Looting in Missouri after cops shoot 18 year old (3 Viewers)

[Henry Ford]

Are people still convinced the cop didn't know about the robbery at the time he came in contact with Brown?

People are still wondering why the Ferguson police department released a statement saying that he didn't know, after talking with him, but he testified to the opposite.

 

[timschochet]

Correct.

Link? I've read the NY times summary and they didn't put an exact number on the witnesses but they said the most credible ones backed Wilson.

the most credible ones ? Can you link this too?

 

[timschochet]

Are people still convinced the cop didn't know about the robbery at the time he came in contact with Brown?

Those people seem to include the Ferguson police department .

 

[MaxThreshold]

Are people still convinced the cop didn't know about the robbery at the time he came in contact with Brown?

Not sure. Are people still convinced that Brown was a "good kid" and a "gentle giant"?

 

[Henry Ford]

Are people still convinced the cop didn't know about the robbery at the time he came in contact with Brown?

Not sure. Are people still convinced that Brown was a "good kid" and a "gentle giant"?

I don't know of anyone in this thread who was convinced he was a gentle giant.

 

[Hang 10]

Correct.

Link? I've read the NY times summary and they didn't put an exact number on the witnesses but they said the most credible ones backed Wilson.

the most credible ones ? Can you link this too?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/25/us/witnesses-told-grand-jury-that-michael-brown-charged-at-darren-wilson-prosecutor-says.html?_r=0

 

[The General]

Are people still convinced the cop didn't know about the robbery at the time he came in contact with Brown?

People are still wondering why the Ferguson police department released a statement saying that he didn't know, after talking with him, but he testified to the opposite.

This was what I had heard or something similar. Posted a link earlier that had the timeline of the day with radio clips from the cop. It was pretty clear he heard about robbery, heard description of Brown and his friend, called back to dispatch when he saw them and asked for extra cars.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Correct.

Link? I've read the NY times summary and they didn't put an exact number on the witnesses but they said the most credible ones backed Wilson.

the most credible ones ? Can you link this too?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/25/us/witnesses-told-grand-jury-that-michael-brown-charged-at-darren-wilson-prosecutor-says.html?_r=0

BOOM!

</endOfThread>

 

[jonessed]

The GJ was clearly wrong. Their decision has been refuted by the all mighty check-grid.

 

[Henry Ford]

Are people still convinced the cop didn't know about the robbery at the time he came in contact with Brown?

People are still wondering why the Ferguson police department released a statement saying that he didn't know, after talking with him, but he testified to the opposite.

This was what I had heard or something similar. Posted a link earlier that had the timeline of the day with radio clips from the cop. It was pretty clear he heard about robbery, heard description of Brown and his friend, called back to dispatch when he saw them and asked for extra cars.

The Ferguson police chief was unequivocal in saying Wilson had no knowledge of it. It's a solid example of the cluster#### the "investigation" was whether he knew or not.

 

[timschochet]

Hang10, I believe it was the prosecutor who stated that the most credible witnesses backed Wilson's story and the Times reported it. So first you post what Rudy said as if it were fact, and now you're reporting what the prosecutor said as if it were fact. Why not just admit that you don't know the facts (none of us do ) but that these people's opinions match what you want to believe actually happened?

 

[timschochet]

Correct.

Link? I've read the NY times summary and they didn't put an exact number on the witnesses but they said the most credible ones backed Wilson.

the most credible ones ? Can you link this too?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/25/us/witnesses-told-grand-jury-that-michael-brown-charged-at-darren-wilson-prosecutor-says.html?_r=0

BOOM!

</endOfThread>

Did you read that article? Wait no forget that. Did you bother to even read the headline? All they're doing is reporting what the prosecutor said . Why are you and Hang 10 pretending that the Times agreed with the prosecutor ?

 

[jon_mx]

Um, the grand jury testimony has come out and I doubt you have read all 4700 pages of transcripts. I haven't either, but I have not seen any summary of the witnesses' testimony that matches what Giuliani is claiming.

Well, than I'm sure it won't be long before Giuliani is contradicted, right?

from a few summaries I've read he's already been contradicted.

MSNBC and who else?

 

[squistion]

Hang10, I believe it was the prosecutor who stated that the most credible witnesses backed Wilson's story and the Times reported it. So first you post what Rudy said as if it were fact, and now you're reporting what the prosecutor said as if it were fact.

