Ferguson v2.0

[SouvlakiSpaceStation]

(I posted a source for this earlier in this thread).

Sorry for any redundancy on my part... I haven't fully read the rest of this thread, just skimmed it, because it was honestly making my blood boil. shrugz

[Caehlim]

Sorry for any redundancy on my part... I haven't fully read the rest of this thread, just skimmed it, because it was honestly making my blood boil. shrugz

That's okay, I was just feeling too lazy to find the link again.

[consortium11]

Has anyone seen this yet?

KU Journalism student shreds case against Mike Brown

I'ma just copy and paste it in here. I pasted in the links too.

I sort of dislike to "shred" a "shredding" but some points leaped out at me.

First, a general one; including evidence from media reports (frequently from within the first week or two when everything was confused) which was in turn discredited by the evidence in the Grand Jury strikes me as somewhat deceptive; especially as some of the things mentioned above are directly contradicted by the evidence submitted to the Grand Jury.

To pick up on some specific points:

-Mike Brown WAS fleeing from Officer Wilson when he was fatally shot. Wilson confirms this on page 281 of his grand jury testimony.

This is mis-stating what Wilson says on p281... to put it in context:

One thing you guys haven't asked that has been asked of me in other interviews is, was he a threat, was Michael Brown a threat when he was running away? People asked why would you chase him if he was running away now?

It's clear that when Wilson was discussing Brown fleeing it was in the context of his decision to chase, not to shoot.

Officer Wilson broke police self-defense protocol, which teaches to disarm and incapacitate rather than kill and teaches officers to go for body shots. Officer Wilson shot Mike Brown twice in the head, after he shot him four times in his arm and torso.

This strikes me as being pretty contradictory in-and-of itself; if he'd already shot Brown in the torso then he had gone for body shots. Moreover I can't find a source for what Ferguson police self-defense protocol requires but I rather suspect it doesn't include a "shoot to incapacitate" section; pretty much every time I've heard the idea of "shoot to wound" discussed by experienced firearm users it's dismissed as a Hollywood fallacy... there are no places that are reliably non-lethal to shoot (a shot aimed at the knee cap may well catch the femoral artery for example). A shot at the body would have to be classed as a lethal shot (or at least an attempt at one).

-While Officer Wilson’s story of what happened that day has changed at least three times, six separate eyewitnesses, four of whom have never met each other, all have identical accounts of what happened. They were never interviewed by police.

Of the six witnesses mentioned in that link at least four of them openly testified before the Grand Jury, one of them appears to have as an unnamed witness and the only one I haven't been able to find evidence of (but may still be another one of the unnamed witnesses) openly says he spoke to the FBI about the shooting.

Moreover all of the evidence they offered to the Grand Jury had differences to what they told the media; some relatively minor some notable. Of particular note may be one of the construction workers who testified that three officers pursued Brown.

-These eyewitnesses all agree that Darren Wilson was the aggressor and that Mike Brown was shot while surrendering, with his hands in the air and that his last words were “I don’t have a gun. Stop shooting.”

1) An above point tries to suggest that Brown was shot when fleeing... so why is it being argued below that he was shot when surrendering?

2) The blood splatter evidence indicates that Brown was moving away from Wilson, stopped, turned and came back towards Wilson. That corresponds with Wilson's account that Brown stopped, turned and charged him after originally running away. Now, that doesn't prove that he charged Wilson... he could have turned and walked towards Wilson while surrendering... but none of the witnesses who put forward the "hands up, don't shoot" take on the events said that Brown came towards Wilson at all while surrendering, instead saying he was stood still.

3) Several of them attested at various times that Brown was shot in the back. There's only one wound to the back; the back of one of Wilson's arms.

-This is backed up by Mike Brown’s autopsy, which suggests that Mike Brown would have had to be in the hands-up position for the bullets to enter his hand and arm the way they did.

1) Not according to either autopsy (the state one and the one arranged by Brown's family/supporters) as entered at the Grand Jury or the testimony of the medical examiner and forensic expert (again, arranged by Brown's family/supporters) both of which make clear that they're unable to tell exactly where his hands were positioned.

2) The only wound to Brown's hand was a shot to his thumb. The gunpowder residue from this wound on the rest of Brown's hand indicates that this was caused by a gunshot from 6-9 inches away and skin tissue from Brown's thumb was found within Wilson's car (agreed by both sides). This corresponds with Wilson's testimony that the pair struggled for his gun and pretty much outright refutes the idea that the wound to the hand was inflicted when Brown had his hands up surrendering and was shot at distance.

-Furthermore, in a press conference, the coroner who performed Mike Brown’s autopsy relays that there was no trace of gun shot residue anywhere on his body, proving that Wilson’s claim that Mike Brown grabbed his gun, causing it to misfire, is impossible and untrue.

