Listen to the entire interview. When questioned later by a reporter the chief said "the ENTIRE scene is 35 feet."

 

I heard him say near the beginning, "The entire scene from approximately the car door to the shooting is about 35 feet. There were shell casings recovered."

 

So he's said the scene from the car to the SHOOTING is 35 feet. Then he mentions shell casings...still leads me to believe he's talking about where the SHOOTING took place.

 

I heard what he said when questioned by the reporter but that doesn't change what he said at the beginning.

The question makes no sense, so why should anybody waste their time answering it? The answer to the question depends on the answers to a series of questions, such as:

 

1. How badly was Officer Wilson injured?

 

2. In which direction and at what speed was the thug running?

 

3. Might Wilson have feared that he was losing consciousness when he decided to fire?

 

4. Might a reasonable person in Wilson's situation have feared for his life?

 

Ultimately, the only answer that matters is #4. Everything else is just random noise, or red herrings, if you prefer.

 

All fair questions if we ignore other witnesses statements. If the "entire scene" took place within 35 feet it lends credence to a fight and the officer fearing for his life and correctly protecting himself.

 

If , however.he got to 100 feet away from the car before he was dropped then we have to hear what happened from the time of the struggle at the car to the 100 foot mark. Was he running away? If the officer pursued him and shot at him did that cause Brown to stop and raise his hands as some witnesses claimed? Now it starts to open up possibilities of an officer firing on a witness that had given up(again, claimed by some witnesses).

 

I think most rationale people get a shooting within a close confined area after an officer has been attacked. Natural quick response by the officer in most minds. 100 feet, though, now the narrative possibly changes.

 

That's why the posed question matters and why a discrepancy causes those who already lack trust to be skeptical at best.

I heard him say near the beginning, "The entire scene from approximately the car door to the shooting is about 35 feet. There were shell casings recovered."

 

So he's said the scene from the car to the SHOOTING is 35 feet. Then he mentions shell casings...still leads me to believe he's talking about where the SHOOTING took place.

 

I heard what he said when questioned by the reporter but that doesn't change what he said at the beginning.

 

For those of us not in the law enforcement field how is "scene" usually defined? Would the placement of the dead body be part of it?

For those of us not in the law enforcement field how is "scene" usually defined? Would the placement of the dead body be part of it?

 

You should ask someone in the law enforcement field.

I can't confirm that they are 108 feet. I can confirm they're not 35. Why? Visually and I've checked other sites as well including a "conservative" website that had the same measurements.

 

Why would a writer of any leaning put pictures out there and then intentionally misrepresent the distance when any schmo can disprove it?

Conspiracy theorist in almost every case leave out facts that go against the theory they are proposing.

 

The writer is taking something the Chief said as evidence when in fact it is not evidence at all. Chief may have misspoke, intentionally lied or have been confused...but NOTHING he said is actual evidence in this case.

All fair questions if we ignore other witnesses statements. If the "entire scene" took place within 35 feet it lends credence to a fight and the officer fearing for his life and correctly protecting himself.

 

If , however.he got to 100 feet away from the car before he was dropped then we have to hear what happened from the time of the struggle at the car to the 100 foot mark. Was he running away? If the officer pursued him and shot at him did that cause Brown to stop and raise his hands as some witnesses claimed? Now it starts to open up possibilities of an officer firing on a witness that had given up(again, claimed by some witnesses).

 

I think most rationale people get a shooting within a close confined area after an officer has been attacked. Natural quick response by the officer in most minds. 100 feet, though, now the narrative possibly changes.

 

That's why the posed question matters and why a discrepancy causes those who already lack trust to be skeptical at best.

 

If it's correct that it was around 108 feet, do you know where Officer Wilson was when he shot? How do you know he was 100 feet away?

I'm still waiting for HB20 and Rapp to answer the posed question: Does the reported distance vs the actual distance matter?

 

I'm not HB or Mitch but here is my take..."Reported Distance" does not matter, only "Actual Distance" supported by evidence matters.

 

As far as the shots and the "Deadly Accuracy" of head shots, well he wasn't aiming at his head. He would have been aiming center mass at a possible moving target. That would lead to shots being every where on the body as they seem to be.

 

As far as what I said about shell casings, even though they do eject and have a mind of their own...the clustering of where they were found could shed light on if the shots were fired at 35 feet or 35 yards.

All fair questions if we ignore other witnesses statements. If the "entire scene" took place within 35 feet it lends credence to a fight and the officer fearing for his life and correctly protecting himself.

 

If , however.he got to 100 feet away from the car before he was dropped then we have to hear what happened from the time of the struggle at the car to the 100 foot mark. Was he running away? If the officer pursued him and shot at him did that cause Brown to stop and raise his hands as some witnesses claimed? Now it starts to open up possibilities of an officer firing on a witness that had given up(again, claimed by some witnesses).

 

I think most rationale people get a shooting within a close confined area after an officer has been attacked. Natural quick response by the officer in most minds. 100 feet, though, now the narrative possibly changes.

 

That's why the posed question matters and why a discrepancy causes those who already lack trust to be skeptical at best.

IF your vision is limited to one eye and IF you have no idea how seriously injured you might be and IF a large thug who has inflicted your injuries is advancing toward you, then the distance is irrelevant. Until the facts are clearly laid out, it is pointless to debate this issue. The Daily Kos bloggers don't need no stinkin' facts to allege a cover-up and should be ignored.

I would guess that specialists will be able to determine the distance from forensic science and ballistics. Wouldn't it make more sense to wait for that?

I would guess that specialists will be able to determine the distance from forensic science and ballistics. Wouldn't it make more sense to wait for that?

No, we must in every case jump to conclusions based on biased reporting one way or the other.

I wouldn't put a lot into exact location of the casings. Those things eject out and have a mind of their own, especially if they're hitting the pavement, then factor in possibility that some got kicked around by other people showing up on scene.

 

Exactly. Shell casings in an outdoor encounter aren't going to be very reliable.

Exactly. Shell casings in an outdoor encounter aren't going to be very reliable.

 

I agree, but they will narrow down if it was closer to 35 feet or 100 feet.

I watched the video. He says, "the entire scene from the car door to the shooting is approximately 35 feet". Sounds, at least to me, like he is talking about where the car is to where Officer Wilson fired his weapon. He didn't say 'the entire scene from the car door to the body is 35 feet".

 

Sounds about right to me.

:lol2: :lol2:

 

Too funny.

Is it possible the chief meant to say 35 yards?