Why not just admit that you don't know the facts (none of us do ) but that these people's opinions match what you want to believe actually happened?

Don't hold your breath waiting for that admission.

 

[timschochet]

Um, the grand jury testimony has come out and I doubt you have read all 4700 pages of transcripts. I haven't either, but I have not seen any summary of the witnesses' testimony that matches what Giuliani is claiming.

Well, than I'm sure it won't be long before Giuliani is contradicted, right?

from a few summaries I've read he's already been contradicted.

MSNBC and who else?

i haven't watched a minute of MSNBC on this issue. Damn you're obsessed with MSNBC.

 

[Hang 10]

Hang10, I believe it was the prosecutor who stated that the most credible witnesses backed Wilson's story and the Times reported it. So first you post what Rudy said as if it were fact, and now you're reporting what the prosecutor said as if it were fact. Why not just admit that you don't know the facts (none of us do ) but that these people's opinions match what you want to believe actually happened?

Seriously, if you're willing to doubt the persecutor's summary of the grand jury, you are welcome to comb through the 4700 pages to prove him wrong. I see no reason to doubt him though...neither do the NY times apparently.

 

[jon_mx]

Um, the grand jury testimony has come out and I doubt you have read all 4700 pages of transcripts. I haven't either, but I have not seen any summary of the witnesses' testimony that matches what Giuliani is claiming.

Well, than I'm sure it won't be long before Giuliani is contradicted, right?

from a few summaries I've read he's already been contradicted.

MSNBC and who else?

i haven't watched a minute of MSNBC on this issue. Damn you're obsessed with MSNBC.

I am not the one who has posted topic after topic about something being discussed on MSNBC. Seriously, what are the sources of the summaries which you read?

 

[timschochet]

Hang10, I believe it was the prosecutor who stated that the most credible witnesses backed Wilson's story and the Times reported it. So first you post what Rudy said as if it were fact, and now you're reporting what the prosecutor said as if it were fact.

Why not just admit that you don't know the facts (none of us do ) but that these people's opinions match what you want to believe actually happened?

Don't hold your breath waiting for that admission.

it's really depressing. They treat every opinion they hear which matches their viewpoint as fact. They never seem to stop and question anything. They decided from day 1 who was at fault in this incident, and they reject anything that might cause them to reconsider.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Um, the grand jury testimony has come out and I doubt you have read all 4700 pages of transcripts. I haven't either, but I have not seen any summary of the witnesses' testimony that matches what Giuliani is claiming.

Well, than I'm sure it won't be long before Giuliani is contradicted, right?

from a few summaries I've read he's already been contradicted.

MSNBC and who else?

i haven't watched a minute of MSNBC on this issue. Damn you're obsessed with MSNBC.

I am not the one who has posted topic after topic about something being discussed on MSNBC. Seriously, what are the sources of the summaries which you read?

Why, HuffPo, Salon, MSNBC and the Daily Kos. All bastions of unbiased reporting with no agenda whatsoever.

 

[The General]

Are people still convinced the cop didn't know about the robbery at the time he came in contact with Brown?

People are still wondering why the Ferguson police department released a statement saying that he didn't know, after talking with him, but he testified to the opposite.

This was what I had heard or something similar. Posted a link earlier that had the timeline of the day with radio clips from the cop. It was pretty clear he heard about robbery, heard description of Brown and his friend, called back to dispatch when he saw them and asked for extra cars.

The Ferguson police chief was unequivocal in saying Wilson had no knowledge of it. It's a solid example of the cluster#### the "investigation" was whether he knew or not.

If I was parsing through that story I had linked correctly, it was clear that the cop knew. Not sure why or how that got messed up by the police chief, huge mistake.However if true this takes away a major part of the story that people keep citing in line with a "police coverup".

 

[MaxThreshold]

Hang10, I believe it was the prosecutor who stated that the most credible witnesses backed Wilson's story and the Times reported it. So first you post what Rudy said as if it were fact, and now you're reporting what the prosecutor said as if it were fact.

Why not just admit that you don't know the facts (none of us do ) but that these people's opinions match what you want to believe actually happened?

Don't hold your breath waiting for that admission.

it's really depressing. They treat every opinion they hear which matches their viewpoint as fact. They never seem to stop and question anything. They decided from day 1 who was at fault in this incident, and they reject anything that might cause them to reconsider.

