|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
what's your point? that racism is a big deal?
i agree it's important.
i thought your point that these demonstrations were
similar to the one happening in the us.
i mean, they're similar to anti-israel demonstrations that
happen in the us, whenever gaza war flares up, but...
|
On November 26 2014 04:07 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 04:05 ZenithM wrote:
I still don't get how this shit can be ruled out so easily. Reading the transcript, my humble opinion is that Wilson did indeed shoot to defend himself at his car, so that's fine, then it becomes really blurry. What are the evidence? When you have a dead guy with 6 bullets in his body and another guy with a red bruise on his cheek who litterally emptied his charger, I'd say you look a bit more.
Could someone point out to me any relevant witness testimony before the grand jury? I only read Johnson's and Wilson's. Seems weird to me that you can't find probable cause when all you have is the killer's testimony and some guy's body crippled with bullets. I'm sure I'm only missing something here. The only thing I read that backs Wilson's story is well, Wilson's story. posted transcripts a page or two back in this thread. there was a witness testimony that pretty much mirrored exactly what wilson said.
There was only one other witness? What about those other accounts?
|
On November 26 2014 03:56 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 03:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 03:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 03:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 03:40 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 03:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 03:25 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 02:06 Efane wrote:On November 26 2014 01:52 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 01:48 Efane wrote:
[quote]
The thing is, they are not. They are only allowed to shoot either at a person directly threatening their lives or an established criminal. But then again, with the corruption and all that other hogwash, cops do alot of messed up shit. Calling the guy a random person is a bit of an overkill on my part, but it is how it seems from the outside. In context of free circulation of arms in the US, the cops case is a bit more plausable, but then again it just doesnt sit right with me that the cops shoot to kill, not to immobilize. I mean, shoot the fuckers kneekap once, he aint gonna stand back up Good news! We're dealing with just that situation here. Except in Russia lethal force is allowed only as a last resort. The policeman is supposed to detain whoever threatens them and use leathal measures only if the person in question refuses to cooperate to the point of leaving no other options. And by direct threat to life i mean a threat with a weapon of some sorts, not just being huge.Its just seems that the cop in question was awfully trigger-happy. Even if his actions were justified, he should never work at the force again. Firing half a clip is, and should be classified as, brutality, which, im sure, is not a publicaly accepted practice in the US. It seems it all comes down to the issue of authority being so sweet and legal defenitions being so vague... Just give ur ordinary patrol cops some rubber bullets or something, its a bit harder to kill with that shit, you actually gotta aim You're in luck again! This is exactly what happened! FFS, it'd be nice if some of y'all actually made a half-assed attempt to familiarize yourselves with the facts of the case before commenting on it. He shot 12 times the last shot was the only one (besides the two in the car) where Brown was even close enough to hit him with a bat let alone threaten him. People need to quit talking about it like they were face to face when Wilson continued to shoot him after he ran away. (especially the ones saying others don't know the 'facts') He was shooting at him from far enough for Brown to allegedly sprint for at least 7 seconds (a minimum of ~45ft @walking speed ~100ft @ 10mph run ~150ft @15 mph [human top speed is a bit under 28mph) before he got within 8-10 ft (which is the closest he got after running away). Wilson is just lucky he didn't shoot some innocent bystander spraying bullets at such a range like he did. He never once mentioned checking his backdrop and explicitly says he had tunnel vision so the real possibility of shooting innocent people never even crossed his mind (according to his testimony). The GreenHorizons self-defense rule: You can only shoot a 300 pound man who is charging at you with the intent to kill you when he gets close enough to actually hit you with a bat. Brilliant. No obviously not. You just don't need to start shooting him when he is at least a 7 second 'charge' away. You get behind cover and reassess. No need to be so ignorant about it. So you'd have the officer turn his back to a 300 pound guy that his charging him with intent to kill him? Are you insane? If I was the officer, I shoot every time in that circumstance without thinking twice. Not surprising. It's called backpedaling. where you move backwards and face forwards, perhaps you've seen it? Again it's not like they were face to face (or even within 45ft of each other) when he started shooting (if we are to believe that Brown was 'charging'). And you, of course, have either personal experience or multiple examples of similar situations where "backpedaling" from an advancing person who had already assaulted you resulted in no further injuries or deaths, arrest made, everything okay. Keep talking about 45 feet, 7 seconds, 60 feet, whatever, it all amounts to the same: nothing. 7 seconds is nothing in a fight. Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 03:54 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 03:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 03:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 03:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 03:40 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 03:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 03:25 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 02:06 Efane wrote:On November 26 2014 01:52 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Good news! We're dealing with just that situation here.
