Michael-Ridgway

Alleged audio recording of the last 10 (or 11) shots fired

Might be a hoax

CNN Guests Think Brown Shooting Audio Is A Hoax [VIDEO] Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/27/cnn-guests-think-brown-shooting-audio-is-a-hoax-video/#ixzz3BhociwFp http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/27/cnn-guests-think-brown-shooting-audio-is-a-hoax-video/ Basis: >> “All accounts, from Brown’s side and the officer’s side say there was a single shot fired initially at the door of the police car,” said Fuentes. “We’re missing that first shot.” <<

Miscellaneous

Question. Didn't any of your mothers model positive reinforcement when you were kids? I'm two weeks old as a Wikipedia editor. And I've done a lot of positives for this article. And someone once thanked me. And then they probably got removed from being able to edit the article. What a miserable experience this has been. But fighting for accurate and fair reporting is like that, I guess. Cause well you know, people who will lie in a Wikipedia article probably aren't going to be choir boys, know what I mean?

Question: Is there a way to private message someone such that the conversation is just between two people and not visible to all? I ask because at this point, the hostility that I am feeling in the form of perpetual reprimands on public pages is convincing me that being a Wikipedia editor is a lot of work for nothing but pain. And I have been dealt enough pain in the last several days.

So if you want to dish me more pain, then at least have the decency to tell me how I can legally tell you how to contact me privately, rather than refusing to answer the simple question that not one person has been willing to answer, which is what recent post have I made either on the Talk page of the Article page that is deserving of a permanent ban. If you cannot answer that question and you are not willing to give me a back channel for discussion, don't bother posting here. It will be deleted and will just put you on my blacklist of people I'd prefer never to acknowledge as I work here.

This is, after all, my page. Do I have any control of the content here at all? Or am I just a cog in another exploitative crowdsourcing operation where some make bank and where the rest of us don't -- all while getting slapped around for our numerous notable and positive contributions.

Can't help but notice that my attempts to retract got reverted. Further reinforcing the notion that it's insane to ever comment on the talk page. You can't delete. You can't retract. And you can't do away with the fact that you were too stupid to not hide behind a white sheet when you created your account. What an uncool place to be considering the lack of pay and the opportunity costs. All in all, Wikipedia ranks somewhere between bed of nails and hot coals, I guess. Makes you wonder about the lives of those who really do it full time without being paid. Yeah, that's self-implicating. I can live with that.

So much for all of these suggestions that rather than just do something on the article itself, you should try to build consensus on the Talk page. I guess that works if there's someone on your side of a fight. In this article, either you believe the eyewitnesses or you don't. I believe them. Whether anyone else on the "team" is of that mindset is something I am completely unclear on at present. Which means that an attempt to build consensus is probably doomed to failure if the consensus building revolves around a reliance on what named witnesses (as opposed to leaked unnamed witnesses) have to say. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 08:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Warned on the record for blanking talk page contributions. Examples: [1], [2], [3] Veggies (talk) 15:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions, as you did at Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown. Warned on the record for using the talk page as a forum. Examples: [4], [5], [6] Veggies (talk) 16:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Can I offer you a rather simple suggestion? Or are you not interested? Let me know. Thanks. Please reply at my Talk Page. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure, but can we do this privately? Like through email, Skype, Google Hangouts or by phone? I really don't appreciate all of this slam stuff being left up on my personal page. I haven't treated anyone like this since I have been here. Why is everyone thinking that it's cool to treat me this way?

If you want, you can email me. Thanks. I also left you a note on my Talk Page. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I will just wait to hear from you at my email. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

So it's okay to give out one's email address? I posted my email address in the main Talk page and it got deleted as a violation. Boy did that shock me. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 17:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

As I said, email me. We will continue our conversation there (not here). Thanks. I will wait to hear from you. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The way things are going, you may well be heading for a block before long. However, contrary to what you seem to think, if and when the block comes, it will not be because there are a lot of evil people on Wikipedia. It will be because when you see people doing or saying things that you believe are wrong, instead of responding as though you think you are dealing with good-faith volunteers who happen to have made a mistake, you respond angrily and aggressively, very often contemptuosly dismissing the person in question, and often using sarcasm and irony to ridicule and belittle them. I have been editing Wikipedia for eight years, and in that time I have seen innumerable new editors, some of whom are still here, and some aren't. In my experience, an editor who addresses other editors with respect, even when he or she thinks they don't deserve respect, has a far greater likelihood of getting a significant proportion of the changes that he or she thinks should be made than one who acts in a way that antagonises other editors. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion is respectfully noted. Mind if I delete it now?

