Michael Brown

[XD40scinNC]

XD the troll that will never stay on topic.

Too bad the the reality don't support your view. This thread went off the rails when blue chose to play the insult card because of his inability to deal with someone that had a different view and chose to challenge his position on the topic.

No one, including I, said that the two white guys are "expert" witnesses. They're simply witnesses caught seconds after the shooting on video giving spontaneous utterances of what they had just seen.

Thanks for confirming what I said earlier in reference to Johnson's account of events; it's a bummer for you guys ("you guys" meaning the badgefluffers of USA Carry) that eye-witness accounts immediately after the shooting are now being verified as accurate and true. The problem is, you badgefluffers are presenting it as "new information" when all you had to do was listen to the witnesses in the early minutes/hours/days of the investigation. You should really do just a tiny bit of homework on the "spontaneous utterances" doctrine that, in the law, assumes the credibility of statements made in close time-proximity to a given event when the person making it is not thinking about being a witness or being exposed to any other legal implications, they're simply spontaneously reacting to input received through their human senses.

To assume those two (actually three, as the voice from off-camera verifies) men were all cop-haters is neither consistent with human nature nor law.

Quit being a moron. Oh, wait, that's your nature so you can't quit. Sorry.

Blues

My response was "on topic" as follows:

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. 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.

You obviously have a strong bias against cops, 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.

But you will always play the insult card as your closing. Are your that short on reason and desperate to be right that you think that name calling and insults make your look intelligent or makes you right? You should think again, for it just demonstrates your lack of reason and your desperation.

But on the positive side, at least you do attempt to defend your position before resorting to insults, unlike Ringo, who never managed to rise above the taunts and insults of what ever issues he suffers from.

Now what insult will be your response?

and I did ask what insult would follow, and I was not disappointed, blue went full bore name calling and insults in post #511, which I won't bother to quote here due to it's length and repetitive nature.

Then boasting about his like count as if he was running for home comming king at his high school.

 

[BluesStringer]

Not a majority of members, as 80 - 90% of those likes are probably from the other click members of Ringo and FFchen as primaries, follow up Farmhood, gunner, Eidolon and a couple of others. Less than probably 15 - 20 different people providing 99%. Not a 'majority' of members when there are over 50,000 registered users on this foum. In this thread you and FF seem to be locked in a mutual "reach around".

Well, ya got me on the majority of "members," but even if I failed to be 100% articulate 100% of the time, I meant the majority of participating members, and anybody genuinely trying to understand the point, would've understood that implication without me having to clarify. But then, you're not genuinely trying to do anything but provoke, are you?

I hope Eidolon is getting a great big laugh over the thought that he would represent any significant portion of the "Likes" in my "collection." More of XD's brainless, knee-jerk speculation based only on Eidolon and I sharing a belief and faith in Jesus Christ, but almost nothing else discernible from the bit of banter we've participated in with each other.

My profile is open to the public. Anyone can look and see if there's any validity to who has filled it with "Likes," and as per usual, you can't be bothered to verify for yourself your suspicions/impressions/wild-ass-guesses, choosing instead to jump head-first into making an idiot out of yourself....again.....still. I just reviewed the names in the list and found more than one that I don't even recall ever seeing before, and yeah, Ringo, gunner and Chen show up prominently in the list (why shouldn't they? we agree or identify a lot with what eacther has to say), but so do BC1, tcox, Oldgrunt, S&W645, MI .45, Bikenut, CharlesMorrison, dogshawred, whodat, Bill Amsden, Axeanda45, ezkl2230, jameshd, r!derbike, mappow, bofh, and that's just perusing the last month's worth. Go back six months or a year, or two years when the joint was jumpin' at a pretty good clip, and like I asserted, albeit inarticulately, the overwhelming majority of past or present regular participants here have contributed to that list. Not all are Christians, and not all are "cheerleaders" for everything I have to say. Some even disagree with me often. You're even in that list. You do realize that, don't you?

Can't even be bothered to make two clicks before spreading falsehoods about me and most other regulars here, but I'm the desperate one, I'm the insulting one. Got it.

Blues

 

[BC1]

Another useless waste of bandwidth , who does a disservice to this forum... Ferguson is another lawless town... people here are pissed off at the cops because cops in general keep thugs from being thugs... Michael Brown was a thug and only other thugs would want to try to suppress cops who wont allow their community to be run by thugs.

Just because a town is lawless doesn't mean the police are good guys. I'll remind you of the cop who was fired after pointing his AR at a peaceful protestor and saying I'll f'ing kill you. Yeah, he's the good guy?
.
58 posts and already you have an ignore list? Can I please be put on it too?
.
I have 6,200 posts and still don't have an ignore list.