Except in Russia lethal force is allowed only as a last resort. The policeman is supposed to detain whoever threatens them and use leathal measures only if the person in question refuses to cooperate to the point of leaving no other options. And by direct threat to life i mean a threat with a weapon of some sorts, not just being huge.Its just seems that the cop in question was awfully trigger-happy. Even if his actions were justified, he should never work at the force again. Firing half a clip is, and should be classified as, brutality, which, im sure, is not a publicaly accepted practice in the US. It seems it all comes down to the issue of authority being so sweet and legal defenitions being so vague... Just give ur ordinary patrol cops some rubber bullets or something, its a bit harder to kill with that shit, you actually gotta aim You're in luck again! This is exactly what happened! FFS, it'd be nice if some of y'all actually made a half-assed attempt to familiarize yourselves with the facts of the case before commenting on it. He shot 12 times the last shot was the only one (besides the two in the car) where Brown was even close enough to hit him with a bat let alone threaten him. People need to quit talking about it like they were face to face when Wilson continued to shoot him after he ran away. (especially the ones saying others don't know the 'facts') He was shooting at him from far enough for Brown to allegedly sprint for at least 7 seconds (a minimum of ~45ft @walking speed ~100ft @ 10mph run ~150ft @15 mph [human top speed is a bit under 28mph) before he got within 8-10 ft (which is the closest he got after running away). Wilson is just lucky he didn't shoot some innocent bystander spraying bullets at such a range like he did. He never once mentioned checking his backdrop and explicitly says he had tunnel vision so the real possibility of shooting innocent people never even crossed his mind (according to his testimony). The GreenHorizons self-defense rule: You can only shoot a 300 pound man who is charging at you with the intent to kill you when he gets close enough to actually hit you with a bat. Brilliant. No obviously not. You just don't need to start shooting him when he is at least a 7 second 'charge' away. You get behind cover and reassess. No need to be so ignorant about it. So you'd have the officer turn his back to a 300 pound guy that his charging him with intent to kill him? Are you insane? If I was the officer, I shoot every time in that circumstance without thinking twice. Not surprising. It's called backpedaling. where you move backwards and face forwards, perhaps you've seen it? Again it's not like they were face to face (or even within 45ft of each other) when he started shooting (if we are to believe that Brown was 'charging'). Okay, so you'd just have the officer wait a little bit longer for the decedent, who again is charging with intent to kill/injure the officer, to get closer before opening fire? This is just idiotic parsing at this point. What it is is an enraged wail that reality should conform to his opinion instead of the other way around. 7 seconds and 45 feet away should be long enough to retreat and "reassess." Doesn't matter that in the real world in no way shape or form is 7 seconds and 45 feet enough time and distance to do that, it should be.
45ft would be if Brown was walking toward Wilson. If a minimum of a 50ft ~7 second head start on a guy who is 80 lbs heavier isn't enough for you to get to a better position you shouldn't be a cop.
|
On November 26 2014 04:08 nunez wrote:
what's your point? that racism is a big deal?
i agree it's important.
i thought your point that these demonstrations were
similar to the one happening in the us.
and they are, unless shouting for people's death and destroying property is different in america than it is in norway. hint: most of the demonstrators and protests in ferguson, even last night, were peaceful too and it was only a minority that engaged in violence.
On November 26 2014 04:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 03:56 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 26 2014 03:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 03:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 03:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 03:40 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 03:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 03:25 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 02:06 Efane wrote:On November 26 2014 01:52 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Good news! We're dealing with just that situation here.
Except in Russia lethal force is allowed only as a last resort. The policeman is supposed to detain whoever threatens them and use leathal measures only if the person in question refuses to cooperate to the point of leaving no other options. And by direct threat to life i mean a threat with a weapon of some sorts, not just being huge.Its just seems that the cop in question was awfully trigger-happy. Even if his actions were justified, he should never work at the force again. Firing half a clip is, and should be classified as, brutality, which, im sure, is not a publicaly accepted practice in the US. It seems it all comes down to the issue of authority being so sweet and legal defenitions being so vague... Just give ur ordinary patrol cops some rubber bullets or something, its a bit harder to kill with that shit, you actually gotta aim You're in luck again! This is exactly what happened! FFS, it'd be nice if some of y'all actually made a half-assed attempt to familiarize yourselves with the facts of the case before commenting on it. He shot 12 times the last shot was the only one (besides the two in the car) where Brown was even close enough to hit him with a bat let alone threaten him. People need to quit talking about it like they were face to face when Wilson continued to shoot him after he ran away. (especially the ones saying others don't know the 'facts') He was shooting at him from far enough for Brown to allegedly sprint for at least 7 seconds (a minimum of ~45ft @walking speed ~100ft @ 10mph run ~150ft @15 mph [human top speed is a bit under 28mph) before he got within 8-10 ft (which is the closest he got after running away). Wilson is just lucky he didn't shoot some innocent bystander spraying bullets at such a range like he did. He never once mentioned checking his backdrop and explicitly says he had tunnel vision so the real possibility of shooting innocent people never even crossed his mind (according to his testimony). The GreenHorizons self-defense rule: You can only shoot a 300 pound man who is charging at you with the intent to kill you when he gets close enough to actually hit you with a bat. Brilliant. No obviously not. You just don't need to start shooting him when he is at least a 7 second 'charge' away. You get behind cover and reassess. No need to be so ignorant about it. So you'd have the officer turn his back to a 300 pound guy that his charging him with intent to kill him? Are you insane? If I was the officer, I shoot every time in that circumstance without thinking twice. Not surprising. It's called backpedaling. where you move backwards and face forwards, perhaps you've seen it? Again it's not like they were face to face (or even within 45ft of each other) when he started shooting (if we are to believe that Brown was 'charging'). And you, of course, have either personal experience or multiple examples of similar situations where "backpedaling" from an advancing person who had already assaulted you resulted in no further injuries or deaths, arrest made, everything okay. Keep talking about 45 feet, 7 seconds, 60 feet, whatever, it all amounts to the same: nothing. 7 seconds is nothing in a fight. On November 26 2014 03:54 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 03:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 03:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 03:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 03:40 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 03:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 03:25 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 02:06 Efane wrote:
[quote]
Except in Russia lethal force is allowed only as a last resort. The policeman is supposed to detain whoever threatens them and use leathal measures only if the person in question refuses to cooperate to the point of leaving no other options. And by direct threat to life i mean a threat with a weapon of some sorts, not just being huge.
