Ferguson Shooting re:Audio tape

[mudwhistle]

........

Seriously?

People have been convicted on "eye-witness accounts" only to have them overturned on DNA evidence. eye-witness accounts are notoriously unreliable. There are masses of articles about how what an eye-witness recalls is far from the "best evidence'.

So if that is all that you have then you don't have squat.

Even if you assume that the first shot occurred in the vehicle and it was an AD you have to explain why Wilson drew his gun in the first place. Taunting a police office does not justify shooting and killing.

I've heard that there's evidence that Michael touched the officer's gun. Perhaps he's the one that caused the discharge in the car.

Regarding the "eye-witnesses"...one has already recanted (Michael's partner in crime). Also, I have heard stories where one purported eye-witness sets the story and others agree even when they actually didn't see the details...just to back up their buddy.

Michael was NOT shot in the back as once proclaimed by an "eye-witness".

The most reliable eye-witness in this case is the officer.

Why did the officer draw his gun in the vehicle?

Answering that would be pure speculation.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Beating a police officer, trying to steal his gun and murder him, and then when that doesn't work, trying to beat him again, maybe kill him this time, well that does justify it.
But, when it comes to eye-witness accounts, when you have more than one, in this case several that corroborate the scenario related by the officer, I doubt that DNA evidence is going to dispute that. DNA evidence has been used to overturn convictions when you only have one witness or witnesses that didn't see what they thought they saw or lied. This happens quite often. It's still the best evidence there is. Ask any cop. Your problem is you're a liberal, and they spend most of their lives ignoring the truth.

More allegations without substance. No evidence of an attempt to "steal his gun". No evidence of any beating was found in the autopsy either. Then you descend into name calling because the facts are not on Wilson's side here.

FYI I do volunteer work with cops so I know their side of how these things go down. I have even used their shooting simulators so I probably have an even better idea of what was happening to Wilson than you do.

What we do know for certain is that Brown was unarmed and Wilson killed him. The investigation by the FBI won't only be relying on eye-witness testimony because they will be able to put together the forensics and come up with a finding that accounts for all of the facts.

Not every shooting by a cop is justifiable. This might be one of those instances. The questions that have arisen so far and the lack of answers from the FPD all point to having something to hide.

My brother was a cop. BTW.

You're only concerned with a few issues. The kid was unarmed and black and he's dead.

Everything else is pure speculation and thus totally discounted in your mind

Someone else who claims to be able to read the minds of other posters!

 

[Derideo_Te]

........

Seriously?

People have been convicted on "eye-witness accounts" only to have them overturned on DNA evidence. eye-witness accounts are notoriously unreliable. There are masses of articles about how what an eye-witness recalls is far from the "best evidence'.

So if that is all that you have then you don't have squat.

Even if you assume that the first shot occurred in the vehicle and it was an AD you have to explain why Wilson drew his gun in the first place. Taunting a police office does not justify shooting and killing.

I've heard that there's evidence that Michael touched the officer's gun. Perhaps he's the one that caused the discharge in the car.

Regarding the "eye-witnesses"...one has already recanted (Michael's partner in crime). Also, I have heard stories where one purported eye-witness sets the story and others agree even when they actually didn't see the details...just to back up their buddy.

Michael was NOT shot in the back as once proclaimed by an "eye-witness".

The most reliable eye-witness in this case is the officer.

Why did the officer draw his gun in the vehicle?

Answering that would be pure speculation.

Goes to motive! Brown would never have tried to "grab the gun" if it had remained holstered because he wouldn't have been able to see it, let alone reach it. Therefore Wilson had to have drawn his own gun and the legitimate question is why did he draw his gun on an unarmed person walking down the street in broad daylight? That is not police SOP.

 

[Pop23]

........

Seriously?

People have been convicted on "eye-witness accounts" only to have them overturned on DNA evidence. eye-witness accounts are notoriously unreliable. There are masses of articles about how what an eye-witness recalls is far from the "best evidence'.

So if that is all that you have then you don't have squat.

Even if you assume that the first shot occurred in the vehicle and it was an AD you have to explain why Wilson drew his gun in the first place. Taunting a police office does not justify shooting and killing.

I've heard that there's evidence that Michael touched the officer's gun. Perhaps he's the one that caused the discharge in the car.

Regarding the "eye-witnesses"...one has already recanted (Michael's partner in crime). Also, I have heard stories where one purported eye-witness sets the story and others agree even when they actually didn't see the details...just to back up their buddy.

Michael was NOT shot in the back as once proclaimed by an "eye-witness".

