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

[BustedKnuckles]

nobody knows what happened in that car except wilson and brown...all anyone can say is that they were struggling at the cruiser

And that Brown's blood was inside the car and on Wilson while gun residue was on Brown.

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.

And?

Serious errors in the handling of the Michael Brown shooting have been exposed by the grand jury files on the case, including Darren Wilson's gun not being tested for fingerprints – and the officer washing blood off his hands.

A 12-person jury, after hearing more than 70 hours of testimony from 60 witnesses, ruled that Officer Wilson will not have to stand trial over the fatal shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri.

However, in the thousands of pages of evidence released to the public afterwards were glaring examples of crime scene protocol not being followed.

One of Officer Wilson's key lines of defence was that Michael Brown made him fear he was going to be shot because he tried to grab his gun while in his car.

But Wilson placed the gun in an evidence bag himself and the weapon was not tested for fingerprints because, an investigator argued, 'he never lost control of his gun

Wilson was also allowed to drive himself away from the crime scene and wash blood off his hands, actions that are extremely unorthodox according to experts and government rules.

David Klinger, an expert on police shootings with the University of Missouri at St Louis, told The Washington Post: 'An officer driving himself back? Wrong. An officer booking his own gun into evidence? Wrong. The appropriate investigative procedures were not followed.'

And a 2013 Justice Department manual on processing crime scenes makes the procedure for dealing with blood extremely clear: 'Do not allow suspect to use bathroom facilities, or to alter his/her appearance, including brushing hair or washing hands.'

There were numerous other possible breaches in protocol that the jury hearing highlighted.

The first officer to interview Wilson after the shooting didn't record the conversation or take notes as he had 'multiple things going through my head besides what Darren was telling me'.

The jury also heard how a medical legal examiner who analysed the crime scene didn't take any measurements because 'somebody shot somebody', which was 'self-explanatory'.

These issues might all have been used by prosecutors against Wilson had the case gone to trial.

Is that enough ????

 

[Raider Nation]

CNN Breaking News: Darren Wilson just resigned.

DID HE LEAVE IN A HONDA????

 

[BustedKnuckles]

CNN Breaking News: Darren Wilson just resigned.

DID HE LEAVE IN A HONDA????

i think it was a white bronco

 

[jon_mx]

The gentle giant.

http://www.youngcons.com/explosive-new-lawsuit-filed-in-st-louis-claims-michael-brown-was-a-suspect-for-second-degree/#OdV20px9rIXbXfUj.99

Charles Johnson, Editor-in-chief of GotNews, filed a lawsuit in St. Louis seeking the release of Michael Browns juvenile criminal record, claiming they no longer need to be kept private. Johnson says law enforcement told him that Browns juvenile arrest record contains a second-degree murder charge and information linking him to the notorious Crips street gang.

why do you have to hate on Big Mike ?

Somebody was on last night saying Brown been involved in a murder and assaults in his younger days. Should be released so we can know some history other than the theft and pushing the little clerk.

Why? He's dead.Suppose Brown had been an Eagle scout in his younger days- would that have changed your mind about this incident? If not, then why should previous bad acts change peoples' minds?

It seems relevant. His supporters are saying he is not the type of guy who would charge a cop like a lunatic. The more you see of his past, his crazy behavior seems more plausible.

Is there any other place with that story other than "youngcons.com"?

Tim was not arguing the accuracy, but the relevancy. If true, I would think it is relevant in showing an unstable character who is prone to violence and the cop potentially being in real danger.

 

[Patrick Bateman]

A lot of you guys are assuming Wilson's testimony is factual. No one knows the facts. Wilson made some questionable decisions after the incident. More questions than answers. Prosecutor made sure that it didn't go to trial, that's a fact.

 

[The General]

The gentle giant.

http://www.youngcons.com/explosive-new-lawsuit-filed-in-st-louis-claims-michael-brown-was-a-suspect-for-second-degree/#OdV20px9rIXbXfUj.99

Charles Johnson, Editor-in-chief of GotNews, filed a lawsuit in St. Louis seeking the release of Michael Browns juvenile criminal record, claiming they no longer need to be kept private. Johnson says law enforcement told him that Browns juvenile arrest record contains a second-degree murder charge and information linking him to the notorious Crips street gang.

why do you have to hate on Big Mike ?

Somebody was on last night saying Brown been involved in a murder and assaults in his younger days. Should be released so we can know some history other than the theft and pushing the little clerk.

Why? He's dead.Suppose Brown had been an Eagle scout in his younger days- would that have changed your mind about this incident? If not, then why should previous bad acts change peoples' minds?

It seems relevant. His supporters are saying he is not the type of guy who would charge a cop like a lunatic. The more you see of his past, his crazy behavior seems more plausible.

Is there any other place with that story other than "youngcons.com"?

Tim was not arguing the accuracy, but the relevancy. If true, I would think it is relevant in showing an unstable character who is prone to violence and the cop potentially being in real danger.

I would tend to agree with you. But, if it's true is probably more important.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

The gentle giant.

http://www.youngcons.com/explosive-new-lawsuit-filed-in-st-louis-claims-michael-brown-was-a-suspect-for-second-degree/#OdV20px9rIXbXfUj.99

Charles Johnson, Editor-in-chief of GotNews, filed a lawsuit in St. Louis seeking the release of Michael Browns juvenile criminal record, claiming they no longer need to be kept private. Johnson says law enforcement told him that Browns juvenile arrest record contains a second-degree murder charge and information linking him to the notorious Crips street gang.

why do you have to hate on Big Mike ?

Somebody was on last night saying Brown been involved in a murder and assaults in his younger days. Should be released so we can know some history other than the theft and pushing the little clerk.

Why? He's dead.Suppose Brown had been an Eagle scout in his younger days- would that have changed your mind about this incident? If not, then why should previous bad acts change peoples' minds?

It seems relevant. His supporters are saying he is not the type of guy who would charge a cop like a lunatic. The more you see of his past, his crazy behavior seems more plausible.

Is there any other place with that story other than "youngcons.com"?

Tim was not arguing the accuracy, but the relevancy. If true, I would think it is relevant in showing an unstable character who is prone to violence and the cop potentially being in real danger.

I would tend to agree with you. But, if it's true is probably more important.

scroll up to post 9110 ...its been disputed and shown to be false

 

[The General]

The gentle giant.

http://www.youngcons.com/explosive-new-lawsuit-filed-in-st-louis-claims-michael-brown-was-a-suspect-for-second-degree/#OdV20px9rIXbXfUj.99

Charles Johnson, Editor-in-chief of GotNews, filed a lawsuit in St. Louis seeking the release of Michael Browns juvenile criminal record, claiming they no longer need to be kept private. Johnson says law enforcement told him that Browns juvenile arrest record contains a second-degree murder charge and information linking him to the notorious Crips street gang.

why do you have to hate on Big Mike ?

Somebody was on last night saying Brown been involved in a murder and assaults in his younger days. Should be released so we can know some history other than the theft and pushing the little clerk.

Why? He's dead.Suppose Brown had been an Eagle scout in his younger days- would that have changed your mind about this incident? If not, then why should previous bad acts change peoples' minds?

It seems relevant. His supporters are saying he is not the type of guy who would charge a cop like a lunatic. The more you see of his past, his crazy behavior seems more plausible.

