Michael Brown Autopsy: Suggests Teen Was Shot At Close Range: Report

I told you... people that lawyer up and give testimony AFTER all the facts come out have less reliable stories, doesn't mean they are not true, but means they are less reliable and can NOT be fact checked as they made the story AFTER the facts were known to them

 

It supports officer Wilsons account.

Also support officer Wilson's account.

According to whom?

Yes, he is the only one who can and so far there has been no reason to believe otherwise.]

First of all, I'm not agreeing with your account of what happened and secondly, that's just your apparent non-professional opinion and is demonstrative of your ignorance as to just what is possible --especially by the criminal element of which Brown is one.

 

That's the truth. If blacks are wanting/needing a new icon to replace the worn out Jacksons and Sharptons, one would think they could at least find someone who isn't a slobbering retard.

 

So, it is more believable that a teen who had already been hit a few times, runs back into the gun who is firing at him? Oh, he thought he was bullet proof, now I get it. Superman.

Occams Razor works here. And you are not using that razor. Once the cop committed to shooting the guy at a distance, he was gonna kill him. Ain't that the way it really works?

You gonna charge a guy who is shooting at you? After you have already been hit? This is just unreasonable for anyone to assume. I guess the teen was just completely unaware that bullets will kill you dead, really fast?

I got no dog in this hunt, but the truth as you see it is just irrational.

 

Facts not in evidence, the minute you say "no way" your statement loses credibilty. But let's take you statement on it's face. Brown starts beating Wilson through the window, Wilson has every right to draw his weapon and use it. That Brown instead of backing away ans submitting to arrest, struggles with him, even more reason to use the weapon. And when he rushes towards Wilson after already having assaulted him bullets will fly.

 

You said
"when people refuse to give an account of what happened and lawyer up"

Yes and of course this applies to the IRS scandal where the key witness lawyered up and refuses to give an account of what happened yes or no?

And as far as the Brown case most of the witnesses the Brown supporters are relying on did exactly what you are saying makes them less reliable, they waited until after the public narrative was created, lawyered up and call the press to get their time on TV.

 

Ran back and then the gun was fired on him.

You haven't read his statement as related through the family friend? He claims Brown taunted him first, that he would not fire, and then he rush him.

Once a person attacks a policeman and is rushing him again yes he is likely to be killed. Ain't that the way it really works?

If I don't want to be arrested for the felony robbery I have just committed and now a felony assault on a police officer and I think I can over power him and that he won't shoot at me, maybe because I am high on weed?

Well what is rational about a police officer deciding to go out and kill a black guy on a busy public street just for the heck of it?

 

who said they wanted that, just not over use of force, if you want to be abused by bad cops so be it, not all of us do

I want cop cams on every cop and cams in every cop car.... protect us and the good cops (bad cops can go to jail for all I care, they are criminals with a badge)

- - - Updated - - -

I agree with you.... and it applies here

doesn't mean a person is guilty of a crime, but makes their version of the story less reliable as it can not be fact checked, because they told their story AFTER the facts came out

.

 

Which means Lerner's statement she did nothing wrong is not reliable. Agreed?

So the pro-Brown witnesses, who did not come out with their stories till after the public narrative had been formed and lawyered up are less reliable than the the contemporaneous witness caught on the cell phone video stating Brown rush Wilson and then Wilson started firing and Brown kept rushing him. And then there are the witnesses who did not go public who were reported early on to support Wilson and now it has recently come out again that they do. And I am sure Wilson gave his statement to investigators shortly after the event which most likely will match what the close family friend related WHICH ALSO was corroborated by that contemporaneous witness mentioned above.

So the weight of the evidence leads you where?

.[/QUOTE]

 

[/QUOTE]

yes, it does, I already answered that, if you do not give a answer until after the facts come out, it makes your story less reliable, no matter who you are... doesn't mean your guilty, just makes it less reliable

and I already said, I think the cop meant no wrong, overreacted and shot the kid 6 times at a distance cause he was scared... that makes it a legal kill

doesn't matter if the cop really had reason to be scared or not, only that the cop was scared

there was no written statement early on by the cop, the grand jury proved that....

.

 

so if the first shot had killed him it would not have been an overreaction? What does the number of shots it took to stop him have to do with anything?

Yes as in any self defense there is a reasonable fear of serious bodily harm or death and in this case fear of losing control of his weapon.

I'm am quite sure his statement was given to investigators in the internal investigation which would have begun immediately after the shooting. But let's not forget, the contemporaneous statement and his statement through the family friend were given without prior knowledge of each other and they corroborate each other.

