Did Mike Brown grab the gun or not?

[PersonNumber503602]

Is that a lie or not? I heard it both ways, and I'm not sure what's been proven and what hasn't been.

[Recursion]

1. It can't be forensically proven or disproven, though I don't believe the claim

The jam Wilson's weapon had is consistent with someone holding the side of the gun, but also with the gun being up against someone's arm, and also it sometimes "just happens". Brown's fingerprints on the gun would be pretty clear proof he did, but their lack isn't disproof. (And if they had been found on the gun, we definitely would have heard about it.) The gunshot to Brown's hand is consistent with someone reaching "towards" (to keep it neutral) a gun, or someone shielding himself with his arms.

What I'm really interested in (and haven't seen yet in any of the autopsy evidence) is powder residue on Brown's clothing and hands.

[PersonNumber503602]

2. Oh, I guess that would explain the lack of any solid answer about it.

I also recall something about a gun shot in the car, but I didn't see anything about that in anything I've read recently. I'm guessing that probably was some misinfo?

[Recursion]

3. Two shots were fired in the car, and Brown bled onto the outside of the car

I'm pretty sure it's as certain as things get here that the first two shots were fired at very close range from inside the car.

[PersonNumber503602]

6. Damn shame there wasn't any body cameras, or at least a dash board cam.

When the car scuffle first came out, I thought it sounded fishy. So I guess the question is if Wilson should have taken the gun out of the holster to begin with, huh? Although even that wouldn't excuse someone trying to grab a police officer's gun. On that part I find it difficult to defend Brown's actions or put him the minding his own business category. That being said, that doesn't mean I think his killing was justified. It's hard to find unbiased reports or discussions that actually discuss the details in way that isn't purposely favoring a specific narrative.

Most the discussions I've read on here (and that other site) are just people just talk at each other instead with each other.

[Recursion]

7. His testimony has a long, tortured explanation of why he didn't go for his mace or baton

And the pathetic claim is, ultimately, that he shot Brown rather than maced him because of ergonomics

[nomorenomore08]

10. At least he didn't claim to have grabbed (and used) the gun by accident, like J. Meserle did.

"I thought I was reaching for my taser, but..."

[azmom]

40. Awww hell, I gotta google that

That is nuts.

[Bettie]

41. Actually, I read that he chose not to carry a taser

because it was uncomfortable on his belt.

http://www.vox.com/2014/11/25/7279623/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence/in/7041840

10) Wilson didn't carry a Taser because it's uncomfortable

"I normally don't carry a Taser. We only have a select amount. Usually there is one available, but I usually elect not to carry one. It is not the most comfortable thing. They are very large, I don't have a lot of room in front for it to be positioned."

[nomorenomore08]

46. IIRC he also claimed to have never fired his gun on duty before.

I tend to believe him there, but I have to wonder if part of him had been waiting for/building up to the confrontation with Brown.

[PersonNumber503602]

12. Ahh, that most lethal and aggressive action first mentality that far too many police officers have

Which in turn leads to aggression toward the police, which in turn feeds more aggressive police. That does call into question everything else that played out after that. (I'm refraining from saying anything more until I read up the latest details, because most my information is a couple months old)

[Recursion]

15. There's a "use of force continuum" they teach us in the military

Presence -> compliance -> submission -> non-lethal -> lethal

(That's for patrolling in urban situations like Iraq; not so much for Omaha Beach.) You are supposed to keep a mental checklist of where you are on that continuum present in your mind at all times. ("compliance" means giving a verbal order; "submission" means a submission hold, lock, or choke, not you submitting.) And in non-combat situations, you are supposed to remember that your job is to keep the continuum as far to the left as you possibly can.

There's also a judgment model we are supposed to use:

Observe -> Orient -> Decide -> Act

It's supposed to govern the judgment process in tactical situations, and you're supposed to be well-enough trained that it happens instinctively in a crisis situation.