Its just seems that the cop in question was awfully trigger-happy. Even if his actions were justified, he should never work at the force again. Firing half a clip is, and should be classified as, brutality, which, im sure, is not a publicaly accepted practice in the US.
It seems it all comes down to the issue of authority being so sweet and legal defenitions being so vague... Just give ur ordinary patrol cops some rubber bullets or something, its a bit harder to kill with that shit, you actually gotta aim
You're in luck again! This is exactly what happened! FFS, it'd be nice if some of y'all actually made a half-assed attempt to familiarize yourselves with the facts of the case before commenting on it. He shot 12 times the last shot was the only one (besides the two in the car) where Brown was even close enough to hit him with a bat let alone threaten him. People need to quit talking about it like they were face to face when Wilson continued to shoot him after he ran away. (especially the ones saying others don't know the 'facts') He was shooting at him from far enough for Brown to allegedly sprint for at least 7 seconds (a minimum of ~45ft @walking speed ~100ft @ 10mph run ~150ft @15 mph [human top speed is a bit under 28mph) before he got within 8-10 ft (which is the closest he got after running away). Wilson is just lucky he didn't shoot some innocent bystander spraying bullets at such a range like he did. He never once mentioned checking his backdrop and explicitly says he had tunnel vision so the real possibility of shooting innocent people never even crossed his mind (according to his testimony). The GreenHorizons self-defense rule: You can only shoot a 300 pound man who is charging at you with the intent to kill you when he gets close enough to actually hit you with a bat. Brilliant. No obviously not. You just don't need to start shooting him when he is at least a 7 second 'charge' away. You get behind cover and reassess. No need to be so ignorant about it. So you'd have the officer turn his back to a 300 pound guy that his charging him with intent to kill him? Are you insane? If I was the officer, I shoot every time in that circumstance without thinking twice. Not surprising. It's called backpedaling. where you move backwards and face forwards, perhaps you've seen it? Again it's not like they were face to face (or even within 45ft of each other) when he started shooting (if we are to believe that Brown was 'charging'). Okay, so you'd just have the officer wait a little bit longer for the decedent, who again is charging with intent to kill/injure the officer, to get closer before opening fire? This is just idiotic parsing at this point. What it is is an enraged wail that reality should conform to his opinion instead of the other way around. 7 seconds and 45 feet away should be long enough to retreat and "reassess." Doesn't matter that in the real world in no way shape or form is 7 seconds and 45 feet enough time and distance to do that, it should be. 45ft would be if Brown was walking toward Wilson. If a minimum of a 50ft ~7 second head start on a guy who is 80 lbs heavier isn't enough for you to get to a better position you shouldn't be a cop.
just stop embarrassing yourself with this crap already. you clearly have zero idea how long seven seconds is in any combative context more challenging than an internet argument.
|
On November 26 2014 04:09 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 04:07 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 04:05 ZenithM wrote:
I still don't get how this shit can be ruled out so easily. Reading the transcript, my humble opinion is that Wilson did indeed shoot to defend himself at his car, so that's fine, then it becomes really blurry. What are the evidence? When you have a dead guy with 6 bullets in his body and another guy with a red bruise on his cheek who litterally emptied his charger, I'd say you look a bit more.
Could someone point out to me any relevant witness testimony before the grand jury? I only read Johnson's and Wilson's. Seems weird to me that you can't find probable cause when all you have is the killer's testimony and some guy's body crippled with bullets. I'm sure I'm only missing something here. The only thing I read that backs Wilson's story is well, Wilson's story. posted transcripts a page or two back in this thread. there was a witness testimony that pretty much mirrored exactly what wilson said. There was only one other witness? What about those other accounts?
A bunch of them were debunked due to not matching the physical evidence, including some that said Brown was shot in the back. Most of the witnesses(per the NPR report) were not very good for the DA.
|
On November 26 2014 04:02 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 03:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 03:54 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 03:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 03:51 Millitron wrote:On November 26 2014 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 03:46 RCMDVA wrote:
re: how fast somebody can cover distance.
Standard catch-to-kick timings for a punter in highschool/college is 2.2 seconds.
