What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

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

All politics is local, and its human nature to be more invested with those closes to you. So to that end, I hold less derision for the people of Ferguson, and what appears to be in all fairness, a significant minority of whom have chosen to riot. It happens, its not right but as you said, at ground zero of this, I can have some understandings and I was on record earlier in this thread critqiuing the FPD for a lack of transparency. And I was initially a defender of Brown, albeit with a limited field of information.

Had we known he was responding to the crime (assuming this is supported with logs)

Had we known ballistics show all front entry wounds (supported by multiple autopsies)

the snowball might have slowed earlier.

I know a nature of the investigation dictates a deliberate pace, but likewise the perception of shooting an unarmed man with conflicting stories probably deserved to be addressed earlier.

So I'm, in a relative sense, cool, with the people of Ferguson.

But there is the broader field of people around the country, that like you and I, are not in the middle of this, invested, etc, that still choose to ignore the facts of THIS case.

For some reason, that Lena Dunham tweet, about the courage of Browns family or whatever the hell she had to say. And it goes on and on with several celebrities, likewise detached, all presumably who who are "anti-bullying", showing no regard for how Brown trampled through the store and chose to attack a policeman. We ARE removed, these people CAN see the testimony wherein as I understand 58 people say the same thing and 2 dispute it, and science disproves THEM. A liberal community with less emotion and basically choose to ignore them.

I don't like doing left/right stuff, I'm libertarian-ish, fiscal conservative social conservative, and this story is bringing to light an important issue with an awful core that only threatens the message. Brown is NOT worthy of nationwide protest, why NYU students are tying up traffic in NYC for this idiot, its so far beyond me, I can't even comprehend it.

I read or heard something in the last year, forget where now, maybe in a Gladwell book, that six months before Rosa Parks, a young black, unmarried, pregnant woman was the first to challenge the back of the bus rules. She was tired, she was pregnant and she was also not a good story to sell. Six months later, grandmotherly saint Rosa Parks takes HER stand and she becomes a face and a message that everyone can connect with without judgement and say "hey, this ISN'T right" and civil rights explodes.i

I don't know if we need something as big as the civil rights movement right now, but power, in every way, has been bled from the people in this country, and its probably worth attempting to reclaim some. The right face could have been a part of that. Sadly, perhaps, the right martyr.

I just don't see Mike Brown as that guy.
I totally appreciate this. FWIW, the reasonable tone in my posts here are not how I first felt when I heard the decision- I was angry just like those celebrities, because I'd seen how poorly the local authorities had behaved and I guess I saw the indictment as a chance for their redemption, fair or not. My guess is the celebs were just posting on twitter in that frame of mind rather than the frame of mind someone like me has a couple days later.

Also FWIW that Rosa Parks thing (her name was Claudette Colvin) has always bothered me. Civil rights are civil rights. Everyone is entitled to them, from felons to Mother Theresa. They shouldn't be delayed for marketing purposes.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It still comes down to this for me: for a guy to charge a police officer with a gun like that, he'd have to be ####### crazy. All right, so maybe the guy is crazy. After all, we already pretty much know he's a stupid thug.

But if he's that crazy, why did he run away from the cop in the first place? See, this is the part that just doesn't jibe with me no matter how many times I try to think through this. If we are to believe Wilson's testimony, Brown committed a crazy act (trying to attack a police officer, punching him, going for his gun), and then a sane act (running away from the police officer at full speed) and then another crazy act (turning around and charging the police officer who is firing bullets at him.) I can accept the first crazy act. I might even be able to accept the second crazy act, however unlikely it seems. But the fleeing in between- that's what makes the second crazy act seem so bogus to me.

And I totally get the argument that people don't act rationally, that people do weird things all the time, and that this is no explanation. I agree with that. But there still should be recognizable patterns to behavior. You attack an officer, you go for his gun, you fail, you get shot, you take off running- all of that fits a pattern of behavior: the pattern of Michael Brown, the stupid thug whom we saw on video earlier. Then after running away he turns around and charges Wilson? It doesn't fit. No matter how you slice it, it just doesn't fit.
Wilson was NOT firing his gun at Brown while he was supposedly running away. The autopsy has proven that.
Unless I'm mistaken, the autopsy proved he wasn't HIT from behind.

 
It still comes down to this for me: for a guy to charge a police officer with a gun like that, he'd have to be ####### crazy. All right, so maybe the guy is crazy. After all, we already pretty much know he's a stupid thug.

But if he's that crazy, why did he run away from the cop in the first place? See, this is the part that just doesn't jibe with me no matter how many times I try to think through this. If we are to believe Wilson's testimony, Brown committed a crazy act (trying to attack a police officer, punching him, going for his gun), and then a sane act (running away from the police officer at full speed) and then another crazy act (turning around and charging the police officer who is firing bullets at him.) I can accept the first crazy act. I might even be able to accept the second crazy act, however unlikely it seems. But the fleeing in between- that's what makes the second crazy act seem so bogus to me.

And I totally get the argument that people don't act rationally, that people do weird things all the time, and that this is no explanation. I agree with that. But there still should be recognizable patterns to behavior. You attack an officer, you go for his gun, you fail, you get shot, you take off running- all of that fits a pattern of behavior: the pattern of Michael Brown, the stupid thug whom we saw on video earlier. Then after running away he turns around and charges Wilson? It doesn't fit. No matter how you slice it, it just doesn't fit.
You didn't realize he was crazy after slamming a car door on a cop, punching him through the open window, then going after his gun?

 
Soonerman said:
timschochet said:
It still comes down to this for me: for a guy to charge a police officer with a gun like that, he'd have to be ####### crazy. All right, so maybe the guy is crazy. After all, we already pretty much know he's a stupid thug.

But if he's that crazy, why did he run away from the cop in the first place? See, this is the part that just doesn't jibe with me no matter how many times I try to think through this. If we are to believe Wilson's testimony, Brown committed a crazy act (trying to attack a police officer, punching him, going for his gun), and then a sane act (running away from the police officer at full speed) and then another crazy act (turning around and charging the police officer who is firing bullets at him.) I can accept the first crazy act. I might even be able to accept the second crazy act, however unlikely it seems. But the fleeing in between- that's what makes the second crazy act seem so bogus to me.

