|
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. |
It would be very strange to believe that Wilson shot at Brown in the back, but not one shot hit, then he turned around and hit him with 6 shots. All shots that hit were in the front. The forensic evidence supports the testimony of Wilson, and others, that the first shot (after the car) was fired with Brown facing and advancing on Wilson. To believe he was shot at in the back seems silly to me. There's a more plausible alternative with physical evidence backing it up.
|
On November 26 2014 05:27 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 05:24 ZenithM wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
I didn't read anything about that. So if they all did, then my bad, my rambling was pointless.
On November 26 2014 05:27 NovaTheFeared wrote:
It would be very strange to believe that Wilson shot at Brown in the back, but not one shot hit, then he turned around and hit him with 6 shots. All shots that hit were in the front. The forensic evidence supports the testimony of Wilson, and others, that the first shot (after the car) was fired with Brown facing and advancing on Wilson. To believe he was shot at in the back seems silly to me. There's a more plausible alternative with physical evidence backing it up.
I don't know, why would Brown have turned around, if not because he was threatened with gun fire? Why would he come back if no shot was fired? It doesn't seem more plausible to me that Wilson didn't shoot and Brown turned around from himself rather than Brown turned around after being shot at.
And because I see the others coming from a mile away, I know what I'm saying is not relevant to justice and that physical evidence don't back those flimsy theories and that it's normal the case was dropped and that it's no use thinking about it, so keep those comments for yourself.
|
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 (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.
you cannot. not sure why you would even pose the idiotic question.
|
On November 26 2014 05:27 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 05:24 ZenithM wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
It sounds like you only read 1-2 of the witness testimonies.
The general consensus from the witness testimonies is that the officer shot to kill after brown had stopped charging and was barely moving forward at all due to the gunshot wounds he had sustained at which point the officer unloaded a second volley of rounds executing brown when he posed no real threat to the officer.
|
On November 26 2014 05:33 Vegetarian wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 05:27 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 05:24 ZenithM wrote: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:
[quote]
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. It sounds like you only read 1-2 of the witness testimonies. The general consensus from the witness testimonies is that the officer shot to kill after brown had stopped charging and was barely moving forward at all due to the gunshot wounds he had sustained at which point the officer unloaded a second volley of rounds executing brown when he was no real threat to the officer.
That sounds like some selective reading right there. Lets be clear, this is not video games, he likely couldn't even tell if he hit Brown after firing the first volley of 3 shots.
|
On November 26 2014 05:32 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 05:24 ZenithM wrote: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:
[quote]
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. you cannot. not sure why you would even pose the idiotic question.
As was pointed out already in some states it would be legal.
|
On November 26 2014 05:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 05:32 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 26 2014 05:24 ZenithM wrote: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:
[quote]
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. you cannot. not sure why you would even pose the idiotic question. As was pointed out already in some states it would be legal.
please show me which states allow you to shoot someone in the back after they flee.
|
On November 26 2014 05:34 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 05:33 Vegetarian wrote:On November 26 2014 05:27 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 05:24 ZenithM wrote: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:
[quote]
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. It sounds like you only read 1-2 of the witness testimonies. The general consensus from the witness testimonies is that the officer shot to kill after brown had stopped charging and was barely moving forward at all due to the gunshot wounds he had sustained at which point the officer unloaded a second volley of rounds executing brown when he was no real threat to the officer. That sounds like some selective reading right there. Lets be clear, this is not video games, he likely couldn't even tell if he hit Brown after firing the first volley of 3 shots.
I wonder why it seemed obvious to so many of the witnesses that brown had been injured and was not charging full speed at the officer when he was executed.
|
On November 26 2014 05:34 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 05:33 Vegetarian wrote:On November 26 2014 05:27 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 05:24 ZenithM wrote: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:
[quote]
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. It sounds like you only read 1-2 of the witness testimonies. The general consensus from the witness testimonies is that the officer shot to kill after brown had stopped charging and was barely moving forward at all due to the gunshot wounds he had sustained at which point the officer unloaded a second volley of rounds executing brown when he was no real threat to the officer. That sounds like some selective reading right there. Lets be clear, this is not video games, he likely couldn't even tell if he hit Brown after firing the first volley of 3 shots.
Sounded like more than 3
|
On November 26 2014 05:36 Vegetarian wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 05:34 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 05:33 Vegetarian wrote:On November 26 2014 05:27 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 05:24 ZenithM wrote: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:
[quote]
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. It sounds like you only read 1-2 of the witness testimonies. The general consensus from the witness testimonies is that the officer shot to kill after brown had stopped charging and was barely moving forward at all due to the gunshot wounds he had sustained at which point the officer unloaded a second volley of rounds executing brown when he was no real threat to the officer. That sounds like some selective reading right there. Lets be clear, this is not video games, he likely couldn't even tell if he hit Brown after firing the first volley of 3 shots. I wonder why it seemed obvious to so many of the witnesses that brown had been injured and was not charging full speed at the officer when he was executed.