That's 15 yards / 45 feet somebody coming off the edge will get to the punter in 2.5 - 2.7 seconds.
Coming untouched up the middle its less. Alot less. So if he was charging for 7 seconds that means Wilson was shooting at him from ~100 ft away... How in the hell is someone who is unarmed and ~100ft away putting ones life in such mortal danger the only option is shooting him to death? Where are you getting 7 seconds from? The audio recording of the shots. Yeah, but a few of those shots were from in the car. The gun fired at least once while they were struggling in the car. Seriously? I thought these were the guys that knew the facts... The audio obviously isn't of the shot's in the car, unless he kept shooting as he ran away. The body was recovered ~130 ft from Wilson's car. http://rt.com/usa/183540-ferguson-shooting-audio-recording/ I have not heard that audio and don't know where it was from. I did read the break down of the report by NPR and have looked at the evidence. And you keep bringing up the amount of time like it matters in a fight or that some amazing decision making could be made during that time. Brown was 30 feet away from Wilson when he started firing from the evidence, unless you have something else that says otherwise.
He was allegedly charging him while he was firing for ~7 seconds so for him to be ~30 ft away he would have to have been 'charging him' at a very scary ~2.5-3mph...
|
On November 26 2014 04:05 ZenithM wrote:
I still don't get how this shit can be ruled out so easily. Reading the transcript, my humble opinion is that Wilson did indeed shoot to defend himself at his car, so that's fine, then it becomes really blurry. What are the evidence? When you have a dead guy with 6 bullets in his body and another guy with a red bruise on his cheek who litterally emptied his charger, I'd say you look a bit more.
Could someone point out to me any relevant witness testimony before the grand jury? I only read Johnson's and Wilson's. Other evidence sources seem worthless, the forensics team's camera was out of battery at the scene, the sound recordings say what we already know (a fucking buttload of shots fired), the analysis of the body says he was only hit from the front (fine) 6 fucking times, killing him. Seems weird to me that you can't find probable cause when all you have is the killer's testimony and some guy's body crippled with bullets. I'm sure I'm only missing something here. The only thing I read that backs Wilson's story is well, Wilson's story.
Bullets aren't magical deathbeams. It could be 6 or 60 hits for all I care. Numerous gunshot wounds doesn't imply the victim could not have still been a threat.
|
On November 26 2014 04:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 04:02 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 03:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 03:54 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 03:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 03:51 Millitron wrote:On November 26 2014 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 03:46 RCMDVA wrote:
re: how fast somebody can cover distance.
Standard catch-to-kick timings for a punter in highschool/college is 2.2 seconds.
That's 15 yards / 45 feet somebody coming off the edge will get to the punter in 2.5 - 2.7 seconds.
Coming untouched up the middle its less. Alot less. So if he was charging for 7 seconds that means Wilson was shooting at him from ~100 ft away... How in the hell is someone who is unarmed and ~100ft away putting ones life in such mortal danger the only option is shooting him to death? Where are you getting 7 seconds from? The audio recording of the shots. Yeah, but a few of those shots were from in the car. The gun fired at least once while they were struggling in the car. Seriously? I thought these were the guys that knew the facts... The audio obviously isn't of the shot's in the car, unless he kept shooting as he ran away. The body was recovered ~130 ft from Wilson's car. http://rt.com/usa/183540-ferguson-shooting-audio-recording/ I have not heard that audio and don't know where it was from. I did read the break down of the report by NPR and have looked at the evidence. And you keep bringing up the amount of time like it matters in a fight or that some amazing decision making could be made during that time. Brown was 30 feet away from Wilson when he started firing from the evidence, unless you have something else that says otherwise. He was allegedly charging him while he was firing for ~7 seconds so for him to be ~30 ft away he would have to have been 'charging him' at a very scary ~2.5-3mph...
Are you just making shit up now? Seriously, there is a report complied by experts in this thread. Maybe you might want to read that in some way before you say anything further.
|
oh, so your point is that demonstrations sometimes have a violent minority that is out to cause trouble, and don't care about the cause of the demonstration? yep, i agree. that's true.
|
my old friends from the trayvon thread.
On November 26 2014 04:14 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 04:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 04:02 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 03:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 03:54 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 03:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 03:51 Millitron wrote:On November 26 2014 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 03:46 RCMDVA wrote:
re: how fast somebody can cover distance.
Standard catch-to-kick timings for a punter in highschool/college is 2.2 seconds.
That's 15 yards / 45 feet somebody coming off the edge will get to the punter in 2.5 - 2.7 seconds.
