• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

ACLU: Ferguson police report on Michael brown's death violates law [W: 209:785]

re: ACLU: Ferguson police report on Michael brown's death violates law [W: 209]

Well let's see the whole director's cut/uncensored/unrated report first then we decide. I think thats the most important issue at this pint.

EDIT: Oops I said pint instead of point. Thats what you get from too much beer. :beer:

That was my point many are deciding without any evidence.
 
re: ACLU: Ferguson police report on Michael brown's death violates law [W: 209]

All the evidence points to a pissed off, out of control cop ready to exact a lethal vengeance on an un-armed black kid who disrespected him and caused him to bump his head on his own car door.
All the evidence shows that the kid was executed as he lay face down in the street with a final shot to the top of his head.
Murder.

Wrong again you need to pay more attention.

We have no evidence of murder avialable most of the evidence is still under police control and they are not releasing it.

HE is innocent until proven guilty.

Even though it can go either way and I support justice if he was wrong the fact is that the very limited and sketchy evidence we have so far points to a justified shooting not murder.

No evidence supports the description you gave whatsoever.

It may be arguable that the african american GROWN ADULT Brown was surrendering and holding his hands up to do so but again the little evidence we have does not support that.

In addition no evidence whatsoever of any kind exists suggesting that he was LAYING DOWN when he was shot. IN fact every alleged witness on both sides of the argument disputes that as none have claimed he was in a prone position.

I will support the officers trial and conviction if evidence points to his guilt so far however what very little is known points to no such thing
 
re: ACLU: Ferguson police report on Michael brown's death violates law [W: 209]

Wtf? ... They are not shrouded, we know many things.

Allow me to provide links in order to assist in revealing the truth of the matter for you and everyone else who has been done an injustice by the mass media.

1. The police released a video suggesting that Brown may have been involved in a cigar theft at a nearby convenience store. Later that day, the police chief admitted that Officer Wilson “had no knowledge of Brown as a suspect when he shot Brown.” (Source)

2. To assist in painting Brown as a criminal, a photo circulated depicting a young black man doing questionable things. Turns out, this was not Brown and was purposefully distributed by a Kansas City police officer. (Source)

3. Last Friday, police chief Jackson released 19 pages of documents regarding the flimsy connection between Brown and the convenience store robbery. Journalists (and Brown’s lawyers) had requested information on the shooting itself and received nothing. “When pressed, however, Jackson said that Officer Wilson was not aware of the robbery reports when he stopped Brown, and that the confrontation between Wilson and Brown occurred because Brown and a friend were obstructing traffic by walking in the middle of the street.” (Source)

4. According to St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar, “the incident started when Brown physically assaulted the police officer, pushing him into the officer's vehicle. He said there was a struggle inside the car, and at some point Brown reached for the officer's weapon. One shot was fired inside the vehicle. Brown suffered fatal gunshot wounds outside of the vehicle, approximately 35 feet from the car.” This does not match any of the eye-witness reports, nor is there an official report from Wilson on the events. (Source)

5. Five eye-witnesses have come forward; only two knew each other previously. All five stories are extremely similar. An altercation at the vehicle, single shot fired, followed by the two boys running away. Wilson exited the vehicle and pursued them, continuing to fire his weapon. Brown turned around with his hands up and Wilson shot until he was on the ground. (Source, source)

6. Who called in the event? Anonymous hacked the St. Louis County dispatch where confusion regarding the event is noted due to them discovering the event on the news. The dispatcher says, "We’re just getting information from the news, and we just called Ferguson back again and they don’t know anything about it." While this does not necessarily prove that Wilson did not report the event, it does bring up questions of why the Ferguson Police Department has been so close-lipped about this event. (Source)

7. Journalists have been assaulted, arrested, had guns pointed at them, threatened, shot with tear gas, shot with rubber bullets, and generally harassed. Perhaps they get a little overzealous at times, but documenting the events is not a crime. (Source)

8. While some of you might not think the situation is a big deal, it has attracted the attention of Amnesty International. They remarked that this event “was more akin to the organization’s work during the 2013 protests in Turkey than it was to any previous action the group has taken in the United States.” (Source)

Trivializing the situation does a disservice to truth and open discussion.
 
re: ACLU: Ferguson police report on Michael brown's death violates law [W: 209]

In addition no evidence whatsoever of any kind exists suggesting that he was LAYING DOWN when he was shot. IN fact every alleged witness on both sides of the argument disputes that as none have claimed he was in a prone position.

