Looting in Missouri after cops shoot 18 year old (4 Viewers)

[parasaurolophus]

According to witnesses and blood and other evidence found inside the car, Officer Wilson first fired two shots while he struggled with Mr. Brown through the window of his patrol vehicle, a Chevrolet Tahoe, grazing Mr. Brown’s hand.

Are there people that still cling to officer Wilson pulling the huge 6'4" Brown into the vehicle?

Mr. McCulloch praised the grand jurors, who met on 25 days over a three-month period and heard 60 witnesses

I would also think that this should pretty much prove that these 12 jurors know a heck of a lot more about this case then the bustedmooseknuckles of the world.

 

[jon_mx]

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

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

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

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

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

Does it really matter. You can eliminate every sticking point there is and another one will be created.

 

[Hang 10]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No one needs your recap as it was pretty straight forward. Squistion stated that all the summaries he's read contradict Giuliani but he's yet to provide any.

 

[parasaurolophus]

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

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

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

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

So you think there was wrongful death, but he shouldn't be indicted?

 

[squistion]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[timschochet]

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

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

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

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

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

You know, it's simply amazing how many times I need to repeat this and apparently you still don't get it.

1. There is NO evidence that shows that Brown's death was justified. Forget everything you think you know about this case: when Brown was shot, he was unarmed and at least 30 feet away from Wilson. Nothing else matters. What happened before this doesn't matter. What kind of guy Brown was doesn't matter. There is only one question: did Wilson reasonably fear for his own life or the lives of others? If the answer is yes, the killing is justified. If the answer is no, it isn't. Wilson testified that Brown was charging him and that he believed Brown may have been armed. If either of these statements are true, even if only in Wilson's mind, then the killing was justified. But there is NO evidence that proves these statements to be true one way or the other. All we have is Wilson's testimony, which is naturally self-serving, and the testimony of witnesses, which despite what Hang 10 and Rudy Giuliani assert, are from what I read not consistent with Wilson nor with each other.

2. I have no idea what happened. I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT HAPPENED! I have read what evidence I could. I have read what summaries I could. I have read NOTHING which confirms Hang 10's view of this incident (or yours.) I am willing to do so, if someone can provide it. My goal is not to allow any of my world views or personal political philosophy to influence my views on this matter. I'm not always successful in that but at least I try. I accuse several people here of not doing the same- they have, from the beginning of this story, relied first on their political and cultural opinions and then treated as fact any opinion which matched their own. Hang 10 is only the latest of many people here who have done so: a few on the side of the protestors, but the vast majority of the side who believe that Wilson's actions were justified.

 

[Eminence]

It's kind of silly to even debate this, imo. A guy who's got 60 lbs on someone else getting killed by someone smaller after attempting to beat them down would be a non-story.

I'm certain if any of us were in a brawl with this guy and had a gun at hand, we'd be flinging bullets until the gun was empty.

Ever think maybe Darren Wilson lacked the capacity to detain this guy lawfully and used the gun as leverage to get Brown to back down? But instead of backing down Brown grabs for the gun and it's pretty much game over from there.

Funny how it's unlawful for Wilson to defend himself. But Brown supporters think it's completely lawful for somebody to steal from local business and bully around a police officer.

 

[timschochet]

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

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

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

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

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

Does it really matter. You can eliminate every sticking point there is and another one will be created.

Not for me. Thanks Court Jester. I'll look at that a little later in detail and let you know my thoughts.

 

[squistion]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No one needs your recap as it was pretty straight forward. Squistion stated that all the summaries he's read contradict Giuliani but he's yet to provide any.

You repeated the unverified claim of Giuliana. The burden is on you to provide a link that actually proves what he says is true. Still waiting.

 

[timschochet]

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

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

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

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

So you think there was wrongful death, but he shouldn't be indicted?

Yes. So long as there is enough reasonable doubt to prevent a conviction, there's no point of indictment.

Also- while I think the death was wrongful, it was a split second decision. I think I understand why Wilson did it and I don't blame him for doing so. It wasn't, IMO, a crime worthy of a murder conviction.

 

[timschochet]

Gotta go watch football. Will return later.

 

[SIDA!]

What is it with all of these insults? Calling people moronic, ##### bags, P.O.S.? It's not funny. It's not illuminating. It's ugly and stupid.

The insults are all they got left. If you have to resort to name calling, it usually means that you don't have that strong of an argument.

"Brown supporters are striking out! Wilson supporters have hit a grand slam. Stupid Brown supporters are nothing but fumblers. Wilson kicked it straight through the uprights!"

its funny that anyone questioning the police work in this case are pro brown. How about if some people are just anti- shoddy policing.Brown just happens to be the collateral damage

I think we need to have a larger discussion on "shoddy policing" and whether or not officers involved in shootings adhere to protocols. In the Cleveland shooting of the 12 year old, I believe that that child is dead because the officer driving the vehicle was incredibly negligent. There is no way that officer followed procedures pulling his vehicle within 5 feet of a suspect believed to have a gun.I think the officer driving that car should be fired and should face criminal prosecution for his actions which unnecessarily caused the death of this child. I am not a lawyer...so I don't know if manslaughter or what the appropriate charge should be...but that is my feeling on this matter.

I don't think it is fair to expect an officer to follow every protocol to a "t", but gross violation of these protocols should have consequences.