The most reliable eye-witness in this case is the officer.

Why did the officer draw his gun in the vehicle?

Answering that would be pure speculation.

Goes to motive! Brown would never have tried to "grab the gun" if it had remained holstered because he wouldn't have been able to see it, let alone reach it. Therefore Wilson had to have drawn his own gun and the legitimate question is why did he draw his gun on an unarmed person walking down the street in broad daylight? That is not police SOP.

Ummmm, no

Most people, especially those who have had a lot of contact with police know where LEO holsters are located. No guessing required.

 

[asaratis]

......

I've heard that there's evidence that Michael touched the officer's gun. Perhaps he's the one that caused the discharge in the car.

Regarding the "eye-witnesses"...one has already recanted (Michael's partner in crime). Also, I have heard stories where one purported eye-witness sets the story and others agree even when they actually didn't see the details...just to back up their buddy.

Michael was NOT shot in the back as once proclaimed by an "eye-witness".

The most reliable eye-witness in this case is the officer.

Why did the officer draw his gun in the vehicle?

If I was an officer being attacked by a 300 pound angry man through the car window, I'd be getting out my gun too.

 

[mudwhistle]

Beating a police officer, trying to steal his gun and murder him, and then when that doesn't work, trying to beat him again, maybe kill him this time, well that does justify it.
But, when it comes to eye-witness accounts, when you have more than one, in this case several that corroborate the scenario related by the officer, I doubt that DNA evidence is going to dispute that. DNA evidence has been used to overturn convictions when you only have one witness or witnesses that didn't see what they thought they saw or lied. This happens quite often. It's still the best evidence there is. Ask any cop. Your problem is you're a liberal, and they spend most of their lives ignoring the truth.

More allegations without substance. No evidence of an attempt to "steal his gun". No evidence of any beating was found in the autopsy either. Then you descend into name calling because the facts are not on Wilson's side here.

FYI I do volunteer work with cops so I know their side of how these things go down. I have even used their shooting simulators so I probably have an even better idea of what was happening to Wilson than you do.

What we do know for certain is that Brown was unarmed and Wilson killed him. The investigation by the FBI won't only be relying on eye-witness testimony because they will be able to put together the forensics and come up with a finding that accounts for all of the facts.

Not every shooting by a cop is justifiable. This might be one of those instances. The questions that have arisen so far and the lack of answers from the FPD all point to having something to hide.

My brother was a cop. BTW.

You're only concerned with a few issues. The kid was unarmed and black and he's dead.

Everything else is pure speculation and thus totally discounted in your mind

Someone else who claims to be able to read the minds of other posters!

I can read.

 

[mudwhistle]

........

Seriously?

People have been convicted on "eye-witness accounts" only to have them overturned on DNA evidence. eye-witness accounts are notoriously unreliable. There are masses of articles about how what an eye-witness recalls is far from the "best evidence'.

So if that is all that you have then you don't have squat.

Even if you assume that the first shot occurred in the vehicle and it was an AD you have to explain why Wilson drew his gun in the first place. Taunting a police office does not justify shooting and killing.

I've heard that there's evidence that Michael touched the officer's gun. Perhaps he's the one that caused the discharge in the car.

Regarding the "eye-witnesses"...one has already recanted (Michael's partner in crime). Also, I have heard stories where one purported eye-witness sets the story and others agree even when they actually didn't see the details...just to back up their buddy.

Michael was NOT shot in the back as once proclaimed by an "eye-witness".

The most reliable eye-witness in this case is the officer.

Why did the officer draw his gun in the vehicle?

Answering that would be pure speculation.

Goes to motive! Brown would never have tried to "grab the gun" if it had remained holstered because he wouldn't have been able to see it, let alone reach it. Therefore Wilson had to have drawn his own gun and the legitimate question is why did he draw his gun on an unarmed person walking down the street in broad daylight? That is not police SOP.

Ummmm, no

Most people, especially those who have had a lot of contact with police know where LEO holsters are located. No guessing required.

Yup

 

[mudwhistle]

........

Seriously?

People have been convicted on "eye-witness accounts" only to have them overturned on DNA evidence. eye-witness accounts are notoriously unreliable. There are masses of articles about how what an eye-witness recalls is far from the "best evidence'.

So if that is all that you have then you don't have squat.

Even if you assume that the first shot occurred in the vehicle and it was an AD you have to explain why Wilson drew his gun in the first place. Taunting a police office does not justify shooting and killing.

I've heard that there's evidence that Michael touched the officer's gun. Perhaps he's the one that caused the discharge in the car.