Wrong. See point five above.
 
re: ACLU: Ferguson police report on Michael brown's death violates law [W: 209]

All the evidence points to a pissed off, out of control cop ready to exact a lethal vengeance on an un-armed black kid who disrespected him and caused him to bump his head on his own car door.
All the evidence shows that the unarmed black kid was executed as he lay face down in the street with a final shot to the top of his head.
Murder.
Wong as usual.
 
re: ACLU: Ferguson police report on Michael brown's death violates law [W: 209]

Wrong again you need to pay more attention.

We have no evidence of murder avialable most of the evidence is still under police control and they are not releasing it.

HE is innocent until proven guilty.

Even though it can go either way and I support justice if he was wrong the fact is that the very limited and sketchy evidence we have so far points to a justified shooting not murder.

No evidence supports the description you gave whatsoever.

It may be arguable that the african american GROWN ADULT Brown was surrendering and holding his hands up to do so but again the little evidence we have does not support that.

In addition no evidence whatsoever of any kind exists suggesting that he was LAYING DOWN when he was shot. IN fact every alleged witness on both sides of the argument disputes that as none have claimed he was in a prone position.

I will support the officers trial and conviction if evidence points to his guilt so far however what very little is known points to no such thing

I raised two boys and believe me I know, at 19 ... though he may have weighed 300 pounds he was a kid and nothing more.
Wrong.
He is considered innocent in the eyes of the law until he is proven guilty.
He well may be guilty now.
In my opinion he is.
Autopsy report states that the final and lethal shot entered the TOP of his head and lodged in the FRONT of his brain.
The other face shot entered and exited above the right eye socket, entered and exited his jaw and entered just above his collar bone.
Both shots are only consistent with a face down prone position.
 
Last edited:
re: ACLU: Ferguson police report on Michael brown's death violates law [W: 209]

Wrong. See point five above.

Uh point five above merely supports what I said he was shot while standing UNTIL he fell down.

He was not shot while in a proven prosition
 
re: ACLU: Ferguson police report on Michael brown's death violates law [W: 209]

I raised two boys and believe me I know, at 19 ... though he may have weighed 300 pounds he was a kid and nothing more.
Wrong.
He is considered innocent in the eyes of the law until he is proven guilty.
He well may be guilty now.
In my opinion he is.
Autopsy report states that the final and lethal shot entered the TOP of his head and lodged in the FRONT of his brain.
The other face shot entered and exited above the right eye socket, entered and exited his jaw and entered just above his collar bone.
Both shots are only consistent with a face down prone position.

He was a grown adult period your off spring included.

Not wrong.

The autopsy report is also consistent with a man running toward the gun and no witness of any kind claims he was shot while lying down.

He is innocent until proven guilty as all are despite your demand otherwise based on no evidence
 
re: ACLU: Ferguson police report on Michael brown's death violates law [W: 209]

Uh point five above merely supports what I said he was shot while standing UNTIL he fell down.

He was not shot while in a proven prosition

How can anyone be shot into the very top of their head, entering their brain and lodging at the front of the brain, if they are shot from the front?
Magic bullet?
 
re: ACLU: Ferguson police report on Michael brown's death violates law [W: 209]

1. The police released a video suggesting that Brown may have been involved in a cigar theft at a nearby convenience store. Later that day, the police chief admitted that Officer Wilson “had no knowledge of Brown as a suspect when he shot Brown.” (Source)
:doh
While you categorize it as suggesting, it was confirmed that that was him robbing the store.

And the initial contact with them had absolutely nothing to do with the robbery. It was telling the fools to get out of the street.
Only after did he become aware and reengage.


3. Last Friday, police chief Jackson released 19 pages of documents regarding the flimsy connection between Brown and the convenience store robbery. Journalists (and Brown’s lawyers) had requested information on the shooting itself and received nothing. “When pressed, however, Jackson said that Officer Wilson was not aware of the robbery reports when he stopped Brown, and that the confrontation between Wilson and Brown occurred because Brown and a friend were obstructing traffic by walking in the middle of the street.” (Source)
Your bias is shining through. There was no flimsy connection. And telling the fools to get out of the street was what the initial contact was about.
I can't believe that at this point in time you are trying to say it was a flimsy connect. It was him who robbed the store.


4. According to St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar, “the incident started when Brown physically assaulted the police officer, pushing him into the officer's vehicle. He said there was a struggle inside the car, and at some point Brown reached for the officer's weapon. One shot was fired inside the vehicle. Brown suffered fatal gunshot wounds outside of the vehicle, approximately 35 feet from the car.” This does not match any of the eye-witness reports, nor is there an official report from Wilson on the events. (Source)
Wow? Who said it doesn't match? Because it certainly does match what has been reported.
Even Dorian tells you there was a struggle and a gun shot at the vehicle.
It's like you don't pay attention to the evidence.