That shooting was a horrible example of reacting to fast ...they should have created a distance between them and the suspect. They claim to have told that child to raise his hands 3 times...when? as they were pulling up to him at a screeching halt? That said the kid was pulling the realistic looking bb gun out from his pants as they pulled up...he almost left them with no choice at that point. They should have been told a possible juvenile was armed with what could be a toy gun. Horrible policing from start to finish ...but the kid played his part also ...so sad.

I wonder if he'll get prosecuted? Maybe having a special prosecuter assigned only to police shootings would be helpful for these types of situations?

The driver should be prosecuted and the 9-1-1 operator should be fired. Just egregious errors in my opinion. The rookie in the passenger seat who killed the kid was placed in an impossible situation. Putting myself in his shoes...I don't think anyone can really fault the guy. He was literally about 7 feet from a person he believed had a gun.

I am not sure if this is a good idea or not, but I wonder if there should be some sort of national body specifically designed to rigorously investigate officer involved shootings. Something like NTSB whenever there is a plane accident.

from what I understand, the police are trained to approach a situation exactly like they did in the Cleveland case, so if you take issue with that you have a totally different argument on your hands.

Your understanding is wrong.

 

[The General]

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

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

If you're speaking of me, I'm not upset Wilson wasn't indicted. I wouldn't have indicted him myself, so I think it was the correct decision.But that doesn't mean there was no wrongful death here. I'm fairly convinced there was. But not one that could or should be prosecuted.

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

You know, it's simply amazing how many times I need to repeat this and apparently you still don't get it.1. There is NO evidence that shows that Brown's death was justified. Forget everything you think you know about this case: when Brown was shot, he was unarmed and at least 30 feet away from Wilson. Nothing else matters. What happened before this doesn't matter. What kind of guy Brown was doesn't matter. There is only one question: did Wilson reasonably fear for his own life or the lives of others? If the answer is yes, the killing is justified. If the answer is no, it isn't. Wilson testified that Brown was charging him and that he believed Brown may have been armed. If either of these statements are true, even if only in Wilson's mind, then the killing was justified. But there is NO evidence that proves these statements to be true one way or the other. All we have is Wilson's testimony, which is naturally self-serving, and the testimony of witnesses, which despite what Hang 10 and Rudy Giuliani assert, are from what I read not consistent with Wilson nor with each other.

2. I have no idea what happened. I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT HAPPENED! I have read what evidence I could. I have read what summaries I could. I have read NOTHING which confirms Hang 10's view of this incident (or yours.) I am willing to do so, if someone can provide it. My goal is not to allow any of my world views or personal political philosophy to influence my views on this matter. I'm not always successful in that but at least I try. I accuse several people here of not doing the same- they have, from the beginning of this story, relied first on their political and cultural opinions and then treated as fact any opinion which matched their own. Hang 10 is only the latest of many people here who have done so: a few on the side of the protestors, but the vast majority of the side who believe that Wilson's actions were justified.

There are other witnesses besides the cop that say the kid was charging him: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2014/11/29/b99ef7a8-75d3-11e4-a755-e32227229e7b_story.html

 

[squistion]

Funny how it's unlawful for Wilson to defend himself. But Brown supporters think it's completely lawful for somebody to steal from local business and bully around a police officer.

What is funnier is that no one here actually thinks any of the above.

 

[squistion]

Funny how it's unlawful for Wilson to defend himself. But Brown supporters think it's completely lawful for somebody to steal from local business and bully around a police officer.

What is funnier is that no one here actually thinks any of the above.

I was responding mainly to Tim, why don't you take your crap somewhere else?

You are out of your element in this type of thread, Em. If you're going to make silly Straw Man arguments, then expect to be called on it.

 

[Peyton Marino]

Funny how it's unlawful for Wilson to defend himself. But Brown supporters think it's completely lawful for somebody to steal from local business and bully around a police officer.

What is funnier is that no one here actually thinks any of the above.

I was responding mainly to Tim, why don't you take your crap somewhere else?

check into the wagering thread bro.

 

[Henry Ford]

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

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

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

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

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

Those appear to be the same document linked twice.

 

[Henry Ford]

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

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

If you're speaking of me, I'm not upset Wilson wasn't indicted. I wouldn't have indicted him myself, so I think it was the correct decision.But that doesn't mean there was no wrongful death here. I'm fairly convinced there was. But not one that could or should be prosecuted.

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

You know, it's simply amazing how many times I need to repeat this and apparently you still don't get it.1. There is NO evidence that shows that Brown's death was justified. Forget everything you think you know about this case: when Brown was shot, he was unarmed and at least 30 feet away from Wilson. Nothing else matters. What happened before this doesn't matter. What kind of guy Brown was doesn't matter. There is only one question: did Wilson reasonably fear for his own life or the lives of others? If the answer is yes, the killing is justified. If the answer is no, it isn't. Wilson testified that Brown was charging him and that he believed Brown may have been armed. If either of these statements are true, even if only in Wilson's mind, then the killing was justified. But there is NO evidence that proves these statements to be true one way or the other. All we have is Wilson's testimony, which is naturally self-serving, and the testimony of witnesses, which despite what Hang 10 and Rudy Giuliani assert, are from what I read not consistent with Wilson nor with each other.

