So Boerd said
Nobody trusts government or law enforcement less than I. However, what little evidence we have I think backs up the cops. I will be the first to admit I was wrong if that changes.

There are videos of them teargassing news crews and taking down their equipment. There are witness statements of them shooting the kid in the back several times.

Tear gas news crews not in the throng isn't right, if it is happening. But the witness statements are so widely varied. Piaget Crenshaw says she saw Mike reach in the car, his accomplice in the robbery says the cop just grabbed his neck before the shots, while Tiffany what's-her-name says Mike was standing far from the car when first shot. These are not easily mistaken variations. Two people watching the same thing wouldn't be that varied.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/17/unwitting-witness-pokes-holes-in-michael-brown-shooting-story/

Now a witness saying Mike turned. Ignore the source, just listen to the audio.

Hellis said
There are videos of them teargassing news crews and taking down their equipment. There are witness statements of them shooting the kid in the back several times.

Al Jazeera crew got gassed and reporters from the Huffington Post and Washington Post were arrested for no cause -- the cops got pissed that they were being recorded and proceeded illegally (and on camera.)

That cop should have known that not only have the courts ruled for the people doing the recording in every case of a person recording cops on duty that's gone before them, the press are doubly protected in most cases from interference. Before anyone goes, "Oh, well, the media must have been endangering cops" bear in mind that the reporters were sitting in a McDonalds. It's, quite simply, the Ferguson PD attacking the press, and it's a fundamental denial of the 1st Amendment.

It's not just Ferguson, of course. A lot of cops don't know that multiple federal courts have ruled on this issue the same time every time it's gone to court. They still try to stop recording. I suppose they realize, in their dim way, that they are being recorded and more of it is being exposed and they are in danger of being held responsible for their actions, but so far no one's taken US police forces in general to task for attacking reporters and private citizens exercising their 1st Amendment rights.

They are literally dismantling the first Amendment.

One thing that should be noted that the dispatch tapes mention nothing about a robbery, nor did he follow procedure (I.E. Call it in).

Mr Allen J said
They are literally dismantling the first Amendment.One thing that should be noted that the dispatch tapes mention nothing about a robbery, nor did he follow procedure (I.E. Call it in).

The officer didn't know about the robbery, but the kid didn't know he didn't.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/17/justice-department-autopsy-brown-ferguson/14196559/

All in the front, four in non-stopping places, explaining why a rational person (dunno if it was justified, just saying hypothetically if it was) provoked to shoot, might shoot multiple times. Cop murder scenario is rapidly deteriorating.

So Boerd said
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/17/justice-department-autopsy-brown-ferguson/14196559/All in the front, four in non-stopping places, explaining why a rational person (dunno if it was justified, just saying hypothetically if it was) provoked to shoot, might shoot multiple times. Cop murder scenario is rapidly deteriorating.

"Baden said a final autopsy report would require study of the clothes Brown was wearing to see if they contained gunshot residue, which would indicate whether at least one shot was fired at close range. No residue was found on Brown's body, Baden said."

Actually, the lack of residue would indicate that Brown was shot repeatedly at long range. It's also mentioned that due to bullet ricochet it's very likely that Brown held his arms up in front of himself, which would indicate he wasn't attacking anyone, he was trying to save his own life.

On top of this, the bullets to the head were execution style moves, not panic-fire ones.

This is really looking like that police officer did commit murder and deserves to be imprisoned.

As for the protests, so long as they can stay peaceful and let cops (state troopers) mingle amongst them to keep the peace, then I have no problems with them. The earlier protests though? Still don't get my sympathy.

Overall, I'm leaning towards that officer at least being discharged and arrested as the investigation continues. He should not be wielding a license to kill right now.

Six shots, including two to the head..... It's getting increasingly difficult to imagine a scenario where that's okay.

If I bullrush someone, I put my arm at about eye level parallel to my face or just below. Every piece of evidence confirms the Cop, that this thief ran, then turned around and ran back at him.

mdk said
Six shots, including two to the head..... It's getting increasingly difficult to imagine a scenario where that's okay.

6 shots is actually pretty normal in a scenario where you are being charged. Police are trained to fire until the threat is eliminated(on the ground or otherwise incapacitated). If Brown was charging at the officer who then proceeded to open fire, Brown's arms, which were likely moving whilst he ran, could have taken shots. Then as he began to fall, the officer still shooting, could have been hit in the head. The audio from the previously posted video provides an interesting counterpoint to the other eyewitnesses who say he just stands there and gets shot. And, just as the stereotype goes with police protecting their own, the same stereotype exists around black communities rallied against any police action.

So Boerd said
If I bullrush someone, I put my arm at about eye level parallel to my face or just below. Every piece of evidence confirms the Cop, that this thief ran, then turned around and ran back at him.

Indeed, Brown could also have done this. We dont know and likely never will know the exact details of what occurred unless new evidence surfaces.

I'll be interested to see what the toxicology reports have to say. At this point there is way too little evidence, and a lot of contradiction with what exists, to get a sound idea of what happened.

Not just that, how did the bullet enter his eye and go down his face unless he had his head down? And since that was the lethal shot and his legs were undamaged, it wasn't like he was falling over.

Another point to make; they started arresting reporters early today -- at least one got put in the paddy wagon. Don Lemon was assaulted by a cop during a live CNN broadcast.

The police in Ferguson really should have followed the example presented by the LAPD during the L.A. riots in 1992. Non-intervention works!

HeySeuss said
Another point to make; they started arresting reporters early today -- at least one got put in the paddy wagon. Don Lemon was assaulted by a cop during a live CNN broadcast.

Oh, please, watch the video of Don Lemon getting 'assaulted.' here.

That's an assault and battery, yes.

A smart cop would say, "Please move" to someone as docile as a CNN reporter -- that's not exactly a hostile or uncooperative entity. This one isn't smart, and the department at large isn't smart.

Pushing the media around is pretty much what got this bunch in trouble to begin with, and it looks like they're just going to keep digging themselves deeper.

HeySeuss said
That's an assault and battery, yes.

.....really? Alright.

someone as docile as a CNN reporter -- that's not exactly a hostile or uncooperative entity.

You can't possibly believe that.

8 year olds do me more injury. So do old ladies who accidentally set their walkers on my foot. Being a quarter-asian, I will run my story of little Bobby the "racist" white seven year old kicking my shin to Salon and Slate.

Feel free to look up some legal definitions sometime, guys. There's whole law libraries sitting online for the purpose of reference. It's not a question of damage, it's the action itself.

Findlaw said The criminal act required for battery boils down to an offensive or harmful contact. This can range anywhere from the obvious battery where a physical attack such as a punch or kick is involved, to even minimal contact in some cases. Generally, a victim doesn't need to be injured or harmed for a battery to have occurred, so long as an offensive contact is involved. In a classic example, spitting on an individual doesn't physically injure them, but it nonetheless can constitute offensive contact sufficient for a battery.

And no, CNN reporters do not constitute hostile entities. If you think otherwise, well, I hope you never need your rights in the face of law enforcement. The guy was obeying orders even without being shoved; he was stating that he would not resist and that he would comply. That's not precisely hostile or uncooperative, despite whatever your definition of hostility is.

Laws=/=common sense. Super hard to get upset about a gentle walking push.