Darren Wilson Eye Fracture

[dewilson58]

BREAKING: Officer Darren Wilson Suffered “Orbital Blowout Fracture to Eye Socket” During Mike Brown Attack
Posted on August 19, 2014

BREAKING: Officer Darren Wilson Suffered (http://clashdaily.com/2014/08/breaking-officer-darren-wilson-suffered-orbital-blowout-fracture-eye-socket-mike-brown-attack/)

[Tennisnut]

I looked on the Huffington Post for information on this and there wasn't anything. However, lots of info on Free Republic. Curious?

[graciegirl]

I looked on the Huffington Post for information on this and there wasn't anything. However, lots of info on Free Republic. Curious?

Here is a link to CNN that says that Wilson was briefly taken to the hospital with facial injuries. It WAAAAAAY down, so keep reading....near the bottom.

Michael Brown investigations continue -- as do tensions - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/15/us/whats-next-ferguson-missouri-michael-brown/index.html)

[Rags123]

I looked on the Huffington Post for information on this and there wasn't anything. However, lots of info on Free Republic. Curious?

Actually, I have seen very little about the policeman, but YOUR source Huffington post did in fact report that he was treated for injuries..

"He also said Wilson was treated for injuries after the incident. "

Darren Wilson Identified As Officer Who Fatally Shot Michael Brown (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/15/darren-wilson-michael-brown_n_5681340.html)

Means nothing much except the insinuation about the media is unfounded as the media is and has been pretty much a one way street.

That is not meant as a condemnation of anyone or defense of anyone. It is just factually true that all we are hearing is from one side and it is probably less solid that the information reported on Huffington days ago.

[njbchbum]

Saw that reported on Drudge a couple of days ago...how do you think that would impact his firing his gun?

[Tennisnut]

Thanks, I feel much better, so he was justified in shooting him six times. Justice does prevail! Now we won't have to have a long trial.

[Rags123]

Thanks, I feel much better, so he was justified in shooting him six times. Justice does prevail! Now we won't have to have a long trial.

Sarcasm aside, neither you nor I nor anyone, especially on this forum have on single clue as to what actually happened....NOT A SINGLE IDEA.

All you and I know or anyone is what the media has potrayed to us. Most from outside folks and not a word officially from any authorities.

So, using sarcasm means you have made up your mind based on just the news reports which they admit have no facts. That is not how I make my decisions and surely hope those many many many folks investigating this from every possible level of government do not either.

[sunnyatlast]

Does anybody out there see how dangerous it is when so many groups just sit there and swallow the pre-digested soundbites the media and politicians strategically feed them, abandoning our justice system's bedrock principle that a person is "innocent until proven guilty"??

[KayakerNC]

Does anybody out there see how dangerous it is when so many groups just sit there and swallow the pre-digested soundbites the media and politicians strategically feed them, abandoning our justice system's bedrock principle that a person is "innocent until proven guilty"??



Really? This bedrock principle didn't seem do Mike Brown much good.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Really? This bedrock principle didn't seem do Mike Brown much good.

This also appears to be a statement based on the opinion that this shooting was completely unjustified. When people do bad things and are caught in the act sometimes bad things happen to them.

As Rags123 stated, none of us know what actually transpired here. Many have made up their minds based on media reports which mostly seem to be one sided. The people in St Louis who are using this as an excuse to riot and loot do not know what happened. They are taking this action assuming that this officer is guilty.

Why is no one assuming that Michael Brown got exactly what he deserved? I'm not saying that is the case because I don't know. I am saying that it is a possibility. And it seems to be more and more a possibility as we learn the extent of the officer's injuries.

The police have guns so that they can shoot people who pose a danger to the general public and to protect themselves. The principle of innocent until proven guilty has nothing to do with that.

If Michael Brown was completely innocent and the officer is guilty of unjustifiable homicide then he will be punished. But at this point we don't know all of the facts so the only alternative we have is to assume that both Michael Brown and Officer Wilson are innocent. An investigation and trial will determine which was innocent and which was guilty.

[Rags123]

Really? This bedrock principle didn't seem do Mike Brown much good.

If you are suggesting that a police officer should not use his gun in any way, unless shots have been fired at him.....or a police officer who has a fear for his life dare not use his gun, I vote against that idea.

The many hearings and investigations that follow an officer shooting someone far exceed any you can imagine.

Who in their right mind would ever want to be a police officer, or have a loved one be a policeman based on that criteria.

The one things BOTH sides seem to agree on, is that Mr. Brown was the aggressor and in fact wrestled for the gun (which was holstered). I have seen no denials of that as a fact is the only reason I present that......but if a man the size of Mr Brown leaned in, punched me and wrestled for my weapon, I would fear for my life


If that turns out to be false, I apologize but even his friends are not denying that right now.

