Some More Cops Who Need to Be Fired

[Why am I Mr. Pink?]

Aside from the five days in November, Trump stayed at Mar-a-lago 16 days in December. He has returned for two weekends so far in February.

The sheriff's presidential detail is covered by overtime and doesn't compromise law enforcement for the rest of the county.

Donald Trump's visits to his South Florida estate since he was elected president have cost the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Department $1.5 million in overtime costs.

Sheriff Ric Bradshaw is confident the money his department has spent while assisting the Secret Service will be reimbursed by the federal government.

http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/President-Trumps-Mar-a-Lago-Visits-Cost-15-Million-in-Overtime-Pay-Sheriff-413706753.html

[Kosher Ham]

They wouldn't know where he was going if he didn't tell them. 

My point was not that he hasn't but that in the future...it will be barely. 

[Why am I Mr. Pink?]

Okay .... you win. 

[TradeTheBeal!]

Mike Brown was murdered...

 

http://www.theroot.com/everything-you-think-you-know-about-the-death-of-mike-b-1793261221

[twa]

By his own stupidity?

 

[TradeTheBeal!]

3 minutes ago, twa said:

By his own stupidity?

 

 

Youre thinking of Chris Kyle.

[twa]

1 minute ago, TryTheBeal! said:

 

Youre thinking of Chris Kyle.

 

Dat too.

[Gamebreaker]

1 hour ago, twa said:

By his own stupidity?

 

 

You obviously didn't read the link. 

 

This, like the Freddie Gray incident, is another case where the truth about what happened comes out years after the incident is forgotten, the protests and riots are over, and the perpetrators(cop/s) are sitting at home with zero accountability for their actions.  I can't wait to see another apologist say "hands up, don't shoot was a lie". 

Edited March 15, 2017 by Gamebreaker

[twa]

Just now, Gamebreaker said:

 

You obviously didn't read the link. 

 

I did, didn't bother with the 'new' video though.....don't care if he was a drug dealer. 

 

[Gamebreaker]

8 minutes ago, twa said:

 

I did, didn't bother with the 'new' video though.....don't care if he was a drug dealer. 

 

 

It less about him being a drug dealer, and more about the Ferguson police painting a false narrative and people eating it up like candy, simply because the police said so. 

[twa]

Just now, Gamebreaker said:

 

It less about him being a drug dealer, and more about the Ferguson police painting a false narrative and people eating it up like candy, simply because the police said so. 

 

Well I agree there is some false narrating going on....gotta make a few bucks off his dead ass. 

[Kosher Ham]

I want to delve further in this topic. However, I believe there is another thread about it. 

 

Let's start here though...

a criminal...

Doesn't matter at all if he sells drugs. 

ehhh... when black lives matter black, folks will stop killing each other over a few bucks. 

 

I was taught as a kid.. 1k is really nothing at the end of the day. 

 

Especially if you are hustling. 

Edited March 15, 2017 by Kosher Ham

[visionary]

The prosecutor's response to the video was pretty suspicious.  Definitely seemed like he was involved in a coverup and is now acting super defensive.

[grego]

i thought i was going to be talking about the air force guy who was getting out of his suv and the cop shoots him in the groin, mistaking his wallet for a gun, apparently. 

 

definitely ****ed up, and a trigger happy cop, imo. yet, the shooting was ruled legal. 

 

cant say ive heard anything new that leads me to believe that the brown shooting was not justifiable. if anything, calling him drug dealer instead of a thief is kind of ****ed up, (and if the video was edited to leave out the clerks putting the drink and stuff back on the shelves, that would be ****ed up), but ultimately doesnt appear to have any bearing on why he ended up dead, as far as i can tell (nor do i expect anyones mind to be changed by anything anyone posts here, and yes, i think zimmerman should have been found guilty of something, at the very least, and michael slager should be in jail for shooting walter scott,)

[Destino]

Wait, so Mike Brown did not reach for the cops gun?  I thought that was the justification for the shooting.  The officer also admits that Brown ran away but that the officer shot at him again.  These two points are certainly at odds with the narrative we heard initially.  

[grego]

13 minutes ago, Destino said:

Wait, so Mike Brown did not reach for the cops gun?  I thought that was the justification for the shooting.  The officer also admits that Brown ran away but that the officer shot at him again.  These two points are certainly at odds with the narrative we heard initially.  

 

i believe the wording was 'did brown try to remove your gun from your holster', not 'did he try to grab your gun'. i had read before that brown started to run, then stopped and came back at wilson. 

[twa]

Reach for is different than try to remove....perception, perception,perception.

[visionary]

 

[Gamebreaker]

If he is reaching for the gun, then he's trying to remove it from the holster. Stop trying to play the semantics game. If he actually reached for the gun, than he absolutely had an intention of removing it from the holster. He wasn't going to massage it.

