Looting in Missouri after cops shoot 18 year old (1 Viewer)

[squistion]

How about the fact that Wilson didnt turn his gun over to the investigation ...he brought it back to the police station himself and then put into evidence. He also washed his hands before he could be swabbed for evidence. The investigators didnt take any pictures right after the shooting...he claimed his camera battery died ....they recorded no measurements of distance at the scene.

How about it? Grand Jury still found no reason to indict.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Or the old man in the store.

Irrelevant to the grand jury proceeding, which can not be said of the possible evidence tampering by the officer with the firearm and washing his hands of blood.

 

[TheWalkmen]

You're really complaining now that he washed his hands? Wow. Desperation.

 

[squistion]

You're really complaining now that he washed his hands? Wow. Desperation.

:sigh:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/25/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-mistakes_n_6220814.html

1. Wilson washed away blood evidence.

In an interview with police investigators, Wilson admitted that after the shooting he returned to police headquarters and washed blood off his body -- physical evidence that could have helped to prove or disprove a critical piece of Wilsons testimony regarding his struggle with Brown inside the police car. He told his interrogator that he had blood on both of his hands. I think it was his blood, Wilson said referring to Brown. He added that he was not cut anywhere.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Why can't some people grasp that an indictment against an officer should be a heck of a lot more difficult to get than an indictment against a civilian? If every time an officer shot or injured a criminal they faced charges, we wouldn't have very many good police officers left. Who would want to deal with that crap?

Okay, then. If you can't see what could possibly go wrong there, then you're hopeless.

Not sure why that's funny -- he's clearly right. Society should (and does) give a lot more benefit of the doubt to a trained police officer who shoots someone in the line of duty than it does to a yahoo like George Zimmerman. There are lots of reasons for that, the most obvious being that in the former case, we generally assume that the officer wasn't just going around looking for trouble, whereas it's quite reasonable to think that in the case of somebody like Zimmerman.

This is complete and utter BULL####.

Imagine if there was no video where cop shot the dude reaching for his license. Do you really think he would've gotten in any trouble?

It's pretty sad that some people give no second though to empowering anyone above the citizens in which they are supposed to SERVE and protect.

The bolded part here is also pretty strange. Cops do, in fact, enjoy powers that ordinary citizens don't have. Nobody other than you seems to find that controversial. On the contrary, it's an inherent part of what makes a cop a cop.

Reasonable people can disagree about how far those powers should go. For instance, I can see reasonable arguments about whether cops should be able to pull people over at sobriety checkpoints on New Years Eve. But I've never heard anybody argue that cops should not be allowed to pull over someone for speeding in a school zone. That's a power denied to ordinary citizens but granted to police officers.

It includes committing crimes?

The whole argument arises from someone saying it should be harder to indict cops. I disagreed and the burden of proof should be the same for everyone.

No, it doesn't include committing crimes. If a police officer breaks into somebody's house and steals their television, he should be prosecuted just like anybody else.

But sometimes it isn't clear at all that any crime has been committed. Like in this case. Brown and Wilson ended up in a physical altercation, and the guy with the gun won. When we evaluate conflicting eyewitness testimony and try sort out what happened, it ought to matter whether the shooter was a trained, uniformed cop or some civilian who was packing for whatever reason. The former should absolutely get more deference than the latter. I don't even see that as a controversial position, and I'm guessing it would enjoy something like 80-20 support if we put it up to a vote. Feel free to disagree, of course, but you undermine your own credibility when you act as if it's somehow obviously wrong (like with smilies and all).

If the eyewitnesses had all agreed that Brown put his hands up and tried to surrender and then Wilson shot him anyway, which was the story we got originally, and forensic evidence had backed that up, then yeah absolutely prosecute the guy. But when eyewitnesses are all over the place, and the forensics at least roughly back up Wilson's account, and we know Wilson is a police officer who has been trained to handle situations like this while Brown was a common criminal on his way home after a pretty brazen shoplifting excursion, I'm not seeing any good grounds for charging him with anything.

 

[Soonerman]

You're really complaining now that he washed his hands? Wow. Desperation.

:sigh:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/25/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-mistakes_n_6220814.html

1. Wilson washed away blood evidence.

In an interview with police investigators, Wilson admitted that after the shooting he returned to police headquarters and washed blood off his body -- physical evidence that could have helped to prove or disprove a critical piece of Wilsons testimony regarding his struggle with Brown inside the police car. He told his interrogator that he had blood on both of his hands. I think it was his blood, Wilson said referring to Brown. He added that he was not cut anywhere.

Oh my goodness, this changes everything.

 

[MaxThreshold]

You're really complaining now that he washed his hands? Wow. Desperation.

