They are mainly there to apply the laws, not determine guilt and hand down punishment.

Edited August 20, 2014 by downzy

[downzy]

KK, can you link me to the footage of the actual incident that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Michael Brown didn't try to grab the gun, didn't shove the police car door back on the officer, didn't get in to a scrap with him through the window, didn't continue to walk brazenly down the middle of the road shouting intimidations, didn't turn around and charge the officer, because I can't seem to find it online.

Subsequently, I also can't find the footage of the actual incident that shows Michael Brown merely running away because he was scared (for being told to get on the sidewalk?).

Again, I'm not condoning nor suggesting he deserved to be shot to death, but you just seem so cocksure about the facts of what went down in the middle of that road.

I've seen his friend's initial interview where he basically said they were two local angels minding their own business, doing nothing wrong and not hurting anybody (physically or psychologically) just walking through the middle of traffic enjoying the sunny afternoon and a cop rolled up and emptied six bullets into his friend's back.

I've also seen his interview where he's standing next to his lawyer sounding like he is reading from a teleprompter with a revised script of events (after the video was released showing what they had been up to not ten minutes earlier).

Help me out man, can you hook me up with the proof of what went down one way or the other?

Thanks

[\thread]

Sorry, I'm usually in the same boat as Zint and Dazey on most issues, but I've got to back up KK on this one. It's not just Michael Brown's friend, Dorian Johnson, who's account of police brutality that leads to Brown's death, but several others.

If the police officer had shot Brown during the course of the struggle then Brown's death would have caused as much attention as it has. By many accounts, Brown and his friend were running away from the officer. Eye witness accounts from individuals not involved have stated that the police officer shot at Brown and Johnson as they ran. Unless everyone but the cop is lying, then we're talking about murder. If the several eye witness accounts are accurate, then the police officer's safety is no longer at issue. Even if one wants to accept the police officer's account of a physical altercation, it has little bearing on whether the use of deadly force was justified with a fleeing suspect.

Also let's examine how the police have responded since the death. They first made a statement that the involved officer was responding to the burglary report. That statement was later rescinded, with the police acknowledging that the burglary was not a motive for why the officer stopped Brown and Johnson. Also notice how it took six days for the police to name the officer involve. And when the name was finally revealed, they paired with the robbery video that had nothing to do with why the involved police officer stopped Brown and Johnson. We've also seen the police's complete over-reaction to demonstrators that has escalated the situation in Ferguson to the fever pitch it exists today.

Look, I'm sure Brown was no angel and probably threw a lot of attitude towards the cop's direction when the cop made the initial stop. But based on what we know so far (and CNN does a pretty count job covering this here), it's highly probable that we're talking about a incident of police brutality that resulted in a young man's death. I'm sure more will come out, but how it looks right now, I definitely think KK's opinion better aligns itself with what happened.

"if" "probable" "highly probable"

I would suggest that KK's opinion a few pages back of "until proven guilty" is a tad askew considering he seemingly can not provide definites as to how the series of events in the middle of that road went down. That is my initial point.

Well, there is no conclusive video footage of the event. That you are correct.

But since we're just a bunch of assholes writing on an internet forum and (hopefully) not part of the jury, let's not be disingenuous and act like the accounts of both sides hold up equally as well to scrutiny.

If we are to believe the police's version, we'd have to discount the testimony of several eye witnesses. We'd also have to accept the possibility that someone would turn and charge a police officer who has their gun drawn. Is is possible that everyone but the cops is lying and that Brown was a maniac who thought he could dodge bullets? I guess. Is it likely? To me, not much.

let's not be disingenuous and act like the accounts of both sides hold up equally as well to scrutiny.

Exactly my point, yet KK has the cop in prison already.

All accounts have to be taken in to consideration.

I was initially fed the report that Michael was a scholarly graduate about to continue his higher education, was a good boy who never got in to trouble and was a shining pillar of the community, the only photo given to the press was Michael in his graduation gown, days later I watched a video of him involved in a strong arm robbery using physical intimidation to commit a crime, and then come the photos of him throwing gang signs and giving the finger...and yet I'm not supposed to consider that just maybe, minutes later, he leaned in the cop car window and cracked the cop upside the head? (there is a report that the cops face was swollen).