 

[Stengun]

Howdy,

Well, ya got me on the majority of "members," but even if I failed to be 100% articulate 100% of the time, I meant the majority of participating members, and anybody genuinely trying to understand the point, would've understood that implication without me having to clarify. But then, you're not genuinely trying to do anything but provoke, are you?

I hope Eidolon is getting a great big laugh over the thought that he would represent any significant portion of the "Likes" in my "collection." More of XD's brainless, knee-jerk speculation based only on Eidolon and I sharing a belief and faith in Jesus Christ, but almost nothing else discernible from the bit of banter we've participated in with each other.

My profile is open to the public. Anyone can look and see if there's any validity to who has filled it with "Likes," and as per usual, you can't be bothered to verify for yourself your suspicions/impressions/wild-ass-guesses, choosing instead to jump head-first into making an idiot out of yourself....again.....still. I just reviewed the names in the list and found more than one that I don't even recall ever seeing before, and yeah, Ringo, gunner and Chen show up prominently in the list (why shouldn't they? we agree or identify a lot with what eacther has to say), but so do BC1, tcox, Oldgrunt, S&W645, MI .45, Bikenut, CharlesMorrison, dogshawred, whodat, Bill Amsden, Axeanda45, ezkl2230, jameshd, r!derbike, mappow, bofh, and that's just perusing the last month's worth. Go back six months or a year, or two years when the joint was jumpin' at a pretty good clip, and like I asserted, albeit inarticulately, the overwhelming majority of past or present regular participants here have contributed to that list. Not all are Christians, and not all are "cheerleaders" for everything I have to say. Some even disagree with me often. You're even in that list. You do realize that, don't you?

Can't even be bothered to make two clicks before spreading falsehoods about me and most other regulars here, but I'm the desperate one, I'm the insulting one. Got it.

Blues

Gee, I've given Blues several "Likes" for his post and my name was mentioned.

If he, or anyone else post something I like, agree with or thinks funny ( if it's suppose to be funny ) I'll give it a like.

as far as this thread goes Blues had made some valid points and arguments supporting his POV.

Paul

 

[Courtney.cj.chen]

Here's CNN- backing up officer Wilson's side of the story. Or at least not outright bashing the legitimacy of its source.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/18/justice/michael-brown-darren-wilson-account/

And FCchen- my default answer for people like you- when I say "are you just here to argue" is because you are one of the few close minded people who can't disagree with others without making things personal with snide shallow immature remarks.

Edit* apologies for the somewhat repost of the article. Looks like TAG touched on the article as well?

 

[BluesStringer]

Here's CNN- backing up officer Wilson's side of the story. Or at least not outright bashing the legitimacy of its source.

Michael Brown's blood found in officer's car, on gun - CNN.com

The last time I cited CNN to refute the "broken eye socket" BS story, I got a couple of pages worth of "CNN isn't a valid source" types of posts following it. Some were more intensely-stated than others, but what I was attempting to highlight was the "blowout eye-socket" reports that have all fallen away now that CNN got its own anonymous witness to say no, that ain't right, he had no broken anything. Wonder what they'll say now that a report from CNN is neutral and/or friendly to the cop? Let the games begin.....

Blues

 

[S&W645]

Just because a town is lawless doesn't mean the police are good guys. I'll remind you of the cop who was fired after pointing his AR at a peaceful protestor and saying I'll f'ing kill you. Yeah, he's the good guy?
.
58 posts and already you have an ignore list? Can I please be put on it too?
.
I have 6,200 posts and still don't have an ignore list.

Nearing 5000 and no list either. Even Sten gets it right once in a while. :wink: Being brought up in the military school system, there was no putting down others because we were all in it together. And if things went wrong, it would be us vs the country we were in. Not good odds so you just got along with everyone, including the id10Ts.

 

[Firefighterchen]

That's your default question for anyone who has a different opinion. Your cop is involved, and you think I'm making it personal? Laughable. Keep parroting the "open minded" thin blue drivel from the next police head that changes the story.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

 

[BC1]

Nearing 5000 and no list either. Even Sten gets it right once in a while. :wink: Being brought up in the military school system, there was no putting down others because we were all in it together. And if things went wrong, it would be us vs the country we were in. Not good odds so you just got along with everyone, including the id10Ts.

Plus, in life we can't put people we don't agree with on the ignore list. Sometimes we have to do business with those we don't like. Sometimes we smile when we'd like to say what we're really thinking. Sometimes we tolerate to keep the peace.

 

[whodat2710]

...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...
Blues

Blues, I can agree with you on most things. The above excerpt, if you read it objectively, will explain why we disagree on cops. There is nothing "badge-fluffing" about my viewpoint any more than there is "thug-fluffing" about yours. When you reduce any individual to the least common denominator of the group they are in, you do nothing to support freedom either.
-
If you enter any situation with a preconceived notion of the people you will interact with, you start playing with the odds of the outcome.
-
Not trying to start an argument, just think about it.

 

[BluesStringer]

Blues, I can agree with you on most things. The above excerpt, if you read it objectively, will explain why we disagree on cops. There is nothing "badge-fluffing" about my viewpoint any more than there is "thug-fluffing" about yours. When you reduce any individual to the least common denominator of the group they are in, you do nothing to support freedom either.
-
If you enter any situation with a preconceived notion of the people you will interact with, you start playing with the odds of the outcome.
-
Not trying to start an argument, just think about it.

I think I recall you asking me to "think about it" before. Maybe I'm mistaken, but here's my my answer, whether it's the first time or again:

I have said nothing about the case that I haven't thought long and hard about. Your advice is redundant to my already-implemented nature.

The reason it seems like an attempt to argue is that you, and others, refuse to explain how (now it's up to) six witnesses all telling basically the same story doesn't add up to probable cause to try the case? Answer that without using the words "thug" or "Brown's state of mind" or "I simply don't believe them," and instead give a well-reasoned explanation how the Prosecutor couldn't charge with that kind of evidence, much less if the Grand Jury doesn't, and I'll consider your rationale. Otherwise, all you're doing is taking the cops' side with no more thought than it takes to fluff their badges and say "atta boy for shooting that unarmed thug!"

You call it as you see it, and so do I.

Blues

 

[whodat2710]

I think I recall you asking me to "think about it" before. Maybe I'm mistaken, but here's my my answer, whether it's the first time or again:

I have said nothing about the case that I haven't thought long and hard about. Your advice is redundant to my already-implemented nature.

The reason it seems like an attempt to argue is that you, and others, refuse to explain how (now it's up to) six witnesses all telling basically the same story doesn't add up to probable cause to try the case? Answer that without using the words "thug" or "Brown's state of mind" or "I simply don't believe them," and instead give a well-reasoned explanation how the Prosecutor couldn't charge with that kind of evidence, much less if the Grand Jury doesn't, and I'll consider your rationale. Otherwise, all you're doing is taking the cops' side with no more thought than it takes to fluff their badges and say "atta boy for shooting that unarmed thug!"

You call it as you see it, and so do I.

Blues

As I have also stated, I think his first shot(s) were justified. Whether he carried it beyond the point of his life being in jeopardy is the question. I am not debating that, even with the new grand jury witness and the evidence of MB's prints and blood on the gun/holster. I am saying that to say "see, all cops are bad" is just as ludicrous as saying "all the protesters are thugs". One thing the Officers should have, that the thugs obviously don't, is accountability.
-
The problem with that is that because of the MSM uproar, the Sharpton/Holder/Obama/Jackson race-baiting, and public opinion (swayed by the media) being used to determine justice, nothing but a guilty verdict and imprisonment will quiet the rioters and looters. No matter what evidence is turned up, like with the TM case, any verdict other than what the mob wants is not good enough.
-
If we are going to go back to vigilante justice, getting a posse together to do some cattle rustler hanging or whatnot, I got me some things I want to get taken care of - so just let me know when that is what we have reverted to.

 

[BluesStringer]

As I have also stated, I think his first shot(s) were justified. Whether he carried it beyond the point of his life being in jeopardy is the question. I am not debating that, even with the new grand jury witness and the evidence of MB's prints and blood on the gun/holster. I am saying that to say "see, all cops are bad" is just as ludicrous as saying "all the protesters are thugs". One thing the Officers should have, that the thugs obviously don't, is accountability.
-
The problem with that is that because of the MSM uproar, the Sharpton/Holder/Obama/Jackson race-baiting, and public opinion (swayed by the media) being used to determine justice, nothing but a guilty verdict and imprisonment will quiet the rioters and looters. No matter what evidence is turned up, like with the TM case, any verdict other than what the mob wants is not good enough.
-
If we are going to go back to vigilante justice, getting a posse together to do some cattle rustler hanging or whatnot, I got me some things I want to get taken care of - so just let me know when that is what we have reverted to.