:sigh:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/25/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-mistakes_n_6220814.html

1. Wilson washed away blood evidence.

In an interview with police investigators, Wilson admitted that after the shooting he returned to police headquarters and washed blood off his body -- physical evidence that could have helped to prove or disprove a critical piece of Wilsons testimony regarding his struggle with Brown inside the police car. He told his interrogator that he had blood on both of his hands. I think it was his blood, Wilson said referring to Brown. He added that he was not cut anywhere.

Seriously, you really need to stop posting links from HuffPo and DailyKos as if their credible sources. They're not credible in the least and are heavily slanted to far left views.

 

[Rohn Jambo]

You're really complaining now that he washed his hands? Wow. Desperation.

I tell you what he used: Obstruction of Justice brand soap.

 

[MaxThreshold]

You're really complaining now that he washed his hands? Wow. Desperation.

I tell you what he used: Obstruction of Justice brand soap.

Post of the year?

 

[Henry Ford]

You're really complaining now that he washed his hands? Wow. Desperation.

:sigh:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/25/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-mistakes_n_6220814.html

1. Wilson washed away blood evidence.

In an interview with police investigators, Wilson admitted that after the shooting he returned to police headquarters and washed blood off his body -- physical evidence that could have helped to prove or disprove a critical piece of Wilsons testimony regarding his struggle with Brown inside the police car. He told his interrogator that he had blood on both of his hands. I think it was his blood, Wilson said referring to Brown. He added that he was not cut anywhere.

Seriously, you really need to stop posting links from HuffPo and DailyKos as if their credible sources. They're not credible in the least and are heavily slanted to far left views.

As if their credible sources what?

 

[Zegras11]

You're really complaining now that he washed his hands? Wow. Desperation.

:sigh:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/25/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-mistakes_n_6220814.html

1. Wilson washed away blood evidence.

In an interview with police investigators, Wilson admitted that after the shooting he returned to police headquarters and washed blood off his body -- physical evidence that could have helped to prove or disprove a critical piece of Wilsons testimony regarding his struggle with Brown inside the police car. He told his interrogator that he had blood on both of his hands. I think it was his blood, Wilson said referring to Brown. He added that he was not cut anywhere.

Oh my goodness, this changes everything.

He had no cuts and other witnesses saw them struggle in the car. This does change everything!

 

[parasaurolophus]

Why can't some people grasp that an indictment against an officer should be a heck of a lot more difficult to get than an indictment against a civilian? If every time an officer shot or injured a criminal they faced charges, we wouldn't have very many good police officers left. Who would want to deal with that crap?

Okay, then. If you can't see what could possibly go wrong there, then you're hopeless.

Not sure why that's funny -- he's clearly right. Society should (and does) give a lot more benefit of the doubt to a trained police officer who shoots someone in the line of duty than it does to a yahoo like George Zimmerman. There are lots of reasons for that, the most obvious being that in the former case, we generally assume that the officer wasn't just going around looking for trouble, whereas it's quite reasonable to think that in the case of somebody like Zimmerman.

This is complete and utter BULL####.

Imagine if there was no video where cop shot the dude reaching for his license. Do you really think he would've gotten in any trouble?

It's pretty sad that some people give no second though to empowering anyone above the citizens in which they are supposed to SERVE and protect.

The bolded part here is also pretty strange. Cops do, in fact, enjoy powers that ordinary citizens don't have. Nobody other than you seems to find that controversial. On the contrary, it's an inherent part of what makes a cop a cop.

Reasonable people can disagree about how far those powers should go. For instance, I can see reasonable arguments about whether cops should be able to pull people over at sobriety checkpoints on New Years Eve. But I've never heard anybody argue that cops should not be allowed to pull over someone for speeding in a school zone. That's a power denied to ordinary citizens but granted to police officers.

It includes committing crimes?

The whole argument arises from someone saying it should be harder to indict cops. I disagreed and the burden of proof should be the same for everyone.

How can you not see countless scenarios where a civilian should be indicted and a cop should not?

 

[squistion]

You're really complaining now that he washed his hands? Wow. Desperation.

:sigh:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/25/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-mistakes_n_6220814.html

1. Wilson washed away blood evidence.

In an interview with police investigators, Wilson admitted that after the shooting he returned to police headquarters and washed blood off his body -- physical evidence that could have helped to prove or disprove a critical piece of Wilsons testimony regarding his struggle with Brown inside the police car. He told his interrogator that he had blood on both of his hands. I think it was his blood, Wilson said referring to Brown. He added that he was not cut anywhere.

Seriously, you really need to stop posting links from HuffPo and DailyKos as if their credible sources. They're not credible in the least and are heavily slanted to far left views.

I might take you seriously if you ever criticized people like Jim11 or Olaf for linking to the right wing sites as if they are credible sources. Never a peep out of you over links to Breitbart, Townhall, etc.

 

[Apple Jack]

I might take you seriously if you ever criticized people like Jim11 for linking to the right wing sites as if they are credible sources. Never a peep out of you over links to Breitbart, Townhall, etc.

