from the something-doesn't-sound-right-here dept.
KTLA reports via CNN Wire:
A man, who asked that his identity not be revealed, lives near the site of the shooting and was close enough to have heard the gunshots, his attorney said. He was speaking to a friend on a video chat service and happened to be recording the conversation at the same time Brown was shot.
In the recording, a quick series of shots can be heard, followed by a pause and then another quick succession of shots. Forensic audio expert Paul Ginsberg analyzed the recording and said he detected at least 10 gunshots -- a cluster of six, followed by four.
"I was very concerned about that pause ... because it's not just the number of gunshots, it's how they're fired," said the man's attorney. "And that has a huge relevance on how this case might finally end up."
Related Stories
Common Dreams reports
A new video that appears to show the immediate aftermath of Michael Brown's shooting death in Ferguson, Missouri on August 9 corroborates earlier witness statements that the unarmed black teenager was surrendering to Officer Darren Wilson when he was killed.
The footage, released by CNN on Thursday, shows two construction workers reacting to the shooting with shock and yelling out, "He had his fucking hands in the air!"
The men told CNN they were about 50 feet away from Wilson when he opened fire. "The cop didn't say get on the ground. He just kept shooting," one said, adding that he saw Brown "staggering" and putting his hands in the air, saying, "OK, OK, OK."
[...]
The video and the accounts from the men match earlier descriptions of the incident from other witnesses, as well as an audio recording of the gunshots, recently verified by the messaging service that captured it, that indicated Wilson fired much more than six times, as was initially reported.
Related:
Audio Reveals Pause in Gunfire When Michael Brown Was Shot
Family's Pathologists Have Examined Michael Brown's Corpse
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 28 2014, @02:32AM
The pause by itself really means nothing. There are lots of competing explanations that can be fit to match the pause. It won't change the minds of anyone, the scenario that someone thinks most likely is going to be one that fits what they already believed about the incident before this recording was made public.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by SlimmPickens on Thursday August 28 2014, @02:46AM
A bit cynical this morning? Not everyone is a moron, and the court will get to see the security video.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 28 2014, @02:52AM
Citation needed.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday August 28 2014, @05:00AM
Not everyone is a moron
Citation needed.
Heh. You just outed yourself as a self-described moron.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 28 2014, @03:16AM
> the court will get to see the security video.
What video are you talking about?
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by SlimmPickens on Thursday August 28 2014, @04:04AM
I saw a video just after I woke up with a cop saying he's seen the security footage, it's evidence, and in his opinion the officers had no choice.
direct link [f2.com.au]
article [smh.com.au]
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 28 2014, @04:13AM
That has nothing to do with Ferguson.
That was in Omaha, Nebraska not Ferguson, Missouri.
What were you saying about morons?
(Score: 2) by SlimmPickens on Thursday August 28 2014, @04:21AM
Thank you for pointing out my mistake. I was saying not everyone is a moron. Now I'll add not everyone is an asshole.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 28 2014, @04:36AM
You're either an asshole or you're full of shit, your choice.
(Score: 2) by SlimmPickens on Thursday August 28 2014, @04:55AM
I'm sorry, It's just a mistake. We don't have many shootings and we're pretty multicultural down here, unfortunately it just wasn't memorable and I got confused.
I'm particularly sorry to anyone who is sensitive to racial matters.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 28 2014, @05:02AM
Hah. We have a ton of shootings up here.
For example, here is a video of a guy who did get shot just a couple of days later and a couple of miles away from Ferguson.
The police will not be reprimanded, despite officially claiming (aka lying) that they shot the guy when he was 3-4 feet away (where his body ended up), instead of the 10-15 feet they actually shot him at. http://youtu.be/dgAdKw43TaI [youtu.be]
(Score: 2) by Kell on Thursday August 28 2014, @10:47AM
I think your comments in both threads were plainly understandable. Thanks for your thoughts and don't let the trolls ruffle your feathers. :)
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 2) by SlimmPickens on Thursday August 28 2014, @09:30PM
Thanks Kell, much appreciated ;)
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Thursday August 28 2014, @04:36AM
What the fuck do those links have to do with what happened in Ferguson Missouri? The first video clip is talking about a shooting in Omaha Nebraska and the second is an article talking about the same shooting.
FFS if your going to post at least try to be somewhat on topic.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 28 2014, @02:50AM
Give me my face!
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Tork on Thursday August 28 2014, @05:11AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 28 2014, @05:33AM
> I'd like to hear a good reason of how that long of a pause somehow exonerates that officer.