Wilson observed, then oriented, then acted. He completely skipped over "decide", by his own admission that he was asking himself "is it legal to shoot"?

[TexasProgresive]

24. In the whole Furgeson incident

I don't see any sensible use of either "Presence -> compliance -> submission -> non-lethal -> lethal" or "Observe -> Orient -> Decide -> Act" The actions of the police to "quiet" unrest were either stupidly inept or intentionally designed to escalate violence. If the former the PD administration from the chief and down whatever chain of command should be fired for ineptitude, if the later fired, charged and prosecuted.

I do think it was rank ignorance on how to do crowd control where the mindset is might equals right is what happened, but that is still inexcusable.

[Recursion]

25. No argument there

I do think it was rank ignorance on how to do crowd control where the mindset is might equals right is what happened, but that is still inexcusable.

Thank you.

Crowd control is not general relativity. It's actually pretty well understood. There are very simple and non-violent ways to control crowds (non-violence can work for everyone...)

[Hangingon]

38. The OODA loop

Thank you John Boyd.

[XemaSab]

4. There was stuff from the gun on his hands

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/official-autopsy-shows-michael-brown-had-close-range-wound-to/article_e98a4ce0-c284-57c9-9882-3fb7df75fef6.html

[alcibiades_mystery]

14. That does not definitely demonstrate anything, according to the very pathologist being quoted

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/pathologist-says-brown-autopsy-quotes-in-post-dispatch-were-taken-out-of-context/2014/10/28/30829296-5dea-11e4-9f3a-7e28799e0549_story.html

But Melinek said she did not assert that a gunshot wound on Brown’s hand definitively showed that he was reaching for Wilson’s gun during a struggle while the officer was in a police SUV and Brown was standing at the driver’s window, as the Post-Dispatch reported.

Melinek told The Washington Post that the autopsy facts could be viewed differently.

“Bullet trajectory analysis is complex, and you cannot interpret autopsy reports in a vacuum,” she wrote in an e-mail. “You need the scene data and the witness statements. When a forensic expert says something ‘appears to be’ or is ‘consistent with’ the findings, that doesn’t mean it is the only explanation. It means it is one possible explanation — one that fits the current forensic data. That opinion might change as other data comes to light.”

[snooper2]

36. It was in the autopsy report, gun shot in Brown's hand, soft tissue recovered from the vehicle

blood on Wilson's hand,

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1371199-2014-5143-autopsy-report.html

Here is the microscopic report from Brown's hand- (matter are consistent with products that are discharged from the barrel of a firearm)

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1371201-2014-5143-microscopic-01.html

[alcibiades_mystery]

44. Which only shows that he was shot in the hand, not that he was grabbing for a gun

[Kalidurga]

5. probably not

Wilson has told many versions of the same story. And he told the GJ that he wondered if he could get away with shooting Mike Brown.

[PersonNumber503602]

9. I hate saying it like this, but on the "pro Brown" side, is there any comment the forensics

gathered in the car? I'm trying to figure out what details each "side" has settled one being fact, and what they view as false, and the whys behind their assertions. In the discussions I've read, watched, heard, it seems like everyone is working with a different set of facts.

[nomorenomore08]

11. Everyone (myself included) comes at these cases with pre-conceived notions.

On the pro-Wilson side, it seems largely based on one's own fears and stereotypes RE: black men.

[PersonNumber503602]

17. Very true, we all have our pre-conceived notions

but I think we'd all be better off if we try to put those to the side, and instead try hard just be pro-truth. Which I know is hard to be 100% with that. I know I'm not even close to perfect with that, particularly with subjects I'm more passionate about.

I find discussions far more interesting when participants try to discuss subjects with a goal toward understanding instead of convincing everyone of their stance.