Yeah, you don't want to take him seriously either way.

 

[Sand]

1. Wilson washed away blood evidence.

The only way to live.

 

[squistion]

I might take you seriously if you ever criticized people like Jim11 for linking to the right wing sites as if they are credible sources. Never a peep out of you over links to Breitbart, Townhall, etc.

Yeah, you don't want to take him seriously either way.

I said I might. Perhaps he will surprise me some time and actually make a lucid point - even a blind nut finds a squirrel once in awhile.

 

[MaxThreshold]

I might take you seriously if you ever criticized people like Jim11 for linking to the right wing sites as if they are credible sources. Never a peep out of you over links to Breitbart, Townhall, etc.

Yeah, you don't want to take him seriously either way.

I said I might. Perhaps he will surprise me some time and actually make a lucid point - even a blind nut finds a squirrel once in awhile.

Please. You two should get a room.

 

[GrandpaRox]

Anybody talk yet about how the prosecutors handed out a document of a Missouri statute that said police officers could lawfully kill a fleeing criminal (regardless of fear for their own life) at the very beginning of Grand Jury proceedings and only revealed to the jurors on Nov 21st (after testimony had been finished) that the statute had, in fact, been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1985 and shouldn't be taken in to account?

Your thief is dead and the verdict is final. Justice prevailed. Just give it up already.

You have tried all kinds of angles and each one has blown up in your face.

McIntyre1 - Internet Detective has uncovered evidence that no one has seen yet. Give him a break. Guys like him are looking for their Civil Rights MomentTM .

So you`re making light of the guy who is actually reading the transcripts as opposed to the rest of us,you included , who are depending on opinions and skewed facts provided by the media as our source of info....great

I don't think McIntyre1 is interpreting any of that correctly. He's simply looking for cherry-picked info to fit his pre-conceived notion of guilt on Wilson.

McIntyre is just a kid, don't think he is even 20 yet so he has very little life experience. Busted Knuckles is basically what you would think he is just based on his name. Angry, semi-successful, living life on the edge or wrong side of the law. When you have someone living that anger his whole life, he is what he is.

 

[lod01]

You're really complaining now that he washed his hands? Wow. Desperation.

:sigh:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/25/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-mistakes_n_6220814.html

1. Wilson washed away blood evidence.

In an interview with police investigators, Wilson admitted that after the shooting he returned to police headquarters and washed blood off his body -- physical evidence that could have helped to prove or disprove a critical piece of Wilsons testimony regarding his struggle with Brown inside the police car. He told his interrogator that he had blood on both of his hands. I think it was his blood, Wilson said referring to Brown. He added that he was not cut anywhere.

Total game changer.

This is how I think it went down with this new revelation: Big Teddy Bear Brown was walking down the street puffing on the cigars he had purchased recently when Bat Crazy Wilson came driving up to him looking to make a name for himself. Bat Crazy calls Big Teddy over to his car. Big Teddy complies and puts his head at window level. Bat Crazy grabs his head and proceeds to slam Big Teddy's head into his steering wheel while saying 'how's that feel you big fat turd'. Able to free himself, and fearing for his life, the bloody choir boy Big Teddy starts running away. Bat Crazy says 'I don't think so, got some lead for your big fat ##### ###'.....and the rest is history. Apparently from witnesses, Bat Crazy then proceeded to do his best Hulk Hogan imitation.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Anybody talk yet about how the prosecutors handed out a document of a Missouri statute that said police officers could lawfully kill a fleeing criminal (regardless of fear for their own life) at the very beginning of Grand Jury proceedings and only revealed to the jurors on Nov 21st (after testimony had been finished) that the statute had, in fact, been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1985 and shouldn't be taken in to account?

Your thief is dead and the verdict is final. Justice prevailed. Just give it up already.

You have tried all kinds of angles and each one has blown up in your face.

McIntyre1 - Internet Detective has uncovered evidence that no one has seen yet. Give him a break. Guys like him are looking for their Civil Rights MomentTM .

So you`re making light of the guy who is actually reading the transcripts as opposed to the rest of us,you included , who are depending on opinions and skewed facts provided by the media as our source of info....great

I don't think McIntyre1 is interpreting any of that correctly. He's simply looking for cherry-picked info to fit his pre-conceived notion of guilt on Wilson.

McIntyre is just a kid, don't think he is even 20 yet so he has very little life experience. Busted Knuckles is basically what you would think he is just based on his name. Angry, semi-successful, living life on the edge or wrong side of the law. When you have someone living that anger his whole life, he is what he is.

LOL...you got me ...you should charge a fee as a Psychic

 

[jon_mx]

The sticker on the mirror said, "All employees must wash hands."

 

[squistion]

You're really complaining now that he washed his hands? Wow. Desperation.

