Ferguson: The Other Side Of The Story.

a reply to: Greven

It's not about being a race. It's about seeing that details of this 'story' mesh with the autopsy, and comparing which came first. If the 'story' came first, it gains standing because of the later autopsy. If the autopsy came first, that seems fishy.

I don't know if it is the advent of social media or the many police procedural television shows that has created this disconnect with people.

You want the case to be tried in the media. You want the police to present every bit of evidence to the public.

That is not how it works. In which local murder trial have you seen the police publicly displaying the evidence before the trial?

None.

Why should this case be different?

It is everyone's responsibility to realize that this is not how it works for many, many reasons. It is everyone's responsibility, including and especially the media, to realize this.

a reply to: areyouserious2010



? I got arms too ? You understand what i said? I'm french speaker, english is not my first language.

When you are facing up, you left-side of you right arm is facing the back. Even when you run.

Can see a way your leftside of your right arm is getting hit unless you are facing hand up... Which is way more disturbing.

a reply to: areyouserious2010

xD Why police release the robbing video then ? xD They are just showing what they want to try to control the Media xD. A private autopsy need to be done for that. Even the FederaL dont trust the police dept...

originally posted by: areyouserious2010
I don't know if it is the advent of social media or the many police procedural television shows that has created this disconnect with people.

You want the case to be tried in the media. You want the police to present every bit of evidence to the public.

That is not how it works. In which local murder trial have you seen the police publicly displaying the evidence before the trial?

None.

Why should this case be different?

It is everyone's responsibility to realize that this is not how it works for many, many reasons. It is everyone's responsibility, including and especially the media, to realize this.

What are you talking about? You are constructing a strawman, accusing me of wanting the case to be tried in the media, accusing me of wanting the police to present every bit of evidence.

The OP in this thread made a claim, that there was some facebook post where the officer told his side of the story
I want a link to that. Otherwise I dismiss it as speculation at best.

a reply to: freedom12 Miss that was your post, I didn't copy/paste anything from facebook.

a reply to: Greven

This should probably be discussed in the thread that was made to discuss the autopsy reports. One doesn't have to be an expert to think getting shot in the inside of the arm 3 times and into the top of the head 2 times seems to contradict the police account.

If it was that clear, why didn't the good doctor come out and say that? The attorney sure did. The doctor did not.

In fact, the doctor named a number of scenarios that may have played out.

The only thing that was DISPROVED by the release of this informal autopsy was the account that the officer shot Brown in the back and EXECUTED him. This impeaches the testimony of numerous "witnesses" including Dorian Johnson.

What you are seeing is the attorneys, who have a clear one-sided agenda, making every effort to have the case tried in the media. And the media is more than willing to put ANYONE in front of a camera and microphone and report what they say as fact without so much as a challenging question.

This is why the attorneys are making their case in the media. They are having a lot of success because they know most of the media will lap up the story and they can spin it as much as they want without challenge. They also know there will be very little official evidence released yet to refute what they are saying.

And guess what all this equals for the attorneys? Dollars and cents. Trying this case in the media will make it extremely easy to win a lucrative civil case in which they will receive a very hefty fee. And it doesn't really matter if the officer is charged or not.

That's the thing. The people stirring this pot may not even care about charges against the officer or civil rights. It's about the pay-off.

a reply to: areyouserious2010
Go discuss it in the thread made for doing that. By the way, most of them said he was shot at when he was running, not shot for sure 100% in the back no lies man, so get over it.

linkOn Sunday a video of bystanders talking about the shooting of teenager Brown came to light that seemed to confirm that the teen was running menacingly at the police officer who shot him on the Saturday afternoon of August 9. The video was recorded among a crowd of bystanders who were discussing what they saw as Brown's body still lay in the street before them.

a reply to: FreeQuebec86

? I got arms too ? You understand what i said? I'm french speaker, english is not my first language.

When you are facing up, you left-side of you right arm is facing the back. Even when you run.

Can see a way your leftside of your right arm is getting hit unless you are facing hand up... Which is way more disturbing.

I saw what you said, that's not the problem.

The problem is you are coming to a conclusion that an expert, hired by the attorneys for the family, did not come to.

If you can come to these conclusions so easily, how come an expert did not come to the same conclusions?

What I am trying to say is your conclusions are not based in fact or experience.

a reply to: FreeQuebec86

Why police release the robbing video then ?

Because this is a three-ring circus and the media is the ringleader.

I would say the police should not have released the video.

The Chief says they released it because of Freedom of Information Act requests. Maybe, because it is evidence in the robbery and not the murder, the video was not protected and had to be released.

Maybe, the Chief had a moment of weakness and made a bad decision because he saw everyone else trying the case in the media.

