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.
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.
I think you missed the part where he attacked the officer and attempted to take his gun. I am pretty sure that was a major factor in why the shoot took place,rather than the candy bar.
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.
Well clearly you have made up your mind on this one and are going to confirmation bias your way to the result you want.
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 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... ?
That has not been established, and the police department has made claims to the contrary. If you read wilsons testimony, the stuff about the robbery is not remotely compelling and full of holes that even the most naive people should be able to see through.
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 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.
I think you missed the part where he attacked the officer and attempted to take his gun.
It was more a general point regarding the question whether a police officer should rather retreat or "do his job". And if the police officer retreats instead of getting into a situation that ends up with one dead person, I think he should most definitely retreat.
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 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.
I think you missed the part where he attacked the officer and attempted to take his gun. I am pretty sure that was a major factor in why the shoot took place,rather than the candy bar.
Except that he didn't take his gun, got shot in the hand, and ran away from the police officer. The officer then pursued him and shot him 6 additional times when he was unarmed, and at a distance that did not render him a threat to the uninjured and more mobile wilson.
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.
This is why the orbital socket propaganda was spread, the video of the store, and evidence that shots were fired in the car but 0 accounts of what happened after he left his car. So that whatever happened after that would be justified in people's minds.
I don't think he would of been convicted of anything based on the evidence, my point is that with some better training and rules, incidents like this can be avoided, lives can be saved, and it doesn't have to put the officers in significantly more danger.
Just assessing/proceeding with threats would make a huge difference. Think the rookie cop who just shot an innocent unarmed man just outside his own door (inside his apartment building).
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.
It doesn't have to be murder.
It wasn't excessive force either according to grand jury.
Yes, that's been established; however, grand juries are notoriously bad at understanding how the hierarchy of charging works, particularly when, like in this case, the jurors are given no specific instruction as to which charge to consider. In most states that regularly rely on grand juries, informing the jury of specific charge guidelines and the prosecutor's intentions so that they can assess the evidence in an appropriate context is the norm.
Of course, this is not to say that the jury was necessarily uninformed as to what the contours of a lower charge like involuntary manslaughter are, rather that the outcome of the civil trial will likely be the venue in which we will actually be able to tell whether or not the grand jury performed its duties appropriately.
What I find funny is that grand jury reform is something this country needs rather badly, and yet this debacle is really not a good example of why, at least not yet. The prosecutor, McCulloch, has a fairly pro-enforcement history, and there are whispers of some sketchy past associations, but there isn't really anything, as of today, that suggests that the Ferguson scenario is a good flashpoint for grand jury reform.
That being said, it is an excellent example of our horrible demographic and disenfranchisement problem, no matter how many times someone says Al Sharpton or pores over a CNN broadcast, looking for a reason to continue to ignore the plight of minorities in the US.
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 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.
Well clearly you have made up your mind on this one and are going to confirmation bias your way to the result you want.
Your the one that hasn't even read through the testimony and seems to think that if brown had previously broken any laws, the officer was fully justified in murdering him. Really its quite baffling.
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 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.
I think you missed the part where he attacked the officer and attempted to take his gun.
It was more a general point regarding the question whether a police officer should rather retreat or "do his job". And if the police officer retreats instead of getting into a situation that ends up with one dead person, I think he should most definitely retreat.
So once again, if a criminal attacks a police officer, is unarmed and then feels, the officer should not go after him because it might end with someone dead?
Great, I feel super safe now. Police should stop chasing criminals because "someone might get hurt". Mind you, by not chasing them, someone else might get hurt.
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.
This is why the orbital socket propaganda was spread, the video of the store, and evidence that shots were fired in the car but 0 accounts of what happened after he left his car. So that whatever happened after that would be justified in people's minds.
I don't think he would of been convicted of anything based on the evidence, my point is that with some better training and rules, incidents like this can be avoided, lives can be saved, and it doesn't have to put the officers in significantly more danger.