[Kalidurga]

13. there is nothing conclusive

there is some contact gun residue on Mike Browns hands which could come from touching the gun or being fired on at close range some of his blood got in the car. So we know he was at least leaning in through the window. How that happened we don't know he could have been pulled in when he went to confront Darren Wilson. He could have been trying to push the gun away which makes sense since he was shot in the hand. Wilson has no credibility with me not even a tiny speck.

[Alittleliberal]

63. It was my understanding that the blood

Was on the side of the car, not in it

[alcibiades_mystery]

16. A number of scenarios can explain the forensics

It appears that Brown may have had a "close range wound" on his hand, meaning that he was close to at least one discharge of the weapon.

That doesn't mean he was reaching for it or trying to get it away from Wilson. It's also perfectly consistent with trying to deflect the gun either before or after the first discharge, which is more or less Dorian Johnson's version of what happened. What we know from the forensics is that he had a close range wound. It's equally consistent with either an accidental or deliberate firing of the weapon by Wilson, or with some version of his attempting to grab the gun from Wilson. The forensics prove nothing on their own.

For my money, I think the idea of Brown attempting to disarm Wilson is simply contrary to ordinary experience, whereas Wilson drawing or having the gun out and then having an accidental discharge is far more plausible.

Both are completely in line with the forensics, so the forensics cannot settle the question. Both versions have a witness: Johnson and Wilson.

It's why we needed an actual trial with adversarial cross-examination to determine the likely truth of the matter.

[PersonNumber503602]

19. As nomorenomore08 said below, grabbing a cops gun does sound suicidal.

He only had pot in his system too, huh? I'm guessing since we didn't hear anything about mental illness, that Brown didn't suffer from any. Unless that's something the grand jury heard but decided not to release. There's no indication of that, right?

Do you know if anyone else heard the claims that Brown was yelling "you won't shoot me pu**y" (or whatever the exact words were), or was it just Wilson who claims to have heard that?

I'd be interested in seeing Wilson's history too.

I think you're right in your assessment that this should have went to trial.

[alcibiades_mystery]

29. Every sentence out of Wilson's mouth is carefully crafted by attorney to match the statute

while vaguely keeping to a moderately reasonable interpretation of the evidence.

It is so contrived that anybody with a lick of sense discards it entirely as the self-serving statement of somebody having committed a serious felony.

I mean, really. We have two versions of even the initial conversation. Wilson claims he politely asked the two youngsters (I'm using this word to signal the same ridiculous Mayberry feel that Wilson's lawyers concocted for his story) to walk on the sidewalk. Dorian Johnson says that Wilson said "Get the fuck on the sidewalk."

Which is more believable? I mean, honestly. But if you don't believe Wilson's anodyne rendering of even those first few words - and it is truly a ludicrous retelling, then Wilson begins his testimony with a self-serving and obvious lie. When does he stop lying? When? Never.

Then we're to believe that after Brown yells at him to fuck off, he returns calmly, and does a "C'mon, fellas, I'm just looking out for your safety" sort of second ask, while at the same time just then perhaps recognizing that Brown - described to a goddamn T in the dispatch (yellow socks up to his knees!), may be the - gasp - store robber.

Do I believe Mike Brown said "You won't shoot me, you pussy!" No, because that's beyond ridiculous, and was invented by Wilson's attorneys to craft a state of mind for Brown.

It's ridiculous. His entire testimony is ridiculous. And everybody knows it.

[nomorenomore08]

48. "It's ridiculous. His entire testimony is ridiculous. And everybody knows it."

[nomorenomore08]

8. I doubt it. Unless he was suicidal, and I've seen no indication that he was.

The "gentle giant" characterization may well be downplaying certain aspects of his character, but I haven't read anything that suggests he suffered from depression or any other mental disorder.

[TorchTheWitch]

18. does it matter?

There's probably some dna or fingerprint analysis that may or may not show anything. Does he need to have touched the gun? If he was grabbing for it but wasn't able to get a hold of it is that somehow not as good? The shot fired in the car hit his thumb indicating that his hand was reaching for it.