Regarding the "eye-witnesses"...one has already recanted (Michael's partner in crime). Also, I have heard stories where one purported eye-witness sets the story and others agree even when they actually didn't see the details...just to back up their buddy.

Michael was NOT shot in the back as once proclaimed by an "eye-witness".

The most reliable eye-witness in this case is the officer.

Why did the officer draw his gun in the vehicle?

Answering that would be pure speculation.

Goes to motive! Brown would never have tried to "grab the gun" if it had remained holstered because he wouldn't have been able to see it, let alone reach it. Therefore Wilson had to have drawn his own gun and the legitimate question is why did he draw his gun on an unarmed person walking down the street in broad daylight? That is not police SOP.

He didn't. He was attempting to apprehend an assailant. How did his face get nearly caved in if his gun was drawn?

 

[mudwhistle]

You claim to use cop simulators. I used military urban warfare tirehouses and trained foreign nationals on them. My job in the military was as an advisor and tactical expert in anti-terrorist operations. We used to train the cops on SWAT or MOUNT tactics. But there's nothing that replaces actually wearing the uniform.

 

[Derideo_Te]

........

Seriously?

People have been convicted on "eye-witness accounts" only to have them overturned on DNA evidence. eye-witness accounts are notoriously unreliable. There are masses of articles about how what an eye-witness recalls is far from the "best evidence'.

So if that is all that you have then you don't have squat.

Even if you assume that the first shot occurred in the vehicle and it was an AD you have to explain why Wilson drew his gun in the first place. Taunting a police office does not justify shooting and killing.

I've heard that there's evidence that Michael touched the officer's gun. Perhaps he's the one that caused the discharge in the car.

Regarding the "eye-witnesses"...one has already recanted (Michael's partner in crime). Also, I have heard stories where one purported eye-witness sets the story and others agree even when they actually didn't see the details...just to back up their buddy.

Michael was NOT shot in the back as once proclaimed by an "eye-witness".

The most reliable eye-witness in this case is the officer.

Why did the officer draw his gun in the vehicle?

Answering that would be pure speculation.

Goes to motive! Brown would never have tried to "grab the gun" if it had remained holstered because he wouldn't have been able to see it, let alone reach it. Therefore Wilson had to have drawn his own gun and the legitimate question is why did he draw his gun on an unarmed person walking down the street in broad daylight? That is not police SOP.

He didn't. He was attempting to apprehend an assailant. How did his face get nearly caved in if his gun was drawn?

Facts not in evidence!

 

[mudwhistle]

........

Seriously?

People have been convicted on "eye-witness accounts" only to have them overturned on DNA evidence. eye-witness accounts are notoriously unreliable. There are masses of articles about how what an eye-witness recalls is far from the "best evidence'.

So if that is all that you have then you don't have squat.

Even if you assume that the first shot occurred in the vehicle and it was an AD you have to explain why Wilson drew his gun in the first place. Taunting a police office does not justify shooting and killing.

I've heard that there's evidence that Michael touched the officer's gun. Perhaps he's the one that caused the discharge in the car.

Regarding the "eye-witnesses"...one has already recanted (Michael's partner in crime). Also, I have heard stories where one purported eye-witness sets the story and others agree even when they actually didn't see the details...just to back up their buddy.

Michael was NOT shot in the back as once proclaimed by an "eye-witness".

The most reliable eye-witness in this case is the officer.

Why did the officer draw his gun in the vehicle?

Answering that would be pure speculation.

Goes to motive! Brown would never have tried to "grab the gun" if it had remained holstered because he wouldn't have been able to see it, let alone reach it. Therefore Wilson had to have drawn his own gun and the legitimate question is why did he draw his gun on an unarmed person walking down the street in broad daylight? That is not police SOP.

He didn't. He was attempting to apprehend an assailant. How did his face get nearly caved in if his gun was drawn?

Facts not in evidence!

Yet.

But to be honest , if there's no indictment there's no trial and thus no evidence needed.

 

[asaratis]

Yet.

But to be honest , if there's no indictment there's no trial and thus no evidence needed.

Do you think the grand jury might have the balls to return a no-bill?

 

[Andylusion]

Goes to motive! Brown would never have tried to "grab the gun" if it had remained holstered because he wouldn't have been able to see it, let alone reach it. Therefore Wilson had to have drawn his own gun and the legitimate question is why did he draw his gun on an unarmed person walking down the street in broad daylight? That is not police SOP.

That is the dumbest response I've seen yet.

Brown would not have been able to see it? Or reach it?

