Michael Brown shooting: Ferguson jury reaches verdict

[chuckd]

" but i believe they have things like pepper spray, tasers, extendable batons and ziplocks. sometimes even handcuffs. "

In the announcement on television given by the prosecutor this morning, he didn't seem able to answer many of the reporters questions because of procedural limitations but I'm waiting to read or hear more about the circumstances regarding the different stages of the six shots that were fired.

From the moment the first shot was fired by the police officer up until the sixth shot there must have been some discernible loss of bodily functions by the victim? In other words, no matter how threatening Michael Brown was at the beginning, after he received the first two or three shots surely as an unarmed man he would have been rendered considerably less able to cause serious injury to the police officer?

And if that still wasn't the case, why didn't the police officer substitute his gun for a taser or some other less lethal weapon?

Or why didn't the police officer fire at his two ankles or his two legs?

Yeah, Maybe Officer Wilson should have shot Brown's foot or at least his big toe so he couldn't get away. I think you have been watching too many police movies.

In my country a police officer has an obligation not to take the life of someone unless it is absolutely necessary

What exactly constitutes "absolutely necessary" in your country?

What are the rules of engagement, so to speak, in your country for a police officer to respond to a personal attack?

Just curious to know where you are coming from on this issue.

[chuckd]

" but i believe they have things like pepper spray, tasers, extendable batons and ziplocks. sometimes even handcuffs. "

In the announcement on television given by the prosecutor this morning, he didn't seem able to answer many of the reporters questions because of procedural limitations but I'm waiting to read or hear more about the circumstances regarding the different stages of the six shots that were fired.

From the moment the first shot was fired by the police officer up until the sixth shot there must have been some discernible loss of bodily functions by the victim? In other words, no matter how threatening Michael Brown was at the beginning, after he received the first two or three shots surely as an unarmed man he would have been rendered considerably less able to cause serious injury to the police officer?

And if that still wasn't the case, why didn't the police officer substitute his gun for a taser or some other less lethal weapon?

Or why didn't the police officer fire at his two ankles or his two legs?

Yeah, Maybe Officer Wilson should have shot Brown's foot or at least his big toe so he couldn't get away. I think you have been watching too many police movies.

He's obviously never tried to hit a moving target with a hand gun.

How fast can a person run after he has already been shot three or is it four times?

According to all reports, the first two shots were in his hand/arm. I really don't see how that affects ones ability to run, in either direction.

I would think it would provide incentive to run if anything. Not in Brown's case, it seems.

[Asiantravel]

" but i believe they have things like pepper spray, tasers, extendable batons and ziplocks. sometimes even handcuffs. "

In the announcement on television given by the prosecutor this morning, he didn't seem able to answer many of the reporters questions because of procedural limitations but I'm waiting to read or hear more about the circumstances regarding the different stages of the six shots that were fired.

From the moment the first shot was fired by the police officer up until the sixth shot there must have been some discernible loss of bodily functions by the victim? In other words, no matter how threatening Michael Brown was at the beginning, after he received the first two or three shots surely as an unarmed man he would have been rendered considerably less able to cause serious injury to the police officer?

And if that still wasn't the case, why didn't the police officer substitute his gun for a taser or some other less lethal weapon?

Or why didn't the police officer fire at his two ankles or his two legs?

Yeah, Maybe Officer Wilson should have shot Brown's foot or at least his big toe so he couldn't get away. I think you have been watching too many police movies.

In my country a police officer has an obligation not to take the life of someone unless it is absolutely necessary

What exactly constitutes "absolutely necessary" in your country?

What are the rules of engagement, so to speak, in your country for a police officer to respond to a personal attack?

Just curious to know where you are coming from on this issue.

I would have thought it was pretty simple to comprehend?

Firstly, I believe in my country, the police officer would have used a taser not a lethal weapon.

The victim was unarmed and no matter how threatening he was and how many bullets needed to be fired at him after the first few were fired, that should have achieved the goal of preventing the victim from physically reaching the police officer who was quite some distance away?

[chuckd]

This is for those who seem to believe Wilson is a killer. Something like the following was more likely what Wilson was thinking about more than putting a notch in his gun.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

FBI: 76 Law Enforcement Officers Killed in Line of Duty Last Year; 49,851 Assaulted

November 24, 2014 - 10:17 AM

By Susan Jones

(CNSNews.com) - The FBI on Monday said 76 law enforcement officers were killed in the line of duty in 2013; and another 49,851 officers -- 136 a day -- were assaulted while performing their duties last year, down from 53,867 assaulted in 2012.

