9 ms·

> and he attacked the police officer and tried to take the officer's gun This is disputed by witness testimony: same say this happened, others say it didn't. O

> and he attacked the police officer and tried to take the officer's gun This is disputed by witness testimony: same say this happened, others say it didn't. Other testimony indicates that Wilson may have instigated conflict when making the stop. > Looking at Brown, we see a man who did something really stupid, and suffered pretty much the same outcome that we'd expect for anyone in that situation. This is not at all the case. Wilson shot Brown when we was a significant distance from the car (100+ feet) and Brown was not armed in any way. We do not expect someone who commits a petty theft to be executed by the police when Wilson had a variety of other options at his disposal. Doing something stupid isn't and should not be a death sentence. > Lumping Garner and Brown together, like these protestors are doing, seems to me to be an insult to the memory of Eric Garner. These deaths are wholly related to the racism of police practice in the United States. Presenting disputed testimony as the truth is extremely misleading.

sillysaurus3 12y ago
This is disputed by witness testimony: same say this happened, others say it didn't. I didn't downvote (I think there's entirely too much of that on HN) but Brown's blood was inside the police car. There is no scenario that Brown's blood could have wound up inside the car unless he was reaching in through the window for some reason. Can anyone think of any reason other than "reaching for the Officer's gun," even if we give Brown every possible benefit of the doubt? I'd love to be persuaded. We have to look at the physical evidence, not at what people said.
- peterfirefly 12y ago
  I upvoted to cancel out the downvote someone gave you.
- aswanson 12y ago
  Can anyone think of any reason other than "reaching for the Officer's gun," even if we give Brown every possible benefit of the doubt? Seriously, I'd love to be persuaded. Ok. How about the cop grabs and yanks a teen that's near his window starting off the struggle. Teen struggles, pushes and or punches cop to break free as cop grabs gun and lets off shot or two while Brown continues to punch/struggle/push to break free, in the course of which Wilson suffers horrible injury that looks like a razor bump. Breaking free, Brown runs approximately 100 feet. Wilson, enraged that he was not immediately obeyed as ordered, starts firing, chasing brown and hits brown in some way. He fires 11 more shots as he fears for his life even though he is armed and pursued him for at least 150. Brown finally turns around, shot at least twice already. He faces a hail of bullets from Wilson, fatally struck on the top of the skull and dies. Wilson, knowing that officers always get the benefit of the doubt with the law and there is no objective evidence of the encounter and that dead people cant testify is somewhat assured his version of events are going to be believed. And he is right. Plausible, if not convinced?
smsm42 12y ago
You understand pretty much any testimony can be - and usually is - "disputed" and it doesn't mean it is wrong? "Disputed" just means somebody said "no, it is not so". Anybody can say that - just as anybody could have said they saw the police officer shooting Brown in the back, despite the autopsy finding no trace of that. Some did. That doesn't mean the officer actually shot Brown in the back with vanishing bullets. >>> Brown was not armed in any way I think it's time to lay that "not armed in any way" to rest. Most physically fit males - especially ones of Brown's physical build - are "armed" to cause serious physical harm, up to lethal, to many other people. People regularly harm and murder other people with their bare hands (or feet, etc.) - over 800 cases happen even year[1], btw about the same as rifles and shotguns taken together. Does it mean police is justified to shoot any male? Of course not, since means to do something not equals to doing something. But it does not mean that if somebody is not wielding a shotgun, he is automatically harmless. There are a lot of ways to cause harm to people, and some of them require nothing more but the will to do it and a bit of strength. [1] http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0310.xls http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0310.x... Edit: I used the word "complexion" instead of "physical appearance" meaning: "General character, aspect, or appearance:" but it looks like people took it to mean "skin color". Of course I did not mean to refer to color of his skin, it's completely irrelevant, but rather to his physical build - i.e. height, weight and fitness. Looking at the dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/complexion http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/complexion) my meaning appears to be old one, and now it is used as "skin color". It didn't help that in my native tongue the same word also means "physical appearance". I certainly did not mean it that way, so sorry for misleading.
- thisGuysAccount 12y ago
  uh... "most physically fit males - especially ones of Brown complexion - are armed to cause serious physical harm" It's a good idea to rephrase that. edit - yes, a lot of black athletes have lower body fat than whites, hispanics, and asians. No, they're not "especially" armed to cause serious physical harm.
  - smsm42 12y ago
    It has nothing to do with Brown being black. It has everything to do with him being 193 cm male weighting 95 kg. It is fascinating how discussion of something having zero to do with race suddenly turns into discussing "black athletes" vs. "whites, hispanics, and asians".
5F36B5F62640 12y ago
> Wilson shot Brown when we was a significant distance from the car (100+ feet) Distance from the car is not relevant. Distance from Wilson is what is relevant. All shots were fired when Wilson was near Brown. There were two shots fired at or near the car (shown by two spent casings near the car), and there is blood there showing Brown was hit. Hence Wilson was near Brown when these shots were fired. The remaining 10 shots were all taken near were Brown's body ended up, a smidgen over 150 feet from the car. The spent casings for those 10 shots are all within 20 feet of the body. The pattern of the casings, and the location of blood stains that are not with the body, show that Brown was moving toward Wilson at this time. There is not enough evidence to ascertain his velocity. > These deaths are wholly related to the racism of police practice in the United States Do you really think that if a white man hits an officer in the face and tries to take the officer's gun, and then gets shot, and then runs away with the officer in pursuit, and then turns and runs toward the officer, he would not get shot several more times? > Presenting disputed testimony as the truth is extremely misleading. I presented no disputed testimony. Witness testimony in this case is contradictory. That's why I stuck with things that are strongly supported by the physical evidence.
- aswanson 12y ago
  I presented no disputed testimony...I stuck with things that are strongly supported by the physical evidence. Yes you did. hits an officer in the face and tries to take the officer's gun That is Wilson testimony. Not an objective fact. ...and then turns and runs toward the officer.. This also is not an objective fact. You disputed this yourself in stating that Browns velocity could not be determined. It just as plausible that he was tired, shot, and giving up. Your cognitive biases are giving Wilson the benefit of the doubt. Your statements are not pure "fact".
  - sillysaurus3 12y ago
    "hits an officer in the face and tries to take the officer's gun" That is Wilson testimony. Not an objective fact. Wilson was treated for redness to his face, as confirmed in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuupBHUGbYo#t=1m02s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuupBHUGbYo#t=1m02s In the commonly-believed version of events, Brown would not have been able to injure Wilson's face like that, since he was supposedly running away. But since the officer's face was in fact injured, we can believe Brown must have hit it. And if he was hitting Wilson, he must have been leaning into the cruiser when he was doing it, since there was no other opportunity. Another objective fact is that Brown was a violent individual who had just robbed a store.

