2014 Negro Hunting Season in Missouri

[4est_4est_Gump]

Todays twist is the allegation that the dead kid was a gang member under investigation for murder.

Ishmael will of course decline comment until the legal process is complete.

Yes.

Yes.

Allegations are very important...

Wasn't this allegation made a week, ten days ago, photos of nebulous gang signs?

 

[about_average]

Johnson is a less than reliable witness because he has a dog in the fight.

By that logic Wilson is less than reliable. In fact, he has even more at stake. But you know that already, it's been explained to you before.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

By that logic Wilson is less than reliable. In fact, he has even more at stake. But you know that already, it's been explained to you before.

Which statements have Wilson entered into the public record to be used as evidence in this mock trial?

 

[Ishmael]

As far as credibility is concerned a sworn officer will be given greater credibility unless there is forensic evidence to the contrary.

The fact that the decedent was unarmed is of no consequence at all. It just doesn't factor into the case at hand. That can only be known after the fact.

The only real forensic evidence known at this point is the autopsy report released by the family and that report does not refute the hearsay evidence we know of from the officer's side. It does not necessarily 'prove' his side, but it does not contradict his side either.

The recently surfaced audio of the gun shots is of no particular value. First of all it's being considered as highly suspicious even by the network that first broke the story. Secondly the investigators know exactly how many shots were fired by the brass on the ground at the scene. And lastly, once you engage a target you keep firing until the target is down. The number of shots required speaks more to marksmanship and/or the robustness of the target than any other factor.

Eye witness testimony is highly unreliable. This has been proven in study after study. That is not to accuse them of lying, merely that what the eye sees and the mind interprets can be quite different than reality. The 'witness' really does believe what they thought they saw.

Ishmael

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Goshgolly ishmayul... You so smert!

Lots smarter than you.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

As far as credibility is concerned a sworn officer will be given greater credibility unless there is forensic evidence to the contrary.

The fact that the decedent was unarmed is of no consequence at all. It just doesn't factor into the case at hand. That can only be known after the fact.

The only real forensic evidence known at this point is the autopsy report released by the family and that report does not refute the hearsay evidence we know of from the officer's side. It does not necessarily 'prove' his side, but it does not contradict his side either.

The recently surfaced audio of the gun shots is of no particular value. First of all it's being considered as highly suspicious even by the network that first broke the story. Secondly the investigators know exactly how many shots were fired by the brass on the ground at the scene. And lastly, once you engage a target you keep firing until the target is down. The number of shots required speaks more to marksmanship and/or the robustness of the target than any other factor.

Eye witness testimony is highly unreliable. This has been proven in study after study. That is not to accuse them of lying, merely that what the eye sees and the mind interprets can be quite different than reality. The 'witness' really does believe what they thought they saw.

Ishmael

I was party to such an incident. The cop and I examined the kid and saw no bruise on her ear. The next day an MD looked at her and made a photo of the injury. But we saw nothing. But its not unusual for a mark to darken with time. Daycares are notorious for slapping kids then calling in abuse reports on the parents. By the time police come the mark is obvious.

 

[Lancecastor]

You are right about the bottom line...regardless of what will eventually be ruled to be the Facts, it is highly unlikely that the white cop from Ferguson will be convicted of doing anything wrong in gunning down this particular unarmed black teen.


The real issue of course is more fundamental and goes to the very root of all that is wrong with the USA.

As far as credibility is concerned a sworn officer will be given greater credibility unless there is forensic evidence to the contrary.

The fact that the decedent was unarmed is of no consequence at all. It just doesn't factor into the case at hand. That can only be known after the fact.

The only real forensic evidence known at this point is the autopsy report released by the family and that report does not refute the hearsay evidence we know of from the officer's side. It does not necessarily 'prove' his side, but it does not contradict his side either.

The recently surfaced audio of the gun shots is of no particular value. First of all it's being considered as highly suspicious even by the network that first broke the story. Secondly the investigators know exactly how many shots were fired by the brass on the ground at the scene. And lastly, once you engage a target you keep firing until the target is down. The number of shots required speaks more to marksmanship and/or the robustness of the target than any other factor.