2. I have no idea what happened. I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT HAPPENED! I have read what evidence I could. I have read what summaries I could. I have read NOTHING which confirms Hang 10's view of this incident (or yours.) I am willing to do so, if someone can provide it. My goal is not to allow any of my world views or personal political philosophy to influence my views on this matter. I'm not always successful in that but at least I try. I accuse several people here of not doing the same- they have, from the beginning of this story, relied first on their political and cultural opinions and then treated as fact any opinion which matched their own. Hang 10 is only the latest of many people here who have done so: a few on the side of the protestors, but the vast majority of the side who believe that Wilson's actions were justified.

There are other witnesses besides the cop that say the kid was charging him: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2014/11/29/b99ef7a8-75d3-11e4-a755-e32227229e7b_story.html

So three said it was a charge and six said it was an attempt to surrender?

 

[The General]

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

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

If you're speaking of me, I'm not upset Wilson wasn't indicted. I wouldn't have indicted him myself, so I think it was the correct decision.But that doesn't mean there was no wrongful death here. I'm fairly convinced there was. But not one that could or should be prosecuted.

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

You know, it's simply amazing how many times I need to repeat this and apparently you still don't get it.1. There is NO evidence that shows that Brown's death was justified. Forget everything you think you know about this case: when Brown was shot, he was unarmed and at least 30 feet away from Wilson. Nothing else matters. What happened before this doesn't matter. What kind of guy Brown was doesn't matter. There is only one question: did Wilson reasonably fear for his own life or the lives of others? If the answer is yes, the killing is justified. If the answer is no, it isn't. Wilson testified that Brown was charging him and that he believed Brown may have been armed. If either of these statements are true, even if only in Wilson's mind, then the killing was justified. But there is NO evidence that proves these statements to be true one way or the other. All we have is Wilson's testimony, which is naturally self-serving, and the testimony of witnesses, which despite what Hang 10 and Rudy Giuliani assert, are from what I read not consistent with Wilson nor with each other.

2. I have no idea what happened. I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT HAPPENED! I have read what evidence I could. I have read what summaries I could. I have read NOTHING which confirms Hang 10's view of this incident (or yours.) I am willing to do so, if someone can provide it. My goal is not to allow any of my world views or personal political philosophy to influence my views on this matter. I'm not always successful in that but at least I try. I accuse several people here of not doing the same- they have, from the beginning of this story, relied first on their political and cultural opinions and then treated as fact any opinion which matched their own. Hang 10 is only the latest of many people here who have done so: a few on the side of the protestors, but the vast majority of the side who believe that Wilson's actions were justified.

There are other witnesses besides the cop that say the kid was charging him: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2014/11/29/b99ef7a8-75d3-11e4-a755-e32227229e7b_story.html

So three said it was a charge and six said it was an attempt to surrender?

Yes, one of them being the friend.A handful of others say he was turned and walking toward him in some way or another.

 

[timschochet]

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

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

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

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

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

Court Jester, those are the same link. You didn't post the key so I'm not sure what you're point is.

In any case, Wilson agreed that the distance was 30-35 feet, so I'm not really sure where the controversy is here.

 

[Mello]

Mello, protestors who block traffic ARE doing harm, however worthy their cause might be. Bill Walton always tells of when he was at UCLA and was arrested for taking part in a student protest of the Vietnam War which blocked Wilshire Boulevard. John Wooden bailed him out of jail, and as they were driving home, Wooden said, "Bill, did you ever stop and think about if somebody needed to get to a hospital, or had some other serious emergency, and was prevented by your protest?"

Walton had no good answer to this. I suspect you don't either. The public thoroughfares are not for protest unless the protestors have special permission in a designated area. Anyone who violates this should be arrested. There are societies where things are so desperate that those who protest have no choice but to break the rules. Thankfully we don't live in one of those societies.

So arresting and imprisioning more people people per capita than any nation on this planet, more than all those other nations we're taught to hate, in the supposed land of the free isn't that desperate? I disagree.

Our high number of per-capita arrests and imprisonment is driven directly by the war on drugs. Based on prior threads, I'm guessing that 95% of the people posting on both sides in this thread agree that our drug policy should be significantly liberalized.

I doubt many want to make all recreational drugs legalized and regulated (and lightly at that). That's what I think it would take. You're right that the War on Drugs is the very basic problem where many of these problems start. Most of the tactics that have led our police forces and justice systems to become more and more aggressive have been justified through this war. I also believe that some people disagreeing with these laws and feeling oppressed by them by the majority has led to a greater disrespect for the law at large and the authority that enforces it. We're stuck in something of an Israeli/Palestinian situation with continual escalation.

I'm afraid the societal harm would take at least a couple of generations to fix even if we somehow magically reigned our law enforcement system in now. I'm afraid the precedents that have been set with the War on Drugs cannot be changed within the system, even if War on Drugs were ended today. Even if I'm optimistic, it will take a path like our civil rights laws overall have and take centuries. And I'm really afraid because I know I'm an extreme minority in actually considering these things.

 

[Da Guru]

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

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

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

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

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

Court Jester, those are the same link. You didn't post the key so I'm not sure what you're point is.

In any case, Wilson agreed that the distance was 30-35 feet, so I'm not really sure where the controversy is here.

A person can cover 10 yards in a little more than a second. Not much wiggle room there.

 

[Mello]

Mello, protestors who block traffic ARE doing harm, however worthy their cause might be. Bill Walton always tells of when he was at UCLA and was arrested for taking part in a student protest of the Vietnam War which blocked Wilshire Boulevard. John Wooden bailed him out of jail, and as they were driving home, Wooden said, "Bill, did you ever stop and think about if somebody needed to get to a hospital, or had some other serious emergency, and was prevented by your protest?"