sillysaurus3 12y ago

This is disputed by witness testimony: same say this happened, others say it didn't. I didn't downvote (I think there's entirely too much of that on HN) but Brown's blood was inside the police car. There is no scenario that Brown's blood could have wound up inside the car unless he was reaching in through the window for some reason. Can anyone think of any reason other than "reaching for the Officer's gun," even if we give Brown every possible benefit of the doubt? I'd love to be persuaded. We have to look at the physical evidence, not at what people said.

peterfirefly 12y ago
I upvoted to cancel out the downvote someone gave you.
aswanson 12y ago
Can anyone think of any reason other than "reaching for the Officer's gun," even if we give Brown every possible benefit of the doubt? Seriously, I'd love to be persuaded. Ok. How about the cop grabs and yanks a teen that's near his window starting off the struggle. Teen struggles, pushes and or punches cop to break free as cop grabs gun and lets off shot or two while Brown continues to punch/struggle/push to break free, in the course of which Wilson suffers horrible injury that looks like a razor bump. Breaking free, Brown runs approximately 100 feet. Wilson, enraged that he was not immediately obeyed as ordered, starts firing, chasing brown and hits brown in some way. He fires 11 more shots as he fears for his life even though he is armed and pursued him for at least 150. Brown finally turns around, shot at least twice already. He faces a hail of bullets from Wilson, fatally struck on the top of the skull and dies. Wilson, knowing that officers always get the benefit of the doubt with the law and there is no objective evidence of the encounter and that dead people cant testify is somewhat assured his version of events are going to be believed. And he is right. Plausible, if not convinced?

