It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ferguson Grand Jury: No Indictment for Darren Wilson in Michael Brown Shooting

page: 94
138
<< 91  92  93    95  96  97 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Greven

It is absolutely an officer's right to have a union rep present before submitting any oral or written statement after a use of force incident. If you were to be called in for questioning about something, but hadn't been charged with a crime, you still have the right to have an attorney present. It's no different.

If an officer is using his vehicle to block somebody's movement, it's reasonable to expect the vehicle placed in a close position. At that point Wilson had already indicated he wanted to talk to the subjects further and they ignored him. If a subject has shoved a door back into an officer and then continues to block his egress from the vehicle, the door is going to get thrown back into the subject.

Being in fear that a subject who has already gone for your gun while it was holstered may continue to do so now that it's not holstered and the subject is still in arm's reach is, again, a reasonable fear. The weapon was already introduced to the situation due to the initial gun grab. The weapon being drawn was a consequence of the gun grab.

I don't have to look at my sidearm to rack the slide, nor do I need two hands to do it. I'm quite capable of protecting my body with one hand while deploying my weapon with the other. If a subject is close enough to touch, I don't need to look at them to fire at them. I know where they are and where my weapon is, and at that point I don't particularly care where my rounds strike them, I'm just trying to get rounds on target.

I'm on my mobile and am getting tired of scrolling back and forth, so I'll leave it there. You have some interesting, and good, points but some of them are rather nitpickey. A person's reaction to a lethal situation doesn't always make sense to others. Are some of his actions questionable? Certainly. Do they equate to some sort of cover up? Not necessarily.



edit on 26-11-2014 by Shamrock6 because: Typo




posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 11:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: nullafides

originally posted by: TiedDestructor

originally posted by: nullafides

originally posted by: jhn7537
Mike Brown seemed like a good, misunderstood kid... When I was in HS and around 18 I remember taking pictures with guns and wads of cash to... I guess the media doesn't want you to know that he was in fact a thug, but instead lets keep calling him an "unarmed black teen/child"... I know lots of teens and children and none of them act like this...



Does immaturity in a non violently act of immaturity translate to someone who would act violently?


Didn't you do anything stupid as a kid or young adult? I certainly did. Today, I am different.


Yea we toilet papered houses; sneaked into the school and glued everything on our teachers desk down.

But posting up like a gang member and all that jazz?

Come on now. Downplaying this type thuggishness?




Hmmm. So, a child dressing as a vampire for Halloween is to be labelled a "Blood Drinking Killer" ?

Sorry, I do not agree with you in the general sense of your assertion. I believe it is entirely too broad of a brush stroke to take. Not necessarily with this situation, but with anyone in general.




What in Gods name are you talking about?

Weak and convoluted analogy. Please do extrapolate further....



posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 11:36 AM
link   
"Hmmm. So, a child dressing as a vampire for Halloween is to be labelled a "Blood Drinking Killer" ?

Sorry, I do not agree with you in the general sense of your assertion. I believe it is entirely too broad of a brush stroke to take. Not necessarily with this situation, but with anyone in general."




Despite the utter absurdity of you trying to equate the two things, I'll play along: has the child already bitten somebody who died? Is the child continuing to posture like it's going to continue its activity? Is the child in fact a fully grown person who is legally an adult? Then yes, yes I would call that person a blood drinking killer.
edit on 26-11-2014 by Shamrock6 because: Messed up the quote somehow



posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
Being in fear that a subject who has already gone for your gun while it was holstered may continue to do so now that it's not holstered and the subject is still in arm's reach is, again, a reasonable fear. The weapon was already introduced to the situation due to the initial gun grab. The weapon being drawn was a consequence of the gun grab.

I don't have to look at my sidearm to rack the slide, nor do I need two hands to do it. I'm quite capable of protecting my body with one hand while deploying my weapon with the other. If a subject is close enough to touch, I don't need to look at them to fire at them. I know where they are and where my weapon is, and at that point I don't particularly care where my rounds strike them, I'm just trying to get rounds on target.

Wilson testified that the gun was introduced to the situation by him because of punches to the face, pages 20-22 in the NYT transcript or pages 214-216 in the original document.

Wilson: The whole time, I can't tell you if he was swinging at me or grabbing me or pushing me or what, but there was stuff going on and I was looking down figuring out what to do.
...
So, the only option I thought I had was my gun. I drew my gun, I turned.
...
Q: And it was your opinion that you needed to pull out your weapon because why did you feel that way, I don't want to put words in your mouth?
Wilson: I felt that another one of those punches in my face could knock me out or worse.

Brown never went for the gun when it was holstered at his side, according to Wilson's testimony. So no, that is not accurate by any account of what happened.

