Police Power and Racial Tensions in Ferguson, Missouri

[One Brow]

So what you're saying is that the accounts that are consistent with your opinion are right and the evidence, expert analysis, and witness accounts that are not consistent with your opinion are wrong. Exactly what I expected tbh.

Actually, I was saying that the evidence and the expert analysis are also consistent with the raised hands. For reasons known only to you, you are looking at the evidence from one bullet wound in that arm and ignoring the evidence from the other three. All four wounds need to be consistent with your explanation for it to be acceptable, and they are not.

 

[LogGrad98]

Actually, I was saying that the evidence and the expert analysis are also consistent with the raised hands. For reasons known only to you, you are looking at the evidence from one bullet wound in that arm and ignoring the evidence from the other three. All four wounds need to be consistent with your explanation for it to be acceptable, and they are not.

So now you are ignoring the conflicting witness accounts? And I was going from the expert witnesses that know more about forensics and autopsies than either you or me, whose overall statement were that the wounds were consistent with someone reaching for a gun and/or not raising his hands. There have been conflicting reports all along, including about this. I am saying that I am nowhere near enough of an expert to make that determination and ignore the experts' opinions. If you are comfortable enough in your knowledge of forensics and autopsies to allow you to figure out which one is absolutely correct then more power to you. I am saying there is more than enough dissension and evidence on either side to create doubt in either account.

 

[One Brow]

So now you are ignoring the conflicting witness accounts? And I was going from the expert witnesses that know more about forensics and autopsies than either you or me, whose overall statement were that the wounds were consistent with someone reaching for a gun and/or not raising his hands. There have been conflicting reports all along, including about this. I am saying that I am nowhere near enough of an expert to make that determination and ignore the experts' opinions. If you are comfortable enough in your knowledge of forensics and autopsies to allow you to figure out which one is absolutely correct then more power to you. I am saying there is more than enough dissension and evidence on either side to create doubt in either account.

When you refer to "conflicting witness accounts", that means for any actual recreation of events, some of the witness accounts will have to be discarded. If that were not true, the accounts would not be conflicting to begin with. We have witness accounts that described arms raised, and one witness account that does not, which happens to be the shooter.

There is some talk about a second witness to Wilson's version of events, by an anonymous caller named Josie:

https://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-ferguson-witness-accounts-20140821-story.html

Noticed that's based on a report from CNN. However, in the original CNN story (link), Josie "identified herself as the officer's friend"; she is not a witness after all.

So, the only witness who saw the whole event, and does not described Brown as having his arms raised, is Wilson, the police officer. If Wilson were not a police officer, I'd wager you would not find his testimony credible,since Eilson obviously has so much to lose.

I agree we should accept the expert's opinions. In particular, we should accept the opinion that, of the four bullets that struck the right arm, one of them almost certainly did not enter the arm when Wilson's hands were raised. That was contents of your link, and I accept that opinion. ONE of the FOUR bullets died not strike Wilson's arms while they were raised. It could have happened during a struggle for the gun in Wilson's car, or when Brown was running away; I have no reason to disagree with either version. Now, will you accept the experts findings about the other three bullets, that they do match the notion that Wilson's arms were raised?

Sorry if this is beating a dead horse, but I want to make this clear: your first link from the Washington Post says "Judy Melinek, a forensic pathologist in San Francisco who reviewed the autopsy for the Post-Dispatch, told the paper that one of the officer’s shots hit Brown’s forearm and traveled from the back of the arm to the inner arm,", again, ONE of the FOUR bullets. I accept that, when *that particular bullet* was fired, Brown's arms were not raised. There are three other bullets that entered Brown's arm, all of which are consistent with Brown's arms being raised (and not consistent with Brown charging Wilson, unless you think he was charging with hands raised). Will you accept the expert opinion on those three bullets?

 

[TroutBum]

If someone starts shooting at me, the first thing I think I would instinctually do is raise my arms to cover my head and face, not to say "I surrender!". I think it's totally plausible that his arms were raised, but I'd put my money on him attempting to defend himself rather than give up.