Is there any other place with that story other than "youngcons.com"?

Tim was not arguing the accuracy, but the relevancy. If true, I would think it is relevant in showing an unstable character who is prone to violence and the cop potentially being in real danger.

I would tend to agree with you. But, if it's true is probably more important.

scroll up to post 9110 ...its been disputed and shown to be false

I just saw the OP was a Jim11. Never mind.

 

[avoiding injuries]

nobody knows what happened in that car except wilson and brown...all anyone can say is that they were struggling at the cruiser

And that Brown's blood was inside the car and on Wilson while gun residue was on Brown.

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.

And?

Serious errors in the handling of the Michael Brown shooting have been exposed by the grand jury files on the case, including Darren Wilson's gun not being tested for fingerprints and the officer washing blood off his hands.

A 12-person jury, after hearing more than 70 hours of testimony from 60 witnesses, ruled that Officer Wilson will not have to stand trial over the fatal shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri.

However, in the thousands of pages of evidence released to the public afterwards were glaring examples of crime scene protocol not being followed.



One of Officer Wilson's key lines of defence was that Michael Brown made him fear he was going to be shot because he tried to grab his gun while in his car.

But Wilson placed the gun in an evidence bag himself and the weapon was not tested for fingerprints because, an investigator argued, 'he never lost control of his gun



Wilson was also allowed to drive himself away from the crime scene and wash blood off his hands, actions that are extremely unorthodox according to experts and government rules.

David Klinger, an expert on police shootings with the University of Missouri at St Louis, told The Washington Post: 'An officer driving himself back? Wrong. An officer booking his own gun into evidence? Wrong. The appropriate investigative procedures were not followed.'

And a 2013 Justice Department manual on processing crime scenes makes the procedure for dealing with blood extremely clear: 'Do not allow suspect to use bathroom facilities, or to alter his/her appearance, including brushing hair or washing hands.'

There were numerous other possible breaches in protocol that the jury hearing highlighted.

The first officer to interview Wilson after the shooting didn't record the conversation or take notes as he had 'multiple things going through my head besides what Darren was telling me'.

The jury also heard how a medical legal examiner who analysed the crime scene didn't take any measurements because 'somebody shot somebody', which was 'self-explanatory'.

These issues might all have been used by prosecutors against Wilson had the case gone to trial.

Is that enough ????

For me or for the GJ?His blood was still in the car and on Wilson's uniform. Residue from the gun was still on brown. That's what I posted and you went to him washing his hands.

So to answer your question, no.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

nobody knows what happened in that car except wilson and brown...all anyone can say is that they were struggling at the cruiser

And that Brown's blood was inside the car and on Wilson while gun residue was on Brown.

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.

And?

Serious errors in the handling of the Michael Brown shooting have been exposed by the grand jury files on the case, including Darren Wilson's gun not being tested for fingerprints and the officer washing blood off his hands.

A 12-person jury, after hearing more than 70 hours of testimony from 60 witnesses, ruled that Officer Wilson will not have to stand trial over the fatal shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri.

However, in the thousands of pages of evidence released to the public afterwards were glaring examples of crime scene protocol not being followed.

One of Officer Wilson's key lines of defence was that Michael Brown made him fear he was going to be shot because he tried to grab his gun while in his car.

But Wilson placed the gun in an evidence bag himself and the weapon was not tested for fingerprints because, an investigator argued, 'he never lost control of his gun

Wilson was also allowed to drive himself away from the crime scene and wash blood off his hands, actions that are extremely unorthodox according to experts and government rules.

David Klinger, an expert on police shootings with the University of Missouri at St Louis, told The Washington Post: 'An officer driving himself back? Wrong. An officer booking his own gun into evidence? Wrong. The appropriate investigative procedures were not followed.'

And a 2013 Justice Department manual on processing crime scenes makes the procedure for dealing with blood extremely clear: 'Do not allow suspect to use bathroom facilities, or to alter his/her appearance, including brushing hair or washing hands.'

There were numerous other possible breaches in protocol that the jury hearing highlighted.

The first officer to interview Wilson after the shooting didn't record the conversation or take notes as he had 'multiple things going through my head besides what Darren was telling me'.

The jury also heard how a medical legal examiner who analysed the crime scene didn't take any measurements because 'somebody shot somebody', which was 'self-explanatory'.

These issues might all have been used by prosecutors against Wilson had the case gone to trial.

Is that enough ????

For me or for the GJ?His blood was still in the car and on Wilson's uniform. Residue from the gun was still on brown. That's what I posted and you went to him washing his hands.

So to answer your question, no.

and his prints were never found on the gun...you know ...the gun he had his hands all over as they struggled for it and he was trying to turn it towards wilson so he could shoot him to death

 

[BustedKnuckles]

CNN Breaking News: Darren Wilson just resigned.

DID HE LEAVE IN A HONDA????

Darren Wilson has resigned from the Ferguson PD. Just had 113 days of paid vacation, has received $500,000

 

[Patrick Bateman]

nobody knows what happened in that car except wilson and brown...all anyone can say is that they were struggling at the cruiser

And that Brown's blood was inside the car and on Wilson while gun residue was on Brown.

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.

And?

Serious errors in the handling of the Michael Brown shooting have been exposed by the grand jury files on the case, including Darren Wilson's gun not being tested for fingerprints and the officer washing blood off his hands.

A 12-person jury, after hearing more than 70 hours of testimony from 60 witnesses, ruled that Officer Wilson will not have to stand trial over the fatal shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri.

However, in the thousands of pages of evidence released to the public afterwards were glaring examples of crime scene protocol not being followed.

One of Officer Wilson's key lines of defence was that Michael Brown made him fear he was going to be shot because he tried to grab his gun while in his car.

But Wilson placed the gun in an evidence bag himself and the weapon was not tested for fingerprints because, an investigator argued, 'he never lost control of his gun

Wilson was also allowed to drive himself away from the crime scene and wash blood off his hands, actions that are extremely unorthodox according to experts and government rules.

David Klinger, an expert on police shootings with the University of Missouri at St Louis, told The Washington Post: 'An officer driving himself back? Wrong. An officer booking his own gun into evidence? Wrong. The appropriate investigative procedures were not followed.'

And a 2013 Justice Department manual on processing crime scenes makes the procedure for dealing with blood extremely clear: 'Do not allow suspect to use bathroom facilities, or to alter his/her appearance, including brushing hair or washing hands.'

There were numerous other possible breaches in protocol that the jury hearing highlighted.

The first officer to interview Wilson after the shooting didn't record the conversation or take notes as he had 'multiple things going through my head besides what Darren was telling me'.

The jury also heard how a medical legal examiner who analysed the crime scene didn't take any measurements because 'somebody shot somebody', which was 'self-explanatory'.

These issues might all have been used by prosecutors against Wilson had the case gone to trial.

Is that enough ????

For me or for the GJ?His blood was still in the car and on Wilson's uniform. Residue from the gun was still on brown. That's what I posted and you went to him washing his hands.

So to answer your question, no.

