Looting in Missouri after cops shoot 18 year old (2 Viewers)

[timschochet]

The 6 and 7 points from the write up from General Tso are really the main thing obviously. Seems like people can have all kinds of different ways to see that depending on what they want to see or what agenda they want to have. Some of the posters added some links supporting that the guy grabbed the gun as I was typing this.

They have to release all the accounts - the ones they used and the ones they tossed - right? Was this done yesterday?

The fact that this guy robbed a store moments before and they have video of that is pretty crazy.

You're not missing anything. It's insane that this is even an issue. It's like the country has gone mad and lost all common sense.The fact that people are debating whether he was shot at 30 feet or 45 feet is ridiculous. If you attack a cop, you get shot. And that applies whether you are black, white or purple. I'm not a big cop supporter by any means, but this is not the train you want to hitch yourself to. I'm still baffled at how so many people have found legitimate reason to protest this case. It's hurting the liberal cause!!!

But again, we don't know if or how he attacked the cop.

 

[timschochet]

We just had a grand jury decision based on all of the evidence, yet all of the evidence is back in dispute.

Is the coroner in on the conspiracy now? I can't keep track anymore.

We had a grand jury decide that there wasn't enough evidence to indict Officer Wilson of wrongfully killing Michael Brown. They did not decide anything else.

 

[TheAristocrat]

So based on the above article, we really don't know whether Brown tried to seize Wilson's gun or not. We really don't know how far the distance was between them when Wilson fatally shot Brown. For both of these, so far as I know, all we have is Wilson's testimony plus several unreliable witnesses who contradict each other. Many of you have simply bought into Wilson's claims without questioning them at all. Many of you have treated them as undisputable facts, and have used them to justify all or most of your thinking on this issue. And they may be what actually happened. But we don't know.

Thanks.

 

[GrandpaRox]

His step dad's statements are all you need to hear. To bad this thug idiot didn't get this sooner. And a big hand for all the uneducated moron jerkoff idiots who rioted, make Ferguson proud and reinforce that the cop was JUSTIFIED

I'm curious as to how the rioters "reinforce that the cop was justified." Perhaps you can explain this to me?

The evidence reinforced that the cop was justified, the looters and rioters justify racial profiling and stereotyping. HTH

 

[timschochet]

There is a certain logic to General Tso's argument. If Michael Brown did indeed attack a police officer, it's likely that he is going to be shot. It's possible that he's going to die. And in such instances, it's extremely unlikely that the police officer will ever be charged with a crime. It is VERY STUPID to attack a police officer.

But all of that assumes that there actually was an attack, and that it played out the way Wilson describes it.

 

[General Tso]

This is on the front page of Reddit right now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPUcA7yrErg&feature=youtu.be

I haven't seen anything else from Fredrick Wilson II but I might have to subscribe.

YouTube = E. T. Williams (search Common Sense & ET Williams)You might like it.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I can't wait to live in a world where a back man says stuff like this and isn't singled out as a genius. This stuff really should be common sense by now.

 

[Billy Bats]

So based on the above article, we really don't know whether Brown tried to seize Wilson's gun or not. We really don't know how far the distance was between them when Wilson fatally shot Brown. For both of these, so far as I know, all we have is Wilson's testimony plus several unreliable witnesses who contradict each other. Many of you have simply bought into Wilson's claims without questioning them at all. Many of you have treated them as undisputable facts, and have used them to justify all or most of your thinking on this issue. And they may be what actually happened. But we don't know.

Does the coroner report mean anything at all to you Tim? I'll post the link again for you, maybe read it this time.

The official autopsy also confirmed that tissue from Brown was found on the exterior of the drivers side of Wilsons vehicle.

Someone got an injury that tore off skin and left it on the car, Graham said. That fits with everything else that came out. Theres blood in the car, now skin on the car, that shows something happened right there.

http://m.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/official-autopsy-shows-michael-brown-had-close-range-wound-to/article_e98a4ce0-c284-57c9-9882-3fb7df75fef6.html?mobile_touch=true

 

[jonessed]

We just had a grand jury decision based on all of the evidence, yet all of the evidence is back in dispute.