And I totally get the argument that people don't act rationally, that people do weird things all the time, and that this is no explanation. I agree with that. But there still should be recognizable patterns to behavior. You attack an officer, you go for his gun, you fail, you get shot, you take off running- all of that fits a pattern of behavior: the pattern of Michael Brown, the stupid thug whom we saw on video earlier. Then after running away he turns around and charges Wilson? It doesn't fit. No matter how you slice it, it just doesn't fit.
He was high on weed.
OK. So he's high on weed. Putting aside the fact that most people aren't driven crazy by weed, let's assume that he's one of the few that is. I can buy that. So the weed makes him fearless enough to attack the police officer and go for his gun. And, however implausible it seems, the weed makes him fearless enough to charge the police officer from 30 feet away while bullets are being fired at him. But if he's that fearless, why the #### did he run away between the two acts of fearless craziness???

I know people accuse me of being argumentative for argument's sake, but I'm not trying to do that. I'm really not. There is a disconnect here for me, and I'm not sure why nobody else seems to see it.

 
GrandpaRox said:
BustedKnuckles said:
timschochet said:
Doug B said:
timschochet said:
Doesn't it make much more sense that Brown, who was a stupid thug, tried to punch Wilson, maybe even went for Wilson's gun, failed and got shot in the hand, took off and fled, so Wilson got out of the car, yells at Brown to stop, Brown turns around, and Wilson in a state of fury and fear shoots him dead? That's a story I can buy. I don't even particularly blame Wilson (though it would be a wrongful death). But this charging stuff has got to be nonsense.
I believe this is a rough sketch of what happened, but that there was a little more going on at the "Brown turns around" step. That was a hair-trigger moment when a sudden, typically-innocuous movement leads to shots fired.
Fair enough. I can buy that. I would suggest that the full blown charge was fabricated afterward.
however they had witnesses saying that Wilson was firing at Brown as Brown was running away...then brown stopped and turned and was shot at again as he moved forward
Those witnesses were discredited, who do you hangers on just dismiss ALL the evidence the evidence that the Grand Jury heard, do you think they missed something, they are racists or you are just smarted than them. Did you even read the transcript. You just continue to show your ignorance and kind of hope you are going to find the missing key. You are not as bad as Tim but jebus, the system worked and you just cannot accept it. WTF is wrong with you.
link ?

 
GoBirds said:
timschochet said:
It still comes down to this for me: for a guy to charge a police officer with a gun like that, he'd have to be ####### crazy. All right, so maybe the guy is crazy. After all, we already pretty much know he's a stupid thug.

But if he's that crazy, why did he run away from the cop in the first place? See, this is the part that just doesn't jibe with me no matter how many times I try to think through this. If we are to believe Wilson's testimony, Brown committed a crazy act (trying to attack a police officer, punching him, going for his gun), and then a sane act (running away from the police officer at full speed) and then another crazy act (turning around and charging the police officer who is firing bullets at him.) I can accept the first crazy act. I might even be able to accept the second crazy act, however unlikely it seems. But the fleeing in between- that's what makes the second crazy act seem so bogus to me.

And I totally get the argument that people don't act rationally, that people do weird things all the time, and that this is no explanation. I agree with that. But there still should be recognizable patterns to behavior. You attack an officer, you go for his gun, you fail, you get shot, you take off running- all of that fits a pattern of behavior: the pattern of Michael Brown, the stupid thug whom we saw on video earlier. Then after running away he turns around and charges Wilson? It doesn't fit. No matter how you slice it, it just doesn't fit.
You didn't realize he was crazy after slamming a car door on a cop, punching him through the open window, then going after his gun?
Assuming all that is true (and personally I think most of it is), it still doesn't explain why he fled. And then turned around again.

 
MaxThreshold said:
timschochet said:
It still comes down to this for me: for a guy to charge a police officer with a gun like that, he'd have to be ####### crazy. All right, so maybe the guy is crazy. After all, we already pretty much know he's a stupid thug.

But if he's that crazy, why did he run away from the cop in the first place? See, this is the part that just doesn't jibe with me no matter how many times I try to think through this. If we are to believe Wilson's testimony, Brown committed a crazy act (trying to attack a police officer, punching him, going for his gun), and then a sane act (running away from the police officer at full speed) and then another crazy act (turning around and charging the police officer who is firing bullets at him.) I can accept the first crazy act. I might even be able to accept the second crazy act, however unlikely it seems. But the fleeing in between- that's what makes the second crazy act seem so bogus to me.

And I totally get the argument that people don't act rationally, that people do weird things all the time, and that this is no explanation. I agree with that. But there still should be recognizable patterns to behavior. You attack an officer, you go for his gun, you fail, you get shot, you take off running- all of that fits a pattern of behavior: the pattern of Michael Brown, the stupid thug whom we saw on video earlier. Then after running away he turns around and charges Wilson? It doesn't fit. No matter how you slice it, it just doesn't fit.
Wilson was NOT firing his gun at Brown while he was supposedly running away. The autopsy has proven that.
It's not possible for an autopsy to prove that.

 
They need to catch these rioters who destroyed buildings and not only jail them but when they get released, dock their wages to help pay for the damage they caused.

 
They need to catch these rioters who destroyed buildings and not only jail them but when they get released, dock their wages to help pay for the damage they caused.
It may be an unwarranted assumption on my part, but I'm going to guess that most of the people who actually destroyed buildings the other night have no wages to dock.

 
Soonerman said:
timschochet said:
It still comes down to this for me: for a guy to charge a police officer with a gun like that, he'd have to be ####### crazy. All right, so maybe the guy is crazy. After all, we already pretty much know he's a stupid thug.

But if he's that crazy, why did he run away from the cop in the first place? See, this is the part that just doesn't jibe with me no matter how many times I try to think through this. If we are to believe Wilson's testimony, Brown committed a crazy act (trying to attack a police officer, punching him, going for his gun), and then a sane act (running away from the police officer at full speed) and then another crazy act (turning around and charging the police officer who is firing bullets at him.) I can accept the first crazy act. I might even be able to accept the second crazy act, however unlikely it seems. But the fleeing in between- that's what makes the second crazy act seem so bogus to me.