You can do what you like with the comments on your talk page. You cannot re-factor other talk pages. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Got it. The suggestion to refactor the other talk page came from Joseph Spadaro. I did that, and now it looks like I'm looking straight down the barrel of someone who seems very inclined to just pull the trigger, for that final kill shot to, well, you know, the top of my head, no matter what I do next. (The view from my end of that gun, anyway. Your perspective may differ.) Michael-Ridgway (talk) 19:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

If you go through editing Wikipedia with that sort of attitude, you will always get the impression that people are out to get you, and will never have a successful time here. 79.123.77.107 (talk) 13:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Says the editor known only as 79.123.77.107. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

My apologies to Joseph A. Spadaro. I now understand that striking isn't what veggies was talking about when he used the word "blanking" in a final warning that a permanent ban was possible with no further warnings. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

You really need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies. I understand that you feel strongly about the shooting. Hell, I probably agree with your overall thoughts on the shooting. But I'm not editing the article (or suggesting that the article be edited) to advocate a position or to make an argument. You, on the other hand, are doing this constantly and explicitly on the article's talk page. It is becoming EXTREMELY irritating to me and to other editors. I don't want to recommend that you be topic-banned or blocked or otherwise disciplined, but it is becoming evident that you clearly haven't tried to understand the policies that govern how we edit (and, more importantly, WHY we edit). It is not a forum for discussion about what REALLY happened. And it's entirely unhelpful when your response to criticism is (apparently) to complain about how awful Wikipedia and its users are or to suggest that there's some kind of conspiracy to include "bad" content or to fill up the talk page with walls of text about tangential matters. Dyrnych (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

But I thought that the talk page was a place to try to build consensus for what should and shouldn't be in the article. It is grossly unfair right now. But you don't see me making edits to the article to fix that fact, do you? I'm just offering my opinion what would make it better and I'm using RS sources in that pursuit. Then I just stand back in awe at how it just gets worse by day. It's been very eye opening, as I, of course, reiterate on a regular basis. I liken it to a 1900's meat packing plant. If only the public knew how what they are consuming was actually manufactured. If such an opinion disqualifies me as a contributor, by all means lobby for my banning. You know, like Kajieme said. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 23:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

And by the way, everything you write irritates me. But you don't see me trying to ban you, now do you? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 23:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

While that was an extremely mature response, I'll note that (1) I'm not trying to ban you and (2) I have done nothing to warrant a ban. I'm not suggesting that you be banned because I don't like what you're saying or because your opinion differs from mine. I'm suggesting that you could find yourself banned because you are violating Wikipedia policies in a way that is making it difficult for other editors (who themselves have a multiplicity of views) to engage in the goal of building an encyclopedia. Dyrnych (talk) 23:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Michael-Ridgway (talk) 23:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC) Are or was? I've tried really hard to clean up my act and I think I deserve credit for the same. So if it wouldn't be too much to ask, can you point me to something that is clearly a firing offense that I've posted today? I'll be happy to put those little s-es of shame around it just so people will know that I have once again been brought to remorse by the helpful feedback of my colleagues here. Until then, though, I find your criticisms just so void due to vagueness, know what I mean? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 23:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

To the masters of discipline on the site: Is it really appropriate to question another's "maturity" in posts on their personal page? I ask because, well, I'm still learning the ropes and really don't know. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 23:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Place your kudos here.

Would it surprise anyone to know that I don't get kudos for the work I have done on this article? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 21:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Read and abide by WP:EW

Please note that 3 reverts as defined by that policy within 24 hours is a "bright line" exceeding which may result in a block or ban of an editor. You appear to have reached that bright line limit at the Shooting article. I urgently you be very sure before making a fourth revert or partial revert on that article within 24 hours. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip off. I was not aware of this rule. I guess I thought that a revert was an undo of someone else's editing. As I don't think I've done that in the last 24 hours, or ever, for that matter, I was wondering if you could identify for me the the changes that I made which are counted in the 3 that I are attributed to me in the last 24 hours? Also, can you point me to a tool that would make it easy for me to know how many I have in the last 24 hours. I guess you know that this is all pretty new for me. I've edited some articles in the past but never anything to this level. Learning the hard way. Crash. Get beaten up. Try again. Thanks. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 14:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