Columbus Ohio Police.
Ok sparky.... can you tell where the gun is? You think you could reach it?

Dumb stuff on the forum today. Just plain stupid.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Goes to motive! Brown would never have tried to "grab the gun" if it had remained holstered because he wouldn't have been able to see it, let alone reach it. Therefore Wilson had to have drawn his own gun and the legitimate question is why did he draw his gun on an unarmed person walking down the street in broad daylight? That is not police SOP.

That is the dumbest response I've seen yet.

Brown would not have been able to see it? Or reach it?

Columbus Ohio Police.
Ok sparky.... can you tell where the gun is? You think you could reach it?

Dumb stuff on the forum today. Just plain stupid.

Why don't you explain where your gun is going to be when your ass is in the drivers seat of the police cruiser?

Then explain how someone standing outside of the vehicle is going to be able to reach through the window, across your body, slide their hand down between your hip and the seat and then twist the holster and remove the gun. Furthermore if it is a level II or level III holster how are they even going to get it out of the holster? And what will you be doing in the meantime? Eating your donut and drinking your coffee? Or using your own hands and arms to block them?

Obviously you haven't thought this through!

 

[Derideo_Te]

........

Seriously?

People have been convicted on "eye-witness accounts" only to have them overturned on DNA evidence. eye-witness accounts are notoriously unreliable. There are masses of articles about how what an eye-witness recalls is far from the "best evidence'.

So if that is all that you have then you don't have squat.

Even if you assume that the first shot occurred in the vehicle and it was an AD you have to explain why Wilson drew his gun in the first place. Taunting a police office does not justify shooting and killing.

I've heard that there's evidence that Michael touched the officer's gun. Perhaps he's the one that caused the discharge in the car.

Regarding the "eye-witnesses"...one has already recanted (Michael's partner in crime). Also, I have heard stories where one purported eye-witness sets the story and others agree even when they actually didn't see the details...just to back up their buddy.

Michael was NOT shot in the back as once proclaimed by an "eye-witness".

The most reliable eye-witness in this case is the officer.

Why did the officer draw his gun in the vehicle?

Answering that would be pure speculation.

Goes to motive! Brown would never have tried to "grab the gun" if it had remained holstered because he wouldn't have been able to see it, let alone reach it. Therefore Wilson had to have drawn his own gun and the legitimate question is why did he draw his gun on an unarmed person walking down the street in broad daylight? That is not police SOP.

He didn't. He was attempting to apprehend an assailant. How did his face get nearly caved in if his gun was drawn?

Facts not in evidence!

Yet.

But to be honest , if there's no indictment there's no trial and thus no evidence needed.

If there is no criminal trial you can bet that there will be a wrongful death lawsuit so either way evidence is going to be needed.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

As I'd hoped, someone had audio of the shooting (ok allegedly.) And as I expected, the officer shot in rapid-fire fashion as indicated on the tape. I'd figured that when seeing the autopsy results and noting the hit pattern on Mr. Brown's arm. The pause in the shooting audio being hyped up isn't surprising either. It's indicative of the officer either losing track of how many rounds he'd fired and reloading to be safe then resuming fire, or more likely, noticing his target isn't falling down correcting, taking a deep breath and continuing to fire.

While emptying your clip, reloading, and emptying another might seem excessive to laypeople, it's actually what officers are taught to do. My thinking is once he began to fire on Mr. Brown he reverted to his training model and did exactly as he'd been trained to do. Whether he reloaded or not is moot. Whether he paused and corrected and resumed fire is moot. He behaved as he'd been trained and the justification to use lethal force doesn't change or cease because you pause in the exercise of it.

While some are describing the audio as 'damning' I think it simply further vindicates the officer.

First, by now you should know that the tape is fake.

Second, there is absolutely no need to replace a 15 round magazine after 6 shots.

Third, you are an idiot.

 

[mudwhistle]

........

Seriously?

People have been convicted on "eye-witness accounts" only to have them overturned on DNA evidence. eye-witness accounts are notoriously unreliable. There are masses of articles about how what an eye-witness recalls is far from the "best evidence'.

So if that is all that you have then you don't have squat.

Even if you assume that the first shot occurred in the vehicle and it was an AD you have to explain why Wilson drew his gun in the first place. Taunting a police office does not justify shooting and killing.

I've heard that there's evidence that Michael touched the officer's gun. Perhaps he's the one that caused the discharge in the car.

Regarding the "eye-witnesses"...one has already recanted (Michael's partner in crime). Also, I have heard stories where one purported eye-witness sets the story and others agree even when they actually didn't see the details...just to back up their buddy.