And I totally get the argument that people don't act rationally, that people do weird things all the time, and that this is no explanation. I agree with that. But there still should be recognizable patterns to behavior. You attack an officer, you go for his gun, you fail, you get shot, you take off running- all of that fits a pattern of behavior: the pattern of Michael Brown, the stupid thug whom we saw on video earlier. Then after running away he turns around and charges Wilson? It doesn't fit. No matter how you slice it, it just doesn't fit.
He was high on weed.
There is a disconnect here for me, and I'm not sure why nobody else seems to see it.
This seems to be a common theme with you here.
 
GoBirds said:
timschochet said:
It still comes down to this for me: for a guy to charge a police officer with a gun like that, he'd have to be ####### crazy. All right, so maybe the guy is crazy. After all, we already pretty much know he's a stupid thug.

But if he's that crazy, why did he run away from the cop in the first place? See, this is the part that just doesn't jibe with me no matter how many times I try to think through this. If we are to believe Wilson's testimony, Brown committed a crazy act (trying to attack a police officer, punching him, going for his gun), and then a sane act (running away from the police officer at full speed) and then another crazy act (turning around and charging the police officer who is firing bullets at him.) I can accept the first crazy act. I might even be able to accept the second crazy act, however unlikely it seems. But the fleeing in between- that's what makes the second crazy act seem so bogus to me.

And I totally get the argument that people don't act rationally, that people do weird things all the time, and that this is no explanation. I agree with that. But there still should be recognizable patterns to behavior. You attack an officer, you go for his gun, you fail, you get shot, you take off running- all of that fits a pattern of behavior: the pattern of Michael Brown, the stupid thug whom we saw on video earlier. Then after running away he turns around and charges Wilson? It doesn't fit. No matter how you slice it, it just doesn't fit.
You didn't realize he was crazy after slamming a car door on a cop, punching him through the open window, then going after his gun?
Assuming all that is true (and personally I think most of it is), it still doesn't explain why he fled. And then turned around again.
You have to wonder the state of mind he was in to get to that point. After he went for the gun imagine how much time he would be facing for that. What is there to lose?

 
MaxThreshold said:
timschochet said:
It still comes down to this for me: for a guy to charge a police officer with a gun like that, he'd have to be ####### crazy. All right, so maybe the guy is crazy. After all, we already pretty much know he's a stupid thug.

But if he's that crazy, why did he run away from the cop in the first place? See, this is the part that just doesn't jibe with me no matter how many times I try to think through this. If we are to believe Wilson's testimony, Brown committed a crazy act (trying to attack a police officer, punching him, going for his gun), and then a sane act (running away from the police officer at full speed) and then another crazy act (turning around and charging the police officer who is firing bullets at him.) I can accept the first crazy act. I might even be able to accept the second crazy act, however unlikely it seems. But the fleeing in between- that's what makes the second crazy act seem so bogus to me.

And I totally get the argument that people don't act rationally, that people do weird things all the time, and that this is no explanation. I agree with that. But there still should be recognizable patterns to behavior. You attack an officer, you go for his gun, you fail, you get shot, you take off running- all of that fits a pattern of behavior: the pattern of Michael Brown, the stupid thug whom we saw on video earlier. Then after running away he turns around and charges Wilson? It doesn't fit. No matter how you slice it, it just doesn't fit.
Wilson was NOT firing his gun at Brown while he was supposedly running away. The autopsy has proven that.
It's not possible for an autopsy to prove that.
Sure it can. Bullets have specific entry and exit signatures.

adding that the autopsy did not support witnesses’ accounts that Brown was running away or had his hands up when he was shot.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
From Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/

Its Incredibly Rare For A Grand Jury To Do What Fergusons Just Did

A St. Louis County grand jury on Monday decided not to indict Ferguson, Missouri, police officer Darren Wilson in the August killing of teenager Michael Brown. The decision wasnt a surprise leaks from the grand jury had led most observers to conclude an indictment was unlikely but it was unusual. Grand juries nearly always decide to indict.

Or at least, they nearly always do so in cases that dont involve police officers.

Former New York state Chief Judge Sol Wachtler famously remarked that a prosecutor could persuade a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. The data suggests he was barely exaggerating: According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them.

Wilsons case was heard in state court, not federal, so the numbers arent directly comparable. Unlike in federal court, most states, including Missouri, allow prosecutors to bring charges via a preliminary hearing in front of a judge instead of through a grand jury indictment. That means many routine cases never go before a grand jury. Still, legal experts agree that, at any level, it is extremely rare for prosecutors to fail to win an indictment.

 
Henry Ford said:
Question for the Wilson supporters: if the feds bring charges and ultimately secure a win at trial, will you accept the verdict?
Ficticious? reasons (white) FBGs riot...

 
Soonerman said:
timschochet said:
It still comes down to this for me: for a guy to charge a police officer with a gun like that, he'd have to be ####### crazy. All right, so maybe the guy is crazy. After all, we already pretty much know he's a stupid thug.

But if he's that crazy, why did he run away from the cop in the first place? See, this is the part that just doesn't jibe with me no matter how many times I try to think through this. If we are to believe Wilson's testimony, Brown committed a crazy act (trying to attack a police officer, punching him, going for his gun), and then a sane act (running away from the police officer at full speed) and then another crazy act (turning around and charging the police officer who is firing bullets at him.) I can accept the first crazy act. I might even be able to accept the second crazy act, however unlikely it seems. But the fleeing in between- that's what makes the second crazy act seem so bogus to me.