If this is one of them, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shooting_of_Michael_Brown&diff=prev&oldid=622734422, the removal of the reference to the Ferguson mayor was inadvertent. I was trying to copy and paste it to a more chronological location but apparently it got saved before the paste. If you could restore it if you think that it makes sense to be there, I'd appreciate it. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 14:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Reverts are defined very loosely (with attempts at clear compromise language not generally being regarded as a problem) - suffice it to say that making too many edits which affect edits made by others in any contemporaneous manner are ill-advised. The post here is only a "heads up" as I did not think you were aware of the policy. [7], [8], [9] each appear to qualify as reverts under the formal usage. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

So 3 changes of the nature of adding Dorian Johnson's omitted name to the lede and you're done for 24 hours. Is that in one article or is that for all of Wikipedia? 4 and your banned. I would have never imagined such a policy would exist.Michael-Ridgway (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Usually 4 is the breaking point, but - yes. Usually a short block for a first offense, but nonetheless a block. Bans fall into two types -- "topic bans" which any admin has the authority to issue (subject to discussion at WP:AN/I) and site bans which require extended discussion as a rule. And which you would not be remotely close to. :) Adding a person's name three times to the lead can be considered edit war. And if the living person is not notable, one may also see WP:BLP invoked for any contentious claims about the living person. Collect (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

You seem like a friendly person. No one else has given me a smiley in the 16 days since Michael died. The PTSD I feel as a result of all of the different people that have been coming at me is beyond anything I could have ever imagined. I had thought that after this experience, I might suggest to the nonprofit that I work for that we could formulate classes to teach young people how to be Wikipedia editors. I've abandoned that idea. People here are just way too mean to newcomers, I feel. I couldn't do that to a young African American teenager, the clientele we serve, by and large. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

We have WP:DONTBITE, but sometimes we fail badly at that... - Cwobeel (talk) 17:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Too many folks seem to make "enemy lists" which is one of the worst features of Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 17:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Our either of you familiar with the concept of paired programming or pair programming, and if so, has such a principle ever been applied in Wikipedia? (I'm thinking an unintended consequence would have something to do with sock puppets.)

Wikipedia has a strange belief that "adversarial editing" is the process by which a neutral point of view is gradually achieved. "Pair programming" basically suggests that the two programmers are each seeking the same direct end, and the "off programmer" looks to see if a different approach may produce a better program. At least as I understand that process. Such an approach should theoretically produce lean and elegant code. Not Windows 8. Wikipedia is slanted to producing many copies of Windows 8. If you get that analogy. Collect (talk) 23:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I can't remove that thought now from my head. (shudder) :) - Cwobeel (talk) 23:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

It's more like this as Jim McKelvey of Square explains. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60X5NaUIPyo

New section tip

When creating a new section, please consider using the "new section" tab at the top of most screens. This lets you avoid having to use ===XXX=== and more importantly it lets editors who are looking at the history of a talk page see precisely when the new section was created. For example, you created a new section on one of the Brown articles just now, and it appeared to me (and others) that you were responding to the previous section. That said, you don't have to do it, it's just a nicety. Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Not a problem. Didn't know that there were differences in how that got processed. Thanks for the tip off.

Formal DS notification

I know that you are aware, since you commented in the section on the article topic, but just to make sure all the i-s are dotted.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

NOTFORUM

Please note that individual WP article talk pages are not a place for extended discussion of fundamental inadequacies of the WP editing process. There are countless places on WP that do aim to foster such discussion. I have not been involved at this article, and am leaving you this note only because it seems other editors have tried unsuccessfully to make the same point. In this instance you can rest assured that there is some experienced WP editor out there who shares your views and is keeping an eye on the article. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Please define "individual talk pages." Michael-Ridgway (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Please clarify what constitutes an "extended" discussion. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Please define how "success in making the point" would be measured and what such "success" would look like. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

If your comment leaves so many questions unanswered, were you "successful" in making your "point?" Michael-Ridgway (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

If you reopen a conversation which has lay dormant for days, are you "extending" it? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Who are these caring and watchful lurkers of whom you speak? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I don't think we've met. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 17:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

You see everyone? This is what I get. Unsolicited advice just dropped with loads of presuppositions that I am supposed to accept as true. And then, dead silence from a person who was never interested in two way conversation. So what are they interested in, I ask? Just creating enough bogus data points to bang me out of the editing pool? I'll leave that to each of you to answer. I must say, thought, there isn't much to like about being in this space. But to exit this space leaves it in the control of the people who make it so hostile. Thomas Jefferson warned me that there would be days like this. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 21:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Come now. I don't pursue admin action against other users. I saw a misbehaving noob in desperate need of a bite. So consider yourself bitten, noob.