Because they filled in the blanks after the fact to fit their narrative. That is why there is increasing doubt of witness testimony, especially with cases that receive a lot of media coverage.
|
On November 26 2014 05:36 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 05:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 05:32 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 26 2014 05:24 ZenithM wrote: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:
[quote]
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. you cannot. not sure why you would even pose the idiotic question. As was pointed out already in some states it would be legal. please show me which states allow you to shoot someone in the back after they flee.
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 05:36 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 05:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 05:32 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 26 2014 05:24 ZenithM wrote: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:
[quote]
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. you cannot. not sure why you would even pose the idiotic question. As was pointed out already in some states it would be legal. please show me which states allow you to shoot someone in the back after they flee.
Well I can see why it would be legal. To catch criminals, for starters? My point was: it can't be self-defense at that point, surely, right? I don't know what the US thinks of that. And sorry for being idiotic, in my idiotic country you don't have the right to shoot people who enter your home and even (!) steal your stuff. I know, I know, how idiotic, so you can very well see how I have idiotic doubts on how it works in the US.
|
On November 26 2014 05:38 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 05:36 Vegetarian wrote:On November 26 2014 05:34 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 05:33 Vegetarian wrote:On November 26 2014 05:27 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 05:24 ZenithM wrote: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:
[quote]
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. It sounds like you only read 1-2 of the witness testimonies. The general consensus from the witness testimonies is that the officer shot to kill after brown had stopped charging and was barely moving forward at all due to the gunshot wounds he had sustained at which point the officer unloaded a second volley of rounds executing brown when he was no real threat to the officer. That sounds like some selective reading right there. Lets be clear, this is not video games, he likely couldn't even tell if he hit Brown after firing the first volley of 3 shots. I wonder why it seemed obvious to so many of the witnesses that brown had been injured and was not charging full speed at the officer when he was executed. Because they filled in the blanks after the fact to fit their narrative. That is why there is increasing doubt of witness testimony, especially with cases that receive a lot of media coverage.
Am I to take it you were convinced by the officers testimony?
|
On November 26 2014 05:33 Vegetarian wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 05:27 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 05:24 ZenithM wrote: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:
[quote]
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. It sounds like you only read 1-2 of the witness testimonies. The general consensus from the witness testimonies is that the officer shot to kill after brown had stopped charging and was barely moving forward at all due to the gunshot wounds he had sustained at which point the officer unloaded a second volley of rounds executing brown when he posed no real threat to the officer.
lolololololololololololololololol
if that was general consensus this would have gone to court. lol
|
Years will pass and the State will demand federal money to protect such buildings from floods etc.
Money is flowing now to Gulf Coast states to remedy damage from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion and subsequent spill. All kinds of projects are underway, from building boat ramps to shoring-up marshland.
They're being paid for with a $1 billion down payment BP made toward its ultimate responsibility to make the Gulf Coast whole, a figure estimated to be up to $18 billion.
With that much money at stake, just what qualifies as coastal restoration has become a matter of debate.
Environmentalists are suing to stop BP funds from paying for a hotel development, and say the money should only be used for ecological projects.
One of those is underway in Pensacola Beach, Fla., where tall street lights in a public beach parking lot threaten sea turtles.
"At night, they are beacons," says Ben Frater, a restoration biologist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Sea turtle hatchlings instinctively use light reflected off the water to direct them to their home in the Gulf of Mexico.
"So they're instead misoriented, they get confused," Frater says.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is one of several agencies charged with what's called the Natural Resource Damage Assessment — measuring and repairing the injury from the worst offshore oil disaster in U.S. history.
Frater is overseeing a project on Pensacola Beach to lower the lights, shield them from the beach and use amber bulbs that turtles can't see. He says improving sea turtle habitat qualifies as a restoration project because the oil spill and cleanup disrupted sea turtle nesting patterns.
"Being here when the spill was happening and seeing the dead birds covered in oil and seeing the turtles, it feels good to start restoration," Frater says.
Trustees from the five Gulf Coast states and four federal agencies oversee the spending. But not all restoration is about helping sea creatures or the ecosystem.
Nearly $60 million is set aside to build a beach hotel and conference center at a state park on the Alabama Gulf Coast. Frater says trustees found it to qualify under federal rules.
Source
|
On November 26 2014 05:39 Vegetarian wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 05:38 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 05:36 Vegetarian wrote:On November 26 2014 05:34 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 05:33 Vegetarian wrote:On November 26 2014 05:27 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 05:24 ZenithM wrote:On November 26 2014 05:17 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 05:15 ZenithM wrote: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. It sounds like you only read 1-2 of the witness testimonies. The general consensus from the witness testimonies is that the officer shot to kill after brown had stopped charging and was barely moving forward at all due to the gunshot wounds he had sustained at which point the officer unloaded a second volley of rounds executing brown when he was no real threat to the officer. That sounds like some selective reading right there. Lets be clear, this is not video games, he likely couldn't even tell if he hit Brown after firing the first volley of 3 shots. I wonder why it seemed obvious to so many of the witnesses that brown had been injured and was not charging full speed at the officer when he was executed. Because they filled in the blanks after the fact to fit their narrative. That is why there is increasing doubt of witness testimony, especially with cases that receive a lot of media coverage. Am I to take it you were convinced by the officers testimony?
