|
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 05:44 xDaunt 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? 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.
It doesn't have to be murder.
|
On November 26 2014 05:44 Vegetarian wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 05:41 wei2coolman 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 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.
So the same evidence could be provided to another jury and them find him not guilty? Because nothing would have changed. The DA said any defense attorney worth his/her salt would have destroyed the case.
|
On November 26 2014 05:44 xDaunt 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? 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.
the bigger joke is that grand jury's ruling is a lot more loose in regards to indictment than it is to reach a guilty verdict. The lack of evidence of a crime is so thin, that they don't even think it's worth going to court over. That's how ridiculous the people are claiming Wilson "murdered" Brown sounds.
|
On November 26 2014 05:44 xDaunt 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? 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.
I have no doubt that the officer used unjustifiable excessive force in murdering an unarmed civilian.
|
On November 26 2014 05:46 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 05:44 xDaunt wrote: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:
[quote]
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. the bigger joke is that grand jury's ruling is a lot more loose in regards to indictment than it is to reach a guilty verdict. The lack of evidence of a crime being murdered is so thin, that they don't even think it's worth going to court over. That's how ridiculous the people are claiming Wilson "murdered" Brown sounds.
It wouldn't have even made man slaughter with the current evidence.
|
On November 26 2014 05:45 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 05:44 xDaunt wrote: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:
[quote]
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. It doesn't have to be murder.
It wasn't excessive force either according to grand jury.
|
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.
I'm reading a lot of Brown was always moving towards Wilson and Wilson was telling Brown to stop.
I don't think we can ascertain the exact speed of Brown's movement. I don't think it's particularly relevant either. Brown had already struck Wilson multiple times and there seems to have been a struggle over Wilson's gun. It is entirely reasonable then for Wilson to assume that Brown's continued advances were hostile.
At least one witness seemed to think that Brown's advances were a sign of surrender, but that logic is really bizarre.
|
Just curious are any of the people defending Wilson black? Because the perception of the 'justice' system is wildly different.
For those who would point at the proceedings like wei2 "it wasn't excessive force according to the grand jury" I have a few questions.
Do you think the justice system is fair (treats all people equally regardless of race)?
If so, when did that happen?
Saying 'the system' says he's innocent is righteously questioned by those who have seen the system, lie to, cheat, and abuse their peers.
|
On November 26 2014 05:47 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 05:46 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 05:44 xDaunt wrote: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:
[quote]
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. the bigger joke is that grand jury's ruling is a lot more loose in regards to indictment than it is to reach a guilty verdict. The lack of evidence of a crime being murdered is so thin, that they don't even think it's worth going to court over. That's how ridiculous the people are claiming Wilson "murdered" Brown sounds. It wouldn't have even made man slaughter with the current evidence.
Not with such a biased DA responsible for getting the indictment. The DA's entire family worked for the St. Louis police department. His father was a police officer killed on duty by a black man. Any unbiased DA would have gotten an indictment despite the testimony and evidence not being as clear cut as it could have been. This is what trials are for.
|
greenhorizons, i am still waiting for you to show me which states you can legally shoot someone in the back while fleeing. i am very curious.
|
On November 26 2014 05:55 Vegetarian wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 05:47 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 05:46 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 05:44 xDaunt wrote: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:
[quote]
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. the bigger joke is that grand jury's ruling is a lot more loose in regards to indictment than it is to reach a guilty verdict. The lack of evidence of a crime being murdered is so thin, that they don't even think it's worth going to court over. That's how ridiculous the people are claiming Wilson "murdered" Brown sounds. It wouldn't have even made man slaughter with the current evidence. Not with such a biased DA responsible for getting the indictment. The DA's entire family worked for the St. Louis police department. His father was a police officer killed on duty by a black man. Any unbiased DA would have gotten an indictment despite the testimony and evidence not being as clear cut as it could have been. This is what trials are for.
that's the joke. the evidence was so shaky, 12 individual jurors could have just said "yo lets see what pans out in court". but lol, the evidence was such a joke that they didn't even bother to do that much.
|
On November 26 2014 05:50 JonnyBNoHo 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. I'm reading a lot of Brown was always moving towards Wilson and Wilson was telling Brown to stop. I don't think we can ascertain the exact speed of Brown's movement. I don't think it's particularly relevant either. Brown had already struck Wilson multiple times and there seems to have been a struggle over Wilson's gun. It is entirely reasonable then for Wilson to assume that Brown's continued advances were hostile. At least one witness seemed to think that Brown's advances were a sign of surrender, but that logic is really bizarre.