 

The officer admitting he didn't try to remove the gun from his holster is also an admission he didn't reach for the gun. I swear to God some of you actually disengage your brains from common sense in order to reach the conclusions you guys come to.

 

Let's also conveniently ignore that the officer is changing parts of his story years later. It's no different than Freddie Gray, suppressed information comes out years later that changes things yet people who live by the "wait until all the facts come out" mantra seem to never change their minds.   

[grego]

46 minutes ago, Gamebreaker said:

If he is reaching for the gun, then he's trying to remove it from the holster. Stop trying to play the semantics game. If he actually reached for the gun, than he absolutely had an intention of removing it from the holster. He wasn't going to massage it.

 

The officer admitting he didn't try to remove the gun from his holster is also an admission he didn't reach for the gun. I swear to God some of you actually disengage your brains from common sense in order to reach the conclusions you guys come to.

 

Let's also conveniently ignore that the officer is changing parts of his story years later. It's no different than Freddie Gray, suppressed information comes out years later that changes things yet people who live by the "wait until all the facts come out" mantra seem to never change their minds.   

 

incorrect. 

 

reaching for the holster and reaching for the gun are two different things. (the question is phrased that way for a reason).

 

from the washington post-

 

"There was only other option he said he had. “I drew my gun…. He is standing here. I said, ‘Get back or I’m going to shoot you.’ He immediately grabs my gun and says, ‘you are too much of a p—- to shoot me.'” The men struggled for the gun, and Wilson pulled the trigger."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/11/25/why-darren-wilson-said-he-killed-michael-brown/?utm_term=.fb8c59686140

 

The physical evidence in the Michael Brown case supported the officer [updated with DNA evidence]-

 

"The ME found a tangential injury on Brown’s right thumb that traveled along the surface of the thumb — grand jury testimony Volume 3 (Sept. 9), page 114, line 12 etc. (hereafter cited by just page and line number).  The ME further explained that he saw what appeared to be “soot” in the wound, which was consistent with a shot from close range (116:22).  Indeed, based on his training and expertise, the ME thought that the soot would be indicative of the gun that fired the bullet causing the wound having been only 6 to 9 inches away (118:12). The soot was consistent with that discharged from a gun (122:13).  The official report from the Office of Medical Examiner later confirmed that “the previously described particles of foreign particulate matter are consistent with products that are discharged from the barrel of a firearm.”

The significance of this wound and related physical evidence is that it places Brown’s right hand within 6 to 9 inches of the barrel of Wilson’s firearm.  This physical evidence is thus quite consistent with Wilson’s testimony that Brown was trying to get hold of Wilson’s weapon, creating a fear in Wilson that he was going to get shot.  It also creates a problem for those who view Brown as having been somehow accosted by Wilson and was just trying to escape.  At least in the theories that I have seen sketched out, no explanation is offered for why Brown (who weighed around 300 pounds) had been forced by Wilson to have his right hand in a position where it was close to the gun  and inside Wilson’s police car."

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/28/the-physical-evidence-in-the-michael-brown-case-supported-the-officer/?utm_term=.8e6a912fb81c

Edited March 15, 2017 by grego

[NoCalMike]

36 minutes ago, Gamebreaker said:

 

 

The officer admitting he didn't try to remove the gun from his holster is also an admission he didn't reach for the gun. I swear to God some of you actually disengage your brains from common sense in order to reach the conclusions you guys come to.

 

 

Right andnd I think that is why this is so important because if you talk to most people who think the cop was in the right, the very first thing they will point to is "Michael Brown was reaching for the cop's gun" which now according to this testimony is 100% false........so why is this just now coming out?  For a couple years now all you have heard in this debate was "he reached for the cop's gun" 

 

It sounds like another example of a cop doing something questionable at the least and downright criminal in the worst case scenario, but being coached on how to describe the events in order to paint a picture of his life being in danger and be justified for his actions. Then the actual information needed is buried during the trial and only comes out way after the fact when it does no good.

[Gamebreaker]

47 minutes ago, grego said:

 

incorrect. 

 

reaching for the holster and reaching for the gun are two different things. (the question is phrased that way for a reason).

 

from the washington post-

 

"There was only other option he said he had. “I drew my gun…. He is standing here. I said, ‘Get back or I’m going to shoot you.’ He immediately grabs my gun and says, ‘you are too much of a p—- to shoot me.'” The men struggled for the gun, and Wilson pulled the trigger."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/11/25/why-darren-wilson-said-he-killed-michael-brown/?utm_term=.fb8c59686140

 

The physical evidence in the Michael Brown case supported the officer [updated with DNA evidence]-

 

"The ME found a tangential injury on Brown’s right thumb that traveled along the surface of the thumb — grand jury testimony Volume 3 (Sept. 9), page 114, line 12 etc. (hereafter cited by just page and line number).  The ME further explained that he saw what appeared to be “soot” in the wound, which was consistent with a shot from close range (116:22).  Indeed, based on his training and expertise, the ME thought that the soot would be indicative of the gun that fired the bullet causing the wound having been only 6 to 9 inches away (118:12). The soot was consistent with that discharged from a gun (122:13).  The official report from the Office of Medical Examiner later confirmed that “the previously described particles of foreign particulate matter are consistent with products that are discharged from the barrel of a firearm.”