Michael was NOT shot in the back as once proclaimed by an "eye-witness".

The most reliable eye-witness in this case is the officer.

Why did the officer draw his gun in the vehicle?

Answering that would be pure speculation.

Goes to motive! Brown would never have tried to "grab the gun" if it had remained holstered because he wouldn't have been able to see it, let alone reach it. Therefore Wilson had to have drawn his own gun and the legitimate question is why did he draw his gun on an unarmed person walking down the street in broad daylight? That is not police SOP.

He didn't. He was attempting to apprehend an assailant. How did his face get nearly caved in if his gun was drawn?

Facts not in evidence!

Yet.

But to be honest , if there's no indictment there's no trial and thus no evidence needed.

If there is no criminal trial you can bet that there will be a wrongful death lawsuit so either way evidence is going to be needed.

So it's about money......

 

[Pop23]

Goes to motive! Brown would never have tried to "grab the gun" if it had remained holstered because he wouldn't have been able to see it, let alone reach it. Therefore Wilson had to have drawn his own gun and the legitimate question is why did he draw his gun on an unarmed person walking down the street in broad daylight? That is not police SOP.

That is the dumbest response I've seen yet.

Brown would not have been able to see it? Or reach it?

Columbus Ohio Police.
Ok sparky.... can you tell where the gun is? You think you could reach it?

Dumb stuff on the forum today. Just plain stupid.

Why don't you explain where your gun is going to be when your ass is in the drivers seat of the police cruiser?

Then explain how someone standing outside of the vehicle is going to be able to reach through the window, across your body, slide their hand down between your hip and the seat and then twist the holster and remove the gun. Furthermore if it is a level II or level III holster how are they even going to get it out of the holster? And what will you be doing in the meantime? Eating your donut and drinking your coffee? Or using your own hands and arms to block them?

Obviously you haven't thought this through!

Idiots do idiotic things

Case in point, stealing cigars from a store.

Have you thought this through or just continuing to justify a lost debate?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Goes to motive! Brown would never have tried to "grab the gun" if it had remained holstered because he wouldn't have been able to see it, let alone reach it. Therefore Wilson had to have drawn his own gun and the legitimate question is why did he draw his gun on an unarmed person walking down the street in broad daylight? That is not police SOP.

That is the dumbest response I've seen yet.

Brown would not have been able to see it? Or reach it?

Columbus Ohio Police.
Ok sparky.... can you tell where the gun is? You think you could reach it?

Dumb stuff on the forum today. Just plain stupid.

Why don't you explain where your gun is going to be when your ass is in the drivers seat of the police cruiser?

Then explain how someone standing outside of the vehicle is going to be able to reach through the window, across your body, slide their hand down between your hip and the seat and then twist the holster and remove the gun. Furthermore if it is a level II or level III holster how are they even going to get it out of the holster? And what will you be doing in the meantime? Eating your donut and drinking your coffee? Or using your own hands and arms to block them?

Obviously you haven't thought this through!

Idiots do idiotic things

Case in point, stealing cigars from a store.

Have you thought this through or just continuing to justify a lost debate?

Let me ask C_K to open a Lost & Found forum for you so you will know where to go in future.

 

[Pop23]

Goes to motive! Brown would never have tried to "grab the gun" if it had remained holstered because he wouldn't have been able to see it, let alone reach it. Therefore Wilson had to have drawn his own gun and the legitimate question is why did he draw his gun on an unarmed person walking down the street in broad daylight? That is not police SOP.

That is the dumbest response I've seen yet.

Brown would not have been able to see it? Or reach it?

Columbus Ohio Police.
Ok sparky.... can you tell where the gun is? You think you could reach it?

Dumb stuff on the forum today. Just plain stupid.

Why don't you explain where your gun is going to be when your ass is in the drivers seat of the police cruiser?

Then explain how someone standing outside of the vehicle is going to be able to reach through the window, across your body, slide their hand down between your hip and the seat and then twist the holster and remove the gun. Furthermore if it is a level II or level III holster how are they even going to get it out of the holster? And what will you be doing in the meantime? Eating your donut and drinking your coffee? Or using your own hands and arms to block them?

Obviously you haven't thought this through!

Idiots do idiotic things

Case in point, stealing cigars from a store.

Have you thought this through or just continuing to justify a lost debate?

Let me ask C_K to open a Lost & Found forum for you so you will know where to go in future.

You've run out of thoughts that can be blown out of the water?

Ahhhhh, how cute