If wilson was scared for his life, then why does he exit his vehicle and chase after brown instead of waiting for back up? Why after firing multiple shots and seeing brown stagger does he not retreat further? Why does the officer have to stand his ground and kill a civilian who it is his job to protect, instead of just running away?
Can wilson really not out run a 300 pound man?
Some of the witnesses seemed to think brown stopped advancing, curled over, and started barely advancing forward when he was clearly injured and incapable of rapid movement. Doesn't seem that bizarre when your talking about a 300 pound man who gets shot a few times and is going to have a little difficulty stopping his momentum.
|
On November 26 2014 05:45 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 05:44 xDaunt wrote: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:
[quote]
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. It doesn't have to be murder.
Yeah, I know. I'm just keeping it simple. I should have said "unlawful killing."
|
On November 26 2014 05:57 Vegetarian wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 05:50 JonnyBNoHo 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 posed no real threat to the officer. I'm reading a lot of Brown was always moving towards Wilson and Wilson was telling Brown to stop. I don't think we can ascertain the exact speed of Brown's movement. I don't think it's particularly relevant either. Brown had already struck Wilson multiple times and there seems to have been a struggle over Wilson's gun. It is entirely reasonable then for Wilson to assume that Brown's continued advances were hostile. At least one witness seemed to think that Brown's advances were a sign of surrender, but that logic is really bizarre. If wilson was scared for his life, then why does he exit his vehicle and chase after brown instead of waiting for back up? Why after firing multiple shots and seeing brown stagger does he not retreat further? Why does the officer have to stand his ground and kill a civilian who it is his job to protect, instead of just running away? Can wilson really not out run a 300 pound man?
So police are supposed to run away when criminals are scary?
|
On November 26 2014 05:57 Vegetarian wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 05:50 JonnyBNoHo 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 posed no real threat to the officer. I'm reading a lot of Brown was always moving towards Wilson and Wilson was telling Brown to stop. I don't think we can ascertain the exact speed of Brown's movement. I don't think it's particularly relevant either. Brown had already struck Wilson multiple times and there seems to have been a struggle over Wilson's gun. It is entirely reasonable then for Wilson to assume that Brown's continued advances were hostile. At least one witness seemed to think that Brown's advances were a sign of surrender, but that logic is really bizarre. If wilson was scared for his life, then why does he exit his vehicle and chase after brown instead of waiting for back up? Why after firing multiple shots and seeing brown stagger does he not retreat further? Why does the officer have to stand his ground and kill a civilian who it is his job to protect, instead of just running away? Can wilson really not out run a 300 pound man?
Minus the fact that his job was to arrest him for theft...
|
On November 26 2014 05:59 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 05:57 Vegetarian wrote:On November 26 2014 05:50 JonnyBNoHo 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 posed no real threat to the officer. I'm reading a lot of Brown was always moving towards Wilson and Wilson was telling Brown to stop. I don't think we can ascertain the exact speed of Brown's movement. I don't think it's particularly relevant either. Brown had already struck Wilson multiple times and there seems to have been a struggle over Wilson's gun. It is entirely reasonable then for Wilson to assume that Brown's continued advances were hostile. At least one witness seemed to think that Brown's advances were a sign of surrender, but that logic is really bizarre. If wilson was scared for his life, then why does he exit his vehicle and chase after brown instead of waiting for back up? Why after firing multiple shots and seeing brown stagger does he not retreat further? Why does the officer have to stand his ground and kill a civilian who it is his job to protect, instead of just running away? Can wilson really not out run a 300 pound man? So police are supposed to run away when criminals are scary?
