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 05:57 dAPhREAk wrote: 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.
A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead...however...Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, ]it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.
—Justice Byron White, Tennessee v. Garner
ignoring the fact that you are now discussing police officers instead of normal citizens, that does not state that you can shoot someone in the back when they are fleeing. it says you can prevent serious physical harm to yourself or third parties through deadly force. it is a rare occurrence where fleeing presents an imminent threat of harm to anyone; indeed, it is the primary example in law schools of when you CANNOT use deadly force. note, the police officer in Tennessee (who shot someone while fleeing) was allowed to be sued for the act. he was not absolved of liability.
The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
Just criminally. Well I would get into why certain people are more likely to be seen as representing such a imminent threat but that is a hill to high for right now.
Someone can shoot someone in the back while they are fleeing and not go to jail was the point.
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.
It's not uncommon for one person to engage with multiple cops.
But it's probably less common than in situations where you face only one cop. The general point is that the police should avoid creating a unnecessary situation in which a fleeing suspect could think they could get away with attacking the police. A criminal on the chase is not a rational person. Putting everybody into a dangerous situation and just gunning someone down if things go south is terrible, even if the shooting in a vacuum would be considered "justified".
Except Brown did not flee. He was told to stop and rather than doing, advanced on the officer. The only way that Wilson could have avoided that was to just sit in his car and not even attempt to apprehend the criminal that just assaulted him.
Yes, that's what he should have done. Call in assistance and figure out what to do. Why would you need to chase someone down who does not pose an immediate threat?
Guy just punched a cop and fled. It's not unreasonable to consider him a threat to the public.
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.
It's not uncommon for one person to engage with multiple cops.
But it's probably less common than in situations where you face only one cop. The general point is that the police should avoid creating a unnecessary situation in which a fleeing suspect could think they could get away with attacking the police. A criminal on the chase is not a rational person. Putting everybody into a dangerous situation and just gunning someone down if things go south is terrible, even if the shooting in a vacuum would be considered "justified".
Except Brown did not flee. He was told to stop and rather than doing, advanced on the officer. The only way that Wilson could have avoided that was to just sit in his car and not even attempt to apprehend the criminal that just assaulted him.
He could of put more following distance between him and Brown (He ran at least 150ft away). Giving him enough time to retreat if he charged.
The presumption is that he was going to shoot him if he came back toward him (as he clearly had no other plan to deal with Brown confronting him). Without knowing that his several missed shots wouldn't hit innocent bystanders, following at a range where if the suspect turns around and advances you have to shoot, is unnecessarily dangerous.
Like the high speed chase analogy.
You can only let a suspect get so far away from you before you've lost him / are likely to lose him.
In a high speed chase officers will often have helicopter support, which allows them to keep a wide distance without losing the suspect.
The guy was 300 pounds and already had sustained a gunshot to the hand. How hard is it to follow a 300 pounder until back up arrives?
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.
It's not uncommon for one person to engage with multiple cops.
But it's probably less common than in situations where you face only one cop. The general point is that the police should avoid creating a unnecessary situation in which a fleeing suspect could think they could get away with attacking the police. A criminal on the chase is not a rational person. Putting everybody into a dangerous situation and just gunning someone down if things go south is terrible, even if the shooting in a vacuum would be considered "justified".
Except Brown did not flee. He was told to stop and rather than doing, advanced on the officer. The only way that Wilson could have avoided that was to just sit in his car and not even attempt to apprehend the criminal that just assaulted him.
Yes, that's what he should have done. Call in assistance and figure out what to do. Why would you need to chase someone down who does not pose an immediate threat?
Guy just punched a cop and fled. It's not unreasonable to consider him a threat to the public.
Yeah, lets just let the guy who tried to steal a fire arm leave. There is no chance in the time it takes to get back up and find him again that he will get is hands on some sort of weapon or assistance of his own. That will never happen.
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.
It's not uncommon for one person to engage with multiple cops.
But it's probably less common than in situations where you face only one cop. The general point is that the police should avoid creating a unnecessary situation in which a fleeing suspect could think they could get away with attacking the police. A criminal on the chase is not a rational person. Putting everybody into a dangerous situation and just gunning someone down if things go south is terrible, even if the shooting in a vacuum would be considered "justified".