And I totally get the argument that people don't act rationally, that people do weird things all the time, and that this is no explanation. I agree with that. But there still should be recognizable patterns to behavior. You attack an officer, you go for his gun, you fail, you get shot, you take off running- all of that fits a pattern of behavior: the pattern of Michael Brown, the stupid thug whom we saw on video earlier. Then after running away he turns around and charges Wilson? It doesn't fit. No matter how you slice it, it just doesn't fit.
He was high on weed.
There is a disconnect here for me, and I'm not sure why nobody else seems to see it.
This seems to be a common theme with you here.
Maybe. Could be. On the other hand, you could be the sort of guy who offers nothing to any thread other than to throw around personal insults at anyone who doesn't share your point of view, which is so predictable that it's almost a caricature in itself. All sorts of possibilities here.

 
GoBirds said:
timschochet said:
It still comes down to this for me: for a guy to charge a police officer with a gun like that, he'd have to be ####### crazy. All right, so maybe the guy is crazy. After all, we already pretty much know he's a stupid thug.

But if he's that crazy, why did he run away from the cop in the first place? See, this is the part that just doesn't jibe with me no matter how many times I try to think through this. If we are to believe Wilson's testimony, Brown committed a crazy act (trying to attack a police officer, punching him, going for his gun), and then a sane act (running away from the police officer at full speed) and then another crazy act (turning around and charging the police officer who is firing bullets at him.) I can accept the first crazy act. I might even be able to accept the second crazy act, however unlikely it seems. But the fleeing in between- that's what makes the second crazy act seem so bogus to me.

And I totally get the argument that people don't act rationally, that people do weird things all the time, and that this is no explanation. I agree with that. But there still should be recognizable patterns to behavior. You attack an officer, you go for his gun, you fail, you get shot, you take off running- all of that fits a pattern of behavior: the pattern of Michael Brown, the stupid thug whom we saw on video earlier. Then after running away he turns around and charges Wilson? It doesn't fit. No matter how you slice it, it just doesn't fit.
You didn't realize he was crazy after slamming a car door on a cop, punching him through the open window, then going after his gun?
Assuming all that is true (and personally I think most of it is), it still doesn't explain why he fled. And then turned around again.
You have to wonder the state of mind he was in to get to that point. After he went for the gun imagine how much time he would be facing for that. What is there to lose?
Gee I don't know. Your life?

It's one thing to run away and hope you don't get shot or caught. It's another thing to go charging into bullets being fired at you. I have trouble seeing Michael Brown, the stupid thug, as the reincarnation of General Pickett at Gettysburg.

 
Henry Ford said:
Question for the Wilson supporters: if the feds bring charges and ultimately secure a win at trial, will you accept the verdict?
No. I'm philosophically opposed to federal prosecutions for this sort of thing, for the same general reasons why we preclude double jeopardy.

(If he had been indicted and convicted at trial, that would have been fine with me assuming the evidence presented at the trial supported a conviction).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Some great video of our brave and noble protesters in Ferguson - trying to burn down a Papa John's while the female manager stops them with her bare hands. After seeing this I'm amazed that nobody died in Ferguson that night. And that ******* step-father of Mike Brown should be arrested for inciting a riot.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/11/battle-ferguson-papa-johns-manager-defends-store-from-looters-with-bare-hands-video/
I agree with this. If I understand correctly, he called for Ferguson to be burned to the ground- is that correct? I'm pretty sure that in most states it's illegal to publicly encourage a crime to be committed, in this case arson. He really should be charged.

 
GoBirds said:
timschochet said:
It still comes down to this for me: for a guy to charge a police officer with a gun like that, he'd have to be ####### crazy. All right, so maybe the guy is crazy. After all, we already pretty much know he's a stupid thug.

But if he's that crazy, why did he run away from the cop in the first place? See, this is the part that just doesn't jibe with me no matter how many times I try to think through this. If we are to believe Wilson's testimony, Brown committed a crazy act (trying to attack a police officer, punching him, going for his gun), and then a sane act (running away from the police officer at full speed) and then another crazy act (turning around and charging the police officer who is firing bullets at him.) I can accept the first crazy act. I might even be able to accept the second crazy act, however unlikely it seems. But the fleeing in between- that's what makes the second crazy act seem so bogus to me.

And I totally get the argument that people don't act rationally, that people do weird things all the time, and that this is no explanation. I agree with that. But there still should be recognizable patterns to behavior. You attack an officer, you go for his gun, you fail, you get shot, you take off running- all of that fits a pattern of behavior: the pattern of Michael Brown, the stupid thug whom we saw on video earlier. Then after running away he turns around and charges Wilson? It doesn't fit. No matter how you slice it, it just doesn't fit.
You didn't realize he was crazy after slamming a car door on a cop, punching him through the open window, then going after his gun?
Assuming all that is true (and personally I think most of it is), it still doesn't explain why he fled. And then turned around again.
You have to wonder the state of mind he was in to get to that point. After he went for the gun imagine how much time he would be facing for that. What is there to lose?
Gee I don't know. Your life? It's one thing to run away and hope you don't get shot or caught. It's another thing to go charging into bullets being fired at you. I have trouble seeing Michael Brown, the stupid thug, as the reincarnation of General Pickett at Gettysburg.
For some reason you think he is rational. What made sense out of anything he did? Do you know anyone that has ever tried to take a cops gun?

 
timschochet said:
It still comes down to this for me: for a guy to charge a police officer with a gun like that, he'd have to be ####### crazy. All right, so maybe the guy is crazy. After all, we already pretty much know he's a stupid thug.

But if he's that crazy, why did he run away from the cop in the first place? See, this is the part that just doesn't jibe with me no matter how many times I try to think through this. If we are to believe Wilson's testimony, Brown committed a crazy act (trying to attack a police officer, punching him, going for his gun), and then a sane act (running away from the police officer at full speed) and then another crazy act (turning around and charging the police officer who is firing bullets at him.) I can accept the first crazy act. I might even be able to accept the second crazy act, however unlikely it seems. But the fleeing in between- that's what makes the second crazy act seem so bogus to me.