:sigh:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/25/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-mistakes_n_6220814.html

1. Wilson washed away blood evidence.

In an interview with police investigators, Wilson admitted that after the shooting he returned to police headquarters and washed blood off his body -- physical evidence that could have helped to prove or disprove a critical piece of Wilsons testimony regarding his struggle with Brown inside the police car. He told his interrogator that he had blood on both of his hands. I think it was his blood, Wilson said referring to Brown. He added that he was not cut anywhere.

Total game changer.

Never said it was. But this was tampering with evidence by a police officer, who presumably knows better, and does nothing to add to his credibility. If it was a suspect he had arrested, he would not allow him to wash blood off his hands as it might be of some evidentiary value (it may not be in this instance, but we will never know will we? And that is not supposed to be a determination for the officer to make)

 

[BustedKnuckles]

You're really complaining now that he washed his hands? Wow. Desperation.

:sigh:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/25/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-mistakes_n_6220814.html

1. Wilson washed away blood evidence.

In an interview with police investigators, Wilson admitted that after the shooting he returned to police headquarters and washed blood off his body -- physical evidence that could have helped to prove or disprove a critical piece of Wilsons testimony regarding his struggle with Brown inside the police car. He told his interrogator that he had blood on both of his hands. I think it was his blood, Wilson said referring to Brown. He added that he was not cut anywhere.

Total game changer.

Never said it was. But this was tampering with evidence by a police officer, who presumably knows better, and does nothing to add to his credibility. If it was a suspect he had arrested, he would not allow him to wash blood off his hands as it might be of some evidentiary value (It may be or it may be not, but that is not a determination for the officer to make)

Havent you figured it out yet? According to some here ,cops are exempt from the law

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

You're really complaining now that he washed his hands? Wow. Desperation.

:sigh:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/25/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-mistakes_n_6220814.html

1. Wilson washed away blood evidence.

In an interview with police investigators, Wilson admitted that after the shooting he returned to police headquarters and washed blood off his body -- physical evidence that could have helped to prove or disprove a critical piece of Wilsons testimony regarding his struggle with Brown inside the police car. He told his interrogator that he had blood on both of his hands. I think it was his blood, Wilson said referring to Brown. He added that he was not cut anywhere.

It would have been better procedure had the Officer turned over his gun and his remaining magazine(s) at the scene, and had he not washed his hands. That would have been the ideal procedure. That said, this was not a whodunit. We know who shot Brown, how many times, and where. We have ballistics from the bullets and the shell casings, and we have no attempt whatsoever to deny the shooting. Under that circumstance perfect procedure becomes more or less irrelevant, except perhaps to show that the Department will jump to conclusions about outcomes and will get lazy about procedure when they surmise, rather quickly, and potentially, though not actually in this case prematurely, that the procedure does not matter. (I teach Officers that the lines are our friends and that procedure always matters. We don't make assumptions, because even when they are correct it looks presumptuous and lazy and leaves us open to criticism.)

As for the hand washing. It looks like in this case he may actually have destroyed exculpatory evidence. Stupid of him. Again all of the above discussion applies here. I get why an officer might want to wash off potentially dangerous infectious material (blood) but a second or two of precaution by taking some swabs would have avoided second guessing. Part of the job is establishing your own credibility and public confidence. This is important. This Officer forgot this or never knew it.

 

[mcintyre1]

Anybody talk yet about how the prosecutors handed out a document of a Missouri statute that said police officers could lawfully kill a fleeing criminal (regardless of fear for their own life) at the very beginning of Grand Jury proceedings and only revealed to the jurors on Nov 21st (after testimony had been finished) that the statute had, in fact, been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1985 and shouldn't be taken in to account?

Your thief is dead and the verdict is final. Justice prevailed. Just give it up already.

You have tried all kinds of angles and each one has blown up in your face.

McIntyre1 - Internet Detective has uncovered evidence that no one has seen yet. Give him a break. Guys like him are looking for their Civil Rights MomentTM .

So you`re making light of the guy who is actually reading the transcripts as opposed to the rest of us,you included , who are depending on opinions and skewed facts provided by the media as our source of info....great

I don't think McIntyre1 is interpreting any of that correctly. He's simply looking for cherry-picked info to fit his pre-conceived notion of guilt on Wilson.

McIntyre is just a kid, don't think he is even 20 yet so he has very little life experience. Busted Knuckles is basically what you would think he is just based on his name. Angry, semi-successful, living life on the edge or wrong side of the law. When you have someone living that anger his whole life, he is what he is.

You're just a regular ol' laugh riot, Grandpa. My birthday is on my profile, but you're not one to do any kind of research before you impart your well earned racist wisdom, so I won't hold it against you.

 

[parasaurolophus]

You're really complaining now that he washed his hands? Wow. Desperation.