The first volley was as Brown was leaving, having just assaulted the officer in his car.
Brown turned around, the cop paused, Brown charged, the cop fired the second volley.
Don't bother arguing with the interpretation, you asked for an example of how someone can fit it to their preferred narrative. That is one such example.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 28 2014, @05:36AM
So you are saying shooting a man 6 times in a retaliation as they run away, then shoot them four more times when they turn to defend themselves is a worthwhile defense?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by RaffArundel on Thursday August 28 2014, @12:46PM
Seeing as though Brown was shot at least 6 times (maybe 8) according to Baden, all apparently from the front, here are a few possibilities assuming the recording isn't a fraud:
1. Brown was hit all six times in the first volley. This is unlikely, since it means the four additional shots would have been pointless (unless it was a Point Break/Hot Fuzz thing)
2. Brown was hit by bullets from both volleys. More likely, and since there was no entry wounds on the back side there neither volley was "as they run away".
3. The shots were miscounted or misrecorded on the audio. I have no idea what weapon the officer used, but Glocks are a popular choice and 15 round magazines are common. This puts us at 5 more shots that could have taken place. So it is possible that none of the original volley landed, at least two shots in the second volley were unidentified, and it was the "charging at the officer" second volley that killed him.
The point is (as others have said and your AC post demonstrated) despite a lawyer saying it was troubling, it doesn't change anyone's personal narrative. Some are going to believe the officer was in imminent danger and defended himself others will believe he gunned down a kid because he wanted to. I choose to wait to see where the story goes.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Thursday August 28 2014, @04:41PM
So it is possible that none of the original volley landed, at least two shots in the second volley were unidentified, and it was the "charging at the officer" second volley that killed him.
There was talk about fight for the LEO's gun. If that fight took place, then those shots could be fired by either party, involuntarily, during the fight. Another rumor says that Mr. Brown had an injury on his hand from a slide of the gun. If true, that would confirm that theory.
All in all, indeed, it is likely that the first shots hit nobody, as they were not aimed at anyone. The second group of shots hit Mr. Brown as he was facing the LEO.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 29 2014, @10:39AM
well no, because we know from the autopsy that the shots where fired from far enough away that there was no powder residue to be found on Brown, in other words: no shots where fired from melee-distance
ergo no shots where fired during a fight about control of the gun
(Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday August 28 2014, @05:38AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday August 28 2014, @09:09AM
I'm not so sure using deadly force on an unarmed person who is running away is a very good defense.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 28 2014, @11:27AM
Well, according to the officer's girlfriend's friend, the officer initially discharged his weapon while Mr Brown was reaching through the window assaulting the officer, so the first six shots ~could~ have been fired then, causing Mr Brown to back away from the window. This would allow the officer time to exit the vehicle, during which time Mr Brown may have decided, with at least two bullets in him already, kind of like an enraged bear, to turn and charge the officer, inciting the next volley.
The fundamental problem in all this continues to be that there are three community witnesses who claim that struggle at the window looked like Mr Brown trying to get away, and only the friend-of-a-friend version of the police story. That there has been no "official" version of the officer's side, in the context of all the other official delays and denials, just gives the appearance of taking their time to fabricate a version of events that fits the evidence and still paints the officer in a good light. I understand that officer Wilson may not be allowed to speak directly to the media, but nothing prevents his commanding officer from summarizing the officer's incident report. The community witnesses may be biased to expect civilians to be defensive in police confrontations. The FOAF version is wholly unsatisfying.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Friday August 29 2014, @12:35PM
Alas, the police claim there is no incident report. Not exactly helpful to their position.
Add it all together plus the attempted character assassination of Brown (through the carefully selected clip of the convenience store footage), tear gassing journalists who are on the sidelines, and well, nearly everything else they've done since and it's practically impossible to believe the police version of anything anymore.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 28 2014, @06:29PM
Except none of that happened. Now, try it with the facts.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 28 2014, @04:12PM
It doesn't. It does, on the other hand, demonstrate that the officer may have had sufficient time to contemplate his actions before he fired off the second volley killing Michael Brown. That could open up the door sufficiently to accusations of premeditation, depending upon the circumstances.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Snotnose on Thursday August 28 2014, @02:33AM
Shoot a while, pause to re-evaluate the situation, shoot again if needed, repeat.