Eye witness testimony is highly unreliable. This has been proven in study after study. That is not to accuse them of lying, merely that what the eye sees and the mind interprets can be quite different than reality. The 'witness' really does believe what they thought they saw.

Ishmael

 

[Ishmael]

You are right about the bottom line...regardless of what will eventually be ruled to be the Facts, it is highly unlikely that the white cop from Ferguson will be convicted of doing anything wrong in gunning down this particular unarmed black teen.


The real issue of course is more fundamental and goes to the very root of all that is wrong with the USA.

*chuckle* You just keep harping on the 'unarmed', 'black', and 'white.' I suggest that that mind set is considerably more of a problem than anything else. None of those facts are of any consideration as to what actually occurred unless the officer has some ties to the American Nazi Party, the Aryan Brotherhood, or some other such group.

Ishmael

 

[RobDownSouth]

As far as credibility is concerned a sworn officer will be given greater credibility unless there is forensic evidence to the contrary.

The fact that the decedent was unarmed is of no consequence at all. It just doesn't factor into the case at hand. That can only be known after the fact.

The only real forensic evidence known at this point is the autopsy report released by the family and that report does not refute the hearsay evidence we know of from the officer's side. It does not necessarily 'prove' his side, but it does not contradict his side either.The recently surfaced audio of the gun shots is of no particular value. First of all it's being considered as highly suspicious even by the network that first broke the story. Secondly the investigators know exactly how many shots were fired by the brass on the ground at the scene. And lastly, once you engage a target you keep firing until the target is down. The number of shots required speaks more to marksmanship and/or the robustness of the target than any other factor.Eye witness testimony is highly unreliable. This has been proven in study after study. That is not to accuse them of lying, merely that what the eye sees and the mind interprets can be quite different than reality. The 'witness' really does believe what they thought they saw.
Ishmael

*chuckle* You just keep harping on the 'unarmed', 'black', and 'white.' I suggest that that mind set is considerably more of a problem than anything else. None of those facts are of any consideration as to what actually occurred unless the officer has some ties to the American Nazi Party, the Aryan Brotherhood, or some other such group.
Ishmael

Oh look at Grampa Cancernugget carefully setting the table, artfully discrediting anything other than the officer's testimony. Because freedom.
:nods:

 

[Lancecastor]

*chuckle* You just keep harping on the 'unarmed', 'black', and 'white.' I suggest that that mind set is considerably more of a problem than anything else. None of those facts are of any consideration as to what actually occurred unless the officer has some ties to the American Nazi Party, the Aryan Brotherhood, or some other such group.

Ishmael

Yes, I keep "harping" on the white cop shooting a young unarmed black man in Missouri.

Because that's the story. That's the issue.

 

[about_average]

Which statements have Wilson entered into the public record to be used as evidence in this mock trial?

Ah, I see. So what you're really saying is that Johnson's credibility is lacking because he's made a public statement, not because he has a dog in the fight. That's a different premise.

 

[KingOrfeo]

The fact that the decedent was unarmed is of no consequence at all. It just doesn't factor into the case at hand.

Of course it is. If Brown had been armed, there would be no question of indicting Wilson. No protests, either.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Fascinating analysis of the RW media treatment.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Fascinating analysis of the RW media treatment.

The new "White Victimization". AJ has been spearheading that initiative for years.

 

[about_average]

The fact that the decedent was unarmed is of no consequence at all.

It certainly is.
If Brown was not advancing on Wilson, Brown being unarmed is certainly of consequence. That would make it an unjustified shoot.
If he'd been armed, but not advancing it could certainly be a justified shoot.

 

[Boxlicker101]

And there's a certain group just as convinced Wilson is 100% innocent of wrong doing.

This is the group that believes in the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Ah, I see. So what you're really saying is that Johnson's credibility is lacking because he's made a public statement, not because he has a dog in the fight. That's a different premise.