Except Brown did not flee. He was told to stop and rather than doing, advanced on the officer. The only way that Wilson could have avoided that was to just sit in his car and not even attempt to apprehend the criminal that just assaulted him.
He could of put more following distance between him and Brown (He ran at least 150ft away). Giving him enough time to retreat if he charged.
The presumption is that he was going to shoot him if he came back toward him (as he clearly had no other plan to deal with Brown confronting him). Without knowing that his several missed shots wouldn't hit innocent bystanders, following at a range where if the suspect turns around and advances you have to shoot, is unnecessarily dangerous.
Like the high speed chase analogy.
You can only let a suspect get so far away from you before you've lost him / are likely to lose him.
In a high speed chase officers will often have helicopter support, which allows them to keep a wide distance without losing the suspect.
The guy was 300 pounds and already had sustained a gunshot to the hand. How hard is it to follow a 300 pounder until back up arrives?
Wilson might not have known if any of his shots connected during the initial altercation. This isn't counter strike or COD. Any one who has fired a guy knows is very hard to tell if you hit anything unless your looking right at it(and even then). And I am sure there is no chance anything could go wrong while following him.
On November 26 2014 05:57 dAPhREAk wrote: 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.
A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead...however...Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, ]it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.
—Justice Byron White, Tennessee v. Garner
ignoring the fact that you are now discussing police officers instead of normal citizens, that does not state that you can shoot someone in the back when they are fleeing. it says you can prevent serious physical harm to yourself or third parties through deadly force. it is a rare occurrence where fleeing presents an imminent threat of harm to anyone; indeed, it is the primary example in law schools of when you CANNOT use deadly force. note, the police officer in Tennessee (who shot someone while fleeing) was allowed to be sued for the act. he was not absolved of liability.
The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
Just criminally. Well I would get into why certain people are more likely to be seen as representing such a imminent threat but that is a hill to high for right now.
Someone can shoot someone in the back while they are fleeing and not go to jail was the point.
if thats the point, you missed the mark. you cannot just shoot someone in the back while they are fleeing and claim self defense.
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.
It's not uncommon for one person to engage with multiple cops.
But it's probably less common than in situations where you face only one cop. The general point is that the police should avoid creating a unnecessary situation in which a fleeing suspect could think they could get away with attacking the police. A criminal on the chase is not a rational person. Putting everybody into a dangerous situation and just gunning someone down if things go south is terrible, even if the shooting in a vacuum would be considered "justified".
Except Brown did not flee. He was told to stop and rather than doing, advanced on the officer. The only way that Wilson could have avoided that was to just sit in his car and not even attempt to apprehend the criminal that just assaulted him.
He could of put more following distance between him and Brown (He ran at least 150ft away). Giving him enough time to retreat if he charged.
The presumption is that he was going to shoot him if he came back toward him (as he clearly had no other plan to deal with Brown confronting him). Without knowing that his several missed shots wouldn't hit innocent bystanders, following at a range where if the suspect turns around and advances you have to shoot, is unnecessarily dangerous.
Like the high speed chase analogy.
You can only let a suspect get so far away from you before you've lost him / are likely to lose him.
In a high speed chase officers will often have helicopter support, which allows them to keep a wide distance without losing the suspect.
Yeah... ok... and sometimes they don't. But they don't get to put peoples life in more danger without care. We have laws/training preventing it (in some states/municipalities).
Just saying firing 12 shots in a neighborhood to stop a guy you could of stayed further away (particularly if you thought he would kill you if he got close enough) from doesn't show much concern for what all those shots that missed did/could of hit. I would like laws/procedures that try to prevent that from happening.
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.
It's not uncommon for one person to engage with multiple cops.
But it's probably less common than in situations where you face only one cop. The general point is that the police should avoid creating a unnecessary situation in which a fleeing suspect could think they could get away with attacking the police. A criminal on the chase is not a rational person. Putting everybody into a dangerous situation and just gunning someone down if things go south is terrible, even if the shooting in a vacuum would be considered "justified".
Except Brown did not flee. He was told to stop and rather than doing, advanced on the officer. The only way that Wilson could have avoided that was to just sit in his car and not even attempt to apprehend the criminal that just assaulted him.
He could of put more following distance between him and Brown (He ran at least 150ft away). Giving him enough time to retreat if he charged.