I'm guessing that if one is going to plunge through the cop's window past their armpits and hit the cop with their fists they had better make sure he can't pull out his gun and kill them. It doesn't seem very reasonable to me to go through the window and assault the officer knowing he has a gun without attempting to disarm him unless you have a death wish. Therefore I'm going with yes, he likely tried to disarm the officer as he'd be batshit crazy to do what he did and not try to disarm him or at the least attempt to prevent Wilson from drawing his gun which still comes down to a struggle over the gun.

Documents of the case are here...

http://documents.latimes.com/ferguson-grand-jury/

They aren't very well organized, so you'd have to just plow through them and find the ones concerning the wound to the thumb and the relevant forensic evidence.

I'm really not seeing that it makes any difference whether or not he was trying to grab the gun, whether or not he touched it, etc. It seems logical that he would not have plunged through the window and punched the officer while knowing the officer had the gun, and where it was located yet not attempt to disarm the officer or prevent the officer from using the gun. As we all know, Brown was not successful in getting hold the the gun.

I'm just not getting what the point of your question is.

[PersonNumber503602]

20. The truth and facts always matter, no?

If he did grab the gun, then that's important to know his possible mindset at the time.

If it turned out that he didn't grab the gun, then it means that Wilson lied in his initial statements.

I don't think that it really matters as to the correctness grand jury's decision to not take it to trial though. I still need to read up and discuss it a bit more, but I'm leaning toward not agreeing with the decision.


Also, if it did go to trial (which I'm leaning toward the opinion it should have), then such details would have been very important during the trial.

[TorchTheWitch]

22. you're looking for truth and facts HERE?

God, nobody here other than me has every had the slightest interest in truth and facts concerning this incident. It's been willfully ignored even when planted in front of them.

Look, let's just use some common sense here. Brown thrust himself through Wilson's open driver's side window past his armpits and hit him twice. There was a struggle reported by multiple eyewitnesses inside the car that saw this struggle occurring because of the movements Brown's body was making. With that much of Brown's body through the window it would not have been possible for Wilson in the driver's seat to remain upright in the seat nor would he have wanted to because the only way to try to get himself as far away from Brown's fists as he could would have been to lean over into the passenger side of the car which likely anyone would do instinctively anyway. That is why no one could say they were able to see where exactly Wilson was or what he was doing inside the car.

Keep in mind that this occurred around noon on a bright sunny day where the sun would have been shining on the windshield making it virtually impossible to see through it unless one was right smack up against the car and probably with their face pressed to a window shading their eyes. Further, the car itself and Brown's body completely blocking the driver's side window even if someone was right up against the car they somehow have to see down into the interior of the car to see what was happening during this struggle.

Since Brown would know that Wilson had a gun and where on his body it was located and that as an officer he was trained in how to use it effectively and draw it quickly is there any reason you could possibly come up with that Brown would have thrust his upper body through the window and hit Wilson and struggle with him WITHOUT trying to disarm him? There is really no question that of course Brown's biggest interest was to keep the gun away from the officer so he wouldn't get killed. Seriously, with Brown attacking the officer is there some insane reason why he would have just allowed Wilson to unholster the gun, aim it and shoot Brown dead with it without trying to keep Wilson from using it to shoot and kill him?

The bullet fired inside the car struck the tip of Brown's thumb which forensically makes it logical that Brown was reaching for that gun when it was fired. We don't know if Brown was shot because he was trying to get the gun away from Wilson to use against him or if he was trying to push it away to keep Wilson from shooting him. Either way, that amounts to a struggle over the gun.

Is there some reason that Wilson would have lied about the struggle over the gun? There is no reason to lie about that because with Brown having assaulted him with his fists whatever happened with the gun doesn't alter in any way Wilson's fear, or his shooting the gun inside the car or his going after Brown when he ran. There is no reason for him to lie about the struggle over the gun, and there is no logical reason to imagine there wasn't a struggle over the gun.

