6 ms·

> 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

> 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.
  - king_jester 12y ago
    > In the commonly-believed version of events There is no commonly believed version of events. There is a lot of inconsistency and disagreement about statements and testimony involved in the grand jury decision, you are attempting to paint a version of events you buy into as more valid. > Another objective fact is that Brown was a violent individual who had just robbed a store. When first interviewed after the shooting Wilson indicated he had no knowledge that Brown had anything to do with the store robbery. He did not make any indication over police radio about this when he encountered Brown. He changed this part of the story later on. The circumstances and eye witness testimony of the shooting after the altercation at the police car is very fuzzy and it is not clear that Brown did charge or attack Wilson a second time. Moreover, whether Brown was aggressive or not does not imply that the police officer has a right to execute him.
  - malyk 12y ago
    I don't think anyone disagrees that there was an altercation at the car where Wilson sustained a blow to the face. The disputed versions of events see to me to be 1. How Wilson first addresses Brown (nice as Wilsons testimony or aggressive) 2. How the altercation at the car started (Brown slams door on Wilson vs wilson slamming door into brown and then who grabbed who first) 3. Brown charging Wilson vs trying to surrender. Wilsons version of events isn't all that believable if you've had any experience with police. But I withhold judgement. The problem is we'll never know how things actually went down...though I have deep suspicions that Brown was trying to surrender after being fired upon as he ran away. What actually bothers me about the event was that after the physical altercation ended in the car the life of Wilson was no longer threatened. But then he got out of his vehicle and chased Brown down, apparently while shooting at him. How is that a legitimate use of force? And that's just the event itself. How the event was handled in the aftermath is even more troubling at a systematic level. The conflicts of interest that exist between a district attorney and the police force he or she has to work with every day vis a vis trying one of those officers is just too great. I'm not naive enough to think that a not guilty verdict wouldn't have led to riots, but at the very least we should have a trial to better determine what happened there irregardless of the result.
    - 12y ago

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.
- king_jester 12y ago
  > In the commonly-believed version of events There is no commonly believed version of events. There is a lot of inconsistency and disagreement about statements and testimony involved in the grand jury decision, you are attempting to paint a version of events you buy into as more valid. > Another objective fact is that Brown was a violent individual who had just robbed a store. When first interviewed after the shooting Wilson indicated he had no knowledge that Brown had anything to do with the store robbery. He did not make any indication over police radio about this when he encountered Brown. He changed this part of the story later on. The circumstances and eye witness testimony of the shooting after the altercation at the police car is very fuzzy and it is not clear that Brown did charge or attack Wilson a second time. Moreover, whether Brown was aggressive or not does not imply that the police officer has a right to execute him.
- malyk 12y ago
  I don't think anyone disagrees that there was an altercation at the car where Wilson sustained a blow to the face. The disputed versions of events see to me to be 1. How Wilson first addresses Brown (nice as Wilsons testimony or aggressive) 2. How the altercation at the car started (Brown slams door on Wilson vs wilson slamming door into brown and then who grabbed who first) 3. Brown charging Wilson vs trying to surrender. Wilsons version of events isn't all that believable if you've had any experience with police. But I withhold judgement. The problem is we'll never know how things actually went down...though I have deep suspicions that Brown was trying to surrender after being fired upon as he ran away. What actually bothers me about the event was that after the physical altercation ended in the car the life of Wilson was no longer threatened. But then he got out of his vehicle and chased Brown down, apparently while shooting at him. How is that a legitimate use of force? And that's just the event itself. How the event was handled in the aftermath is even more troubling at a systematic level. The conflicts of interest that exist between a district attorney and the police force he or she has to work with every day vis a vis trying one of those officers is just too great. I'm not naive enough to think that a not guilty verdict wouldn't have led to riots, but at the very least we should have a trial to better determine what happened there irregardless of the result.
  - 12y ago