5. Five eye-witnesses have come forward; only two knew each other previously. All five stories are extremely similar. An altercation at the vehicle, single shot fired, followed by the two boys running away. Wilson exited the vehicle and pursued them, continuing to fire his weapon. Brown turned around with his hands up and Wilson shot until he was on the ground. (Source, source)
Wrong. Nothing reliable has been provided.
And as we know the first two reports were contrived and obvious lies, as shown by the autopsy. He was not shot in the back or execution style.
Anything after those two false reports, which align with those false reports, are also suspect as fabrications.





2. To assist in painting Brown as a criminal, a photo circulated depicting a young black man doing questionable things. Turns out, this was not Brown and was purposefully distributed by a Kansas City police officer. (Source)
To assist?
One isolated person. Get over it.
It was discovered early on that it was not thug Brown but another thug that had murdered his grandmother.
Irrelevant to the known evidence.


6. Who called in the event? Anonymous hacked the St. Louis County dispatch where confusion regarding the event is noted due to them discovering the event on the news. The dispatcher says, "We’re just getting information from the news, and we just called Ferguson back again and they don’t know anything about it." While this does not necessarily prove that Wilson did not report the event, it does bring up questions of why the Ferguson Police Department has been so close-lipped about this event. (Source)
Irrelevant to the known evidence.


7. Journalists have been assaulted, arrested, had guns pointed at them, threatened, shot with tear gas, shot with rubber bullets, and generally harassed. Perhaps they get a little overzealous at times, but documenting the events is not a crime. (Source)
Irrelevant to the known evidence.


8. While some of you might not think the situation is a big deal, it has attracted the attention of Amnesty International. They remarked that this event “was more akin to the organization’s work during the 2013 protests in Turkey than it was to any previous action the group has taken in the United States.” (Source)
AI is irrelevant in their own accord.
And especially irrelevant to the known evidence.
 
re: ACLU: Ferguson police report on Michael brown's death violates law [W: 209]

How can anyone be shot into the very top of their head, entering their brain and lodging at the front of the brain, if they are shot from the front?
Magic bullet?
How many times does it need to be explained to you?
Even the private examiners explained how it would occur.
 
re: ACLU: Ferguson police report on Michael brown's death violates law [W: 209]

He was a grown adult period your off spring included.
You don't know many nineteen year olds do you.




He is innocent until proven guilty as all are despite your demand otherwise based on no evidence
Absolutely false premise. Let a lawyer explain this concept to you;
Innocent until proven guilty?

Written by Steven Weir

Criminal Defense Attorney

Contributor Level 11

So, is a person "Innocent until proven guilty"?

No, NO, a thousand times NOOO!!!

I can't tell you the number of times I've heard the legal standard mistated in this way. Forget what your neighbor or your high school civics teacher said. Forget what you heard on TV. Nobody is ever innocent until proven guilty, either in real life, or in a real courtroom. And this isn't just a matter of semantics. It has real life implications. So let's start by understanding where the phrase comes from, and what it means in the real world.

The correct way of stating this principle is that an individual is PRESUMED innocent IN THE EYES OF THE LAW until such time as there is a finding of guilt by a judge or a jury. This is what is known as a "legal fiction". It is a way to treat people when we have not come to a point in time where we have enough information produced as admissible evidence in court to consider a person guilty of a crime, and it's time to make a determination of whether or not we think s/he is guilty. We assume, without regard to the actual truth, that the person is innocent, until such time that such a determination is made by the judge or a jury that the individual is indeed guilty. Then and only then are we supposed to treat the individual as guilty in the eyes of the law.
Innocent until proven guilty? - Avvo.com
 
re: ACLU: Ferguson police report on Michael brown's death violates law [W: 209]

Wrong. See point five above.
:doh
Eyewitness statement of events. Spontaneous even.



Brown doubled back and ran towards the Officer. This witness was surprised because he thought the Officer was missing Brown as he approached.
This witness does not indicate any activity that could even be described as surrendering.
And running towards the Officer is not indicative of someone surrendering.
 
Last edited:
re: ACLU: Ferguson police report on Michael brown's death violates law [W: 209]

The autopsy report is also consistent with a man running toward the gun and no witness of any kind claims he was shot while lying down.
There are no witness accounts that describe Brown as running towards Wilson with his head down.
That is an often repeated fabrication not based on any witnesses account of what they saw.
 