Further, the struggle in the car took a considerable time according to the eyewitnesses. Is there some reason that Wilson would just have allowed Brown to punch him and struggle with him WITHOUT immediately unholstering, aiming and firing his gun if for some insane reason Brown was not trying to remove it or keep Wilson from using it? What the fuck were they doing all that time, dancing??? What possible struggle would have occurred that did not involve the gun since A) Wilson would have had every reason in the world to grab it, aim and shoot from the moment Brown first thrust his upper body into the car and hit him or otherwise grappled with him, and B) he's a trained police officer that can unholster his gun, aim and shoot it very quickly.

Read the documents of all the eyewitness statements and all the forensic evidence. There's tons of it, but this in what the evidence is and what the grand jury used to come to their decision. Then read the law in MO concerning when and under what circumstances a police office has the right to use deadly force. There's no question that the grand jury made the correct decision, and everyone paying attention already knew what the decision was going to be given even what little information was out in public before we got all the documents.

http://documents.latimes.com/ferguson-grand-jury/

http://lawofselfdefense.com/statute/mo-563-046-law-enforcement-officers-use-of-force-in-making-an-arrest/

[Lex]

26. "nobody here other than me has every had the slightest interest in truth and facts

concerning this incident"

Why stay here? Why not go grace some other board with your bloviating?

[TorchTheWitch]

27. I'm not the one doing the bloviating

That would be those folks just making shit up about the incident to suit and utterly ignoring the evidence now that it's out. And it's obvious why it's being ignored though no one ever wanted it in first place. Interesting though that you think anyone that IS interested in facts and evidence should ever be the one told to go elsewhere or that they're the one that's bloviating.

So, what's your reason for ignoring the evidence? Not that I don't already know that.

I've been here over 10 years. Why would I leave when I know that Ferguson will be wiped from everyone's mind the moment it's no longer in the media. And once there's no more rioting the media will find some other issue they can flay and profit off of. I know you and several others have already said the same thing about my leaving. Don't like your conscience being pricked. Don't like trying to figure out a logical reason for ignoring the evidence. How troublesome I must be talking facts and evidence to people that don't want them and never did. Tough. Don't like what I say, put me on ignore or leave yourself. It isn't me that wants to leave, it's you that wants me to. Too bad. I'm not going anywhere for the convenience of people that like to wallow in made up shit that feeds their own bias and can't figure out how to keep ignoring facts and evidence that an embarrassing amount of people here don't like being reminded of.

Funny, DU has always loved to yuck it up about rightwingers ignoring facts and evidence in order to uphold their own bias. How tragic that so many people here have been doing exactly that. Oh yeah, I can see what I thorn in the side I am bringing up such inconvenient basic truths like facts and evidence that the DU collective has been squeezing their eyes shut to desperately trying to convince themselves don't exist.

Oh no, here's another reminder about those pesky facts and evidence...

http://documents.latimes.com/ferguson-grand-jury/

[Lex]

28. Yes, your posts are the very definition of bloviating.

And YOU are the one whining and complaining about DU, so why stay? Makes no sense, but no surprise there.

[Adrahil]

31. Ya know, I hate posts like this....

I suspect all of us disagree with the DU groupthink every once in a while. I bet even you. The "why stay" bullshit smacks of reinforcing group think. Instead of being well, rude, why not make an argument.

Here's the thing.... And even Ezra Klein's Vox backs this up. Missouri law makes it very hard to convict an officer in circumstances such as these, even with very good evidence, and the evidence here is equivocal at best. Too many people wanted an indictment merely to satisfy their perfectly justifiable moral outrage.

But that should not be the way the rule of law works.

[Lex]

33. Ok, I was responding to a poster who said this about DUers:

"God, nobody here other than me has every had the slightest interest in truth and facts concerning this incident."