And I totally get the argument that people don't act rationally, that people do weird things all the time, and that this is no explanation. I agree with that. But there still should be recognizable patterns to behavior. You attack an officer, you go for his gun, you fail, you get shot, you take off running- all of that fits a pattern of behavior: the pattern of Michael Brown, the stupid thug whom we saw on video earlier. Then after running away he turns around and charges Wilson? It doesn't fit. No matter how you slice it, it just doesn't fit.
i think it probably what happened is a composite of the different accounts. something along the lines of like maybe Wilson did grab for Brown through the window. Brown grabbed Wilson's hand when he reached for the gun, trying to disarm him. The gun went off and he fled. Brown ran before turning around and doing that menacing "step-rush thing" that he did at the convenience store. He had a pretty flippant attitude - likely affected by the pot - abou the shoplifting, the confrontation with Wilson - including mouthing off, hitting him, and running - throughout this and I wouldn't be surprised if it went further here. Wilson talks about his tunnel vision, which suggests his emotional response was off the charts. he fired the gun because he saw Brown moving toward him and he was clearly afraid (panicked even).

 
Sand said:
mcintyre1 said:
parasaurolophus said:
This thread needs more encyclopedia brown types.

You see, bugs meany couldn't have been running and reached into his right pocket because he has a cast on his right hand! You ever try reaching into your right pocket with your left hand while running! It is impossible. Bugs Meany is guilty, Guilty!
:hophead:

This entire thread could probably divided into two camps:

Those who blindly accept the word of authorities as truth, and those that fundamentally don't trust authorities to police themselves.
Or maybe those that accept the judgement of 12 disinterested parties, parties that as a whole represent the community that they have been asked to speak for, that have had all the evidence presented to them?
Those 12 "disinterested parties" that had to be admonished to not do their own outside research while on the grand jury? With a case like this, there is no such thing as "disinterested". But I take your point.

 
From Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/

Its Incredibly Rare For A Grand Jury To Do What Fergusons Just Did

A St. Louis County grand jury on Monday decided not to indict Ferguson, Missouri, police officer Darren Wilson in the August killing of teenager Michael Brown. The decision wasnt a surprise leaks from the grand jury had led most observers to conclude an indictment was unlikely but it was unusual. Grand juries nearly always decide to indict.

Or at least, they nearly always do so in cases that dont involve police officers.

Former New York state Chief Judge Sol Wachtler famously remarked that a prosecutor could persuade a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. The data suggests he was barely exaggerating: According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them.

Wilsons case was heard in state court, not federal, so the numbers arent directly comparable. Unlike in federal court, most states, including Missouri, allow prosecutors to bring charges via a preliminary hearing in front of a judge instead of through a grand jury indictment. That means many routine cases never go before a grand jury. Still, legal experts agree that, at any level, it is extremely rare for prosecutors to fail to win an indictment.
What do people want: That an innocent cop doing his job be thrown to the wolves for a show trial?

Usually a prosecutor is lobbying for an indictment - if he thinks he can get a conviction. This is why it is unusual... Because in this case the prosecutor probably felt there was not ample evidence, but was pressured that all evidence be weighed to battle the perception of injustice. So he had a Grand Jury evaluate, and they agreed that there was no case.

Usually you don't have a lying, thieving, ignorant public incapable of fathoming truth driving witch hunts. And so yes - it was unusual, but before Wilson was strapped up to a post and lit on fire, someone had the good sense to detemine there was no evidence of witchcraft.

 
Henry Ford said:
Question for the Wilson supporters: if the feds bring charges and ultimately secure a win at trial, will you accept the verdict?
No. I'm philosophically opposed to federal prosecutions for this sort of thing, for the same general reasons why we preclude double jeopardy.
Agreed. No matter what the facts are of this case, any federal prosecution will be political and therefore flawed from the beginning. They'll never do it anyhow.

A better question, IMO, is this: If Officer Wilson is brought to civil trial, and a majority of the jurors believe that it is likely he committed a wrongful death, will you accept THAT verdict?

 
From Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight:http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/

Its Incredibly Rare For A Grand Jury To Do What Fergusons Just Did

A St. Louis County grand jury on Monday decided not to indict Ferguson, Missouri, police officer Darren Wilson in the August killing of teenager Michael Brown. The decision wasnt a surprise leaks from the grand jury had led most observers to conclude an indictment was unlikely but it was unusual. Grand juries nearly always decide to indict.

Or at least, they nearly always do so in cases that dont involve police officers.

Former New York state Chief Judge Sol Wachtler famously remarked that a prosecutor could persuade a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. The data suggests he was barely exaggerating: According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them.

Wilsons case was heard in state court, not federal, so the numbers arent directly comparable. Unlike in federal court, most states, including Missouri, allow prosecutors to bring charges via a preliminary hearing in front of a judge instead of through a grand jury indictment. That means many routine cases never go before a grand jury. Still, legal experts agree that, at any level, it is extremely rare for prosecutors to fail to win an indictment.
What do people want: That an innocent cop doing his job be thrown to the wolves for a show trial?

Usually a prosecutor is lobbying for an indictment - if he thinks he can get a conviction. This is why it is unusual... Because in this case the prosecutor probably felt there was not ample evidence, but was pressured that all evidence be weighed to battle the perception of injustice. So he had a Grand Jury evaluate, and they agreed that there was no case.

Usually you don't have a lying, thieving, ignorant public incapable of fathoming truth driving witch hunts. And so yes - it was unusual, but before Wilson was strapped up to a post and lit on fire, someone had the good sense to detemine there was no evidence of witchcraft.
That makes too much sense to post here

 
GoBirds said:
timschochet said:
It still comes down to this for me: for a guy to charge a police officer with a gun like that, he'd have to be ####### crazy. All right, so maybe the guy is crazy. After all, we already pretty much know he's a stupid thug.

But if he's that crazy, why did he run away from the cop in the first place? See, this is the part that just doesn't jibe with me no matter how many times I try to think through this. If we are to believe Wilson's testimony, Brown committed a crazy act (trying to attack a police officer, punching him, going for his gun), and then a sane act (running away from the police officer at full speed) and then another crazy act (turning around and charging the police officer who is firing bullets at him.) I can accept the first crazy act. I might even be able to accept the second crazy act, however unlikely it seems. But the fleeing in between- that's what makes the second crazy act seem so bogus to me.

