|
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 04:53 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 04:47 Millitron wrote: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. 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. What Al Sharpton does or doesn't do has very little to do with the presence of real demographic problems in the United States. And to consistently point to Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, as a white man, whenever something like this happens, particularly when their support among black folk has been waning for years, is tantamount to denial. We get it, you don't like the NAACP, but it isn't the fault of contemporary african-americans that the organization got its name.
My point is that the 24-hour news cycle, which includes Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton cause these riots by jumping to conclusions constantly, all while claiming to want peaceful resolution to social issues. If they actually cared about change, they would've waited to see some evidence before jumping to the conclusion that Wilson was a monster. Instead, as soon as the media found out that a white cop shot an unarmed black teenager, they immediately call him and the whole department racist and start organizing protests. If they really cared about change, they would wait and see if Brown was actually a good martyr for their cause.
|
On November 26 2014 04:47 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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.
the quote fits perfectly regardless. all this fuss about the riots and the indictment are just distracting from the real issues at hand
|
On November 26 2014 05:04 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 04:36 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 04:32 GreenHorizons wrote: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. I read the part discussing the shooting, I didn't see it unless it is somewhere else, it isn't there. Are you referring to what he said to another officer? the transcript of interview of wilson, he said 20ft + 10ft he had backpedaled during incident, other witness testimonies put the distance between 30-45 ft.
I'm looking at the transcript and I am not seeing what you are saying, do you have a page number?
|
The fact is that Brown wasn't hit in the back. But for me it doesn't really conflict with witnesses saying he was shot in the back. Wilson could very well have fired while he was fleeing and missed, and witnesses could have seen him fire and believed he hit the mark. I think it would have made a big difference if he did shoot at a man fleeing, because it doesn't seem like self-defense to me.
|
On November 26 2014 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 04:36 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 04:32 GreenHorizons wrote: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. I read the part discussing the shooting, I didn't see it unless it is somewhere else, it isn't there. Are you referring to what he said to another officer?
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/11/us/ferguson-grand-jury-docs/index.html
it's under witness interviews.
On November 26 2014 05:07 ZenithM wrote:
The fact is that Brown wasn't hit in the back. But for me it doesn't really conflict with witnesses saying he was shot in the back. Wilson could very well have fired while he was fleeing and missed, and witnesses could have seen him fire and believed he hit the mark. I think it would have made a big difference if he did shoot at a man fleeing, because it doesn't seem like self-defense to me.
except conflicting witness testimonies, ya know....
|
On November 26 2014 05:06 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 04:47 Millitron wrote: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. 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. the quote fits perfectly regardless. all this fuss about the riots and the indictment are just distracting from the real issues at hand
Maybe the media should've focused on those issues then instead of Michael Brown?
|
On November 26 2014 05:09 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 05:06 Paljas wrote:On November 26 2014 04:47 Millitron wrote: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. 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. the quote fits perfectly regardless. all this fuss about the riots and the indictment are just distracting from the real issues at hand Maybe the media should've focused on those issues then instead of Michael Brown?
That would make sense, wouldn't it? it's like media cry for gun control after a school shooting, when school shootings make up the least percent of gun violence in America. News outlets needs a story to hype up issues, rather than bringing it up as a trend.
|
On November 26 2014 05:08 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 04:36 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 04:32 GreenHorizons wrote: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. I read the part discussing the shooting, I didn't see it unless it is somewhere else, it isn't there. Are you referring to what he said to another officer? http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/11/us/ferguson-grand-jury-docs/index.htmlit's under witness interviews. Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 05:07 ZenithM wrote:
The fact is that Brown wasn't hit in the back. But for me it doesn't really conflict with witnesses saying he was shot in the back. Wilson could very well have fired while he was fleeing and missed, and witnesses could have seen him fire and believed he hit the mark. I think it would have made a big difference if he did shoot at a man fleeing, because it doesn't seem like self-defense to me. except conflicting witness testimonies, ya know....