Utterly non-responsive to anything I've said throughout this thread or about the subject(s) in general. I'm not calling for riots, looting or victimizing innocents in any way, shape, manner or form. There's no vigilantism at all in calling for a trial based on probable cause, the bulk of what you have to say in answer to that question being, "Whether he carried it beyond the point of his life being in jeopardy is the question. I am not debating that..."

Every time you "reply" to something I've said, you claim you're not debating the only issues I've been talking about. But you're not arguing, right? Actually, it's worse than just arguing. It's dismissing, ignoring and deflecting from the issue of whether it was a justifiable homicide, not whether the first one or two rounds may have been justified, since we know without a shadow of a doubt that those first shots didn't kill the unarmed man. This "new evidence" doesn't speak to that question at all, and it ain't "new" to begin with. It is perfectly consistent with what Johnson said the same day of the shooting before the sun went down.

How about just a yes or no answer to this; do you believe that six witnesses all saying basically the same thing provides the requisite amount of probable cause to file charges against Wilson so that a jury can suss out the truth to reasonable doubt? Yes or no?

Blues

 

[Firefighterchen]

Why is it hard to separate the protesters and looters from the MB/DW encounter?

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

 

[whodat2710]

How about just a yes or no answer to this; do you believe that six witnesses all saying basically the same thing provides the requisite amount of probable cause to file charges against Wilson so that a jury can suss out the truth to reasonable doubt? Yes or no?

Blues

Yes there should be a trial.
-
Now please answer these questions.
-
Middle of the day ("in broad daylight" was how they put it) you have half a dozen people say they saw the whole thing. They are all there, quite possibly because of lack of employment (they may work nights, who knows). They are also immediately pointing to racial bias in the shooting, like the cop wouldn't have shot a white guy that was attacking him. Could they be racist against whites, or is it a bias against cops? Could that affect how they viewed (or remembered) the events that took place? Do they believe that a cop has the right to protect himself at all?
-
None of the witnesses were at the scene of the convenience store altercation, which goes to the frame of mind of MB being approached by a cop (whether or not the cop knew about the altercation), with the exception of the guy walking with MB who made him sound like an angel just minding his own business in his "eyewitness account". With his now obviously biased "eyewitness" account how credible is he or any other witness?
-
With the pervasive and biased media coverage (on both sides), can there be a fair trial if there is one? If there is a trial, will the case be based on what little factual evidence there is, or will the verdict be based on what is best for the community?
-

 

[BluesStringer]

Yes there should be a trial.

Thanks.

Now please answer these questions.

No.

But I will school you on what's wrong with the questions you're asking me (or anybody else) to answer:

Middle of the day ("in broad daylight" was how they put it) you have half a dozen people say they saw the whole thing.

Wrong. Only one of them say they saw the whole thing - Dorian Johnson. The other five's accounts are all concerned with after Wilson exited the vehicle.

They are all there, quite possibly because of lack of employment (they may work nights, who knows).

Wrong. At least two of the witnesses were there working. They were also white. On the video showing the one guy demonstrating Brown's final position before the kill shot(s?) were delivered, a third voice can be heard saying, "He was no threat at all!" If that third voice has been identified and questioned, we may not only add to the total to equal seven witnesses who saw the end of the event, but perhaps that person was there working too, or on their way to work a swing-shift, or maybe they're a crack-addict there to score a dime-bag, no one knows at this point, but we do know that of the six that we know about who would presumably testify in court as to what they saw, at least 33% are productive members of society.

And the implication that because the incident happened in a black neighborhood, so therefore, the witnesses must be unemployed, is as transparent as any racially-biased innuendo promulgated in this thread. And so what if they were/are unemployed? I'm unemployed! That makes me an unreliable witness? If not, what does it make me? And the worst part is that you don't have a freakin' clue if there's any validity to it to begin with! Just blatant stereotyping. Why do you say "yes" to the should-there-be-a-trial question, and then set about trying to destroy the credibility sans a single fact to go on, of all the witnesses who provide the probable cause for charges to be brought? Your take on this has been utterly baffling since your early posts on the subject.

They are also immediately pointing to racial bias in the shooting

The six witnesses have spoken publicly about racial bias? You're just making stuff up now, at least as it regards all six witnesses.

like the cop wouldn't have shot a white guy that was attacking him.

You've heard or read quotes from any witnesses saying anything close to this? Tell the truth. You're totally projecting now, aren't you?

Could they be racist against whites, or is it a bias against cops?

Sure they "could be," but even if they are, does that automatically make them liars? Does it make them blind? Do your obvious biases make you a liar or blind or an unreliable witness?