Absolutely disagree with DU'ers, but do it respectfully. The "why stay" from me is more about the "only I have all the answers and DUers hate the truth" BS than with the Michael Brown murder itself.

[nomorenomore08]

49. I'm glad I'm not the only one who found that an incredibly arrogant post. n/t

[Adrahil]

51. Ok, thanks for the clarification. Happy Thanksgiving! n/t

[Spazito]

39. Well said!

The utter arrogance in the statement, "nobody here other than me has ever had the slightest interest in truth and facts concerning this incident" is breathtaking.

[RobinA]

42. Thank You

for providing links to these documents. I prefer to read original (or close to original) documents and testimony when possible, and I hadn't gotten to this case yet as I was plowing through the Adam Lanza report.

[TampaAnimusVortex]

58. And so does logic...

"If it turned out that he didn't grab the gun, then it means that Wilson lied in his initial statements. " - How so?

If he just took a swing from outside the car through the window, one might could see the logic of saying he wasn't going for the gun.
If he dove halfway through a window to get inside the car, exactly what do you think he was going for? The officer's coffee and donuts?

I think it's a fair assumption for a cop that anyone diving through their window might in fact be going for the gun and respond with deadly force. And I say this as a subscriber of Copblock feeds on Facebook and youtube. Plenty of cops are way over the line and do horrible things, but this just doesn't look like the case here.

Hell, diving through the car window to fight anyone with a gun - cop or civilian - it's a pretty predictable outcome.

[hunter]

21. From my perspective it doesn't matter at all.

Wilson was an asshole with a gun who lost his temper and killed someone.

[justiceischeap]

23. We will never know because the gun wasn't tested for prints

This is from the HuffPo article, "Ferguson Grand Jury Evidence Reveals Mistakes, Holes In Investigation"

Reading this makes it clear this case was not investigated thoroughly because the police saw no reason to investigate it thoroughly. From the beginning it appears as though the decision was made that it was a good shoot.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/25/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-mistakes_n_6220814.html?utm_hp_ref=black-voices&ir=Black%20Voices

4. Investigators did not test Wilson’s gun for fingerprints.

Talking with police investigators and before the grand jury, Wilson claimed that Brown had grabbed at Wilson's gun during the initial incident in the police car and that Brown's hand was on the firearm when it misfired at least once. Wilson also told police that he thought Brown would overpower him and shoot him with his own gun. “I was not in control of the gun,” Wilson said. Eventually he regained control of the weapon and fired from within the car.

Investigators could have helped to prove or disprove Wilson’s testimony by testing his service weapon for Brown’s fingerprints. But the gun was not tested for fingerprints. An investigator argued before the grand jury that the decision was made not to test the weapon because Wilson “never lost control of his gun.”

[BklnDem75]

30. I think Wilson pointed a gun in Brown's face...

I think Wilson's intention was to scare Brown into following his orders, so he grabbed Brown and pulled out his gun to make his point stronger. Like any other human being, Brown reacted to a gun being in his face, trying to escape or at least keep the muzzle pointed somewhere else. During the struggle, the gun goes off by accident, injuring Brown, but surprising Wilson at the same time, allowing Brown to break free and make a break for it.

This is just my opinion.

[alcibiades_mystery]

45. That's my reading of it, too

Wilson was acting illegally and irresponsibly with his firearm, using it to intimidate the two young men.

It's the only really plausible reason for the gun to be out at all. The idea that Brown attacked Wilson with almost no provocation is laughable. The leap from stealing Swisher Sweets and pushing a store clerk to assault and even attempted murder of a police officer is a joke believed only by people who have a real problem with racial prejudice.

The first shot, which like likely hit Brown in the hand, was accidental. The second shot was Wilson panicking during the struggle, as Brown seeks to escape but it held there by Wilson. Brown then breaks free and takes off. He gets quite a ways on his run, far further than he would have if Wilson exited the car immediately and began to pursue him.