Well yeah, that's why Wilson wasn't indicted, isn't it? It doesn't make it the truth. Conflicting witness testimonies don't mean that he didn't shoot Brown in the back, it just means the case is dropped. It just so happens that one of those conflicting testimonies matches a huge percentage of what Wilson said so it probably had more weight and the others were ignored. I know it's no use dwelling over speculations like these, but still, it's hard to not understand why people would be pissed off.
|
On November 26 2014 05:15 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 05:08 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 04:36 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 04:32 GreenHorizons wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I read the part discussing the shooting, I didn't see it unless it is somewhere else, it isn't there. Are you referring to what he said to another officer? http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/11/us/ferguson-grand-jury-docs/index.htmlit's under witness interviews. On November 26 2014 05:07 ZenithM wrote:
The fact is that Brown wasn't hit in the back. But for me it doesn't really conflict with witnesses saying he was shot in the back. Wilson could very well have fired while he was fleeing and missed, and witnesses could have seen him fire and believed he hit the mark. I think it would have made a big difference if he did shoot at a man fleeing, because it doesn't seem like self-defense to me. except conflicting witness testimonies, ya know.... Well yeah, that's why Wilson wasn't indicted, isn't it? It doesn't make it the truth. Conflicting witness testimonies don't mean that he didn't shoot Brown in the back, it just means the case is dropped. I know it's no use dwelling over speculations like these, but still, it's hard to not understand why people would be pissed off.
isnt it pretty easy to determine whether someone was shot in the back or not?
|
On November 26 2014 05:06 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 04:53 farvacola wrote:On November 26 2014 04:47 Millitron wrote: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. 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. What Al Sharpton does or doesn't do has very little to do with the presence of real demographic problems in the United States. And to consistently point to Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, as a white man, whenever something like this happens, particularly when their support among black folk has been waning for years, is tantamount to denial. We get it, you don't like the NAACP, but it isn't the fault of contemporary african-americans that the organization got its name. My point is that the 24-hour news cycle, which includes Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton cause these riots by jumping to conclusions constantly, all while claiming to want peaceful resolution to social issues. If they actually cared about change, they would've waited to see some evidence before jumping to the conclusion that Wilson was a monster. Instead, as soon as the media found out that a white cop shot an unarmed black teenager, they immediately call him and the whole department racist and start organizing protests. If they really cared about change, they would wait and see if Brown was actually a good martyr for their cause.
Can you name a single social movement in the history of humanity that has ever "waited" to see if a dead person was "actually a good martyr for their cause?" Movements and causes simply don't work like that. Furthermore, Sharpton and Jackson, as you said, are clearly a part of the media game, and to so consistently point to them as the "head" of the progressive black movement is to buy right into their message and further entrench their place in the social consciousness. If your scorn for these individuals were actually motivated by a desire to see things change, it'd be far more useful to say "please ignore these guys" rather than suggesting that it is somehow black people's fault that Sharpton and Jackson are in places of power. Power is a performance, and you are dancing right along to their tune.
Blaming the media is slightly better, but again, the power of the media hangs in the performance of its duties, and it'd be more useful to discuss alternatives to mainstream media and how it is we can go about attempting to keep its power in check, rather than throwing our hands up in the air and saying, "damn that CNN."
|
On November 26 2014 05:15 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 05:08 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 04:36 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 04:32 GreenHorizons wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I read the part discussing the shooting, I didn't see it unless it is somewhere else, it isn't there. Are you referring to what he said to another officer? http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/11/us/ferguson-grand-jury-docs/index.htmlit's under witness interviews. On November 26 2014 05:07 ZenithM wrote:
The fact is that Brown wasn't hit in the back. But for me it doesn't really conflict with witnesses saying he was shot in the back. Wilson could very well have fired while he was fleeing and missed, and witnesses could have seen him fire and believed he hit the mark. I think it would have made a big difference if he did shoot at a man fleeing, because it doesn't seem like self-defense to me. except conflicting witness testimonies, ya know.... Well yeah, that's why Wilson wasn't indicted, isn't it? It doesn't make it the truth. Conflicting witness testimonies don't mean that he didn't shoot Brown in the back, it just means the case is dropped. I know it's no use dwelling over speculations like these, but still, it's hard to not understand why people would be pissed off.