And did you really expect me to respond to the ranting above? I merely noted that you're not supposed to grandstand at an article talk page simply because you have strong feelings about the subject and don't like the way it is handled under WP policy. There are other places for such discussion. Taken in context, your Thomas Jefferson reference is laughable and absurd. It's clear you're trying to evoke an image of centuries-old racial oppression, but the only obstacles you face here are WP's neutrality policy and the existence of views that differ from your own. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Jefferson said you can't just go away from the theater of politics just because people lie about you and smear you. He promised that that will be the lot of anyone trying to do what's right in that domain. That to withdraw because liars lie is to give victory to liars without a fight. You don't have to worry about such things. Your anonymous handle prevents smear from having any impact on you. Not that anyone would ever smear you. Just another of the things that makes people at WikiWatch bristle, I am sure. The things they and I could discuss. Michael-Ridgway (talk)

From the dark intonations of conspiracy, and the fact the Jefferson comment was directed at me in the first place, I infer that you think I'm trying to "lie about you and smear you". Not at all. My message was intended as a very blunt suggestion that users and processes having absolutely nothing to do with me will end up banning you indefinitely before too much more of this melodrama. Tone it down, and meditate on the possibility that the other editors you're dealing with are honest, reasonable people. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk)

(contribs) 23:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

People have lied about me here repeatedly. They usually do this as they threaten to ban me. Are you threatening to ban me, or just prophesying that it's probably inevitable? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 23:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I very much doubt that. In any event, it is not inevitable that you will be banned; you could always decide to behave differently. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

How do you know that I"m not deciding to change my behavior every time I post. Or that my decision to quit editing the article doesn't represent a significant change? The assumptions and presumptions are most unfair.Michael-Ridgway (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Zero assumptions, zero presumptions — just actual, direct observation. If you dial back the inappropriate behavior, that does indeed make it less likely that you will be banned. But I told you that already. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Perpetually implicit in your comments is that I am making no modifications to my "behavior." I find this highly unfair. You came to the party late and your comments are no longer germane. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 18:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Michael, I believe you have perhaps started to behave better but you still seem to be willfully violating NOTFORUM and that is a bit disrespectful to others, as every user may have his or her own views that are not germane to working on the article, yet we can't have everybody expressing them on the article talk page. I personally would not have a problem with you discussing such things on your own talk page, although I'm not 100% sure that's permitted/encouraged. You seem like a nice guy who is genuinely hurt or at least offended by the way the impersonal processes of WP work and that's why I am posting on your page to try to steer you away from things that I think will cause you trouble. The blunt tone of my original post was intended as some tough-love-cutting-through-the-crap, was not meant to seem like an effort to squash you. Anyway, cheers. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 06:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

math

I was out of town this weekend, but I thought I saw a comment from you I am curious about. I apologize, I cannot find the comment at present, so I may be misremembering your comment, or it may be a very old comment that I noticed as it got rendered in a diff for archiving or something. Anyway the gist of the comment (as I remember it) was something about there being proof that brown was shot at at least six times while running away (or towards his back). I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion.

1. At this point we are pretty confident there are 10 shots, in two vollies (6 + 4) (due to the recording, ShotSpotter analysis, and various witnesses)
2. plus possibly an early unrecorded shot.
3. Wilson was hit at least 6 times, 5 of which are unambiguously from the front.
4. One of which could be front or back (but that most people say front).
5. While we don't have good knowledge of the order of hits or misses, presumably the two head shots are from the last volley (if not the final two shots)

Because of #5 + #3, it seems pretty logical that all the final 4 shots were front facing (based both on timing, and the lack of witness statements describing a spinning while being shot or something).

So, if all 4 final shots hit, that still leaves 1 or 2 shots that needed to come from the front in the earlier volley. If any of the final shots missed, that means even more shots from the first volley. Since the first volley was also of short duration, having some of those be front and some of them back seems unlikely. The only obvious time for a switch from back to front is the 3 second pause. But if some of the shots from the first volley mathematically need to be front shots, there isn't enough time for the switching?

Certainly one can come up with some scenarios that work out for any hypothesis, there is a lot we don't know. If the 1st unrecorded shot was a hit etc.

But your comment (again, as I remember it) was something along the lines of "its obvious/proven he was shot at 6 times while running away/at the back" which I don't see as anywhere close to obvious.

Anyway, looking forward to your response. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I will admit that it may not be obvious and that my working theory at the time may have been in error. I keep refining that working theory as new statements and other evidence come forward and as I go back and read older statements more thoroughly.

