So the policeman DID act in self defence after all.

Don't know if anyone as been following the events in America, where a giant of a man (but still only 18 years old) robbed a store, created a nuisance in the road and traffic, assaulted a policeman and got shot dead when he tried to attack him again - yet because he was black and the policeman white, the neighbourhood rioted - and for several days afterwards too.

Well the policeman has been exonerated - it was found that he did his job correctly.

So they rioted again!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-30193354

What is the world coming too?

Even if the Wilson's version of events is entirely accurate why shoot 12 times? Do you think that's reasonable?

The debates are a much wider issue to do with the number of times black Americans (often children) are shot dead by white police officers when they're unarmed.

The riots are a shame as it damages local businesses but there are very deep lying issues there which need to be addressed and are continually brushed aside.

bwfc1874 wrote:Even if the Wilson's version of events is entirely accurate why shoot 12 times? Do you think that's reasonable?

The debates are a much wider issue to do with the number of times black Americans (often children) are shot dead by white police officers when they're unarmed.

The riots are a shame as it damages local businesses but there are very deep lying issues there which need to be addressed and are continually brushed aside.

Seems those of whom who have examined what went on believed it was justified otherwise they would have indited him.

As for deep lying issues - I'm sure there are - but seeing a black american is currently the president of the country and is in his second term of office, then I would suggest that these issues have more than just one side to them.

Those of whom examined what went on was a grand jury of 12 ordinary citizens, 9 of whom are white.

The witness says the police version of events is bollocks. The medical reports show a few small marks on Wilson's face, nothing to suggest his life was threatened or that he was really assaulted, in fact it's far more consistent with the 'tug of war' put forward by the witness. There is a long history of white police officers killing unarmed black youths (Tamir Rice was a 12 year old shot dead in Tulsa yesterday - he had a plastic toy gun). Wilson shot 12 times, completely unreasonable amount of force and if he's not going to stand trial then the justice system in Missouri needs reexamining.

I don't know if the police officer is guilty or not, but common sense says if you shoot somebody 12 times then you were trying to kill them. As he was unarmed that sounds like unreasonable force to me, but it should be up to a court to decide.

bwfc1874 wrote:I don't know if the police officer is guilty or not, but common sense says if you shoot somebody 12 times then you were trying to kill them. As he was unarmed that sounds like unreasonable force to me, but it should be up to a court to decide.

Might be common sense to you but I would have thought the policeman may have fired several 'warning' shots, rather than aim to kill with all twelve bullets?

He's a very bad shot if it took him 12 goes to stop him dead I would have thought - wouldn't it you?

bwfc1874 wrote:Those of whom examined what went on was a grand jury of 12 ordinary citizens, 9 of whom are white.

We have jury's of 12 people who listen to the evidence - not much difference in the way our justice system works I would suggest.

bwfc1874 wrote:The witness says the police version of events is bollocks.

Really?

There have been a number of unofficial statements detailing Mr Wilson's version of events in the media, including the description given to a local radio station by a woman who identified herself as "Josie".

According to Josie, when Mr Wilson tried to get out of his car, Brown pushed him back in, and punched him in the face. Mr Wilson reached for his gun, but Brown grabbed it. When Mr Wilson pushed Brown away, the gun went off inside the car.

Josie said Brown then ran off and taunted Mr Wilson when he told the teenager to freeze. Brown then rushed at the officer at full speed, which is when he was shot dead.

CNN has reported that Josie's account matches with the account given by Mr Wilson to the St Louis grand jury.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-28841715

Unnamed witness 1

He was working in a nearby building and saw Mr Brown leaning through the police car window and "some sort of confrontation was taking place".

He said a shot rang out and Mr Brown fled as the officer chased him with his gun drawn.

The witness said Mr Brown stopped and turned but never raised his hands. He said Mr Brown "ran towards the officer full charge". The officer then fired several shots but Mr Brown kept rushing toward him.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-30189966

Sluffy wrote:Might be common sense to you but I would have thought the policeman may have fired several 'warning' shots, rather than aim to kill with all twelve bullets?

Where have you read about the warning shots then? I'm yet to read a report involving them.

We have jury's of 12 people who listen to the evidence - not much difference in the way our justice system works I would suggest.

We have jurys that hear an entire trial, this isn't going to get that far, see the difference?

bwfc1874 wrote:The witness says the police version of events is bollocks.

Really?

Yes really - 

As the two wrestled, Mr Johnson said he heard Mr Wilson say: "I'll shoot." He said he never saw Mr Brown punch Mr Wilson and did not think he grabbed the officer's gun.

Granted it's his friend that's said that so take it with a pinch of salt but given all of the mistakes listed in the article below, do you not think there are questions that need answering? Rather than trying to brush it under the carpet and wait for the next time this happens?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/25/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-mistakes_n_6220814.html

bwfc1874 wrote:
Where have you read about the warning shots then? I'm yet to read a report involving them.

Same place where you read that all the 12 shots were aimed to kill.

bwfc1874 wrote:
We have jurys that hear an entire trial, this isn't going to get that far, see the difference?

The grand jury examined all the evidence and weighed up the possibility of the officers guilt.

They questioned all the experts in the case.

Their conclusuon was that there was no case to answer.

The state prosecuter has the powers to over rule and prosecute anyway if he believed differently.

He didn't.

bwfc1874 wrote:
Granted it's his friend that's said that so take it with a pinch of salt but given all of the mistakes listed in the article below, do you not think there are questions that need answering? Rather than trying to brush it under the carpet and wait for the next time this happens?