And I totally get the argument that people don't act rationally, that people do weird things all the time, and that this is no explanation. I agree with that. But there still should be recognizable patterns to behavior. You attack an officer, you go for his gun, you fail, you get shot, you take off running- all of that fits a pattern of behavior: the pattern of Michael Brown, the stupid thug whom we saw on video earlier. Then after running away he turns around and charges Wilson? It doesn't fit. No matter how you slice it, it just doesn't fit.
You didn't realize he was crazy after slamming a car door on a cop, punching him through the open window, then going after his gun?
Assuming all that is true (and personally I think most of it is), it still doesn't explain why he fled. And then turned around again.
You have to wonder the state of mind he was in to get to that point. After he went for the gun imagine how much time he would be facing for that. What is there to lose?
Gee I don't know. Your life? It's one thing to run away and hope you don't get shot or caught. It's another thing to go charging into bullets being fired at you. I have trouble seeing Michael Brown, the stupid thug, as the reincarnation of General Pickett at Gettysburg.
For some reason you think he is rational. What made sense out of anything he did? Do you know anyone that has ever tried to take a cops gun?
I never said he was rational. But there are levels of irrationality. As I wrote, it's the fleeing in-between that's so bothersome for me.

 
From Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/

Its Incredibly Rare For A Grand Jury To Do What Fergusons Just Did

A St. Louis County grand jury on Monday decided not to indict Ferguson, Missouri, police officer Darren Wilson in the August killing of teenager Michael Brown. The decision wasnt a surprise leaks from the grand jury had led most observers to conclude an indictment was unlikely but it was unusual. Grand juries nearly always decide to indict.

Or at least, they nearly always do so in cases that dont involve police officers.

Former New York state Chief Judge Sol Wachtler famously remarked that a prosecutor could persuade a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. The data suggests he was barely exaggerating: According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them.

Wilsons case was heard in state court, not federal, so the numbers arent directly comparable. Unlike in federal court, most states, including Missouri, allow prosecutors to bring charges via a preliminary hearing in front of a judge instead of through a grand jury indictment. That means many routine cases never go before a grand jury. Still, legal experts agree that, at any level, it is extremely rare for prosecutors to fail to win an indictment.
This is a troubling statistic to me and the headline for the pro-Brown crowd.

That said... devils advocate...

Knowing what I know about prosecutors, I believe they pick their battles better than Floyd Mayweather. They like perfect records and they don't like losers. So the question I would have, all things being equal and absent the atteniotn, would this case have even GOTTEN to a grand jury in a racial neutral context?

 
SIDA! said:
The injuries don't appear
Fixed.
Is it your contention that Brown did not strike Wilson whatsoever?
Lot of posters in here looking for their generation's Civil Rights MomentTM

Henry Ford said:
Question for the Wilson supporters: if the feds bring charges and ultimately secure a win at trial, will you accept the verdict?
No. I'm philosophically opposed to federal prosecutions for this sort of thing, for the same general reasons why we preclude double jeopardy.
Agreed. No matter what the facts are of this case, any federal prosecution will be political and therefore flawed from the beginning. They'll never do it anyhow.

A better question, IMO, is this: If Officer Wilson is brought to civil trial, and a majority of the jurors believe that it is likely he committed a wrongful death, will you accept THAT verdict?
I think it's obvious to everyone that the Federal Investigation is a dog and pony show put on by Holder.

 
Soonerman said:
timschochet said:
It still comes down to this for me: for a guy to charge a police officer with a gun like that, he'd have to be ####### crazy. All right, so maybe the guy is crazy. After all, we already pretty much know he's a stupid thug.

But if he's that crazy, why did he run away from the cop in the first place? See, this is the part that just doesn't jibe with me no matter how many times I try to think through this. If we are to believe Wilson's testimony, Brown committed a crazy act (trying to attack a police officer, punching him, going for his gun), and then a sane act (running away from the police officer at full speed) and then another crazy act (turning around and charging the police officer who is firing bullets at him.) I can accept the first crazy act. I might even be able to accept the second crazy act, however unlikely it seems. But the fleeing in between- that's what makes the second crazy act seem so bogus to me.

And I totally get the argument that people don't act rationally, that people do weird things all the time, and that this is no explanation. I agree with that. But there still should be recognizable patterns to behavior. You attack an officer, you go for his gun, you fail, you get shot, you take off running- all of that fits a pattern of behavior: the pattern of Michael Brown, the stupid thug whom we saw on video earlier. Then after running away he turns around and charges Wilson? It doesn't fit. No matter how you slice it, it just doesn't fit.
He was high on weed.
OK. So he's high on weed. Putting aside the fact that most people aren't driven crazy by weed, let's assume that he's one of the few that is. I can buy that. So the weed makes him fearless enough to attack the police officer and go for his gun. And, however implausible it seems, the weed makes him fearless enough to charge the police officer from 30 feet away while bullets are being fired at him. But if he's that fearless, why the #### did he run away between the two acts of fearless craziness???

I know people accuse me of being argumentative for argument's sake, but I'm not trying to do that. I'm really not. There is a disconnect here for me, and I'm not sure why nobody else seems to see it.
Uh...Reefer Madness?

 
TobiasFunke said:
Sand said:
BustedKnuckles said:
GoBirds said:
Soonerman said:
I don't trust the cops or the criminals. But a group of citizens said this is a big nothingburger of a case. I do trust them somewhat more.
Exactly
problem is we arent supposed to trust criminals...police on the other hand SHOULD be trusted ....which is why its worse when you cant
But, funny enough, in this case the officer's story has been shown to be accurate and true.
How so? There were multiple eyewitnesses who testified to versions of the events that differ from Wilson's, and as several of us have shown here there are elements of his story that flat-out don't make sense.

The best you can say is that his story hasn't been shown to be false ... possibly because he wasn't subjected to cross-examination or any sort of challenge whatsoever by the prosecutor.
Because the community (and by that I mean the grand jury, who represent the community) found that there was absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing by the police in this case.

 
From Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/

Its Incredibly Rare For A Grand Jury To Do What Fergusons Just Did

A St. Louis County grand jury on Monday decided not to indict Ferguson, Missouri, police officer Darren Wilson in the August killing of teenager Michael Brown. The decision wasnt a surprise leaks from the grand jury had led most observers to conclude an indictment was unlikely but it was unusual. Grand juries nearly always decide to indict.