Is the coroner in on the conspiracy now? I can't keep track anymore.

We had a grand jury decide that there wasn't enough evidence to indict Officer Wilson of wrongfully killing Michael Brown. They did not decide anything else.

Exactly.

 

[timschochet]

His step dad's statements are all you need to hear. To bad this thug idiot didn't get this sooner. And a big hand for all the uneducated moron jerkoff idiots who rioted, make Ferguson proud and reinforce that the cop was JUSTIFIED

I'm curious as to how the rioters "reinforce that the cop was justified." Perhaps you can explain this to me?

The evidence reinforced that the cop was justified, the looters and rioters justify racial profiling and stereotyping. HTH

Both statements are wrong.

The evidence that the grand jury saw confirmed for them that there wasn't enough evidence to indict Officer Wilson. They may have made the right decision, or maybe not. But failing to indict is not the same as justifying Wilson's actions.

Your second statement is not surprising coming from you, given your previous statements on this matter. But in fact you contradict yourself. Only a very small minority of those protesting are committing violence. Only an extremely tiny of minority of African Americans have chosen to publicly protest this incident. Therefore, racial profiling and stereotyping are the exact opposite of what is needed here.

 

[The General]

The 6 and 7 points from the write up from General Tso are really the main thing obviously. Seems like people can have all kinds of different ways to see that depending on what they want to see or what agenda they want to have. Some of the posters added some links supporting that the guy grabbed the gun as I was typing this.

They have to release all the accounts - the ones they used and the ones they tossed - right? Was this done yesterday?

The fact that this guy robbed a store moments before and they have video of that is pretty crazy.

You're not missing anything. It's insane that this is even an issue. It's like the country has gone mad and lost all common sense.The fact that people are debating whether he was shot at 30 feet or 45 feet is ridiculous. If you attack a cop, you get shot. And that applies whether you are black, white or purple. I'm not a big cop supporter by any means, but this is not the train you want to hitch yourself to. I'm still baffled at how so many people have found legitimate reason to protest this case. It's hurting the liberal cause!!!

Attacking a cop after you robbed a store is a really bad idea. Listening to cops BS when they mess with you all the time for no reason would also suck pretty bad. This guy was being a bad dude that day. Don't know ####-all about him otherwise.

There are undoubtedly issues to address and injustices that happen daily but this seems like this is a pretty bad incident for people to choose as their rallying point for change.

The looting is awful, senseless. So damaging to what decent people are trying to achieve.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

There is a certain logic to General Tso's argument. If Michael Brown did indeed attack a police officer, it's likely that he is going to be shot.

No, it's not. Law Enforcement officers all over the country are attacked every day and they don't shoot and kill the offender. The facts in this case are what they are and the Grand Jury found that Wilson's actions were appropriate under the circumstances. But to say someone who attacks a police officer deserves to be shot is subjective and stupid to be honest. They risk being shot, but the appropriate use of force depends on a number of variables including opportunity, capability and intent. If we played by your and General Tso's rules, we'd shoot and kill most people taken down in raids.

 

[General Tso]

So based on the above article, we really don't know whether Brown tried to seize Wilson's gun or not. We really don't know how far the distance was between them when Wilson fatally shot Brown. For both of these, so far as I know, all we have is Wilson's testimony plus several unreliable witnesses who contradict each other. Many of you have simply bought into Wilson's claims without questioning them at all. Many of you have treated them as undisputable facts, and have used them to justify all or most of your thinking on this issue. And they may be what actually happened. But we don't know.

Simple question - do you believe that Mike Brown assaulted Officer Wilson?

 

[dickey moe]

Dudes can cover 40 yards in 4 seconds nowadays...

What kind of dudes are those?

Really fast dudes!