Wait...You just described yourself.

 

[Stinger Ray]

Hang10, I believe it was the prosecutor who stated that the most credible witnesses backed Wilson's story and the Times reported it. So first you post what Rudy said as if it were fact, and now you're reporting what the prosecutor said as if it were fact.

Why not just admit that you don't know the facts (none of us do ) but that these people's opinions match what you want to believe actually happened?

Don't hold your breath waiting for that admission.

it's really depressing. They treat every opinion they hear which matches their viewpoint as fact. They never seem to stop and question anything. They decided from day 1 who was at fault in this incident, and they reject anything that might cause them to reconsider.

Sounds exactly like the Brown supporters.

 

[Hang 10]

Hang10, I believe it was the prosecutor who stated that the most credible witnesses backed Wilson's story and the Times reported it. So first you post what Rudy said as if it were fact, and now you're reporting what the prosecutor said as if it were fact.

Why not just admit that you don't know the facts (none of us do ) but that these people's opinions match what you want to believe actually happened?

Don't hold your breath waiting for that admission.

it's really depressing. They treat every opinion they hear which matches their viewpoint as fact. They never seem to stop and question anything. They decided from day 1 who was at fault in this incident, and they reject anything that might cause them to reconsider.

So your view is the prosecutor was lying?

 

[timschochet]

Um, the grand jury testimony has come out and I doubt you have read all 4700 pages of transcripts. I haven't either, but I have not seen any summary of the witnesses' testimony that matches what Giuliani is claiming.

Well, than I'm sure it won't be long before Giuliani is contradicted, right?

from a few summaries I've read he's already been contradicted.

MSNBC and who else?

i haven't watched a minute of MSNBC on this issue. Damn you're obsessed with MSNBC.

I am not the one who has posted topic after topic about something being discussed on MSNBC. Seriously, what are the sources of the summaries which you read?

This thread is one of them. A few of those summaries were posted here. I saw an excellent summary a few nights back on CNN. But I repeat: if there is a summary or well reasoned argument that backs up either Rudy's assertion or the prosecutor 's statement about the most credible witnesses, post it or link it and I will read it and if it makes sense I will likely change my opinion. I don't understand why, with so much we don't know, there are people on both sides of this issue who refuse to have an open mind.

But if you guys are unable to link such a summary, then at the very least stop pretending that someone's opinion is fact.

 

[jon_mx]

Washington Post...The Physical Evidence Supported the Officer

USA Today.....Ferguson needs facts, not passions

"The Washington Post reports that Holder's investigators failed to uncover evidence to support civil rights charges."

"That's because the evidence in this case gives Wilson a strong defense. Brown allegedly was coming from the commission of a crime where he appeared to threaten a store clerk. The forensic evidence appears to contradict those who insist that Brown was not shot in a struggle but with his hands in the air. There is evidence that Wilson was injured in a struggle, the gun was discharged in the car and Brown was shot at close quarters leaving blood on the gun. Finally, more than a half-dozen black witnesses reportedly gave testimony supporting Wilson. "

 

[Sand]

Hang10, I believe it was the prosecutor who stated that the most credible witnesses backed Wilson's story and the Times reported it. So first you post what Rudy said as if it were fact, and now you're reporting what the prosecutor said as if it were fact.

Why not just admit that you don't know the facts (none of us do ) but that these people's opinions match what you want to believe actually happened?

Don't hold your breath waiting for that admission.

it's really depressing. They treat every opinion they hear which matches their viewpoint as fact. They never seem to stop and question anything. They decided from day 1 who was at fault in this incident, and they reject anything that might cause them to reconsider.

When the day is done, honestly it's a pretty straightforward case.

 

[The General]

Hang10, I believe it was the prosecutor who stated that the most credible witnesses backed Wilson's story and the Times reported it. So first you post what Rudy said as if it were fact, and now you're reporting what the prosecutor said as if it were fact. Why not just admit that you don't know the facts (none of us do ) but that these people's opinions match what you want to believe actually happened?

Well was Hang10 right? He has a few different things backing up what he originally stated.

 

[squistion]

Hang10, I believe it was the prosecutor who stated that the most credible witnesses backed Wilson's story and the Times reported it. So first you post what Rudy said as if it were fact, and now you're reporting what the prosecutor said as if it were fact. Why not just admit that you don't know the facts (none of us do ) but that these people's opinions match what you want to believe actually happened?