Last edited:
re: ACLU: Ferguson police report on Michael brown's death violates law [W: 209]

I raised two boys and believe me I know, at 19 ... though he may have weighed 300 pounds he was a kid and nothing more.

They can still be a clear danger to others. And are. Are you claiming that no 19 yr olds harm or kill other people?

Brown is recorded using his size and aggression to intimidate a shop owner.

We're not talking about their judgement here...we're talking about action. They do have the ability to act...and they do act.
 
re: ACLU: Ferguson police report on Michael brown's death violates law [W: 209]

There are no witness accounts that describe Brown as running towards Wilson with his head down.
That is an often repeated fabrication not based on any witnesses account of what they saw.
The post above yours shows that he was witnessed running towards the Officer.

As for what you are calling a fabrication, not.
It is hearsay evidence that has reportedly been confirmed from inside sources, as well as from 12 other witnesses.

Now you can call the bum-rushed claim officially unconfirmed at this point all you want. But not fabricated.
 
re: ACLU: Ferguson police report on Michael brown's death violates law [W: 209]

:doh
Eyewitness statement of events. Spontaneous even.



Brown doubled back and ran towards the Officer. This witness was surprised because he thought the Officer was missing Brown as he approached.
This witness does not indicate any activity that could even be described as surrendering.
And running towards the Officer is not indicative of someone surrendering.


"Witness" described Brown as coming towards the police. Never can he be heard to say running towards the police. Never can he be heard to say running towards the police with his head down.
That is a fabrication presented by those who are trying to explain how some one can be shot into the top of their head from ten yards away from the front...
BTW ...What is this "witnesses" name?
Do you believe he is prepared to testify?
 
re: ACLU: Ferguson police report on Michael brown's death violates law [W: 209]

A police report on the death of Michael Brown is missing key information and violates Missouri open records laws, an ACLU attorney told Yahoo news on Friday.

Read the article here: ACLU: Ferguson police report on Michael Brown's death violates law

Eventually all of the facts will come out because the ACLU will insist on that.

But the question right now is: what are the Ferguson police trying to hide?

Why would anyone think of believing a local report. You have to be very trusting, indeed.

The FBI should be mandated to do this type of investigation. Leaving it in the hands of locals undermines trust in police and government.
 
re: ACLU: Ferguson police report on Michael brown's death violates law [W: 209]

"Witness" described Brown as coming towards the police. Never can he be heard to say running towards the police. Never can he be heard to say running towards the police with his head down.
That is a fabrication presented by those who are trying to explain how some one can be shot into the top of their head from ten yards away from the front...
BTW ...What is this "witnesses" name?
Do you believe he is prepared to testify?
As usual, you are not paying attention.

@ 00:52
"Dude started running ... coming toward the Police."

I do not need to know his name.
Do you really think the police have not found him?
As for being prepared? Are you suggesting he should cower because he knows the black community may overreact like they did to the QuickTrip, and the liquor store that Brown robbed?
 
re: ACLU: Ferguson police report on Michael brown's death violates law [W: 209]

The misinformation flying around in this case is astounding. We've had it reported that this was an execution in the streets of a gentle giant to a cop with no choice but to shoot him dead.

And the worst part is it's the so called news media doing it. They will put absolutely anything out there.

That's not news. That's infotainment.
 
re: ACLU: Ferguson police report on Michael brown's death violates law [W: 209]

As usual, you are not paying attention.

@ 00:52
"Dude started running ... coming toward the Police."

I do not need to know his name.
Do you really think the police have not found him?
As for being prepared? Are you suggesting he should cower because he knows the black community may overreact like they did to the QuickTrip, and the liquor store that Brown robbed?

There is a lot of confusion and discussion at the beginning of this audio recording as to which way Brown is facing and where the cop was shooting from. There seems to be disbelief that the cop shot him because of the way he is facing.
You are quoting the screen text. Not what was said.
He said "Dude started running, then coming towards the police." To explain why he is facing the cruiser. He is described as running away earlier in the recording, but the confusion over who shot him persists.
The point was that this "witness" was explaining to his friend that Brown started running (away) ...then came towards the police (surrendering)
and the cop kept shooting. "Running" is street vernacular for trying to get away.
That's how I heard it.
The "..." in the screen text conveniently omits the key word "then" making it seem as though this "witness" is saying Brown was running towards the police.
He said nothing of the sort.
 
Last edited:
re: ACLU: Ferguson police report on Michael brown's death violates law [W: 209]

You don't have to assume anything.

All you have to do is take a look at the duplicitous report that the Ferguson police put out to see that there's a cover-up going on.

Eventually (At the trials maybe.) all of the facts will come out.