Of the 49,851 officers attacked last year, 14,565 -- or 29.2 percent -- were injured. And of those injured officers, the largest percentage -- 31.2 percent -- were assaulted while responding to disturbance calls, such as domestic disputes or bar fights.

Interesting statistics found in the article: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/fbi-76-law-enforcement-officers-killed-line-duty-last-year-49851-assaulted

Edited November 25, 2014 by chuckd

[thailiketoo]

What exactly constitutes "absolutely necessary" in your country?

What are the rules of engagement, so to speak, in your country for a police officer to respond to a personal attack?

Just curious to know where you are coming from on this issue.

I would have thought it was pretty simple to comprehend?

Firstly, I believe in my country, the police officer would have used a taser not a lethal weapon.

The victim was unarmed and no matter how threatening he was and how many bullets needed to be fired at him after the first few were fired, that should have achieved the goal of preventing the victim from physically reaching the police officer who was quite some distance away?

East St. Louis is like a city in Afghanistan. My opinion would be the cops should have armor and automatic weapons, flame throwers and recoilless rifles. If you have been to East St. Louis correct me with your observations. I don't think combat troops use tasers yet. You don't think East St. Louis is a combat zone? You haven't been there. Why do you think all the liberal media want to call it Ferguson? Because everyone knows about East St. Louis. Ferguson is in East St. Louis.

Edited November 25, 2014 by thailiketoo

[chuckd]

Yeah, Maybe Officer Wilson should have shot Brown's foot or at least his big toe so he couldn't get away. I think you have been watching too many police movies.

In my country a police officer has an obligation not to take the life of someone unless it is absolutely necessary

What exactly constitutes "absolutely necessary" in your country?

What are the rules of engagement, so to speak, in your country for a police officer to respond to a personal attack?

Just curious to know where you are coming from on this issue.

I would have thought it was pretty simple to comprehend?

Firstly, I believe in my country, the police officer would have used a taser not a lethal weapon.

The victim was unarmed and no matter how threatening he was and how many bullets needed to be fired at him after the first few were fired, that should have achieved the goal of preventing the victim from physically reaching the police officer who was quite some distance away?

Not as simple to comprehend as you might think. China, Russia, UK, Germany, France, Thailand all have differing criteria for the police officers to use deadly force. Specifically, since you mentioned your country to begin with, what are your country's requirements for the use of deadly force.

Your taser argument is a little unrealistic. Brown's size was roughly equivalent to a small grizzly bear. How many tasers do you believe it would take to subdue a small grizzly bear? Could you even stop a bear with a taser? I think not.

How many shots from a .45 caliber hand gun would you think it takes to stop a small grizzly bear?

In Michael Brown's case, it took six shots.

[F430murci]

Really sad stuff. Ferguson as a community has been decimated. Insurance typically does not cover civil unrest. Uhm, seems like protestors would have at least been smart enough to go crazy into white neighborhoods if they are trying to get even with whitie. Really, really dumb people here, but hey . . . They some free cell phones, liquor and smokes before torching these poor peoples' business.

"I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." Martin Luther King, Jr.

Hey Ferguson, your content is showing through loud and clear.

[Ulysses G.]

The Ferguson Prosecutor's speech did a very good job of explaining why Michael Brown's death was Michael Brown's own fault. Too bad some want to ignore the the EVIDENCE and the FACTS.

[Neurath]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Isn't it interesting how certain people just can not accept the truth? That not matter what anyone says, they are right and everyone is wrong. The Grand Jury in this case "saw ALL the evidence", we did not. They heard "ALL" the testimonies, we (the Public) did not. They heard more evidence than what is normally presented by the Prosecution beyond anything the US justice system has ever seen before. A Grand Jury is comprised from 16-23 people, you are "one" person. Their conclusion is there was NOT enough evidence nor was there sufficient cause to press charges in this case. Case "Closed".