Seriously, if you're willing to doubt the persecutor's summary of the grand jury, you are welcome to comb through the 4700 pages to prove him wrong. I see no reason to doubt him though...neither do the NY times apparently.

The "persecutor"

 

[timschochet]

Hang10, I believe it was the prosecutor who stated that the most credible witnesses backed Wilson's story and the Times reported it. So first you post what Rudy said as if it were fact, and now you're reporting what the prosecutor said as if it were fact.

Why not just admit that you don't know the facts (none of us do ) but that these people's opinions match what you want to believe actually happened?

Don't hold your breath waiting for that admission.

it's really depressing. They treat every opinion they hear which matches their viewpoint as fact. They never seem to stop and question anything. They decided from day 1 who was at fault in this incident, and they reject anything that might cause them to reconsider.

Wait...You just described yourself.

Really? It seems you have read my posts on this subject with the same amount of attention as you did the Times article.

 

[The General]

Hang10, I believe it was the prosecutor who stated that the most credible witnesses backed Wilson's story and the Times reported it. So first you post what Rudy said as if it were fact, and now you're reporting what the prosecutor said as if it were fact.

Why not just admit that you don't know the facts (none of us do ) but that these people's opinions match what you want to believe actually happened?

Don't hold your breath waiting for that admission.

it's really depressing. They treat every opinion they hear which matches their viewpoint as fact. They never seem to stop and question anything. They decided from day 1 who was at fault in this incident, and they reject anything that might cause them to reconsider.

This is rich.

 

[Hang 10]

Washington Post...The Physical Evidence Supported the Officer

USA Today.....Ferguson needs facts, not passions

"The Washington Post reports that Holder's investigators failed to uncover evidence to support civil rights charges."

"That's because the evidence in this case gives Wilson a strong defense. Brown allegedly was coming from the commission of a crime where he appeared to threaten a store clerk. The forensic evidence appears to contradict those who insist that Brown was not shot in a struggle but with his hands in the air. There is evidence that Wilson was injured in a struggle, the gun was discharged in the car and Brown was shot at close quarters leaving blood on the gun. Finally, more than a half-dozen black witnesses reportedly gave testimony supporting Wilson. "

More than half-dozen backed Wilson, eh? Is 7 more than a half-dozen?

 

[jon_mx]

I faulted the officer until information released from the Grand Jury....

 

[timschochet]

Hang10, I believe it was the prosecutor who stated that the most credible witnesses backed Wilson's story and the Times reported it. So first you post what Rudy said as if it were fact, and now you're reporting what the prosecutor said as if it were fact.

Why not just admit that you don't know the facts (none of us do ) but that these people's opinions match what you want to believe actually happened?

Don't hold your breath waiting for that admission.

it's really depressing. They treat every opinion they hear which matches their viewpoint as fact. They never seem to stop and question anything. They decided from day 1 who was at fault in this incident, and they reject anything that might cause them to reconsider.

When the day is done, honestly it's a pretty straightforward case.

Only it isn't. And it's amazing to me that anyone could think it is .

 

[Hang 10]

Hang10, I believe it was the prosecutor who stated that the most credible witnesses backed Wilson's story and the Times reported it. So first you post what Rudy said as if it were fact, and now you're reporting what the prosecutor said as if it were fact. Why not just admit that you don't know the facts (none of us do ) but that these people's opinions match what you want to believe actually happened?

Seriously, if you're willing to doubt the persecutor's summary of the grand jury, you are welcome to comb through the 4700 pages to prove him wrong. I see no reason to doubt him though...neither do the NY times apparently.

The "persecutor"

Phones and autocorrect. It ain't pretty sometimes.

 

[timschochet]

Hang10, I believe it was the prosecutor who stated that the most credible witnesses backed Wilson's story and the Times reported it. So first you post what Rudy said as if it were fact, and now you're reporting what the prosecutor said as if it were fact. Why not just admit that you don't know the facts (none of us do ) but that these people's opinions match what you want to believe actually happened?

Well was Hang10 right? He has a few different things backing up what he originally stated.

He originally stated, as fact, Giuliani's opinion that 3 witnesses offered testimony almost word for word the same as Wilson. What has he offered to back that up?