:sigh:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/25/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-mistakes_n_6220814.html

1. Wilson washed away blood evidence.

In an interview with police investigators, Wilson admitted that after the shooting he returned to police headquarters and washed blood off his body -- physical evidence that could have helped to prove or disprove a critical piece of Wilsons testimony regarding his struggle with Brown inside the police car. He told his interrogator that he had blood on both of his hands. I think it was his blood, Wilson said referring to Brown. He added that he was not cut anywhere.

I would actually like to hear why this matters. Lets say it was browns blood, what does that prove? Lets say it was Wilson's blood, what does that prove?

 

[Sinn Fein]

You're really complaining now that he washed his hands? Wow. Desperation.

:sigh:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/25/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-mistakes_n_6220814.html

1. Wilson washed away blood evidence.

In an interview with police investigators, Wilson admitted that after the shooting he returned to police headquarters and washed blood off his body -- physical evidence that could have helped to prove or disprove a critical piece of Wilsons testimony regarding his struggle with Brown inside the police car. He told his interrogator that he had blood on both of his hands. I think it was his blood, Wilson said referring to Brown. He added that he was not cut anywhere.

I would actually like to hear why this matters. Lets say it was browns blood, what does that prove? Lets say it was Wilson's blood, what does that prove?

what if there was no blood, and Wilson lied about washing it off?

 

[Soonerman]

You're really complaining now that he washed his hands? Wow. Desperation.

:sigh:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/25/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-mistakes_n_6220814.html

1. Wilson washed away blood evidence.

In an interview with police investigators, Wilson admitted that after the shooting he returned to police headquarters and washed blood off his body -- physical evidence that could have helped to prove or disprove a critical piece of Wilsons testimony regarding his struggle with Brown inside the police car. He told his interrogator that he had blood on both of his hands. I think it was his blood, Wilson said referring to Brown. He added that he was not cut anywhere.

I would actually like to hear why this matters. Lets say it was browns blood, what does that prove? Lets say it was Wilson's blood, what does that prove?

what if there was no blood, and Wilson lied about washing it off?

This changes everything!

 

[BustedKnuckles]

You're really complaining now that he washed his hands? Wow. Desperation.

:sigh:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/25/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-mistakes_n_6220814.html

1. Wilson washed away blood evidence.

In an interview with police investigators, Wilson admitted that after the shooting he returned to police headquarters and washed blood off his body -- physical evidence that could have helped to prove or disprove a critical piece of Wilsons testimony regarding his struggle with Brown inside the police car. He told his interrogator that he had blood on both of his hands. I think it was his blood, Wilson said referring to Brown. He added that he was not cut anywhere.

I would actually like to hear why this matters. Lets say it was browns blood, what does that prove? Lets say it was Wilson's blood, what does that prove?

what if there was no blood, and Wilson lied about washing it off?

This changes everything!

well why gather any evidence at all ...ever ?

 

[parasaurolophus]

You're really complaining now that he washed his hands? Wow. Desperation.

:sigh:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/25/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-mistakes_n_6220814.html

1. Wilson washed away blood evidence.

In an interview with police investigators, Wilson admitted that after the shooting he returned to police headquarters and washed blood off his body -- physical evidence that could have helped to prove or disprove a critical piece of Wilsons testimony regarding his struggle with Brown inside the police car. He told his interrogator that he had blood on both of his hands. I think it was his blood, Wilson said referring to Brown. He added that he was not cut anywhere.

I would actually like to hear why this matters. Lets say it was browns blood, what does that prove? Lets say it was Wilson's blood, what does that prove?

what if there was no blood, and Wilson lied about washing it off?

Please explain how it would have mattered if Wilson had zero blood on him.

 

[avoiding injuries]

We've gone from Wilson, to the prosecutor, to an incident in Cleveland, to hypotheticals. Keep'em coming.

I spoke to quite a few supporters of Wilson and supporters of Brown today. It's amazing how much more educated and informed the Wilson supporters were. It was almost like they had all read through this thread.

Now excuse me while I shut up and spend time with my family.

Head down, charge officer.

 

[parasaurolophus]

You're really complaining now that he washed his hands? Wow. Desperation.

:sigh:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/25/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-mistakes_n_6220814.html

1. Wilson washed away blood evidence.

In an interview with police investigators, Wilson admitted that after the shooting he returned to police headquarters and washed blood off his body -- physical evidence that could have helped to prove or disprove a critical piece of Wilsons testimony regarding his struggle with Brown inside the police car. He told his interrogator that he had blood on both of his hands. I think it was his blood, Wilson said referring to Brown. He added that he was not cut anywhere.

I would actually like to hear why this matters. Lets say it was browns blood, what does that prove? Lets say it was Wilson's blood, what does that prove?

what if there was no blood, and Wilson lied about washing it off?