We want police protection, but don't use you gun ? Already there are more weapons looking to kill in civilian hands that any police force.

Not defending anyone except it is insane to ask them to protect YOU , but make sure those fellows trying to do whatever do not get hurt.

[Tennisnut]

If you are suggesting that a police officer should not use his gun in any way, unless shots have been fired at him.....or a police officer who has a fear for his life dare not use his gun, I vote against that idea.

The many hearings and investigations that follow an officer shooting someone far exceed any you can imagine.

Who in their right mind would ever want to be a police officer, or have a loved one be a policeman based on that criteria.

The one things BOTH sides seem to agree on, is that Mr. Brown was the aggressor and in fact wrestled for the gun (which was holstered). I have seen no denials of that as a fact is the only reason I present that......but if a man the size of Mr Brown leaned in, punched me and wrestled for my weapon, I would fear for my life


If that turns out to be false, I apologize but even his friends are not denying that right now.

We want police protection, but don't use you gun ? Already there are more weapons looking to kill in civilian hands that any police force.

Not defending anyone except it is insane to ask them to protect YOU , but make sure those fellows trying to do whatever do not get hurt.

Lets hope for Mr Wilson's sake that if there was wrestling for the gun, that there is gun powder on Mr Brown during the altercation. With four to body and two to the head, it raises some questions whether this went beyond self and public protection.

[dewilson58]

Lets hope for Mr Wilson's sake that if there was wrestling for the gun, that there is gun powder on Mr Brown during the altercation. With four to body and two to the head, it raises some questions whether this went beyond self and public protection.

A minor point..............It's very easy, and happens very quickly, to fire four, six, eight times with today's guns. Officer Wilson is not going to take one shot, wait and see the effects and decide if he will shoot again. I would be shooting until the attacker was flat on the ground.

[Tennisnut]

A minor point..............It's very easy, and happens very quickly, to fire four, six, eight times with today's guns. Officer Wilson is not going to take one shot, wait and see the effects and decide if he will shoot again. I would be shooting until the attacker was flat on the ground.

I find it to be a major point if he standing some distance away not posing an immediate threat to the officer or the public.

[graciegirl]

People are going to believe what they want to believe because of their past experiences. We are not allowed to summarize about groups because it is politically incorrect to do so. But most of us still have common sense.

And instinct. When a rabbit sees a lion, he doesn't think it is a mouse.

[B767drvr]

I find it to be a major point if he standing some distance away not posing an immediate threat to the officer or the public.

12 witnesses corroborate the police officer's version of events that he was assaulted (fractured eye orbit), Mr Brown ran off, police officer commanded Brown to "FREEZE", Brown stopped, turned around, taunted the officer and then rushed at him rapidly. The officer fired in fear for his life.

I would consider a 6'4", 300lb man charging at me rapidly after assaulting me a definite threat and would legitimately fear for my life. Law abiding citizens DO NOT assault law enforcement officers and they follow their commands! If you have a grievance over the officer's performance of his duties, a court of law settles those disputes. You DO NOT attack a police officer.

[JGVillages]

We don't know if the officer used unreasonable or justifiable force, and won't until all the facts are revealed. The problem as I see it is some un-responsible media reporting and very un-responsible support for the victim by certain so called community activists have fueled this fire. Public peaceful demonstration by either side should always be welcomed but the looting and burning of local businesses should NEVER be allowed to continue. Where are the so called community activists hiding out at night when they should be on the front line attempting to stop these unlawful thugs. Little media coverage of the lives and business ruined by these illegal actions! I guess the definition of "ILLEGAL" just does not mean what it used to.

[billethkid]

as I stated in another thread the iltellectual hypothecizing of what should have been done or how many times in a real life threatening situation is a waste of time and underscores lack of knowledge of reality in such a situation!!

[Tennisnut]

Because I was raised in a home of a police office, I prejudge. I can't imagine anyone shooting someone on the basis of their skin color for doing nothing.

That is because I have several members of my family and several close friends who were in law enforcement. Also the policemen who every year came to my class in school to talk to the children. I have never had any run in's with the law other than the shameful speeding ticket I got about thirty years ago. I have nothing but positive feelings about law enforcement. It is hard for me to think otherwise.

WHY would a man shoot someone for doing nothing???? Black, white, yellow, pink, red or purple? And if it was the first time that you shot at a human, wouldn't that make you awfully nervous? It would me. If I was protecting my children, I would shoot until they weren't moving. I have never shot a gun, so this is all conjecture.