 

[jon_mx]

Hang10, I believe it was the prosecutor who stated that the most credible witnesses backed Wilson's story and the Times reported it. So first you post what Rudy said as if it were fact, and now you're reporting what the prosecutor said as if it were fact. Why not just admit that you don't know the facts (none of us do ) but that these people's opinions match what you want to believe actually happened?

Well was Hang10 right? He has a few different things backing up what he originally stated.

He originally stated, as fact, Giuliani's opinion that 3 witnesses offered testimony almost word for word the same as Wilson. What has he offered to back that up?

So you want to get hung up on semantics.

 

[Hang 10]

Hang10, I believe it was the prosecutor who stated that the most credible witnesses backed Wilson's story and the Times reported it. So first you post what Rudy said as if it were fact, and now you're reporting what the prosecutor said as if it were fact. Why not just admit that you don't know the facts (none of us do ) but that these people's opinions match what you want to believe actually happened?

Well was Hang10 right? He has a few different things backing up what he originally stated.

He originally stated, as fact, Giuliani's opinion that 3 witnesses offered testimony almost word for word the same as Wilson. What has he offered to back that up?

I stated that I believed Giuliani. Giuliani wasn't offering an opinion.

 

[timschochet]

Washington Post...The Physical Evidence Supported the Officer

USA Today.....Ferguson needs facts, not passions

"The Washington Post reports that Holder's investigators failed to uncover evidence to support civil rights charges."

"That's because the evidence in this case gives Wilson a strong defense. Brown allegedly was coming from the commission of a crime where he appeared to threaten a store clerk. The forensic evidence appears to contradict those who insist that Brown was not shot in a struggle but with his hands in the air. There is evidence that Wilson was injured in a struggle, the gun was discharged in the car and Brown was shot at close quarters leaving blood on the gun. Finally, more than a half-dozen black witnesses reportedly gave testimony supporting Wilson. "

Its ironic to me that earlier you complained this morning that people are repeating the same talking points over and over and here you are posting the most stale ones again. Yes the physical evidence does not contradict Wilson. But it can't prove that Brown charged Wilson and IMO that is really the only important piece of evidence in determining if Brown was lawfully killed. The civil rights issue is secondary and for me irrelevant. The last thing you posted was obviously somebody's opinion piece.

 

[timschochet]

Hang10, I believe it was the prosecutor who stated that the most credible witnesses backed Wilson's story and the Times reported it. So first you post what Rudy said as if it were fact, and now you're reporting what the prosecutor said as if it were fact. Why not just admit that you don't know the facts (none of us do ) but that these people's opinions match what you want to believe actually happened?

Well was Hang10 right? He has a few different things backing up what he originally stated.

He originally stated, as fact, Giuliani's opinion that 3 witnesses offered testimony almost word for word the same as Wilson. What has he offered to back that up?

I stated that I believed Giuliani. Giuliani wasn't offering an opinion.

no y

 

[timschochet]

Hang10, I believe it was the prosecutor who stated that the most credible witnesses backed Wilson's story and the Times reported it. So first you post what Rudy said as if it were fact, and now you're reporting what the prosecutor said as if it were fact. Why not just admit that you don't know the facts (none of us do ) but that these people's opinions match what you want to believe actually happened?

Well was Hang10 right? He has a few different things backing up what he originally stated.

He originally stated, as fact, Giuliani's opinion that 3 witnesses offered testimony almost word for word the same as Wilson. What has he offered to back that up?

I stated that I believed Giuliani. Giuliani wasn't offering an opinion.

no you stated it as fact, the first time without any reference to Giuliani. And Giuliani stated it as fact without reference to any information which backed him up.

 

[Stinger Ray]

Tim is whiffng more than ever this morning.

 

[parasaurolophus]

How can somebody be upset that somebody wasn't indicted if they themselves don't believe he should have been convicted?

Doesn't that basically mean you support wasting tax dollars?

 

[squistion]

Hang10, I believe it was the prosecutor who stated that the most credible witnesses backed Wilson's story and the Times reported it. So first you post what Rudy said as if it were fact, and now you're reporting what the prosecutor said as if it were fact. Why not just admit that you don't know the facts (none of us do ) but that these people's opinions match what you want to believe actually happened?

Well was Hang10 right? He has a few different things backing up what he originally stated.

He originally stated, as fact, Giuliani's opinion that 3 witnesses offered testimony almost word for word the same as Wilson. What has he offered to back that up?

