Portland police are the problem, not the solution ... Here’s how many people had protest charges dropped in September

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
I misread it. Nothing to do with "conveniently" leaving it out.
No you didn't. You left it out completely.

I thought that we only comparing white deaths to black deaths. 1483 blacks were killed compared to 2058 white people.
No you didn't. You knew we were only talking about UNARMED Blacks being killed by cops, compared to Whites. Remember, "FACT: unarmed black people are NOT disproportionately killed by police.".

The article doesn't state the number of unarmed white people who were killed.
Basic math using percentages, would make unarmed Whites killed in the 5 year period to be around 80 to 100 Unarmed Whites killed by police.

The article doesn't imply that the disparity is based on racism. That's the point.
Again changing the goalposts. The article only reports the facts. It does NOT make any claims of racism. But it Does claim "Racial Disparity" based only on the data. What this disparity is based on, it can't prove. Even if there were only Blacks in prisons and jails, people like you would still be saying the same thing. "There is no racial disparity". And, that "It isn't racism, it must be because only Blacks commit crimes, and are too stupid to not get caught.". You are a racial rationalist.
 

chris155au

Active member
No you didn't. You left it out completely.
Yes, I left it out completely BECAUSE I misread it! It was poorly written. It STARTED with the 4,653 figure, and then mentioned the 5,367 figure which was then immediately followed by the break down by race. It SHOULD have been written like this:

There were 5,367 fatal police shootings during that five-year period, according to the Post’s database. In an analysis of 4,653 fatal shootings for which information about both race and age were available, the researchers found a small but statistically significantcant decline in white deaths (about 1%) but no significant change in deaths for BIPOC. In the case of armed victims, Native Americans were killed by police at a rate three times that of white people (77 total killed). Black people were killed at 2.6 times the rate of white people (1,265 total killed); and Hispanics were killed at nearly 1.3 times the rate of white people (889 total killed). Among unarmed victims, Black people were killed at three times the rate (218 total killed), and Hispanics at 1.45 times the rate of white people (146 total killed).".

I thought that we only comparing white deaths to black deaths.
No you didn't. You knew we were only talking about UNARMED Blacks being killed by cops, compared to Whites. Remember, "FACT: unarmed black people are NOT disproportionately killed by police.".
My point is that the data includes races other than black,
but we're talking about black and white only.

Basic math using percentages, would make unarmed Whites killed in the 5 year period to be around 80 to 100 Unarmed Whites killed by police.
Can you show how you get to that?

Again changing the goalposts. The article only reports the facts. It does NOT make any claims of racism. But it Does claim "Racial Disparity" based only on the data. What this disparity is based on, it can't prove. Even if there were only Blacks in prisons and jails, people like you would still be saying the same thing. "There is no racial disparity".
I should have been clearer. There IS a racial disparity in police shooting unarmed people. But there is racial disparity in the crime statistics too. You have yet to acknowledge that.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Yes, I left it out completely BECAUSE I misread it! It was poorly written. It STARTED with the 4,653 figure, and then mentioned the 5,367 figure which was then immediately followed by the break down by race. It SHOULD have been written like this:

There were 5,367 fatal police shootings during that five-year period, according to the Post’s database. In an analysis of 4,653 fatal shootings for which information about both race and age were available, the researchers found a small but statistically significantcant decline in white deaths (about 1%) but no significant change in deaths for BIPOC. In the case of armed victims, Native Americans were killed by police at a rate three times that of white people (77 total killed). Black people were killed at 2.6 times the rate of white people (1,265 total killed); and Hispanics were killed at nearly 1.3 times the rate of white people (889 total killed). Among unarmed victims, Black people were killed at three times the rate (218 total killed), and Hispanics at 1.45 times the rate of white people (146 total killed).".





My point is that the data includes races other than black,
but we're talking about black and white only.



Can you show how you get to that?



I should have been clearer. There IS a racial disparity in police shooting unarmed people. But there is racial disparity in the crime statistics too. You have yet to acknowledge that.
It was NOT poorly written. You simply left out the most important part of the analysis on purpose. Again, can you please present the raw data and the other contextual factors please?