For the next day or so, I would like to compile as many of the statements made by as many of the witnesses regarding the shot that convinced Michael to stop running as I can.

I'll put them right here. Would you have time to help in the compilation of those statements? If we assume good faith on the part of the witnesses who have come forward, I believe a central plausible theme will emerge.

Michael-Ridgway (talk) 18:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

What witnesses and Wilson surrogates say about shot or shots fired while Brown is running away

Wilson surrogates or alleged surrogates

---

Chief Jon Belmar speaking at his August 10 news conference: Makes no mention of shots being fired while Brown was fleeing the scene.

---

Chief Jon Belmar when interviewed on MSNBC with St. Louis County Executive Charlie Dooley at his side: Apparently doesn't provide any details about what Brown or Wilson did between the first shot fired before Michael fled and that Michael turned around to face the officer.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/eyewitness-michael-brown-fatal-shooting-missouri

---

Josie during a call into the Dana Loesch Show (local to St. Louis): Josie describes Michael running away but makes no mention of any shots being fired at that time. She claims that while Michael was running, that Wilson's yelled out "Freeze!" and that at that moment, Michael turned around and began to taunt the police officer, challenging his resolve to actually shoot him. Then, without mentioning any provocation, claims that Michael begins to run at Wilson "at full speed."

---

Purported witnesses

---

Dorian Johnson when interviewed at the crime scene on August 9: And we took off running.... He shot again, and when my friend felt that shot, he turned around. he fired several more shots.

---

Michael Brady interviewed by Anderson Cooper: I come in to say something to my fiancee in the kitchen and then I go into the bed room. Within the two minutes in the bedroom, I heard an altercation outside and ...

COOPER: What did you hear?

BRADY: Just some heavy struggle you know, like a strong voice, like a strong voice. I'm not sure, you know, what words are exchanged exactly, but it's just a strong voice.

COOPER: So what did you do then?

BRADY: (inaudible), when I heard the altercation, I looks out the window and I see somebody at Ferguson police window, some kind of tussle going on here.

COOPER: So you saw somebody at the window of the police car?

BRADY: Yes.

COOPER: Police officer was still in the vehicle.

BRADY: Yeah, inside the vehicle. So like I say there's some kind of tussle going on. He also had a friend also. He runs on the side of the car, because all of a sudden, they just takes off running. After the tussle?

COOPER: Right.

BRADY: They just takes off running.

COOPER: Did you know Mike Brown?

BRADY: No, no.

COOPER: OK.

BRADY: I see him, you know, around or whatever. So ...

COOPER: But it was Mike Brown at that vehicle?

BRADY: Yes.

COOPER: And you said there was a tussle, how long did it go on for that you saw it?

BRADY: Seconds, seconds, 10 seconds I should say.

COOPER: Did you see -- when the tussle was ??, did you see was one person being pulled in or pulled out or ...

BRADY: Oh, no. He was just exactly at the window. It made it look look like he was trying to get away.

COOPER: You couldn't tell exactly what was going on.

BRADY: Yeah, but, you know, I just seen some kind of tussle going on through the window. So -- but, like I say he has a friend also, and he's standing like in the front of the police cruiser, on the bumper side, on the passenger side but like five feet away from it though.

And like I say, all of the sudden they just take off running. Mr. Brown, he just runs directly down the middle of the street and his friend is -- there was a car that was parked on the sidewalk, the Ferguson cop, his vehicle was in the middle of the street, diagonal.

So like I said, they take off running.

COOPER: Had there been a shot when there was still that tussle with the police.

BRADY: I'm not -- I didn't hear the shot, I didn't hear the shot. Quite a few people that were around say they heard a shot go off in the car. Maybe they ...

COOPER: But the important thing is what you heard. You did not hear it?

BRADY: Right, right, right. So I definitely didn't hear that. So like I say his friend takes off running and like I said, the parked car was on the sidewalk and, you know, like I say he is far like five feet away from a police cruiser in the middle of the street. So like I said they just takes off running and I see the officer, he gets out of the car, emerge and just immediately start shooting. So (inaudible).

COOPER: You say he immediately starts shooting. You're saying -- he didn't say anything, he didn't ...

BRADY: Like I say, I didn't hear because everything -- I'm still in the window.

COOPER: OK.