Astonishing. Any rational human being can see that there were serious flaws with the way this incident was handled. Against all protocol, but it's okay, he was a thug that stole some cigars. Wilson is a ##### hiding behind a badge and a gun. He had a red mark on his cheek. I've seen numerous police scuffles, that ended in a subdued subject, and no one was killed. Everyone seems to ignore the fact that Wilson is 6'4 and 220 lbs, hardly a small man. Yet he felt like a 5 year old in the grip of Hulk Hogan?? Give me a break.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

nobody knows what happened in that car except wilson and brown...all anyone can say is that they were struggling at the cruiser

And that Brown's blood was inside the car and on Wilson while gun residue was on Brown.

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.

And?

Serious errors in the handling of the Michael Brown shooting have been exposed by the grand jury files on the case, including Darren Wilson's gun not being tested for fingerprints and the officer washing blood off his hands.

A 12-person jury, after hearing more than 70 hours of testimony from 60 witnesses, ruled that Officer Wilson will not have to stand trial over the fatal shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri.

However, in the thousands of pages of evidence released to the public afterwards were glaring examples of crime scene protocol not being followed.

One of Officer Wilson's key lines of defence was that Michael Brown made him fear he was going to be shot because he tried to grab his gun while in his car.

But Wilson placed the gun in an evidence bag himself and the weapon was not tested for fingerprints because, an investigator argued, 'he never lost control of his gun

Wilson was also allowed to drive himself away from the crime scene and wash blood off his hands, actions that are extremely unorthodox according to experts and government rules.

David Klinger, an expert on police shootings with the University of Missouri at St Louis, told The Washington Post: 'An officer driving himself back? Wrong. An officer booking his own gun into evidence? Wrong. The appropriate investigative procedures were not followed.'

And a 2013 Justice Department manual on processing crime scenes makes the procedure for dealing with blood extremely clear: 'Do not allow suspect to use bathroom facilities, or to alter his/her appearance, including brushing hair or washing hands.'

There were numerous other possible breaches in protocol that the jury hearing highlighted.

The first officer to interview Wilson after the shooting didn't record the conversation or take notes as he had 'multiple things going through my head besides what Darren was telling me'.

The jury also heard how a medical legal examiner who analysed the crime scene didn't take any measurements because 'somebody shot somebody', which was 'self-explanatory'.

These issues might all have been used by prosecutors against Wilson had the case gone to trial.

Is that enough ????

For me or for the GJ?His blood was still in the car and on Wilson's uniform. Residue from the gun was still on brown. That's what I posted and you went to him washing his hands.

So to answer your question, no.

you do realize this whole conversation started when someone said ''If you grab a cops gun then it's all bets off.'' Thats what i was referring to...YOU brought up the residue and blood in the car....wow

 

[BustedKnuckles]

nobody knows what happened in that car except wilson and brown...all anyone can say is that they were struggling at the cruiser

And that Brown's blood was inside the car and on Wilson while gun residue was on Brown.

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.

And?

Serious errors in the handling of the Michael Brown shooting have been exposed by the grand jury files on the case, including Darren Wilson's gun not being tested for fingerprints and the officer washing blood off his hands.

A 12-person jury, after hearing more than 70 hours of testimony from 60 witnesses, ruled that Officer Wilson will not have to stand trial over the fatal shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri.

However, in the thousands of pages of evidence released to the public afterwards were glaring examples of crime scene protocol not being followed.

One of Officer Wilson's key lines of defence was that Michael Brown made him fear he was going to be shot because he tried to grab his gun while in his car.

But Wilson placed the gun in an evidence bag himself and the weapon was not tested for fingerprints because, an investigator argued, 'he never lost control of his gun

Wilson was also allowed to drive himself away from the crime scene and wash blood off his hands, actions that are extremely unorthodox according to experts and government rules.

David Klinger, an expert on police shootings with the University of Missouri at St Louis, told The Washington Post: 'An officer driving himself back? Wrong. An officer booking his own gun into evidence? Wrong. The appropriate investigative procedures were not followed.'

And a 2013 Justice Department manual on processing crime scenes makes the procedure for dealing with blood extremely clear: 'Do not allow suspect to use bathroom facilities, or to alter his/her appearance, including brushing hair or washing hands.'

There were numerous other possible breaches in protocol that the jury hearing highlighted.

The first officer to interview Wilson after the shooting didn't record the conversation or take notes as he had 'multiple things going through my head besides what Darren was telling me'.

The jury also heard how a medical legal examiner who analysed the crime scene didn't take any measurements because 'somebody shot somebody', which was 'self-explanatory'.

These issues might all have been used by prosecutors against Wilson had the case gone to trial.

Is that enough ????

For me or for the GJ?His blood was still in the car and on Wilson's uniform. Residue from the gun was still on brown. That's what I posted and you went to him washing his hands.

So to answer your question, no.

Astonishing. Any rational human being can see that there were serious flaws with the way this incident was handled. Against all protocol, but it's okay, he was a thug that stole some cigars. Wilson is a ##### hiding behind a badge and a gun. He had a red mark on his cheek. I've seen numerous police scuffles, that ended in a subdued subject, and no one was killed. Everyone seems to ignore the fact that Wilson is 6'4 and 220 lbs, hardly a small man. Yet he felt like a 5 year old in the grip of Hulk Hogan?? Give me a break.

ill take it a step further ...how do we even know it was Brown who hit him?He went to the police station before he went to the hospital...who can say for sure that one of his fellow officers didnt give him a slap or 2 in the face ? those marks are red ...like a slap ...a punch causes bruising ...black n blue bruising...not redness like a rash

 

[fantasycurse42]

Maybe he just saw Brown walking up the street, got out, and unloaded a clip on him unprovoked?

Then he got back in his car, laughed, snorted blow, and banged a hooker...

About right, BustedKnuckles?

 

[Sand]

again...no proof other than wilsons word that brown ever went for his gun...zero

Witnesses noted Brown inside the car. He wasn't propositioning Wilson. There was blood inside the car from the shots after the struggle. I realize you want videotape filmed by the Pope to believe this, but everything points toward it, not just Wilson's word.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Maybe he just saw Brown walking up the street, got out, and unloaded a clip on him unprovoked?

Then he got back in his car, laughed, snorted blow, and banged a hooker...

About right, BustedKnuckles?

naaa...thats totally not believable

 

[The General]

nobody knows what happened in that car except wilson and brown...all anyone can say is that they were struggling at the cruiser

And that Brown's blood was inside the car and on Wilson while gun residue was on Brown.

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.

And?

Serious errors in the handling of the Michael Brown shooting have been exposed by the grand jury files on the case, including Darren Wilson's gun not being tested for fingerprints and the officer washing blood off his hands.

A 12-person jury, after hearing more than 70 hours of testimony from 60 witnesses, ruled that Officer Wilson will not have to stand trial over the fatal shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri.

However, in the thousands of pages of evidence released to the public afterwards were glaring examples of crime scene protocol not being followed.

One of Officer Wilson's key lines of defence was that Michael Brown made him fear he was going to be shot because he tried to grab his gun while in his car.

But Wilson placed the gun in an evidence bag himself and the weapon was not tested for fingerprints because, an investigator argued, 'he never lost control of his gun

Wilson was also allowed to drive himself away from the crime scene and wash blood off his hands, actions that are extremely unorthodox according to experts and government rules.

David Klinger, an expert on police shootings with the University of Missouri at St Louis, told The Washington Post: 'An officer driving himself back? Wrong. An officer booking his own gun into evidence? Wrong. The appropriate investigative procedures were not followed.'

