[king_jester]

> and he attacked the police officer and tried to take the officer's gun

This is disputed by witness testimony: same say this happened, others say it didn't. Other testimony indicates that Wilson may have instigated conflict when making the stop.

> Looking at Brown, we see a man who did something really stupid, and suffered pretty much the same outcome that we'd expect for anyone in that situation.

This is not at all the case. Wilson shot Brown when we was a significant distance from the car (100+ feet) and Brown was not armed in any way. We do not expect someone who commits a petty theft to be executed by the police when Wilson had a variety of other options at his disposal. Doing something stupid isn't and should not be a death sentence.

> Lumping Garner and Brown together, like these protestors are doing, seems to me to be an insult to the memory of Eric Garner.

These deaths are wholly related to the racism of police practice in the United States. Presenting disputed testimony as the truth is extremely misleading.

[5F36B5F62640]

> Wilson shot Brown when we was a significant distance from the car (100+ feet)

Distance from the car is not relevant. Distance from Wilson is what is relevant. All shots were fired when Wilson was near Brown.

There were two shots fired at or near the car (shown by two spent casings near the car), and there is blood there showing Brown was hit. Hence Wilson was near Brown when these shots were fired.

The remaining 10 shots were all taken near were Brown's body ended up, a smidgen over 150 feet from the car. The spent casings for those 10 shots are all within 20 feet of the body. The pattern of the casings, and the location of blood stains that are not with the body, show that Brown was moving toward Wilson at this time. There is not enough evidence to ascertain his velocity.

> These deaths are wholly related to the racism of police practice in the United States

Do you really think that if a white man hits an officer in the face and tries to take the officer's gun, and then gets shot, and then runs away with the officer in pursuit, and then turns and runs toward the officer, he would not get shot several more times?

> Presenting disputed testimony as the truth is extremely misleading.

I presented no disputed testimony. Witness testimony in this case is contradictory. That's why I stuck with things that are strongly supported by the physical evidence.

[aswanson]

I presented no disputed testimony...I stuck with things that are strongly supported by the physical evidence.

Yes you did. hits an officer in the face and tries to take the officer's gun That is Wilson testimony. Not an objective fact. ...and then turns and runs toward the officer.. This also is not an objective fact. You disputed this yourself in stating that Browns velocity could not be determined. It just as plausible that he was tired, shot, and giving up. Your cognitive biases are giving Wilson the benefit of the doubt. Your statements are not pure "fact".

[sillysaurus3]

"hits an officer in the face and tries to take the officer's gun" That is Wilson testimony. Not an objective fact.

Wilson was treated for redness to his face, as confirmed in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuupBHUGbYo#t=1m02s

In the commonly-believed version of events, Brown would not have been able to injure Wilson's face like that, since he was supposedly running away. But since the officer's face was in fact injured, we can believe Brown must have hit it. And if he was hitting Wilson, he must have been leaning into the cruiser when he was doing it, since there was no other opportunity.

Another objective fact is that Brown was a violent individual who had just robbed a store.

[malyk]

I don't think anyone disagrees that there was an altercation at the car where Wilson sustained a blow to the face.

The disputed versions of events see to me to be

1. How Wilson first addresses Brown (nice as Wilsons testimony or aggressive) 2. How the altercation at the car started (Brown slams door on Wilson vs wilson slamming door into brown and then who grabbed who first) 3. Brown charging Wilson vs trying to surrender.

Wilsons version of events isn't all that believable if you've had any experience with police. But I withhold judgement. The problem is we'll never know how things actually went down...though I have deep suspicions that Brown was trying to surrender after being fired upon as he ran away.

What actually bothers me about the event was that after the physical altercation ended in the car the life of Wilson was no longer threatened. But then he got out of his vehicle and chased Brown down, apparently while shooting at him. How is that a legitimate use of force?

And that's just the event itself. How the event was handled in the aftermath is even more troubling at a systematic level. The conflicts of interest that exist between a district attorney and the police force he or she has to work with every day vis a vis trying one of those officers is just too great.

I'm not naive enough to think that a not guilty verdict wouldn't have led to riots, but at the very least we should have a trial to better determine what happened there irregardless of the result.

[sillysaurus3]

Thanks for the comment. About this:

What actually bothers me about the event was that after the physical altercation ended in the car the life of Wilson was no longer threatened. But then he got out of his vehicle and chased Brown down, apparently while shooting at him. How is that a legitimate use of force?

It's an officer's job/duty to chase down someone who just attacked them. I went into some of that at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8747052

Basically, if they're willing to attack an officer, they're definitely willing to attack anyone else in the community. Their motive isn't exactly clear, so maybe they don't pose an immediate danger to the community, but their willingness to commit physical violence is very clear at that point. So it's very important to apprehend them. Plus, if the offender later turned out to be a murder suspect, the officer would rightly get into deep trouble if they'd been attacked by them and didn't go chase them down immediately, especially if they escape and go into hiding.