I'm not interested in what you think we are talking about, or even what you think you are talking about. Because these excuses will change depending on the evidence that is deposited.

Regarding basic math. Base x Rate = Percentage. Does this help? How about the 3 times, and 1.45 times are the rates?

So are you now saying that a racial disparity DOES exist in the shooting of unarmed Blacks, than in unarmed Whites? There is a racial disparity in the crime stats. Whites commit many more crimes than all other race combined.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
You don't think that has something to do with them being over 70% of the population?
Do you really think that the victims of crimes, give a flying fuck about the racial demographics of the criminals? This is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT!!! Do these racial demographics really matter to any victim, who have just been raped, robbed, or murdered? I suspect that even if Whites represented 99% of the population, White cops would still be hassling and arresting more Blacks and other minorities, than Whites.

Now, the RAW DATA and the CONTEXTUAL FACTORS Please! Stop avoiding your burden of proof, by asking more of these stupid distracting questions. Just support your own claim. Stop turning everything I say into another question.
 

chris155au

Active member
Do you really think that the victims of crimes, give a flying fuck about the racial demographics of the criminals? This is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT!!! Do these racial demographics really matter to any victim, who have just been raped, robbed, or murdered? I suspect that even if Whites represented 99% of the population, White cops would still be hassling and arresting more Blacks and other minorities, than Whites.
Here is an article which refers to the same 5367 police shootings that the Yale article refers to:

https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroo...in-us-more-than-3-times-as-high-as-in-whites/

"Some 5367 fatal police shootings were reported by the Washington Post from 2015 to May 2020; missing details on race/ethnicity or age left a total of 4653 deaths for analysis.

Half the shooting fatalities were of Whites (51%), followed by Blacks (27%), Hispanics (19%), Asians (2%) and Native Americans (nearly 2%)."


So as you can see, the majority of shootings are against
white people. 51% are white and 27% are black.

Now, the RAW DATA and the CONTEXTUAL FACTORS Please! Stop avoiding your burden of proof, by asking more of these stupid distracting questions. Just support your own claim. Stop turning everything I say into another question.
https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/fryer/files/empirical_analysis_tables_figures.pdf

"On the most extreme use of force – officer-involved shootings – we find no racial differences in either the raw data or when contextual factors are taken into account."

This just means that EITHER WAY there are no racial differences. So it doesn't matter what the "contextual factors" are because EITHER WAY there are no racial differences. And as for the "raw data", that's obviously referring to raw number of people shot by police. As pointed out above, more white people are shot by police and there is no indication that it changes for specifically unarmed shootings.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Correct. By mistake.
This comment means that you left the most important part of the analysis out on purpose, BY MISTAKE???? So which is it? On purpose, or by mistake? Either way you are still misrepresenting the data.

Here is an article which refers to the same 5367 police shootings that the Yale article refers to:

https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroo...in-us-more-than-3-times-as-high-as-in-whites/

"Some 5367 fatal police shootings were reported by the Washington Post from 2015 to May 2020; missing details on race/ethnicity or age left a total of 4653 deaths for analysis.

Half the shooting fatalities were of Whites (51%), followed by Blacks (27%), Hispanics (19%), Asians (2%) and Native Americans (nearly 2%)."


So as you can see, the majority of shootings are against
white people. 51% are white and 27% are black.
Do you know what a tautology is? It is when you say the same thing, but only in a different way. I highlighted the part that this time you didn't leave out. That means that we can't include the race, ethnicity, or age of 714 victims of these police shootings. So let me put this as clearly as I can.

I DON'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT HOW MANY WHITES, BLACKS, INDIGENIOUS, OR PEOPLE OF COLOR(BIPOC) WHO WERE KILLED BY COPS BETWEEN 2015-2020. BECAUSE MANY OF THESE FUCKS PROBABLY DESERVED TO BE SHOT!

