• 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!

Attorney: New audio reveals pause in gunfire when Michael Brown was shot[W:72,732]

Just another piece of evidence that the Grand Jury will need to review. I still think it's premature to try to draw firm conclusions from snippets of information and evidence, some of which are in conflict. The Grand Jury will review everything that is available in its totality and a careful review is needed if one is to reach an accurate conclusion as to whether or not there is probable cause to proceed with a criminal trial. I remain unwilling to make a hasty judgment as to whether the police officer acted appropriately or whether he used excessive force. Given the extent of uncertainy, either outcome appears plausible.

From CNN regarding the reported audio:

It's difficult to prove from the audio why the pause took place or whose narrative it supports.

Lawyer: Audio shows pause in fire in Ferguson - CNN.com
 
Re: Attorney: New audio reveals pause in gunfire when Michael Brown was shot

Buck Ewer said:
Eleven shots eh?
That's not at all consistent with the four to six the police are saying...hmmmmmm
...I wonder why they would lie about a thing like that.
Click to expand...

More importantly - if the initial autopsy findings are still valid - he was hit six times. That's 5 bullets that missed the target and could have wound up in some innocent. Maybe giving cops guns with 15 round mags and access to rifles isn't such a hot idea.
 
Gaius46 said:
More importantly - if the initial autopsy findings are still valid - he was hit six times. That's 5 bullets that missed the target and could have wound up in some innocent. Maybe giving cops guns with 15 round mags and access to rifles isn't such a hot idea.
Click to expand...

Well to be fair the Cop had just been beaten by Michael Brown.

An eye injury and subsequent dizziness could have thrown off his aim a bit
 
Re: Attorney: New audio reveals pause in gunfire when Michael Brown was shot

Cryptic said:
So then Wilson's claim is something like:

- He tried to grab my weapon, I fired a shot while in the police car
- Brown retreated a good distance away
-For an unknown reason, he then suddenly initiates a banzai charge at me, despite the fact he can see my weapon and he knows I am willing to use it
-I shoot and wound him, temporarily stopping his charge
-He then struggles to get back up and resume the banzai charge
-I was still in fear for my life, so I killed him.

Brown was far more "Pillsbury Doughboy" than "The Incredible Hulk"- on PCP. If this is the fact pattern, getting a jury to buy Wilson's claim that this shoooting was truly needed is a huge stretch.
Click to expand...

Firstly, I never claimed my comments were Wilson's claim - I said they were my speculation.

Secondly, a 6'4", 300lb 18 year old who just minutes before robbed a store and assaulted the store clerk/owner is hardly a "Pillsbury Doughboy" regardless of those who wish to paint him as this angelic teddy bear.

Thirdly, if it is true that Brown struggled with Wilson for control of the officer's gun, there is no other interpretation available other than the officer was being threatened with potential death if Brown got the upper hand. And just to be clear, assaulting an officer and trying to take control of his weapon is a serious felony in most jurisdictions and it would be incredible if Wilson did not use necessary and potentially deadly force to stop and arrest Brown if he didn't willingly abide by the officer's orders.

Finally, once an officer uses his weapon, he is trained to keep shooting until the target is incapacitated - that could be dead or it could be sufficiently injured that the target is on the ground and stays on the ground. Officers are not trained to take warning shots.
 
Fenton said:
No, it supports the Officers story.

The " pause " was too short for Brown to stop, turn around, surrender with his hands up and drop to his knees.

Did you listen to the audio ?
Click to expand...

Yes I did. Did you listen to it with an open mind?
 
Fenton said:
No, it supports the Officers story.

The " pause " was too short for Brown to stop, turn around, surrender with his hands up and drop to his knees.

Did you listen to the audio ?
Click to expand...

Especially true while believeing it took Brown 5 minutes to run 35 feet. :roll:
 
Re: Attorney: New audio reveals pause in gunfire when Michael Brown was shot

Gaius46 said:
More importantly - if the initial autopsy findings are still valid - he was hit six times. That's 5 bullets that missed the target and could have wound up in some innocent. Maybe giving cops guns with 15 round mags and access to rifles isn't such a hot idea.
Click to expand...

If the officer's story is credible, at least 11 rounds were necessary to fully incapacitate Brown. Are you prepared to have officer's risk their lives in the line of duty simply because you judge they should be better shots or more economical with ammo?
 
Re: Attorney: New audio reveals pause in gunfire when Michael Brown was shot

CanadaJohn said:
If the officer's story is credible, at least 11 rounds were necessary to fully incapacitate Brown. Are you prepared to have officer's risk their lives in the line of duty simply because you judge they should be better shots or more economical with ammo?
Click to expand...