I stated that I believed Giuliani. Giuliani wasn't offering an opinion.

no you stated it as fact, the first time without any reference to Giuliani. And Giuliani stated it as fact without reference to any information which backed him up.

So outside of that he nailed it.

 

[Hang 10]

Hang10, I believe it was the prosecutor who stated that the most credible witnesses backed Wilson's story and the Times reported it. So first you post what Rudy said as if it were fact, and now you're reporting what the prosecutor said as if it were fact. Why not just admit that you don't know the facts (none of us do ) but that these people's opinions match what you want to believe actually happened?

Well was Hang10 right? He has a few different things backing up what he originally stated.

He originally stated, as fact, Giuliani's opinion that 3 witnesses offered testimony almost word for word the same as Wilson. What has he offered to back that up?

I stated that I believed Giuliani. Giuliani wasn't offering an opinion.

no you stated it as fact, the first time without any reference to Giuliani. And Giuliani stated it as fact without reference to any information which backed him up.

You asked for my source and I gave it to you. Knew you wouldn't like it but I still haven't seen anything that has refuted what he said. Where's the link I asked for? Also, didn't Jon's washpost article confirm Giuliani?

 

[timschochet]

How can somebody be upset that somebody wasn't indicted if they themselves don't believe he should have been convicted?

Doesn't that basically mean you support wasting tax dollars?

If you're speaking of me, I'm not upset Wilson wasn't indicted. I wouldn't have indicted him myself, so I think it was the correct decision.

But that doesn't mean there was no wrongful death here. I'm fairly convinced there was. But not one that could or should be prosecuted.

 

[squistion]

I wonder what the alternative plans would have been.

Adam Schefter ‏@AdamSchefter ·

NFL and Rams discussed contingency plans in event that protests in nearby Ferguson, Mo., prevented them from playing todays game in STL.

 

[jon_mx]

How can somebody be upset that somebody wasn't indicted if they themselves don't believe he should have been convicted?

Doesn't that basically mean you support wasting tax dollars?

If you're speaking of me, I'm not upset Wilson wasn't indicted. I wouldn't have indicted him myself, so I think it was the correct decision.

But that doesn't mean there was no wrongful death here. I'm fairly convinced there was. But not one that could or should be prosecuted.

So the evidence suggest otherwise, but you KNOW what happened.

 

[timschochet]

Hang10, I believe it was the prosecutor who stated that the most credible witnesses backed Wilson's story and the Times reported it. So first you post what Rudy said as if it were fact, and now you're reporting what the prosecutor said as if it were fact. Why not just admit that you don't know the facts (none of us do ) but that these people's opinions match what you want to believe actually happened?

Well was Hang10 right? He has a few different things backing up what he originally stated.

He originally stated, as fact, Giuliani's opinion that 3 witnesses offered testimony almost word for word the same as Wilson. What has he offered to back that up?

I stated that I believed Giuliani. Giuliani wasn't offering an opinion.

no you stated it as fact, the first time without any reference to Giuliani. And Giuliani stated it as fact without reference to any information which backed him up.

You asked for my source and I gave it to you. Knew you wouldn't like it but I still haven't seen anything that has refuted what he said. Where's the link I asked for? Also, didn't Jon's washpost article confirm Giuliani?

lol. It's like you can't even remember what you posted.

The first time you posted it as fact. You didn't mention Giuliani. Then when challenged, you reveal that you heard Giuliani say it. Then, when asked if there is any evidence to prove that Giuliani was correct, you demanded that anyone skeptical of him refute him. ALL WE HAVE STATED AGAIN AND AGAIN IS THAT WE DON'T KNOW. You're the one who acts like you do know. Yet we're the ones supposed to provide the proof? It's laughable.

 

[Hang 10]

But that doesn't mean there was no wrongful death here. I'm fairly convinced there was. But not one that could or should be prosecuted.

And you base this on nothing and yet you self righteously criticize people that have the minds made up already.

 

[Courtjester]

Tim, I know one of your sticking points was the distance during the shooting.

This is from the documents released from the GJ. I think you may find it interesting.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2014/11/24/ferguson-evidence/assets/ferguson/photos/2014-43984/photos-7/capture.png

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2014/11/24/ferguson-evidence/assets/ferguson/photos/2014-43984/photos-7/capture.png

One is the diagram--the other is the key to the diagram.