Darren Wilson's Side of the Story

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by bobabode

I haven't the slightest clue why you would think I'm an apologist for authoritarianism Don.

Because you lectured me on what happens to one's ass if you defy a person with a gun. This because I was questioning Barbara on why she felt a similar lecture was called-for.

Since I'd never said that people with guns can be disregarded, this all struck me as sort of odd. Somehow, sheltiedave's proposition seemed to have stimulated, in three people, some urge to affirm the power of the gunman. I described this reaction as 'apologia for authoritarianism.' Maybe that isn't the most apt term for it, but there's something going on, seems to me.

I also feel I'm being a bit obnoxious, so I apologize for that. But I do find this odd reaction I see interesting. And I've tried to answer your question clearly and frankly.

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by barbara

In the places I have lived, the same is true. If an officer has to pull his gun, it means he is planning to use it.

I would only add that in all the places I have lived, any time anybody pulls out a gun they probably plan to use it. Thus...if I'm going to run when somebody has pulled out a weapon, I certainly won't be running at them.



Is there any question that Brown jumped Wilson and ended up on top of him in the squad car? I don't think so. So it seems to me, if recognized proper procedure in most police department jurisdictions suggests that if an unarmed perp has physically attacked an officer and then attempted to run away, it's acceptable to use deadly force to bring that perp down, then it's probably a "good shoot".

[piece-itpete]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I'd like to see that doctrine in print, rather than just asserted.

Or any other shred of proof for that matter.

I have had a gun pulled on me by a cop in a bad neighborhood (in a bad situation) and am not shot. I thought he would, it was very unprofessional, but here I am with no additional holes in me.

Pete

[donquixote99]

I think the discussion is more regarding what police attitude should be, rather than what doctrine actually is, let alone what unprofessional cops do....

I submit that cops who declare "If [whatever], you're going down!" are digging it too much.

I seem to recall my unscientific poll said punching a cop and running away was not a shooting opportunity, in the minds of most citizens.....

[sheltiedave]

The old doctrine was the response needed to be commiserate with the actual risk. The new training seems to be if you are in fear of your life, kill em and get complimented for a good shot.

This is an unacceptable level of creep. Just as the initial dialog from the ferguson police chief explained that the dispatcher did not announce the robbery until after the shooting occurred, and then the officer' testimony claimed otherwise, we see a real threat being met by a like response changed to a perceived threat triggering a carte Blanche outcome.

The police hate all those nuisance brutality lawsuits and ridiculous trials. Just kill em, and they can't talk.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by sheltiedave

The old doctrine was the response needed to be commiserate with the actual risk. The new training seems to be if you are in fear of your life, kill em and get complimented for a good shot.

This is an unacceptable level of creep. Just as the initial dialog from the ferguson police chief explained that the dispatcher did not announce the robbery until after the shooting occurred, and then the officer' testimony claimed otherwise, we see a real threat being met by a like response changed to a perceived threat triggering a carte Blanche outcome.

The police hate all those nuisance brutality lawsuits and ridiculous trials. Just kill em, and they can't talk.

Why not? Take a look at this report for NYC.

Police Abuse Cases Forced NYC To Pay $428,000,000 in False Arrest and Civil Rights Settlements

http://countercurrentnews.com/2014/1...s-settlements/

[barbara]

Originally Posted by sheltiedave

Don, my noted perversion was originally the gun would be drawn, and you would get winged, and that was the end of it. Nowadays it means you are going to get shot, and there are 15 bullets the cop is happy to blow your way. The courts will honor the codified conduct rule.



Escalation means you either run, faceplant, or you will be killed. The problem with Brown is he attempted to faceplant, and was killed anyway.



For the majority of black young adults in St. Louis, Brown exposed an untenable situation. The situation is now run, or be ready to pull your gun and join the wild west. And that leads nowhere good really fast.

The thing is... Neither you or I or a whole lot of other people know what Brown's intention was when he turned around. You say he attempted to face plant. Some of the autopsy report indicates otherwise. Some think Brown was going to charge at the officer.

You can't make a legitimate argument without knowing all the information.

[sheltiedave]

We all can know that Wilson did not move his vehicle after he killed Brown. We can look at where the body is on the street, and most can recognize that Brown is 6'8", and there are many feet on both sides of the body visible, yet there is no visible vehicle.

There are estimates of how far Brown stumbled during/after the fatal shots. But it is very hard for me to imagine anyone who is unwilling to halfway give credence to witness testimony re him surrendering to accept he ran 20 feet at the cop to attack him, but never approached within 10 ft of the bumper of the car.

We will never hear the truth re evidence if it doesn't make it to trial. I would think most everyone would welcome a trial. wouldn't you?

[barbara]

Originally Posted by sheltiedave

We all can know that Wilson did not move his vehicle after he killed Brown. We can look at where the body is on the street, and most can recognize that Brown is 6'8", and there are many feet on both sides of the body visible, yet there is no visible vehicle.



There are estimates of how far Brown stumbled during/after the fatal shots. But it is very hard for me to imagine anyone who is unwilling to halfway give credence to witness testimony re him surrendering to accept he ran 20 feet at the cop to attack him, but never approached within 10 ft of the bumper of the car.



We will never hear the truth re evidence if it doesn't make it to trial. I would think most everyone would welcome a trial. wouldn't you?

Considering the fact that Brown was acting irrationally (strong arming a store clerk, assaulting an officer) there is little reason to believe he suddenly "got rational" at the last minute.

My experience has been that witness accounts are not completely reliable.

[icenine]

I think O'Donnell is right on this, seeing how the Washington Post came out and clarified Melnick's points earlier this week. That her findings can corroborate any number of possible scenarios.

If the last round entered Browns head from the back of the skull, it means his head was very low to the ground.

Either falling to the ground or in a football player crouch. I hardly think someone is going to crouch into running back position and charge a man who has just shot him twice.

You cannot discount eyewitness accounts and base a prosecution on forensics alone. In this case the only non-secret accounts come from eyewitnesses from the Brown side. And it is very possible that they can correlate the autopsy with the what the witnesses supporting Brown said happened.


I just know Wilson and and the Police Department will come out with what really happened AFTER Wilson left the car. Of course, if they can get the grand jury to shut down they do not have to say anything, which is what they really want to do.

The Police Chief is going to be left out to dry pretty soon.