Got bad new for you, if something is the "truth" doesn't matter in court. Thats not its job. If the evidence doesn't support bringing a case, one isn't brought. And the court should never concern itself with public opinion.
|
On November 26 2014 05:15 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 05:08 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 04:36 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 04:32 GreenHorizons wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I read the part discussing the shooting, I didn't see it unless it is somewhere else, it isn't there. Are you referring to what he said to another officer? http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/11/us/ferguson-grand-jury-docs/index.htmlit's under witness interviews. On November 26 2014 05:07 ZenithM wrote:
The fact is that Brown wasn't hit in the back. But for me it doesn't really conflict with witnesses saying he was shot in the back. Wilson could very well have fired while he was fleeing and missed, and witnesses could have seen him fire and believed he hit the mark. I think it would have made a big difference if he did shoot at a man fleeing, because it doesn't seem like self-defense to me. except conflicting witness testimonies, ya know.... Well yeah, that's why Wilson wasn't indicted, isn't it? It doesn't make it the truth. Conflicting witness testimonies don't mean that he didn't shoot Brown in the back, it just means the case is dropped. I know it's no use dwelling over speculations like these, but still, it's hard to not understand why people would be pissed off.
Were there even still witnesses saying he was shot in the back after the forensics came out? A lot of witnesses changed their testimonies, some multiple times.
Also, keep in mind that there was a very low standard for an indictment. If the jury took the claim of shot in the back seriously, they could have indicted Wilson even if there was conflicting testimony.
|
On November 26 2014 05:09 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 05:06 Paljas wrote:On November 26 2014 04:47 Millitron wrote: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. 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. the quote fits perfectly regardless. all this fuss about the riots and the indictment are just distracting from the real issues at hand Maybe the media should've focused on those issues then instead of Michael Brown?
ofc they should, but thats not what this quote is about. it's clear that the whole society has to recongnize the issues, and not just the media or the black community.
blaiming the rioters is ok, but the "large segements fn white society" should be blamed even more.
|
On November 26 2014 05:15 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 05:08 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 04:36 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 04:32 GreenHorizons wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I read the part discussing the shooting, I didn't see it unless it is somewhere else, it isn't there. Are you referring to what he said to another officer? http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/11/us/ferguson-grand-jury-docs/index.htmlit's under witness interviews. On November 26 2014 05:07 ZenithM wrote:
The fact is that Brown wasn't hit in the back. But for me it doesn't really conflict with witnesses saying he was shot in the back. Wilson could very well have fired while he was fleeing and missed, and witnesses could have seen him fire and believed he hit the mark. I think it would have made a big difference if he did shoot at a man fleeing, because it doesn't seem like self-defense to me. except conflicting witness testimonies, ya know.... Well yeah, that's why Wilson wasn't indicted, isn't it? It doesn't make it the truth. Conflicting witness testimonies don't mean that he didn't shoot Brown in the back, it just means the case is dropped. It just so happens that one of those conflicting testimonies matches a huge percentage of what Wilson said so it probably had more weight and the others were ignored. I know it's no use dwelling over speculations like these, but still, it's hard to not understand why people would be pissed off.
Conflicting witness testimonies certainly don't prove whether he was shot in the back. Autopsy reports certainly do, however (and he wasn't).
|
On November 26 2014 05:08 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 04:36 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 04:32 GreenHorizons wrote: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. I read the part discussing the shooting, I didn't see it unless it is somewhere else, it isn't there. Are you referring to what he said to another officer? http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/11/us/ferguson-grand-jury-docs/index.htmlit's under witness interviews. Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 05:07 ZenithM wrote:
The fact is that Brown wasn't hit in the back. But for me it doesn't really conflict with witnesses saying he was shot in the back. Wilson could very well have fired while he was fleeing and missed, and witnesses could have seen him fire and believed he hit the mark. I think it would have made a big difference if he did shoot at a man fleeing, because it doesn't seem like self-defense to me. except conflicting witness testimonies, ya know....
While we are talking about witness testimony not matching the physical evidence this is a good example.
Q: Roughly how far do you think he runs?
A: Originally 20-30 ft.
The body was found 150ft away...
Not to mention we are saying that it took Brown ~7 seconds to cover 30 ft at most(Wilson says "at least 15"). That's not a 'charge'.