Doesn't really add anything new to the shouting^H^H^H^Hdiscussion.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 28 2014, @02:43AM
"AIM SHOOT REPEAT UNTIL OFFENDER IS CONFIRMED DEAD." excerpt from police training manual.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 28 2014, @04:25AM
Under which circumstances should someone unarmed, who has been shot and is stopped or down bleeding, be shot again??
(Score: 5, Informative) by PinkyGigglebrain on Thursday August 28 2014, @04:30AM
I trained to be a LEO. You shoot till the target is down, keep the gun pointed at them but you don't shoot again unless you can confirm there is an imminent threat, ie they still have a gun and are trying to shoot at you. I've seen the photos of the position of the body and heard the audio, that three second pause is enough time to confirm there was no gun in the subjects hands, the fact that the officer fired more shots at what he should have been able to identify as an unarmed person does not bode well for his "justifiable shooting" defense.
But, lets leave this to the real experts with more information from both sides to analyze the recording and present their interpretation of what happened.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 28 2014, @02:45PM
But, lets leave this to the real experts with more information from both sides to analyze the recording and present their interpretation of what happened.
Exactly.
*switches on Fox News*
(Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday August 28 2014, @05:14AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 28 2014, @03:40AM
You who have led sheltered lives are upset about how the poor
downtrodden black person was mercilessly killed by the bad nasty
policeman.
But the TRUTH is that the now-dead black person was a violent criminal
who attacked the shop owner AND attacked the cop. This violent criminal
ASKED for trouble and he got it.
If you believe all black people are poor innocent victims, you should go spend
some time around a housing project. You will soon realize your worldview
was egregiously wrong, at least you will unless you are dead.
.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by quixote on Thursday August 28 2014, @03:56AM
Being a violent asshole is not a capital crime. Furthermore, the policeman was not hassling Brown for his behavior in the store because the cop didn't know about. He was hassling him for jaywalking. Jaywalking is not a capital crime.
Further-yet-more, even if it was a capital crime, the job of the police is to *arrest* people. It is not to act as judge, jury, and executioner.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 28 2014, @10:53AM
he was killed by another violent triggerhappy shitbag that we actually pay. and thats the problem.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Snotnose on Thursday August 28 2014, @04:10AM
What got me was his mother, on day one. Don't remember the exact quote but it was something like "Do you know how hard I tried to keep him in school? Do you know how hard I tried to keep him out of gangs?"
I don't usually reply to ACs, but you are so egregiously wrong I have to stand up for the poor kid. The only heroes in this whole fiasco are the parents, who have steadfastly held on to their dignity in the face of overwhelming odds.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by albert on Thursday August 28 2014, @04:36AM
You mean the one calling for "justice", but obviously unwilling to accept anything less than a long prison sentence?
She wants revenge, not justice. She won't be satisfied if the case goes away at any point prior to a conviction: the prosecutor deciding it is a hopeless case, the grand jury deciding that a trial would not be justified, the judge throwing out the case, the trial jury returning a "not guilty" verdict...
Dignity would be apologizing for her failure to produce a son who stays out of trouble. Nobody I grew up with would rob a store, want cigars, mouth off to a cop (especially over a silly thing like walking in the road), slam a cop back into his car (felony), try to grab a cop's gun (felony), charge at a cop... seriously, WTF, her son is garbage.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 28 2014, @01:24PM
Revenge would be asking for capital punishment, in this case (you know, an eye for an eye and all that). Asking for a sentence according to the crime and not reduced "because he's a cop" is not revenge.
Please tell that to the parents of the next girl that gets raped, because "she was looking for it".
(Score: 1) by dboz87 on Thursday August 28 2014, @03:56PM
And here I always thought that sentencing should come after the verdict.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by strattitarius on Thursday August 28 2014, @03:05PM
Nobody I grew up with would rob a store, want cigars, mouth off to a cop
Then you grew up alone. Because I did all three, as well as most of my friends. Most of us grew up to be pretty decent people that certainly contribute to society. (and the other items you mentioned haven't been proven - actually haven't even been claimed since there is no police report)
Young men act stupid all the time; there are books that describe worse than you just described from the golden age of purism, the 50's. If you think that a teenage boy acting like an idiot immediately makes him worthy of being shot, then please put your head in front a gun and pull the trigger.
Seriously, you are garbage.
Slashdot Beta Sucks. Soylent Alpha Rules. News at 11.
(Score: 1) by albert on Friday August 29 2014, @04:32AM
It's pretty sad that you think this kind of shit is normal. Maybe it is, but that doesn't make it OK.
I suppose I chose my friends well.