BUT WHAT I DO GIVE A SHIT ABOUT, IS WHAT WE WERE AND HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT. IS THERE A DISPROPOTIONATE NUMBER OF U N A R M E D BLACKS AND MINORITIES BEING KILLED BY COPS, OR NOT? SO STOP ALWAYS CHANGING THE GOAL POSTS!!! You have stated clearly that no disparity exists. So lets see the evidence.

I agree that since there are more Whites, than other races, that there would be more crimes committed by them. Although implying that this is somehow an excuse, is another argument in itself. But again, I was only asking about the disparity that you claim does not exist. Even your own article disagrees with you!

This just means that EITHER WAY there are no racial differences. So it doesn't matter what the "contextual factors" are because EITHER WAY there are no racial differences. And as for the "raw data", that's obviously referring to raw number of people shot by police. As pointed out above, more white people are shot by police and there is no indication that it changes for specifically unarmed shootings.
Simply stating something over and over still don't make it so. And I certainly know what raw data and contextual factors mean. So let me help you with a few examples.

John White is part of gang robbing a bank. But the bank was already under surveillance, and his mates were all killed inside the bank. When John saw the cops running out telling him to freeze, he panicked and tried to drive away. He was shot an killed by a ricochet bullet. He was also White and unarmed! Zachary Hammond was buying drugs during a sting operation. He also attempted to flee and was killed by cops. He was also White and unarmed. This is the white database. Now lets compare this to the Black database(which relies mostly on the police's narrative/summary).

Michael Brown, unarmed, was shot twelve times by a cop, because he fitted the description of a robbery suspect of a nearby store. JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE.
Eric Garner, unarmed, was approached because the cops believed he was selling a single cigarette from his own pack without tax stamps. And, in the process of arresting him, the cop choked him to death. JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE.
Walter Scott, unarmed, was stopped by cops for a non-functioning third brake light. He was shot eight times in the back while attempting to flee. JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE.
Samuel Du Bose, unarmed, was stopped by cops for failure to display a front license plate. He was shot in the head for trying to drive away. JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE.
Rekia Boyd, unarmed, was killed by an off-duty cop, who fired five times into a group of Blacks in the park, because they refused to sell him drugs. He was then told him to get his "crackhead ass" out of there. Unfortunately, Rekia was hit in the head and died. She was an innocent Black woman. JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE.

These people were all Black and unarmed. These people had no initial criminal intent, or were engaged in any criminal actions. Until the cops showed up!! And, vehicle equipment faults are NOT a criminal offence!

Now these are the "contextual factors" that I'm talking about. It is these contextual factors that will affect the raw data. So it is very important to see them. You can't just say, "Well since 500 White people were shot an killed by cops, and only 320 Black people were killed by cops, that this means Whites were killed more often than Blacks,"! Why? Because 400 of those Whites may have been armed, and involved in shoot-outs with cops. Or, were engaged in other criminal activities. And also, because the 250 of those Blacks may have been unarmed, and killed while in their living room playing a video game. Or, killed because of a broken tail light, or being mistaken as a criminal. So CONTEXT MATTERS!!

So what is the raw data derived from these contextual factors? I'm talking about the raw data, that demonstrate that no disparity exists between the number of UNARMED Blacks(and other minorities) killed by cops, and unarmed Whites killed by cops?

You really need to understand what it is you are cut copying and pasting.
 

chris155au

Active member
Correct. By mistake.
This comment means that you left the most important part of the analysis out on purpose, BY MISTAKE???? So which is it? On purpose, or by mistake? Either way you are still misrepresenting the data.
I said that it was "by MISTAKE" and now you're asking me if it was "by MISTAKE?" You're a smart guy, you'll figure it out eventually.

BUT WHAT I DO GIVE A SHIT ABOUT, IS WHAT WE WERE AND HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT. IS THERE A DISPROPOTIONATE NUMBER OF U N A R M E D BLACKS AND MINORITIES BEING KILLED BY COPS, OR NOT?
Yes, but the reason that it is disproportionate is because blacks only make up 13% of the population, right?