No, you should obviously be shot for stealing a candybar and the police officer should be promoted for ridding the world of such a dangerous criminal.
|
On November 26 2014 06:00 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 05:57 Vegetarian wrote:On November 26 2014 05:50 JonnyBNoHo 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 posed no real threat to the officer. I'm reading a lot of Brown was always moving towards Wilson and Wilson was telling Brown to stop. I don't think we can ascertain the exact speed of Brown's movement. I don't think it's particularly relevant either. Brown had already struck Wilson multiple times and there seems to have been a struggle over Wilson's gun. It is entirely reasonable then for Wilson to assume that Brown's continued advances were hostile. At least one witness seemed to think that Brown's advances were a sign of surrender, but that logic is really bizarre. If wilson was scared for his life, then why does he exit his vehicle and chase after brown instead of waiting for back up? Why after firing multiple shots and seeing brown stagger does he not retreat further? Why does the officer have to stand his ground and kill a civilian who it is his job to protect, instead of just running away? Can wilson really not out run a 300 pound man? Minus the fact that his job was to arrest him for theft...
Given the evidence and testimony it seems highly unlikely wilson thought brown was a robbery suspect.
|
On November 26 2014 05:46 Vegetarian wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 05:44 xDaunt wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I have no doubt that the officer used unjustifiable excessive force in murdering an unarmed civilian.
You can't possibly say that unless, 1) you're ignorant of the law or 2) you're ignorant of the facts. There's no court in the land that would conclude that Wilson unlawfully killed Brown beyond a reasonable doubt. The forensic evidence and competing witness statements make it impossible.
|
On November 26 2014 06:01 Vegetarian wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 06:00 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 05:57 Vegetarian wrote:On November 26 2014 05:50 JonnyBNoHo 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 posed no real threat to the officer. I'm reading a lot of Brown was always moving towards Wilson and Wilson was telling Brown to stop. I don't think we can ascertain the exact speed of Brown's movement. I don't think it's particularly relevant either. Brown had already struck Wilson multiple times and there seems to have been a struggle over Wilson's gun. It is entirely reasonable then for Wilson to assume that Brown's continued advances were hostile. At least one witness seemed to think that Brown's advances were a sign of surrender, but that logic is really bizarre. If wilson was scared for his life, then why does he exit his vehicle and chase after brown instead of waiting for back up? Why after firing multiple shots and seeing brown stagger does he not retreat further? Why does the officer have to stand his ground and kill a civilian who it is his job to protect, instead of just running away? Can wilson really not out run a 300 pound man? Minus the fact that his job was to arrest him for theft... Given the evidence and testimony it seems highly unlikely wilson thought brown was a robbery suspect.
wat? except the fact that he heard over his radio that there was a theft with description of the shoplifting... ?
|
On November 26 2014 05:59 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 05:57 Vegetarian wrote:On November 26 2014 05:50 JonnyBNoHo 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 posed no real threat to the officer. I'm reading a lot of Brown was always moving towards Wilson and Wilson was telling Brown to stop. I don't think we can ascertain the exact speed of Brown's movement. I don't think it's particularly relevant either. Brown had already struck Wilson multiple times and there seems to have been a struggle over Wilson's gun. It is entirely reasonable then for Wilson to assume that Brown's continued advances were hostile. At least one witness seemed to think that Brown's advances were a sign of surrender, but that logic is really bizarre. If wilson was scared for his life, then why does he exit his vehicle and chase after brown instead of waiting for back up? Why after firing multiple shots and seeing brown stagger does he not retreat further? Why does the officer have to stand his ground and kill a civilian who it is his job to protect, instead of just running away? Can wilson really not out run a 300 pound man? So police are supposed to run away when criminals are scary?
Police are supposed to deescalate the situation or wait for back up if they are not capable of doing that. Police are not supposed to play rambo and kill unarmed civilians.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