 

[timschochet]

So based on the above article, we really don't know whether Brown tried to seize Wilson's gun or not. We really don't know how far the distance was between them when Wilson fatally shot Brown. For both of these, so far as I know, all we have is Wilson's testimony plus several unreliable witnesses who contradict each other. Many of you have simply bought into Wilson's claims without questioning them at all. Many of you have treated them as undisputable facts, and have used them to justify all or most of your thinking on this issue. And they may be what actually happened. But we don't know.

Does the coroner report mean anything at all to you Tim? I'll post the link again for you, maybe read it this time.

The official autopsy also confirmed that tissue from Brown was found on the exterior of the drivers side of Wilsons vehicle.

Someone got an injury that tore off skin and left it on the car, Graham said. That fits with everything else that came out. Theres blood in the car, now skin on the car, that shows something happened right there.

http://m.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/official-autopsy-shows-michael-brown-had-close-range-wound-to/article_e98a4ce0-c284-57c9-9882-3fb7df75fef6.html?mobile_touch=true

It doesn't speak to my points though. Obviously there was a struggle in the car. We don't know the nature of the struggle. We don't know if Brown really tried to seize the gun. We don't know who initiated the struggle. And after Brown took off and then turned around, we don't know the distance between them, and we don't know if Brown was charging.

Unless I'm missing something, none of this was confirmed last night one way or the other.

 

[timschochet]

There is a certain logic to General Tso's argument. If Michael Brown did indeed attack a police officer, it's likely that he is going to be shot.

No, it's not. Law Enforcement officers all over the country are attacked every day and they don't shoot and kill the offender. The facts in this case are what they are and the Grand Jury found that Wilson's actions were appropriate under the circumstances. But to say someone who attacks a police officer deserves to be shot is subjective and stupid to be honest. They risk being shot, but the appropriate use of force depends on a number of variables including opportunity, capability and intent. If we played by your and General Tso's rules, we'd shoot and kill most people taken down in raids.

I meant that they risk being shot. But I thank you and will rely on your expertise here.

 

[Bucky86]

Why were certain witnesses treated differently than others?

Why was Wilson's testimony treated as reliable others were not?

 

[chauncey]

Would the Indian shop owner have been justified shooting the guy who was robbing him and physically attacking him? If so then that would have been a much simpler solution for everyone.

 

[Billy Bats]

So based on the above article, we really don't know whether Brown tried to seize Wilson's gun or not. We really don't know how far the distance was between them when Wilson fatally shot Brown. For both of these, so far as I know, all we have is Wilson's testimony plus several unreliable witnesses who contradict each other. Many of you have simply bought into Wilson's claims without questioning them at all. Many of you have treated them as undisputable facts, and have used them to justify all or most of your thinking on this issue. And they may be what actually happened. But we don't know.

Does the coroner report mean anything at all to you Tim? I'll post the link again for you, maybe read it this time.

The official autopsy also confirmed that tissue from Brown was found on the exterior of the drivers side of Wilsons vehicle.

Someone got an injury that tore off skin and left it on the car, Graham said. That fits with everything else that came out. Theres blood in the car, now skin on the car, that shows something happened right there.

http://m.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/official-autopsy-shows-michael-brown-had-close-range-wound-to/article_e98a4ce0-c284-57c9-9882-3fb7df75fef6.html?mobile_touch=true

It doesn't speak to my points though. Obviously there was a struggle in the car. We don't know the nature of the struggle. We don't know if Brown really tried to seize the gun. We don't know who initiated the struggle. .

All true, Brown was high so maybe he was wrestling for the officer's burrito? And it's very possible that the officer remained in his car and grabbed Brown and pulled him into his car and started the struggle of said burrito. Good points man, we'll never know for sure.

 

[timschochet]

So based on the above article, we really don't know whether Brown tried to seize Wilson's gun or not. We really don't know how far the distance was between them when Wilson fatally shot Brown. For both of these, so far as I know, all we have is Wilson's testimony plus several unreliable witnesses who contradict each other. Many of you have simply bought into Wilson's claims without questioning them at all. Many of you have treated them as undisputable facts, and have used them to justify all or most of your thinking on this issue. And they may be what actually happened. But we don't know.