The significance of this wound and related physical evidence is that it places Brown’s right hand within 6 to 9 inches of the barrel of Wilson’s firearm.  This physical evidence is thus quite consistent with Wilson’s testimony that Brown was trying to get hold of Wilson’s weapon, creating a fear in Wilson that he was going to get shot.  It also creates a problem for those who view Brown as having been somehow accosted by Wilson and was just trying to escape.  At least in the theories that I have seen sketched out, no explanation is offered for why Brown (who weighed around 300 pounds) had been forced by Wilson to have his right hand in a position where it was close to the gun  and inside Wilson’s police car."

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/28/the-physical-evidence-in-the-michael-brown-case-supported-the-officer/?utm_term=.8e6a912fb81c

 

Look at the link, the officer also admitted he grabbed Brown through the car window and he grabbed his forearm, not his clothes. It isn't out of the realm of possibility that in his struggle to get away from Wilson that his hand was briefly near his gun. And again, if his gun was in his holster and he admits Brown never tried to remove the gun from the holster, HE ISN'T GRABBING FOR THE GUN. 

 

What you linked and quoted has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. The quote you are talking about is consistent with the timeline of events that states Wilson fired his first shot at Brown while he was close to the vehicle, and then Brown ran. Nothing you've quoted contradicts what is being stated in the latest link. 

 

[grego]

 Here's whats going on. 

 

Browns attorneys are asking Wilson if Brown "tried to remove his gun from his holster". Wilson answered no. 

 

What Wilson wasn't asked was if Brown reached for his gun after Wilson drew it. (This is intentional, as it would incriminate Brown.)

 

What the author is seizing upon (and what's going on here) is one question about one specific part of the incident which favors Brown. In other words, Brown not trying to remove the gun "from his holster" doesn't mean he didn't try to remove the gun from Wilson's hand (which is what Wilson claims in the story above). 

 

Whether you try to grab an officers gun from his holster or his hand makes no difference when it comes to lethal force. 

 

Here is what the justice department found - 

 

A DETAILED REPORT

The Justice Department report details the encounter on Canfield Drive about noon Aug. 9 that began when Wilson drove up in a police SUV and told Brown and a companion to stop walking in the street.

It says bruises on Wilson’s jaw, scratches on his neck and the presence of Brown’s DNA on Wilson’s collar, shirt and pants help corroborate the officer’s claim that Brown reached into the vehicle and punched and grabbed him. The officer’s DNA was found on Brown’s palm. Forensic tests showed that the men struggled over Wilson’s pistol, and it went off.

Brown, wounded in the thumb, ran down the street with Wilson in foot pursuit and turned toward the officer before being shot six to eight times, the report says.

........ 

The document says Wilson had reason to be afraid of being disarmed, whether Brown had a weapon or not.

 

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/justice-department-finds-that-ferguson-officer-did-not-violate-michael/article_06cfab32-5fb1-59dc-bf47-5711ae36cd8a.html

[Gamebreaker]

Again I have to ask, grego, did you read the article in the link? Because you are speaking about just one aspect of what the whole article talks about. And you still haven't acknowledged that Wilson admitted he grabbed Brown from inside the vehicle. Not to mention admitting all the other stuff about in regards to his use of racist terms, etc,. 

[grego]

1 hour ago, Gamebreaker said:

Again I have to ask, grego, did you read the article in the link? Because you are speaking about just one aspect of what the whole article talks about. And you still haven't acknowledged that Wilson admitted he grabbed Brown from inside the vehicle. Not to mention admitting all the other stuff about in regards to his use of racist terms, etc,. 

 

Yes. 

 

Im not sure where we disagree (if we do). 

 

I was originally responding to destination (lol...... Destino - damn auto correct :)) , I believe, who took the quote about the holster to mean brown didn't reach for the gun (as others did as well, so it was a legitimate source of confusion), which wasn't true. Even the author was confused about it. He conflated "not reaching for the holster" to brown not reaching for Wilson's gun, which is a mistake, and an important aspect of the case. 

 

I wouldn't agree that grabbing brown from inside the vehicle doesn't mean the shooting was unjustified. 

 

As for the racial slur comments, I despise when people are racist and put it on display - a police officer, of all people, cannot be a racist and any one who is ought to be terminated. 

 

Edited March 15, 2017 by grego