You misunderstand, from his telling, he didn't just rack his slide while not looking at his gun, he did it while covering his face and also fired the gun without looking (but seeing that Brown wasn't hit somehow). Page 31 of the NYT transcript or page 225 of the original document.

Wilson: The only way I can describe it, it looks like a demon, that's how angry he looked. He comes back towards me with his hands up. At that point, I just went like this, I tried to pull the trigger again, click, nothing happened.
Q: When you say he came back up to you with his hands up, describe to us what he is doing?
Wilson: Last thing I saw was this coming at me.
Q: Was it a fist?
Wilson: I just saw his hands up, I don't know if they were closed yet, on the way to being closed, I saw this and that face coming at me again, and I just went like this and I shielded my face.
Q: And you did what?
Wilson: Went like this and shielded my face.
Q: Did he hit you at that time?
Wilson: Yes.
Q: Okay. Go ahead.
Wilson: So I pulled the trigger, it just clicks that time. Without even looking, I just grab the top of my gun, the slide and I racked it, and I put my, still not looking just holding my hand up, I pulled the trigger again, it goes off.

It is in many places, bizarre testimony. Why would he cut them off by backing up past them so close that he could have the door slammed in his face, especially when he testified that he thought they were the robbery suspects? Seems like putting yourself far in the realm for potential danger, to me.
edit on 11Wed, 26 Nov 2014 11:42:47 -0600America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago11 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 11:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: TiedDestructor

originally posted by: nullafides

originally posted by: TiedDestructor

originally posted by: nullafides

originally posted by: jhn7537
Mike Brown seemed like a good, misunderstood kid... When I was in HS and around 18 I remember taking pictures with guns and wads of cash to... I guess the media doesn't want you to know that he was in fact a thug, but instead lets keep calling him an "unarmed black teen/child"... I know lots of teens and children and none of them act like this...



Does immaturity in a non violently act of immaturity translate to someone who would act violently?


Didn't you do anything stupid as a kid or young adult? I certainly did. Today, I am different.


Yea we toilet papered houses; sneaked into the school and glued everything on our teachers desk down.

But posting up like a gang member and all that jazz?

Come on now. Downplaying this type thuggishness?




Hmmm. So, a child dressing as a vampire for Halloween is to be labelled a "Blood Drinking Killer" ?

Sorry, I do not agree with you in the general sense of your assertion. I believe it is entirely too broad of a brush stroke to take. Not necessarily with this situation, but with anyone in general.




What in Gods name are you talking about?

Weak and convoluted analogy. Please do extrapolate further....




To be blunt, we obviously disagree to the point of your statement that my analogy is convoluted, hard to understand so much so that you are asking for me to expound on my views, and you insult me by stating that my analogy and view is "weak" were apparently yours or the mainstream opinion is "strong".

I am intending this response to convey the thought that no, I am not going to "extrapolate", just in case my viewpoint is too succinct.

If you find it difficult to understand or even conceptualize my view, I say tough. Try harder. It'll make you a better person, not to sway your opinion, but to engage in the mental exercise.



posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: stosh64
a reply to: blupblup



I don't think so.



All other threads I've checked have a reply at the top.



But this thread I only have favorite, unsubscribe and alert. Odd. Mods?





Make sure you're 'logged in' with your username.



posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 11:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: blupblup

It's not my place to be judge, jury and executioner... Something people like you simply cannot fathom.

But if I knew the person was actually trying to kill me or harm my family and I had No Choice but to kill them, you'd better believe they'd be dead for sure.




Butbutbut -

That would make you judge, jury, and executioner!



posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 12:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: nullafides

originally posted by: TiedDestructor

originally posted by: nullafides

originally posted by: TiedDestructor

originally posted by: nullafides

originally posted by: jhn7537
Mike Brown seemed like a good, misunderstood kid... When I was in HS and around 18 I remember taking pictures with guns and wads of cash to... I guess the media doesn't want you to know that he was in fact a thug, but instead lets keep calling him an "unarmed black teen/child"... I know lots of teens and children and none of them act like this...



Does immaturity in a non violently act of immaturity translate to someone who would act violently?


Didn't you do anything stupid as a kid or young adult? I certainly did. Today, I am different.


Yea we toilet papered houses; sneaked into the school and glued everything on our teachers desk down.

But posting up like a gang member and all that jazz?

Come on now. Downplaying this type thuggishness?




Hmmm. So, a child dressing as a vampire for Halloween is to be labelled a "Blood Drinking Killer" ?

Sorry, I do not agree with you in the general sense of your assertion. I believe it is entirely too broad of a brush stroke to take. Not necessarily with this situation, but with anyone in general.




What in Gods name are you talking about?

Weak and convoluted analogy. Please do extrapolate further....




