They don’t automatically lose, but the chances of being overpowered by a much bigger man with more strength greatly lowers the chances of winning and greatly increases the chances of serious injury or death.Also, aren't cops trained in some degree of hand to hand combat, like for take-downs? I wasn't aware that cops automatically loose a fight with anyone bigger than them.
I said FINGERPRINTS Seth, NOT DNA. This DNA would have come from the blood and skin from being shot in the hand. Had he had actually grabbed Wilson's gun(which he claims in his narrative), or was struggling with the gun, there would definitely be Brown's prints on the gun. But of course no mention of this evidence. How do you prove whether Brown was reaching for the gun, only? Oh, because Wilson said so? It was more likely that Brown just was trying to protect himself, and to get away.You asked if Brown’s prints were on the gun. FYI, Brown’s DNA was found on Wilson’s gun.
No. I think that it is more likely that Wilson had his gun already out, and pulled Brown by the throat into his vehicle to scare the shit out of him. But Brown fought back and grabbed and punched Wilson(from Wilson's bruising and cuts). Wilson then panicked and fired two shots off. One hitting Brown in the hand(where the DNA came from), forcing Brown to run away in fear of his life.Do you seriously think Wilson may have tried to pull a 292 lb man into the front seat of his patrol vehicle? Come on!
I suppose if I was firing my gun off the roof of a 2 story building, the casings would scatter everywhere when they hit the pavement. I suppose when you were target shooting, you needed to go search for all your casings right? We're only talking only about a 3-4 feet drop. The casings clearly show the direction the shooter was moving. Which was clockwise FROM THE BLOOD DROPS and westerly. Just parallel to Brown.Have you ever stood still and fired a full magazine of ammo while standing on a hard surface and then looked at the brass scattered around? It doesn’t land in a neat little pile. Each shell bounces around differently than the others until it finally comes to rest.
How does the pattern of casing show that Brown was moving towards Wilson, or that Wilson was moving towards Brown? The line from where Brown stopped(blood drops), to where Brown finally collapsed, is a straight line due west from the drops. Wilson's movements(based on the casing patterns) show a clockwise movement approaching Brown. I don't know why this is NOT obvious to you. And, who said Brown was moving eastwardly, after he stopped running?? Where did that red herring come from? Wilson clearly was circling Brown from east to west, until he was close enough for a head shot. That is what the casing positions tell us.The point being that you cannot definitively prove that a person was turning based upon the position of the shells. What we can learn from the positioning of the shells is that Wilson was moving while shooting. He had to have been moving from east to west or from west to east. Brown fell at the west end of the scattered shells, indicating that he was moving west, towards Wilson. If Brown had been moving eastward, away from Wilson, he would have fallen at the east end of the scattered shells when the final shot hit him in the head.
I must say that reading Wilsons narrative, was the most detailed narrative I have ever read. He recalled details that no one under such extreme pressure would ever remember. Which witnesses? Hear are what the witnesses are saying.Multiple witnesses testified that Brown was running towards Wilson when Wilson started shooting, one man describing it as a “tackle run”.
Is that what you think I am doing?? I'm aware that the circumstances between both cases are different. It's very difficult to get away with murdering a handcuffed offender, by kneeling over his throat on national TV. My point was that this was NOT the case in the Brown killing! Was there video evidence of the Brown killing? Was there video evidence of the Floyd killing? Were there many many credible reliable witnesses(including a nurse) in the Floyd killing? Were there only selected and fewer credible and reliable witnesses in the Brown killing? So exactly what am I conflating? Can you see the point I was making now? CLEARLY THEY ARE NOT THE SAME!!The Chauvin case should not be conflated with the Wilson case. They are two completely different fact situations. I can think of multiple cases where a police shooting was not justified, but the Wilson/Brown case is not one of them.
What the hell happened to your service weapon?
Seriously Seth, YES!! I've done this on 2 occasions. One in arresting 1 of 2 arson suspects. The other was for just mouthing off. It is psychologically effective, and establishes that YOU are serious, and in charge. Basically, it is a bluff. But if someone fights back, you're fucked! Fortunately for me, it worked.To suggest that Brown was just trying to get away requires us to believe that Wilson grabbed him from a seated position in the patrol vehicle. This is extremely unlikely, bordering on preposterous. What stretch of the imagination does it take to think you would reach for the throat of a nearly 300 lb man from within a patrol vehicle? A man who, by the way, was accompanied by a friend. Seriously, Shell???
Please don't patronize me. I am passionate about ALL police shooting of ALL UNARMED PEOPLE. Race is irrelevant to me. Although, it would seem that Blacks are the more likely targets of these types of shootings. If anyone threatens a cop with a deadly weapon, his ass deserves to go. In fact the overwhelming majority of the thousand or so shootings per year, represent the justifiable removal of these armed psychos from society. But, "OMG, I thought it was my taser.." or "..I can't breath", or "Guess it will be a closed casket for you Bro..", are well deserving of my passion.I understand that you are very passionate about the issue of police shootings of black people, but I think you should focus that passion on other cases, not this one. IMO, this case would have turned out the same way if Brown had been white.