It's also interesting how worlds away people are passing judgement of an event they "only" read in the newspapers and what they saw on TV. People who have never even been in the US and have no clue as to what low income life is like there. They don't see the racism nor the hate that certain ethnic group generate even though it happens in their own country. There were several documented reports that described and detailed the history of the neighborhood that Mr. Brown grew up. Drugs and gangs where prevalent and they are currently the ones causing the riots in Ferguson.

What is totally amazing how certain people have made a hero ( martyr) out of a person who on "video" committed a Felony assault and robbery. Then assaulted a Police Officer. Seems we really have really good examples of winners of the "Darwin Award". Most are the ones rioting in Ferguson.

.I can see your point. But sometimes to get to the truth you just need to keep digging. This is evidenced by the necessity of multiple congressional committee reports into the the Bengazi fiasco. The case isn't closed, it just needs further investigation. Sure, the Grand Jury saw all the evidence, but can they have really seen all the evidence if the outcome isn't what I think it should be? Absolutely not. More investigation is needed most certainly.

[Ulysses G.]

" but i believe they have things like pepper spray, tasers, extendable batons and ziplocks. sometimes even handcuffs. "

In the announcement on television given by the prosecutor this morning, he didn't seem able to answer many of the reporters questions because of procedural limitations but I'm waiting to read or hear more about the circumstances regarding the different stages of the six shots that were fired.

From the moment the first shot was fired by the police officer up until the sixth shot there must have been some discernible loss of bodily functions by the victim? In other words, no matter how threatening Michael Brown was at the beginning, after he received the first two or three shots surely as an unarmed man he would have been rendered considerably less able to cause serious injury to the police officer?

And if that still wasn't the case, why didn't the police officer substitute his gun for a taser or some other less lethal weapon?

Or why didn't the police officer fire at his two ankles or his two legs?

Yeah, Maybe Officer Wilson should have shot Brown's foot or at least his big toe so he couldn't get away. I think you have been watching too many police movies.

He's obviously never tried to hit a moving target with a hand gun.

It is hard enough to hit a still target. I much prefer a rifle.

[DM07]

Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, Rodney King, Amadou Diallo...and those are only the famous names.

Or to put it in the words of Matthew McConaughey in "A time to kill": "Now imagine, if they were white!"

[Asiantravel]

In my country a police officer has an obligation not to take the life of someone unless it is absolutely necessary

What exactly constitutes "absolutely necessary" in your country?

What are the rules of engagement, so to speak, in your country for a police officer to respond to a personal attack?

Just curious to know where you are coming from on this issue.

I would have thought it was pretty simple to comprehend?

Firstly, I believe in my country, the police officer would have used a taser not a lethal weapon.

The victim was unarmed and no matter how threatening he was and how many bullets needed to be fired at him after the first few were fired, that should have achieved the goal of preventing the victim from physically reaching the police officer who was quite some distance away?

Not as simple to comprehend as you might think. China, Russia, UK, Germany, France, Thailand all have differing criteria for the police officers to use deadly force. Specifically, since you mentioned your country to begin with, what are your country's requirements for the use of deadly force.

Your taser argument is a little unrealistic. Brown's size was roughly equivalent to a small grizzly bear. How many tasers do you believe it would take to subdue a small grizzly bear? Could you even stop a bear with a taser? I think not.

How many shots from a .45 caliber hand gun would you think it takes to stop a small grizzly bear?

In Michael Brown's case, it took six shots.

firstly a taser is designed to work on a thin skinned human being, not a thickly fur coated 800 pound animal.

But police are trained at shooting specific targets. I still ask the question was it absolutely necessary for officer Wilson to have shot to kill, given that the victim was unarmed when the first few shots should have slowed the victim down considerably?

[Chicog]

.I can see your point. But sometimes to get to the truth you just need to keep digging. This is evidenced by the necessity of multiple congressional committee reports into the the Bengazi fiasco. The case isn't closed, it just needs further investigation. Sure, the Grand Jury saw all the evidence, but can they have really seen all the evidence if the outcome isn't what I think it should be? Absolutely not. More investigation is needed most certainly.

And sometimes you can repeat an event innumerable times and get the same outcome. There is a definition for that somewhere....