Coming untouched up the middle its less. Alot less. So if he was charging for 7 seconds that means Wilson was shooting at him from ~100 ft away... How in the hell is someone who is unarmed and ~100ft away putting ones life in such mortal danger the only option is shooting him to death? Where are you getting 7 seconds from? The audio recording of the shots. Yeah, but a few of those shots were from in the car. The gun fired at least once while they were struggling in the car. Seriously? I thought these were the guys that knew the facts... The audio obviously isn't of the shot's in the car, unless he kept shooting as he ran away. The body was recovered ~130 ft from Wilson's car. http://rt.com/usa/183540-ferguson-shooting-audio-recording/ I have not heard that audio and don't know where it was from. I did read the break down of the report by NPR and have looked at the evidence. And you keep bringing up the amount of time like it matters in a fight or that some amazing decision making could be made during that time. Brown was 30 feet away from Wilson when he started firing from the evidence, unless you have something else that says otherwise. He was allegedly charging him while he was firing for ~7 seconds so for him to be ~30 ft away he would have to have been 'charging him' at a very scary ~2.5-3mph... Are you just making shit up now? Seriously, there is a report complied by experts in this thread. Maybe you might want to read that in some way before you say anything further.
can you link, please?
|
On November 26 2014 04:05 ZenithM wrote:
I still don't get how this shit can be ruled out so easily. Reading the transcript, my humble opinion is that Wilson did indeed shoot to defend himself at his car, so that's fine, then it becomes really blurry. What are the evidence? When you have a dead guy with 6 bullets in his body and another guy with a red bruise on his cheek who litterally emptied his charger, I'd say you look a bit more.
Could someone point out to me any relevant witness testimony before the grand jury? I only read Johnson's and Wilson's. Other evidence sources seem worthless, the forensics team's camera was out of battery at the scene, the sound recordings say what we already know (a fucking buttload of shots fired), the analysis of the body says he was only hit from the front (fine) 6 fucking times, killing him. Seems weird to me that you can't find probable cause when all you have is the killer's testimony and some guy's body crippled with bullets. I'm sure I'm only missing something here. The only thing I read that backs Wilson's story is well, Wilson's story.
NPR has links to all the documents here.
There were quite a few witness accounts, and the ones that suggested that Wilson acted improperly didn't hold up to scrutiny on the witness stand / were not in accordance with the physical evidence.
|
On November 26 2014 04:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 04:02 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 03:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 03:54 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 03:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 03:51 Millitron wrote:On November 26 2014 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 03:46 RCMDVA wrote:
re: how fast somebody can cover distance.
Standard catch-to-kick timings for a punter in highschool/college is 2.2 seconds.
That's 15 yards / 45 feet somebody coming off the edge will get to the punter in 2.5 - 2.7 seconds.
Coming untouched up the middle its less. Alot less. So if he was charging for 7 seconds that means Wilson was shooting at him from ~100 ft away... How in the hell is someone who is unarmed and ~100ft away putting ones life in such mortal danger the only option is shooting him to death? Where are you getting 7 seconds from? The audio recording of the shots. Yeah, but a few of those shots were from in the car. The gun fired at least once while they were struggling in the car. Seriously? I thought these were the guys that knew the facts... The audio obviously isn't of the shot's in the car, unless he kept shooting as he ran away. The body was recovered ~130 ft from Wilson's car. http://rt.com/usa/183540-ferguson-shooting-audio-recording/ I have not heard that audio and don't know where it was from. I did read the break down of the report by NPR and have looked at the evidence. And you keep bringing up the amount of time like it matters in a fight or that some amazing decision making could be made during that time. Brown was 30 feet away from Wilson when he started firing from the evidence, unless you have something else that says otherwise. He was allegedly charging him while he was firing for ~7 seconds so for him to be ~30 ft away he would have to have been 'charging him' at a very scary ~2.5-3mph...
or maybe if you read the transcripts you would of known brown stopped mid charge, that's when officer stopped shooting after first volley, then brown started charging again, thus the 2nd volley.
|
On November 26 2014 04:13 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 04:05 ZenithM wrote:
I still don't get how this shit can be ruled out so easily. Reading the transcript, my humble opinion is that Wilson did indeed shoot to defend himself at his car, so that's fine, then it becomes really blurry. What are the evidence? When you have a dead guy with 6 bullets in his body and another guy with a red bruise on his cheek who litterally emptied his charger, I'd say you look a bit more.
Could someone point out to me any relevant witness testimony before the grand jury? I only read Johnson's and Wilson's. Other evidence sources seem worthless, the forensics team's camera was out of battery at the scene, the sound recordings say what we already know (a fucking buttload of shots fired), the analysis of the body says he was only hit from the front (fine) 6 fucking times, killing him. Seems weird to me that you can't find probable cause when all you have is the killer's testimony and some guy's body crippled with bullets. I'm sure I'm only missing something here. The only thing I read that backs Wilson's story is well, Wilson's story. Bullets aren't magical deathbeams. It could be 6 or 60 hits for all I care. Numerous gunshot wounds doesn't imply the victim could not have still been a threat.
Obviously. That's not what I'm saying. The only evidence you have that Brown was a threat is that red bruise on Wilson's cheek.
But reading through testimonies, and given the presumption that "that somebody who is a peace officer, and is thereby authorized to use lethal force, used it correctly", it seemed indeed implausible to indict the guy.
|
On November 26 2014 04:15 dAPhREAk wrote:
my old friends from the trayvon thread.
I already brought up the Trayvon issue and people being invested in their own narrative, while also giving guns magic powers similar to phasers in star trek.
|
On November 26 2014 04:15 dAPhREAk wrote:
my old friends from the trayvon thread.
