Ankh MautaBoard

Grenartia wrote:

I think I might be the start of the third gen, with the 2nd gen being the most experienced posters.

Probably. At times before and during your tenure in Excalibur, sometimes I expressing my wish to be involved again. But my non-English language clearly halting the progress, and suffice to say, now I am not that very wanting to be involved again.

Civilos wrote:

I'm a little confused by all the Ferguson stuff. Can someone please explain what even happened?

White Cop shoots unarmed black youth in a town with a very long history of racial tensions. As the law requires a Gand Jury was convened to determine what crime to charge the officer with,or if he should be charged at all. The Grand Jury is made up of 12 citizens, 9 of whom must come to a consensus and is supposed to be representative of the local population. The area in Ferguson is 66% Black. The Jury was 66% White. The Jury announced Monday that they'd voted not to charge the officer with any crime (To the surprise of no one), people set out to peacefully protest and were joined by *sshole whose sole goal was to cause a riot and loot free sh*t from local businesses. Whole thing is a clusterf*ck of clusterf*cks.

Civilos wrote:

Oh, okay. Now I see what all the hype is about.

It seems to me that the officer was in the wrong. Officers aren't supposed to shoot or anything until they feel threatened. If the guy was unarmed, the officer shouldn't have felt threatened enough to shoot him. Now, if the dude tried to start a fist fight or something, then the officer would've had to use his tazer or something else.

Ah, but that's the detail; the guy may have robbed a store slightly beforehand, and is thought to have assaulted the officer in his vehicle, trying to take his gun, before backing off. The officer did not have a stun gun, and had already been confronted with the lethal scenario of having his gun taken by his assailant. Then when the officer pursued to make an arrest, the guy (according to the officer) turned around and charged at the officer again, apparently with intent to harm. Since the fellow was significantly taller and bigger than the officer, the officer apparently felt his life threatened, and fired.

Astrolinium wrote:

However, all eye witness accounts other than the officer's say that the officer is full of sh*t and that Michael Brown was in no way aggressive -- which makes sense, as descriptions of his character given by those who knew him would not suggest a violent person. Also, autopsies have shown that the bullets fired were likely not fired from close range, and that the last of the bullets was fired into the top of his head, after several others being fired into his front -- suggesting that if he did charge Darren Wilson, it was after having already been shot five times, and the official photos taken of Darren Wilson (who, notably, did not file any sort of incident report) after the event do not show him to have any injuries. Additionally, the officer admitted that he had no knowledge that Michael Brown had potentially robbed a store -- anyway, the times don't match up and the thief on the video footage was wearing different clothes. Moreover, the crime of stealing a few cigarettes from a convenience store is not worthy of death.

Eh, depends how you look at them. I've heard witness accounts that say Brown was shot when his hands were up (not possible given the damage to his chest muscles at the time of shooting), witness accounts that say he was shot from behind (not borne out by the forensic evidence), witness accounts that say he ran towards the officer from about fifty feet away in a football charge (unlikely given the situation, plausible given forensics), witness accounts that say Brown attacked the officer (indeterminate, but borne out by accounts), witness accounts that say Wilson choked Brown (no forensics for that, but not severe, so possible, though unobserved), and many other shades of the scenario. To say that all eye witness accounts other than the officer agree isn't accurate.

One account says Brown turned towards the officer at a distance of ten steps, and hunched forwards. No mention of the position of his arms, and then shots were fired. One account says that from a distance of five to ten yards Brown turned back and "charged" towards Wilson, at which point Wilson began to fire, noting that Brown's hand went to the back of his waistband, a traditional trigger area for police training due to its association with concealed weapons. One account says Brown was twenty five feet away when he turned back towards Wilson, and held his hands out to the sides, not up, before walking towards Wilson, at which point the firing began. Another account said that Brown had his hands at his sides, and approached to about "six to ten feet" before the officer fired- which seems implausible given the forensics. The account that most contradicts Wilson's account is that of a friend, saying:

"I seen them shoot Michael Brown in the head as soon as the police officer exited his truck ... I seen my best friend in the middle of the street with his hands in the air and he said, "please don't shoot me." The officer got out of his car and shot him ... I seen him exit his car, shoot him in his head and then he shot him eight more times. It was four gunshots, and then there was a ten second pause, and then four more ... point blank range, like close ... like a step away ...

I would never lie. I wouldn't lie on my best friend."