John White is part of gang robbing a bank. But the bank was already under surveillance, and his mates were all killed inside the bank. When John saw the cops running out telling him to freeze, he panicked and tried to drive away. He was shot an killed by a ricochet bullet. He was also White and unarmed! Zachary Hammond was buying drugs during a sting operation. He also attempted to flee and was killed by cops. He was also White and unarmed. This is the white database.
What's the relevance of these?

Michael Brown, unarmed, was shot twelve times by a cop, because he fitted the description of a robbery suspect of a nearby store. JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE.
If you think that Brown literally did NOTHING which led to the shooting, then you know nothing about the case. Barack Obama's DOJ found no wrongdoing.

Eric Garner, unarmed, was approached because the cops believed he was selling a single cigarette from his own pack without tax stamps. And, in the process of arresting him, the cop choked him to death. JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE.
From what I know about this case, that was a total
miscarriage of justice and NOT like Michael Brown.

Walter Scott, unarmed, was stopped by cops for a non-functioning third brake light. He was shot eight times in the back while attempting to flee. JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE.
You may be getting confused with another case. The cop in this case got put away for 20 years.

Samuel Du Bose, unarmed, was stopped by cops for failure to display a front license plate. He was shot in the head for trying to drive away. JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE.
He was charged though and it went to trial. It broke down due to various judicial procedures that I know nothing about - "mistrial" and "deadlocked jury" and stuff. It seems that these procedures could be changed so that regardless of what happens, in the end a jury either finds a person guilty or not guilty. None of this seemingly ridiculous nonsense. Is the system broken? Most likely.

Rekia Boyd, unarmed, was killed by an off-duty cop, who fired five times into a group of Blacks in the park, because they refused to sell him drugs. He was then told him to get his "crackhead ass" out of there. Unfortunately, Rekia was hit in the head and died. She was an innocent Black woman. JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE.
Seems to be a total miscarriage of justice and NOT like Michael Brown.

These people were all Black and unarmed. These people had no initial criminal intent, or were engaged in any criminal actions. Until the cops showed up!!
Yes, and would you like me to find five unjustifiable unarmed WHITE shootings? It seems that you mentioned two above, plus there's Daniel Shaver. That's three already.

So what is the raw data derived from these contextual factors? I'm talking about the raw data, that demonstrate that no disparity exists between the number of UNARMED Blacks(and other minorities) killed by cops, and unarmed Whites killed by cops?

You really need to understand what it is you are cut copying and pasting.
The data is all here: https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/fryer/files/empirical_analysis_tables_figures.pdf
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Yes, but the reason that it is disproportionate is because blacks only make up 13% of the population, right?
Do you even read what your comments are. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE POINT IS! Why are UNARMED Blacks being killed disproportionately than Whites. If Black represent only 13% of the population, and Whites 70%, then UNARMED Whites should be being killed at 5 time the rate of UNARMED Blacks. NOT UNARMED Blacks being killed at 3 times the rate of UNARMED Whites.

What's the relevance of these?
TRUTH!!

If you think that Brown literally did NOTHING which led to the shooting, then you know nothing about the case. Barack Obama's DOJ found no wrongdoing.
Really? Lets see Brown and a friend were walking in the middle of the street, UNARMED! They were told by a cop to use the sidewalk. The cop then recognized that Brown was a robbery suspect(stole some cigarettes). The cop had an altercation with Brown(unarmed), who was trying to escape the cop. Shots were fired from the cops SUV, and Brown was hit many times 150 FEET away from the cop. While having his hands up and walking back to the cop.

The police report says, that Brown was completely violent throughout the encounter. That Brown was attacking the cop(who had no visible injuries), and was not trying to flee. Then at 150 feet away, after Brown raised his arms, he then decided to charge a cop who was already shooting at him. Because the cop was in mortal fear of his life, he continued to keep pumping rounds into Browns dead body 150 feet away. And then left his body on the street for 4 hrs in the sun.

So tell me what was the crime that he committed, that then escalated to a capital crime?


You may be getting confused with another case. The cop in this case got put away for 20 years.
Don't try to change the posts again. We are still talking about UNARMED Blacks(and other minorities) being killed by cops. Not about what happened to the criminals who committed these acts. Stay on topic please!