Simple question - do you believe that Mike Brown assaulted Officer Wilson?

Simple answer: yes. It is my hunch that he did. Michael Brown was a stupid thug. However I don't know for sure. Did Michael Brown try to seize Wilson's gun? I have no ####### idea.

Did Michael Brown, already wounded, having walked or run away from the car, suddenly turn around at a distance of 40 feet or more and charge an armed policeman, with a gun pointed at him, like a mad wounded animal? I have NEVER been able to believe this, sorry. Even for a dumb thug like Brown it doesn't make any sense. Sure it's possible. But I don't buy it.

 

[Bucky86]

So based on the above article, we really don't know whether Brown tried to seize Wilson's gun or not. We really don't know how far the distance was between them when Wilson fatally shot Brown. For both of these, so far as I know, all we have is Wilson's testimony plus several unreliable witnesses who contradict each other. Many of you have simply bought into Wilson's claims without questioning them at all. Many of you have treated them as undisputable facts, and have used them to justify all or most of your thinking on this issue. And they may be what actually happened. But we don't know.

Does the coroner report mean anything at all to you Tim? I'll post the link again for you, maybe read it this time.

The official autopsy also confirmed that tissue from Brown was found on the exterior of the drivers side of Wilsons vehicle.

Someone got an injury that tore off skin and left it on the car, Graham said. That fits with everything else that came out. Theres blood in the car, now skin on the car, that shows something happened right there.

http://m.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/official-autopsy-shows-michael-brown-had-close-range-wound-to/article_e98a4ce0-c284-57c9-9882-3fb7df75fef6.html?mobile_touch=true

It doesn't speak to my points though. Obviously there was a struggle in the car. We don't know the nature of the struggle. We don't know if Brown really tried to seize the gun. We don't know who initiated the struggle. .

All true, Brown was high so maybe he was wrestling for the officer's burrito? And it's very possible that the officer remained in his car and grabbed Brown and pulled him into his car and started the struggle of said burrito. Good points man, we'll never know for sure.

Maybe if he had a donut...

 

[timschochet]

Why were certain witnesses treated differently than others?

Why was Wilson's testimony treated as reliable others were not?

These are good questions.

 

[Henry Ford]

I keep thinking back to the distance thing. 30 feet. 10 yards. Assuming Wilson felt his life was in danger, how close should he have allowed Brown to come? 10 yards seems awful close. If he has to be in arms reach, why do we allow cops to carry firearms. Maybe they should just have a sharp stick.

In his interview he said Brown got to within 8-10 feet then he started back pedaling.

In the interview on ABC tonight he agreed when the interviewer asked him if he shot him at 35-40 feet. Did he later disagree?

 

[Doctor Detroit]

There is a certain logic to General Tso's argument. If Michael Brown did indeed attack a police officer, it's likely that he is going to be shot.

No, it's not. Law Enforcement officers all over the country are attacked every day and they don't shoot and kill the offender. The facts in this case are what they are and the Grand Jury found that Wilson's actions were appropriate under the circumstances. But to say someone who attacks a police officer deserves to be shot is subjective and stupid to be honest. They risk being shot, but the appropriate use of force depends on a number of variables including opportunity, capability and intent. If we played by your and General Tso's rules, we'd shoot and kill most people taken down in raids.

I meant that they risk being shot. But I thank you and will rely on your expertise here.

My point is there are probably hundreds of resisting arrest charges every day in this country. Drug addicts, burglaries and most importantly domestics. We can't have cops shooting to kill for police battery, and they don't. In this case it seems the evidence points to Wilson using the proper amount of force given the situation, or at least that's what the grand jury thought. When Suzie Ann is getting beat up by her boyfriend and the cops come and she swings at her detained boyfriend and strikes a cop, we don't shoot her for that. This isn't Uzbekistan.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

SaintsinDome2006

I wouldn't necessarily call myself a conservative, but I am definitely on the right side of the political spectrum.

I think there are a ton of police brutality issues where officers are not punished for their wrongful actions. I think there are many cops who lie and massage reports to fit the narrative they need to get off. I think the officers in the Kelly Thomas murder, not killing, should be in prison.