 

[One Brow]

If someone starts shooting at me, the first thing I think I would instinctually do is raise my arms to cover my head and face, not to say "I surrender!". I think it's totally plausible that his arms were raised, but I'd put my money on him attempting to defend himself rather than give up.

It's hard to predict what we might do in a similar situation. What we have is witness testimony that Brown raise his arms (slightly, I believe, but enough to put the palms forward), and one more so than the other.

 

[LogGrad98]

Sorry if this is beating a dead horse, but I want to make this clear: your first link from the Washington Post says "Judy Melinek, a forensic pathologist in San Francisco who reviewed the autopsy for the Post-Dispatch, told the paper that one of the officer’s shots hit Brown’s forearm and traveled from the back of the arm to the inner arm,", again, ONE of the FOUR bullets. I accept that, when *that particular bullet* was fired, Brown's arms were not raised. There are three other bullets that entered Brown's arm, all of which are consistent with Brown's arms being raised (and not consistent with Brown charging Wilson, unless you think he was charging with hands raised). Will you accept the expert opinion on those three bullets?

Frankly it sounds to me like no one really knows.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/michael-browns-official-autopsy-report-actually-reveal/

The St. Louis County medical examiner’s autopsy report indicated that 18-year-old Michael Brown was shot in the hand at close range during an altercation with Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson. To support that finding, the autopsy said a microscopic exam found foreign matter “consistent with products that are discharged from the barrel of a firearm” on the tissue of Brown’s thumb wound.

The county’s report also showed that Brown was shot six times, with gunshot wounds to the head and chest as the cause of death. An additional toxicology report detected marijuana in Brown’s blood.

According to the Associated Press, the report, however, did not explain why Wilson shot Brown after a struggle in the police officer’s SUV nor clarified whether Brown was surrendering or reaching for the officer’s weapon.

 

[One Brow]

Frankly it sounds to me like no one really knows.

A quote from Melinek in your link:

I made it very clear that we only have partial information here. We don’t have the scene information. We don’t have the police investigation. We don’t have all the witness statements. And you can’t interpret autopsy findings in a vacuum.

So, at this point, would you agree that you have no reason to contend that the autopsy results and the witness statements conflict?

 

[LogGrad98]

A quote from Melinek in your link:



So, at this point, would you agree that you have no reason to contend that the autopsy results and the witness statements conflict?

I have read conflicting witness accounts, so they do conflict with each other. Also the autopsy reports at this point are viewed as inconclusive. So unless I am applying my own knowledge of forensics to get something conclusive where the experts are inconclusive then no I cannot say that. I think they need to release some fully official expert statements definitively on the case. I am looking at this as the cop being on trial and is there room for reasonable doubt, and there absolutely is.

 

[One Brow]

I have read conflicting witness accounts, so they do conflict with each other.

As of right now, I am aware of the general witness account, and the account from Officer Wilson that contradicts the general narrative. Among the general witness account, not every witness say the entire incident (for example, one guy went inside to grab his cell phone and then came back out, so did not see the couple of seconds right before the shooting), but outside of Wilson, I'm not aware of any witness who says that Brown's hands were not raised or that he was charging. I have not been reading every news story on this, though, so I may have missed it. Outside of Wilson, are there any witnesses who claim Brown's hands were not raised? Can you find a link?

There is no level of forensics that can take a specific wound path and say it means an arm was in a certain position. For example, let's say a bullet entered your palm and exited the back of your hand. I might have happened if your palm was down and facing backward, bent inward at the wrist, or if your hand was raised; and the bullet could have an identical path through the hand in either case. That's why Melinek said you can't interpret these findings in a vacuum.

I am looking at this as the cop being on trial and is there room for reasonable doubt, and there absolutely is.

If I were on the jury, I would have the duty to assume innocence and only accept guilt when shown beyond reasonable doubt. I'm not on the jury, and neither are you. We are allowed to go by the preponderance of the evidence. I have no problem saying that I think it is likely O.J. Simpson killed his wife, and yet that the jury ruled as they did. Here, I have no problem saying that I think Wilson killed Brown while Brown was surrendering. In both cases, I reserve the right to change my mind based on evidence I'm not yet aware of.