He was charged though and it went to trial. It broke down due to various judicial procedures that I know nothing about - "mistrial" and "deadlocked jury" and stuff. It seems that these procedures could be changed so that regardless of what happens, in the end a jury either finds a person guilty or not guilty. None of this seemingly ridiculous nonsense. Is the system broken? Most likely.
Seems to be a total miscarriage of justice and NOT like Michael Brown.
Yes, and would you like me to find five unjustifiable unarmed WHITE shootings? It seems that you mentioned two above, plus there's Daniel Shaver. That's three already.
You are not being serious here, are you? Those examples I gave you was to show you what context looks like. So that you could explain exactly what are these contextual factors? Clearly, you don't understand.

The data is all here:
This is what I had expect you to do. Since you can't provide any data to support your claim, you now want me to find it for you! Surely your depth of knowledge is not this shallow. I don't want to search for evidence supporting YOUR claim. I want YOU to provide me with the evidence supporting your claim. That is how a debate works.
 

chris155au

Active member
Do you even read what your comments are. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE POINT IS! Why are UNARMED Blacks being killed disproportionately than Whites. If Black represent only 13% of the population, and Whites 70%, then UNARMED Whites should be being killed at 5 time the rate of UNARMED Blacks.
Yes, just like if blacks represent only 13% of the population and whites represent 70% of the population, then whites should commit crime at 5 times the rate of blacks. So why don't they? You only have to look at your own FBI source:
So tell me what was the crime that he committed, that then escalated to a capital crime?

From the Vox article:

"An investigation from the Justice Department laid out a strong case in Wilson’s favor. The physical evidence suggested Brown reached into Wilson’s car during their physical altercation and, very likely, attempted to grab the officer’s gun. The most credible witnesses agreed that Brown moved toward Wilson before the officer fired his final shots — and there simply wasn’t enough evidence, especially given the struggle at the car, that Wilson wasn’t justified in fearing for his life when he fired the shots that killed Brown."

Don't try to change the posts again. We are still talking about UNARMED Blacks(and other minorities) being killed by cops. Not about what happened to the criminals who committed these acts. Stay on topic please!
For each case, you proclaimed, "JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE." What did you mean by that if not that they were ruled as justified shootings?

You are not being serious here, are you? Those examples I gave you was to show you what context looks like. So that you could explain exactly what are these contextual factors? Clearly, you don't understand.
What's the difference between the white unarmed shooting cases that you mentioned and the black unarmed shooting cases?
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
t's VERY simple: blacks people commit the most crime even
though they are 13% of the population. THIS is a plain and simple FACT!
IT IS SIMPLE!! IT IS A PLAIN AND SIMPLE LIE!! It doesn't matter what percent of the population WHITES represent. This is just another convoluted rationalization, to avoid accepting the truth. That is, that Whites have been charged with more crimes in all categories(except two), than all other races put together. Simple saying, "Well they represent 70% of the population" is just another silly excuse, to justify/rationalize this clear and obvious fact. I'm sure that the victims of White crimes will give a shit knowing that Whites represents 70% of the population. Right?

Also, it we looked closely at this data, we would soon find out, that the numbers of crimes being committed by Blacks, ONLY represent the number of crimes that Blacks are being CHARGED with. They do NOT include the numbers of cases that are being thrown out, the number of cases where Blacks were found NOT GUILTY, or the number of cases that were never taken to court. Stats can be deceiving, especially to the closed-minded.

You really sound like just another closet bigot/racist. Just another racially insecure supremist. A person who needs to cling to HALF-TRUTHS and RACIAL STEREOTYPES, to support their confirmation and racial biases. These people will ignore any social and racial variable that will challenges their biased core beliefs.