Brush what under the carpet?

There is no case to answer.

It's not me saying that, it's the grand jury on the case who have examined all the facts.

Unless of course you know better than they do?

I'd be interested to hear why Brown was left lying in the streets for 4 hours afterwards. there was a statistic published that says young black males are 21 times more likely to be killed or arrested in the United States than their white counterpart. Tamir Rice as mentioned earlier, was a 12 year old boy with a plastic gun. The 911 report said "It is probably a toy gun but people are scared." The police car drove up to with 2 feet of the little boy at speed and 10 seconds later he was dead. Compare that to the obviously adult white man who pointed a gun at the police and 30 minutes later he was disarmed and arrested without a shot being fired. Racism is alive and well in the US and the primary targets are black. This does not excuse the behaviour of Michael Brown who committed a crime but the treatment of people who break the law should be uniform.

One witness' recount: "Wilson then chased Brown for about 20 feet before shooting him again. "I saw the police chase him ... down the street and shoot him down. When Brown then raised his arms, the officer shot him two more times, killing him."

Brown was unarmed when he was shot in the back to prevent him from fleeing. He then raised his arms in the air while no longer moving and was shot twice more. Where was the justification in that? This verdict was bullshit. The rioting is, by and large, being used to create opportunity for further illegal acts of theft and vandalism but the protests are valid.

I have followed this case with some interest and I still for the life of me can't understand why the officer had to fire 12 rounds. Surely the first bullet would have been enough to incapacitate Brown? I would like to know how many of the 12 bullets discharged were recovered from Browns body. 12 shots fired doesn't sound like self defence to me.
Brown may have been a hulking thug but surely the officers response has to be proportionate to the threat? Why didn't he use his tazer?
I was surprised to hear the the grand jury found no case to answer! Only in America! If this had happened in the UK, the IPCC would have been all over it like a ton of bricks.

I saw a chart with all the different witness accounts showing all the various questions.

like "did he have his hands up?" "did he charge?" "did he run away"

and the answers were absolutely all over the place. 

The officer himself (I think) said the first shot he took was a kill shot to the head, so I don't know why he needed 11 more shots to make sure. Worrying that something like that could be deemed rational behaviour, but when guns are on the streets who can say whats rational after that.

Sluffy wrote:Same place where you read that all the 12 shots were aimed to kill.

I never said all of his shots aimed to kill, but shooting 12 times does imply only one thing. He never mentioned warning shots in his statement so I was asking what made you come to that conclusion?

Sluffy wrote:Brush what under the carpet?

There is no case to answer.

It's not me saying that, it's the grand jury on the case who have examined all the facts.

Unless of course you know better than they do?

So by your logic this decision must be correct because it's gone through the correct channels? That's naive in the extreme.

The issues with using a grand jury as preliminary are well established in America hence the majority of states don't use them, grand jurys almost always indict normal civilians, but rarely members of the police force.

There are no prosecutors addressed by the grand jury,and no judge present. The laws explained to the jurors and they must have a 9 to 12 majority to make a decision.

This should have had a trial so all of the facts and testimonies could be properly heard. Instead they've skipped the entire trial and 12 citizens have let him off with plenty of questions unanswered.

That's why there's protests and had this been a white kid shot you're deluded if you don't think the reaction would be entirely different.

On my way out so can't add much to the debate right now but a few things in reply.

Warning shots - go back and read what I originally posted.

I never said he did. I did say however if he shot to kill 12 times - he really is a crap at shooting.

Going through the correct channels - I'm naive in the extreme in believing people should go through the democratic (and legal) systems and procedures?

Somehow I don't think so.

Sluffy wrote:Going through the correct channels - I'm naive in the extreme in believing people should go through the democratic (and legal) systems and procedures?

Somehow I don't think so.

Don't know how you've managed to interpret my comments this way. I think you're naive to assume that the decision is the correct one purely because it was made by the grand jury.

All yanks are gun toting cowboys at heart!!
It's in their jeans!!!

Brown was shot 2 times in his head, once in the neck and the rest in his torso and arms. The Officer wasn't a bad shot.

Check this out

So clearly not shot in the back and apparently not whilst his arms were in the air judging by the entry points shown on the autopsy.

At a guess, and it is no more than this, the officer panicked when Brown attacked him and kept on firing until he ran out of bullets.

The wounds illustrated in my link are 6 out of 12 that Brown got. Brown was shot twice when he ran off and at least once before he ran. After being hit the third time, he turned around and got the rest. From distance, while unarmed.

Keegan wrote:The wounds illustrated in my link are 6 out of 12 that Brown got. Brown was shot twice when he ran off and at least once before he ran. After being hit the third time, he turned around and got the rest. From distance, while unarmed.

That's not what it says in the link you posted. It says:

An independent autopsy conducted Sunday showed Michael Brown, the unarmed black teenager killed by a white cop in a St. Louis suburb, was shot six times, including twice in the head.

The autopsy performed by famed forensic pathologist Dr. Michael Baden at the request of Brown’s family also showed all the bullets struck the teen from the front, the New York Times reported.

One shot hit him in the top of the head, indicating he was bent forward, said Baden, though he declined to draw a conclusion about the position.

xmiles wrote:So clearly not shot in the back and apparently not whilst his arms were in the air judging by the entry points shown on the autopsy.

At a guess, and it is no more than this, the officer panicked when Brown attacked him and kept on firing until he ran out of bullets.

I think that's a fair assumption to make, but it should be decided at a trial.