And a 2013 Justice Department manual on processing crime scenes makes the procedure for dealing with blood extremely clear: 'Do not allow suspect to use bathroom facilities, or to alter his/her appearance, including brushing hair or washing hands.'

There were numerous other possible breaches in protocol that the jury hearing highlighted.

The first officer to interview Wilson after the shooting didn't record the conversation or take notes as he had 'multiple things going through my head besides what Darren was telling me'.

The jury also heard how a medical legal examiner who analysed the crime scene didn't take any measurements because 'somebody shot somebody', which was 'self-explanatory'.

These issues might all have been used by prosecutors against Wilson had the case gone to trial.

Is that enough ????

For me or for the GJ?His blood was still in the car and on Wilson's uniform. Residue from the gun was still on brown. That's what I posted and you went to him washing his hands.

So to answer your question, no.

and his prints were never found on the gun...you know ...the gun he had his hands all over as they struggled for it and he was trying to turn it towards wilson so he could shoot him to death

The gun was not tested for Brown's fingerprints.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

nobody knows what happened in that car except wilson and brown...all anyone can say is that they were struggling at the cruiser

And that Brown's blood was inside the car and on Wilson while gun residue was on Brown.

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.

And?

Serious errors in the handling of the Michael Brown shooting have been exposed by the grand jury files on the case, including Darren Wilson's gun not being tested for fingerprints and the officer washing blood off his hands.

A 12-person jury, after hearing more than 70 hours of testimony from 60 witnesses, ruled that Officer Wilson will not have to stand trial over the fatal shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri.

However, in the thousands of pages of evidence released to the public afterwards were glaring examples of crime scene protocol not being followed.

One of Officer Wilson's key lines of defence was that Michael Brown made him fear he was going to be shot because he tried to grab his gun while in his car.

But Wilson placed the gun in an evidence bag himself and the weapon was not tested for fingerprints because, an investigator argued, 'he never lost control of his gun

Wilson was also allowed to drive himself away from the crime scene and wash blood off his hands, actions that are extremely unorthodox according to experts and government rules.

David Klinger, an expert on police shootings with the University of Missouri at St Louis, told The Washington Post: 'An officer driving himself back? Wrong. An officer booking his own gun into evidence? Wrong. The appropriate investigative procedures were not followed.'

And a 2013 Justice Department manual on processing crime scenes makes the procedure for dealing with blood extremely clear: 'Do not allow suspect to use bathroom facilities, or to alter his/her appearance, including brushing hair or washing hands.'

There were numerous other possible breaches in protocol that the jury hearing highlighted.

The first officer to interview Wilson after the shooting didn't record the conversation or take notes as he had 'multiple things going through my head besides what Darren was telling me'.

The jury also heard how a medical legal examiner who analysed the crime scene didn't take any measurements because 'somebody shot somebody', which was 'self-explanatory'.

These issues might all have been used by prosecutors against Wilson had the case gone to trial.

Is that enough ????

For me or for the GJ?His blood was still in the car and on Wilson's uniform. Residue from the gun was still on brown. That's what I posted and you went to him washing his hands.

So to answer your question, no.

and his prints were never found on the gun...you know ...the gun he had his hands all over as they struggled for it and he was trying to turn it towards wilson so he could shoot him to death

The gun was not tested for Brown's fingerprints.

exactly....because they probably werent there to begin with

 

[The General]

nobody knows what happened in that car except wilson and brown...all anyone can say is that they were struggling at the cruiser

And that Brown's blood was inside the car and on Wilson while gun residue was on Brown.

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.

And?

Serious errors in the handling of the Michael Brown shooting have been exposed by the grand jury files on the case, including Darren Wilson's gun not being tested for fingerprints and the officer washing blood off his hands.

A 12-person jury, after hearing more than 70 hours of testimony from 60 witnesses, ruled that Officer Wilson will not have to stand trial over the fatal shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri.

However, in the thousands of pages of evidence released to the public afterwards were glaring examples of crime scene protocol not being followed.

One of Officer Wilson's key lines of defence was that Michael Brown made him fear he was going to be shot because he tried to grab his gun while in his car.

But Wilson placed the gun in an evidence bag himself and the weapon was not tested for fingerprints because, an investigator argued, 'he never lost control of his gun

Wilson was also allowed to drive himself away from the crime scene and wash blood off his hands, actions that are extremely unorthodox according to experts and government rules.

David Klinger, an expert on police shootings with the University of Missouri at St Louis, told The Washington Post: 'An officer driving himself back? Wrong. An officer booking his own gun into evidence? Wrong. The appropriate investigative procedures were not followed.'

And a 2013 Justice Department manual on processing crime scenes makes the procedure for dealing with blood extremely clear: 'Do not allow suspect to use bathroom facilities, or to alter his/her appearance, including brushing hair or washing hands.'

There were numerous other possible breaches in protocol that the jury hearing highlighted.

The first officer to interview Wilson after the shooting didn't record the conversation or take notes as he had 'multiple things going through my head besides what Darren was telling me'.

The jury also heard how a medical legal examiner who analysed the crime scene didn't take any measurements because 'somebody shot somebody', which was 'self-explanatory'.

These issues might all have been used by prosecutors against Wilson had the case gone to trial.

Is that enough ????

For me or for the GJ?His blood was still in the car and on Wilson's uniform. Residue from the gun was still on brown. That's what I posted and you went to him washing his hands.

So to answer your question, no.

and his prints were never found on the gun...you know ...the gun he had his hands all over as they struggled for it and he was trying to turn it towards wilson so he could shoot him to death

The gun was not tested for Brown's fingerprints.

exactly....because they probably werent there to begin with

How do you get to that?

 

[Patrick Bateman]

It's foolish to think there wasn't a cover-up here. No police report, no radio to dispatch after the shooting. All of the police making excuses for not following protocol. Etc. etc. Just a travesty of justice.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

nobody knows what happened in that car except wilson and brown...all anyone can say is that they were struggling at the cruiser

And that Brown's blood was inside the car and on Wilson while gun residue was on Brown.

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.

And?

Serious errors in the handling of the Michael Brown shooting have been exposed by the grand jury files on the case, including Darren Wilson's gun not being tested for fingerprints and the officer washing blood off his hands.

A 12-person jury, after hearing more than 70 hours of testimony from 60 witnesses, ruled that Officer Wilson will not have to stand trial over the fatal shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri.

However, in the thousands of pages of evidence released to the public afterwards were glaring examples of crime scene protocol not being followed.

One of Officer Wilson's key lines of defence was that Michael Brown made him fear he was going to be shot because he tried to grab his gun while in his car.

But Wilson placed the gun in an evidence bag himself and the weapon was not tested for fingerprints because, an investigator argued, 'he never lost control of his gun

Wilson was also allowed to drive himself away from the crime scene and wash blood off his hands, actions that are extremely unorthodox according to experts and government rules.

David Klinger, an expert on police shootings with the University of Missouri at St Louis, told The Washington Post: 'An officer driving himself back? Wrong. An officer booking his own gun into evidence? Wrong. The appropriate investigative procedures were not followed.'

And a 2013 Justice Department manual on processing crime scenes makes the procedure for dealing with blood extremely clear: 'Do not allow suspect to use bathroom facilities, or to alter his/her appearance, including brushing hair or washing hands.'

There were numerous other possible breaches in protocol that the jury hearing highlighted.