Or at least, they nearly always do so in cases that dont involve police officers.

Former New York state Chief Judge Sol Wachtler famously remarked that a prosecutor could persuade a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. The data suggests he was barely exaggerating: According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them.

Wilsons case was heard in state court, not federal, so the numbers arent directly comparable. Unlike in federal court, most states, including Missouri, allow prosecutors to bring charges via a preliminary hearing in front of a judge instead of through a grand jury indictment. That means many routine cases never go before a grand jury. Still, legal experts agree that, at any level, it is extremely rare for prosecutors to fail to win an indictment.
This is a troubling statistic to me and the headline for the pro-Brown crowd.

That said... devils advocate...

Knowing what I know about prosecutors, I believe they pick their battles better than Floyd Mayweather. They like perfect records and they don't like losers. So the question I would have, all things being equal and absent the atteniotn, would this case have even GOTTEN to a grand jury in a racial neutral context?
From everything I've read, the answer is pretty clearly no. I think Tobias has a good point that the prosecutor should have just declined to bring charges if he didn't think he could get a conviction instead of hiding behind a grand jury, and you have to think that's what would have happened had this case not had such a high profile.

 
Some great video of our brave and noble protesters in Ferguson - trying to burn down a Papa John's while the female manager stops them with her bare hands. After seeing this I'm amazed that nobody died in Ferguson that night. And that ******* step-father of Mike Brown should be arrested for inciting a riot.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/11/battle-ferguson-papa-johns-manager-defends-store-from-looters-with-bare-hands-video/
I agree with this. If I understand correctly, he called for Ferguson to be burned to the ground- is that correct? I'm pretty sure that in most states it's illegal to publicly encourage a crime to be committed, in this case arson. He really should be charged.
My Tim impression:

Timmy TODAY: " If I understand correctly, he called for Ferguson to be burned to the ground- is that correct? I'm pretty sure that in most states it's illegal to publicly encourage a crime to be committed, in this case arson. He really should be charged."

Timmy TOMORROW: "Well, I am not so sure the step-dad really meant he wanted Ferguson to burn down. What he actually said was, we need to "burn this ##### down"! Maybe he was talking about a joint or Michael Brown's mother standing behind him. But what I really don't understand is that there is a disconnect here that I am afraid none of you are seeing. Why would the step dad really mean he wants to burn Ferguson down when just two days before he was calling for peace and saying anyone who riots is acting like an animal. I mean...only a crazy person would flip flop like that."

 
timschochet said:
It still comes down to this for me: for a guy to charge a police officer with a gun like that, he'd have to be ####### crazy. All right, so maybe the guy is crazy. After all, we already pretty much know he's a stupid thug.

But if he's that crazy, why did he run away from the cop in the first place? See, this is the part that just doesn't jibe with me no matter how many times I try to think through this. If we are to believe Wilson's testimony, Brown committed a crazy act (trying to attack a police officer, punching him, going for his gun), and then a sane act (running away from the police officer at full speed) and then another crazy act (turning around and charging the police officer who is firing bullets at him.) I can accept the first crazy act. I might even be able to accept the second crazy act, however unlikely it seems. But the fleeing in between- that's what makes the second crazy act seem so bogus to me.

And I totally get the argument that people don't act rationally, that people do weird things all the time, and that this is no explanation. I agree with that. But there still should be recognizable patterns to behavior. You attack an officer, you go for his gun, you fail, you get shot, you take off running- all of that fits a pattern of behavior: the pattern of Michael Brown, the stupid thug whom we saw on video earlier. Then after running away he turns around and charges Wilson? It doesn't fit. No matter how you slice it, it just doesn't fit.
i think it probably what happened is a composite of the different accounts. something along the lines of like maybe Wilson did grab for Brown through the window. Brown grabbed Wilson's hand when he reached for the gun, trying to disarm him. The gun went off and he fled. Brown ran before turning around and doing that menacing "step-rush thing" that he did at the convenience store. He had a pretty flippant attitude - likely affected by the pot - abou the shoplifting, the confrontation with Wilson - including mouthing off, hitting him, and running - throughout this and I wouldn't be surprised if it went further here. Wilson talks about his tunnel vision, which suggests his emotional response was off the charts. he fired the gun because he saw Brown moving toward him and he was clearly afraid (panicked even).
I have no problem accepting any of this. I certainly don't believe Wilson's actions were premeditated. Clearly he was afraid, or angry, or panicked, or all three. And because of this, I don't think Wilson should be prosecuted with a crime, which is why I agreed with the GJ decision.

BUT- in theory, it is the responsibility of an armed police officer to overcome panic, rage, and fear, and make good judgments at all times. As a society, we give police officers more leeway than we do private citizens in these situations, but we also hold them to a higher standard, which I think is fair. I believe it's likely that Wilson committed a wrongful death here. Perfectly understandable, but still wrongful. I think he lied about it afterward, magnified the threat to himself, to make the shooting more justified. Again, perfectly understandable. I don't convict him of anything. But I don't hold him up as any kind of hero either.

 
From Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/

Its Incredibly Rare For A Grand Jury To Do What Fergusons Just Did

A St. Louis County grand jury on Monday decided not to indict Ferguson, Missouri, police officer Darren Wilson in the August killing of teenager Michael Brown. The decision wasnt a surprise leaks from the grand jury had led most observers to conclude an indictment was unlikely but it was unusual. Grand juries nearly always decide to indict.

Or at least, they nearly always do so in cases that dont involve police officers.

Former New York state Chief Judge Sol Wachtler famously remarked that a prosecutor could persuade a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. The data suggests he was barely exaggerating: According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them.

Wilsons case was heard in state court, not federal, so the numbers arent directly comparable. Unlike in federal court, most states, including Missouri, allow prosecutors to bring charges via a preliminary hearing in front of a judge instead of through a grand jury indictment. That means many routine cases never go before a grand jury. Still, legal experts agree that, at any level, it is extremely rare for prosecutors to fail to win an indictment.
This is a troubling statistic to me and the headline for the pro-Brown crowd.

