Best, Complete, Factual Account Of What's Happening In Ferguson

[CrossCuT]

If he had a fractured eye socket he seems to have taken it very well. In this video he appears to have no large amount of bleeding, nor does he seem to have a major black eye.
 

Nor does he look  nearly beaten unconscious. 

[Lilllabettt]

If he had a fractured eye socket he seems to have taken it very well. In this video he appears to have no large amount of bleeding, nor does he seem to have a major black eye.

http://youtu.be/1F-ba5KwP_A

 

1. I have serious doubts that two separate sources would make up a lie about the contents of a medical report. Simply because there is a paper trail where its signed off on by an attending physician.  It's not something a person can hope to successfully lie about.

 

2. Maybe you have better vision than me but I can't see the cop's face in your video. Certainly not well enough to see a black eye. But the body language in your video makes him seem like somebody who just shot a guy to death. Looks like classic shock to me. 

 

Facial fractures do not always bleed, btw. 

 

3. But guess what? My point is not to prove the cop innocent. Cuz I don't know if he is and if I have decided he is based on what I have read on the internets I am wrong-o. 

 

My point is: he could be innocent. You don't know. And who here wants to go down as a person who joined a mob calling for an innocent man's head? Because of what was read on the internet???  Because of prejudice or stereotypes about cops, or white people, or the South, or men or whatever.  I've been that person and I won't ever be that person again.

 

White cop shoots unarmed black man 7 times in the South -- so you think you know the story. "Of course" you know what must have happened. Right? That's prejudice and stereotypes, man. That's some brutal irony right there. 

[KnightofChrist]

I don't know if he is guilty or not. But he does not in the video look badly beaten as claimed.

[Lilllabettt]

I don't know if he is guilty or not. But he does not in the video look badly beaten as claimed.

 

 

well I don't see how you can see his face from that video, at all.

Do you mean he doesn't "look" badly beaten up because he's standing up?  

Just fyi that's what shock looks like.

when I was in high school I saw a guy with a skull fracture run for a 40 yard touchdown.

 

I really really doubt the part about his medical record is a lie though. Because like I said: the exam has a paper trail, its not something open to interpretation, its signed on the bottom line by an MD. Anyone who tried to lie about that would get caught.

 

hopefully people who are in a position to see all the evidence, (e.g, a grand jury) will be able to come to a conclusion about what it all means without bowing to the screaming mob or inserting their prejudices about "how it is." 

[KnightofChrist]

well I don't see how you can see his face from that video, at all.
Do you mean he doesn't "look" badly beaten up because he's standing up?  
Just fyi that's what shock looks like.
when I was in high school I saw a guy with a skull fracture run for a 40 yard touchdown.
 
I really really doubt the part about his medical record is a lie though. Because like I said: the exam has a paper trail, its not something open to interpretation, its signed on the bottom line by an MD. Anyone who tried to lie about that would get caught.
 
hopefully people who are in a position to see all the evidence, (e.g, a grand jury) will be able to come to a conclusion about what it all means without bowing to the screaming mob or inserting their prejudices about "how it is."

The video is somewhat blurry, but I can see his eyes, eyebrows, nose and mouth. I do not see severe facial injuries or bruises. I've fractured my jaw and hand before so long as I did not turn my head or move my hand intense pain could be avoided. But Officer Darren Wilson moves his head with ease when he looks around. He does not walk with any limp or difficulty.

I would like to see the photographic evidence of the injuries. Actual proof of these claims. Other images and videos have been given to the public that help defend the officer. Why not these images? Also so far there appears to only one source claiming that “He was beaten very severely.”, and that same individual source claims there is a medical record.

[Credo in Deum]

http://youtu.be/KUdHIatS36A

[KnightofChrist]

Some of the Ferguson Pushback Begins to Look Sketchy

By: Leon H. Wolf (Diary) | August 19th, 2014 at 09:53 PM

At the outset, we should emphasize that a tremendous amount of fog of war is still clouding our ability to know exactly what happened in Ferguson. My contention all along has been that the self-exonerating reports of police should be greeted with equal suspicion as self-exonerating reports of suspects. Two pieces of alleged evidence have come forth today and have been touted by the reflexive defenders of police as evidence that “SEE, WE KNEW THE POLICE WERE RIGHT.” The first of these is the suggestion that the officer who shot Mike Brown suffered an “orbital blowout fracture” which, if true, would prove at least that Mike Brown physically assaulted officer Darren Wilson during the course of their encounter. A google search for “orbital blowout fracture Ferguson” shows that this story has made the rounds on many conservative websites.

There are at least two good reasons to as yet doubt the veracity of this report. The first and more important is that as yet literally the only independent source of this allegation is Gateway Pundit’s Jim Hoft, who has never been known to shy away from sensationalism in the past. In fact, there is clear and convincing evidence of sensationalism even within Hoft’s post – here is the portion of his post where he shows an MRI of an orbital bone fracture:
 

 

Here is a stock image of an orbital blowout fracture from the American Association for Pediatric Opthalmology and Strabismus:

 

Obviously, Hoft lifted this image directly, scrubbed the words “UNIV OF IOWA ETC-CT” from the bottom and inserted it into his post. To be fair, Hoft never explicitly says that the CT Scan in his post was that of the officer; however, he clearly invites the reader to draw that impression. Further, there is no convincing reason to scrub the reference to the University of Iowa other than to hide the fact that this is very obviously not a CT Scan of Officer Wilson. Playing it straight is clearly not on the agenda here. UPDATE: As you can note, the image on GatewayPundit says (file image) in text below it. Your Mileage May Vary as to whether this is a sufficient disclaimer within the context of this post that the image was not in fact a CT Scan of Darren Wilson, or whether it explains why the “Univ of Iowa” label was scrubbed from the version that appeared on Hoft’s site.

 

Secondly, if true, this fact would be a game changer in terms of both the narrative and the public sentiment in Ferguson. There is no convincing reason for the Ferguson PD to have sat on this information for two solid weeks while their town burned around them when they had evidence in their possession the entire time that would have substantially aided in defusing the situation. Even supposing that the Ferguson PD was under orders from someone not to release this information for some as-yet-unascertainable reason, the idea that two police officers would go rogue and deliver it to… Jim Hoft, as opposed to someone with, say, a television audience, beggars the imagination. It may yet develop that this fact is true; however, the information on hand causes me to seriously doubt it.

 

The second story making the rounds is that the police have a “dozen witnesses” who supposedly back up the story told by the friend of the friend of Darren Wilson on the Dana Loesch show – namely, that Darren Wilson only fired on Mike Brown after Brown charged him. Another google search shows how quickly this story has made the rounds. This story, however, suffers from the same single-source problems and plausibility problems as the first. The story appears to have had its genesis with a single St. Louis Dispatch reporter named Christine Byers who tweeted it from her personal twitter account – and who has since retracted the tweets.

 

In a statement from the St. Louis Dispatch, the paper said that Byers had been on medical leave since March, and “is not involved in the Ferguson coverage while she is on leave.”

 

Again we face the problem that various members of the Ferguson PD have been interviewed by the media repeatedly since the rioting began. If they had information from these dozen witnesses corroborating an exonerating version of events and have sat on them in favor of trying to restore order with APCs rather than with facts that might calm an enraged populace, then they are substantially to blame for a significant part of the damage that has occurred. Not only that, but several eyewitnesses who have told the “surrender” version of events have found the media to tell their story directly – not one of these alleged dozen witnesses could have found their way directly to a media outlet to tell their story? None of them could get in front of anyone who might direct them to Sean Hannity’s producer, for instance? A friend of a friend of Darren Wilson had even a third hand account of what occurred that exonerated Wilson and was immediately placed on air on the Dana Loesch show – are we to believe that these dozen people are out there with information that could help calm their home town and none of them have thought to call the media directly?

 

The opponents of the civil unrest in Ferguson have berated the critics of the Ferguson PD for jumping to conclusions too quickly and for not waiting for all the facts to come in. Sadly, too many are all too willing to convict Mike Brown of having caused his own death on even flimsier facts than the rioters allegedly had when the unrest began.

 

Unfortunately right now the two sides have mostly fixed their preconceptions of what happened on that fateful Friday between Darren Wilson and Mike Brown, and information that tends to fit those preconceptions is accepted even if unsupported or implausible, whereas evidence to the contrary is rejected almost no matter what. The truth as we have noted here before, is probably significantly more complicated than either side is willing to admit, and does not change the larger questions that have been raised about police operating procedures across the country.

[Winchester]

Just can't stay on topic, can you?

 

I never said that all laws on the books are good, or that abuses of power do not exist.  (And I'm against anti-gun laws much as you are).  But it's a huge leap of logic to go from that to claiming we'd be better off with no law or courts period.

 

None of your digression about "gun control" and drug laws has any actual relevance to the case in question (involving one man killing another), much less does it have anything to do with the point I made.

 

 

Nice bobbing and weaving, but you've still completely avoided the central issue here.

 

Try to stay focused.

 

If the entire idea that a man accused of murder should be tried by jury in a court of law is so incredibly, hilariously ridiculous and stupid, what better alternative do you advocate?

 

When a man is accused (rightly or wrongly) of murdering, raping, or robbing another person, what course of action should be taken?

 

Please help enlighten this poor simpleton.

 

 

 

 

The evidence shows that there were codes of civil law in the earliest civilizations we have knowledge of, so I wouldn't exactly call it "novel."  Rule of law is the mark of every civilized society.

 

 

In a court, at least there is an orderly procedure of presenting evidence from both sides for the jury to weigh, and there are particular penalties prescribed by law for particular offences, so, at least to a certain extent, vengeance and bloodlust can be reigned in.  

(For example, a court couldn't legally sentence Wilson to be beaten to death or flayed alive, or extend punishment to innocent family members.)

 

I never said juries or courts of law are perfect or infallible, and the truth is that there will never be perfect justice on earth this side of the Final Judgment.

 

However, rule of law and trial by jury is still much, much preferable to the alternative of mob lynchings or endless blood feuds and wars of attrition.

 

 

Sorry, but the lawlessness, violence, burning and looting that's been going on in Ferguson is what anarchy looks like in real life, not some pretty peace'n'luv utopian fantasy in the pages of a book by some silly-arsed academic.

 

 

 

[Edited by the Fascist Bastage Morality Police:  Inappropriate humor]

 

I assume there are some things you believe are inherently evil. I take that position on aggression. I'm not going to change that position because politicians try to scare me with a bogeyman. Robert Higgs has a great quote covering that.

 

I'm not proposing a utopia. I don't know why you keep bringing that up.

 

When you use the word "anarchy", you're referring to an arbitrarily defined area that lacks a central ruler. I can do that with the world. The world is in anarchy. It would only escape anarchy (as you're using the term) with a one world government. Is that what you're arguing for? An area with several different people claiming rulership isn't "anarchy", it's just an area with a lot of different rulers. Yes, less overtly violent rulers are better than more overtly violent rulers. The warlords in the US are better than the warlords elsewhere. Far better. And they believe in silly little rituals that cause them to limit themselves (unless they can come up with cool arguments like "Well, this isn't a war, it's a conflict. So we don't need to muck about with declarations of war" or "Well, these offenses over which you can be imprisoned or fined aren't legislation, they're regulation, so it's totes cool that we don't have to vote on them") in their exercise of power. They don't chop off arms. They have better organization and cooperation. Hell, if we just pan back to Canada, the US, and Mexico, that's your use of the term "anarchy". We're talking about two different things. 

 

Do you support jury nullification?

[puellapaschalis]

Trial by jury is not a worldwide phenomenon. Where I live, and in other countries, innocence or guilt is determined by judge(s).

 

Just throwing that in there. Trial by jury was not laid down in Genesis and it is not the only way.

[Winchester]

Trial by jury is not a worldwide phenomenon. Where I live, and in other countries, innocence or guilt is determined by judge(s).

 

Just throwing that in there. Trial by jury was not laid down in Genesis and it is not the only way.

Yep. Aware. And in other places with other rulers, I would have to get permission to own a means of self defense, and would have no option to even grovel for permission to carry a means of self defense.

 

Guess what I think about that garbage?

[KnightofChrist]

How does society justly find an accused person not guilty or guilty of a crime if not by trial by jury or by judge?

[CrossCuT]

There are just a ton of missing pieces and people are filling in with their own biased assumptions. 

 

Its interesting to me that people are so willing to assume so much about the dead black person (whether its Brown or Martin) yet if anyone assumes anything about the white cop or white person who shot them all hell breaks loose. 

 

The article KoC posted brings up many good points and the Oliver video is amazing as always. The police are going bat shoot crazy with power and all these high powered toys they have. Yet, among all the things they are armed with, there are no cams, no monitors, no nothing. On top of that, they are trying to shut down any sort of  media coverage of the area by arresting needlessly and creating "free speech zones". Its all ridiculous.

 

Im calling shenanigans on the whole thing. The cops better buck up and start playing the game by the rules of decent human  beings. 

[4588686]

 

I really really doubt the part about his medical record is a lie though. Because like I said: the exam has a paper trail, its not something open to interpretation, its signed on the bottom line by an MD. Anyone who tried to lie about that would get caught.

 

 

 

That would be a reasonable point if a named source with some stake in maintaining a reputation for honesty made the claim.  As opposed to an unnamed, or given the blogger's history, potentially fabricated source, who is not putting his reputation at risk.  

[Lilllabettt]

There are just a ton of missing pieces and people are filling in with their own biased assumptions. 

 

Its interesting to me that people are so willing to assume so much about the dead black person (whether its Brown or Martin) yet if anyone assumes anything about the white cop or white person who shot them all hell breaks loose. 

 

 

I see my role as sticking it to thought zombies --- people who beat the drum for the dominant narrative. 

My job is to make it as uncomfortable and awkward for them as possible. Make them squirm and feel icky about their life choices.

 

maybe in your world "the cop is innocent, Brown deserved it" is the dominant narrative. Idk what its like to live in homeschool white people land.  The dominant narrative in my community is "the cop is guilty." And that's the story being presented in most of the media I consume. I do not do Fox News, maybe you do.

 

So anyway, I don't need to make assumptions, I just point out the dumb in the assumptions propping up the dominant narrative. 

 

 

 

The article KoC posted brings up many good points and the Oliver video is amazing as always. The police are going bat shoot crazy with power and all these high powered toys they have. Yet, among all the things they are armed with, there are no cams, no monitors, no nothing. On top of that, they are trying to shut down any sort of  media coverage of the area by arresting needlessly and creating "free speech zones". Its all ridiculous.

 

Im calling shenanigans on the whole thing. The cops better buck up and start playing the game by the rules of decent human  beings. 

 

 

The militarized police response is a separate issue. People want to combine the two because it makes for a better hobby horse. They aren't necessarily related. A cop shooting an unarmed black man 7 times is not necessarily an episode of police overreach.  It could be totally legitimate --- you don't know.  But people are making an assumption based on how what they've learned fits a familiar pattern for how things are -- a STEREOTYPE. 

 

do you have prejudice against people who work as cops? If you do, that might be feeding assumptions you make about this case. Asking because of your advice to "the cops" to start being "decent human beings." 

[Lilllabettt]

That would be a reasonable point if a named source with some stake in maintaining a reputation for honesty made the claim.  As opposed to an unnamed, or given the blogger's history, potentially fabricated source, who is not putting his reputation at risk.  

 

Okay, here fine.  The Plain Dealer is my hometown paper. Not the Times, ok, but not Glen Beck. 

http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2014/08/ferguson_missouri_police_offic.html

 

Same sources talked to ABC News:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/ferguson-shooting-grand-jury-decide-october-charge-cop/story?id=25047905

 

 

The sources were one person in the DA's office and a different person in the police department. 

 

Maybe they are collaborating in some elaborate scheme to get brownie points for the racist cop in the 15 minutes before everyone finds out it's a lie.

 

Like I said, I doubt it.