[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.

[MetaCosm]

A lot of your post is you just saying things you think with no evidence, what your "gut" tells you, etc. Not going to respond to those, because they are not very interesting. Let me share one of my personal opinions with no basis in fact: cake is superior to pie, there I said it!

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

We actually got into a bit of a debate at dinner discussing if you have the right to defend yourself against an unjust arrest -- short version: "nope". In 1900 there was a case that went that way, but since then it was been reversed... and even more specifically overruled in various state ordinances. Even if you did have the right to physical resist (again, you don't, so don't resist arrest) an "unjust arrest" ... you aren't informed of the reason you are being arrested at the time of arrest, you don't have enough information to even claim it is unjust.

> 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.

This is put forth as factual "of course". But, it isn't the common case -- most people when assaulted (justified or not) by a police officer surrender, and if it escalates to having a gun drawn... they... you guessed it, surrender. The vast majority of police officers make it to retirement without firing their weapon while on duty.

> 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.

You can think what you want, but you have NO RIGHT to EVER resist arrest, that is the simple fact, there is no law on your side, and it will end horribly for you. You submit, you get arrested, you offer NO resistance and then you take action AFTER the fact (sue, try to get them fired, take it to the press, whatever).

[peterfirefly]

> [...] and then grabbed Brown and pulled him through the window.

How do you do that with a "teen" of that size?

[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".