Walton had no good answer to this. I suspect you don't either. The public thoroughfares are not for protest unless the protestors have special permission in a designated area. Anyone who violates this should be arrested. There are societies where things are so desperate that those who protest have no choice but to break the rules. Thankfully we don't live in one of those societies.

So arresting and imprisioning more people people per capita than any nation on this planet, more than all those other nations we're taught to hate, in the supposed land of the free isn't that desperate? I disagree.

Free people have the freedom to abuse their gifts and end up being arrested. Oppressed people are already incarcerated, what good arrest when you have no freedom to begin with.

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at. Freedom is a spectrum, not an absolute. There are few men on this planet that are truly free. Even people in North Korea have the "freedom" to live about their lives under the laws of their state. It's the laws of that state and the degree of punishment for those laws that determines how free you are. And we've been getting less and less free by the year as more and more laws are added with harsher and harsher sentences (and many more blackmailed plea bargins) and more zealous enforcement. It's my opinion that it's got so bad that people are jutified in breaking rules and harming others to fix these problems for the greater good of soceity and our nation.

As for protesting and inconveniencing others, the Constitution gives us the right to speak, it does not guarantee that we will be interesting enough to capture an audience. Trying to detain people to force them to hear and appreciate your message is doing violence to those people and to the very concept of freedom. If you detain me against my will I will not be harkening to your message, I will be seeking a way to extricate myself from the violence you are doing to me. With you having violated any social compacts we may have I will fell free to do so as well. You may not like me when I do not retrain myself to accepted social norms. My nature is rather uncivilized.

And this is why the anti-federalists were right in that codifying a Bill of Rights would end up getting twisted legally to mean that is a list of the only rights you have. And the 9th and 10th Amendements obviously have failed in protecting against that. Freedom of Speech is meaningless if no one hears you. Protests sometimes have to get obstructive to point out injustice. And I think comparing getting stuck in traffic to an illegal detention is stretching things. I'm not detained in the gridlock on my ride in to work in the morning. I'm not being detained if I'm waiting in line somewhere and some yahoo makes a scene and holds the line up. And bring on that uncivilized nature if you're going to support this sham of a system that harms millions. I'll give it right back. Somehow other western nations get away with imprisioning a small fraction of the people and aren't wrecked by crime.

It was a concern, but the Anti-Feideralists were overwhelmingly in favor of passing the BoR, IIRC my American History. That was a negotiating tactic to reduce the scope of the Constitution, if I'm not mistaken.

You are exactly right here, I had it backwards there. I usually side with the anti-Federalists on things, but that was a Federalist argument and one which was right. Though I'd argue that without a Bill of Rights, we just would have ended up with none. It's one of the basic rules I think should be taken from our system. Enumerate as many rights as possible and word it in such a was as to prevent, as much as possible, future lawyers from eviscerating it.

 

[SHIZNITTTT]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2284441-st-louis-rams-show-support-for-ferguson-by-holding-hands-up-before-game?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=programming-national

Rams weigh in!

 

[timschochet]

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

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

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

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

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

Court Jester, those are the same link. You didn't post the key so I'm not sure what you're point is.

In any case, Wilson agreed that the distance was 30-35 feet, so I'm not really sure where the controversy is here.

A person can cover 10 yards in a little more than a second. Not much wiggle room there.

If he charged, the killing was justified. If Wilson truly thought he might be armed, the killing was justified. If neither of these things happened, then the killing wasn't justified because of the distance involved.

 

[Stinger Ray]

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

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

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

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

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

Court Jester, those are the same link. You didn't post the key so I'm not sure what you're point is.In any case, Wilson agreed that the distance was 30-35 feet, so I'm not really sure where the controversy is here.

A person can cover 10 yards in a little more than a second. Not much wiggle room there.

If he charged, the killing was justified. If Wilson truly thought he might be armed, the killing was justified. If neither of these things happened, then the killing wasn't justified because of the distance involved.

The grand jury heard testimony that he charged Wilson.

 

[timschochet]

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

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

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

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

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

Court Jester, those are the same link. You didn't post the key so I'm not sure what you're point is.In any case, Wilson agreed that the distance was 30-35 feet, so I'm not really sure where the controversy is here.

A person can cover 10 yards in a little more than a second. Not much wiggle room there.

If he charged, the killing was justified. If Wilson truly thought he might be armed, the killing was justified. If neither of these things happened, then the killing wasn't justified because of the distance involved.

The grand jury heard testimony that he charged Wilson.

And they also heard testimony, about twice as much, that he didn't. So what's your point?

 

[Courtjester]

Sorry Tim, here is the key.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2014/11/24/ferguson-evidence/assets/ferguson/photos/2014-43984/photos-7/picture2.png

But it sounds like I may be wasting my time trying to insert some facts into this.

 

[Stinger Ray]

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

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

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

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

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

Court Jester, those are the same link. You didn't post the key so I'm not sure what you're point is.In any case, Wilson agreed that the distance was 30-35 feet, so I'm not really sure where the controversy is here.

A person can cover 10 yards in a little more than a second. Not much wiggle room there.

If he charged, the killing was justified. If Wilson truly thought he might be armed, the killing was justified. If neither of these things happened, then the killing wasn't justified because of the distance involved.

The grand jury heard testimony that he charged Wilson.

And they also heard testimony, about twice as much, that he didn't. So what's your point?