To clarify, I did know of people who I suspect might have been tempted to do those things. I avoided those people because they were trash.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 28 2014, @07:41AM
No, I don't know how hard she tried to do those things. How hard did she try?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 28 2014, @04:14AM
If you believe all black people are poor innocent victims
I don't think anyone is arguing this. Even now that we have more details, it's still a question of the use of appropriate force. And a valid one too. I was on jury duty for a similar altercation between civilians, and if the cop was held to the same standard as those in the case I was a jury for he'd be in prison for manslaughter at the very least.
Also, your thinly veiled hatred makes this site look horrible.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 28 2014, @04:52AM
Also, your thinly veiled hatred makes this site look horrible.
You know what they say! "Racists gonna hate!" Violent a**hole racist who are cops and have to stop and reload, even more so.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 28 2014, @04:16AM
If you believe all black people are poor innocent victims, you should go spend
some time around a housing project. You will soon realize your worldview
was egregiously wrong, at least you will unless you are dead.
Indeed, African-Americans stubbornly persist in being poor, living in disadvantaged circumstances, getting shot by the police for no particular reason and going to prison in large numbers.
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Thursday August 28 2014, @04:57AM
Why are there so many comments on an AC's troll bait? If they want to make a point let them do so in the open. If they want to do so in the shadows, ignore them.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 28 2014, @05:35AM
ACs are not in the shadows.
The shadows are over on places like stormfront.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 28 2014, @05:47AM
Making the choice to comment under an account is an attempt to persuade an audience based on past actions. It is disingenuous to have an account when anonymity is available. It is both intellectually and ethically superior to let your words and thoughts speak for themselves, outside of the influence that is reputation. I don't want someone agreeing with me when I am wrong just because I have been right in the past.
Further still, all accounts that do not pose someone's full legal name is in just as much 'shadow' as me. If you want to have moral authority for commenting with an account you could start with changing to your real name. Of course, I expect you to continue to hide behind a screen name, and I will continue to let my words be judged on their merit alone.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 28 2014, @07:44AM
So hiding behind a pseudonym is "in the open" now? Stop being hypocritical.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 28 2014, @04:59AM
Morality and Abstract Thinking
http://www.amren.com/ar/2009/02/index.html [amren.com]
Explains a lot....
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 28 2014, @05:38AM
It sure does, a perfect demonstration of someone seeing what they want to see.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday August 28 2014, @05:04AM
But the TRUTH is that the now-dead black person was a violent criminal who attacked the shop owner AND attacked the cop.
Was not known by the shooting officer before it happened, not relevant.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 28 2014, @05:52AM
The cigarillos were already paid for.
The kid wanted to get more but didn't have enough money for the quantity he desired.
He grabbed for the items that were already his and the stupid clerk pulled a bonehead.
No one was injured.
No store employee reported a crime.
A busybody called the cops.
The murderous thug cop didn't know about the event or the video until the kid was dead.
The video does NOT show what the cops claim.
The cops are liars. Surprise! [aattp.org]
-- gewg_
(Score: 4, Interesting) by frojack on Thursday August 28 2014, @07:17AM
Yes it is relevant, because dead person DID know what he had done and more than likely assumed he was going to be arrested for assault and robbery. In his mind this wasn't a jay walking stop at all.
But the cop thought it was just a jay walking incident, an was blind sided by the ferocity of the attack for a friggin jay walking stop.
So yeah it is still relevant.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Tork on Thursday August 28 2014, @02:32PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by tathra on Thursday August 28 2014, @06:46PM
the cop assaulted brown, not the other way around.
here they compared the eye-witness and police accounts side-by-side. [cnn.com]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by wonkey_monkey on Thursday August 28 2014, @07:39AM
The TRUTH in this case is something that you have as tenuous a grasp of as the rest of us.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Popeidol on Thursday August 28 2014, @05:40AM
The man, who asked that his identity not be revealed ... was speaking to a friend on a video chat service and happened to be recording the conversation at the same time Brown was shot, Blumenthal said
I may be reading too much into this (and missing the whole point), but it feels like they're carefully avoiding mentioning that the guy was recording an 'intimate' video chat with his friend.
If so, I respect him coming forward with it. If I had evidence like that I don't know if I could bring myself to give it to the police.
(Disclaimer: He could have been recording it for any number of other reasons, I just can't think of many people who record video chat for reasons other than 'interviews and funny stuff for my youtube channel' or 'adding to the spank bank'.)
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 28 2014, @06:39AM
This actually tells us more about you than about the recording.