To be blunt, we obviously disagree to the point of your statement that my analogy is convoluted, hard to understand so much so that you are asking for me to expound on my views, and you insult me by stating that my analogy and view is "weak" were apparently yours or the mainstream opinion is "strong".

I am intending this response to convey the thought that no, I am not going to "extrapolate", just in case my viewpoint is too succinct.

If you find it difficult to understand or even conceptualize my view, I say tough. Try harder. It'll make you a better person, not to sway your opinion, but to engage in the mental exercise.


Did you pick up a Webster, add articles and just call it a day?

Because if there's content worth deciphering; it's been lost in your incessant babbling.

I spoke clearly and concisely. You should try it out!




posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: UnBreakable

I always am. Cant deal with all the adds otherwise.

And its only this thread. NBD Was just offering a possible suggestion to blupblup.

But thank you for the suggestion un.



posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

I stand corrected in regards to the gun grab. The site I read the testimony on had significant issues with their copy/pasting of it, which has since been corrected. Thanks for pointing it out.

I misunderstood nothing. I neither need to see or use two hands to manipulate my weapon. I can cover my face, you can cover my face, you can throw a burlap sack over my head. I would still be able to manipulate my firearm. Furthermore, if you're close enough to put hands on me, you're close enough for me to shoot you without looking. I'm not sure where our disconnect here is with that. My point is that I can do pretty much anything with my off hand and still manipulate my firearm and shoot, especially in extremely close quarters.

Why did he stop so close to them? Maybe he didn't, maybe they continued to walk towards him as he was stopping. Maybe he underestimated the distance needed. Maybe he preferred to stay in his vehicle as a means of safety. there's any number of reasons for why he parked where he parked. If he had parked six feet further away, I don't see how that would've changed anything about the end result.



posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: nenothtu

Butbutbut -

That would make you judge, jury, and executioner!




Not really...if anyone was left with no choice, certain death or serious harm to a family member or kill the person doing the harm, you would kill.
This officer had many, many choices... plus holds a position of power and authority whereby he is duty and honour bound to do the decent and humane thing.

The officer decided to introduce a gun to the fist fight... the officer left his vehicle and chased the suspect after already shooting him, the suspect had his back to the officer... he could have easily wounded and subdued the suspect but he waited for him to turn around and "allegedly" become threatening again....why??
He could have used spray after he left the vehicle, he could have carried his Tazer instead of whining that it was too uncomfortable.

He had many, many, many choices.

He CHOSE to kill.

In my example, if you were left with no choice and it's you or them, kill or be killed...then you gotta do what you gotta do.

This officer had ample opportunity to do many other things.

He didn't

Poor choice and nobody needed to die that day.
edit on 26/11/14 by blupblup because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Grambler, given your chosen profile picture, I cannot help but think we are kindred spirits.

And although I felt certain I didn't need to read your post to know your point, I did. I'm glad I did. It confirmed my thoughts first stated in this response.

Live long my friend. Live for my favorite comedian/social commentator. Live the life that he was denied when his time was cut short.

Long live the memory of Bill Hicks! Long live his message.....as it still applies today, and to this situation we as a species are living in as a reality.


NF



posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: blupblup

originally posted by: nenothtu

Butbutbut -

That would make you judge, jury, and executioner!




Not really...if anyone was left with no choice, certain death or serious harm to a family member or kill the person doing the harm, you would kill.
This officer had many, many choices... plus holds a position of power and authority whereby he is duty and honour bound to do the decent and humane thing.

The officer decided to introduce a gun to the fist fight... the officer left his vehicle and chased the suspect after already shooting him, the suspect had his back to the officer... he could have easily wounded and subdued the suspect.
He could have used spray after he left the vehicle, he could have carried his Tazer instead of whining that it was too uncomfortable.

He had many, many, many choices.

He CHOSE to kill.

In my example, if you were left with no choice and it's you or them, kill or be killed...then you gotta do what you gotta do.

This officer had ample opportunity to do many other things.

He didn't

Poor choice and nobody needed to die that day.



I couldn't agree more.

And to add to it, I saw his interview on ABC. He stated that when he pulled up to the two on the street, he didn't even put his cruiser on park. This means he left it in drive, and had his foot on the brake.

If he felt so threatened, why not switch from break to gas, and leave. Or at least take the advantage of distance and keep the suspects engaged, while wait5ing for backup?

Admittedly, he also stated that his radio was on channel three, and not on channel one, where others would have heard his radio call for assistance. I would think though, that had he taken this approach I spelled out above, that he very well may have discovered this, and been able to successfully change channels and repeat the call.

Nobody needed to die. You are 100% correct.