The point is you continue to ignore what the witnesses that were deemed credible stated. Didn't some of those witnesses that said he was fleeing also state he was shot in the back which isn't true?

 

[timschochet]

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

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

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

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

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

Court Jester, those are the same link. You didn't post the key so I'm not sure what you're point is.In any case, Wilson agreed that the distance was 30-35 feet, so I'm not really sure where the controversy is here.

A person can cover 10 yards in a little more than a second. Not much wiggle room there.

If he charged, the killing was justified. If Wilson truly thought he might be armed, the killing was justified. If neither of these things happened, then the killing wasn't justified because of the distance involved.

The grand jury heard testimony that he charged Wilson.

And they also heard testimony, about twice as much, that he didn't. So what's your point?

The point is you continue to ignore what the witnesses that were deemed credible stated. Didn't some of those witnesses that said he was fleeing also state he was shot in the back which isn't true?

Here we go again. Who deemed them credible? The prosecutor. Why? We don't know. For the past week, I've been trying to find out why these particular witnesses were regarded as credible. I can't do it. Neither can you, except the difference between us is that you assume that it's true. I will also assume that it's true- IF you can explain to me why I should do so. Nobody has been able to do this yet. If you can, I will be grateful.

As for the other witnesses- it's true that some who say he was shot in the back and have therefore been discredited. But you seem to assume that these are the same witnesses who say that Brown wasn't charging. I have no idea if this is true or not. According to the summaries I've read, it is NOT true with regard to at least one of the testimonies. I don't know how many others it is true for, or not true for. Do you?

 

[Stinger Ray]

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

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

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

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

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

Court Jester, those are the same link. You didn't post the key so I'm not sure what you're point is.In any case, Wilson agreed that the distance was 30-35 feet, so I'm not really sure where the controversy is here.

A person can cover 10 yards in a little more than a second. Not much wiggle room there.

If he charged, the killing was justified. If Wilson truly thought he might be armed, the killing was justified. If neither of these things happened, then the killing wasn't justified because of the distance involved.

The grand jury heard testimony that he charged Wilson.

And they also heard testimony, about twice as much, that he didn't. So what's your point?

The point is you continue to ignore what the witnesses that were deemed credible stated. Didn't some of those witnesses that said he was fleeing also state he was shot in the back which isn't true?

Here we go again. Who deemed them credible? The prosecutor. Why? We don't know. For the past week, I've been trying to find out why these particular witnesses were regarded as credible. I can't do it. Neither can you, except the difference between us is that you assume that it's true. I will also assume that it's true- IF you can explain to me why I should do so. Nobody has been able to do this yet. If you can, I will be grateful.As for the other witnesses- it's true that some who say he was shot in the back and have therefore been discredited. But you seem to assume that these are the same witnesses who say that Brown wasn't charging. I have no idea if this is true or not. According to the summaries I've read, it is NOT true with regard to at least one of the testimonies. I don't know how many others it is true for, or not true for. Do you?

I'm thankful I have common sense. You don't.

 

[timschochet]

Sorry Tim, here is the key.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2014/11/24/ferguson-evidence/assets/ferguson/photos/2014-43984/photos-7/picture2.png

But it sounds like I may be wasting my time trying to insert some facts into this.

If that last point was meant for me, you're wrong. I have tried to let the facts and ONLY the facts impress me.

Now from what I can see by your graph, Brown continued to move forward as he was being shot by Wilson. It doesn't show one way or another if he was charging. If he was not charging, then I don't see how he was a threat to Wilson even though he was moving forward. If you had a different point in mind, or if there's something I'm missing, let me know.

 

[timschochet]

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

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

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

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

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

Court Jester, those are the same link. You didn't post the key so I'm not sure what you're point is.In any case, Wilson agreed that the distance was 30-35 feet, so I'm not really sure where the controversy is here.

A person can cover 10 yards in a little more than a second. Not much wiggle room there.

If he charged, the killing was justified. If Wilson truly thought he might be armed, the killing was justified. If neither of these things happened, then the killing wasn't justified because of the distance involved.

The grand jury heard testimony that he charged Wilson.

And they also heard testimony, about twice as much, that he didn't. So what's your point?

The point is you continue to ignore what the witnesses that were deemed credible stated. Didn't some of those witnesses that said he was fleeing also state he was shot in the back which isn't true?

Here we go again. Who deemed them credible? The prosecutor. Why? We don't know. For the past week, I've been trying to find out why these particular witnesses were regarded as credible. I can't do it. Neither can you, except the difference between us is that you assume that it's true. I will also assume that it's true- IF you can explain to me why I should do so. Nobody has been able to do this yet. If you can, I will be grateful.As for the other witnesses- it's true that some who say he was shot in the back and have therefore been discredited. But you seem to assume that these are the same witnesses who say that Brown wasn't charging. I have no idea if this is true or not. According to the summaries I've read, it is NOT true with regard to at least one of the testimonies. I don't know how many others it is true for, or not true for. Do you?

I'm thankful I have common sense. You don't.

That's it? That's all you have to say?