Rather, Wilson though on it for perhaps 30 second, then decided he had to kill Brown to avoid losing his job and probably being criminally prosecuted. He tracks down brown and kills him.

This scenario matches the physical evidence and witness testimony far better than Wilson's description. It also makes it a first degree murder, which is precisely what Wilson got away with. He's a deeply dangerous person.

[Kablooie]

67. I also think it was Brown trying to deflect the gun not grab it.

[Kalidurga]

71. That is the most likely and believable scenario.

I am biased maybe because it is the conclusion I came to after looking at the angle Wilson parked his car where Brown was murdered and listening to the lies Wilson told. Yes, because even if someone is lying you can get come to a conclusion about what really happened.

[SoCalDem]

32. It really does not matter

Why?

The shots that killed him were from several yards away, so obviously he did not have the gun...and he was retreating......

Wilson had the gun..

I think Wilson was pissed off ( and had an adrenaline rush) because there was unexplained blood in his car, his weapon had been fired (he did hit Brown in the hand at the car), and there were witnesses..

There was waaaay too much to explain for the jumpy cop.. The only way out for him was to have a dead Michael Brown..

Even if you accept the "he was charging" meme, you would also have to accept the fact that Wilson had the safety of his vehicle, a radio, and plenty of time to drive to a "safer" location.. He chose murder instead.

[Quixote1818]

34. Even if he did that would have been long before he had his hands up and was exicuted. nt

[librechik]

35. we'll never know for sure because the gun wasn't fingerprinted

Among the many "stupid errors" the cops made that made the case hard to prove.

[B Calm]

37. Since he wasn't arrested, all we have is the prosecuter side of the murder!

[boston bean]

43. My opinion, which is just as valid as what Wilson purports

is that he was pushing the gun away from being aimed at him, while Wilson was holding him through the car window.

[Carolina]

53. Exactly, see

my post down-thread

[boston bean]

54. Also Carolina, my opinion is that

Wilson was shooting Mike Brown (at his back) as he was running away, and Brown put his hands up, and that is how he got shot on his forearm.

He then turned around with his injured hanging by his waist, and Wilson just fired until he fucking killed him.

[Carolina]

56. Touche

It was cold blooded murder, and I truly hope there is a karma for Wilson. He's evil.

I have become more afraid of cops than crooks because they kill with impunity... again and again and again

[boston bean]

59. I am so sick to my stomach with all of this.

Something is gonna change. It has too!

[Rex]

47. Can't be proven now, Wilson put his own gun into an evidence bag and washed his hands

getting rid of anything that could be used against him in a court of law. No doubt a cop worshiper will be along to say why that is okay for cops to do.

[CBGLuthier]

50. How can anyone here give the answer to you?

Opinions are not facts.

[Carolina]

52. Here's what

likely happened:

All reports start with Brown walking down the street and Wilson coming upon him and barking orders for him to get out of the street. I can probably imagine just how he said it, too. No one has yet explained what happened next. But it makes no sense for MB to simply walk up to the cop car and start a fight. Instead, it makes more likely sense that Wilson pulled along side Brown because he was not immediately compliant to his ORDER (his fucking authority) and then threatened Brown to obey him/to get out of the street by brandishing his gun. That's when Brown, in self defense, grabbed at it, and was shot, leaving his blood in the car and GSW residue on his hand(s). Brown fled and Wilson, the bully who couldn't stand the affront to his ego and his authority, got out of the car and literally hunted him down with an ultimate coup de grace kill shot to the top of the frigging head.