[Neurath]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

This is for those who seem to believe Wilson is a killer. Something like the following was more likely what Wilson was thinking about more than putting a notch in his gun.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

FBI: 76 Law Enforcement Officers Killed in Line of Duty Last Year; 49,851 Assaulted

November 24, 2014 - 10:17 AM

By Susan Jones

(CNSNews.com) - The FBI on Monday said 76 law enforcement officers were killed in the line of duty in 2013; and another 49,851 officers -- 136 a day -- were assaulted while performing their duties last year, down from 53,867 assaulted in 2012.

Of the 49,851 officers attacked last year, 14,565 -- or 29.2 percent -- were injured. And of those injured officers, the largest percentage -- 31.2 percent -- were assaulted while responding to disturbance calls, such as domestic disputes or bar fights.

Interesting statistics found in the article: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/fbi-76-law-enforcement-officers-killed-line-duty-last-year-49851-assaulted

That's a very interesting link.

Here's what follows in it:

"Of the 76 law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty in 2013, 27 died in "felonious acts," well below the 49 feloniously killed in 2012. Forty-nine died in accidents.

Of the 27 officers killed feloniously in 2013, all but one were shot. One was hit by a vehicle."

Most of the officers who died, died in accidents - mainly car accidents? Did officer wilson think the chap was armed?

[Ulysses G.]

I still ask the question was it absolutely necessary for officer Wilson to have shot to kill, given that the victim was unarmed when the first few shots should have slowed the victim down considerably?

Witnesses said Brown had turned around and charged Officer Wilson. If it were me, I would not want to have to guess what was "necessary" with a huge, violent criminal rushing at me.

[Neurath]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

I still ask the question was it absolutely necessary for officer Wilson to have shot to kill, given that the victim was unarmed when the first few shots should have slowed the victim down considerably?

Witnesses said Brown had turned around and charged Officer Wilson. If it were me, I would not want to have to guess what was "necessary" with a huge, violent criminal rushing at me.

Sidestep? They do it in the NFL all the time - and those folks aren't shot yet.

[Neurath]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

.I can see your point. But sometimes to get to the truth you just need to keep digging. This is evidenced by the necessity of multiple congressional committee reports into the the Bengazi fiasco. The case isn't closed, it just needs further investigation. Sure, the Grand Jury saw all the evidence, but can they have really seen all the evidence if the outcome isn't what I think it should be? Absolutely not. More investigation is needed most certainly.

And sometimes you can repeat an event innumerable times and get the same outcome. There is a definition for that somewhere....

Yes. It's called "good optics".

[cup-O-coffee]

Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, Rodney King, Amadou Diallo...and those are only the famous names.

Or to put it in the words of Matthew McConaughey in "A time to kill": "Now imagine, if they were white!"

OK. I'll give it a shot, and relate it to the sort of people like Michael Brown:

Imagining once to be white

Imagining twice to be white

Imagining three times to be white

If they were white, statistics show that their crimes would not be buried on the last page, or ignored entirely by the major media channels. If they were white, statistics show that they more than likely would be courting better odds of not breaking the law and instead enjoying an edifying life.

Respectfully speaking, of course, but statistics, thankfully, are kept as a matter of public record for when people wake up and want to dig for them.

[metisdead]

A post containing some unnecessary baiting comments has been removed as well as a reply.

[zydeco]

In a complete reversal of last August's televised hysteria, what CNN calls "the community" (aka blacks in Ferguson; whites are apparently not part of any community) is now complaining that the police were not strict enough and also complaining about the ABSENCE of the National Guard. Maybe the problem is "the community" and not the police or National Guard.

[connda]

" but i believe they have things like pepper spray, tasers, extendable batons and ziplocks. sometimes even handcuffs. "

In the announcement on television given by the prosecutor this morning, he didn't seem able to answer many of the reporters questions because of procedural limitations but I'm waiting to read or hear more about the circumstances regarding the different stages of the six shots that were fired.

From the moment the first shot was fired by the police officer up until the sixth shot there must have been some discernible loss of bodily functions by the victim? In other words, no matter how threatening Michael Brown was at the beginning, after he received the first two or three shots surely as an unarmed man he would have been rendered considerably less able to cause serious injury to the police officer?

And if that still wasn't the case, why didn't the police officer substitute his gun for a taser or some other less lethal weapon?

Or why didn't the police officer fire at his two ankles or his two legs?

Yeah, Maybe Officer Wilson should have shot Brown's foot or at least his big toe so he couldn't get away. I think you have been watching too many police movies.