The problem with your ideal conservative world view, are the words, "inconclusive", "unreliable", "unclear results", "selective evidence", inconsistent", and "unknown". These are words that help Justice see well enough to manipulate the truth. Wilson was supposedly struggling with Brown to get control over his gun. This says that Brown had his hands all over Wilson's gun(from his own narrative). Yet none of Brown's prints were mentioned on the gun at all!! Not even smudged, partials, or even unknown prints were mentioned!! Do you think that this bit of evidence would be kind of important, in establishing whether Brown was going for Wilson's gun? Not even mentioned.Just because an event is not recorded on video doesn’t mean that we can’t reconstruct what happened using all of the available evidence.
CLEARLY!!! The Atlantic article I posited, was focused ONLY on the witnesses testimonies. The WIKI report wasn't. My information comes from the DOJ reports, Wilson's own police narrative of the events, all of the witnesses testimonies, and all of the diagrams and other related physical evidence.The Atlantic article is woefully incomplete. The Wiki report is much more informative.
NO, I was not Highway Patrol. Think harder!You were highway patrol? No fuckin way!
And why are you NOT using Johnson's testimony of the events as factual? Because his testimony might be biased? Why were the other witnesses testimonies labeled as inconsistent and unreliable? Because a witness said Brown ran 150 feet and NOT 152? Because a witness said Brown's hands were up, instead of being outstretched? Because a witness said he heard "don't shoot", when Wilsons own words, were, that he WOULD shoot if brown didn't get down? Just because it was concluded that there was no evidence, doesn't mean that there was no evidence.Why are you using Johnson's testimony as if it is FACT? The "hands up, don't shoot" claim was found to be a total fabrication! As the Wikipedia article that you linked to says: "A subsequent FBI investigation found that there was no evidence that Brown had his hands up in surrender or said "don't shoot" before he was shot."
So Brown is now only statistically guilty of attacking a cop. And his motives can now be rationalized as varying?His case is not unique though. Many criminals have attacked police officers with poor chances of success and ended up shot or dead. Their motives vary.
When did I specifically call Seth a racists. Or, did I say that his flippant remark "sounds like...". Although I may disagree with his personal opinions, his logic is always based on his interpretation of real facts. He supports his believes with factual and rational reference sources(although biased). His arguments are consistent with his experience and world view. He is always true to himself, and his beliefs. He will intellectually have my respect and admiration as a fellow cop, a veteran, and a honest man. At our age, objectivity becomes only a luxury. So, no one is perfect! Even me. He unlike you, can actually speak and defend himself, without any help from you.@Shellandshilo1956 has already called you a racist. That's usually a good sign that there's no point in continuing the debate, because the person you are debating has ran out of arguments!
You can find out why they didn’t get fingerprint evidence from Wilson’s gun here on page 24.Seriously Seth, YES!! I've done this on 2 occasions. One in arresting 1 of 2 arson suspects. The other was for just mouthing off. It is psychologically effective, and establishes that YOU are serious, and in charge. Basically, it is a bluff. But if someone fights back, you're fucked! Fortunately for me, it worked.
What stretch of the imagination would lead you to believe, that someone who follows orders to move off the street, and onto the sidewalk, would suddenly think that attacking an armed police officer in his vehicle, was a good idea? What stretch of the imagination would lead you to believe, that someone with the presence of mind to stop running and raise his hands or be shot, would suddenly decide that grabbing his waistband and charging like a bull at an officer threatening to shoot him, was a good idea? Oh, that's right, we can't ask him. Too bad, right Seth??
Please don't patronize me. I am passionate about ALL police shooting of ALL UNARMED PEOPLE. Race is irrelevant to me. Although, it would seem that Blacks are the more likely targets of these types of shootings. If anyone threatens a cop with a deadly weapon, his ass deserves to go. In fact the overwhelming majority of the thousand or so shootings per year, represent the justifiable removal of these armed psychos from society. But, "OMG, I thought it was my taser.." or "..I can't breath", or "Guess it will be a closed casket for you Bro..", are well deserving of my passion.
The problem with your ideal conservative world view, are the words, "inconclusive", "unreliable", "unclear results", "selective evidence", inconsistent", and "unknown". These are words that help Justice see well enough to manipulate the truth. Wilson was supposedly struggling with Brown to get control over his gun. This says that Brown had his hands all over Wilson's gun(from his own narrative). Yet none of Brown's prints were mentioned on the gun at all!! Not even smudged, partials, or even unknown prints were mentioned!! Do you think that this bit of evidence would be kind of important, in establishing whether Brown was going for Wilson's gun? Not even mentioned.