The presumption is that he was going to shoot him if he came back toward him (as he clearly had no other plan to deal with Brown confronting him). Without knowing that his several missed shots wouldn't hit innocent bystanders, following at a range where if the suspect turns around and advances you have to shoot, is unnecessarily dangerous.
Like the high speed chase analogy.
You can only let a suspect get so far away from you before you've lost him / are likely to lose him.
In a high speed chase officers will often have helicopter support, which allows them to keep a wide distance without losing the suspect.
The guy was 300 pounds and already had sustained a gunshot to the hand. How hard is it to follow a 300 pounder until back up arrives?
Edit: I do me offence by that. You're making really crazy posts at a high frequency. What gives?
User was warned for this post
Edit 2: If you let a 300 pound guy with a minor would get a few hundred feet away from you, than yes, it will be hard to prevent him from getting away. This shouldn't be hard to understand for anyone to understand as the officer will often have his line of sight blocked, leading to repeated guessing at which direction the suspect went.
On November 26 2014 05:57 dAPhREAk wrote: 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.
A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead...however...Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, ]it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.
—Justice Byron White, Tennessee v. Garner
ignoring the fact that you are now discussing police officers instead of normal citizens, that does not state that you can shoot someone in the back when they are fleeing. it says you can prevent serious physical harm to yourself or third parties through deadly force. it is a rare occurrence where fleeing presents an imminent threat of harm to anyone; indeed, it is the primary example in law schools of when you CANNOT use deadly force. note, the police officer in Tennessee (who shot someone while fleeing) was allowed to be sued for the act. he was not absolved of liability.
The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
Just criminally. Well I would get into why certain people are more likely to be seen as representing such a imminent threat but that is a hill to high for right now.
Someone can shoot someone in the back while they are fleeing and not go to jail was the point.
if thats the point, you missed the mark. you cannot just shoot someone in the back while they are fleeing and claim self defense.
No one is saying that except you. I am saying under the right circumstances you can shoot a fleeing person in the back and not be criminally convicted.
On November 26 2014 06:53 Vegetarian wrote: It isn't difficult to tell whether or not you have hit someone with a 40 caliber hand gun at a range that a person would be an imminent threat to you.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about or have never been in a fight. One of my previously co workers got stabbed in the leg and didn't know until after the fight.
On November 26 2014 06:53 Vegetarian wrote: It isn't difficult to tell whether or not you have hit someone with a 40 caliber hand gun at a range that a person would be an imminent threat to you.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about or have never been in a fight. One of my previously co workers got stabbed in the leg and didn't know until after the fight.
So you are arguing that wilson would not know if he hit brown with his 40 caliber hand gun. And you claim that because brown might not have known he was shot that the officer would also not know?
All because your co-worker got stabbed and didn't realize it? You do know that gun shot wounds are different from knife stabs? And your scenario applies to brown knowing whether or not he was injured, not wilson being able to tell whether or not he had hit brown. That's some mighty logic there.
On November 26 2014 06:53 Vegetarian wrote: It isn't difficult to tell whether or not you have hit someone with a 40 caliber hand gun at a range that a person would be an imminent threat to you.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about or have never been in a fight. One of my previously co workers got stabbed in the leg and didn't know until after the fight.
So you are arguing that wilson would not know if he hit brown with his 40 caliber hand gun. And you claim that because brown might not have known he was shot that the officer would also not know?
All because your co-worker got stabbed and didn't realize it? You do know that gun shot wounds are different from knife stabs? And your scenario applies to brown knowing whether or not he was injured, not wilson being able to tell whether or not he had hit brown. That's some mighty logic there.
Once again, I stand by my initial statement that you are just going to confirmation bias you way through this argument. Facts don't matter to you, you will latch on to any little thing as long as you can cling to the idea that this case should have gone to trial.
Problem is, 12 people disagreed with you and likely a couple of them were as smart or smarter than you.
On November 26 2014 06:53 Vegetarian wrote: It isn't difficult to tell whether or not you have hit someone with a 40 caliber hand gun at a range that a person would be an imminent threat to you.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about or have never been in a fight. One of my previously co workers got stabbed in the leg and didn't know until after the fight.
So you are arguing that wilson would not know if he hit brown with his 40 caliber hand gun. And you claim that because brown might not have known he was shot that the officer would also not know?