It matches the physical evidence, and I am sure that he how he felt at the time. He doesn't have anything that conflicts with the physical evidence.
On November 26 2014 05:41 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 05:33 Vegetarian wrote:On November 26 2014 05:27 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 05:24 ZenithM wrote: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:
[quote]
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. It sounds like you only read 1-2 of the witness testimonies. The general consensus from the witness testimonies is that the officer shot to kill after brown had stopped charging and was barely moving forward at all due to the gunshot wounds he had sustained at which point the officer unloaded a second volley of rounds executing brown when he posed no real threat to the officer. lolololololololololololololololol if that was general consensus this would have gone to court. lol
Yeah, I didn't want to go there. The consensus of people who are less informed than the jury.
|
On November 26 2014 05:42 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 05:39 Vegetarian wrote:On November 26 2014 05:38 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 05:36 Vegetarian wrote:On November 26 2014 05:34 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 05:33 Vegetarian wrote:On November 26 2014 05:27 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 05:24 ZenithM wrote:On November 26 2014 05:17 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 05:15 ZenithM wrote:
[quote]
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. It sounds like you only read 1-2 of the witness testimonies. The general consensus from the witness testimonies is that the officer shot to kill after brown had stopped charging and was barely moving forward at all due to the gunshot wounds he had sustained at which point the officer unloaded a second volley of rounds executing brown when he was no real threat to the officer. That sounds like some selective reading right there. Lets be clear, this is not video games, he likely couldn't even tell if he hit Brown after firing the first volley of 3 shots. I wonder why it seemed obvious to so many of the witnesses that brown had been injured and was not charging full speed at the officer when he was executed. Because they filled in the blanks after the fact to fit their narrative. That is why there is increasing doubt of witness testimony, especially with cases that receive a lot of media coverage. Am I to take it you were convinced by the officers testimony? It matches the physical evidence, and I am sure that he how he felt at the time. He doesn't have anything that conflicts with the physical evidence.
Care to explain how it matches the physical evidence or is that just what you read?
|
On November 26 2014 05:41 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 05:33 Vegetarian wrote:On November 26 2014 05:27 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 05:24 ZenithM wrote: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:
[quote]
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. It sounds like you only read 1-2 of the witness testimonies. The general consensus from the witness testimonies is that the officer shot to kill after brown had stopped charging and was barely moving forward at all due to the gunshot wounds he had sustained at which point the officer unloaded a second volley of rounds executing brown when he posed no real threat to the officer. lolololololololololololololololol if that was general consensus this would have gone to court. lol
It obviously should have gone to court.
A police officer kills an unarmed man, shooting him 7 times, gives some ridiculous testimony that should give anyone pause, while a host of witnesses claim he executed the kid after he was surrendering.
|
On November 26 2014 05:39 Vegetarian wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 05:38 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 05:36 Vegetarian wrote:On November 26 2014 05:34 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 05:33 Vegetarian wrote:On November 26 2014 05:27 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 05:24 ZenithM wrote:On November 26 2014 05:17 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 05:15 ZenithM wrote: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. It sounds like you only read 1-2 of the witness testimonies. The general consensus from the witness testimonies is that the officer shot to kill after brown had stopped charging and was barely moving forward at all due to the gunshot wounds he had sustained at which point the officer unloaded a second volley of rounds executing brown when he was no real threat to the officer. That sounds like some selective reading right there. Lets be clear, this is not video games, he likely couldn't even tell if he hit Brown after firing the first volley of 3 shots. I wonder why it seemed obvious to so many of the witnesses that brown had been injured and was not charging full speed at the officer when he was executed. Because they filled in the blanks after the fact to fit their narrative. That is why there is increasing doubt of witness testimony, especially with cases that receive a lot of media coverage. Am I to take it you were convinced by the officers testimony?
Let's just cut to the point. Can you really argue with a straight face that Wilson is guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt? I don't care about what you think happened. I just want to know whether you're willing to say you have no doubt regarding what happened.
|
On November 26 2014 05:39 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 05:36 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 26 2014 05:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 26 2014 05:32 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 26 2014 05:24 ZenithM wrote: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:
[quote]
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. you cannot. not sure why you would even pose the idiotic question. As was pointed out already in some states it would be legal. please show me which states allow you to shoot someone in the back after they flee. Well I can see why it would be legal. To catch criminals, for starters? My point was: it can't be self-defense at that point, surely, right? I don't know what the US thinks of that. And sorry for being idiotic, in my idiotic country you don't have the right to shoot people who enter your home and even (!) steal your stuff. I know, I know, how idiotic, so you can very well see how I have idiotic doubts on how it works in the US.
shooting criminals to apprehend them is not self defense. generally, you dont have the right to shoot people who are stealing your stuff. you do have the right to protect your home in most states though.
do you really want to compare the french and american (which is based on the english system) systems?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