As for the 'pause' I saw Wilson say he paused but nothing about Brown stopping, he says 'he just kept coming' over and over but doesn't mention him ever not running toward him.
|
On November 26 2014 05:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 05:15 ZenithM wrote:On November 26 2014 05:08 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 04:36 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 04:32 GreenHorizons wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I read the part discussing the shooting, I didn't see it unless it is somewhere else, it isn't there. Are you referring to what he said to another officer? http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/11/us/ferguson-grand-jury-docs/index.htmlit's under witness interviews. On November 26 2014 05:07 ZenithM wrote:
The fact is that Brown wasn't hit in the back. But for me it doesn't really conflict with witnesses saying he was shot in the back. Wilson could very well have fired while he was fleeing and missed, and witnesses could have seen him fire and believed he hit the mark. I think it would have made a big difference if he did shoot at a man fleeing, because it doesn't seem like self-defense to me. except conflicting witness testimonies, ya know.... Well yeah, that's why Wilson wasn't indicted, isn't it? It doesn't make it the truth. Conflicting witness testimonies don't mean that he didn't shoot Brown in the back, it just means the case is dropped. I know it's no use dwelling over speculations like these, but still, it's hard to not understand why people would be pissed off. Were there even still witnesses saying he was shot in the back after the forensics came out? A lot of witnesses changed their testimonies, some multiple times. Also, keep in mind that there was a very low standard for an indictment. If the jury took the claim of shot in the back seriously, they could have indicted Wilson even if there was conflicting testimony.
This part is key. Even if grand jury chose to indict based on the evidence given, there's no way that case holds up in court. And guess what? a Riot happens anyways.
On November 26 2014 05:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 05:08 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 04:36 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 04:32 GreenHorizons wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I read the part discussing the shooting, I didn't see it unless it is somewhere else, it isn't there. Are you referring to what he said to another officer? http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/11/us/ferguson-grand-jury-docs/index.htmlit's under witness interviews. On November 26 2014 05:07 ZenithM wrote:
The fact is that Brown wasn't hit in the back. But for me it doesn't really conflict with witnesses saying he was shot in the back. Wilson could very well have fired while he was fleeing and missed, and witnesses could have seen him fire and believed he hit the mark. I think it would have made a big difference if he did shoot at a man fleeing, because it doesn't seem like self-defense to me. except conflicting witness testimonies, ya know.... While we are talking about witness testimony not matching the physical evidence this is a good example. The body was found 150ft away... Not to mention we are saying that it took Brown ~7 seconds to cover 30 ft at most. That's not a 'charge'.
Can you not read? He started 20-30 ft when Wilson finally got out of the car to chase, the chase ensues for a little bit, which easily accounts for the distance of the body from the car. Reading comprehension isn't fucking hard.
Not to mention witness testimony put a time gap between Brown running, and Wilson getting out of his vehicle, of which accounts for Wilson's testimony that he tried to call in shots fired.
|
On November 26 2014 05:17 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 05:15 ZenithM wrote:On November 26 2014 05:08 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 04:36 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 04:32 GreenHorizons wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I read the part discussing the shooting, I didn't see it unless it is somewhere else, it isn't there. Are you referring to what he said to another officer? http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/11/us/ferguson-grand-jury-docs/index.htmlit's under witness interviews. On November 26 2014 05:07 ZenithM wrote:
The fact is that Brown wasn't hit in the back. But for me it doesn't really conflict with witnesses saying he was shot in the back. Wilson could very well have fired while he was fleeing and missed, and witnesses could have seen him fire and believed he hit the mark. I think it would have made a big difference if he did shoot at a man fleeing, because it doesn't seem like self-defense to me. except conflicting witness testimonies, ya know.... Well yeah, that's why Wilson wasn't indicted, isn't it? It doesn't make it the truth. Conflicting witness testimonies don't mean that he didn't shoot Brown in the back, it just means the case is dropped. I know it's no use dwelling over speculations like these, but still, it's hard to not understand why people would be pissed off. Got bad new for you, if something is the "truth" doesn't matter in court. Thats not its job. If the evidence doesn't support bringing a case, one isn't brought. And the court should never concern itself with public opinion.
