<p>LasMa, I have stumbled into a possible answer to your question. But I don’t feel like sitting here all day getting beaten up about it, either. So, I’ll give you the short version and call it a day. A friend of the cop is claiming that Brown at 35 feet away was ordered to “Freeze” but instead he charged the officer. The officer also suspected he was on something. I don’t know what forensics and toxicology will make of it and I am not saying it’s true or that I believe it so don’t start that again, please. But, it is out there and could be used to explain shooting from the front. I think that was your question.</p>
<p>If I read the article correctly that someone posted, four shots were fired by the officer, at least one coming from inside the SUV. </p>
<p>It also mentioned that the results of the autopsy will NOT be released to the public. </p>
<p>Was the cop present at the time of the shooting? Or was called in after the Mike Brown was shot?</p>
<p>That’s a lot of “ifs” bus driver. Has there been any evidence that MB used drugs, or was high at the time of the incident? I know that there is a tendency by many Americans to believe black men are more inclined toward drug use than whites, but actual statistics indicate that recreational drug use is roughly even between the black and white populations. Meth Amphetamines, however, are more often made, distributed, and used by whites. I’m sure the autopsy of Brown will include a toxicology report, at which time we will know definitively whether or not he was high at the time of the incident.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As I see it, there were two phases of the incident. The first phase was the scuffle at the police car. We don’t know, and may never know, what was said, although one account says that the cop used the “F” word right off the bat. We may never know whether Brown was actually lunging for the cop’s sidearm. We do know – and importantly, the officer knew – that Brown didn’t get the gun.</p>
<p>The second phase is when Brown starts running and the officer starts shooting. There are many witnesses to that phase, and their accounts are remarkably consistent.</p>
<p>If Brown was high, that might have affected aggression toward the cop during the first, non-fatal phase. Brown’s drug status is irrelevant to the officer’s aggression toward Brown during the second phase. And it was the second phase that ended in Brown’s death.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Another factor which needs to be weighed is the culture within Ferguson’s PD, especially considering its officers have had a past history of lying in court to justify holding a Black man they arrested by mistake and then brutally beating him while in their custody. </p>
<p>Consolation and I posted the article which discussed that a few times on this thread to underscore the fact Ferguson PD has some serious credibility issues regarding race relations and honesty even in court proceedings. </p>
<p>And I’m wondering … is the cop authorized to shoot Brown during Phase 2 if he has reason to believe (or knows…) that Brown is a fleeing, active felon? Any attorneys on here?</p>
<p>TonyK, I wonder how it will even be possible for the autopsy results (especially, if the family of Michael Brown also have one performed independently) to be kept from the public. The Freedom of Information Act alone should make such evidence publicly available, especially given how high profile this case has become. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hmm, interesting. So the claim is that Brown was rushing the officer when the officer starting pumping bullets into the front of his body. If that were true, and especially if Brown were brandishing a gun or a knife, I think the officer would definitely be justified in shooting – although a well-trained officer would have shot at Brown’s legs to disable, which would have been just as effective as shooting at his head and chest to kill. And of course, we know that Brown could not possibly have been brandishing a weapon, because he didn’t have one.</p>
<p>Just one problem with that theory. It’s wildly inconsistent with every single eyewitness account out there.</p>
<p>Of course, there will be another problem if the autopsy shows that Brown’s arms were raised over his head when the shots to the front of his body were fired. </p>
<p>Do you have a link? I can’t find anything about the officer’s friend saying that.</p>
<p>Unless that friend of the cop was at the scene, isn’t all of this hearsay and irrelevant? </p>
<p>Brown’s family is doing their own autopsy. They just announced it. Although, it was expected.</p>
<p>I thought of mentioning that the autopsy results could be leaked by somebody, but wasn’t sure if I should be bringing it up. Waiting several months for the trial is not going to help the police department and will upset the family and members of the community.</p>
<p>I just wanted to say how sorry I am that happened to you, Belle. I can’t imagine how upsetting that must have been - I’m upset just reading it!</p>
<p>I’m a small Caucasian woman and have had a couple of very unpleasant encounters with police officers when doing nothing wrong. I’ve also met honorable officers both on a personal basis and ‘on-the-job’. You never know what you will get. But Belle, your story will stay with me. </p>
<p>I’m a Caucasian woman and I’ve had a few unpleasant encounters with the police myself – usually when they were writing me a ticket. But I never once was afraid of them, not for one instant. I think that’s a huge huge huge difference, one which is hard for whites to comprehend. We are taught to think of the police as our friends, and by and large they are. The black residents of Ferguson don’t have that luxury.</p>
<p>The problem with this defense, Prezbucky, is that the Ferguson Chief of Police has already gone on record as saying Officer Wilson knew nothing of the robbery at the time of the shooting. I think justifying the gunning down of an unarmed fleeing suspect (if that is indeed what happened) under the guise that he assaulted the officer, and is therefore, a “dangerous felon” is pretty thin gruel. </p>
<p>Here’s St. Louis article about the use of force issue.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/2e863e1b-11ce-5cc3-9098-3075c105d596.html”>http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/2e863e1b-11ce-5cc3-9098-3075c105d596.html</a></p>
<p>Wait – I thought the statement was clarified to state that the cop initially was unaware that Brown had the swishers… but that upon seeing the cigarillos, the cop put 2 and 2 together and marked Brown as the theft/robbery person?</p>
<p>Ugh, who’s on first?!</p>
<p>He was stealing cigars…to roll a blunt…weed. yes, sometimes people lace it with other stimulants…but I will be shocked if anything more than pot comes back positive</p>
<p>Its funny how some posters on here discount the OTHER EYEWITNESS testimony. Even if his friend is discredited, which he shouldnt be, because he did not steal anything, there are TWO OTHER WITNESSES and the guy that TWEETED during the shooting. ALL of their stories match up. How do you explain that?</p>
<p>prezbucky, Rachel Maddow had an entire segment last night on the fumbling incompetence of the Ferguson PD yesterday alone. It really was remarkable, the string of mistakes, inconsistencies, and lack of coherent explanations for why they “needed” to release the video at the same time they released Officer Wilson’s name.</p>
<p>Another way they screwed up: they <em>say</em> they “forgot” that they are no longer in charge, as an excuse for not talking to State Patrol Capt. Johnson before releasing the video, or before having any other contact with the press. </p>