How about the blood evidence? We know exactly where Brown stopped because of the Blood drops. If Brown was charging Wilson, was there a blood trail for us to follow. We know that Wilson fired in 2 volleys(from his own narrative). So, did NONE of the blood escape his body and reach the pavement in either volley? Was Brown hit with all 5 shots, and dropped in the same spot he was hit? No blood trail was even mention. Do you think that this evidence would have been important, in determining if Brown was charging Wilson? Blood trails don't lie. They always point to the direction of travel. Not mentioned.
Numerous witnesses said Brown had his hands up before he was killed. Their testimonies were discredited, or labeled as unreliable. Why?? The casing patterns were also labeled as inconclusive. But you are right. We don't need video evidence to reconstruct a TRUE representation of what actually did happen. But in the Brown killing, WE DEFINITELY NEEDED IT!!! Simply saying that the evidence IS CONSISTENT WITH(not supports) Wilson's narrative is just NOT good enough. The less we NEED to interpret the evidence, the more impartial and unbiased the evidence becomes. Video evidence in real-time, is the the most damning and the most reliable piece of evidence. But is video evidence necessary in the killing of a person using an MP3 in a shootout with cops? NO!!
CLEARLY!!! The Atlantic article I posited, was focused ONLY on the witnesses testimonies. The WIKI report wasn't. My information comes from the DOJ reports, Wilson's own police narrative of the events, all of the witnesses testimonies, and all of the diagrams and other related physical evidence.
In my opinion, any killing of an UNARMED offenders is an extraordinary act. Therefore, the act requires extraordinary evidence. There should be NOTHING inconclusive in the investigation of these cases.
I don't know the exact number each year. Do you know? I'm sure that there are more unarmed whites killed by police, which would make sense given that white people commit the most crime and therefore I guess have more interactions with police. I think that the Washington Post's database has this data but it isn't available to people outside of the US.How many of these victims were Black, and how many were White? SIMPLE!!!
Lets start at the beginning, BASED ONLY ON THIS REPORT.You can find out why they didn’t get fingerprint evidence from Wilson’s gun here on page 24.
These are all just empty statements. I've read the report. WHERE/WHAT are all the physical, and eyewitness evidence that you are referring to? HOW does scattered casings, a radio call, blood droppings(DNA), and the eyewitness statements, prove that Wilson was innocent or guilty? Other than, "that his story was consistent with the evidence"? Just because we can't prove Wilson is lying, doesn't mean that he's telling the truth(faulty generalization), right?Even without video evidence, there is so much physical evidence and testimonial evidence, that if Wilson had been lying about any substantive part of the event, that evidence would have convincingly disproved his lies.
Irrelevant!! Suspects do lie. But that doesn't mean that ALL suspects lie. And, it doesn't mean that Johnson, and other witnesses statement's are also lies. That is an association fallacy. Even Trump sometimes told the truth.But instead, almost everything shows that Wilson told the truth. I think you know that when suspects lie about one thing, it forces them to lie about more things or to change their story. Through all of the exhaustive investigations that were done on this case, Wilson was consistent in his account, and no credible evidence contradicts his account.
Are you really implying that these witnesses MUST be telling the truth, because of their willingness to risk Black backlash? Really Seth? That is not only being socially naïve, but kind of being racist. I'm sure that there were many in the community, that were glad to see the back of this bully. Creating your own logic to fit your own false conclusion, is just another confirmation fallacy. In reality, you have no idea why people would or would not lie about anything. This is all personal supposition, based only on an outdated stereotypic assumption, that Black backlash is a real rationale for telling the truth.The witnesses who backed up Wilson’s account of what happened did so at risk to themselves, and they expressed that fear. Why would people of color lie to back up Wilson’s account if they feared retribution, unless being honest outweighed their own fear?
Seth YOU DON'T! And NO HUMAN CAN. Our racial biases are hardwired by evolution! Our subjective beliefs, personal experiences, world views, racial upbringing, and how our genes are expressed, all influenced our judgement. No one is exempt. No one can just turn the things that what makes us all human, on or off! So YES your judgement is colored/clouded by your political, social, and personal beliefs.My view of this shooting is not colored by my conservative political views as you suggest. When I evaluate these various shootings that happen, I put my politics in a box and leave them there. It’s an intellectual exercise, not a political one, and my conclusions vary based upon the facts. Let’s see how I have evaluated some other killings ....
No simple answer to that. If a much bigger and stronger man was trying to severely injure me or beat me to death, and I couldn’t stop him any other way, then I would shoot. On the other hand, a much bigger and stronger man might use that strength to shake off my attempt to get physical control of him, but without trying to really hurt me. In other words, using that strength to escape rather than injure or kill. Most of the physical resistance to arrest I dealt with during my career was of that sort - attempting to break free and escape.If the guy was twice your size, would you have just shot him?