The first officer to interview Wilson after the shooting didn't record the conversation or take notes as he had 'multiple things going through my head besides what Darren was telling me'.

The jury also heard how a medical legal examiner who analysed the crime scene didn't take any measurements because 'somebody shot somebody', which was 'self-explanatory'.

These issues might all have been used by prosecutors against Wilson had the case gone to trial.

Is that enough ????

For me or for the GJ?His blood was still in the car and on Wilson's uniform. Residue from the gun was still on brown. That's what I posted and you went to him washing his hands.

So to answer your question, no.

and his prints were never found on the gun...you know ...the gun he had his hands all over as they struggled for it and he was trying to turn it towards wilson so he could shoot him to death

The gun was not tested for Brown's fingerprints.

exactly....because they probably werent there to begin with

How do you get to that?

its as reasonable as thinking he just forgot to have it fingerprinted....or that he didnt have to turn it in at the scene ...or that he could leave the scene with it in his custody and turn it in when he felt like it. Do people always believe whatever people tell you? Especially when it involves trouble ? Im not saying the cops did something right or wrong...im simply putting it out there that maybe its not all that it seems .

 

[GoBirds]

It's foolish to think there wasn't a cover-up here. No police report, no radio to dispatch after the shooting. All of the police making excuses for not following protocol. Etc. etc. Just a travesty of justice.

Easy to speculate but there is nothing that proves that. Good lesson for everyone though to not assault a police officer as it could end bad for you.

 

[Henry Ford]

Pregnant St. Louis woman loses left eye after police officer shoots non-lethal round at car

Conners, who was angry about the grand jurys decision, and her boyfriend, DeAngelas Lee, were parked at a BP gas station on New Halls Ferry Road in St. Louis, just north of Ferguson, KMOV reported.

As her boyfriend started to drive away, she says, several police officers arrived.

They pulled up while we were coming towards the street, DeAnglas was trying to get away, they blocked us from the side, front and back, Conners told the CBS affiliate.

Thats when an officer fired the bean bag round because he feared for his safety, police said.

Conners found another officer who could help her get medical attention.

Dornellas father, Donnell Conners, says he understands that the cops have a difficult job to do but there was no excuse for what happened to his daughter.

Im very upset, very disappointed with tactics that they used trying to get control of situation, he told KMOV. I understand tough job, I understand that it was chaos, there was no reason to fire upon innocent person sitting in a vehicle.

Conners says her left eye was so badly damaged that it needed to be removed and reports blurriness in her right eye but is thankful she can still see the world at all.

Interesting that you edited out the two sentences that follow:

Police say they arrested 16 suspects at the station after gunshots were reportedly fired.

Authorities have issued a warrant for Lees arrest, according to reports.

I also didn't quote part of the beginning of the article.

The woman wasn't arrested. She lost an eye.

I guess I don't understand the outrage, she is riding in a car where her boyfriend attempts to run down and kill officers, who are reporting to a shots fired call. They use non lethal force and she is struck In a what is a fluke accident when glass and pellets strike her in the face. There is now an arrest warrant out for her boyfriend I could maybe see if the officers riddled the car with real bullets, people being mad, but come on--how many times does it have to be said, don't try and attack/kill a police officer and do what you are told and you will 99% of the time be okay..And don't say innocent until proven guilty--read the facts--the officers immediately provided medical attention to the girl and what did the boyfriend, who was obviously so concerned for the welfare of his pregnant girlfriend, do?? He fled the scene, leaving her behind--injured and is now wanted on a $50,000 bond. His actions show he knows he did something wrong.

But let's all try and be mad at the police instead of the person who, had he just done what the cops told him to do, caused this whole event.

I don't think we really know those are the facts yet, do we? According to her they were driving out of the place and the police drove up, blocked them in.

So far the only agreement seems to be that she lost an eye due to a beanbag fired by a police officer, another police officer got her medical help, and she wasn't arrested.

See, you already said it. A police officer did the shooting. Obviously it was justified, reasonable, and he/she was in the right.

That may not be the case, but we have no reason to think otherwise.

It seems like people would have their "There Must Be More To This Story" detector go off when they read stuff like what Fatness posted. If police just opened fire on some random vehicle -- even with nonlethal ammo -- that would be pretty remarkable and incredibly damning. But all it took was one click and quick scan of the story to see that Fatness actually doctored it to present a distorted picture of what may have transpired. I'm not sure what motivates a person to do that, since it's a credibility-killer, but then again I also don't quite understand why people dug in on the "Michael Brown was shot while trying to surrender" narrative so early either.

The police have opened fire with lethal ammo at virtually random vehicles before.

 

[squistion]

It's foolish to think there wasn't a cover-up here. No police report, no radio to dispatch after the shooting. All of the police making excuses for not following protocol. Etc. etc. Just a travesty of justice.

What really seems odd is that the Ferguson Police Chief, Tom Jackson on 8/19/14 said in a press conference that Wilson was not related to the convenience store robbery when he stopped Michael Brown. Obviously he was familiar at that time with Wilson's account of what had happened.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/15/tom-jackson-michael-brown_n_5682762.html

Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson said Friday the initial contact between 18-year-old Michael Brown and police officer Darren Wilson was not related to a convenience store robbery.

Video of the incident allegedly showing Brown, which was released to the public, "had nothing to do with the stop" and was "unrelated" to Wilson's contact with Brown, Jackson said. He said video of the convenience store incident was released in response to Freedom of Information Act requests.

"The initial contact between Darren Wilson and Mike Brown was not related to the alleged theft of cigars," Jackson said, indicating Wilson did not know Brown was a suspect in the robbery.

Jackson said Wilson was in the area "coming off a sick case," and initiated contact with Brown because the teenager was "blocking traffic, that's it."

X

Yet, when Wilson testified before the grand jury months later, he then happens to remember hearing about the robbery (which can't be disproven and has not been verified). So the stop for jaywalking seems unconnected with the robbery.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/officer-darren-wilsons-story-shooting-michael-brown/story?id=27156510

Wilson said he had heard that someone had stolen cigarillos from the nearby Ferguson Market just before he saw two young men walking in the middle of the street, disrupting traffic.

 

[The General]

It's foolish to think there wasn't a cover-up here. No police report, no radio to dispatch after the shooting. All of the police making excuses for not following protocol. Etc. etc. Just a travesty of justice.

No police report or call to dispatch? Hadn't heard that where did you read that?

 

[Patrick Bateman]

It's foolish to think there wasn't a cover-up here. No police report, no radio to dispatch after the shooting. All of the police making excuses for not following protocol. Etc. etc. Just a travesty of justice.

What really seems odd is that the Ferguson Police Chief, Tom Jackson on 8/19/14 said in a press conference that Wilson was not aware of the convenience store robbery when he stopped Michael Brown. Obviously he was familiar at that time with Wilson's account of what had happened.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/15/tom-jackson-michael-brown_n_5682762.html

Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson said Friday the initial contact between 18-year-old Michael Brown and police officer Darren Wilson was not related to a convenience store robbery.

Video of the incident allegedly showing Brown, which was released to the public, "had nothing to do with the stop" and was "unrelated" to Wilson's contact with Brown, Jackson said. He said video of the convenience store incident was released in response to Freedom of Information Act requests.

"The initial contact between Darren Wilson and Mike Brown was not related to the alleged theft of cigars," Jackson said, indicating Wilson did not know Brown was a suspect in the robbery.