Actually, courts will very frequently acknowledge public opinion in their decisions, particularly in "power" states and federal circuits. That being said, they do so in a manner rather unlike what is being discussed here.
|
On November 26 2014 05:17 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 05:15 ZenithM wrote:On November 26 2014 05:08 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 04:36 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 04:32 GreenHorizons wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I read the part discussing the shooting, I didn't see it unless it is somewhere else, it isn't there. Are you referring to what he said to another officer? http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/11/us/ferguson-grand-jury-docs/index.htmlit's under witness interviews. On November 26 2014 05:07 ZenithM wrote:
The fact is that Brown wasn't hit in the back. But for me it doesn't really conflict with witnesses saying he was shot in the back. Wilson could very well have fired while he was fleeing and missed, and witnesses could have seen him fire and believed he hit the mark. I think it would have made a big difference if he did shoot at a man fleeing, because it doesn't seem like self-defense to me. except conflicting witness testimonies, ya know.... Well yeah, that's why Wilson wasn't indicted, isn't it? It doesn't make it the truth. Conflicting witness testimonies don't mean that he didn't shoot Brown in the back, it just means the case is dropped. I know it's no use dwelling over speculations like these, but still, it's hard to not understand why people would be pissed off. Got bad new for you, if something is the "truth" doesn't matter in court. Thats not its job. If the evidence doesn't support bringing a case, one isn't brought. And the court should never concern itself with public opinion.
Got good news for you, I knew that already, I never said justice should concern itself with it. I just meant for all the guys in this thread to get off their high horses and not tell people in the streets to shut their whining and to read the transcripts, when in fact, the transcripts don't say much. They sure damn say that the case doesn't hold up, they aren't clear enough to know what indeed happened (at least for me they aren't, but I'm lucid enough to see why the case was ruled out).
And for the last time, dAPhREAk (edit: and xDaunt too, then), I fucking know already that he wasn't hit in back. My point is that it would make a big difference if Wilson even attempted to shoot the guy down while he was fleeing the scene. Actually would it? I don't even know haha, I don't really know how it works in the US. Maybe you can just shoot down a guy who hits you and then flees, and that's still self-defense.
|
Shot in the back would not have mattered in Missouri.
edit/ wrong section concerning Forcible Felony.
Was trying to link the Code from this explanation : http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/how-darren-wilson-avoided-criminal-charges
Defence of life
Missouri law states that anyone, including a police officer, may use deadly force against someone else if “he or she reasonably believes” this is “necessary to protect himself, or herself or her unborn child, or another against death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony”. Similar state laws, rooted in English common law, are in place around the US.
|
On November 26 2014 05:24 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 05:17 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 05:15 ZenithM wrote:On November 26 2014 05:08 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 04:36 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 04:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 04:27 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 04:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 04:17 wei2coolman wrote:
[quote]
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. I read the part discussing the shooting, I didn't see it unless it is somewhere else, it isn't there. Are you referring to what he said to another officer? http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/11/us/ferguson-grand-jury-docs/index.htmlit's under witness interviews. On November 26 2014 05:07 ZenithM wrote:
The fact is that Brown wasn't hit in the back. But for me it doesn't really conflict with witnesses saying he was shot in the back. Wilson could very well have fired while he was fleeing and missed, and witnesses could have seen him fire and believed he hit the mark. I think it would have made a big difference if he did shoot at a man fleeing, because it doesn't seem like self-defense to me. except conflicting witness testimonies, ya know.... Well yeah, that's why Wilson wasn't indicted, isn't it? It doesn't make it the truth. Conflicting witness testimonies don't mean that he didn't shoot Brown in the back, it just means the case is dropped. I know it's no use dwelling over speculations like these, but still, it's hard to not understand why people would be pissed off. Got bad new for you, if something is the "truth" doesn't matter in court. Thats not its job. If the evidence doesn't support bringing a case, one isn't brought. And the court should never concern itself with public opinion. Got good news for you, I knew that already, I never said justice should concern itself with it. I just meant for all the guys in this thread to get off their high horses and not tell people in the streets to shut their whining and to read the transcripts, when in fact, the transcripts don't say much. They sure damn say that the case doesn't hold up, they aren't clear enough to know what indeed happened (at least for me they aren't, but I'm lucid enough to see why the case was ruled out). And for the last time, dAPhREAk, I fucking know already that he wasn't hit in back. My point is that it would make a big difference if Wilson even attempted to shoot the guy down while he was fleeing the scene. Actually would it? I don't even know haha, I don't really know how it works in the US. Maybe you can just shoot down a guy who hits you and then flees, and that's still self-defense.
Except you know... witness testimonies... All the ones that did say he shot brown while running away changed their story.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