Frankly yes CJ. The officer's safety is never at the expense of the general population as far as I'm concerned.
 
Re: Attorney: New audio reveals pause in gunfire when Michael Brown was shot

Gaius46 said:
Frankly yes CJ. The officer's safety is never at the expense of the general population as far as I'm concerned.
Click to expand...

Well, then here we disagree. No officer uses his weapon "at the expense of the general population" but on occasion in an officer's career the use of their weapon is the difference between them living past the situation or not. I would never want to send any employee of mine - and I consider all government employees to be employees of mine - out on the job without the highest possible regard for their personal safety in the performance of their duties. And I'd like to see some documented evidence, if you have it, where police use of their weapons has caused injury or death to any innocent member of the general population. I know of incidents where innocents have been hurt and even been killed by criminal gunfire during a pursuit or confrontation, but not of a police officer causing it.
 
Re: Attorney: New audio reveals pause in gunfire when Michael Brown was shot

CanadaJohn said:
Firstly, I never claimed my comments were Wilson's claim - I said they were my speculation.
Click to expand...

I understand that. To my knowledge Wilson has not made any statements about what happened.
CanadaJohn said:
Secondly, a 6'4", 300lb 18 year old who just minutes before robbed a store and assaulted the store clerk/owner is hardly a "Pillsbury Doughboy" regardless of those who wish to paint him as this angelic teddy bear.
Click to expand...

True- Brown is not the "Gentle Giant" of legend and lore. His rap lyrics also suggest sexual dominance over women.

Even with the fact that he had recently assaulted a store clerk, I think it is going to be a stretch to say that Brown then made what?- two banzai charges against an armed opponent, and that he remained so dangerous after being wounded, he needed to be put down- again.

Sure, the "double banzai charge, incredibly dangerous even when wounded" scenario could have happened. Likewise, it is possible, that an officer could decide to murder somebody he has stopped.

In short, both the:
A. double banzai charge to the death possibility and
B. a hypothetical officer tried to murder me during the traffic stop possibility are pretty extraordinary.

For me, both would need something besides "my word alone proves this is what happened" to make them credible. In the actual case of Wilson, the additional proof could be that Brown had a penchant for "to the death" assaults, he was on PCP, he was on a "roid rage" etc.

So far though, there appears to be nothing else to support the shooting other than the word of the shooter. For me, this is not good enough in this case.
 
Last edited:
Re: Attorney: New audio reveals pause in gunfire when Michael Brown was shot

Cryptic said:
I understand that. To my knowledge Wilson has not made any statements about what happened.

True- Brown is not the "Gentle Giant" of legend and lore. His rap lyrics also suggest sexual dominance over women.

Even with the fact that he had recently assaulted a store clerk, I think it is going to be a stretch to say that Brown then made what?- two banzai charges against an armed opponent, and that he remained so dangerous after being wounded, he needed to be put down- again.

Sure, the "double banzai charge, incredibly dangerous even when wounded" scenario could have happened. Likewise, it is possible, that the officer drew a weapon and attempted to kill Brown for simply refusing his order to get out of the street. Brown could have just been defending himself by trying to grab the weapon.

In short both the double banzai charge to the death possibility and an officer tried to murder me possibility are pretty extraordinary. For me, both would need something besides "my word alone says this is so" to make them credible.

In the case of Wilson, the additional proof could be that Brown had a penchant for "to the death" BANzai charges, he was on PCP, he was on a "roid rage" etc. So far though, there appears to be nothing else to support the shooting other than the word of the shooter. For me, this is not good enough in this case.


If this is Wilsons claim (and I understand the "if", he is toast.

Basically, there needs to be something besides the officers word alone to justify this shooting. It would be the same if



No- deadly force is authorized only of
Click to expand...

Absolutely, evidence presented in a court is the only "truth" we can rely upon in this situation. However, the credibility of the officer, in most cases, is a given when there is no contradictory evidence presented or available. Rightly or wrongly, Brown's position loses significant credibility if mere moments before his death he was involved in a store robbery and assault of the clerk/owner. Jurors will normally look at what would reasonably be the frame of mind of the two individuals involved and circumstances in the immediate time frame will be important to them. It would be just as relevant if Officer Wilson moments before had a run in with another black youth who gave him lip and got away - that could speak to his frame of mind. But actual, physical evidence will be key.
 