Jackson said Wilson was in the area "coming off a sick case," and initiated contact with Brown because the teenager was "blocking traffic, that's it."

X

Yet, when Wilson testified before the grand jury months later, he then happens to remember hearing about the robbery (which can't be disproven and has not been verified).

http://abcnews.go.com/US/officer-darren-wilsons-story-shooting-michael-brown/story?id=27156510

Wilson said he had heard that someone had stolen cigarillos from the nearby Ferguson Market just before he saw two young men walking in the middle of the street, disrupting traffic.

Exactly. It just stinks of cover-up. Anonymous has the actual dispatch audio. No mention of the robbery before the Brown/Wilson incident.

 

[timschochet]

I'm glad he resigned. I don't think he should have gone to jail, but Wilson's obvious fabrication that Brown turned around and charged him- an absurd lie which nobody reasonably minded could ever buy into- proves that he probably could have avoided killing Brown.

 

[The General]

It's foolish to think there wasn't a cover-up here. No police report, no radio to dispatch after the shooting. All of the police making excuses for not following protocol. Etc. etc. Just a travesty of justice.

What really seems odd is that the Ferguson Police Chief, Tom Jackson on 8/19/14 said in a press conference that Wilson was not aware of the convenience store robbery when he stopped Michael Brown. Obviously he was familiar at that time with Wilson's account of what had happened.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/15/tom-jackson-michael-brown_n_5682762.html

Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson said Friday the initial contact between 18-year-old Michael Brown and police officer Darren Wilson was not related to a convenience store robbery.

Video of the incident allegedly showing Brown, which was released to the public, "had nothing to do with the stop" and was "unrelated" to Wilson's contact with Brown, Jackson said. He said video of the convenience store incident was released in response to Freedom of Information Act requests.

"The initial contact between Darren Wilson and Mike Brown was not related to the alleged theft of cigars," Jackson said, indicating Wilson did not know Brown was a suspect in the robbery.

Jackson said Wilson was in the area "coming off a sick case," and initiated contact with Brown because the teenager was "blocking traffic, that's it."

X

Yet, when Wilson testified before the grand jury months later, he then happens to remember hearing about the robbery (which can't be disproven and has not been verified). So the stop for jaywalking seems unconnected with the robbery.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/officer-darren-wilsons-story-shooting-michael-brown/story?id=27156510

Wilson said he had heard that someone had stolen cigarillos from the nearby Ferguson Market just before he saw two young men walking in the middle of the street, disrupting traffic.

This seems to be something that people disagree on. I have read / heard both sides of if the cop knew what was going on with the robbery at the store.

This thing I found seems to make it pretty clear that the cop knew - has little audio clips of radio calls: LINK

 

[Ketamine Dreams]

I'm glad he resigned. I don't think he should have gone to jail, but Wilson's obvious fabrication that Brown turned around and charged him- an absurd lie which nobody reasonably minded could ever buy into- proves that he probably could have avoided killing Brown.

Seriously, just give it up. You're just making #### up at this point and speaking it as truth. The autopsy showed no back to front shots. Why is Brown charging a lie? The crime scene definitely showed Brown moved back toward Wilson. Ballistics showed shots on the car, a close shot into Brown's hand, and contusions to Wilson's face. There is no evidence suggesting Sonething else happened. It's frustrating when people make up something when they don't have a clue what they're talking about.

 

[The General]

I'm glad he resigned. I don't think he should have gone to jail, but Wilson's obvious fabrication that Brown turned around and charged him- an absurd lie which nobody reasonably minded could ever buy into- proves that he probably could have avoided killing Brown.

Agree he had to resign. Would not be able to work in that community anymore regardless.

To your "absurd lie" comment aren't there witness accounts that had Brown moving towards the cop.

 

[avoiding injuries]

nobody knows what happened in that car except wilson and brown...all anyone can say is that they were struggling at the cruiser

And that Brown's blood was inside the car and on Wilson while gun residue was on Brown.

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.

And?

Serious errors in the handling of the Michael Brown shooting have been exposed by the grand jury files on the case, including Darren Wilson's gun not being tested for fingerprints and the officer washing blood off his hands.A 12-person jury, after hearing more than 70 hours of testimony from 60 witnesses, ruled that Officer Wilson will not have to stand trial over the fatal shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri.

However, in the thousands of pages of evidence released to the public afterwards were glaring examples of crime scene protocol not being followed.

One of Officer Wilson's key lines of defence was that Michael Brown made him fear he was going to be shot because he tried to grab his gun while in his car.

But Wilson placed the gun in an evidence bag himself and the weapon was not tested for fingerprints because, an investigator argued, 'he never lost control of his gun

Wilson was also allowed to drive himself away from the crime scene and wash blood off his hands, actions that are extremely unorthodox according to experts and government rules.

David Klinger, an expert on police shootings with the University of Missouri at St Louis, told The Washington Post: 'An officer driving himself back? Wrong. An officer booking his own gun into evidence? Wrong. The appropriate investigative procedures were not followed.'

And a 2013 Justice Department manual on processing crime scenes makes the procedure for dealing with blood extremely clear: 'Do not allow suspect to use bathroom facilities, or to alter his/her appearance, including brushing hair or washing hands.'

There were numerous other possible breaches in protocol that the jury hearing highlighted.

The first officer to interview Wilson after the shooting didn't record the conversation or take notes as he had 'multiple things going through my head besides what Darren was telling me'.

The jury also heard how a medical legal examiner who analysed the crime scene didn't take any measurements because 'somebody shot somebody', which was 'self-explanatory'.

These issues might all have been used by prosecutors against Wilson had the case gone to trial.

Is that enough ????

For me or for the GJ?His blood was still in the car and on Wilson's uniform. Residue from the gun was still on brown. That's what I posted and you went to him washing his hands.

So to answer your question, no.

you do realize this whole conversation started when someone said ''If you grab a cops gun then it's all bets off.'' Thats what i was referring to...YOU brought up the residue and blood in the car....wow

"all anyone can say is that they were struggling at the cruiser" is what I directly responded to.

 

[The General]

Exactly. It just stinks of cover-up. Anonymous has the actual dispatch audio. No mention of the robbery before the Brown/Wilson incident.

Posted this earlier but you may want to take a look as well: LINK

Has a well laid out timeline with radio clips. not sure what the Anonymous radio dispatch you referred to was.

 

[GrandpaRox]

I'm glad he resigned. I don't think he should have gone to jail, but Wilson's obvious fabrication that Brown turned around and charged him- an absurd lie which nobody reasonably minded could ever buy into- proves that he probably could have avoided killing Brown.

Are you really this much of a doushbag? It has to really be you because it would be far to difficult to pull off.

I hope in your real life you don't have too much connection with young people. You could really screw up a lot of impressionable young minds.

Could you imagine a whole nother group of young Tim's out there.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

nobody knows what happened in that car except wilson and brown...all anyone can say is that they were struggling at the cruiser

And that Brown's blood was inside the car and on Wilson while gun residue was on Brown.

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.

And?

Serious errors in the handling of the Michael Brown shooting have been exposed by the grand jury files on the case, including Darren Wilson's gun not being tested for fingerprints and the officer washing blood off his hands.A 12-person jury, after hearing more than 70 hours of testimony from 60 witnesses, ruled that Officer Wilson will not have to stand trial over the fatal shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri.