Yes, just like if blacks represent only 13% of the population and whites represent 70% of the population, then whites should commit crime at 5 times the rate of blacks. So why don't they? You only have to look at your own FBI source:
Blacks DO represent 13%, and Whites DO represent 70% of the population. So what? There are many other factors that will determine the rate of crime committed by both races. It is simply a false equivalence, to compare the percentage of Blacks and Whites within the population, to the number of crimes they have been charged with. It IS a fact that Whites are CHARGED with 2-3 more TOTAL crimes(NOT RATES) than all of the other races combined.

What we WERE talking about, was the disproportionate numbers of UNARMED Blacks(an other minorities) who are being killed by cowardly cops with guns. Were these victims armed or not? Did these victims represent a lethal threat to these pigs in uniforms, or not? How many of these victims were Black, and how many were White? SIMPLE!!! I don't care about what percentage of the population Blacks or Whites represent! I don't care how many crimes both races are charged with.

So, unless you are saying, that because Blacks disproportionately are charged with committing more crimes, and represent only 13% of the population, that these UNARMED Blacks deserve to be killed, then I just don't see the relevance here!! One has nothing to do with the other, and you know it!!

From the Vox article:

"An investigation from the Justice Department laid out a strong case in Wilson’s favor. The physical evidence suggested Brown reached into Wilson’s car during their physical altercation and, very likely, attempted to grab the officer’s gun. The most credible witnesses agreed that Brown moved toward Wilson before the officer fired his final shots — and there simply wasn’t enough evidence, especially given the struggle at the car, that Wilson wasn’t justified in fearing for his life when he fired the shots that killed Brown."
Really, lets take a closer look!

"The physical evidence SUGGESTS..."(or may suggest otherwise), "..during a PHYSICAL ALTERCATION"(what was this altercation?), "..and VERY LIKELY.."(or less likely), "the MOST CREDIBLE witness.."(implying all other witnesses were LESS credible), and finally the same old, "..there simply wasn’t enough evidence, especially given the struggle at the car, that Wilson wasn’t justified in fearing for his life when he fired the shots that killed Brown.".

Brown was hit 6 out of the ten shots fired at him. All in the chest and forehead, FROM 150 FEET AWAY! In the end it doesn't matter that Brown was lying dead 150 away from this fearful pig. It is more likely that this pig missed his first 4 shots while Brown was fleeing. Which made Brown stop, turn around, and raise his hands. This is when this cowardly pig hit him with all 6 shots. When he was no longer a threat.

This has never been about finding any objective evidence that would support any obvious justifiable shooting. This has always been about finding the evidence that would DISPROVE that this cowardly pig's WASN'T justified in killing, or that he WASN'T in fear for his life!! Both are extremely difficult to prove. Even when UNARMED naked Black men are killed, this has always been the hardest hurdle to prove. In the absence of video, and other physical evidence, it will always come down to the pigs words. He was scared that he was going to die, will always be the default excuse in these unarmed homicides. So, unless you are White, you have everything to fear from White cops. They are the only people in society, who can get away with legally killing you.

So, go ahead an cling to the "suggests", and the "very likely", and the "most credible", as if these comments are damning absolutes. But people like me will only see them for what they are. BULLSHIT CYA.

What's the difference between the white unarmed shooting cases that you mentioned and the black unarmed shooting cases?
Did you even understand what I was saying? So why are you asking me this? MY PURPOSE WAS ONLY TO GIVE YOU SOME EXAMPLES OF What CONTEXTUAL FACTORS ARE!! Surely you can see that there is no difference between the two, in the loaded way you framed your question. Both were unarmed, and both are dead. But the contextual factors are clearly different. Some died while engaged in some criminal act. Others were not engaged in any criminal act.

I am still waiting on YOUR contextual factors that will show that UNARMED Blacks are NOT being killed more than UNARMED Whites! If you can't then just move on. You can't just make something true that isn't, right
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
Brown was hit 6 out of the ten shots fired at him. All in the chest and forehead, FROM 150 FEET AWAY! In the end it doesn't matter that Brown was lying dead 150 away from this fearful pig. It is more likely that this pig missed his first 4 shots while Brown was fleeing. Which made Brown stop, turn around, and raise his hands. This is when this cowardly pig hit him with all 6 shots. When he was no longer a threat.
Brown's body was 152 ft away from Wilson's patrol vehicle, but Wilson had pursued him on foot. Wilson's expended shells were in a pattern showing that Wilson was backing up while firing, and Brown's body was found in line with the group of expended shells. This evidence showed that Brown was closing distance on a retreating Wilson, and he was firing at close range, not 150 feet away.