All because your co-worker got stabbed and didn't realize it? You do know that gun shot wounds are different from knife stabs? And your scenario applies to brown knowing whether or not he was injured, not wilson being able to tell whether or not he had hit brown. That's some mighty logic there.
Once again, I stand by my initial statement that you are just going to confirmation bias you way through this argument. Facts don't matter to you, you will latch on to any little thing as long as you can cling to the idea that this case should have gone to trial.
Problem is, 12 people disagreed with you and likely a couple of them were as smart or smarter than you.
Well we don't know all 12 of them did anything only 9 for sure.
On November 26 2014 05:57 dAPhREAk wrote: 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.
A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead...however...Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, ]it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.
—Justice Byron White, Tennessee v. Garner
ignoring the fact that you are now discussing police officers instead of normal citizens, that does not state that you can shoot someone in the back when they are fleeing. it says you can prevent serious physical harm to yourself or third parties through deadly force. it is a rare occurrence where fleeing presents an imminent threat of harm to anyone; indeed, it is the primary example in law schools of when you CANNOT use deadly force. note, the police officer in Tennessee (who shot someone while fleeing) was allowed to be sued for the act. he was not absolved of liability.
The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
Just criminally. Well I would get into why certain people are more likely to be seen as representing such a imminent threat but that is a hill to high for right now.
Someone can shoot someone in the back while they are fleeing and not go to jail was the point.
you said it was legal for someone to shoot someone in the back while fleeing after they hit you. revisionist history doesnt work when i can quote you.
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?
On November 26 2014 05:07 ZenithM wrote: The fact is that Brown wasn't hit in the back. But for me it doesn't really conflict with witnesses saying he was shot in the back. Wilson could very well have fired while he was fleeing and missed, and witnesses could have seen him fire and believed he hit the mark. I think it would have made a big difference if he did shoot at a man fleeing, because it doesn't seem like self-defense to me.
except conflicting witness testimonies, ya know....
Well yeah, that's why Wilson wasn't indicted, isn't it? It doesn't make it the truth. Conflicting witness testimonies don't mean that he didn't shoot Brown in the back, it just means the case is dropped. I know it's no use dwelling over speculations like these, but still, it's hard to not understand why people would be pissed off.
Got bad new for you, if something is the "truth" doesn't matter in court. Thats not its job. If the evidence doesn't support bringing a case, one isn't brought. And the court should never concern itself with public opinion.
Got good news for you, I knew that already, I never said justice should concern itself with it. I just meant for all the guys in this thread to get off their high horses and not tell people in the streets to shut their whining and to read the transcripts, when in fact, the transcripts don't say much. They sure damn say that the case doesn't hold up, they aren't clear enough to know what indeed happened (at least for me they aren't, but I'm lucid enough to see why the case was ruled out).
And for the last time, dAPhREAk (edit: and xDaunt too, then), I fucking know already that he wasn't hit in back. My point is that it would make a big difference if Wilson even attempted to shoot the guy down while he was fleeing the scene. Actually would it? I don't even know haha, I don't really know how it works in the US. Maybe you can just shoot down a guy who hits you and then flees, and that's still self-defense.
you cannot. not sure why you would even pose the idiotic question.
As was pointed out already in some states it would be legal.
On November 26 2014 06:53 Vegetarian wrote: It isn't difficult to tell whether or not you have hit someone with a 40 caliber hand gun at a range that a person would be an imminent threat to you.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about or have never been in a fight. One of my previously co workers got stabbed in the leg and didn't know until after the fight.
So you are arguing that wilson would not know if he hit brown with his 40 caliber hand gun. And you claim that because brown might not have known he was shot that the officer would also not know?
All because your co-worker got stabbed and didn't realize it? You do know that gun shot wounds are different from knife stabs? And your scenario applies to brown knowing whether or not he was injured, not wilson being able to tell whether or not he had hit brown. That's some mighty logic there.
Once again, I stand by my initial statement that you are just going to confirmation bias you way through this argument. Facts don't matter to you, you will latch on to any little thing as long as you can cling to the idea that this case should have gone to trial.
Problem is, 12 people disagreed with you and likely a couple of them were as smart or smarter than you.