Just assessing/proceeding with threats would make a huge difference. Think the rookie cop who just shot an innocent unarmed man just outside his own door (inside his apartment building).
yeah, if only Wilson was a trained MMA fighter with years of hand to hand combat experience, he could just knocked Brown the fuck out with a single right straight instead of using his fire arm. Completely rational expectation of a regular police officer.
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 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.
I think you missed the part where he attacked the officer and attempted to take his gun.
It was more a general point regarding the question whether a police officer should rather retreat or "do his job". And if the police officer retreats instead of getting into a situation that ends up with one dead person, I think he should most definitely retreat.
So once again, if a criminal attacks a police officer, is unarmed and then feels, the officer should not go after him because it might end with someone dead?
Great, I feel super safe now. Police should stop chasing criminals because "someone might get hurt". Mind you, by not chasing them, someone else might get hurt.
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 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.
I think you missed the part where he attacked the officer and attempted to take his gun.
It was more a general point regarding the question whether a police officer should rather retreat or "do his job". And if the police officer retreats instead of getting into a situation that ends up with one dead person, I think he should most definitely retreat.
So once again, if a criminal attacks a police officer, is unarmed and then feels, the officer should not go after him because it might end with someone dead?
Great, I feel super safe now. Police should stop chasing criminals because "someone might get hurt". Mind you, by not chasing them, someone else might get hurt.
If the officer is not capable of ending the confrontation without killing the person then of course the officer should not give chase.
Most police departments stop high speed chases when they get into densely populated areas as they realize continuing the chase would put too many lives at risk.
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 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.
I think you missed the part where he attacked the officer and attempted to take his gun.
It was more a general point regarding the question whether a police officer should rather retreat or "do his job". And if the police officer retreats instead of getting into a situation that ends up with one dead person, I think he should most definitely retreat.
So once again, if a criminal attacks a police officer, is unarmed and then feels, the officer should not go after him because it might end with someone dead?
Great, I feel super safe now. Police should stop chasing criminals because "someone might get hurt". Mind you, by not chasing them, someone else might get hurt.
Yes, I think a thief should rather get away for the moment than to risk his life. He has the right to be protected to, you know? Criminals don't stop being people. The police officers job is to get him in front of a court, not execute him. In my opinion police officers should at least work ins groups of two because this would probably will these confrontations altogether. No one is going to attack two cops at the same time.
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 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.
I think you missed the part where he attacked the officer and attempted to take his gun.
It was more a general point regarding the question whether a police officer should rather retreat or "do his job". And if the police officer retreats instead of getting into a situation that ends up with one dead person, I think he should most definitely retreat.
So once again, if a criminal attacks a police officer, is unarmed and then feels, the officer should not go after him because it might end with someone dead?
Great, I feel super safe now. Police should stop chasing criminals because "someone might get hurt". Mind you, by not chasing them, someone else might get hurt.
We have laws like that for high-speed chases?
which entails keeping space away from the vehicle (but following) without trying to incite more reckless driving.
Of which, Wilson kept chase with distance from Brown, telling him to get on the ground.
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 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.
I think you missed the part where he attacked the officer and attempted to take his gun.
It was more a general point regarding the question whether a police officer should rather retreat or "do his job". And if the police officer retreats instead of getting into a situation that ends up with one dead person, I think he should most definitely retreat.
So once again, if a criminal attacks a police officer, is unarmed and then feels, the officer should not go after him because it might end with someone dead?
Great, I feel super safe now. Police should stop chasing criminals because "someone might get hurt". Mind you, by not chasing them, someone else might get hurt.
Yes, I think a thief should rather get away for the moment than to risk his life. He has the right to be protected to, you know? Criminals don't stop being people. The police officers job is to get him in front of a court, not execute him. In my opinion police officers should at least work ins groups of two because this will probably will avoid these confrontations altogether. No one is going to attack two cops at the same time.
We've a got a thing about our property here in the US. Call us materialistic
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 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.
I think you missed the part where he attacked the officer and attempted to take his gun.
It was more a general point regarding the question whether a police officer should rather retreat or "do his job". And if the police officer retreats instead of getting into a situation that ends up with one dead person, I think he should most definitely retreat.
