Has anyone else seen reports of police threatening to shoot a reporter on the air unless they stopped filming?! I’ve seen references to this. and man, if so. Even if the cop is in the right, with everything I’ve heard about how the police have been handling things, I’m not surprised there’s skepticism…
In the most chilling incident on Sunday, police threatened to shoot Mustafa Hussein, a reporter who was filming for local Argus Radio.
“Get the fuck out of here! You get that light off or you’re getting shot with this!” the police shouted. The threat was captured on a livestream and was tweeted widely.
You gotta love the “filming for radio” thing though.
The audio track on actual radio broadcast and the full video on the station’s website. I don’t see how that’s unusual, weird or even funny. Unless you’re tickled by police overreach.
I guess you’re not amused by “A face made for radio career” type of joke either…
So, if Brown wasn’t shot in the back, then everything is totally kosher? Is that the line your peddling, here?
Is who peddling? Certainly not me.
I certainly think it would be MUCH more difficult for a shooting to be justified if a person was shot in the back from a distance. That seemed to be the claim made by some early witnesses. But that scenario now appears not to be supported by the physical evidence.
Unfortunately for any prosecutor that gets this case, Dorian Johnson’s statement has been discredited in part by this autopsy finding. As Johnson was apparently with Brown as the events unfolded, he was in position to provide an account of events that might differ from officer Wilson’s account. The mere fact that a portion of Johnson’s statement is contradicted by the physical evidence may tend to make a jury question the veracity of his truthfulness in other areas. Any decent defense attorney should raise the point.
However if, as it seems is the fact, Brown was shot from the front it still does not answer whether Brown was shot while attempting to surrender as has been claimed. If such a scenario is supported by the evidence and/or reliable testimony then a conviction could be supported in a court of law.
Well, it does sort of completely undermine the “cop shoots unarmed teen in the back because racism” narrative.
How about the “policeman shoots an unarmed teen more than six times because God knows why?” narrative?
Must we go through this every time a cop shoots someone? You shoot until the target stops moving.
The autopsy is not able to determine why the shooting happened. As the NYT article noted, Dr. Baden’s “information does not assign blame or justify the shooting.”
We are somewhat concerned that there be sufficient reason for killing someone. So, yeah, actually.
Quite my point, isn’t it? That the autopsy does not dispose of any narrative but the shooting in the back thing.
It’s the National Guard’s turn to step in.
The Highway Patrol officer has done a good job reaching out to the older, church people that had been protesting. Now they have to deal with the opportunistic thugs that just want to cause trouble. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are quite a few arrests in the next few days. Get those troublemakers off the streets and locked up.
It’s still quite dangerous. They don’t want this unrest spreading to other cities.
Yep. He made the exact same arguments as New Deal Democrat, right down to citing No Child Left Behind as (somehow) a “failure” of liberal policies to try and close the achievement gap. Further, in other threads, he praised FDR as his favorite president, and praised the New Deal in particular.
Heaven forbid people in other cities display outrage over the killing of their unarmed youth.
Do you count twitching as moving?
Doesn’t really do that either, since Dr. Baden did not have access to Michael Brown’s clothing. There is no entry wound on Brown’s body from the back; doesn’t necessarily mean no bullets were fired at his back, and doesn’t contradict testimony that Brown turned around after being “struck” from the back. Could have felt his clothing being hit.
The autopsy findings certainly don’t corroborate that Brown was struck from the rear, and it seems very unlikely that an examination of his clothing would do so either. But I don’t understand this idea that Dr. Baden’s findings were conclusive of anything other than the wounds themselves and which ones were fatal.
If you’re in a war, yes. If you’re trying to neutralize a threat from an unarmed person, not so much. One shot to the leg would have stopped him, if that was your intent. It could almost be understandable to shoot him if he was grappling with you or close enough to start doing so. But he was neither of these. He was shot six times from a distance, with intent to kill, for no justifiable reason.
And yet, for no good reason, you continue to use only one narrative - the “unarmed teen/murderous cop” one. As opposed to the “huge, violent man/terrified person shooting in self defence” narrative that fits the facts equally well.
As has been the case far too often on this board, we see a rush to assume someone is a murderer, not that they are trying to save their own life. This despite the fact (and it is a fact) that the vast majority of people are not only not murderers, but have a strong psychological aversion to killing, and would only do so if forced. Now, it’s possible that this cop was one of the rare people who didn’t have that, but assuming so without evidence is ridiculous.
Cops don’t shoot to “neutralize” or “stop”. They shoot to kill. A live target can still kill you back. That’s basic police doctrine everywhere, not just in Missouri.