Which he went back on in his Grand Jury testimony having had more time to examine the body (his first assessment that there was no powder/residue was done by eyesight alone). Page 40 and 41, Volume 23 covers his testimony on this; he accepts that there was gun powder residue and that the wound to the hand was caused by a shot from "within a few inches".

-Owner of Ferguson Market states that he did not call police to report a theft of cigars, that the theft had nothing to do with Mike Brown, and that the man on the security footage is not Mike Brown.

Contradicted by the evidence of Dorian Johnson (Brown's friend) who openly admits that Brown was in the store and that Brown then stole the cigarillos. Moreover the police did receive a call about the theft and dispatched an officer to investigate (who in turn was the first officer outside of Wilson to the scene of the shooting).

All in all the only "shredding" which seems to hold up is that related to police procedure in the wake of the shooting; that's important certainly and something that should be paid attention to.

But for the stuff around the shooting itself? It seems to basically be a combination of misreading evidence from the Grand Jury and relying on "evidence" and media reports that were later either retracted or contradicted by stronger evidence.

[TaintedAndDelish]

Shelby Lawson is a student at the University of Kansas, majoring in Journalism and Women, Gender and Sexuality Studies.

It sounds like Shelby will make a fine journalist by today's standards.

[SouvlakiSpaceStation]

It sounds like Shelby will make a fine journalist by today's standards.

[Inkidu]

I promised myself I wouldn't come back here, but I had the same suspicions as the above Fry-pic. :P

[TaintedAndDelish]

A little off topic, but amusing. Being unfamiliar with this image, I had to google it and came accross this:

About

Futurama Fry is an image macro series that uses a still of Fry squinting his eyes from the TV show Futurama, and is typically paired with overlaid text using a phrasal template. The top line reads “Not sure if X”, with “or just Y” as the bottom line, and is used to represent an internal monologue.

Origin

In the Season 2, Episode 6 episode of Futurama titled “The Lesser of Two Evils”, Fry can be seen making the face shortly after being found searching Leela’s underwear drawer at around 15 minutes into the episode.[1]

lol

[consortium11]

I should also note that the post I replied to (or, more accurately, the facebook message referenced in the post) is exactly why I said people should read the Grand Jury evidence... and if a secondary source references it then double check that it says what the secondary sources says it does (i.e. "shot when fleeing" and using Wilson's testimony to "prove" it). Yes, the Grand Jury documents are intimidating (23 volumes at 200+ pages each or so) but there's indexed and searchable versions out there, some of which highlight and link to key parts.

Even a cursory knowledge of the Grand Jury testimony would have immediately made some of the listed points stand out as false (the "hands up" position being the only possible one, the supposed lack of gun residue, that the theft had nothing to do with Brown, that six people referenced in the article hadn't been interviewed) and that others seeming deliberately ignore evidence that was undisputed (blood splatter indicated Brown advanced towards Wilson, that the wound to the hand had to be caused by a gunshot from inches away). Others take about a minute to double check (the "shot when fleeing" from p281).

I can't think of a case where it's been simpler or easier to double check what secondary sources say. Don't let that opportunity go to waste. If you're interested in this case or discussing it do a favour to yourself and at least glance over the primary evidence.

[SouvlakiSpaceStation]

Why read the documents myself when other people are so eager to condescendingly explain them to me? :P

[Beguile's Mistress]

Why read the documents myself when other people are so eager to condescendingly explain them to me? :P

Because when two different interpretations of the same facts differ as much as the interpretations of the testimony the only fair way to be sure is to read the testimony yourself rather than let someone else tell you what to believe.  It's easy to believe the version that sounds good to you but is it fair?

[SouvlakiSpaceStation]

Erm, that question was sarcastic and wasn't meant to be taken seriously. But thanks nonetheless. I think I'll try to ignore this thread from now on.

[Sethala]

So, I pondered about this for a while, and here's my take on what I think happened...

First, I'm assuming (thanks to other posts in this thread) that there was a struggle for the gun inside Wilson's car, because Brown was shot in the hand at very close range, and I don't think it's contested that Wilson was punched in the face during the struggle.  I'm also assuming that Wilson didn't know Brown was involved in the robbery at first, although he may have realized something was up, but Brown didn't know that Wilson didn't know, and it's possible he thought Wilson was there because of the robbery.

So, building off of that, when Wilson finally got out of his car after Brown ran off, he had been shoved back into his car as he was trying to get out, was punched, had struggled with the assaulter for his own gun, likely with his life on the line, and just had the gun go off a few inches away from his head.  I don't think it's unreasonable to say that he's not exactly in a clear state of mind.  When he gets out of his car and has the guy that likely tried to kill him turn around, he probably panicked and fired, less out of a desire to kill and more out of fear of his own life.  The discrepancies in his testimony aren't too unreasonable when you realize that he was likely in shock when everything happened, which makes it very hard to remember many details about things.  Granted, I don't know what police training is like or if he'd be trained to remember such details immediately after fighting for his life, so perhaps it is reasonable to assume he'd be able to spot such things when under intense pressure.