That said... devils advocate...

Knowing what I know about prosecutors, I believe they pick their battles better than Floyd Mayweather. They like perfect records and they don't like losers. So the question I would have, all things being equal and absent the atteniotn, would this case have even GOTTEN to a grand jury in a racial neutral context?
From everything I've read, the answer is pretty clearly no. I think Tobias has a good point that the prosecutor should have just declined to bring charges if he didn't think he could get a conviction instead of hiding behind a grand jury, and you have to think that's what would have happened had this case not had such a high profile.
Using the Grand Jury was probably the better thing to do in regards to safety of the community. Probably would have rioted even worse had he just come out and not issues any charges himself directly.

 
Henry Ford said:
Question for the Wilson supporters: if the feds bring charges and ultimately secure a win at trial, will you accept the verdict?
No. I'm philosophically opposed to federal prosecutions for this sort of thing, for the same general reasons why we preclude double jeopardy.
Agreed. No matter what the facts are of this case, any federal prosecution will be political and therefore flawed from the beginning. They'll never do it anyhow.A better question, IMO, is this: If Officer Wilson is brought to civil trial, and a majority of the jurors believe that it is likely he committed a wrongful death, will you accept THAT verdict?
what do you mean by "accept that verdict"? I can disagree with a verdict but still accept it.
 
Henry Ford said:
Question for the Wilson supporters: if the feds bring charges and ultimately secure a win at trial, will you accept the verdict?
No. I'm philosophically opposed to federal prosecutions for this sort of thing, for the same general reasons why we preclude double jeopardy.
Agreed. No matter what the facts are of this case, any federal prosecution will be political and therefore flawed from the beginning. They'll never do it anyhow.

A better question, IMO, is this: If Officer Wilson is brought to civil trial, and a majority of the jurors believe that it is likely he committed a wrongful death, will you accept THAT verdict?
Think of the riots THAT would cause...no really think about it. That would further increase distrust of the DA, police and system in general. Sure it would be a "win" for the Brown family, but my God the consequences would be steep.

 
Henry Ford said:
Question for the Wilson supporters: if the feds bring charges and ultimately secure a win at trial, will you accept the verdict?
No. I'm philosophically opposed to federal prosecutions for this sort of thing, for the same general reasons why we preclude double jeopardy.
Agreed. No matter what the facts are of this case, any federal prosecution will be political and therefore flawed from the beginning. They'll never do it anyhow.

A better question, IMO, is this: If Officer Wilson is brought to civil trial, and a majority of the jurors believe that it is likely he committed a wrongful death, will you accept THAT verdict?
I keep wondering where they will find a jury to hear this. Sure as heck won't be anywhere within 500 miles of Ferguson.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Some great video of our brave and noble protesters in Ferguson - trying to burn down a Papa John's while the female manager stops them with her bare hands. After seeing this I'm amazed that nobody died in Ferguson that night. And that ******* step-father of Mike Brown should be arrested for inciting a riot.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/11/battle-ferguson-papa-johns-manager-defends-store-from-looters-with-bare-hands-video/
I agree with this. If I understand correctly, he called for Ferguson to be burned to the ground- is that correct? I'm pretty sure that in most states it's illegal to publicly encourage a crime to be committed, in this case arson. He really should be charged.
My Tim impression:

Timmy TODAY: " If I understand correctly, he called for Ferguson to be burned to the ground- is that correct? I'm pretty sure that in most states it's illegal to publicly encourage a crime to be committed, in this case arson. He really should be charged."

Timmy TOMORROW: "Well, I am not so sure the step-dad really meant he wanted Ferguson to burn down. What he actually said was, we need to "burn this ##### down"! Maybe he was talking about a joint or Michael Brown's mother standing behind him. But what I really don't understand is that there is a disconnect here that I am afraid none of you are seeing. Why would the step dad really mean he wants to burn Ferguson down when just two days before he was calling for peace and saying anyone who riots is acting like an animal. I mean...only a crazy person would flip flop like that."
I've been pretty unequivocal regarding my intolerance for rioters. I'm not for gunning them all down, as you seem to be, but I won't be spending any time excusing their acts, either.

Where you fail in you "analysis" of my positions is this: the question of what happened to Michael Brown is one of fact, not philosophy (though it's truly astonishing how many people on both sides of this issue let their philosophy inform their interpretation of the facts.) Thus, as new information comes in, or as more reasoning and discussion take place, it is not only OK to change one's mind, it is in fact proper, and those who refuse to do so are the ones who should be treated with disdain.

 
MaxThreshold said:
timschochet said:
It still comes down to this for me: for a guy to charge a police officer with a gun like that, he'd have to be ####### crazy. All right, so maybe the guy is crazy. After all, we already pretty much know he's a stupid thug.

But if he's that crazy, why did he run away from the cop in the first place? See, this is the part that just doesn't jibe with me no matter how many times I try to think through this. If we are to believe Wilson's testimony, Brown committed a crazy act (trying to attack a police officer, punching him, going for his gun), and then a sane act (running away from the police officer at full speed) and then another crazy act (turning around and charging the police officer who is firing bullets at him.) I can accept the first crazy act. I might even be able to accept the second crazy act, however unlikely it seems. But the fleeing in between- that's what makes the second crazy act seem so bogus to me.

And I totally get the argument that people don't act rationally, that people do weird things all the time, and that this is no explanation. I agree with that. But there still should be recognizable patterns to behavior. You attack an officer, you go for his gun, you fail, you get shot, you take off running- all of that fits a pattern of behavior: the pattern of Michael Brown, the stupid thug whom we saw on video earlier. Then after running away he turns around and charges Wilson? It doesn't fit. No matter how you slice it, it just doesn't fit.
Wilson was NOT firing his gun at Brown while he was supposedly running away. The autopsy has proven that.
It's not possible for an autopsy to prove that.
Sure it can. Bullets have specific entry and exit signatures.

adding that the autopsy did not support witnesses accounts that Brown was running away or had his hands up when he was shot.
Hint: not all bullets fired strike the target.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top