 

[LogGrad98]

Because Wilson is white and Brown was black, the case has ignited intense debate over how police interact with African American men. But more than a half-dozen unnamed black witnesses have provided testimony to a St. Louis County grand jury that largely supports Wilson’s account of events of Aug. 9, according to several people familiar with the investigation who spoke with The Washington Post.


Kevin Seltzer, left, and Josh Williams on Wednesday look over a memorial built on the spot where18-year-old Michael Brown died August 9 in Ferguson, Mo. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)
Some of the physical evidence — including blood spatter analysis, shell casings and ballistics tests — also supports Wilson’s account of the shooting, The Post’s sources said, which casts Brown as an aggressor who threatened the officer’s life. The sources spoke on the condition of anonymity because they are prohibited from publicly discussing the case.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...38c7b4-5964-11e4-bd61-346aee66ba29_story.html

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/22/michael-brown-shooting_n_6030220.html

Can you post the witness accounts that you have found that contradict Wilson's account? All I can find are articles like this that state that "witnesses" in groups have said various things, but little that actually details which witnesses said what. You seem to have more intimate details on the witness statements, so I am curious what you are seeing that I can't find in a google search.

Also, of course we are not on the jury and of course we can, and do, go beyond that whole part of it, but I personally like to start there and try to assume innocence until proven guilty. I get the feeling some people jump straight to guilty, only choose to see the evidence and witness statements that support that, and disregard any evidence that might hint to the contrary.

I have shifted my position from innocence to one of uncertainty, as now it seems most reports are conflicting, including the autopsy report. I think there is a solid chance the officer made a mistake and used deadly force unnecessarily. But that is still not the same as guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There are still plenty of reasonable doubts.

Others read only into it that he is automatically guilty so the evidence they see reinforces that conclusion. That is their choice. I would prefer to be convinced of his guilt having at the outset assumed innocence rather than vice versa. But that's just me.

 

[One Brow]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...38c7b4-5964-11e4-bd61-346aee66ba29_story.html

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/22/michael-brown-shooting_n_6030220.html

Can you post the witness accounts that you have found that contradict Wilson's account? All I can find are articles like this that state that "witnesses" in groups have said various things, but little that actually details which witnesses said what. You seem to have more intimate details on the witness statements, so I am curious what you are seeing that I can't find in a google search.

Also, of course we are not on the jury and of course we can, and do, go beyond that whole part of it, but I personally like to start there and try to assume innocence until proven guilty. I get the feeling some people jump straight to guilty, only choose to see the evidence and witness statements that support that, and disregard any evidence that might hint to the contrary.

I have shifted my position from innocence to one of uncertainty, as now it seems most reports are conflicting, including the autopsy report. I think there is a solid chance the officer made a mistake and used deadly force unnecessarily. But that is still not the same as guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There are still plenty of reasonable doubts.

Others read only into it that he is automatically guilty so the evidence they see reinforces that conclusion. That is their choice. I would prefer to be convinced of his guilt having at the outset assumed innocence rather than vice versa. But that's just me.

This is earlier on this page:

https://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-ferguson-witness-accounts-20140821-story.html

In addition to Dorian Johnson (who was walking beside Brown), there's Piaget Crenshaw who said Brown was trying to surrender.

By contrast, I've already noted that Josie was identified elsewhere as a friend of Brown, not a witness.

From what I can tell, even Johnson's and Crenshaw's testimony are consistent with the first shot being fired while Brown was struggling with Wilson in his car. I would not be surprised at all if there were a large number of witness that backed up Wilson's testimony in that regard (the struggle when Brown was partly in the patrol car). I don't believe that there are a half-dozen witnesses afraid for their life who all refuse to speak publicly that Brown was rushing Wilson, in part because you would have had their statements in local media before there was any rioting.

I can appreciate your position, and I'm sure you use it in all cases. I don't recall specifically, but you probably felt that there wasn't enough evidence to say Simpson was guilty, for example.

 

[LogGrad98]

That page can no longer be found.