Michael Brown shooting.png
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Brown's body was 152 ft away from Wilson's patrol vehicle, but Wilson had pursued him on foot. Wilson's expended shells were in a pattern showing that Wilson was backing up while firing, and Brown's body was found in line with the group of expended shells. This evidence showed that Brown was closing distance on a retreating Wilson, and he was firing at close range, not 150 feet away.

View attachment 1004
Thank you. I stand corrected. Wilson did not fire 10-12 rounds and hit an UNARMED Brown 6 times from 150 feet away. But my point was only to give Chris an example of what contextual factors look like. I was NOT trying to imply if the shooting was justified or not. But since you both seem focused on this unarmed shooting, let's just take a closer look.

Starting with the Blood stains(assuming that it is Brown's), it looks as though Brown was hit, and then started moving westerly from zero to over 21 feet, AWAY from Wilson. And then collapsed. Based on the Wilson's cartridge casings, Wilson was moving clockwise with Brown, as Brown was moving unarmed away from him. Distance was increasing, NOT decreasing. Again, how do you prove if Brown was approaching Wilson, or Wilson approaching Brown? It could have been Wilson who was charging Brown. But we CAN prove who was armed, and who wasn't! Based on this diagram and the evidence I've now read, here is what happened,

Video footage shows Brown entering the Ferguson Market an Liquor at 1:13 early that morning. Footage also show Brown giving the store clerk a brown bag of Marijuana, and the clerk giving Brown a package of cigarettes. Footage also reveals Brown returning to the store and the clerk returning his brown bag. And Brown RETURNING the cigarettes. However, at 11:50am, Brown was recorded stealing a box of cigars, and forcibly forcing a Ferguson clerk out of the way.

Wilson, responding to another call, gets a description of a suspect who had stole a box of cigars(NOT a robbery suspect). Wilson after telling the two(Brown and Johnson) to get out of the road, continued past them and parks. He then calls for backup on a frick'n shoplifter. Wilson backs up and tries to grab Brown while inside his SUV. Brown fights back and tried to escape. Evidence prove that Brown was shot at twice(one hits him in the hand) at the SUV. Wilson gets out and chases after Brown, firing 2 more shots(both missed) at Brown. This causes Brown to stop running, turn, and raise his hands to surrender. As this coward approached Brown clockwise from Brown's left, he began firing 6 more shots at the UNARMED Brown(5 hit him). Brown manage to die 21 feet away from Wilson.

"Wilson claimed he fired in self-defense as Brown charged him, which Johnson denied. A witness claimed that Wilson warned Brown he would open fire, and that Brown responded with "Don't shoot!" before he was killed."


So, I stand corrected, IT WAS ONLY 21 FEET!!! I guess if you are White, there will always be a version of the story to suit you. If Wilson was so afraid of Brown, then why did he chase after him in the first place? There were many cops already on the way. He could have been picked up later on a warrant. And, why would a young 18 year old charge anyone with a gun pointed at them, from 21 feet away? And, finally if someone is shooting at you while you are running away, why the fuck would you stop running?? Unless you intend to surrender!!
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
Thank you. I stand corrected. Wilson did not fire 10-12 rounds and hit an UNARMED Brown 6 times from 150 feet away. But my point was only to give Chris an example of what contextual factors look like. I was NOT trying to imply if the shooting was justified or not. But since you both seem focused on this unarmed shooting, let's just take a closer look.