Hi! ShrubNose:

I debated this same topic at this thread and where I mentioned that ....
http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news-non-msm/202394-national-guard-called-ferguson-7.html

"When the officer fired his gun, he had to write an incident report and state why he used his weapon. This report would of been date and time stamped.
It is just normal procedure.
I am not thinking about what the ongoing investigations will show, I am thinking that the public is asking to see the report which must be completed before the officer left the police station and allowed to go home on the night of the shooting.
It is mandatory that the officer complete an incident report within hours of the shooting. The officer has no choice but to complete the report. It is the law.
I feel that the reason the statement has not been made public might well be because in order for the Blue Line to be effective within the police department, they needed to know the video and witness statements which were yet to be reviewed or interviewed.
I think that the officers statement will not hold any credibility now because the Blue Line interfered in the process right from the beginning."



At this moment in time and within the State of Missouri, the "System" itself is being challenged and the elected officials are playing to win at all costs.

The "Capitalist System" has always calculated that 15% of the population was to be "Discarded" as being "Unnecessary" and to be tossed onto the scrap heaps of history.

But anything above 15% unemployment .... the Security of the State begins to be challenged.

Calm
 
Last edited:
re: ACLU: Ferguson police report on Michael brown's death violates law [W: 209]

There is a lot of confusion and discussion at the beginning of this audio recording as to which way Brown is facing and where the cop was shooting from.
There is confusion in the moment as they do not understand how Brown was facing towards the Officer if he was running away.
That is all.

You are quoting the screen text. Not what was said.
I am quoting what he said. The ellipsis indicated the portion that can not be made out.

Now if you want to say that he is saying other than what we can clearly hear him saying. Get at it. Enhance, isolate and provide.


He said "Dude started running, then coming towards the police." To explain why he is facing the cruiser. He is described as running away at first.
No. That is not what it sounds like at all. Stop making things up.
It sounds more like he is saying "Then the dude started running, cept [except] for coming towards the police". Which makes far more sense considering what he had already said.


That's how I heard it.
I would suggest you get better ears.
 
Last edited:
re: ACLU: Ferguson police report on Michael brown's death violates law [W: 209]

"Witness" described Brown as coming towards the police.
That is a fabrication presented by those who are trying to explain how some one can be shot into the top of their head from ten yards away from the front...
BTW ...What is this "witnesses" name?
Do you believe he is prepared to testify?

Do you think this person has reason to lie? He doesn't know he's being recorded. He's telling his version of events without any coaching and to random people on the street. Absolutely no reason to lie.
And if you were him, would you come forward with a story that incriminates Brown and testify? Especially after threats written in graffiti, like, say, "Snitches get stitches"?
 
re: ACLU: Ferguson police report on Michael brown's death violates law [W: 209]

There is confusion in the moment as theydo not understand how Brown was facing towards the Officer if he was running away.
That is all.

I am quoting what he said. The ellipsis indicated the portion that can not be made out.

Now if you want to say that he is saying other than what we can clearly hear him saying. Get at it. Enhance, isolate and provide.


No. That is not what it sounds like at all. Stop making things up.
It sounds more like he is saying "Then the dude started running, cept [except] for coming towards the police". Which makes far more sense considering what he had already said.


I would suggest you get better ears.

Text over audio is an old trick employed to get people to think they heard something that they didn't.
At first such a ploy seems like a courtesy to help the listener to understand hard to hear passages.
The person at the source of the recording is obviously trying to make the case for Wilson, so I distrust anything that he typed.
"Running" in street vernacular indicates an attempt to get away. Running towards someone would be described as "rushing" not running, just as Excon has, from the football terminology ( rushing the quarterback).
The guy said, he was running, then coming towards the police, indicating Brown ran away then turned and came towards him, in a slow walk, not a run.
Neither this man nor anyone else ever described Brown as running towards Wilson with his head down.
Besides it makes no sense ...no one would rush with their head facing down when their destination was still over thirty feet away.
That posture may occur in the last few feet just before impact, but not at over thirty feet away.
No one would "rush" the shooter from thirty+ feet away after that shooter had just shot them. The only sensible thing for someone to do in that situation would be to surrender hands up and to lie down, face down to get them to stop shooting.
That is exactly what Brown was trying to do.
At that point, an out of control raging Wilson vengefully shot the prone, or near prone kid, twice IN THE HEAD.
The thought that an un-armed teen would run head long, face down towards someone who had already shot them four times from over thirty feet away is absurd fantasy.
It is a search, and a reach, for any scenario that could possibly justify a murder of an un-armed kid murdered in a blind rage.
It doesn't make sense because it didn't happen.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom