But you also don't know if they are anti-cop, have had run in's with cops, have been arrested, whether it be justified or not.
The possibility that any or all of them are anti-cop exists. I don't dispute that. Like
all witnesses though, including Wilson himself, or the witnesses supporting his side at least, that is a question left to a jury of a defendant's peers under the Constitution. Without a panel of triers of fact, no facts will ever emerge from an event where an agent of the state killed an unarmed man in the presence of eye-witnesses who
all call into question the legal justification for that killing. A sworn jury is obligated to
objectively consider the credibility of
all the evidence that a judge allows in. They can't assume that witnesses are anti or pro-anything without at least seeing or hearing evidence that tends to establish the assertion as credible. Otherwise, spontaneous utterances are so widely-accepted by the judiciary that they are even exempt from the hearsay exclusion rules in many instances. Those two guys in the video I posted are about as spontaneous as any spontaneous utterance has ever been, happening only seconds after the shooting. If the unidentified voice has been identified and questioned by investigators, then that makes three spontaneous utterances that would presumably be allowed in, and only a jury, with the benefit of evidence tending to establish bias, can scrutinize such conjecture as to its credibility. Your conjecture is completely meaningless except to establish
your bias either for cops or against black folk or both.
You speculate about many things, but when someone else offers an alternative to your speculation, full on attack mode seasoned with insults and school yard taunts.
1) You have no moral standing to b!tch about school yard taunts or insulting banter. A quick perusal of your "participation" in
this thread would confirm that for anyone not already informed of your irrationally obsessive and trollish behavior towards a small group of posters on this site.
2) More to the point though, I haven't speculated about a damned thing. I've read and listened to every bit of evidence I can find to scrutinize and evaluate the legal issues involved in the case that this thread is about. Posting witness accounts of what happened that day doesn't make me a "cop-hater" just because
all the witness accounts go against the cops' "official" story. It makes me objective. It means I don't look at outward appearances or the race of the people giving the accounts to determine their credibility, I put them all together and look for consistency amongst them. And guess what? Like I said earlier, no less than six eye-witnesses say basically the same thing about the end of the incident; Brown was not charging, not threatening, five say his hands were up and one says his hands were wrapped around his torso as he was falling, and Wilson fired the two shots that either one could've been the kill-shot while all of those circumstances were true and happening right in front of him.
That's not conjecture, that's listening with an open mind and applying some thought and scrutiny before drawing any hard and fast conclusions, which, I defy you to show me where I've drawn any conclusions about this case except one - that being, that I believe these witnesses have established probable cause to bring this case to trial and let a jury decide. That's the
only conclusion about this case specifically that I have drawn.
You obviously have a strong bias against cops
I have a strong bias against you too, based entirely on your posting history here, just like my bias against cops is based on their actions and unconstitutional powers granted them by a run-amok government that hasn't been of, by and for The People since shortly after the ink was dry on the Constitution. I'm biased against
all statists, whether they're working for the state or just licking the scrota of those who do, because statists think themselves superior to all except those who
do lick their scrota, metaphorically-speaking of course.
and given that I would expect you would react much the same if you had been a witness, regardless of what was actually happening. The expectation is already in your mind when you see the badge.
So as you decry my biases, you assert your own towards me? I'm not offended. I'm actually grateful that you provided this opportunity to reaffirm my belief that you're a hypocrite and a moron, having only scrutinized the available evidence of course. I'm perfectly open to considering any new evidence that might come to light, but for now, hypocrite and moron it is.
....blah blah....insult card....blah blah....short on reason....blah blah....desperate....blah blah blah friggin' blah....
....blah blah....insult Ringo....blah blah....deflection into unrelated topics and personality conflicts....blah blah blah friggin' blah....
Now what insult will be your response?
You insult yourself nearly every time you post. I just point it out and call it what it is - moronic. There's a real easy way to avoid having me do that. Can you apply your "long-on-reason" thoughts on what that might be?
Blues