|
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. |
On November 26 2014 04:17 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 04:16 ZenithM wrote: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?
That's why I wanted to read other testimonies. The only thing that for sure says Brown charged Wilson is Wilson himself. But apparently, the accounts that say he wasn't charging weren't good enough and the others seemed to match Wilson's story.
Seems fine as far as I'm concerned now.
|
On November 26 2014 04:19 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 04:17 GreenHorizons wrote: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:
[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'). 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:
[quote]
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.
He is just making shit up, because facts don't support what he wants to argue, so he keeps bring up 45 feet and 7 seconds like those are real issues or numbers that exist in the transcript.
|
On November 26 2014 04:21 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 04:17 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 04:16 ZenithM wrote: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? That's why I wanted to read other testimonies. The only thing that for sure says Brown charged Wilson is Wilson himself. But apparently, the accounts that say he wasn't charging weren't good enough and the others seemed to match Wilson's story. Seems fine as far as I'm concerned now.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1370930-interview-witness-10.html
this was the one eyewitness that really stood out to me after skimming through a lot of the interviews/testimonies.
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/11/us/ferguson-grand-jury-docs/index.html
here's rest of the documents.
|
On November 26 2014 04:17 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 04:16 ZenithM wrote: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?
No it's not life threatening when he is ~7 seconds away, you have a gun, and accessible cover. If you are worried about an unarmed 18yo even if he has 80lbs on you taking your life when you have a gun, pepperspray, handcuffs, back-up on the way, and enough space/time to retreat, you should not be a cop.
The questioning of Wilson was pretty pathetic when trying to nail down what happened after Wilson left his car.
|
On November 26 2014 04:21 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 04:19 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 04:17 GreenHorizons wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. He is just making shit up, because facts don't support what he wants to argue, so he keeps bring up 45 feet and 7 seconds like those are real issues or numbers that exist in the transcript.
The sad thing is that the black community has real grievances that should be heard. By raising the banner of Michael Brown, all that the black community is accomplishing is de-legitimizing their own movements and objectives. You'd think that someone would wise them up to this reality. If, as they claim, there's no shortage of white cops shooting unarmed black kids, then go pick one of the cases where the cop actually did something wrong and use it as your rallying cry. Trying to do that with Michael Brown is nothing short of retarded.
|
Let me start by saying that I support the grand jury's decision and the judicial process here, despite the atypical proceedings with the prosecutor presenting all of the evidence.
Having read Wilson's morning-after police interview on the STLPR page (the 6-page one, not the full transcript of the testimony), I find it difficult to understand how a confrontation escalated from Wilson telling Brown to walk on the sidewalk to Brown inserting his upper body through the window of Wilson's car to physically threaten him.
Without knowing the motivations of either party, I feel like there's a disconnect from opening the window to speak to Brown, attempting to leave his vehicle to apprehend him, and then feeling under sufficient threat to reach for his handgun, all before the first blow lands. Surely there was an opportunity to deescalate and prevent a loss of life. If Wilson's driver-side window had only been open halfway, none of this may have ever happened 
|
On November 26 2014 04:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 04:17 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 04:16 ZenithM wrote: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? No it's not life threatening when he is ~7 seconds away, you have a gun, and accessible cover. If you are worried about an unarmed 18yo even if he has 80lbs on you taking your life when you have a gun, pepperspray, handcuffs, back-up on the way, and enough space/time to retreat, you should not be a cop. The questioning of Wilson was pretty pathetic when trying to nail down what happened after Wilson left his car.
What difference is the gun supposed to make if he doesn't shoot it? Or cover for that matter? What if the pepper spray doesn't work, Brown gets his hands on the the officer's fire arm or it goes off in the struggle and hits someone?
This isn't a fucking video game. 80 pounds is a huge amount and you are just full of shit if you think it isn't.
|
On November 26 2014 04:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 04:17 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 04:16 ZenithM wrote: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? No it's not life threatening when he is ~7 seconds away, you have a gun, and accessible cover. If you are worried about an unarmed 18yo even if he has 80lbs on you taking your life when you have a gun, pepperspray, handcuffs, back-up on the way, and enough space/time to retreat, you should not be a cop. The questioning of Wilson was pretty pathetic when trying to nail down what happened after Wilson left his car.
WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THIS 7 SECONDS? holy living shit.
Wilson said 30ft, another witness said 15 yards, and stated that the officer (wilson) started firing shots after 5 yard distance was covered by Brown, which fits within 30 ft. Which is BEYOND reasonable distance to discharge firearm at someone bullrushing you.
Just read teh fucking transcripts, holy shit.,
|
On November 26 2014 04:27 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 04:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 04:17 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 04:16 ZenithM wrote: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? No it's not life threatening when he is ~7 seconds away, you have a gun, and accessible cover. If you are worried about an unarmed 18yo even if he has 80lbs on you taking your life when you have a gun, pepperspray, handcuffs, back-up on the way, and enough space/time to retreat, you should not be a cop. The questioning of Wilson was pretty pathetic when trying to nail down what happened after Wilson left his car. WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THIS 7 SECONDS? holy living shit. Wilson said 30ft, another witness said 15 yards, and stated that the officer (wilson) started firing shots after 5 yard distance was covered by Brown, which fits within 30 ft. Which is BEYOND reasonable distance to discharge firearm at someone bullrushing you. Just read teh fucking transcripts, holy shit.,
Where did Wilson say 30 ft?
There were 7 seconds between the first shot from outside the car until the last shot.
|
On November 26 2014 04:24 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 04:21 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 04:19 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 04:17 GreenHorizons wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. He is just making shit up, because facts don't support what he wants to argue, so he keeps bring up 45 feet and 7 seconds like those are real issues or numbers that exist in the transcript. The sad thing is that the black community has real grievances that should be heard. By raising the banner of Michael Brown, all that the black community is accomplishing is de-legitimizing their own movements and objectives. You'd think that someone would wise them up to this reality. If, as they claim, there's no shortage of white cops shooting unarmed black kids, then go pick one of the cases where the cop actually did something wrong and use it as your rallying cry. Trying to do that with Michael Brown is nothing short of retarded.
You have Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the 24-hour news cycle to blame for that. They don't want real issues to be solved because then their cash-cow, "Evil white guy oppresses innocent black child", stories will stop happening and they'll have to find a new topic to hold a circus over.
|
On November 26 2014 04:15 JonnyBNoHo 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. 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. As former prosecutor Giuliani said,
They would've been destroyed at trial by a halfway competent defense lawyer because of all the inconsistencies," he said. "If you can't prove probable cause, how are you going to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt when the witnesses are contradicting themselves? (full comments on CNN
|
On November 26 2014 04:22 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 04:21 ZenithM wrote:On November 26 2014 04:17 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 04:16 ZenithM wrote: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? That's why I wanted to read other testimonies. The only thing that for sure says Brown charged Wilson is Wilson himself. But apparently, the accounts that say he wasn't charging weren't good enough and the others seemed to match Wilson's story. Seems fine as far as I'm concerned now. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1370930-interview-witness-10.htmlthis was the one eyewitness that really stood out to me after skimming through a lot of the interviews/testimonies. http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/11/us/ferguson-grand-jury-docs/index.htmlhere's rest of the documents.
That's certainly the one that matches Wilson's story the most. Thanks for the other docs though, didn't have a complete source like that.
|
On November 26 2014 04:32 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 04:27 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 04:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 04:17 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 04:16 ZenithM wrote: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? No it's not life threatening when he is ~7 seconds away, you have a gun, and accessible cover. If you are worried about an unarmed 18yo even if he has 80lbs on you taking your life when you have a gun, pepperspray, handcuffs, back-up on the way, and enough space/time to retreat, you should not be a cop. The questioning of Wilson was pretty pathetic when trying to nail down what happened after Wilson left his car. WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THIS 7 SECONDS? holy living shit. Wilson said 30ft, another witness said 15 yards, and stated that the officer (wilson) started firing shots after 5 yard distance was covered by Brown, which fits within 30 ft. Which is BEYOND reasonable distance to discharge firearm at someone bullrushing you. Just read teh fucking transcripts, holy shit., Where did Wilson say 30 ft? There were 7 seconds between the first shot from outside the car until the last shot.