BRADY: I'm still in the window. So when he gets out of the car, I see the first shot, as Mr. Brown like I say he directly in the middle of the street running with his back turned, running away. And he's probably -- was about 20 feet down and his other fiend, he's around the car, the trunk side of it. So I see him, you know, looking up at the (inaudible) just to see where he's at. But when he gets out of the car, he (inaudible) like one or two shots. But at that time, he has already passed his own police vehicle and Mr. Brown's friend where he run into, as he was in his gun's, shooting range, you know, position, he walked past the vehicle to where his friend ran to.

So I think that the officer knew where his friend is but I'm saying that he's showing me that he wasn't shooting at this friend.

COOPER: Did you see? You said there were one or two shots, you think. BRADY: Yes. The very first one, the first person when he gives out.

COOPER: Did you see if Mike Brown was hit by any of those shots?

BRADY: No, I don't think he -- maybe it was at the time because like I said he was 20, 25 feet down. So obviously he was still running.

COOPER: Right. Because we don't know -- the autopsy said that there were at least six shots that hit Mike Brown but we don't know how many shots may have been fired if there were other shots that were fired, if other bullet casings have been collected. We don't know.

BRADY: Right.

COOPER: So you said, you heard one or two.

BRADY: Yeah. I definitely saying one or two but like I say he still have his back turned and I notice that he passed his friend up, so where his friend ran too. So that's when I decide I'm going to run outside with my phone and see what I could get. So I run as fast, so quick. About the time I get outside, he's already turned around, facing the officer. He's balled up. He had his arms like under his stomach. And he was like half way down like he was going down and officer lets out by three or four shots at him. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 18:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Response

Certainly I think there is sufficient sourcing to suggest that there was at least one shot fired while running away. My question was about the count - I read your comment (again the one I can't find) as saying there were 6ish shots fired while running away. With so many witnesses speaking on that point, unless one assumes mass collaboration/coaching, it seems likely. however, per my math above, trying to find a good place where a back shot occurred is difficult. One plausible possibility (although certainly pure WP:OR/conjecture on my part) is that the first volley occurred at the end of Brown's "run", and as he was (already?) turning so that he could be struck from the front from (some of) those shots, while others perceive shots towards the back. However, short of some unknown video recording of the actual shooting, we are very unlikely ever to know for sure. Of course, if in the end it comes out that there was an 3rd unrecorded volley prior to the 10 shots we have on audio, then that changes the calculus considerably, but so far people are only mentioning the 1 early shot. I'm sure someone (police, jury etc) have the count of casings on the ground, or at least the number of rounds Wilson's gun can hold (rumors suggest 12+1, but conceivably could be as high as 17+1 (or if its a 9mm instead of a .40 as previously heard 33+1!)), and how many were left in the gun after (no rumors as to this as far as I am aware).Gaijin42 (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

My original count was based on my belief that Brown had turned around during the pause, so I was assuming, probably wrongfully, that that would mean 6 shots fired while Brown was running away with 1 hitting, and then 4 shots fired after he turned around, with all 4 hitting.

Now it's looking more like the 10 shots were all fired after he turned around, or perhaps as you suggest, were being fired just as he turned around -- though I don't recall much witness support for the notion that he just let six bullets rip as soon as Michael turned around. Everyone seems to suggest that Michael made a clear sign of surrender and that Wilson then began firing at that point. (For what it's worth, I can produce multiple witnesses or hearsay repeaters who talk about two major volleys, usually using the number 4 before the pause and then 4 after the pause. It is of note that we originally reported that Brown's mother "was told" that he had been shot 8 times. Sometimes that number ends up being 9 in various media sources. I believe that the 9 estimate comes from people adding in the first shot at the car. So 1 + 4 + 4.)

Of course, if we posit that 1 or 2 of the last 4 shots missed, then we would have to up the number of hits that he took before turning around.

So what I am trying to do is get as many statements from the different witnesses as I can in one place -- covering the time from when they started running to when he is said to have turned around. And already, I think an important pattern is emerging. But I'll hold off on putting it into words until I get a few more quotes up there.

I do appreciate that you are open to thinking this through and that you are willing to dialogue with me about it. I am very determined to find a working theory that is as water tight as possible as to what actually happened, given the likelihood that the video you discuss that would simply answer it all either doesn't exist or is never going to see public light of day. But on my own, I miss things. This happens to be the only place in the world where I can do "peer review" of my working theories with people that aren't 100 percent committed at this point to either the police side or the Brown side of the story. So having a side discussion like this rather than being tempted to get myself blown up (again) on the main talk page is greatly appreciated. So again, thank you. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 21:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, if he had only been hit 4 times, then 6 shots at the back and 4 at the front makes sense with the turn around in the pause. but there are too many hits on the front of the body for that scenario (without something odd/unusual going on that we don't know about anyway). Of course if the autopsies analysis is wrong and there is some JFK-style Single-bullet theory happening then things are up for grabs.