NF



posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: blupblup

The officer introduced a gun to an assault because of the extremely close quarters, which nullified two of his other options. Against an aggressor who had 80 lbs on him. Believe it or not, an officer is allowed to shoot somebody who is unarmed if they feel they're losing the unarmed combat phase. Why? Because bad things happen to cops who get knocked out. Beatings continue, weapons are stolen, vehicles are stolen. So yea, using a firearm against somebody who's assaulting you and has nearly half your body weight over you is justifiable, whether you care for it or not.

Why would he spray somebody who's running away from him? What exactly does that accomplish?

As for whining, why don't you wear a gun belt every day and see how comfortable it is. See how much you care for having something jammed under your ribs day in and day out for hours on end. If you want him to carry a taser, complain that the department left it optional instead of requiring it. Don't complain that an officer elected not to do something he's not required to do in the first place.

He chased him after he shot him. Yes. And? What's he supposed to do? Let somebody he just shot scamper off and potentially bleed out? An arrest needed to be made at that point. Positing that an officer should just let somebody run away from them is mind boggling. That puts the entire community at risk, because who's to say what somebody who just assaulted a cop is going to do after they get away?



posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: nullafides

Because cops don't really have the choice to run away from things that may scare them.

As far as he knew, he had already called for backup once. It's entirely normal for one officer to go ahead and begin verbally engaging somebody while waiting for backup. Expecting him to drive around the corner and sit in his vehicle till somebody else got there isn't practical.



posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 12:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
I neither need to see or use two hands to manipulate my weapon. I can cover my face, you can cover my face, you can throw a burlap sack over my head. I would still be able to manipulate my firearm. Furthermore, if you're close enough to put hands on me, you're close enough for me to shoot you without looking. I'm not sure where our disconnect here is with that. My point is that I can do pretty much anything with my off hand and still manipulate my firearm and shoot, especially in extremely close quarters.

Why did he stop so close to them? Maybe he didn't, maybe they continued to walk towards him as he was stopping. Maybe he underestimated the distance needed. Maybe he preferred to stay in his vehicle as a means of safety. there's any number of reasons for why he parked where he parked. If he had parked six feet further away, I don't see how that would've changed anything about the end result.

I'm curious how you would manipulate the slide on your weapon with one hand while protecting your face with the other, for I cannot. Perhaps it is a result of my poor fine motor control or misunderstanding of his telling of what happened.

Given Dorian Johnson's similar account, suppose he was right in that Wilson reversed his Tahoe close enough that he almost hit them. That's not the most diplomatic way to enter a situation, and it doesn't seem wise to me to confront two people that he felt were robbery suspects at close range while alone - evening the odds for Brown. Johnson differs from Wilson in saying that the door bounced back off of Brown because the vehicle was so close, last I'd read his account months ago. I haven't seen his grand jury testimony as of yet, though.

If Wilson thought Brown and Johnson were the robbery suspects, why wouldn't he get out of the car at a distance and advance on foot using the same reasoning as he claims he needs to later, when he justifies getting out of the vehicle and chasing after Brown?
edit on 12Wed, 26 Nov 2014 12:28:20 -0600America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago11 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 12:27 PM
link   
a reply to: nullafides



If he felt so threatened, why not switch from break to gas, and leave. Or at least take the advantage of distance and keep the suspects engaged, while wait5ing for backup?

If every police officer ran away from possibly threatening situations, there would never be any crimes solved or arrests made.



posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 12:34 PM
link   
You can't train Police with a certain Policy.

Then, be surprised when they revert to their training.

Reaching for a Officers weapon will get you killed in all 50 States.



posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: zazzafrazz
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

The ATS server knew it would get out of hand, let alone the governor....


yah I hear ya. Maybe the lt Gov was being nice when he said it. I was pretty much paraphrasing.



posted on Nov, 26 2014 @ 12:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: nullafides

Because cops don't really have the choice to run away from things that may scare them.

As far as he knew, he had already called for backup once. It's entirely normal for one officer to go ahead and begin verbally engaging somebody while waiting for backup. Expecting him to drive around the corner and sit in his vehicle till somebody else got there isn't practical.


WOOPS!!!! I entirely misread your post....I'll not attempt to hide what I said below, but apologize for misunderstanding. Thankfully, I didn't have a gun and be forced to make the same choice of options. I don't believe in killing if it is not necessary, and take that direction as often as possible in life.


Original statement below....


No. I didn't say afraid or scared. I said rather than take a life, he could have "kited" as in WoW where you lure a creature and lead the creature into an area that is not where you encountered it, and done so until assistance arrived.

He chose to shoot. To kill. He said it himself, that he chose a headshot as it was his finall burst and he had the opportunity to do so.

He also had other options.


Thanks for your input....



NF
edit on 26-11-2014 by nullafides because: Dammit, WOOPS!!!



new topics

top topics



 
138
<< 91  92  93    95  96  97 >>

log in

join