This thread is even funnier because the evidence even more strongly supports an acquittal, yet the outrage seems to be more fierce.
|
On November 26 2014 04:16 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 04:13 Millitron wrote:On November 26 2014 04:05 ZenithM wrote:
I still don't get how this shit can be ruled out so easily. Reading the transcript, my humble opinion is that Wilson did indeed shoot to defend himself at his car, so that's fine, then it becomes really blurry. What are the evidence? When you have a dead guy with 6 bullets in his body and another guy with a red bruise on his cheek who litterally emptied his charger, I'd say you look a bit more.
Could someone point out to me any relevant witness testimony before the grand jury? I only read Johnson's and Wilson's. Other evidence sources seem worthless, the forensics team's camera was out of battery at the scene, the sound recordings say what we already know (a fucking buttload of shots fired), the analysis of the body says he was only hit from the front (fine) 6 fucking times, killing him. Seems weird to me that you can't find probable cause when all you have is the killer's testimony and some guy's body crippled with bullets. I'm sure I'm only missing something here. The only thing I read that backs Wilson's story is well, Wilson's story. Bullets aren't magical deathbeams. It could be 6 or 60 hits for all I care. Numerous gunshot wounds doesn't imply the victim could not have still been a threat. Obviously. That's not what I'm saying. The only evidence you have that Brown was a threat is that red bruise on Wilson's cheek. But reading through testimonies, and given the presumption that "that somebody who is a peace officer, and is thereby authorized to use lethal force, used it correctly", it seemed indeed implausible to indict the guy.
Because a 300lb dude bull rushing at you isn't a threat?
On November 26 2014 04:17 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 04:15 dAPhREAk wrote:
my old friends from the trayvon thread. This thread is even funnier because the evidence even more strongly supports an acquittal, yet the outrage seems to be more fierce.
I would say, the difference is a cop's job is to keep people safe, making this incident seemingly more inappropriate.
|
On November 26 2014 04:10 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 04:08 nunez wrote:
what's your point? that racism is a big deal?
i agree it's important.
i thought your point that these demonstrations were
similar to the one happening in the us. and they are, unless shouting for people's death and destroying property is different in america than it is in norway. hint: most of the demonstrators and protests in ferguson, even last night, were peaceful too and it was only a minority that engaged in violence. Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 04:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 03:56 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 26 2014 03:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 03:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 03:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 03:40 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 03:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 03:25 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 02:06 Efane wrote:
[quote]
Except in Russia lethal force is allowed only as a last resort. The policeman is supposed to detain whoever threatens them and use leathal measures only if the person in question refuses to cooperate to the point of leaving no other options. And by direct threat to life i mean a threat with a weapon of some sorts, not just being huge.
Its just seems that the cop in question was awfully trigger-happy. Even if his actions were justified, he should never work at the force again. Firing half a clip is, and should be classified as, brutality, which, im sure, is not a publicaly accepted practice in the US.
It seems it all comes down to the issue of authority being so sweet and legal defenitions being so vague... Just give ur ordinary patrol cops some rubber bullets or something, its a bit harder to kill with that shit, you actually gotta aim
You're in luck again! This is exactly what happened! FFS, it'd be nice if some of y'all actually made a half-assed attempt to familiarize yourselves with the facts of the case before commenting on it. He shot 12 times the last shot was the only one (besides the two in the car) where Brown was even close enough to hit him with a bat let alone threaten him. People need to quit talking about it like they were face to face when Wilson continued to shoot him after he ran away. (especially the ones saying others don't know the 'facts') He was shooting at him from far enough for Brown to allegedly sprint for at least 7 seconds (a minimum of ~45ft @walking speed ~100ft @ 10mph run ~150ft @15 mph [human top speed is a bit under 28mph) before he got within 8-10 ft (which is the closest he got after running away). Wilson is just lucky he didn't shoot some innocent bystander spraying bullets at such a range like he did. He never once mentioned checking his backdrop and explicitly says he had tunnel vision so the real possibility of shooting innocent people never even crossed his mind (according to his testimony). The GreenHorizons self-defense rule: You can only shoot a 300 pound man who is charging at you with the intent to kill you when he gets close enough to actually hit you with a bat. Brilliant. No obviously not. You just don't need to start shooting him when he is at least a 7 second 'charge' away. You get behind cover and reassess. No need to be so ignorant about it. So you'd have the officer turn his back to a 300 pound guy that his charging him with intent to kill him? Are you insane? If I was the officer, I shoot every time in that circumstance without thinking twice. Not surprising. It's called backpedaling. where you move backwards and face forwards, perhaps you've seen it? Again it's not like they were face to face (or even within 45ft of each other) when he started shooting (if we are to believe that Brown was 'charging'). And you, of course, have either personal experience or multiple examples of similar situations where "backpedaling" from an advancing person who had already assaulted you resulted in no further injuries or deaths, arrest made, everything okay. Keep talking about 45 feet, 7 seconds, 60 feet, whatever, it all amounts to the same: nothing. 7 seconds is nothing in a fight. On November 26 2014 03:54 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 03:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 03:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 03:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 03:40 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 03:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 03:25 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
You're in luck again! This is exactly what happened!