Did Brown's race come into it?  Very possibly, there is a stereotype of black people and drug use, violence, or gangs, and while I'm not saying Wilson consciously agreed with such a stereotype, his subconscious could have easily connected "dark-skinned person" to "dangerous enemy" when under such pressure, and it's possible he wouldn't have that subconscious reaction if it was a white person.  Does that make Wilson racist?  I don't think so, if it was something he just subconsciously thought in the brief span of seconds everything happened in, but it's not something I'd rule out either.  Do I think Brown deserved what happened?  Honestly, I don't care who you are, if you're going to fight with someone over a loaded gun you should expect that someone might get shot, and that the person you're fighting with might not be in a proper state of mind when you stop fighting.  That doesn't mean you deserve to get shot, but it does mean you don't get to complain about the consequences of your actions.

If my assumptions are true though, does anyone else see any flaws with my line of thinking?

[Dimir]

More updates out of Ferguson, Missouri, including that the police chief will resign in two months. Also two police officers (not Ferguson officers) were shot and wounded last night and protests are still going on. Other agencies are now policing the city.  I feel the debate now turns to who is going to manage the police department and what will be the future of this city, since there is very little order at the moment.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/03/12/shots-fired-ferguson/70194012/

[Cycle]

Here is the Department of Justice's Press Release and actual Report on the Ferguson Police Department.

[Caehlim]

Here is the Department of Justice's Press Release and actual Report on the Ferguson Police Department.

Wow, I haven't read the report properly yet, but just from the chapter titles in the report that's a really damning condemnation. I'm going to read through the rest of this today and see what the full situation is.

[consortium11]

Wow, I haven't read the report properly yet, but just from the chapter titles in the report that's a really damning condemnation. I'm going to read through the rest of this today and see what the full situation is.

It's pretty damning.

In summary, the Ferguson Police Department (and the Municipal Court that falls under its supervision) is quite clearly presented as being primarily a revenue gathering organisation rather than one actually interested in protecting the community. This comes from the higher ups in the city who frequently make clear that the police force needs to bring in more and more revenue and manifests with officers being evaluated on their "productivity"... in essence how many arrests and citations which lead to fines they issue.

Because of that officers frequently abuse the law and breach the constitution, stopping, searching and arresting when there is no reason to. The municipal court is just as bad, routinely handing out fines, not offering community service and making a habit out of imposing punitive fines on people who can't afford to pay them, issuing arrest warrants for failure to pay and then imposing additional fines. Combine all that with officers routinely using excessive force... and viewing force as something to be used not to protect themselves or the community but instead as a punitive measure against anyone who annoys them. The throw in a whole bunch of the sort of small-town corruption that frequently crops up; officers and officials having their own speeding tickets written off etc etc.

The racial stuff is slightly less clear cut but still pretty damning. The effect of the above issues is disproportionately felt by the African-American community; while making up 67% of the population they are involved in 90%+ of the arrests. As for why this is, there's no smoking gun in the report although it does list a number of racist jokes shared by email within the police department and how there was no punishment or even requests for it to stop; instead they were forwarded on. In essence the report says that there has to be a reason for the disproportionate treatment of African-Americans, they can't find any legitimate reason for why that would be so, thus (especially when the racist jokes are taken into account) it is most likely racism.

[Caehlim]

After reading that report I can understand why people are so angry in Ferguson. Far more going on than just the shooting death that we heard about, although that seemed to be what finally pushed people too far.

[Callie Del Noire]

After reading that report I can understand why people are so angry in Ferguson. Far more going on than just the shooting death that we heard about, although that seemed to be what finally pushed people too far.

What is surprising is that for the fine driven revenue angle, Fergason isn't that atypical. A bit further along the bend of the bell curve but a lot of towns rely on fines, it's only come up more as some of the more extreme examples come to light

Society Hill, SC is the big one in my mind. I lived just north of it for high school and we'd visit family about an hour and a half away. In 3 1/2 years, going thru 2 times a month, I NEVER saw the locals not pulled over writing up someone. Three cars. We broke down there one Saturday afternoon and saw something like 6 stops in 4 hours in front of the truck stop we were at. Of course that was in the 80s. One of my coworkers got a ticket for doing 2 miles over the limit.

There are two towns up here between Jax and Gainesville so bad that folks put up BILLBOARDS coming into town. One of my buds had a picture of the local cops using it as cover for a speed trap. Of course there is a bill up the way here in Florida that is supposed to address that issue. Any municipality generating more that 40% (I think) of its budget in fines is about to get hammered.

It's called, ironically for one of those towns, as the Waldo Bill. Passed the senate, and looks to do the same in the house. Gov Voldermort..Er Scott is said to be happy to sign it.

http://wjcl.com/2015/04/08/traffic-ticket-quotas-could-become-illegal-in-florida/

The situation in Fergason opened my eyes to it being more than just speeding ticket quotas though.