This changes everything!

well why gather any evidence at all ...ever ?

Why can't you just answer the question?

 

[BigJohn]

Maybe this has been covered here or somewhere in the GJ documents. Has the family that Wilson was helping before he encountered been asked what he was like when he was there? If he is being painted as this vicious, mindless killer, maybe those people could tell he was agitated.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

You're really complaining now that he washed his hands? Wow. Desperation.

:sigh:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/25/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-mistakes_n_6220814.html

1. Wilson washed away blood evidence.

In an interview with police investigators, Wilson admitted that after the shooting he returned to police headquarters and washed blood off his body -- physical evidence that could have helped to prove or disprove a critical piece of Wilsons testimony regarding his struggle with Brown inside the police car. He told his interrogator that he had blood on both of his hands. I think it was his blood, Wilson said referring to Brown. He added that he was not cut anywhere.

I would actually like to hear why this matters. Lets say it was browns blood, what does that prove? Lets say it was Wilson's blood, what does that prove?

what if there was no blood, and Wilson lied about washing it off?

This changes everything!

well why gather any evidence at all ...ever ?

Why can't you just answer the question?

it boils down to credibility...if you cant figure that out than i cant help you

 

[parasaurolophus]

You're really complaining now that he washed his hands? Wow. Desperation.

:sigh:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/25/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-mistakes_n_6220814.html

1. Wilson washed away blood evidence.

In an interview with police investigators, Wilson admitted that after the shooting he returned to police headquarters and washed blood off his body -- physical evidence that could have helped to prove or disprove a critical piece of Wilsons testimony regarding his struggle with Brown inside the police car. He told his interrogator that he had blood on both of his hands. I think it was his blood, Wilson said referring to Brown. He added that he was not cut anywhere.

I would actually like to hear why this matters. Lets say it was browns blood, what does that prove? Lets say it was Wilson's blood, what does that prove?

what if there was no blood, and Wilson lied about washing it off?

This changes everything!

well why gather any evidence at all ...ever ?

Why can't you just answer the question?

it boils down to credibility...if you cant figure that out than i cant help you

You are dodging answering because you know it has zero relevance.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

You're really complaining now that he washed his hands? Wow. Desperation.

:sigh:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/25/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-mistakes_n_6220814.html

1. Wilson washed away blood evidence.

In an interview with police investigators, Wilson admitted that after the shooting he returned to police headquarters and washed blood off his body -- physical evidence that could have helped to prove or disprove a critical piece of Wilsons testimony regarding his struggle with Brown inside the police car. He told his interrogator that he had blood on both of his hands. I think it was his blood, Wilson said referring to Brown. He added that he was not cut anywhere.

I would actually like to hear why this matters. Lets say it was browns blood, what does that prove? Lets say it was Wilson's blood, what does that prove?

what if there was no blood, and Wilson lied about washing it off?

This changes everything!

well why gather any evidence at all ...ever ?

Why can't you just answer the question?

it boils down to credibility...if you cant figure that out than i cant help you

You are dodging answering because you know it has zero relevance.

oof

 

[Otis]

Wilson has a history of never shooting his gun on duty before ever.

Brown has a history at least that very same day of stealing, assaulting people and flouting the law.

Who should we believe?

 

[BustedKnuckles]

You're really complaining now that he washed his hands? Wow. Desperation.

:sigh:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/25/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-mistakes_n_6220814.html

1. Wilson washed away blood evidence.

In an interview with police investigators, Wilson admitted that after the shooting he returned to police headquarters and washed blood off his body -- physical evidence that could have helped to prove or disprove a critical piece of Wilsons testimony regarding his struggle with Brown inside the police car. He told his interrogator that he had blood on both of his hands. I think it was his blood, Wilson said referring to Brown. He added that he was not cut anywhere.

I would actually like to hear why this matters. Lets say it was browns blood, what does that prove? Lets say it was Wilson's blood, what does that prove?

what if there was no blood, and Wilson lied about washing it off?

This changes everything!

well why gather any evidence at all ...ever ?

Why can't you just answer the question?

it boils down to credibility...if you cant figure that out than i cant help you

You are dodging answering because you know it has zero relevance.

Decide for yourself

 

[Sinn Fein]

Wilson has a history of never shooting his gun on duty before ever.

Brown has a history at least that very same day of stealing, assaulting people and flouting the law.

Who should we believe?

Well I am certain Brown has not lied about the incident, not so sure about Wilson...

 

[Widbil83]

Blocking highways isn't going to end well for one these idiots pretty soon.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nxP7TQ9hLgU

 

[Sinn Fein]

You're really complaining now that he washed his hands? Wow. Desperation.