Aside from the obvious conflict of interest due to relationships, the gunshot wounds except for the one on Brown's hand don't have gunpowder residue, and so couldn't have been fired at the "point blank range" described by the witness, as residue dissipates within around ten feet, not before. Even withstanding that evidence, the account is radically contradictory to those of the other witnesses.

As for the autopsies, the bullets are only known to have not been fired within that gunpowder dissipation range, forensically. It can be argued that they were fired from further than the twenty foot range described by witnesses, but there isn't much in the way of proof for that interpretation. As for the last of the bullets being fired into the top of his head, that's simply not an accurate representation of the bullet's trajectory; it did enter on the roof of the skull, towards the front of the apex, but the path traced through the brain in profile is down-right distinctly, indicating being fired from latitude forward of the skull. Standing upright, Brown's head could not have been shot at such a trajectory. Only if he was leaning forward, or falling forward, could just an angle have been traced. The trajectory angles of the other shots are similar; entering at the front of the body, and traveling down-right in relation to an upright posture, aside from the shot to the hand. This indicates that Brown was not in an upright posture when shot, but rather his body was tilted forward towards the officer at an angle approaching thirty degrees.

I haven't heard that Wilson was injured in any major way to justify shooting from a physical assault standpoint, so I agree with you on that point. Wilson certainly didn't look to have been battered in his post-confrontation examination, which can either be explained by the lack of a confrontation, or the fact that the confrontation was centered around Wilson's weapon, not actual battery. I have heard that Brown temporarily had control of his gun and pointed it into the officer's leg, with the supposed intent to fire. No witnesses have reported intricate knowledge of what happened in the car aside from a confrontation, so I can't say either way if Wilson's account of the struggle for the gun is true. It certainly would justify at least the contemplation of deadly force though, if Brown was attempting to take control of the lethal weapon and use it on Wilson.

To my knowledge, neither side argues that Wilson was confronting Brown for potential theft. Wilson said in his statement that, "I heard on the radio that there was a stealing in progress from the Ferguson Market on West Florissant. I heard a brief description of a black male with a black t-shirt. As I was driving out down Canfield westbound I observed two black males walking in the center of the roadway on the center yellow line." To me, that doesn't say that he thought those males were necessarily linked to the crime, but rather that he was on the lookout for someone who might be, and then found the two men walking in the middle of the street. Wilson cites not suspicion of robbery, but public order as his reason for pulling his car near them and asking them to get out of the middle of the street, to walk on the sidewalk. Only when the confrontation over where they were walking became violent did the whole hooplah start, not because Wilson tried to question them over a robbery or some such matter.

I don't think petty theft is grounds for summary execution either. But I do think self defense is justified if during the course of an altercation an assailant tries to take control of an officer's admittedly lethal weapon, and then after failing to flee turns to attack the officer again.

I should add as an addendum, Astro, that I think the prosecutor's conduct in this case was untoward. Wilson should have been indicted, due to the indeterminate nature of the case, as any ambiguity about the crime potentially having occurred should be enough for a grand jury. I simply don't think he behaved wrongly, based on the evidence, and so would have been acquitted of all charges regardless.

Nightkill the emperor wrote:

http://www.vocativ.com/culture/society/mcmass-project/

Is this the most American thing to have occurred?

Ehh. It's like someone actually made a parody of America.

Sure, I don't mind McDs as a chain.

And I'm as religious as the next bloke.

But combining the two to boost church attendance... doesn't strike me as the most inspired idea.

Still laughed my face off though.

Nightkill the emperor wrote:

http://www.vocativ.com/culture/society/mcmass-project/

Is this the most American thing to have occurred?

In the future, the Christian religion will use french fries and coke as the Eucharist, and Jesus will be worshipped alongside Ronald. *nods*

Nature-spirits wrote:

And so, the Crusades of the 21st century began. One man, possessed of preternatural abilities beyond the scope of most humans' understanding and filled to the brim with an unquenchable rage; pitted against Cardinal McDonald, an international entity with billions of devotees. Who will win this battle of wit and might? Find out next time on The Ballad of Norv: NationStates Edition.

Norv wins.

That's not even a f*cking question.

Reverend Norv wrote:

Over my dead body.

Same here.

Happy Tanksgiving, Ankh Mauta.

Also, is the forums broken for anyone else?

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone.

Went and saw Kurios (sp?), the show by Cirque du Soleil. Pretty good, could have done with skipping a couple scenes, didn't feel like there was much of a story.