For once, I decided that it might be worth it to have a reasonable dialogue with you, to go over the points involved and possibly get you to explain your thinking, and why you simply accepted this stuff as fact when the evidence to do so is lacking. And you chose to respond, not with reasoning or evidence, but with yet another insult. Stupid of me to waste my time. I won't do that again.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

I am curious about the arrest technique of having Brown turn around, raise his hands halfway, and walk towards an officer. We teach our Officers to have the person face away from the Officer, to interlock their fingers behind their head, to step back one step at a time from any building, vehicle, or obstruction which might conceal a weapon, to then kneel, to cross one ankle over the other, and to sit back on their ankles. Alternatively we have them face away, lie prone on the ground with their arms outstretched to the sides with the ankles crossed and raised 90 degrees into the air. Officers are to not approach until cover arrives. The suspect should not be directly covered by the muzzle of the Officer's gun. The muzzle should be pointed just below the target in case there is an accidental discharge.

Moving towards one of our Officers who is doing it right indicates that the suspect is not complying and is a potential danger.

I can envision a scenario where, after the initial fight in the vehicle, Brown is running away and Wilson shoots at him. Brown turns around, shrugs at him, and says what are you gonna do, shoot me? This is backed up by some of the witness testimony. Wilson then does shoot Brown, causing him to lurch or stumble forward. Again, consistent with what witnesses saw. Wilson then finishes him off, perhaps becoming even more fearful as Brown stumbles closer towards him.Both men were in the wrong to some degree, and the wide array of witness accounts saw the same things in a different way. Just a guess, but as I said previously, the truth is somewhere in between the extremes of one or the other of these guys being completely without fault.

 

[Stinger Ray]

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

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

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

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

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

Court Jester, those are the same link. You didn't post the key so I'm not sure what you're point is.In any case, Wilson agreed that the distance was 30-35 feet, so I'm not really sure where the controversy is here.

A person can cover 10 yards in a little more than a second. Not much wiggle room there.

If he charged, the killing was justified. If Wilson truly thought he might be armed, the killing was justified. If neither of these things happened, then the killing wasn't justified because of the distance involved.

The grand jury heard testimony that he charged Wilson.

And they also heard testimony, about twice as much, that he didn't. So what's your point?

The point is you continue to ignore what the witnesses that were deemed credible stated. Didn't some of those witnesses that said he was fleeing also state he was shot in the back which isn't true?

Here we go again. Who deemed them credible? The prosecutor. Why? We don't know. For the past week, I've been trying to find out why these particular witnesses were regarded as credible. I can't do it. Neither can you, except the difference between us is that you assume that it's true. I will also assume that it's true- IF you can explain to me why I should do so. Nobody has been able to do this yet. If you can, I will be grateful.As for the other witnesses- it's true that some who say he was shot in the back and have therefore been discredited. But you seem to assume that these are the same witnesses who say that Brown wasn't charging. I have no idea if this is true or not. According to the summaries I've read, it is NOT true with regard to at least one of the testimonies. I don't know how many others it is true for, or not true for. Do you?

I'm thankful I have common sense. You don't.

That's it? That's all you have to say?For once, I decided that it might be worth it to have a reasonable dialogue with you, to go over the points involved and possibly get you to explain your thinking, and why you simply accepted this stuff as fact when the evidence to do so is lacking. And you chose to respond, not with reasoning or evidence, but with yet another insult. Stupid of me to waste my time. I won't do that again.

We had reasonable dialogue about the fall elections and I was right. As far as insults.....you dished out several yesterday so don't act like you're an innocent victim.

 

[timschochet]

I am curious about the arrest technique of having Brown turn around, raise his hands halfway, and walk towards an officer. We teach our Officers to have the person face away from the Officer, to interlock their fingers behind their head, to step back one step at a time from any building, vehicle, or obstruction which might conceal a weapon, to then kneel, to cross one ankle over the other, and to sit back on their ankles. Alternatively we have them face away, lie prone on the ground with their arms outstretched to the sides with the ankles crossed and raised 90 degrees into the air. Officers are to not approach until cover arrives. The suspect should not be directly covered by the muzzle of the Officer's gun. The muzzle should be pointed just below the target in case there is an accidental discharge.

Moving towards one of our Officers who is doing it right indicates that the suspect is not complying and is a potential danger.

I can envision a scenario where, after the initial fight in the vehicle, Brown is running away and Wilson shoots at him. Brown turns around, shrugs at him, and says what are you gonna do, shoot me? This is backed up by some of the witness testimony. Wilson then does shoot Brown, causing him to lurch or stumble forward. Again, consistent with what witnesses saw. Wilson then finishes him off, perhaps becoming even more fearful as Brown stumbles closer towards him.Both men were in the wrong to some degree, and the wide array of witness accounts saw the same things in a different way. Just a guess, but as I said previously, the truth is somewhere in between the extremes of one or the other of these guys being completely without fault.

Excellent post. The highlighted is what I've believed all along.

 

[jon_mx]

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

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

If you're speaking of me, I'm not upset Wilson wasn't indicted. I wouldn't have indicted him myself, so I think it was the correct decision.But that doesn't mean there was no wrongful death here. I'm fairly convinced there was. But not one that could or should be prosecuted.

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

You know, it's simply amazing how many times I need to repeat this and apparently you still don't get it.1. There is NO evidence that shows that Brown's death was justified. Forget everything you think you know about this case: when Brown was shot, he was unarmed and at least 30 feet away from Wilson. Nothing else matters. What happened before this doesn't matter. What kind of guy Brown was doesn't matter. There is only one question: did Wilson reasonably fear for his own life or the lives of others? If the answer is yes, the killing is justified. If the answer is no, it isn't. Wilson testified that Brown was charging him and that he believed Brown may have been armed. If either of these statements are true, even if only in Wilson's mind, then the killing was justified. But there is NO evidence that proves these statements to be true one way or the other. All we have is Wilson's testimony, which is naturally self-serving, and the testimony of witnesses, which despite what Hang 10 and Rudy Giuliani assert, are from what I read not consistent with Wilson nor with each other.