If you're too lazy to read, that's your own fault.
I posted the link to the transcripts just a few post above.
|
On November 26 2014 04:32 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 04:24 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 04:21 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 04:19 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 04:17 GreenHorizons wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. He is just making shit up, because facts don't support what he wants to argue, so he keeps bring up 45 feet and 7 seconds like those are real issues or numbers that exist in the transcript. The sad thing is that the black community has real grievances that should be heard. By raising the banner of Michael Brown, all that the black community is accomplishing is de-legitimizing their own movements and objectives. You'd think that someone would wise them up to this reality. If, as they claim, there's no shortage of white cops shooting unarmed black kids, then go pick one of the cases where the cop actually did something wrong and use it as your rallying cry. Trying to do that with Michael Brown is nothing short of retarded. You have Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the 24-hour news cycle to blame for that. They don't want real issues to be solved because then their cash-cow, "Evil white guy oppresses innocent black child", stories will stop happening and they'll have to find a new topic to hold a circus over.
Yeah, this isn't anything new. I get the sense that the black community is never going to figure out how badly they've been betrayed by their leaders and the democrat party, to whom they basically blindly follow at this point. They really should demand more than they're getting, but it's not like they're going to listen to any conservative tell them that.
|
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.
When you fire a gun, you fire to kill. ie. you don't just stop at one. There's nothing odd about that at all.
The single issue at hand whether or not he needed to use lethal force in that situation.
Pertaining to that, the only fact that seems to be universally agreed upon is that there was an altercation at the cops car while he was still in it (cops can use lethal force even if the perp is unarmed. Grabbing at a gun would be just grounds, as would a 300lbs guy continuing to ignore orders and attacking a cop, etc). Apparently ballistics also support Wilson's claim that he shot Brown while he was moving towards him, which directly refutes several eye witnesses, bringing the veracity of those accounts into question.
It's pretty safe to say that anyone looking at this rationally would describe all of the evidence as being very flimsy. Essentially it boils down to a he-said, she-said with the key figures being an experienced cop with no disciplinary record, and a large kid who just minutes before the indicdent strong armed a store.
I know 538 touched on it being rare for a grand jury to not bring an indictment, but the story did not make any mention of the instances where they did not indict. Were the other non-indictments based on similarly weak cases? What about cases where they did indict cops who shot someone while on duty? That's stuff that would be relevent
|
The indictment would never have held up. That being said, I still think that this MLK quote is quite apropos.
It is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the negro poor has worsened over the last twelve or fifteen years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice and humanity. - MLK
|
A few sad thoughts from all this...
People decided to riot without concern for the evidence (again). If people went home peacefully, looked over the transcripts and came back with a legitimate "hey we have a worry here", they would look far more sympathetic, even if it ended in rioting.
The harm from the rioting will mainly affect the local community. Expect less investment, higher insurance rates and lower property tax receipts.
Concerns over the 'deeper issue' of police / community relations and tactics are undermined by both of the above. The local community will now have fewer resources of its own to enact reforms, and many will want those resources split in contradictory ways. Lots of people will want reforms, and lots will want more security (understandably so!). People on the outside aren't going to be too motivated to help a community that robs and torches in reaction to a grand jurty decision that was uncharacteristically transparent.
Right now the only positive from all this is looking to be a good case-study in how towns / cities fail.
|
I'm being told by one of my friends that Michael Brown raised his hands and surrendered when Wilson told him to stop, apparently this was one of the testimonies. Was it a lie?
|
On November 26 2014 04:44 Ym1r wrote:
I'm being told by one of my friends that Michael Brown raised his hands and surrendered when Wilson told him to stop, apparently this was one of the testimonies. Was it a lie?
Not supported by any evidence presented to the grand jury.
|
On November 26 2014 04:41 farvacola wrote:The indictment would never have held up. That being said, I still think that this MLK quote is quite apropos. Show nested quote +It is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the negro poor has worsened over the last twelve or fifteen years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice and humanity. - MLK
This quote might fit except that Al Sharpton and friends jump to the "Black guy did nothing wrong, white guy is just a bigoted, power-hungry monster" conclusion immediately every single time one of these cases make national news.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
