Michael Brown Shot 6 Times - All From the Front

I have already cited Mississuri law and he had every right to shoot him and even by your list the shooting was justified. And provide the link for you cite.

1. Brown had such ability and capacity
2. Brown had such ability and capacity
3. Brown had such opportunity
4. The threat was imminent as Brown charged at him and there were no other avenues of action. Police officers are NOT required to flee from felony suspects who have already attacked them, the are duty bound to either apprehend them or put them down.

 

st louis police are making a dangerous bed to lie in

 

We have the contemporaneous statement of the witness caught on the phone video, we have the officers statement both made without knowledge of the other and the corroborate each other. We have according to the St. Louis Post Dispatch 12 witness statements to police that corroborate those statements. We have the autopsy which supports those statements.

You have seen them? IOW they went before the media and gave public statements? That spoils any testimony they may give. They tend to do so seeking some kind of fame and tend to embellish their stories to fit the narrative that is being presented. They are not under qualified interrogation which can vet their stories for accuracy and truthfulness

Then you aren't very well informed.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...-darren-wilsons-version-of-ferguson-shooting/

Yes I posted that. She came forward out of desperation on the side of the family and friends of this police officer who is being smeared in public with no recourse. Three days later the contemporaneous account came to light, a witness who did not even know his voice was being record, and it corroborated the story the family friend related on behalf of the family. Neither had prior knowledge of the other yet they corroborate each other. That is POWERFUL evidence. And now it is being reported 12 other witness corroborate those stories.

So what exactly is it you have to accuse the officer of wrongdoing?

 

what a joke

 

A Witness Conversation Unknowingly Captured at the Scene of the Ferguson Shooting is a Game-Changer

....previously unnoticed detail in a background conversion of a video taken minutes after the Ferguson shooting could change the course of the investigation into Mike Brown’s death.
The original video poster appears sympathetic to the narrative that Mike Brown was shot unarmed with his hands in the air. But he unknowingly picks up conversation between a man who saw the altercation and another neighbor.
@6:28/6:29 of video
#1 How’d he get from there to there?
#2 Because he ran, the police was still in the truck – cause he was like over the truck
{crosstalk}
#2 But him and the police was both in the truck, then he ran – the police got out and ran after him
{crosstalk}
#2 Then the next thing I know he doubled back toward him cus - the police had his gun drawn already on him –
[there is dispute here whether he says "doubled back" or "coming back."]
#1. Oh, the police got his gun
#2 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}
#2 Police fired shots – the next thing I know – the police was missing
#1 The Police?
#2 The Police shot him
#1 Police?
#2 The next thing I know … I’m thinking … the dude started running … (garbled something about “he took it from him”)

This is terribly important because if Mike Brown had been shot, and he advanced towards the cop instead of surrendering, it would substantiate the narrative that the policeman shot in self-defense due to the fact that he was being threatened with severe bodily harm.

This corroborates an account of the event given by a friend of Officer Darren Wilson:
"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.”
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/08/168...tail-background-video-mins-ferguson-shooting/

 

Still waiting for you to tell us why if Brown was surrendering, if he was on his knees and back turned, if he was not threatening, that the officer should have tazed him...............

 

The friends account really doesnt help. It almost sounds like wilson sorta panicked. Before you say they are taught not to...i was taught not to cuss but i do. Human nature

 

how did he get shot in the top of his head if he wasn't on the ground in submission?

 

When I saw this video a couple days ago, one thing that caught my attention was this.....

"The police kept dumping on him" (shooting him)... "but he kept coming toward him".

Which is consistent with the autopsy report showing that the first 4 or 5 shots couldn't put the guy down.

Being shot, and still going toward the cop.... if true... is pretty damning.

 

Exactly! Which means you can't take everything the witness says literally. It appears to me that the only parts being taken literally are the parts one side wants to hear. I'd rather get the truth, whatever the truth may be.

We'll, you just burst your own bubble when you said "PROBABLY". Probably doesn't cut it in making the case as to what he said and what he meant. It could be. But we do not know that for sure. Like I said, your conclusion of "PROBABLY" isn't enough to know either way.

That depends upon what witness you want to believe, and which one you claim is lying like Bill O'Reilly when he lied about the witness saying Brown was shot in the back. The witness never said he was shot in the back, but that is the lie circulating around by O'Reilly; http://on.msnbc.com/1pGxSzJ

 

If he suddenly bent over while the officer was shooting, is the obvious answer.

 

1) Nope
2) Nope
3) Nope
4) Abject nonsense

 

what video?

bent over, going down on his knees or face, it's a position of submission

 

I agree. Lets pretend Bill O'Reilly isn't part of the discussion as well, making things more complicated; http://on.msnbc.com/1pGxSzJ

 

Possibly! And what happened to this version where Bill O'Reilly was lying about the witness himself? Is her story no longer credible now that O'Reilly lied about what she said; http://on.msnbc.com/1pGxSzJ?

 

This thread has reached post limits. Feel free to start another, or join discussions in one of the existing threads.

Thanks
Shangrila
PF Moderator