This again, only different. Kind of. Follow

We should play Madlibs with it.

EDIT: wth? Looks like I missed an entire page before posting. Quick glance shows everything here already mentioned.




According to the initial autopsy, all of the shots entered from the front. That pretty much rules out fleeing. The witness that gave the account of fleeing just happened to be the guy that was there with Michael Brown. The same guy that was also with Mike Brown during the robbery. That doesn't mean he's lying..oh wait, all the shots entered from the front..yep, he's lying.

Note, I'm not in anyway defending ( or accusing) the cop, as I have no idea what happened. I wasn't there.


Some assertions do seem rather odd to me though. The whole "The cop grabbed Mike from inside his cab." doesn't make any sense. He'd be at an immediate disadvantage due to not being able to use his legs or maneuver. Then add to that Mike Brown's sheer size and it doesn't even remotely sound like something a trained cop would do.


The cop not knowing about the robbery also makes it seems at least somewhat plausible that Brown thought he was busted and jumped the cop. Then again, that also doesn't seem like something a normal person would do, so the autopsy would probably need to reveal mind altering drugs in Mike's system for that scenario to hold water.


I honestly think that it's quite plausible that he cop got into an altercation with a very large teen and freaked the **** out.


Edited, Aug 19th 2014 12:33am by CoalHeart

Edited, Aug 19th 2014 12:34am by CoalHeart

An eye witness has stated that he was running away while be shot at, stopped after a bullet grazed his arm, turned around and put his arms up in surrender before being peppered with bullets. The witness later filmed two police officers standing over the guy's corpse with her cellphone.

A lot of people I've talked to about this seem really confused as to why people are protesting and rioting in Missouri. Before the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman incident, the response to this shooting would not have been nearly this explosive.

Before then, the idea that the justice system would do nothing about it was generally considered being pessimistic... and then George Zimmerman was acquitted... freed of all charges. We can now expect the officer who shot Michael Brown will not face any real disciplinary action, and people are sensing the great injustice in this. Whether the guy was white or black, or any other race-- he did not have the right to take the man's life so carelessly.

Another thing that kind of irks me is, had the killer not been a police officer, there would be significantly less debate over this. Being a police officer does not give you license to brutally murder an unarmed man who is running away from you.

The other major thing that bothers me about these kinds of story is: Had the officer that killed Michael Brown, or George Zimmerman used a knife to kill their victims via stabbing and slashing, there would have undoubtedly been much less scrutiny and desperate attempts to justify both murders. Maybe the problem with the US is not so much that we have guns, but because we tend not to hold anyone accountable for how they use them.

It's like... "Did you hear about the guy how murdered 17 people yesterday?" Oh, that is terrible! "Yeah, he used a gun though lol." Oh ok then, it's not so bad now. Second Amendment and all that.

Scenario A: Man lures 17 year old girl into his garage and murders her with a cork *****. "Self defense!" the man cries. "Yeah right, you sick ******* freak." replies the police.

Scenario B: Man lures 17 year old girl into his garage and murders her with a hunting rifle. "Self defense!" the man cries. "Oh, alright then."

The LA Riots following the Rodney King beating would not lead me to this conclusion.

The big deal with the Zimmerman case was that Zimmerman was not a cop, just some joe-citizen that went all vigilante. This not long after a controversial 'stand your ground' law was put into effect in FL.

That was LA though.

Alleged? Nope, it's him. Petty Theft? Nope, straight up robbery ( he used force).

Great. Not even vaguely remotely relevant unless the guy who killed him knew about it. He didn't. Not disputed. If a guy had shot John Wayne Gacy in the face during one of his clown performances without knowledge of his other activities that wouldn't be especially relevant, would they?

I wasn't making any claims as to it's relevance, just listing facts. However, since you went there, consider this. Cop pulls up next to two teenagers. Cop doesn't know they robbed a store, but the Teenagers DID KNOW.


That couldn't have possibly influenced their actions now could it?