:sigh:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/25/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-mistakes_n_6220814.html

1. Wilson washed away blood evidence.

In an interview with police investigators, Wilson admitted that after the shooting he returned to police headquarters and washed blood off his body -- physical evidence that could have helped to prove or disprove a critical piece of Wilsons testimony regarding his struggle with Brown inside the police car. He told his interrogator that he had blood on both of his hands. I think it was his blood, Wilson said referring to Brown. He added that he was not cut anywhere.

I would actually like to hear why this matters. Lets say it was browns blood, what does that prove? Lets say it was Wilson's blood, what does that prove?

what if there was no blood, and Wilson lied about washing it off?

Please explain how it would have mattered if Wilson had zero blood on him.

Means he is a liar. but I think we already knew that, so I suppose it does not add anything new. The actions of Wilson, and the initial investigation do not pass the smell test imo. Too many rules broken. It sounds very much like he and his bosses got time to pull their story together, before he was interviewed by a detective. Even something as simple as whether Wilson knew about the prior robbery, or connected Brown changed as more information became known.

He took two punches to the head, while he was still in the car, and thought he was going to die? Seriously? This is a cop who has been briefed on how to beat these charges.

Officer involved in a shooting should be treated just like any other shooting suspect until cleared.

 

[parasaurolophus]

You're really complaining now that he washed his hands? Wow. Desperation.

:sigh:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/25/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-mistakes_n_6220814.html

1. Wilson washed away blood evidence.

In an interview with police investigators, Wilson admitted that after the shooting he returned to police headquarters and washed blood off his body -- physical evidence that could have helped to prove or disprove a critical piece of Wilsons testimony regarding his struggle with Brown inside the police car. He told his interrogator that he had blood on both of his hands. I think it was his blood, Wilson said referring to Brown. He added that he was not cut anywhere.

I would actually like to hear why this matters. Lets say it was browns blood, what does that prove? Lets say it was Wilson's blood, what does that prove?

what if there was no blood, and Wilson lied about washing it off?

Please explain how it would have mattered if Wilson had zero blood on him.

Means he is a liar. but I think we already knew that, so I suppose it does not add anything new.The actions of Wilson, and the initial investigation do not pass the smell test imo. Too many rules broken. It sounds very much like he and his bosses got time to pull their story together, before he was interviewed by a detective. Even something as simple as whether Wilson knew about the prior robbery, or connected Brown changed as more information became known.

He took two punches to the head, while he was still in the car, and thought he was going to die? Seriously? This is a cop who has been briefed on how to beat these charges.

Officer involved in a shooting should be treated just like any other shooting suspect until cleared.

People cant have it both ways. They cant criticize him for washing blood off of his hands and say that doesnt follow protocol but then also say he didnt have any blood on his hands and he is lying. That is just grasping at straws.

This is a stupid issue to pick. It is completely meaningless.

1. If he had blood on his hands, it means nothing whether it is his or Brown's.

2. If he didn't have blood on his hands it means nothing.

3. If he didn't have blood on his hands, he wouldnt lie about having blood on his hands, because it means nothing.

Jesus christ. If you want to pick an investigation angle to get upset about, the lack of measuring the distances is far worse. This one is 100% meaningless in every way. Illustrated perfectly by the fact that nobody could even point out how blood or no blood mattered.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

You're really complaining now that he washed his hands? Wow. Desperation.

:sigh:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/25/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-mistakes_n_6220814.html

1. Wilson washed away blood evidence.

In an interview with police investigators, Wilson admitted that after the shooting he returned to police headquarters and washed blood off his body -- physical evidence that could have helped to prove or disprove a critical piece of Wilsons testimony regarding his struggle with Brown inside the police car. He told his interrogator that he had blood on both of his hands. I think it was his blood, Wilson said referring to Brown. He added that he was not cut anywhere.

I would actually like to hear why this matters. Lets say it was browns blood, what does that prove? Lets say it was Wilson's blood, what does that prove?

what if there was no blood, and Wilson lied about washing it off?

Please explain how it would have mattered if Wilson had zero blood on him.

Means he is a liar. but I think we already knew that, so I suppose it does not add anything new.The actions of Wilson, and the initial investigation do not pass the smell test imo. Too many rules broken. It sounds very much like he and his bosses got time to pull their story together, before he was interviewed by a detective. Even something as simple as whether Wilson knew about the prior robbery, or connected Brown changed as more information became known.

He took two punches to the head, while he was still in the car, and thought he was going to die? Seriously? This is a cop who has been briefed on how to beat these charges.

Officer involved in a shooting should be treated just like any other shooting suspect until cleared.

People cant have it both ways. They cant criticize him for washing blood off of his hands and say that doesnt follow protocol but then also say he didnt have any blood on his hands and he is lying. That is just grasping at straws.

This is a stupid issue to pick. It is completely meaningless.