There may be plenty to criticize Wilson for, and in the end he may be (or should be) found guilty of something. But the "execution style" killing is not pretty much out the window (when I read that I think mafia style walking up to the guy who is kneeling). Hands up are a possibility, but the timeline of the 10 shots is very fast. If (note, if) the initial confrontation resulted in a valid self defense scenario - then the rest is inside a pretty fast OODA loop, especially with adrenaline and confusion. While we can certainly hope or wish that Wislon could react to Brown's switch from agression to surrender, it may not be realistic. (Of course if there was a lengthy "flee" prior to the 10 shots, then that gives Wilson more reaction time, and puts more burden onto him to show his actions were reasonable).

Of course, if the "valid defense" scenario didn't occur somewhere during the encounter, then everything is not justifiable.

There are various burdens of proof in play (in my opinion) (numbers just gut personal feels, except for SYG which is legally >50%) 1) decision to charge outright (50%?) 2) decision to convene grand jury (30%?) 3) decision to indict (60%), 4) possible SYG immunity (>50%, but I don't think applicable in MO), 5) decision to convict (beyond a reasonable doubt)

I can easily see getting up to #5, even if the proof isn't "technically" enough for the prior ones, I think it would be healthy to go through them just to clear the air and diffuse the situation. But proving beyond a reasonable doubt that there wasn't valid self defense - is a very high bar. Perhaps as a society the bar should change, and the burden of proof should shift - but this is going to be decided by the rules we have now, not the rules we may move to in the future. (And I see lots of problems with shifting the burden - better 10 guilty go free than 1 innocent convicted etc.)

I think everyone is tempted to put together a theory - its inevitable. Certainly I am guilty of it as well. Doing it here on a user page is fine. Doing it on the article talk page is a lot more problematic, unless its pretty narrowly tailored to something that can actually meet policy and go into the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Hrm, I guess Missouri is an SYG state. So there are multiple avenues of defense for Wilson. 563.046 as a police officer (with the complication of the Fleeing Felon SCOTUS ruling) and 563.031 (in particular point #5 saying state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt once injected). Missouri also has Castle law applicable to vehicles, so a possible assault while at the car may be in play (though obviously mitigated by the 10 shots not being in the vehicle anymore). Similarly to the position I took with Trayvon Martin I think its very unlikely that the will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't justified in some way, but I wouldn't choose to be his attorney in front of Saint_Peter#Popular_culture. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

And also in play is 563.074 #1 and #2 which grant criminal and civil immunity for valid self defense, including legal fees. So a civil suit is also going to be an uphill battle. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

All very impressive. You'd be an interesting person to get to know. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 05:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea who this guy is, and if he is notable or reliable in any way, but he put together a theory that aligns with some of what we discussed above, including both an unrecorded 3rd salvo, and "shot while turning". He also has other tweets where he comments on the distance between the SUV and the body, which I also find interesting, but his "100 foot away while shot" theory misses the crucial bit of info that we don't know where Wilson was standing. https://twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/512268512359120898 Gaijin42 (talk) 18:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I saw it. I also found this page where there is some good discussion regarding the same in the comments section. http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2014/09/18/did-the-police-in-ferguson-lie-on-day-1

After seeing Shaun's work, I sent him a tweet (I've been following him for some time now) asking if we could perhaps talk. He favorited the Tweet but didn't respond. I think that there is a lot in Shaun's research (and it's obviously not just Shaun who's putting this together) that is very helpful in getting a clearer understanding of what did and didn't happen. A lot of the confusion comes to people's estimates of distance. I am inclined to lean in favor of the white contractors when it comes to their estimates on distance. If you do landscaping, you work in distances all day every day. I'm not such a person and I don't think I'd have been able to accurately guess distances had I witnessed the event. The other witnesses only put out numbers when pressed and so there isn't a lot to go on there. But yes, I believe that there had to be substantial separation for Wilson to miss so badly as often as he did. Or, you could go with the Wilson defenders who suggest that he shot poorly because, having a dominant left eye, it got incapacitated that eye socket fracture.