Re: Attorney: New audio reveals pause in gunfire when Michael Brown was shot

CanadaJohn said:
Well, then here we disagree. No officer uses his weapon "at the expense of the general population" but on occasion in an officer's career the use of their weapon is the difference between them living past the situation or not. I would never want to send any employee of mine - and I consider all government employees to be employees of mine - out on the job without the highest possible regard for their personal safety in the performance of their duties. And I'd like to see some documented evidence, if you have it, where police use of their weapons has caused injury or death to any innocent member of the general population. I know of incidents where innocents have been hurt and even been killed by criminal gunfire during a pursuit or confrontation, but not of a police officer causing it.
Click to expand...

Fall 2013. Police in Times Square New York fired shots at an unarmed man who was acting erratically and who they thought was armed. Two rounds missed and hit two bystanders. Both were hospitalized but neither was seriously injured.

2011 or 2012 - Again near the Empire State Building. During a shoot out with a gunman two cops fired something like 15 rounds and hit 9 bystanders. All the bystanders were hit by police bullets.

It does happen.
 
opendebate said:
Yes I did. Did you listen to it with an open mind?
Click to expand...

Does having an " open mind " mean that I have to ignore the constraints of what is humanly possible ?

Or the constraints of the space time continuum ?

Because there was not enough time for him to stop, turn around, surrender and drop to his knees. You know this
 
Fenton said:
Does having an " open mind " mean that I have to ignore the constraints of what is humanly possible ?

Or the constraints of the space time continuum ?

Because there was not enough time for him to stop, turn around, surrender and drop to his knees. You know this
Click to expand...

You mean like Brown turning to taunt Wilson before charging, daring him to shoot a gun he's already fired?
 
Tettsuo said:
You mean like Brown turning to taunt Wilson before charging, daring him to shoot a gun he's already fired?
Click to expand...

Yes, this has never happened... :roll:
 
Tettsuo said:
You mean like Brown turning to taunt Wilson before charging, daring him to shoot a gun he's already fired?
Click to expand...

The taunting could have happened before the first round of shots were fired.

Why would Brown say " you aint gonna shoot me " after the cop already fired 6 shots ?
 
Re: Attorney: New audio reveals pause in gunfire when Michael Brown was shot

CanadaJohn said:
Absolutely, evidence presented in a court is the only "truth" we can rely upon in this situation. However, the credibility of the officer, in most cases, is a given when there is no contradictory evidence presented or available.
Click to expand...

I agree, in most cases, an officer should be presumed credible unless there reasons to believe otherwise. At the same time, the more "could haves / might haves" in the claim, even an officer's claim, the more need for additional physical evidence.

In this case, there seems to be string of "could haves":
-he could have initiated an attack on me (in car)
-non lethal force might not have stopped him
-he could have then initiated one or more to the death banzai charges
-he could be incredibly dangerous, even when wounded
-he could have closed the distance seperating us before I could use other options besides lethal force

I can give the officer 1 or more "could haves". But, it appears he is asking for 5. To me, this makes the officer's claim extraordinary- even given the fact that Brown is not a "Gentle Giant" and was probably pumped up after "slapping down" the clerk.

Who has the burden of proof? Must Wilson show that the shooting was jusified? If so, I think there are too many "could haves" for him to prove the shooting was justified by his word alone. Wilson must change some "could haves" into "probably dids" with physical evidence. I dont think he can do this.
 
Last edited:
Cryptic said:
I agree, in most cases, an officer should be presumed credible unless there reasons to believe otherwise. At the same time, the more "could haves / might haves" in the claim, even an officer's claim, the more need for additional physical evidence.

In this case, there seems to be string of "could haves":
-he could have initiated an attack on me (in car)
-non lethal force might not have stopped him
-he could have then initiated one or more to the death banzai charges
-he could be incredibly dangerous, even when wounded
-he could have closed the distance seperating us before I could use other options besides lethal force

I can give the officer 1 or more "could haves". But, it appears he is asking for 5. To me, this makes the officer's claim extraordinary- even given the fact that Brown is not a "Gentle Giant" and was probably pumped up after "slapping down" the clerk.

Who has the burden of proof? Must Wilson show that the shooting was jusified? If so, I think there are too many "could haves" for him to prove the shooting was justified by his word alone. Wilson must change some "could haves" into "probably dids" with physical evidence. I dont think he can do this.
Click to expand...

Your line of reasoning seems a little arbitrary if you catch my drift.

A little subjective.
 
Re: Attorney: New audio reveals pause in gunfire when Michael Brown was shot

Cryptic said:
I agree, in most cases, an officer should be presumed credible unless there reasons to believe otherwise. At the same time, the more "could haves / might haves" in the claim, even an officer's claim, the more need for additional physical evidence.