.[/QUOTE]

 

That's comical. I'm a dark skin guy from a Portuguese heritage, I look Latino or Hispanic. Back East when I worked the job just before being hired by the Armored Truck company, I used to get on the interstate from the same on ramp every day. There was an embankment off to the right where I used to see folks throwing beer can out the window coming from a little bar around the corner. When I between the jobs I went there and found hundreds of cans and bottles with a return deposits (before CRV) on them. Needing gas money, I went there and bagged half the cans. While collecting more, a State Trooper appeared. I was at least 100 feet from the highway down an embankment so I couldn't see what the problem was, I wasn't darting into traffic to get them. Hell, from where I was I couldn't even see the traffic. The trooper said hey you come over her a minute. He said I was on a Highway right of way and pedestrians aren't allowed by law on the right of way and I need to leave. I asked him if I could go get what I'd collected, he said NO I had to leave now. This was the pivotal moment, I like Brown walking in the middle of the street had no right to be there according to the law, what we did about it was very different. The trooper didn't want to hear what I had to say about cleaning up the area or anything, of course that made me angry I was 22 years old and full of testosterone, just like I'm sure being told to get out of the street made Brown angry. I left and went home cheesed off at leaving behind all those bags of cans. Brown on the other hand apparently punched the cop in the face and tried to take his gun. Who's response do you think was reasonable, mine or his? I learned growing up we don't always get everything we want just because we want it, it appears Brown did not. What do you think would have happened if I punched the trooper in the face and tried to take his gun because he was rude to me and I had to leave all those cans I worked hard to pick up?

Who should pay for that and why? Would you agree to every town/city raises their local taxes to pay for it?

 

not sure what your point it, I agree it was a bad choice the teen made trying to get away from the cop when he grabbed him, also a bad idea to run (as we see now, also a bad idea to stop running)

but was lethal force needed after he ran... no, I do not believe so... but the cop was scared, so he shot... makes it legal, but doesn't make it right

.

 

Evidence the cop grabbed him please. I read the autopsy and there are no marks or abrasions on his neck that supports that.

 

I find it odd how many did not even seem concerned that the old man in the store was attacked. It's very revealing to the amount of Bias in this thing. It's as if people were angry at him for making a fuss about being robbed and mugged.

HE made Brown look bad I guess.....sad...

 

correct, the first shot was justified

the other shots that were at a distance are justified if the officer was honestly scared for his life.... even if in reality that was a false sense of fear

.

 

He was a violent fleeing felon and a danger to the community and if he got away and holed up somewhere, perhaps using a weapon he may have on him remember he had not been searched, or obtaining and then other officers having to be place in danger apprehending him. What do you think was going to happen if he got away, the police would just shrug their shoulders and say "on well"? Wilson had a duty to apprehend him or prevent his escape.

- - - Updated - - -

So if the first shot had killed him it would have been OK but after that Wilson had to let him assault him, he only got one shot. Care to explain that to me?

 

[/QUOTE]


"Stop him" from WHAT? From running away?
Well. . .the fact he was running away certainly doesn't demonstrate that he was an "imminent danger" to the cop. . .especially since the cop knew by then that Brown WASN'T ARMED!

Duh!

 

"Stop him" from WHAT? From running away?[/QUOTE]

Actually from bowling him over most likely causing him to lose control of his firearm, but yes he could shoot him running away to prevent his escape, Brown had already committed to violent acts one against a police officer.

How did he know he wasn't armed, when was Brown searched and yes a police officer can shot a fleeing violent felon to prevent their escape.

 

he was not a felon, stop lying

 

if he claimed Brown was going after his gun, then he knew he wasn't armed cause he would of shot him then took the gun, that and there was no gun in his hands when he shot him, nor any mention from the cop that he thought the deceased had a gun

 

no doubt, 6 shots to stop him from running away backwards, he was returning,m already shot, injured, the cop should of kept gun pointed as he came closer, ordered him to do whatever he wanted him to do, and then only shot when\if he refused those orders and looked like a threat

but this cop was a scardy cat, and shot 6 times.... game over... the cop panicked... he is human

.

 

He had committed two felony acts, stop pretending.

- - - Updated - - -

You>> Well. . .the fact he was running away certainly doesn't demonstrate that he was an "imminent danger" to the cop. . .especially since the cop knew by then that Brown WASN'T ARMED!

Me>> How did he know he wasn't armed, when was Brown searched and yes a police officer can shot a fleeing violent felon to prevent their escape.

As I thought you were blowing smoke. He had no idea if he was armed or not, Brown had not been searched.

 

he was never convicted of a felony or charged with one, stop lying

 

Your interpretation is what makes what is rational, irrational. Your account is pure conjecture and not tied to any facts that the GJ will hear. If you really "don't have a dog in this hunt", then what would be rational and would make more sense is to take officer Wilson's account and see where the evidence conflicts with his story and then make those arguments.. you know, Occam's Razor.