What sucks is that the police department only gave him a gun and nothing else. Pepper spray or a taser would have avoided all of this madness. Or a working videocamera with audio pickups.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuupBHUGbYo#t=1m02s goes to pretty great lengths to explain all of the painstaking process the jury went through to analyze the physical evidence and every piece of witness testimony. I wholeheartedly recommend anyone who's interested in all of this or considering joining the Brown protests to watch that whole video. It seems difficult to think that the physical evidence is unreliable or that conflicts of interests may have caused the jury to ignore parts of the physical evidence. Though I suppose anything is possible.

[malyk]

But what if Brown wasn't attacking the officer but defending himself?

Dorian Johnson's story is that Wilson almost ran them over, slammed his door into them, and then grabbed Brown and pulled him through the window. IF Michael Brown is struggling to get free after being unnecessarily assaulted by Wilson and then sees Wilson draw his gun then of course he is going to strike the officer trying to flee.

And this is why the situation is so troubling. The witness testimony is all over the place and unreliable (as it usually is), and it leaves open huge variations in how the events transpired.

Yes, Wilson was struck somehow. But we don't know who initiated the conflict and that has a huge bearing on what happens next.

Yes, Brown was shot in the car. But we have no idea if he actually got ahold of the gun in Wilsons hand and was aiming it at Wilson. Wilson could have simply pulled the gun out and started firing.

Yes, we know that Brown ran away and was chased.

Yes, we know he was shot facing Wilson. But we don't know if he was standing still surrendering or charging.

I've read a huge chunk of the grand jury testimony and looked at a lot of the evidence and the only reasonable conclusion that you can come to is "I don't know what happened".

two other things. First, I'm sure most people believe that if a police officer tells you to do something you do it. That might be really good advice, especially if you have brown skin, but I think it's not reasonable to blindly obey over-aggressive and unfounded requests just because the person has a badge.

Second, police tend to escalate situations way beyond what is necessary and my gut says the Ferguson event is a perfect example if you hedge against Wilsons whitewashed version.

One more thing...police need to be evaluated on a different metric then simply arrests. Killing a fleeing suspect should almost always be an intolerable event inside the police department. Letting the guy get away is almost always the better alternative (almost being the key word). But, as you said, that would get the officer in trouble. Which is just dumb.

[king_jester]

> In the commonly-believed version of events

There is no commonly believed version of events. There is a lot of inconsistency and disagreement about statements and testimony involved in the grand jury decision, you are attempting to paint a version of events you buy into as more valid.

> Another objective fact is that Brown was a violent individual who had just robbed a store.

When first interviewed after the shooting Wilson indicated he had no knowledge that Brown had anything to do with the store robbery. He did not make any indication over police radio about this when he encountered Brown. He changed this part of the story later on. The circumstances and eye witness testimony of the shooting after the altercation at the police car is very fuzzy and it is not clear that Brown did charge or attack Wilson a second time.

Moreover, whether Brown was aggressive or not does not imply that the police officer has a right to execute him.

[aswanson]

No, you're being sneaky here. "Hit's the officers face AND tries to take his gun"...There was some redness on his face which was probably the result of the struggle. I'll grant that, even though it's possible Wilson self-injured, or got an officer to do that for him, but that's too speculative for argument. But, again, there is not undisputed FACT that he reached for his gun. You are conflating the redness on Wilsons face into "fact" that he reached for his gun. Again, there is no objective account of this and there is no "commonly agreed version of events".

[sillysaurus3]

This is disputed by witness testimony: same say this happened, others say it didn't.

I didn't downvote (I think there's entirely too much of that on HN) but Brown's blood was inside the police car. There is no scenario that Brown's blood could have wound up inside the car unless he was reaching in through the window for some reason. Can anyone think of any reason other than "reaching for the Officer's gun," even if we give Brown every possible benefit of the doubt? I'd love to be persuaded.

We have to look at the physical evidence, not at what people said.

[aswanson]

Can anyone think of any reason other than "reaching for the Officer's gun," even if we give Brown every possible benefit of the doubt? Seriously, I'd love to be persuaded.

Ok. How about the cop grabs and yanks a teen that's near his window starting off the struggle. Teen struggles, pushes and or punches cop to break free as cop grabs gun and lets off shot or two while Brown continues to punch/struggle/push to break free, in the course of which Wilson suffers horrible injury that looks like a razor bump. Breaking free, Brown runs approximately 100 feet. Wilson, enraged that he was not immediately obeyed as ordered, starts firing, chasing brown and hits brown in some way. He fires 11 more shots as he fears for his life even though he is armed and pursued him for at least 150. Brown finally turns around, shot at least twice already. He faces a hail of bullets from Wilson, fatally struck on the top of the skull and dies. Wilson, knowing that officers always get the benefit of the doubt with the law and there is no objective evidence of the encounter and that dead people cant testify is somewhat assured his version of events are going to be believed. And he is right. Plausible, if not convinced?