1. If he had blood on his hands, it means nothing whether it is his or Brown's.

2. If he didn't have blood on his hands it means nothing.

3. If he didn't have blood on his hands, he wouldnt lie about having blood on his hands, because it means nothing.

Jesus christ. If you want to pick an investigation angle to get upset about, the lack of measuring the distances is far worse. This one is 100% meaningless in every way. Illustrated perfectly by the fact that nobody could even point out how blood or no blood mattered.

why are you so hung up on the act of washing his hands as the point being made. Its about compromising a crime scene ...its about integrity of evidence...all of it...they didnt even record Wilsons statements after the shooting on the scene when the shooting was fresh in his mind...no notes ...nothing. You want answers ? Ask the cops ....Start there.

 

[fantasycurse42]

Blocking highways isn't going to end well for one these idiots pretty soon.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nxP7TQ9hLgU

I'd pay good money on PPV to watch a group of drivers go right through that.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

You're really complaining now that he washed his hands? Wow. Desperation.

:sigh:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/25/ferguson-grand-jury-evidence-mistakes_n_6220814.html

1. Wilson washed away blood evidence.

In an interview with police investigators, Wilson admitted that after the shooting he returned to police headquarters and washed blood off his body -- physical evidence that could have helped to prove or disprove a critical piece of Wilsons testimony regarding his struggle with Brown inside the police car. He told his interrogator that he had blood on both of his hands. I think it was his blood, Wilson said referring to Brown. He added that he was not cut anywhere.

I would actually like to hear why this matters. Lets say it was browns blood, what does that prove? Lets say it was Wilson's blood, what does that prove?

what if there was no blood, and Wilson lied about washing it off?

Please explain how it would have mattered if Wilson had zero blood on him.

Means he is a liar. but I think we already knew that, so I suppose it does not add anything new.The actions of Wilson, and the initial investigation do not pass the smell test imo. Too many rules broken. It sounds very much like he and his bosses got time to pull their story together, before he was interviewed by a detective. Even something as simple as whether Wilson knew about the prior robbery, or connected Brown changed as more information became known.

He took two punches to the head, while he was still in the car, and thought he was going to die? Seriously? This is a cop who has been briefed on how to beat these charges.

Officer involved in a shooting should be treated just like any other shooting suspect until cleared.

People cant have it both ways. They cant criticize him for washing blood off of his hands and say that doesnt follow protocol but then also say he didnt have any blood on his hands and he is lying. That is just grasping at straws.

This is a stupid issue to pick. It is completely meaningless.

1. If he had blood on his hands, it means nothing whether it is his or Brown's.

2. If he didn't have blood on his hands it means nothing.

3. If he didn't have blood on his hands, he wouldnt lie about having blood on his hands, because it means nothing.

Jesus christ. If you want to pick an investigation angle to get upset about, the lack of measuring the distances is far worse. This one is 100% meaningless in every way. Illustrated perfectly by the fact that nobody could even point out how blood or no blood mattered.

why are you so hung up on the act of washing his hands as the point being made. Its about compromising a crime scene ...its about integrity of evidence...all of it...they didnt even record Wilsons statements after the shooting on the scene when the shooting was fresh in his mind...no notes ...nothing. You want answers ? Ask the cops ....Start there.

Would Wilson have been a suspect at that time? Do suspects have 5th amendment rights? Did Wilson belong to a union and have a union rep and a union lawyer speak to him immediately and if so would that be his Constitutional right and a right negotiated by contract? Do you leave open the possibility that no statements were recorded because none were given?

Now I don't know the answers to all of my questions, but unless you do you seem to be marshaling arguments to support a conclusion without giving critical analysis to the arguments.

 

[TheWalkmen]

People seem to latch onto the "unarmed teenager" buzzword and equate that to being innocent. Makes no sense.

 

[fantasycurse42]

People seem to latch onto the "unarmed teenager" buzzword and equate that to being innocent. Makes no sense.

It's more attractive than "hulking 18 year old who had strong armed some cigars an hour earlier."

 

[fantasycurse42]

I think what we really need is a list of things you should do to avoid being shot by LE:

1) Obey the law

2) Be respectful to LE

By following this short list, you too can avoid being killed by a police officer, HTH.

 

[avoiding injuries]

People seem to latch onto the "unarmed teenager" buzzword and equate that to being innocent. Makes no sense.

It's more attractive than "hulking 18 year old who had strong armed some cigars an hour earlier."

I can almost look past the robbery, the intimidation of the store clerk, the disregard for police, the assault of a police officer and even the attempt to grab the police officers gun, but where do these savages get off walking down the middle of the road instead of the sidewalk?

 

[timschochet]

I think what we really need is a list of things you should do to avoid being shot by LE:

1) Obey the law

2) Be respectful to LE

By following this short list, you too can avoid being killed by a police officer, HTH.

The reason that there have been so many protests about this incident is that there is a perception that is widely held among blacks that your statement is not true in regard to them.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Nancy Grace - something does not add up