smsm42 12y ago

You understand pretty much any testimony can be - and usually is - "disputed" and it doesn't mean it is wrong? "Disputed" just means somebody said "no, it is not so". Anybody can say that - just as anybody could have said they saw the police officer shooting Brown in the back, despite the autopsy finding no trace of that. Some did. That doesn't mean the officer actually shot Brown in the back with vanishing bullets. >>> Brown was not armed in any way I think it's time to lay that "not armed in any way" to rest. Most physically fit males - especially ones of Brown's physical build - are "armed" to cause serious physical harm, up to lethal, to many other people. People regularly harm and murder other people with their bare hands (or feet, etc.) - over 800 cases happen even year[1], btw about the same as rifles and shotguns taken together. Does it mean police is justified to shoot any male? Of course not, since means to do something not equals to doing something. But it does not mean that if somebody is not wielding a shotgun, he is automatically harmless. There are a lot of ways to cause harm to people, and some of them require nothing more but the will to do it and a bit of strength. [1] http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0310.xls http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0310.x... Edit: I used the word "complexion" instead of "physical appearance" meaning: "General character, aspect, or appearance:" but it looks like people took it to mean "skin color". Of course I did not mean to refer to color of his skin, it's completely irrelevant, but rather to his physical build - i.e. height, weight and fitness. Looking at the dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/complexion http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/complexion) my meaning appears to be old one, and now it is used as "skin color". It didn't help that in my native tongue the same word also means "physical appearance". I certainly did not mean it that way, so sorry for misleading.

thisGuysAccount 12y ago
uh... "most physically fit males - especially ones of Brown complexion - are armed to cause serious physical harm" It's a good idea to rephrase that. edit - yes, a lot of black athletes have lower body fat than whites, hispanics, and asians. No, they're not "especially" armed to cause serious physical harm.
- smsm42 12y ago
  It has nothing to do with Brown being black. It has everything to do with him being 193 cm male weighting 95 kg. It is fascinating how discussion of something having zero to do with race suddenly turns into discussing "black athletes" vs. "whites, hispanics, and asians".

5F36B5F62640 12y ago

> Wilson shot Brown when we was a significant distance from the car (100+ feet) Distance from the car is not relevant. Distance from Wilson is what is relevant. All shots were fired when Wilson was near Brown. There were two shots fired at or near the car (shown by two spent casings near the car), and there is blood there showing Brown was hit. Hence Wilson was near Brown when these shots were fired. The remaining 10 shots were all taken near were Brown's body ended up, a smidgen over 150 feet from the car. The spent casings for those 10 shots are all within 20 feet of the body. The pattern of the casings, and the location of blood stains that are not with the body, show that Brown was moving toward Wilson at this time. There is not enough evidence to ascertain his velocity. > These deaths are wholly related to the racism of police practice in the United States Do you really think that if a white man hits an officer in the face and tries to take the officer's gun, and then gets shot, and then runs away with the officer in pursuit, and then turns and runs toward the officer, he would not get shot several more times? > Presenting disputed testimony as the truth is extremely misleading. I presented no disputed testimony. Witness testimony in this case is contradictory. That's why I stuck with things that are strongly supported by the physical evidence.

aswanson 12y ago
I presented no disputed testimony...I stuck with things that are strongly supported by the physical evidence. Yes you did. hits an officer in the face and tries to take the officer's gun That is Wilson testimony. Not an objective fact. ...and then turns and runs toward the officer.. This also is not an objective fact. You disputed this yourself in stating that Browns velocity could not be determined. It just as plausible that he was tired, shot, and giving up. Your cognitive biases are giving Wilson the benefit of the doubt. Your statements are not pure "fact".
- sillysaurus3 12y ago
  "hits an officer in the face and tries to take the officer's gun" That is Wilson testimony. Not an objective fact. Wilson was treated for redness to his face, as confirmed in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuupBHUGbYo#t=1m02s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuupBHUGbYo#t=1m02s In the commonly-believed version of events, Brown would not have been able to injure Wilson's face like that, since he was supposedly running away. But since the officer's face was in fact injured, we can believe Brown must have hit it. And if he was hitting Wilson, he must have been leaning into the cruiser when he was doing it, since there was no other opportunity. Another objective fact is that Brown was a violent individual who had just robbed a store.