[peterfirefly]

I upvoted to cancel out the downvote someone gave you.

[smsm42]

You understand pretty much any testimony can be - and usually is - "disputed" and it doesn't mean it is wrong? "Disputed" just means somebody said "no, it is not so". Anybody can say that - just as anybody could have said they saw the police officer shooting Brown in the back, despite the autopsy finding no trace of that. Some did. That doesn't mean the officer actually shot Brown in the back with vanishing bullets.

>>> Brown was not armed in any way

I think it's time to lay that "not armed in any way" to rest. Most physically fit males - especially ones of Brown's physical build - are "armed" to cause serious physical harm, up to lethal, to many other people. People regularly harm and murder other people with their bare hands (or feet, etc.) - over 800 cases happen even year[1], btw about the same as rifles and shotguns taken together. Does it mean police is justified to shoot any male? Of course not, since means to do something not equals to doing something. But it does not mean that if somebody is not wielding a shotgun, he is automatically harmless. There are a lot of ways to cause harm to people, and some of them require nothing more but the will to do it and a bit of strength.

[1] http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0310.x...

Edit: I used the word "complexion" instead of "physical appearance" meaning: "General character, aspect, or appearance:" but it looks like people took it to mean "skin color". Of course I did not mean to refer to color of his skin, it's completely irrelevant, but rather to his physical build - i.e. height, weight and fitness. Looking at the dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/complexion) my meaning appears to be old one, and now it is used as "skin color". It didn't help that in my native tongue the same word also means "physical appearance". I certainly did not mean it that way, so sorry for misleading.

[dragonwriter]

Just as a note on communication:

I think it would really help if

(1) You would correct "Brown" to "Brown's" -- it is possessive, and as written its not clear if you omitted the possessive or if you mistakenly capitalized "brown", the color, and

(2) You would be even more explicit with what feature you were referring to and said "build" rather than "physical appearance" (which -- especially with the issue with "Brown" -- could still quite easily, without the extended explanation at the end of your post, be viewed as a veiled comment about race.)

[smsm42]

Thanks, corrected as suggested. I suspect my unfortunate slip has derailed the discussion anyway, but in case there's still hope I have made the edits.

[kaitai]

Are you serious? The color of your complexion is the same as being "armed" to cause serious physical harm?

Really look at that and think about it: a pale John Boehner turns into a lethal John Boehner just by adding a bit of spray tan. I put on too much bronzer and suddenly I'm a killer (perhaps a killer clown). My multiracial husband is more physically harmful after mowing the lawn in the summer, maybe even more "lethal". (The complexion change is dramatic, certainly.) Hm. The things I never knew.

There's a reason blacklivesmatter is a hashtag that resonates, and that reason is illustrated by your comment. Better go get my bronzer so I can prepare for the fight for justice.

[smsm42]

Please see the edit - I did not mean "complexion" as color, but as "physical appearance". Looks like I used the word which has different meanings one of which is completely wrong for my point.

[pedrosorio]

Is English your native language? I also interpreted your "complexion" as build/constitution because the word for "complexion" in my native language is "compleição" and can be translated as complexion/build/constitution.

[smsm42]

Indeed, English is not my native language, and in my native language the same word means exactly as in Portuguese - build/constitution/physical appearance. It looks like English one also has this meaning, but the "skin color" meaning seems to be most frequent, which I did not realize. I probably would if I thought about it specifically, and usually I am aware of the words which mean different things in different languages, but in this case looks like it slipped my attention and completely derailed the discussion. May it be a lesson for me to be more attentive.

[kaitai]

Thank you for your clarification. We may still disagree on some things, but at least not on something so foolish!

[thisGuysAccount]

uh... "most physically fit males - especially ones of Brown complexion - are armed to cause serious physical harm"

It's a good idea to rephrase that.

edit - yes, a lot of black athletes have lower body fat than whites, hispanics, and asians. No, they're not "especially" armed to cause serious physical harm.

[smsm42]

It has nothing to do with Brown being black. It has everything to do with him being 193 cm male weighting 95 kg. It is fascinating how discussion of something having zero to do with race suddenly turns into discussing "black athletes" vs. "whites, hispanics, and asians".

[dragonwriter]

> It is fascinating how discussion of something having zero to do with race

It started out about race -- "especially those of Brown complexion" isn't "zero to do with race".

[smsm42]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8747065 I now understand why you took it wrong, it was my fault.

[thisGuysAccount]

Yow, bit by the English as a second language bug.

Yeah, that one word really changes the meaning of that phrase.

Yes, absolutely a more reasonable statement knowing that it's the way 'complexion' is similar to 'constitution' in some languages.