By the way, someone today in Facebook through at me a claim that the first shot fired in or at the vehicle didn't hit Brown but instead went into a house. The map that Shaun provides seems to support that theory. Have you ever seen anything to support this in a reliable source that could be used for our article? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Wilson's marksmanship is certainly not to be commended (unfortunately he seems right on par with most officers). Best case scenario is 60%, and if there is the early shot, or an extra salvo it gets even worse. Of course adreneline and a hypothetical assault (take your pick on who is attacking who) are a lot different than a calm shooting range, so I suppose I cannot judge too harshly on that point.

Regarding distance, in photos/videos of the body a bit later there are multiple evidence cones visible around the body. some claim them to be markers for the bullet casings. Certainly if he was shot at 100 feet or more from Wilson, the self defense claim is much weaker or non existent and they would have to rely on a favorable interpretation of the fleeing felon rule. If the were close enough that casings were landing on both sides of Brown, that's a different matter.

Regarding the house, I don't know that its picked up anywhere reliable, but the conservative blogs have been all over that bit for weeks. The claimed bullet hole is visible in many of the media photos and videos, along with a piece of missing siding on the building. There are reports that the cops removed the siding to extract the bullet from the building. I commented about it a few weeks ago in the article talk. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/ShimonPro/status/504355965601599489 the hole seems huge to me, but its also after the police allegedly dug it out. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe that Piaget or Tiffany was the first to mention the bullet they retrieved. I had always assumed that it went into a building that was along a line made by the road. It never occurred to me that the bullet fired in the car could be the source for the bullet. We know that six bullets hit Michael. We also know that they only found three bullets. So it's possible that the bullet in the building actually did at least graze Michael -- it would be nice if they would show us the t-shirt, no? -- and that it then went on into the building. Otherwise, Dorian is completely wrong about seeing blood. Possible but why would he make that up? Possible answer, to cover up the fact that Mike was going for the gun. I'm still open to all possibilities not completely contraindicated by evidence, and to a lesser degree, testimony. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 20:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Comfort food. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 08:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Comfort drink. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 08:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

WARNING: Never eat pie with beer

There is only one correct sweet to eat with beer, and it is chocolate. Repent. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 12:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions, as you did at Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown. This is not what article talk pages are supposed to be used for, as you have been warned many times before. - MrX 20:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Dear Mr. X

Nothing like the name Mr. X to drive home how everyone on Wikipedia hides their identity while threatening blocks and bans without giving any specifics as to what is so inappropriate -- as is has been the case so many times before. No one warns such people that they will be banned for inappropriately threatening people. They, of course, are special. I am not special, as has been drilled into my head many, many times by so many, many people who engage in the same kinds of discussions that I do WP:DOUBLESTANDARD but who are never seriously challenged for so doing.

Dear. Mr. X. What specifically was inappropriate? I would be more than happy to remove any such inappropriate passages from the information that I have provided today. I am not emotionally attached to any of it. It was provided in hopes of improving the article so that it can greater and more accurate use to our readers while being very to the live and dead persons that we discuss therein.

Almost no one has responded to any of it except to agree that my idea that we mention the make of the vehicle. So forgive me for deeming your comments to be coming from way out of left field. Like I say. Tell me what's egregious and I'll remove it. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 23:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I have already removed the offending section. Specifically inappropriate are...

• Non-neutral section heading and borderline trolling: What Wilson apologists will and won't talk about
• WP:NPA wrapped in off-topic commentary: "I'd give you my take but Cwobeel would no doubt revert that comment as well. Very uncool, Cwobeel. But completely expected. Alice in Wikipediand," ← This is plainly evidence of using the talk page as a forum.

As a reminder, the talk page is not a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article. (see WP:TPG) - MrX 23:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

So my other posts were okay?

Dear. Mr. X. What specifically was inappropriate? If not for the knee-jerk adrenaline-spike attack-response defensive reaction, you might have noticed that MrX helpfully provided a link to the diff showing a specific edit. I say this as someone who has spent a lifetime trying to learn to control knee-jerk adrenaline-spike attack-response defensive reactions. ‑‑Mandruss (t) 21:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Michael-Ridgway. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Michael-Ridgway. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Michael-Ridgway! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Wikipedia suppression of information about Hunter Biden -- even on TALK pages, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

BLP vio

Stop posting and/or commenting on BLP violating content and gossip from unreliable sources. Do you really want to get blocked as WP:NOTHERE? -- Valjean (talk)

October 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Orange Mike | Talk 16:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 16:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. — Newslinger talk 02:15, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Carson Jorgensen (politician)

The article Carson Jorgensen (politician) has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm betting someone will source it. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 04:55, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

If not, oh well... Michael-Ridgway (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)