Not saying it did, but to say it couldn't matter at all is ridiculous.

It could have, but if Officer Friendly was just saying, "Hey you kids, get off the street, that's jaywalking!" any kid who had just stolen something probably would have tripped over themselves to obey and not draw any further attention.

At least that's how I react.

I ran a red light by about five seconds a while ago. Panic! You can bet your britches I went no more than one mile over the speed limit for the rest of that journey. (Thank goodness it was not one of the traffic lights with a camera in it.)

No, it exists because the cop is going to claim self defense. He's going to use the robbery video, where Brown is seen shoving, grabbing and otherwise being very violent to lend plausibility to the narrative that Brown attacked him.


Is it proof that Brown attacked him? Of course not, it is damning enough to make such a scenario plausible in the minds of Jurors? Of course it is.


Just to make sure that you, as you told me "Get it?". The cop isn't going to go with "Brown was a black thug that deserved to die." nonsense. He's going to go with "Brown attacked me, so I defended myself, and here's some evidence to support that Brown is indeed the type of person to do such a thing."


Damn, this isn't complicated.

Edited, Aug 19th 2014 6:04pm by CoalHeart

Kinda off topic, but have you seen the movie Equilibrium? Some pretty cool "Gun Fu" in that one.

What you've seen is multiple interviews with just two witnesses. One of them was the robbery accomplice walking with Brown, and the other only appeared after the first one's account was splattered all over the news (so great potential for her modifying what she saw based on what she heard). It's telling that both accounts claim that Brown was shot in the back while fleeing the cop, but Brown's body has no bullet entry points in his back (or any indication he was shot while facing away from the shooter). So either they both managed to miss-see events in the exact same way, or she adjusted her version of events to match his.

So you're really just hearing one account. From a guy who was an accomplice to strong arm robbery and has every reason in the world to point the finger of blame at the police.



How on earth do you suppose a 6'4" 290lb man ends out face first halfway into a car door struggling with a police officer if all he ever did was try to avoid or escape the cop? Seriously. The entire claim that the cop reached out of the window and tried to pull Brown in is absurd as hell. A 5'9" person attempting that on someone so much bigger? And for what purpose? So as to ensure that the guy with no leverage or height or size or strength advantage is now in close proximity with the guy who has all of those things? It's far more likely that Brown chose to reach/climb into the car on top of the officer for some reason. We can speculate as to why, but it's hard to imagine that he could have been forced into such an advantageous (for him!) physical position by the officer.



Again, the only witness who saw anything prior to Brown and the officer struggling in the car was Brown's friend. He's a poor witness at best. And even his story kinda skips past the whole "bounced back into the car" and to "Brown and cop struggling in the car" without really explaining how they got into that position. Also, the whole "shot while fleeing" bit doesn't work when none of the injuries indicate being shot from behind.

All of the physical evidence we've heard of so far points to someone who had just committed a robbery being accosted by a police officer, not realizing the cop didn't know about the robbery, he reacts violently to a cop whose guard is down (cause he doesn't realize this is a robber suspect), gets the drop on the cop, a struggle ensues, and the cop shoots him in the car. Brown backs out of the car, and the officer pursues him, ordering him to surrender. Brown chooses to charge the cop again rather than give up, and the cop fires several more rounds at him, hitting him in the right arm and then in the head, finally killing him.

This is a far more likely scenario than the alternative. It just doesn't match up with a "racist cop kills black teen" narrative that so many want to talk about.




And the forensic evidence. Which, I suspect, just like in the Martin case, will turn out to tell a very different story than that being claimed in the media. But maybe you're right. We should just not bother to learn from the past examples of rushing to judgement in cases like this. Cause that works so well.



Correct. But that kinda hinges on whether he was actually surrendering, right? You're taking one person's word as gospel truth. Maybe you shouldn't do that.

If the defense rests on "Brown was a kind and gentle soul who would never assault anyone, so the cop must have fired for no reason at all", then it's massively relevant and would be admissible (well, should be).