However, in the thousands of pages of evidence released to the public afterwards were glaring examples of crime scene protocol not being followed.

One of Officer Wilson's key lines of defence was that Michael Brown made him fear he was going to be shot because he tried to grab his gun while in his car.

But Wilson placed the gun in an evidence bag himself and the weapon was not tested for fingerprints because, an investigator argued, 'he never lost control of his gun

Wilson was also allowed to drive himself away from the crime scene and wash blood off his hands, actions that are extremely unorthodox according to experts and government rules.

David Klinger, an expert on police shootings with the University of Missouri at St Louis, told The Washington Post: 'An officer driving himself back? Wrong. An officer booking his own gun into evidence? Wrong. The appropriate investigative procedures were not followed.'

And a 2013 Justice Department manual on processing crime scenes makes the procedure for dealing with blood extremely clear: 'Do not allow suspect to use bathroom facilities, or to alter his/her appearance, including brushing hair or washing hands.'

There were numerous other possible breaches in protocol that the jury hearing highlighted.

The first officer to interview Wilson after the shooting didn't record the conversation or take notes as he had 'multiple things going through my head besides what Darren was telling me'.

The jury also heard how a medical legal examiner who analysed the crime scene didn't take any measurements because 'somebody shot somebody', which was 'self-explanatory'.

These issues might all have been used by prosecutors against Wilson had the case gone to trial.

Is that enough ????

For me or for the GJ?His blood was still in the car and on Wilson's uniform. Residue from the gun was still on brown. That's what I posted and you went to him washing his hands.

So to answer your question, no.

you do realize this whole conversation started when someone said ''If you grab a cops gun then it's all bets off.'' Thats what i was referring to...YOU brought up the residue and blood in the car....wow

"all anyone can say is that they were struggling at the cruiser" is what I directly responded to.

well you interjected yourself into the conversation...i was answering why nobody but wilson and brown knows for sure if he went for the gun or not...nobody is disputing something went down at the cruiser...no witnesses have x-ray vision that i know of...yes wilson shot his gun from inside the cruiser...yes they found soot on brown...yes they found some blood drops in the cruiser...no we dont know for sure if brown touched that gun or not and never will...isnt that convenient for wilson...he gets to make brown into any kind of murderous rampaging hulk hogan he feels like.

 

[Todem]

I'm glad he resigned. I don't think he should have gone to jail, but Wilson's obvious fabrication that Brown turned around and charged him- an absurd lie which nobody reasonably minded could ever buy into- proves that he probably could have avoided killing Brown.

Seriously, just give it up. You're just making #### up at this point and speaking it as truth. The autopsy showed no back to front shots. Why is Brown charging a lie? The crime scene definitely showed Brown moved back toward Wilson. Ballistics showed shots on the car, a close shot into Brown's hand, and contusions to Wilson's face. There is no evidence suggesting Sonething else happened. It's frustrating when people make up something when they don't have a clue what they're talking about.

Put him on ignore....this thread has really helped me update my ignore preferences....big time. Long list now after reading this dreck of a thread for the last week or so. I question myself for wasting time in here....stupid me in that regard.

I have never seen a gathering of so many ignorant numb nuts in any thread quite like this one. The outright trolling and lack of any semblance of common sense is repulsive and scary. Lot's of thugs, ***holes, trolls...every possible type of internet scum all in one place. People making ***t up more and more as we go along. Pure denial and insane lines of thinking. Anti-cop crowd, pure anarchists.

Anyway..it's been real with discussing this with those who actually try to live normal lives, are not incredibly paranoid about the police being cold blooded killers with a badge on every corner, don't support looting and violence and actually have brain cells they use for the betterment of mankind. Also it's good to know some people understand if you attack a police officer, try to reach for his weapon, flee, and do not listen...your going to be in bad shape or end up dead.

Peace.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

I'm glad he resigned. I don't think he should have gone to jail, but Wilson's obvious fabrication that Brown turned around and charged him- an absurd lie which nobody reasonably minded could ever buy into- proves that he probably could have avoided killing Brown.

Are you really this much of a doushbag? It has to really be you because it would be far to difficult to pull off.

I hope in your real life you don't have too much connection with young people. You could really screw up a lot of impressionable young minds.

Could you imagine a whole nother group of young Tim's out there.

seriously??? this coming from a proven judgmental racist? hahahahahahaha..i just spit my beer out hahahahaha

 

[timschochet]

I'm glad he resigned. I don't think he should have gone to jail, but Wilson's obvious fabrication that Brown turned around and charged him- an absurd lie which nobody reasonably minded could ever buy into- proves that he probably could have avoided killing Brown.

Seriously, just give it up. You're just making #### up at this point and speaking it as truth. The autopsy showed no back to front shots. Why is Brown charging a lie? The crime scene definitely showed Brown moved back toward Wilson. Ballistics showed shots on the car, a close shot into Brown's hand, and contusions to Wilson's face. There is no evidence suggesting Sonething else happened. It's frustrating when people make up something when they don't have a clue what they're talking about.

I'm not making anything up. I accept that he moved back, slowly, toward Wilson. I don't accept that he charged. There's no evidence that he charged. It's been explained over and over again why it's extremely improbable that he charged.

 

[The General]

I'm glad he resigned. I don't think he should have gone to jail, but Wilson's obvious fabrication that Brown turned around and charged him- an absurd lie which nobody reasonably minded could ever buy into- proves that he probably could have avoided killing Brown.

Seriously, just give it up. You're just making #### up at this point and speaking it as truth. The autopsy showed no back to front shots. Why is Brown charging a lie? The crime scene definitely showed Brown moved back toward Wilson. Ballistics showed shots on the car, a close shot into Brown's hand, and contusions to Wilson's face. There is no evidence suggesting Sonething else happened. It's frustrating when people make up something when they don't have a clue what they're talking about.

I'm not making anything up. I accept that he moved back, slowly, toward Wilson. I don't accept that he charged. There's no evidence that he charged. It's been explained over and over again why it's extremely improbable that he charged.

How about eye witnesses saying he charged? How do you know they are wrong.

 

[timschochet]

It's interesting to me that guys like Todem and GrandpaRox resort to insults and "put 'em on ignore" rather than confront legitimate arguments. Again there is no physical evidence that Brown fled 30 feet and then turned around and charged Wilson . There is no physical evidence that he did not charge either . There is Wilson's testimony, and there are contradictory testimonies from witnesses. There is NO consensus on this point, and therefore we should rely on what we know (very little) and common sense. My common sense tells me it's highly unlikely that Brown, being the stupid thug he was, would get shot in the hand, take off running, and then stop 35-40 feet later, turn around and charge head first at an armed policeman who already shot him. I find it extremely unlikely that Brown had that kind of death wish. If this analysis makes me a ######## then so be it. I'd be dishonest to think anything else.

 

[avoiding injuries]

I do find it interesting that the same people who wouldn't accept the outcome in the Trayvon Martin case aren't accepting this one either.

 

[timschochet]

I'm glad he resigned. I don't think he should have gone to jail, but Wilson's obvious fabrication that Brown turned around and charged him- an absurd lie which nobody reasonably minded could ever buy into- proves that he probably could have avoided killing Brown.