2. I have no idea what happened. I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT HAPPENED! I have read what evidence I could. I have read what summaries I could. I have read NOTHING which confirms Hang 10's view of this incident (or yours.) I am willing to do so, if someone can provide it. My goal is not to allow any of my world views or personal political philosophy to influence my views on this matter. I'm not always successful in that but at least I try. I accuse several people here of not doing the same- they have, from the beginning of this story, relied first on their political and cultural opinions and then treated as fact any opinion which matched their own. Hang 10 is only the latest of many people here who have done so: a few on the side of the protestors, but the vast majority of the side who believe that Wilson's actions were justified.

There are other witnesses besides the cop that say the kid was charging him: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2014/11/29/b99ef7a8-75d3-11e4-a755-e32227229e7b_story.html

So three said it was a charge and six said it was an attempt to surrender?

Seems like they all had him moving towards the cop disobeying him. That is a strange wat to surrender.

 

[avoiding injuries]

So now it's accepted he was moving forward toward the officer, there's eye witness testimony that match up with the physical evidence and the autopsy supports it as well...but that's still not enough.

Good googily moogily

 

[timschochet]

So now it's accepted he was moving forward toward the officer, there's eye witness testimony that match up with the physical evidence and the autopsy supports it as well...but that's still not enough.

Good googily moogily

No it is not enough. If he's not charging, then he's not a mortal threat. And therefore his killing was unjustified. You may disagree with this logic, but why do you have trouble understanding it?

 

[Jim11]

So now it's accepted he was moving forward toward the officer, there's eye witness testimony that match up with the physical evidence and the autopsy supports it as well...but that's still not enough.

Good googily moogily

No it is not enough. If he's not charging, then he's not a mortal threat. And therefore his killing was unjustified. You may disagree with this logic, but why do you have trouble understanding it?

How close should Wilson let him get before he shoots for it to justified in your mind? 20' 15' 10' 5' 1' 1"

 

[jon_mx]

I am curious about the arrest technique of having Brown turn around, raise his hands halfway, and walk towards an officer. We teach our Officers to have the person face away from the Officer, to interlock their fingers behind their head, to step back one step at a time from any building, vehicle, or obstruction which might conceal a weapon, to then kneel, to cross one ankle over the other, and to sit back on their ankles. Alternatively we have them face away, lie prone on the ground with their arms outstretched to the sides with the ankles crossed and raised 90 degrees into the air. Officers are to not approach until cover arrives. The suspect should not be directly covered by the muzzle of the Officer's gun. The muzzle should be pointed just below the target in case there is an accidental discharge.

Moving towards one of our Officers who is doing it right indicates that the suspect is not complying and is a potential danger.

I can envision a scenario where, after the initial fight in the vehicle, Brown is running away and Wilson shoots at him. Brown turns around, shrugs at him, and says what are you gonna do, shoot me? This is backed up by some of the witness testimony. Wilson then does shoot Brown, causing him to lurch or stumble forward. Again, consistent with what witnesses saw. Wilson then finishes him off, perhaps becoming even more fearful as Brown stumbles closer towards him.Both men were in the wrong to some degree, and the wide array of witness accounts saw the same things in a different way. Just a guess, but as I said previously, the truth is somewhere in between the extremes of one or the other of these guys being completely without fault.

Excellent post. The highlighted is what I've believed all along.

but that isn't a wrongful shooting, which is what you have actually been saying.

 

[avoiding injuries]

So now it's accepted he was moving forward toward the officer, there's eye witness testimony that match up with the physical evidence and the autopsy supports it as well...but that's still not enough.

Good googily moogily

No it is not enough. If he's not charging, then he's not a mortal threat. And therefore his killing was unjustified. You may disagree with this logic, but why do you have trouble understanding it?

Because by reading your posts it seems like you are in denial, and no matter what, will not accept how things played out. If the GJ had decided to indict him, you would accept every word the prosecutor says as gospel, but since they didn't, he's a liar.

You're very selective and inconsistent in who you believe and the reasons they are credible.

 

[SHIZNITTTT]

SO has anyone changed their opinion of this situation after 188 pages?

 

[timschochet]

So now it's accepted he was moving forward toward the officer, there's eye witness testimony that match up with the physical evidence and the autopsy supports it as well...but that's still not enough.

Good googily moogily

No it is not enough. If he's not charging, then he's not a mortal threat. And therefore his killing was unjustified. You may disagree with this logic, but why do you have trouble understanding it?

Because by reading your posts it seems like you are in denial, and no matter what, will not accept how things played out. If the GJ had decided to indict him, you would accept every word the prosecutor says as gospel, but since they didn't, he's a liar.

You're very selective and inconsistent in who you believe and the reasons they are credible.

Sorry you feel that way. I don't think it's fair. If you go back to the night of the decision I found the prosecutor to be very credible and posted that here . I naturally assumed that the information he released would back up his assertions. But they haven't, which is why I have since reverted to my previous position. I continue to believe now as I did then that no indictment was warranted and that the correct decision was made.

 

[jon_mx]

SO has anyone changed their opinion of this situation after 188 pages?