No because usually in the police movies the baddies are armed

In my country a police officer has an obligation not to take the life of someone unless it is absolutely necessary

Then, are you assuming that it wasn't absolutely necessary?

Advice to those taking either side of the argument: do you plan to read the grand jury documents that have been published, or are ya'll going to simply listen to your favorite biased news outlet and parrot their rhetoric?

I don't know what happened, neither do you. The individuals who understand this the best are the 12 jurors who heard the case: 9 white and 3 black if race really matters.

I've download the testimony and I'm going to start reading. If you want the truth, I'd suggest doing the same.

[chuckd]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

I still ask the question was it absolutely necessary for officer Wilson to have shot to kill, given that the victim was unarmed when the first few shots should have slowed the victim down considerably?

Witnesses said Brown had turned around and charged Officer Wilson. If it were me, I would not want to have to guess what was "necessary" with a huge, violent criminal rushing at me.

Sidestep? They do it in the NFL all the time - and those folks aren't shot yet.

Sidestep? Darren Wilson isn't any DeMarco Murray either.

[BadBouy]

Amazing. 'Reminds me of a man trying to provoke another man into an all out row, and the one being provoked truly (TRULY) wants nothing to do with it. Are there any white people on TV forum who want an all out war between blacks skinned people and white skinned people? Are there any black skinned people or white skinned people inciting and chanting murderous speech? Yes? Then who, and which skin color? What stations do they hold?

As I stated in another post, the truth can only be ignored for so long, but when those ignoring or censoring the truth empower those with a sense of unfair and biased entitlement, and those being imbued with that sense of sense of unfair and biased entitlement use it as a means to break the law, then that is the time at which the dam breaks and all Hell is unleashed.

When I think of the President, and his championing of the black people, I think that he either really put his foot into it by neglecting his other demographics of constituents, or that he truly is on target with the conspiracy theory to enact the F.E.M.A. act on USA soil in order to extend his lame duck term. This growing trend of unlawfulness by a particular demographic would certainly be reason enough to lend plausibility.

Mr. President, this is your baby. Don't be a deadbeat dad. Be a responsible father and deal with your child before any shot is fired.

The fact is, Mr. President, you need to stop thinking about legacies and act now. Your people need you. All of them. Do the right thing. Now. Before it's too late to turn back.

That is my opinion.

I agree with you should have been doing this from day one but he prefers to embrace Al Sharpton

[pmugghc]

The police 'I think' are going to have no other choice as to embark on wholesale slaughter and martial law to control the situation around the country.

I don't agree with indiscriminate attacks on neutral people and premises, but the police, government and the authorities?.... go for it.

These paragraphs from your post tell us all a lot about you.

[Presto]

What is this over and over again that Michael Brown is 'huge', a 'giant' etc.? Brown apparently was 6.5 and weighed 300 lbs, Darren Wilson is 6.4 and weighs 210 lbs. Also, being a professional police officer, he should be in good athletic shape.

Correct me if I'm wrong, whats all that about the giant? The officer was in his car, yes, that makes a big difference. but all that hyperbole leads nowhere.

[Ulysses G.]

Hyperbole? You need to look up the definition. Brown outweighed him by 90 pounds. Are you suggesting the policeman should have put his badge on the road and challenged him to a fistfight, like in an old movie?

Edited November 25, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[thailiketoo]

What is this over and over again that Michael Brown is 'huge', a 'giant' etc.? Brown apparently was 6.5 and weighed 300 lbs, Darren Wilson is 6.4 and weighs 210 lbs. Also, being a professional police officer, he should be in good athletic shape.

Correct me if I'm wrong, whats all that about the giant? The officer was in his car, yes, that makes a big difference. but all that hyperbole leads nowhere.

When a cop shoots you are you going to run at him and try and do him harm? Do you normally punch armed men in police cars?

[ravip]

A white police officer will not face charges over the fatal shooting of an unarmed black teenager in August.

Did I get the smell of racism somewhere?

[uptheos]

A white police officer will not face charges over the fatal shooting of an unarmed black teenager in August.

Did I get the smell of racism somewhere?

Was it an all white Grand Jury?

[thailiketoo]

A white police officer will not face charges over the fatal shooting of an unarmed black teenager in August.

Did I get the smell of racism somewhere?

Was it an all white Grand Jury?

No