Starting with the Blood stains(assuming that it is Brown's), it looks as though Brown was hit, and then started moving westerly from zero to over 21 feet, AWAY from Wilson. And then collapsed. Based on the Wilson's cartridge casings, Wilson was moving clockwise with Brown, as Brown was moving unarmed away from him. Distance was increasing, NOT decreasing. Again, how do you prove if Brown was approaching Wilson, or Wilson approaching Brown? It could have been Wilson who was charging Brown. But we CAN prove who was armed, and who wasn't! Based on this diagram and the evidence I've now read, here is what happened,

Video footage shows Brown entering the Ferguson Market an Liquor at 1:13 early that morning. Footage also show Brown giving the store clerk a brown bag of Marijuana, and the clerk giving Brown a package of cigarettes. Footage also reveals Brown returning to the store and the clerk returning his brown bag. And Brown RETURNING the cigarettes. However, at 11:50am, Brown was recorded stealing a box of cigars, and forcibly forcing a Ferguson clerk out of the way.

Wilson, responding to another call, gets a description of a suspect who had stole a box of cigars(NOT a robbery suspect). Wilson after telling the two(Brown and Johnson) to get out of the road, continued past them and parks. He then calls for backup on a frick'n shoplifter. Wilson backs up and tries to grab Brown while inside his SUV. Brown fights back and tried to escape. Evidence prove that Brown was shot at twice(one hits him in the hand) at the SUV. Wilson gets out and chases after Brown, firing 2 more shots(both missed) at Brown. This causes Brown to stop running, turn, and raise his hands to surrender. As this coward approached Brown clockwise from Brown's left, he began firing 6 more shots at the UNARMED Brown(5 hit him). Brown manage to die 21 feet away from Wilson.

"Wilson claimed he fired in self-defense as Brown charged him, which Johnson denied. A witness claimed that Wilson warned Brown he would open fire, and that Brown responded with "Don't shoot!" before he was killed."


So, I stand corrected, IT WAS ONLY 21 FEET!!! I guess if you are White, there will always be a version of the story to suit you. If Wilson was so afraid of Brown, then why did he chase after him in the first place? There were many cops already on the way. He could have been picked up later on a warrant. And, why would a young 18 year old charge anyone with a gun pointed at them, from 21 feet away? And, finally if someone is shooting at you while you are running away, why the fuck would you stop running?? Unless you intend to surrender!!
It is not his job to simply let criminals walk away. It’s his job to arrest them. During my career I never once let someone simply run or walk away without pursuit if I had PC for their arrest. I sought warrants when a suspect could not be found, or if pursuit failed, or in cases where I wanted the D.A. to decide whether or not the case was prosecutable or not.

There is zero evidence that Wilson fired at Brown while Brown was running away.

Brown was 18 years old, 6’4”, 292 lbs, and he had already assaulted Wilson moments before. Independent witnesses testified that Brown charged at Wilson, and THEN Wilson started shooting. The pattern of the spent shells with the positioning of Brown’s body show that Wilson was backing up while shooting and that Brown was advancing.

In fact, there is no credible evidence, based upon the crime scene and independent witnesses, that Wilson gave any untruthful testimony about what happened.

My evaluation of this shooting was that Wilson was out of options when he started firing. He could have stood and fought with no backup, but any reasonable person would expect that Wilson would lose that fight. He could have run away, but we don’t hire police officers to run away from criminals.

The ONLY reason this shooting got any attention at all was because Wilson is white and Brown was black. If everything had unfolded EXACTLY the same way, but Brown had been white, this would have been a brief local story, and the whole of the nation would never have heard about it.

This fact situation, absent mention of race, is a justifiable shooting.

I can only speculate as to why Brown charged Wilson. 18 year old invulnerability and poor judgement? We would have to ask him, but of course, we can’t.
 

chris155au

Active member
Brown's body was 152 ft away from Wilson's patrol vehicle, but Wilson had pursued him on foot. Wilson's expended shells were in a pattern showing that Wilson was backing up while firing, and Brown's body was found in line with the group of expended shells. This evidence showed that Brown was closing distance on a retreating Wilson, and he was firing at close range, not 150 feet away.

View attachment 1004
Is it known why Wilson fired the shots as the unarmed Brown was closing distance, keeping in mind that he could have simply created any distance that was lost?
 
Top