Maybe, the DOJ, with their own agenda, appeared to be railroading the officer into a civil rights violation and the Chief wanted to prevent that?

Who knows? It was a bad decision in my opinion.

a reply to: Greven
He was running, you are right, listen to the candid testimony in the background of the video. He was running AT the officer.

He pulled up ahead of them. And then he got a call-in that there was a strong-arm robbery. And, they gave a description. And, he’s looking at them and they got something in their hands and it looks like it could be what, you know those cigars or whatever. So he goes in reverse back to them. Tries to get out of his car. They slam his door shut violently. I think he said Michael did. And, then he opened the car again. He tried to get out. He stands up.

And then Michael just bum-rushes him and shoves him back into his car. Punches him in the face and them Darren grabs for his gun. Michael grabbed for the gun. At one point he got the gun entirely turned against his hip. And he shoves it away. And the gun goes off.



Well, then Michael takes off and gets to be about 35 feet away. And, Darren’s first protocol is to pursue. So, he stands up and yells, “Freeze!” Michael and his friend turn around. And Michael taunts him… And then all the sudden he just started bumrushing him. He just started coming at him full speed. And, so he just started shooting. And, he just kept coming. And, so he really thinks he was on something.”

And just for reference - so you can see the quality of the man's character - here's a little video of Michael Brown from a few minutes before the deadly altercation.

This video isn't to excuse his death but it should give us pause in our rush to judge the police officer guilty of murder.


Read more at eaglerising.com...

a reply to: Greven

By the way, most of them said he was shot at when he was running, not shot for sure 100% in the back no lies man, so get over it.

Please, everyone that the media could put in front of a camera and microphone was saying the officer EXECUTED him or SHOT HIM IN THE BACK.

Now that has been found to be untruthful everyone, including you, is trying to walk it back.

a reply to: abe froman

That link is to the josie story and the video of the market.
But I do know the video your talking about and it is hardly proof of anything.
You can not hear them clearly and lots of sites are talking some liberties in filling in the blanks

And abe you know that police cheif said the officer did not know about the robbery right?

originally posted by: areyouserious2010
Please, everyone that the media could put in front of a camera and microphone was saying the officer EXECUTED him or SHOT HIM IN THE BACK.

Now that has been found to be untruthful everyone, including you, is trying to walk it back.

A) They could have been at a distance to not see clearly where the shot struck. The position of at least one of the entry wounds on his arms could have been from behind, but as no shot actually struck his back, it's not provable that he was shot from behind.
B) A lot of that was conjecture rather than witness testimony. If any witness said he was shot in the back, literally shot and literally in the back, then yeah that witness's recollection is wrong.
C) You should discuss it in the thread about the autopsy.

a reply to: Greven

A) They could have been at a distance to not see clearly where the shot struck. The position of at least one of the entry wounds on his arms could have been from behind, but as no shot actually struck his back, it's not provable that he was shot from behind.
B) A lot of that was conjecture rather than witness testimony. If any witness said he was shot in the back, literally shot and literally in the back, then yeah that witness's recollection is wrong.

And yet, the media reported these accounts as fact which became the overarching narrative narrative of the media, attorneys and race hustlers.

C) You should discuss it in the thread about the autopsy.

I will discuss it here because this type of narrative needs to be confronted wherever it is raised.

originally posted by: abe froman
a reply to: dukeofjive696969 Police are professionals who know that investigation takes time, rabble rousers immediately start spewing whatever non sense best fits their agenda.

You mean like releasing the video hours before stating that they were actually stopped for jay walking? Or how the only thing that's managed to "leak" out the FPD is that Michael Brown tested positive for marijuana use?

a reply to: theantediluvian

Jaywalking? Really? No. They were walking down the middle of the street holding up traffic. They were not jaywalking.

He may have had other drugs in his system. Toxicology tests take weeks. People keep clamoring for information, then when the department releases it, they get criticized because it's not what they want to hear.

a reply to: queenofswords

And you know they were blocking traffic how??

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: theantediluvian

Jaywalking? Really? No. They were walking down the middle of the street holding up traffic. They were not jaywalking.

He may have had other drugs in his system. Toxicology tests take weeks. People keep clamoring for information, then when the department releases it, they get criticized because it's not what they want to hear.

Really? Why release the video and then 2 hours later admit that the purpose of the stop was unrelated? What is the purpose of leaking that evidence of marijuana was found in his system? What does it matter how long toxicology takes when the FPD is leaking positive test results for marijuana? They obvious did some sort of testing of the urine, blood or saliva to come up with marijuana usage and you can best bet they similarly tested for other common controlled substances — drugs that might actually have effects that were relevant to the shooting. Why not leak that information as well? Because they are controlling the flow of information to get out what they want.