So once again, if a criminal attacks a police officer, is unarmed and then feels, the officer should not go after him because it might end with someone dead?
Great, I feel super safe now. Police should stop chasing criminals because "someone might get hurt". Mind you, by not chasing them, someone else might get hurt.
Yes, I think a thief should rather get away for the moment than to risk his life. He has the right to be protected to, you know? Criminals don't stop being people. The police officers job is to get him in front of a court, not execute him. In my opinion police officers should at least work ins groups of two because this will probably will avoid these confrontations altogether. No one is going to attack two cops at the same time.
No one would dare attack two cops while having a taser attached to their chest!
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.
This is why the orbital socket propaganda was spread, the video of the store, and evidence that shots were fired in the car but 0 accounts of what happened after he left his car. So that whatever happened after that would be justified in people's minds.
I don't think he would of been convicted of anything based on the evidence, my point is that with some better training and rules, incidents like this can be avoided, lives can be saved, and it doesn't have to put the officers in significantly more danger.
Just assessing/proceeding with threats would make a huge difference. Think the rookie cop who just shot an innocent unarmed man just outside his own door (inside his apartment building).
yeah, if only Wilson was a trained MMA fighter with years of hand to hand combat experience, he could just knocked Brown the fuck out with a single right straight instead of using his fire arm. Completely rational expectation of a regular police officer.
No. I'm saying he never needed to get in a situation where he felt his life was in imminent danger after Brown fled.
Your MMA fighter non-sense has nothing to do with anything.
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 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.
I think you missed the part where he attacked the officer and attempted to take his gun.
It was more a general point regarding the question whether a police officer should rather retreat or "do his job". And if the police officer retreats instead of getting into a situation that ends up with one dead person, I think he should most definitely retreat.
So once again, if a criminal attacks a police officer, is unarmed and then feels, the officer should not go after him because it might end with someone dead?
Great, I feel super safe now. Police should stop chasing criminals because "someone might get hurt". Mind you, by not chasing them, someone else might get hurt.
Yes, I think a thief should rather get away for the moment than to risk his life. He has the right to be protected to, you know? Criminals don't stop being people. The police officers job is to get him in front of a court, not execute him. In my opinion police officers should at least work ins pairs of two because this will probably will avoid these confrontations altogether. No one is going to attack two cops at the same time.
Except he didn't execute him. He told him to stop and the guy advanced and then he fired. I mean, you can make up shit if you want, but I don't think the officer would have fired if Brown had just submitted to arrest.
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.
This is why the orbital socket propaganda was spread, the video of the store, and evidence that shots were fired in the car but 0 accounts of what happened after he left his car. So that whatever happened after that would be justified in people's minds.
I don't think he would of been convicted of anything based on the evidence, my point is that with some better training and rules, incidents like this can be avoided, lives can be saved, and it doesn't have to put the officers in significantly more danger.
Just assessing/proceeding with threats would make a huge difference. Think the rookie cop who just shot an innocent unarmed man just outside his own door (inside his apartment building).
yeah, if only Wilson was a trained MMA fighter with years of hand to hand combat experience, he could just knocked Brown the fuck out with a single right straight instead of using his fire arm. Completely rational expectation of a regular police officer.
No. I'm saying he never needed to get in a situation where he felt his life was in imminent danger after Brown fled.
Your MMA fighter non-sense has nothing to do with anything.
You mean he never needed to do his job to apprehend a dangerous criminal that has just proven to be dangerous by attacking an officer while he was still in his vehicle???
If a dude has the balls to fucking wail on a cop while a cop is still inside his vehicle, he should be considered dangerous to EVERYONE.
On November 26 2014 06:13 wei2coolman wrote: No one would dare attack two cops while having a taser attached to their chest!
Wow you have literally found one person that attacked two cops. That obviously invalidates the whole idea of keeping the life of the criminal in mind and don't engaging in situation that will end in some kind of John Wayne like shootout.
EPT