I really don't know why anyone would anyone would shoot another person who was not threatening them or another person, but unfortunately it does happen far too much. It is sometimes by mistake, as the Grandmother, sometimes just plain murder and sometimes because of panic. I hope that the professionals that we employ to protect society would have the expertise to know when to shoot. However, it has been know that they are not infallible and above the law.

[billethkid]

I really don't know why anyone would anyone would shoot another person who was not threatening them or another person, but unfortunately it does happen far too much. It is sometimes by mistake, as the Grandmother, sometimes just plain murder and sometimes because of panic. I hope that the professionals that we employ to protect society would have the expertise to know when to shoot. However, it has been know that they are not infallible and above the law.

As measured, assessed and evaluated by who/whom? If one was not there to observe in detail then one has nothing more than an opinion or prejudice.

[dewilson58]

Let's get the children back in school.

[Tennisnut]

As measured, assessed and evaluated by who/whom? If one was not there to observe in detail then one has nothing more than an opinion or prejudice.

However, many opinions have been expressed on several threads. I am sure we will continue to have several more.

[redwitch]

As has been said, we don't have enough facts to really make any sort of a decision. I'm not pro- or anti-police. There are some really good cops out there. There are some really bad cops out there. Have no clue what kind of officer this was. Do you?

We know Mike Brown was a big kid. We know he was going to start college. We know he had a family who loved him. I have no idea if he was prone to violence when confronted; if he was anti-authority; if he was the class bully or the class clown. Do you?

We know Brown was walking in the middle of the street, was told to move and didn't do so. We don't know if this was told in a way to inflame. We don't know what community-police relations were prior to this incident. We don't know if the officer involved was a bigot who enjoyed bullying teens. We don't know if the officer was just trying to do his job in a reasonable manner without using any inflammatory speech or behavior. Do you?

Assumptions are easy to make. But, to me, there are just too many facts missing to even come up with a reasonable guess for any right or wrong to be assigned.

[graciegirl]

I really don't know why anyone would anyone would shoot another person who was not threatening them or another person, but unfortunately it does happen far too much. It is sometimes by mistake, as the Grandmother, sometimes just plain murder and sometimes because of panic. I hope that the professionals that we employ to protect society would have the expertise to know when to shoot. However, it has been know that they are not infallible and above the law.

And the perps are not either. Above the law. I still am on the side of law enforcement.

WHY do YOU think this officer fired several times Tennisnut? What is the reason you think he did that? Because the man was black?????????

[Tennisnut]

[/B]

And the perps are not either. Above the law. I still am on the side of law enforcement.

WHY do YOU think this officer fired several times Tennisnut? What is the reason you think he did that? Because the man was black?????????

I don't know. Do YOU? However, no one is above the law, even the law!! I am on side of the law not just the people who are supposed to enforce the law.

[SisalPhil]

I have worked and or supervised many police shootings. Until all the information is known it is unfair to judge. I can tell you that a police has a right to stop the threat with necessary force. I just hope this investigation can be completed with any outside influence. No officer wants to take a life but unfortunately sometimes it happens.

[John_W]

There are two kinds of people in this world. Those who take, and those who give.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Michael-Brown-surveillance-video-Screenshot.jpg

There is also a third, those who blame someone else for all their problems.

http://cdn.rt.com/files/news/2c/28/00/00/ferguson-protesters-defy-curfew.si.jpg

That brings us back to those who take.

http://cdn.rt.com/files/news/2c/22/c0/00/ferguson-protests-friday-eve-.si.jpg

[Rags123]

I don't know. Do YOU? However, no one is above the law, even the law!! I am on side of the law not just the people who are supposed to enforce the law.

If I may, I would like to ask a few questions, not only of you, but others who believe in the law.

Part of THE LAW is innocent until proven guilty. I have been watching both CNN and MSNBC for a bit today. I kept count, and between those two channels, I have heard the event in question called an execution 17 times by either a host or guest (yes I counted them). I have never heard any of the host or guests suggest that there may have been cause for this shooting. Not one.

That is part of the premise for the question.

Second premise is that I have heard a number of times by those interviewed that they "want the policeman charged"

1. If the grand jury or the investigations do not allow for arrests, what might happen there in Ferguson, and since the LAW was followed, how will you react ?

2. There is a strong feeling among many (I am included in that) that this officer will be arrested simply because of fear of the answer to my question #1 Is that our LAW working ?

3. If the victim in this case was white, would you care about the LAW or how it came out ? Honestly now.

Just curious.

[billethkid]

I would like Holder, Jackson or Sharpton to explain to me what it is these black guys are doing!!! While on ABC, CBS or NBC!!!!!