I have a strong bias against LE, but if they're acting within the law, I would never lie because of that bias. In fact, I proved it earlier in this thread regarding the guy cops shot in St. Louis when I said, "The video totally exonerates the officers who shot Kajieme Powell." I'm neither blind or a liar, and I don't assume that everyone who witnesses a cop during a shooting, whether white or black, is either. Only a trial will provide the venue for these witnesses' credibility to be scrutinized and tested by cross examination, and judged by the proper and legal authority - a jury of Wilson's peers, period.

Could that affect how they viewed (or remembered) the events that took place? Do they believe that a cop has the right to protect himself at all?

As to the second question, I do, so why wouldn't they? Why would the two white workers have a racial bias against Wilson?

As to the first question, see my last answer to your previous question before this one.
-

None of the witnesses were at the scene of the convenience store altercation

I'm not answering any questions/assumptions/conjecture/freakin' deflection about any subject that has exactly zero to do with the final volley of shots fired from Wilson's gun at and/or into Michael Brown's head when six witnesses say he was in various positions of surrender.

I have been absolutely consistent on that score with you specifically. This has to be at least the fifth time I've had to address crap that has nothing to do with anything I've focused on, which is/are the kill-shot/shots at the very end of the incident. Please, quit asking me about meaningless-to-anything events that even if answerable, have nothing to do with whether or not the kill-shot(s) were justifiable. Good grief.

Blues

 

[whodat2710]

It appears that you answered all of my questions, but you did cherry pick the ones you wanted to answer. Anything about the rest?

 

[whodat2710]

Nothing to do with the actual case (except that this elected official was protesting outside the police dept.), but cool nonetheless:
Link Removed

 

[BluesStringer]

It appears that you answered all of my questions, but you did cherry pick the ones you wanted to answer. Anything about the rest?

I said way back when there were only three, or maybe four, witnesses that Johnson's account could be disregarded and there's still enough probable cause to go to trial. I don't have to evaluate his individual credibility because I'm not on the jury and never will be. The Prosecutor certainly has to consider his credibility as to whether or not he'd ever call him as a witness at trial, but being as the pertinent issues of the kill shot(s) have all six (maybe seven) witnesses saying basically the same thing, I can't imagine any prosecutor leaving his testimony out of the mix, thus disallowing the jury to do their duty and their job by testing his credibility against other witness testimony, the forensics, and whatever Wilson's defense team can provide of his side of the story without putting him on the stand. Or if they put Wilson on the stand, then so much the better. Let the jury decide who's credible and who ain't. That's how it's supposed to work once the threshold of probable cause to bring a charge has been crossed.

Bottom line, Johnson's account(s) can only be tested and scrutinized for credibility by a jury, and that testing and scrutiny can only take place if there's a trial, and that trial can only take place if the Prosecutor or the Grand Jury grow a pair and recognize the relative freakin' mountain of evidence to establish probable cause to bring a charge (or more).

As has been the case from day one, this is about was it a justifiable/not-justifiable shoot for me. I don't get lost in issues or personality traits of people of whom I know nothing but a small sliver that the same media that you decry the non-objectivity of has fed you and everybody else. I ask is there probable cause to bring a charge, not if I can determine the credibility of each and every witness, or potential witness, from several hundred miles away. I ask if Wilson had justification for the final volley of shots, not whether he was white and the person he shot was black. I don't give one flyin' fvck who's employed and who ain't, why they were there on-scene or what they were doing while there. All I care about is was the killing justified and are the witnesses who all were there and say it wasn't can convince a jury to a reasonable doubt that they're telling the truth.

As far as your last question, can Wilson get a fair trial? Did the cops who beat Rodney King get a fair trial? What's the definition of "fair?" Only if he gets off? Only if he's convicted? Look, biased media coverage or not, the system is what it is. I can't do anything but look for justice within that system. This is one of those cases that not everybody is ever going to agree with the outcome of a trial. I can't do anything about that though. Give me a trial to either support the conduct of, or to criticize, but damn man, don't just bail on the process because there's been publicity about the case! That's just a ridiculous thought that I won't waste another second of thought to.

"Cherry picked" my rosy red ass, whodat. The last couple of paragraphs were just more crap about stuff I haven't been talking about. If you want to talk about 'em, that's fine, just don't hit "Reply With Quote" on one of my posts and then ask me a bunch of unrelated-to-anything-I-said questions. And then accuse me of "cherry picking" when I answer all but two.

Blues

 

[Buster04]

They want ‘Justice’ for Michael Brown?? I’m confused, do they want him dug up and shot again?