FFS, it'd be nice if some of y'all actually made a half-assed attempt to familiarize yourselves with the facts of the case before commenting on it. He shot 12 times the last shot was the only one (besides the two in the car) where Brown was even close enough to hit him with a bat let alone threaten him. People need to quit talking about it like they were face to face when Wilson continued to shoot him after he ran away. (especially the ones saying others don't know the 'facts') He was shooting at him from far enough for Brown to allegedly sprint for at least 7 seconds (a minimum of ~45ft @walking speed ~100ft @ 10mph run ~150ft @15 mph [human top speed is a bit under 28mph) before he got within 8-10 ft (which is the closest he got after running away). Wilson is just lucky he didn't shoot some innocent bystander spraying bullets at such a range like he did. He never once mentioned checking his backdrop and explicitly says he had tunnel vision so the real possibility of shooting innocent people never even crossed his mind (according to his testimony). The GreenHorizons self-defense rule: You can only shoot a 300 pound man who is charging at you with the intent to kill you when he gets close enough to actually hit you with a bat. Brilliant. No obviously not. You just don't need to start shooting him when he is at least a 7 second 'charge' away. You get behind cover and reassess. No need to be so ignorant about it. So you'd have the officer turn his back to a 300 pound guy that his charging him with intent to kill him? Are you insane? If I was the officer, I shoot every time in that circumstance without thinking twice. Not surprising. It's called backpedaling. where you move backwards and face forwards, perhaps you've seen it? Again it's not like they were face to face (or even within 45ft of each other) when he started shooting (if we are to believe that Brown was 'charging'). Okay, so you'd just have the officer wait a little bit longer for the decedent, who again is charging with intent to kill/injure the officer, to get closer before opening fire? This is just idiotic parsing at this point. What it is is an enraged wail that reality should conform to his opinion instead of the other way around. 7 seconds and 45 feet away should be long enough to retreat and "reassess." Doesn't matter that in the real world in no way shape or form is 7 seconds and 45 feet enough time and distance to do that, it should be. 45ft would be if Brown was walking toward Wilson. If a minimum of a 50ft ~7 second head start on a guy who is 80 lbs heavier isn't enough for you to get to a better position you shouldn't be a cop. just stop embarrassing yourself with this crap already. you clearly have zero idea how long seven seconds is in any combative context more challenging than an internet argument.
I put money that I've lost more fights (and i've won plenty) than you've been in or even seen in person. 7 seconds is a lifetime in combat. Just get choked for 7 seconds in a real fight and tell me it doesn't feel like forever.
|
On November 26 2014 04:16 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 04:13 Millitron wrote:On November 26 2014 04:05 ZenithM wrote:
I still don't get how this shit can be ruled out so easily. Reading the transcript, my humble opinion is that Wilson did indeed shoot to defend himself at his car, so that's fine, then it becomes really blurry. What are the evidence? When you have a dead guy with 6 bullets in his body and another guy with a red bruise on his cheek who litterally emptied his charger, I'd say you look a bit more.
Could someone point out to me any relevant witness testimony before the grand jury? I only read Johnson's and Wilson's. Other evidence sources seem worthless, the forensics team's camera was out of battery at the scene, the sound recordings say what we already know (a fucking buttload of shots fired), the analysis of the body says he was only hit from the front (fine) 6 fucking times, killing him. Seems weird to me that you can't find probable cause when all you have is the killer's testimony and some guy's body crippled with bullets. I'm sure I'm only missing something here. The only thing I read that backs Wilson's story is well, Wilson's story. Bullets aren't magical deathbeams. It could be 6 or 60 hits for all I care. Numerous gunshot wounds doesn't imply the victim could not have still been a threat. Obviously. That's not what I'm saying. The only evidence you have that Brown was a threat is that red bruise on Wilson's cheek. But reading through testimonies, and given the presumption that "that somebody who is a peace officer, and is thereby authorized to use lethal force, used it correctly", it seemed indeed implausible to indict the guy.
I said it before, the use of deadly force is allowed if the office felt that he could not overcome brown in a physical confrontation. That is what the officer testified to, that he did not feel he could take Brown if brown got to him. Since Brown had already tried to get the Officer's fire arm, you can pretty much see why he thought Brown would kill him.
|
What a whole lot of steam about nothing. They never had a case, but drew it out to appease the lynching mob. Obama delivers his usual remarks, and the media and community organizers were basically calling for the riots and looting.
|
On November 26 2014 04:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 04:10 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 26 2014 04:08 nunez wrote:
what's your point? that racism is a big deal?
i agree it's important.
i thought your point that these demonstrations were
similar to the one happening in the us. and they are, unless shouting for people's death and destroying property is different in america than it is in norway. hint: most of the demonstrators and protests in ferguson, even last night, were peaceful too and it was only a minority that engaged in violence. On November 26 2014 04:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 03:56 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 26 2014 03:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 03:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 03:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 03:40 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 03:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 03:25 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
You're in luck again! This is exactly what happened!