BTW, this scenario also fits witness Dorian Johnson's account that Wilson backed his car up in an attempt to trap them, but then couldn't exit his vehicle without hitting them with his door

Wilson's story reeks, he was the aggressor, he started this shit and made sure that the other side of the story would be silenced! He concocted a story which, to anyone with a functioning neuron, makes no sense. If, Brown was such a hulk, such a demon... and he was sooooooooooo afraid, why the hell would he exit the vehicle to pursue this massive threat on foot? Because he had already wounded Brown and couldn't let Brown live to tell the real story

Funny too how Wilson is supposedly a trained police officer, but he offers the same bullshit we heard from the untrained Zimmermann. Both were in vehicles while their victims were simply walking down the street... yet they were so fearful of the hooded, hulking black male, they got out of the protective shell offered by the vehicle. Both had questionable injuries (non-injuries, really) which they alleged were evidence of assault by their victims and thus justification for murder.

Really? It all makes no damn sense. They initiate a confrontation and then say they had no choice but to "defend" themselves with deadly force

[TBF]

55. Well let's see - he's dead and Darren

is giving interviews on the news. What do you think?


Enjoy your stay.

[Threedifferentones]

57. It would seem to be a lie.

Consider: Brown is so big and "demony" that he has to be shot. So, if he's so powerful, why was he unable to wrest control of the gun from Wilson?

If Brown HAD grabbed the gun he might be alive today, because then Wilson could not have used it to shoot him in the back!

[hollowdweller]

60. Here's the question I keep asking.

OK so you are a really big guy, and a cop who hassles you is not.

But anybody who has read the news knows about the Trayvon Martin case and the discussions around black kids getting shot.

So why in the hell would you try to attack a policeman and risk getting shot?? I mean it's obviously been demonstrated more than once that if you are black and they can paint you as a menace that they can get off from killing you.

So why would you do it? He may have smoked a little but there's no evidence he was really drunk or screwed up or anything.

It sort of defies common sense that you would #1 attack an armed policeman esp if you were a black male and #2 charge a policeman after he had already attempted to shoot you.

I mean say he got the officers gun?? What the hell is he going to do with it?? Shoot the cop over jaywalking or stealing some cigars? From what I have read the kid was going to go to college so he's not impulsive like a low IQ person would be. I mean he had some reasoning skills.

I mean maybe the guy was a bully and a badass and was used to throwing his weight around, but to attack an armed officer just stretches my imagination.

Now the Trayvon case. I can totally understand why he attacked him. Strange guy trailing you. You can't lose him. Finally you stand your ground. He doesn't identify himself, and you see he has a gun and you try to get it before he uses it on you.

But Wilson? Attacking a cop? Maybe it happened but it just doesn't make sense.


All I know in both instances you had 2 black kids who were unarmed, one minding his own business and the other who possibly commited a minor offense and both got shot and the guys who offed them walked.

[jwirr]

61. It is not relevant. The decision to kill was made when the cop got out of his car. What happened

after that is what we need to know about. Why so many shots. What happened when Michael turned around? Where his hands up? Was he charging or falling? Those are the things the GJ needed to know. The tussle in the car did not lead to death. It ended when Michael turned and ran.

[Iggo]

62. Mike Brown was nowhere near a gun when he was murdered by Darren Wilson.

[B Calm]

65. I don't believe the cops. Saint Louis cops are filthy!

Warning video is not for the squeamish:

[Kablooie]

66. My guess, based on what both the cop and Brown's friend said is...

that the cop was reaching for his gun while sitting in the car and grabbing Brown by his collar through the window. Brown then reached in to try to prevent the cop from pulling out the gun.

I'd recommend everyone read how Brown's friend described the incident. It really helps to put things in perspective.

[Bjorn Against]

68. Whether he did or not is totally irrelevent to the case

Dareen Wilson alleges Brown tried to grab his gun while he was next to the vehicle, this allegation has not been substantiated by anyone else it is merely the allegation made by Brown's killer.

Even if the allegation were true however it is completely irrelevent to the case at hand because it is a fact that Brown was not in a position in which he was even capable of grabbing for the gun when he was shot. Police can not shoot someone because they previously showed a threat, if that threat is no longer present they can not shoot.

[BootinUp]

70. Can we get a pizza delivered to the winner of this thread?

lol.