Doing some digging, I've more or less come to the conclusion that:
[LIST]
[*]There is zero evidence to support the assertion that Brown was fleeing or surrendering to Wilson when he was shot. There are only eye-witness testimonies that support the proposition.
[*]There is zero evidence to support the assertion that Brown was confronting or assaulting Wilson when he was shot. There are only eye-witness testimonies that support the proposition.
[/LIST]
The only facts I can find are: [LIST]
[*]Mike Brown was killed after being shot six times- three times in the right arm, once in the right man-titty, once in the neck and once in the head.
[*]It's confirmed by the Police that Darren Wilson is the officer that killed him.
[*]The autopsy expert found no discharge residue on Brown's body, indicating that he was shot from a distance.
[*]The autopsy indicates that the shot to the head, which entered his skull from the top moving downwards to the jaw, was the last round to enter his body.
[*]No weapons were found on or near Brown's body.[/LIST]
Those are all the relevant facts I could dig up. What can we infer from them?
What I infer is that Brown was not shot out of self-defense- even if Brown had assaulted the officer, that he was shot from a distance implies that Wilson was no longer (if ever) under threat from him.
Even if it was proved that Brown had assaulted Wilson, and even if he had been shot up close, that Brown was not armed pretty much completely nullifies any possible justification for Wilson resorting to deadly force. The only circumstance that I could see in him being justified in using his gun is if Brown had overwhelmed him in a physical altercation, and his gun was the only weapon Wilson could reach. But there is no indication that that's the case and, for emphasis, it's more or less been determined that Brown wasn't shot up close soooo... that's a highly unlikely scenario.
There is no evidence to support the claim that racism, implicit or explicit, played a factor in this specific incident, and there is no evidence to say with certainty that Brown was or was not acting lawfully when he was killed- though we should always assume that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
So, at the very least, what we most definitely have here is a situation of gross misconduct on Wilson's part. None of the facts that we have about the incident lend credibility to the notion that he was justified in using deadly force. Based off we know so far, I think that being fired from the police force and a criminal negligence charge would be reasonable.
That's pretty much my final thoughts on the subject until more concrete information is released.
Originally posted by Tzeentch
Doing some digging, I've more or less come to the conclusion that:
[LIST]
[*]There is zero evidence to support the assertion that Brown was fleeing or surrendering to Wilson when he was shot. There are only eye-witness testimonies that support the proposition.[*]There is zero evidence to support the assertion that Brown was confronting or assaulting Wilson when he was shot. There are only eye-witness testimonies that support the proposition.
[/LIST]
The only facts I can find are: [LIST]
[*]Mike Brown was killed after being shot six times- three times in the right arm, once in the right man-titty, once in the neck and once in the head.
[*]It's confirmed by the Police that Darren Wilson is the officer that killed him.
[*]The autopsy expert found no discharge residue on Brown's body, indicating that he was shot from a distance.
[*]The autopsy indicates that the shot to the head, which entered his skull from the top moving downwards to the jaw, was the last round to enter his body.
[*]No weapons were found on or near Brown's body.[/LIST]Those are all the relevant facts I could dig up. What can we infer from them?
What I infer is that Brown was not shot out of self-defense- even if Brown had assaulted the officer, that he was shot from a distance implies that Wilson was no longer (if ever) under threat from him.
Even if it was proved that Brown had assaulted Wilson, and even if he had been shot up close, that Brown was not armed pretty much completely nullifies any possible justification for Wilson resorting to deadly force. The only circumstance that I could see in him being justified in using his gun is if Brown had overwhelmed him in a physical altercation, and his gun was the only weapon Wilson could reach. But there is no indication that that's the case and, for emphasis, it's more or less been determined that Brown wasn't shot up close soooo... that's a highly unlikely scenario.
There is no evidence to support the claim that racism, implicit or explicit, played a factor in this specific incident, and there is no evidence to say with certainty that Brown was or was not acting lawfully when he was killed- though we should always assume that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
So, at the very least, what we most definitely have here is a situation of gross misconduct on Wilson's part. None of the facts that we have about the incident lend credibility to the notion that he was justified in using deadly force. Based off we know so far, I think that being fired from the police force and a criminal negligence charge would be reasonable.
That's pretty much my final thoughts on the subject until more concrete information is released.
Reasonable analysis. I think Wilson ****ed up, as well. It is not adding up why he used his firearm in what seems like an incorrect way (against commonly taught protocol).
And this entire argument could have been avoided IF Wilson was wearing a camera and his squad car had a camera.
In this case, I do not think Wilson is a shitty corrupt cop. He could be. I wish this situation would have happened to a much shittier cop because very few things piss me off more than a police officer abusing their power.
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonThen go away. If you have nothing constructive to contribute to the topic then there's no reason for you to be involved in it.
I think the thread should be closed. There is my opinion!
Originally posted by BackFireAll the media is taking it as granted that that is Brown in the store. I haven't seen an actual statement from Police confirming that it is, though.
I've not been keeping up on this that closely. Is it confirmed that he did/didn't rob that convenient store? Was that him in the security video? Or is that not totally known at this point?
Though the store robbery isn't really relevant, even if it was him. Brown was confronted by Wilson because he was jay-walking. That was the catalyst that led up to Brown's death.
Originally posted by Tzeentch
Then go away. If you have nothing constructive to contribute to the topic then there's no reason for you to be involved in it. All the media is taking it as granted that that is Brown in the store. I haven't seen an actual statement from Police confirming that it is, though.Though the store robbery isn't really relevant, even if it was him. Brown was confronted by Wilson because he was jay-walking. That was the catalyst that led up to Brown's death.
Yes video proof is not enough proof for you but, no video of the actual cop/Brown scene is proof enough for you to suggest he was gunned down for no reason.
Originally posted by Tzeentch
Then go away. If you have nothing constructive to contribute to the topic then there's no reason for you to be involved in it. All the media is taking it as granted that that is Brown in the store. I haven't seen an actual statement from Police confirming that it is, though.Though the store robbery isn't really relevant, even if it was him. Brown was confronted by Wilson because he was jay-walking. That was the catalyst that led up to Brown's death.
I think the robbery could be very relevant. If it is him in that video it shows a possible penchant for aggressive behavior and bullying, and makes the cop's side of the story more believable. Also whether or not he knowingly committed a crime could definitely affect how he reacts when confronted by a cop. Even though the cop apparently didn't know anything about the crime, Brown doesn't necessarily know that.