Says the guy that blindly believes wilson's testimony despite it containing numerous lies. Cigarillos were never found at the scene so how was brown attacking wilson with the cigarillos in his hand as his testimony states?
Not to mention brown paid for the cigarillos and the police department has said wilson was unaware of the robbery when he stopped brown:
On November 26 2014 06:53 Vegetarian wrote: It isn't difficult to tell whether or not you have hit someone with a 40 caliber hand gun at a range that a person would be an imminent threat to you.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about or have never been in a fight. One of my previously co workers got stabbed in the leg and didn't know until after the fight.
So you are arguing that wilson would not know if he hit brown with his 40 caliber hand gun. And you claim that because brown might not have known he was shot that the officer would also not know?
All because your co-worker got stabbed and didn't realize it? You do know that gun shot wounds are different from knife stabs? And your scenario applies to brown knowing whether or not he was injured, not wilson being able to tell whether or not he had hit brown. That's some mighty logic there.
Once again, I stand by my initial statement that you are just going to confirmation bias you way through this argument. Facts don't matter to you, you will latch on to any little thing as long as you can cling to the idea that this case should have gone to trial.
Problem is, 12 people disagreed with you and likely a couple of them were as smart or smarter than you.
Well we don't know all 12 of them did anything only 9 for sure.
And hey, if you think you are smarter than every single one of those 9-12 people who worked on this thing for 25 days, I guess you can think that. My ego doesn't rise to that level.
On November 26 2014 06:53 Vegetarian wrote: It isn't difficult to tell whether or not you have hit someone with a 40 caliber hand gun at a range that a person would be an imminent threat to you.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about or have never been in a fight. One of my previously co workers got stabbed in the leg and didn't know until after the fight.
So you are arguing that wilson would not know if he hit brown with his 40 caliber hand gun. And you claim that because brown might not have known he was shot that the officer would also not know?
All because your co-worker got stabbed and didn't realize it? You do know that gun shot wounds are different from knife stabs? And your scenario applies to brown knowing whether or not he was injured, not wilson being able to tell whether or not he had hit brown. That's some mighty logic there.
Once again, I stand by my initial statement that you are just going to confirmation bias you way through this argument. Facts don't matter to you, you will latch on to any little thing as long as you can cling to the idea that this case should have gone to trial.
Problem is, 12 people disagreed with you and likely a couple of them were as smart or smarter than you.
Says the guy that blindly believes wilson's testimony despite it containing numerous lies. Cigarillos were never found at the scene so how was brown attacking wilson with the cigarillos in his hand as his testimony states?
Not to mention brown paid for the cigarillos and the police department has said wilson was unaware of the robbery when he stopped brown: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maA1FUJqhew
What does that have to do with Brown punching Wilson in the head and attempting to take his fire arm? Even if the stop was not justified(which apparently it was for jaywalking), you can't punch police officers.
On November 26 2014 06:53 Vegetarian wrote: It isn't difficult to tell whether or not you have hit someone with a 40 caliber hand gun at a range that a person would be an imminent threat to you.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about or have never been in a fight. One of my previously co workers got stabbed in the leg and didn't know until after the fight.
So you are arguing that wilson would not know if he hit brown with his 40 caliber hand gun. And you claim that because brown might not have known he was shot that the officer would also not know?
All because your co-worker got stabbed and didn't realize it? You do know that gun shot wounds are different from knife stabs? And your scenario applies to brown knowing whether or not he was injured, not wilson being able to tell whether or not he had hit brown. That's some mighty logic there.
Once again, I stand by my initial statement that you are just going to confirmation bias you way through this argument. Facts don't matter to you, you will latch on to any little thing as long as you can cling to the idea that this case should have gone to trial.
Problem is, 12 people disagreed with you and likely a couple of them were as smart or smarter than you.
Says the guy that blindly believes wilson's testimony despite it containing numerous lies. Cigarillos were never found at the scene so how was brown attacking wilson with the cigarillos in his hand as his testimony states?
Not to mention brown paid for the cigarillos and the police department has said wilson was unaware of the robbery when he stopped brown: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maA1FUJqhew
You're forgetting the testimony of the guy who was with Brown, who not only confirms that Brown stole from the store, but that before the altercation escalated, handed off the cigarillos to him (and he ran away, with the cigarillos).
EPT