Here is my beef with Officer Wilson and where I think much more attention should be focused. His initial contact with Brown is troubling. I could easily envision a scenario where he approached Brown in the middle of the street and said something is a rather abrasive or authoritarian manner. I have had numerous instances where officers approached me and their initial contact/tone was authoritative/quasi threatening. The problem with many police officers is that they treat every person they deal with like they are a a dirtbag. It is highly infuriating.

Putting my little feud with Sprouts aside...I agree with some of the sentiments he expressed with the tone/manner in which they have behaved towards him.

Now, after that initial contact, there really isn't anything I can really blame/fault the officer for doing. But, had Wilson just drove on by and dealt with more pressing matters than trying to scold Brown for walking in the street or playing the authoritarian card...then I think the situation probably would have been different.

until he hears about the robbery at the store and description and realizes he just saw that guy and goes back to get him ...seems like something was going to go down one way or another...Brown seemed to think because he`s so big he can do as he pleased....and it cost him his life....i still have an issue with shooting an unarmed person from that distance but it seems the law allows cops to shoot unarmed people if they are deemed a risk to injure or kill someone

 

[Bucky86]

I keep thinking back to the distance thing. 30 feet. 10 yards. Assuming Wilson felt his life was in danger, how close should he have allowed Brown to come? 10 yards seems awful close. If he has to be in arms reach, why do we allow cops to carry firearms. Maybe they should just have a sharp stick.

In his interview he said Brown got to within 8-10 feet then he started back pedaling.

In the interview on ABC tonight he agreed when the interviewer asked him if he shot him at 35-40 feet. Did he later disagree?

If only Wilson was interrogated like the witnesses that contradicted his version of events were.

 

[fantasycurse42]

WORTHLESS ####### DEADBEAT PEASANTS BLOCKING THE BROOKLYN BRIDGE!!! Good thing for them I'm in the back of this Yukon and not driving bc I'd run right through this worthless group of deadbeats who will never amount to more than rosdkill with an ear to ear grin!!

 

[chauncey]

Wait a minute, the kid walked up to a cop and punched him while he was sitting in his cruiser? Case closed, justified shooting.

 

[Billy Bats]

I keep thinking back to the distance thing. 30 feet. 10 yards. Assuming Wilson felt his life was in danger, how close should he have allowed Brown to come? 10 yards seems awful close. If he has to be in arms reach, why do we allow cops to carry firearms. Maybe they should just have a sharp stick.

In his interview he said Brown got to within 8-10 feet then he started back pedaling.

In the interview on ABC tonight he agreed when the interviewer asked him if he shot him at 35-40 feet. Did he later disagree?

That was when he first started charging, he continued to charge and got to within 8-10 feet before the last discharge of his gun.

 

[Raider Nation]

‏

Ferguson protesters have run onto the 101 Freeway in downtown Los Angeles, blocking lanes in both directions.

 

[Raider Nation]

WORTHLESS ####### DEADBEAT PEASANTS BLOCKING THE BROOKLYN BRIDGE!!! Good thing for them I'm in the back of this Yukon and not driving bc I'd run right through this worthless group of deadbeats who will never amount to more than rosdkill with an ear to ear grin!!

SIDAcurse42!

 

[Jim11]

Not surprising to me that you think that jaywalking deserves the death penalty.

Typical liberal "logic".

 

[General Tso]

There is a certain logic to General Tso's argument. If Michael Brown did indeed attack a police officer, it's likely that he is going to be shot.

No, it's not. Law Enforcement officers all over the country are attacked every day and they don't shoot and kill the offender. The facts in this case are what they are and the Grand Jury found that Wilson's actions were appropriate under the circumstances. But to say someone who attacks a police officer deserves to be shot is subjective and stupid to be honest. They risk being shot, but the appropriate use of force depends on a number of variables including opportunity, capability and intent. If we played by your and General Tso's rules, we'd shoot and kill most people taken down in raids.