So, a cop pulls up to two guys walking down the middle of the road, gets attitude from them, ends up in a physical exchange with one and gets punched in the face, a report comes over the police radio of a store robbery blocks away, Michael's holding a handful of cigars and starts to run, the cop gets out of the car and tells him to stop, having only the initial info on the robbery (ie: has to wonder..does this kid have a weapon on him or not)...thinking about that as the kid charges at him, he makes a snap decision in the chaos of the split seconds unfolding in front of him. I am not to think that is a plausible scenario? I'm not passing judgement on that scenario, but I can not wholly dismiss it as not being a possible, plausible account of events

And to be clear, I am not dismissing eyewitness accounts of two guys walking down the middle of the road, a cop pulls up and starts wailing on the kid for that reason only, the kids start running so the cop steps out of his car and puts six slugs in to him...for walking in the road. It is possible, but I can't post in this thread that the cop should be in jail based solely on that account of events.

Think what you want mate, but one of those scenarios sounds slightly less dodgy than the other.

Look, I know there's bad cops (of which there is apparently not a blemish on this guy's record) but I also know there a shitload of people in this world who would stretch the truth to throw a "fucking pig" under the bus. I've seen it all before. Innocent people do go to jail based on eyewitness accounts, there's a long legal history of it.

I'm not on either side of this case atm because quite frankly I'm finding it difficult to find finite plausibility as of yet from either side.

Perhaps a kid running at an armed cop didn't happen (but it has happened), perhaps "the cops photoshopped that video to make that guy look like Michael" didn't happen as some have claimed on CNN and elsewhere, but like you said, we're just tossing thoughts around right? However, some of us have the cop tossed in jail already, some of us are just saying "hang on a minute"... where does the right and wrong in that land?

But here's what I can't get past. This notion that Brown is charging a police officer who is actively shooting him is where this account falls apart. Not because it's highly unlikely, but for the simple reason that both Brown and Johnson took off running in the first place. Magisme has already mentioned how the bullets weren't fired at close range to the target. So if we are to accept that Brown and Johnson initially ran as the result of the altercation, why did they (or just Brown) stop running? What reason would they have to stop if their initial impulse was to run? And why, if the officer is far enough where the entry wounds for the bullets weren't fired at point blank, would Brown then charge at the officer knowing full well that he's discharging his weapon? None of this makes any sense. Who knows, maybe the toxicology results will reveal Brown was under the influence of a narcotic or alcohol. Maybe he has psychological problems that caused erratic behaviour. But those are really the only plausible explanations for such behaviour. No sober, sound mind individual who initially flees from the police suddenly decides to do a 180 and charge at man now pointing a gun at him.

[magisme]

Is there any evidence whatsoever that Brown charged the officer? Are the cops even implying that? Why are we taking that scenario seriously? What sort of physical position is a 6'4 dude in if he's charging a cop and he gets shot in the top of his head? WTF?

[downzy]

Is there any evidence whatsoever that Brown charged the officer? Are the cops even implying that? Why are we taking that scenario seriously? What sort of physical position is a 6'4 dude in if he's charging a cop and he gets shot in the top of his head? WTF?

I have no clue where that's coming from. I think I remember hearing that account being expressed by one of Officer Wilson's friends. Yet I don't think this is the official position of the police just yet.

Moreover, even if this is the official police position, there's two problems with it. First, they don't have a lot of credibility (for me at least), considering they already revised one of their positions on the matter. The police first claimed that Brown and his friend were approached by the police officer because of the reports of the robbery. They later came back and said, oops, no, the officer addressed the two individuals because they were walking in the road, and it had nothing to do with the report of a nearby robbery. So right out of the gate the police department was fudging details to make their guy look better.

Second, and I'm repeating myself, how does it make any sense for Brown to charge the officer when, only seconds earlier, he and his friend decided to (or instinctively) flee/leave/run? Did brown get 20 yards away and objected to the cop yelling at him? Was the police making fun of the way he ran ("you run like a girl!!!"). Did Officer Wilson yell out an N-bomb and Brown just hates it when he hears white people say it? But for the sake of argument, let's assume that one of those things happened. Maybe, for reasons we'll never know, Brown got twenty feet away and decided he just wasn't going to take it anymore. He stops, turns, and decides, what the fuck, I'm going to charge a gun drawn police officer. Really? Does that make sense to anyone?

So those who want to put the blame on Brown for this have to deal with those two issues: the lack of credibility by the police force and the implausibility of anyone charging a gun-drawn police officer when only seconds earlier that same person was trying to get away from the scene.