I was not paying attention to this until late, but early on I thought the cop screwed up based on the reports by witnesses in the media. But I have faith that the grand jury saw the evidence and made the proper call despite the pressure of riots..

 

[StrikeS2k]

So now it's accepted he was moving forward toward the officer, there's eye witness testimony that match up with the physical evidence and the autopsy supports it as well...but that's still not enough.

Good googily moogily

No it is not enough. If he's not charging, then he's not a mortal threat. And therefore his killing was unjustified. You may disagree with this logic, but why do you have trouble understanding it?

Because by reading your posts it seems like you are in denial, and no matter what, will not accept how things played out. If the GJ had decided to indict him, you would accept every word the prosecutor says as gospel, but since they didn't, he's a liar.

You're very selective and inconsistent in who you believe and the reasons they are credible.

Sorry you feel that way. I don't think it's fair. If you go back to the night of the decision I found the prosecutor to be very credible and posted that here . I naturally assumed that the information he released would back up his assertions. But they haven't, which is why I have since reverted to my previous position. I continue to believe now as I did then that no indictment was warranted and that the correct decision was made.

Have you read the transcripts? Yes or No only please.

 

[jon_mx]

So now it's accepted he was moving forward toward the officer, there's eye witness testimony that match up with the physical evidence and the autopsy supports it as well...but that's still not enough.

Good googily moogily

No it is not enough. If he's not charging, then he's not a mortal threat. And therefore his killing was unjustified. You may disagree with this logic, but why do you have trouble understanding it?

Because by reading your posts it seems like you are in denial, and no matter what, will not accept how things played out.If the GJ had decided to indict him, you would accept every word the prosecutor says as gospel, but since they didn't, he's a liar.

You're very selective and inconsistent in who you believe and the reasons they are credible.

Sorry you feel that way. I don't think it's fair. If you go back to the night of the decision I found the prosecutor to be very credible and posted that here . I naturally assumed that the information he released would back up his assertions. But they haven't, which is why I have since reverted to my previous position. I continue to believe now as I did then that no indictment was warranted and that the correct decision was made.

You expect all the evidence to be perfectly consistent and prove the story precisely. Evidence is rarely going to be like that, so you reverted to your preconceived biases. The preponderance of evidence supports the officer, even if his story might be exaggerated a bit. You were just as bad in the Martin thread, still to this day never admitting it was Zimmerman screaming for help which is the only remotely plausible explanation given the evidence in the case.

 

[Mello]

SO has anyone changed their opinion of this situation after 188 pages?

Yeah. I originally believed that he was shot in the back and have changed my opinion there. Just think people should look past that and understand that there's a lot of valid reasons that many of us believed those witnesses and some still do. And think people have a bit too much faith in that grand jury when it was set up to get the officer officer off. I don't think a real jury would have convicted him even if it went to trial as it should have though.

 

[timschochet]

So now it's accepted he was moving forward toward the officer, there's eye witness testimony that match up with the physical evidence and the autopsy supports it as well...but that's still not enough.

Good googily moogily

No it is not enough. If he's not charging, then he's not a mortal threat. And therefore his killing was unjustified. You may disagree with this logic, but why do you have trouble understanding it?

Because by reading your posts it seems like you are in denial, and no matter what, will not accept how things played out. If the GJ had decided to indict him, you would accept every word the prosecutor says as gospel, but since they didn't, he's a liar.

You're very selective and inconsistent in who you believe and the reasons they are credible.

Sorry you feel that way. I don't think it's fair. If you go back to the night of the decision I found the prosecutor to be very credible and posted that here . I naturally assumed that the information he released would back up his assertions. But they haven't, which is why I have since reverted to my previous position. I continue to believe now as I did then that no indictment was warranted and that the correct decision was made.

Have you read the transcripts? Yes or No only please.

Pretending to be a prosecutor again? The answer is: some. Not enough.

 

[timschochet]

So now it's accepted he was moving forward toward the officer, there's eye witness testimony that match up with the physical evidence and the autopsy supports it as well...but that's still not enough.

Good googily moogily

No it is not enough. If he's not charging, then he's not a mortal threat. And therefore his killing was unjustified. You may disagree with this logic, but why do you have trouble understanding it?

Because by reading your posts it seems like you are in denial, and no matter what, will not accept how things played out.If the GJ had decided to indict him, you would accept every word the prosecutor says as gospel, but since they didn't, he's a liar.

You're very selective and inconsistent in who you believe and the reasons they are credible.

Sorry you feel that way. I don't think it's fair. If you go back to the night of the decision I found the prosecutor to be very credible and posted that here . I naturally assumed that the information he released would back up his assertions. But they haven't, which is why I have since reverted to my previous position. I continue to believe now as I did then that no indictment was warranted and that the correct decision was made.

You expect all the evidence to be perfectly consistent and prove the story precisely. Evidence is rarely going to be like that, so you reverted to your preconceived biases. The preponderance of evidence supports the officer, even if his story might be exaggerated a bit. You were just as bad in the Martin thread, still to this day never admitting it was Zimmerman screaming for help which is the only remotely plausible explanation given the evidence in the case.

You continue to make assumptions that aren't true about me. I don't expect all the evidence to be consistent. But the part about Brown charging is crucial. If that happened his death is justified . If it didn't happen things get murky and the death may not be justified. All of the other evidence and testimony and arguments are less important than this one fundamental question. And I don't know the answer to it.