In this case, there seems to be string of "could haves":
-he could have initiated an attack on me (in car)
-non lethal force might not have stopped him
-he could have then initiated one or more to the death banzai charges
-he could be incredibly dangerous, even when wounded
-he could have closed the distance seperating us before I could use other options besides lethal force

I can give the officer 1 or more "could haves". But, it appears he is asking for 5. To me, this makes the officer's claim extraordinary- even given the fact that Brown is not a "Gentle Giant" and was probably pumped up after "slapping down" the clerk.

Who has the burden of proof? Must Wilson show that the shooting was jusified? If so, I think there are too many "could haves" for him to prove the shooting was justified by his word alone. Wilson must change some "could haves" into "probably dids" with physical evidence. I dont think he can do this.
Click to expand...


but you are forgetting one important fact

Wilson doesnt have to prove innocence

the prosecution has to prove guilt

too many have jumped to conclusions on both sides of the equation

i still say we dont know a quarter of the "facts" in the case
 
Re: Attorney: New audio reveals pause in gunfire when Michael Brown was shot

CanadaJohn said:
So, your "plausible" alternate scenario would be that at least 5 of the first 6 shots missed Brown, Brown then lay on the ground surrendering, and Wilson moved closer and shot him 5 more times, all hits, but the majority into Brown's right arm, and the shot into the top of his head is explained how?
Click to expand...
He was falling forward onto the street.
The angle described by the forensic team would indicate he had to be face down on the street, or very near to it, when the last shot was fired into the very top of his skull.
 
Re: Attorney: New audio reveals pause in gunfire when Michael Brown was shot

jmotivator said:
He's hitting on someone who he thinks is hot and has videos. I just figure that he comes off as phony because he's their customer.

My guess is that there is accompanying video to this audio that couldn't be shown on CNN. :lol:
Click to expand...
We don't know. He could have been wearing headphones ... that could be why he never reacted to the gunshots.
I'll bet the video is funny to watch though.
 
Re: Attorney: New audio reveals pause in gunfire when Michael Brown was shot

gdgyva said:
but you are forgetting one important fact

Wilson doesnt have to prove innocence

the prosecution has to prove guilt
Click to expand...
I am going off on a limb here. Turle Dove may be able to flesh this out better, and I might just be plain wrong:

Administratively, Wilson might have to prove that the shooting was justified. If he can't, then he can get fired etc. If the shooting was not justified, then it might also be a crime.

Technically, the burden of proof is on the proscecutor to prove that not only was the shooting not justified, but that Wilson is also guilty of a criminal act.

But.... many jurors may well presume that if Wilson cant show the shooting was justified administratively, then he is automatically guilty of a crime. They may even presume and apply that presumption despite judges instructions to the contrary.
 
Last edited:
Re: Attorney: New audio reveals pause in gunfire when Michael Brown was shot

shrubnose said:
Like I said, how can anyone really know what happened if they weren't an eyewitness?
Click to expand...
But of course ...there were.
Four of them.
 
Excon said:
Attorney: New audio reveals pause in gunfire when Michael Brown was shot

By Holly Yan, CNN
updated 12:36 AM EDT, Tue August 26, 2014


[...]

In the recording, a quick series of shots can be heard, followed by a pause and then another quick succession of shots.

"I personally heard at least 11" shots, the man's attorney, Lopa Blumenthal, told CNN's Don Lemon.

The man, who asked that his identity not be revealed, lives near the site of the shooting and was close enough to have heard the gunshots, Blumenthal said.

He was speaking to a friend on a video chat service and happened to be recording the conversation at the same time Brown was shot, Blumenthal said.

[...]​
Lawyer: Audio shows 11 shots when Michael Brown killed - CNN.com​


11 Shots in 5 seconds.
Short pause between 6 and the other five. Likely Brown was still coming at him.
Just more evidence.
Click to expand...



I wonder if any of those "shots" heard on the recording is an echo?

I once covered a police shooting incident in Vancouver where a video tape recorded 39 shots. There were no hits.

An independent examiner found that there were 9 shell casings accounted for and eleven bullets from the assigned amount that were missing, two were later determined to have been expended in a test fire on the range.

I do not ay this is the case here, in fact I here several distinct shots.

In any event, what this will do is further the divide between the citizens and the police, further cast doubt on their integrity seriously harking their ability to serve and protect.

They so need an independent investigation, all that need happen is the State Attorney general name a good judge, preferably half white and be done with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom