Sooooo much wrong in all three of these....
LEO or not if someone I running away from a situation and is not armed there is no reason to shoot them. I can't even shoot at an intruder in my house if they are running away out the door. The people in Ferguson are pissed off at the seemingly at least if it had gone to trial miscarriage of justice. Not that the officer **** and killed an unarmed teenager that was according to his testimony 8-10 feet away from him when he fire the last shot, but more so at the system that allowed a biased prosecutor to present the case before the grand jury and the piss poor job that he did. So I will agree with those that say the grand jury made its decision based in the case that was presented to them. The problem is the case was poorly presented. So from a black point of view you have a white officer, a white prosecutor, a black victim and a black firsthand witness. When all the smoke clears everything the the black witness said fell upon deaf ears. It's sad that every time a person of color is killed the first thing you hear about is the criminal past or behavior when they usually have nothing to do with the reason they were killed. What he did in the store had nothing to do with him being shot. It's almost as if you are saying that it's okay to kill a black man if he has a criminal background. Now I don't condone what they are doing in a ferguson with the looting. But I also don't feel they are animals and savages as they have been called repeatedly. Blacks are just tired of the seemingly unending pattern of killing by those that are suppose to protect us and not being held accountable to it.
He WASN'T shot running away. REPEAT. He wasn't shot running away. THREE count them THREE separate autopsies proved that. And one of them was done by the man hired by the family. He found nothing. NO shots in the back, NONE.
Why do you and others keep repeating 'unarmed'? Is it your opinion no cop or innocent person has ever been killed by an unarmed person? I know silly right. People kill people every day with their bare hands. So let's stop saying unarmed ok?
What he had just done only minutes before absolutely does have everything to to do with it because it sets the mindset of mike brown. You cannot possibly think he wasn't still amped up from just throttling the owner of the store can you? Confrontational he was for sure. When he saw a cop car coming up to him and having just robbed a store do you think he was just gonna say hi to the officer or instantly amped and became once again confrontational as he most likely thought the cop was coming to arrest him for the robbery?
Held accountable is hilarious. How about we start holding the people committing crimes accountable first? Yeah that may work.
From your own post, why was he told to stop if he wasn't running? Why was he told to turnaround if he was running away? Common sense suggests he was running away. If he wasn't running away he would have been sit beside the car correct?
He was running away from the cop because his first plan which was to attack the cop while he was still sitting in his car didn't go so well. He was running away because he had just tried to take the officers gun and got shot once in the thumb while doing it. Again going back to the three separate autopsies all found gunshot residue inside the thumb wound which proves beyond any doubt he had his hand on the gun when it went off. But you're free to keep ignoring the facts and evidence in pursuit of your own convictions.
We can all read what was present d but my point again is how was it presented and what evidence was not presented.
Over sixty witnesses testified. Almost all of them were black. Many said they saw him get shot in the back while running away. But yet again the facts prove otherwise. But many testified they saw exactly what Officer Wilson said happened, there was a confrontation, a short struggle, he ran away, cop exited vehicle and gave his attacker a lawful order to STOP, MB did so and turned around, cop ordered him on the ground, he chose instead to charge the cop, ordered again to comply he didn't, shots were fired and struck him, MB called out 'stop shooting I don't have a gun!' but instead of stopping and getting prone on ground he continued his charge at which time the final volley of rounds was fired. Shot to the top of the head came as MB was charging/collapsing before cop. All physical evidence explains what happened. Put all color all inclinations and all prejudices aside and do a methodical analysis of the physical evidence and there is only one conclusion that can be made. And that is cop acted correctly. The evidence ALL of it was given to the GJ. Not s single piece was kept from them, nothing. They reviewed everything and interviewed everyone. Full and unbridled access the GJ had. So I really am confused by your comment 'how the evidence was presented and what was not' ? Specifically what evidence is you know of that was not given to them? Please tell us....
Lastly regarding distances I'd like you all to watch this short two minute video. It shows how quickly a suspect can cover set distances and knife a cop. 21 feet used to be the measure of safety but now it's 31.
http://m.liveleak.com/view?i=2d8_1367104934
So to me the distance is moot. MB could have covered 8-10 feet in an instant and killed cop. He could have also COMPLIED and gotten on the ground. But he CHOSE not to.