No, I am saying that the press took his initial statement and ran with, broadcasting it relentlessly and breathlessly before it was learned that he was with Brown, part of the robbery, part of the reason for the stop, and had arrest warrants out on him.

Let's assume he didn't know about the robbery, that past transgressions do not matter and that his only wrong was jaywalking...

K?

He still had a story of his own to advance to make sure that he wasn't in any trouble. That makes him just a little suspect as an eye-witness, even more so that what Ish and I have been alluding to from day one, the proclivity of even the best of eye-witnesses to remember things incorrectly because their brain interprets that which they see before it stores the memories.

Can some of his account be true?

Could very well be.

Is all of it true. Not a fucking chance imho...

 

[Ishmael]

It certainly is.
If Brown was not advancing on Wilson, Brown being unarmed is certainly of consequence. That would make it an unjustified shoot.
If he'd been armed, but not advancing it could certainly be a justified shoot.

The fact that a subject may be unarmed is NOT a gating factor in the decision to shoot or not. That decision is based solely on the subjects behavior and the threat to the officer.

All of the factors you mentioned are subject to review but the fact that a subject was not armed does not invalidate the officers decision to pull the trigger.

Whether or not the shoot was justified has yet to be determined.

Ishmael

 

[Lancecastor]

Police all over the USA are shooting unarmed black people, one Every 28 Hours....so Ish is right when he says not being armed isn't relevant.

At least...not to the police officers doing the shooting!

More than a quarter of civilians shot by Houston PD in 5 years had no weapon, and the last officer charged in a shooting was in 2004

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/loc...tproof-Part-1-Unarmed-and-Dangerous-24419.php

 

[about_average]

The fact that a subject may be unarmed is NOT a gating factor in the decision to shoot or not. That decision is based solely on the subjects behavior and the threat to the officer.

Then it appears you think being armed or not couldn't have any bearing on the level of threat.

I can assure you I'd feel more threatened by someone pointing a gun at me and screaming obscenities than I would by someone pointing their finger at me and screaming obscenities.
Exact same behavior, being armed significantly raises the threat level.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Then it appears you think being armed or not couldn't have any bearing on the level of threat.

I can assure you I'd feel more threatened by someone pointing a gun at me and screaming obscenities than I would by someone pointing their finger at me and screaming obscenities.
Exact same behavior, being armed significantly raises the threat level.

Is that person the size of a defensive lineman?

If so, your point has some validity, the gun would make you empty even more of your bladder, but the fact remains, if a guy that size is screaming at your, pointing at you, and charging you, unless that happens to you on a regular basis, you still might be inclined to a bit of a piddle...

 

[Boxlicker101]

Here is more about Brown's possible gang membership: https://www.google.com/search?sourc...rlz=1T4NDKB_enUS560US560&q=michael+brown+gang

I don't know how relevant it is. Probably at least as relevant as Wilson having been a member of the Jennings PD six years ago.

 

[Lancecastor]

Is that person the size of a defensive lineman?

If so, your point has some validity, the gun would make you empty even more of your bladder, but the fact remains, if a guy that size is screaming at your, pointing at you, and charging you, unless that happens to you on a regular basis, you still might be inclined to a bit of a piddle...

Or, you could put your foot on the go pedal of your Police Cruiser, move to a safe distance, call in a disturbance and request backup.

Police training emphasizes being at a tactically superior and safe position from a perceived threat.

 

[about_average]

Is that person the size of a defensive lineman?

If so, your point has some validity, the gun would make you empty even more of your bladder, but the fact remains, if a guy that size is screaming at your, pointing at you, and charging you, unless that happens to you on a regular basis, you still might be inclined to a bit of a piddle...

Move goal posts much?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Or, you could put your foot on the go pedal of your Police Cruiser, move to a safe distance, call in a disturbance and request backup.

Police training emphasizes being at a tactically superior and safe position from a perceived threat.

I bow to your training...



I did not know that you were a police officer and had access to information that I could not possible understand.

Note to self: Cops are trained to run from danger. If you are in danger, you're fucked...