Ok, so I take that back... If you attack a cop, who is alone and much smaller than you, then you should expect to be shot. You know, lost in all of this social babble is the simple truth of the matter. Mike Brown was begging to be taken out that day. He bullied an old man, then he bullied a cop. He was a walking middle finger to the world. "You're too much of a ##### to shoot". No, Mike, you are too much of an idiot not to get shot.

 

[fantasycurse42]

What's even funnier is what a group of bithxes they are!!! I jumped in the middle of their parade screaming SHOOT SHOOT on 7th ave and not a single one of these ####### spread their legs to say boo... ####### useless lassies, couldn't even provide a little hand to hand. #####ES!!!!

 

[timschochet]

I keep thinking back to the distance thing. 30 feet. 10 yards. Assuming Wilson felt his life was in danger, how close should he have allowed Brown to come? 10 yards seems awful close. If he has to be in arms reach, why do we allow cops to carry firearms. Maybe they should just have a sharp stick.

In his interview he said Brown got to within 8-10 feet then he started back pedaling.

In the interview on ABC tonight he agreed when the interviewer asked him if he shot him at 35-40 feet. Did he later disagree?

That was when he first started charging, he continued to charge and got to within 8-10 feet before the last discharge of his gun.

That's Wilson's testimony.

 

[Jim11]

I keep thinking back to the distance thing. 30 feet. 10 yards. Assuming Wilson felt his life was in danger, how close should he have allowed Brown to come? 10 yards seems awful close. If he has to be in arms reach, why do we allow cops to carry firearms. Maybe they should just have a sharp stick.

In his interview he said Brown got to within 8-10 feet then he started back pedaling.

In the interview on ABC tonight he agreed when the interviewer asked him if he shot him at 35-40 feet. Did he later disagree?

If only Wilson was interrogated like the witnesses that contradicted his version of events were.

How do you know he wasn't?

 

[TheAristocrat]

Why were certain witnesses treated differently than others?

Why was Wilson's testimony treated as reliable others were not?

Have you actually ever seen a jury trial? That is required in the legal process. Firsthand accounts receive different scrutiny than others. Their validity ALSO gets different scrutiny.

 

[fantasycurse42]

WORTHLESS ####### DEADBEAT PEASANTS BLOCKING THE BROOKLYN BRIDGE!!! Good thing for them I'm in the back of this Yukon and not driving bc I'd run right through this worthless group of deadbeats who will never amount to more than rosdkill with an ear to ear grin!!

SIDAcurse42!

See how you feel being rerouted bc of a group of ####### useless douschbags

 

[The General]

There is a certain logic to General Tso's argument. If Michael Brown did indeed attack a police officer, it's likely that he is going to be shot.

No, it's not. Law Enforcement officers all over the country are attacked every day and they don't shoot and kill the offender. The facts in this case are what they are and the Grand Jury found that Wilson's actions were appropriate under the circumstances. But to say someone who attacks a police officer deserves to be shot is subjective and stupid to be honest. They risk being shot, but the appropriate use of force depends on a number of variables including opportunity, capability and intent. If we played by your and General Tso's rules, we'd shoot and kill most people taken down in raids.

I meant that they risk being shot. But I thank you and will rely on your expertise here.

My point is there are probably hundreds of resisting arrest charges every day in this country. Drug addicts, burglaries and most importantly domestics. We can't have cops shooting to kill for police battery, and they don't. In this case it seems the evidence points to Wilson using the proper amount of force given the situation, or at least that's what the grand jury thought. When Suzie Ann is getting beat up by her boyfriend and the cops come and she swings at her detained boyfriend and strikes a cop, we don't shoot her for that. This isn't Uzbekistan.

This is one of the better posts I have read in here in a long time. Well said, better than what I have seen by any of these talking heads on CNN/MSNBC.

 

[timschochet]

Wait a minute, the kid walked up to a cop and punched him while he was sitting in his cruiser? Case closed, justified shooting.

There is no real evidence of this other than Wilson's testimony.