FFS, it'd be nice if some of y'all actually made a half-assed attempt to familiarize yourselves with the facts of the case before commenting on it. He shot 12 times the last shot was the only one (besides the two in the car) where Brown was even close enough to hit him with a bat let alone threaten him. People need to quit talking about it like they were face to face when Wilson continued to shoot him after he ran away. (especially the ones saying others don't know the 'facts') He was shooting at him from far enough for Brown to allegedly sprint for at least 7 seconds (a minimum of ~45ft @walking speed ~100ft @ 10mph run ~150ft @15 mph [human top speed is a bit under 28mph) before he got within 8-10 ft (which is the closest he got after running away). Wilson is just lucky he didn't shoot some innocent bystander spraying bullets at such a range like he did. He never once mentioned checking his backdrop and explicitly says he had tunnel vision so the real possibility of shooting innocent people never even crossed his mind (according to his testimony). The GreenHorizons self-defense rule: You can only shoot a 300 pound man who is charging at you with the intent to kill you when he gets close enough to actually hit you with a bat. Brilliant. No obviously not. You just don't need to start shooting him when he is at least a 7 second 'charge' away. You get behind cover and reassess. No need to be so ignorant about it. So you'd have the officer turn his back to a 300 pound guy that his charging him with intent to kill him? Are you insane? If I was the officer, I shoot every time in that circumstance without thinking twice. Not surprising. It's called backpedaling. where you move backwards and face forwards, perhaps you've seen it? Again it's not like they were face to face (or even within 45ft of each other) when he started shooting (if we are to believe that Brown was 'charging'). And you, of course, have either personal experience or multiple examples of similar situations where "backpedaling" from an advancing person who had already assaulted you resulted in no further injuries or deaths, arrest made, everything okay. Keep talking about 45 feet, 7 seconds, 60 feet, whatever, it all amounts to the same: nothing. 7 seconds is nothing in a fight. On November 26 2014 03:54 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 03:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 03:46 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 03:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 03:40 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 03:35 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
He shot 12 times the last shot was the only one (besides the two in the car) where Brown was even close enough to hit him with a bat let alone threaten him.
People need to quit talking about it like they were face to face when Wilson continued to shoot him after he ran away. (especially the ones saying others don't know the 'facts')
He was shooting at him from far enough for Brown to allegedly sprint for at least 7 seconds (a minimum of ~45ft @walking speed ~100ft @ 10mph run ~150ft @15 mph [human top speed is a bit under 28mph) before he got within 8-10 ft (which is the closest he got after running away).
Wilson is just lucky he didn't shoot some innocent bystander spraying bullets at such a range like he did. He never once mentioned checking his backdrop and explicitly says he had tunnel vision so the real possibility of shooting innocent people never even crossed his mind (according to his testimony).
The GreenHorizons self-defense rule: You can only shoot a 300 pound man who is charging at you with the intent to kill you when he gets close enough to actually hit you with a bat. Brilliant. No obviously not. You just don't need to start shooting him when he is at least a 7 second 'charge' away. You get behind cover and reassess. No need to be so ignorant about it. So you'd have the officer turn his back to a 300 pound guy that his charging him with intent to kill him? Are you insane? If I was the officer, I shoot every time in that circumstance without thinking twice. Not surprising. It's called backpedaling. where you move backwards and face forwards, perhaps you've seen it? Again it's not like they were face to face (or even within 45ft of each other) when he started shooting (if we are to believe that Brown was 'charging'). Okay, so you'd just have the officer wait a little bit longer for the decedent, who again is charging with intent to kill/injure the officer, to get closer before opening fire? This is just idiotic parsing at this point. What it is is an enraged wail that reality should conform to his opinion instead of the other way around. 7 seconds and 45 feet away should be long enough to retreat and "reassess." Doesn't matter that in the real world in no way shape or form is 7 seconds and 45 feet enough time and distance to do that, it should be. 45ft would be if Brown was walking toward Wilson. If a minimum of a 50ft ~7 second head start on a guy who is 80 lbs heavier isn't enough for you to get to a better position you shouldn't be a cop. just stop embarrassing yourself with this crap already. you clearly have zero idea how long seven seconds is in any combative context more challenging than an internet argument. I put money that I've lost more fights (and i've won plenty) than you've been in or even seen in person. 7 seconds is a lifetime in combat. Just get choked for 7 seconds in a real fight and tell me it doesn't feel like forever.
I still don't know where you're getting 7 seconds from, and it's written in the fucking transcript that brown had paused mid charge, of which easily explains why it was that long in the first place.
On November 26 2014 04:19 Danglars wrote:
What a whole lot of steam about nothing. They never had a case, but drew it out to appease the lynching mob. Obama delivers his usual remarks, and the media and community organizers were basically calling for the riots and looting.
that's so fucking ridiculous. no one on the media encouraged rioting and looting, and even less community organizers called for it. While I would say the fault still falls on lack of strong leadership of minority groups to organize strong peaceful protest, but to say they "called for riots and looting" is a fucking far cry from the truth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