Seriously, just give it up. You're just making #### up at this point and speaking it as truth. The autopsy showed no back to front shots. Why is Brown charging a lie? The crime scene definitely showed Brown moved back toward Wilson. Ballistics showed shots on the car, a close shot into Brown's hand, and contusions to Wilson's face. There is no evidence suggesting Sonething else happened. It's frustrating when people make up something when they don't have a clue what they're talking about.

I'm not making anything up. I accept that he moved back, slowly, toward Wilson. I don't accept that he charged. There's no evidence that he charged. It's been explained over and over again why it's extremely improbable that he charged.

How about eye witnesses saying he charged? How do you know they are wrong.

i don't know, not for certain. But these eyewitnesses , as has been shown, contradict both themselves and each other . I don't think they can therefore be relied on as the final word . I think we all need to use common sense. It's clear from the evidence that Brown was moving toward Wilson when he was fatally shot to death. It's not clear that he was charging, and it's not clear that he posed any threat to Wilson at that time. That is the crux of the issue.

 

[Raider Nation]

Wow, Tim has been busy in here. Did I miss anything good?

 

[Jim11]

Brown supporters deserve all the ridicule and hate they are getting.

(By the way, a "Brown supporter" is apparently somebody who believes that he shouldn't have been killed. Hard to see how that makes one a "supporter".)

Exactly.

Why don't you pick a better example, instead of a thug with past criminal behavior. You know, one that didn't assault a cop. You might garner some support. This guy got exactly what he deserved.

He "deserved" to be killed?

Even if you believe that Wilson's actions were reasonable under the circumstances, you're a complete piece of #### for suggesting an unarmed 18 yr old "deserved" to die for a few bad decisions.

A few bad decisions? He was a thug. You forgot the good old "he was turning his life around" bromide.

 

[Jim11]

I'm glad he resigned. I don't think he should have gone to jail, but Wilson's obvious fabrication that Brown turned around and charged him- an absurd lie which nobody reasonably minded could ever buy into- proves that he probably could have avoided killing Brown.

Seriously, just give it up. You're just making #### up at this point and speaking it as truth. The autopsy showed no back to front shots. Why is Brown charging a lie? The crime scene definitely showed Brown moved back toward Wilson. Ballistics showed shots on the car, a close shot into Brown's hand, and contusions to Wilson's face. There is no evidence suggesting Sonething else happened. It's frustrating when people make up something when they don't have a clue what they're talking about.

I'm not making anything up. I accept that he moved back, slowly, toward Wilson. I don't accept that he charged. There's no evidence that he charged. It's been explained over and over again why it's extremely improbable that he charged.

Right, he was just inching his way towards Wilson...Wilson shot him just because he could...is that you're stance?

 

[timschochet]

Wow, Tim has been busy in here. Did I miss anything good?

A few people, namely Doug B and DW, have provided good rebuttals to my argument. Nobody else has really. Sadly , a few people in here, lacking any ability to discuss intelligent points of merit, have resorted to moronic insults. That's to be expected, but it's depressing nonetheless .

 

[Ketamine Dreams]

I'm glad he resigned. I don't think he should have gone to jail, but Wilson's obvious fabrication that Brown turned around and charged him- an absurd lie which nobody reasonably minded could ever buy into- proves that he probably could have avoided killing Brown.

Seriously, just give it up. You're just making #### up at this point and speaking it as truth. The autopsy showed no back to front shots. Why is Brown charging a lie? The crime scene definitely showed Brown moved back toward Wilson. Ballistics showed shots on the car, a close shot into Brown's hand, and contusions to Wilson's face. There is no evidence suggesting Sonething else happened. It's frustrating when people make up something when they don't have a clue what they're talking about.

Put him on ignore....this thread has really helped me update my ignore preferences....big time. Long list now after reading this dreck of a thread for the last week or so. I question myself for wasting time in here....stupid me in that regard.I have never seen a gathering of so many ignorant numb nuts in any thread quite like this one. The outright trolling and lack of any semblance of common sense is repulsive and scary. Lot's of thugs, ***holes, trolls...every possible type of internet scum all in one place. People making ***t up more and more as we go along. Pure denial and insane lines of thinking. Anti-cop crowd, pure anarchists.

Anyway..it's been real with discussing this with those who actually try to live normal lives, are not incredibly paranoid about the police being cold blooded killers with a badge on every corner, don't support looting and violence and actually have brain cells they use for the betterment of mankind. Also it's good to know some people understand if you attack a police officer, try to reach for his weapon, flee, and do not listen...your going to be in bad shape or end up dead.

Peace.

Good posting Todem. I've updated my ignore list as well, (Tim is already on it but I made the mistake of reading that post on my phone.) It is truly frightening the lack of common sense and the lack of understanding of what police officers have to do and how they have to do it, that exists in the general public. It actually disappoints me quite a bit. My 11 year old understands this whole scenario better than most of the posters in this thread which includes several 'educated' persons.

 

[Raider Nation]

Wow, Tim has been busy in here. Did I miss anything good?

A few people, namely Doug B and DW, have provided good rebuttals to my argument. Nobody else has really. Sadly , a few people in here, lacking any ability to discuss intelligent points of merit, have resorted to moronic insults. That's to be expected, but it's depressing nonetheless .

So you've responded to 600+ moronic insults?

 

[desert rose]

Tim, I just have to say that if you are using what you think is "common sense" to judge what you think someone would do, you are flat out incredibly wrong. Unless you are the kind of person who would grab something off the shelf in a store, refusing to pay for it and physically manhandle a store employee who tries to stop you, you do not have the same judgment call that the deceased Michael Brown had. I'm sick of seeing you post that you refuse to believe something because common sense indicates to the contrary. There are so many things people do that I, using my common sense, would never do in a million years. There is no common "common sense".

I feel so dirty saying anything in one of these stupid arguments.

 

[Henry Ford]

I'm glad he resigned. I don't think he should have gone to jail, but Wilson's obvious fabrication that Brown turned around and charged him- an absurd lie which nobody reasonably minded could ever buy into- proves that he probably could have avoided killing Brown.

Seriously, just give it up. You're just making #### up at this point and speaking it as truth. The autopsy showed no back to front shots. Why is Brown charging a lie? The crime scene definitely showed Brown moved back toward Wilson. Ballistics showed shots on the car, a close shot into Brown's hand, and contusions to Wilson's face. There is no evidence suggesting Sonething else happened. It's frustrating when people make up something when they don't have a clue what they're talking about.

Put him on ignore....this thread has really helped me update my ignore preferences....big time. Long list now after reading this dreck of a thread for the last week or so. I question myself for wasting time in here....stupid me in that regard.I have never seen a gathering of so many ignorant numb nuts in any thread quite like this one. The outright trolling and lack of any semblance of common sense is repulsive and scary. Lot's of thugs, ***holes, trolls...every possible type of internet scum all in one place. People making ***t up more and more as we go along. Pure denial and insane lines of thinking. Anti-cop crowd, pure anarchists.

Anyway..it's been real with discussing this with those who actually try to live normal lives, are not incredibly paranoid about the police being cold blooded killers with a badge on every corner, don't support looting and violence and actually have brain cells they use for the betterment of mankind. Also it's good to know some people understand if you attack a police officer, try to reach for his weapon, flee, and do not listen...your going to be in bad shape or end up dead.

Peace.

Happy Thanksgiving!