 

[sublimeone]

This is on the front page of Reddit right now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPUcA7yrErg&feature=youtu.be

I haven't seen anything else from Fredrick Wilson II but I might have to subscribe.

Wow

This guys get's it.

GO STAKE YOUR CLAIM. It's a free country.

Nah, it's way easier to keep your hand out and blame everyone else.

The first time I clicked that link the video had 60k views... It's now at nearly300k just a few hours later

 

[Bucky86]

Why were certain witnesses treated differently than others?

Why was Wilson's testimony treated as reliable others were not?

Have you actually ever seen a jury trial? That is required in the legal process. Firsthand accounts receive different scrutiny than others. Their validity ALSO gets different scrutiny.

Wasnt this different than a normal jury trial?

 

[Doctor Detroit]

‏

Ferguson protesters have run onto the 101 Freeway in downtown Los Angeles, blocking lanes in both directions.

I bet some of those people will be posting in the "Who has off tomarrow" thread later.

 

[General Tso]

Why were certain witnesses treated differently than others?

Why was Wilson's testimony treated as reliable others were not?

Every witness has to establish credibility. Is their testimony consistent? Is it supported by the physical evidence?

 

[timschochet]

Why were certain witnesses treated differently than others?

Why was Wilson's testimony treated as reliable others were not?

Have you actually ever seen a jury trial? That is required in the legal process. Firsthand accounts receive different scrutiny than others. Their validity ALSO gets different scrutiny.

This was not a jury trial.

 

[dickey moe]

So based on the above article, we really don't know whether Brown tried to seize Wilson's gun or not. We really don't know how far the distance was between them when Wilson fatally shot Brown. For both of these, so far as I know, all we have is Wilson's testimony plus several unreliable witnesses who contradict each other. Many of you have simply bought into Wilson's claims without questioning them at all. Many of you have treated them as undisputable facts, and have used them to justify all or most of your thinking on this issue. And they may be what actually happened. But we don't know.

Simple question - do you believe that Mike Brown assaulted Officer Wilson?

Simple answer: yes. It is my hunch that he did. Michael Brown was a stupid thug. However I don't know for sure. Did Michael Brown try to seize Wilson's gun? I have no ####### idea.Did Michael Brown, already wounded, having walked or run away from the car, suddenly turn around at a distance of 40 feet or more and charge an armed policeman, with a gun pointed at him, like a mad wounded animal? I have NEVER been able to believe this, sorry. Even for a dumb thug like Brown it doesn't make any sense. Sure it's possible. But I don't buy it.

It might not make sense, but evidently enough witnesses testified to the grand jury to convince them that it happened, and when considered in this context, it led them to decide that Officer Wilson's actions were not in violation of the law.

 

[rockaction]

Ahhh, of course they've tied up traffic. They don't realize -- or don't care -- that their fellow citizens in cars paid for the roads, too.

LIke I said earlier, and with a hat tip to a famous internet commenter, you'll get more of what you encourage.

 

[Bucky86]

Why were certain witnesses treated differently than others?

Why was Wilson's testimony treated as reliable others were not?

Every witness has to establish credibility. Is their testimony consistent? Is it supported by the physical evidence?

I agree. Can't a good lawyer make whichever testimony they want seem more or less accurate if they wish? Hypothetically of course

 

[TheAristocrat]

Why were certain witnesses treated differently than others?

Why was Wilson's testimony treated as reliable others were not?

Have you actually ever seen a jury trial? That is required in the legal process. Firsthand accounts receive different scrutiny than others. Their validity ALSO gets different scrutiny.

Wasnt this different than a normal jury trial?

Absolutely but it was very similar to an actual jury trail and what you are asking of normal citizens to make judgments on legal issues.

 

[rockaction]

I still don't see why people argue with Tim other than to issue declaratives so that people reading the posts and not the whole thread don't accept his declarations at face value.

 

[fantasycurse42]

‏

Ferguson protesters have run onto the 101 Freeway in downtown Los Angeles, blocking lanes in both directions.

Wouldn't even tap the brakes