Michael Brown

[tcox4freedom]

XD you need to rethink that. I wouldn't say Blues has internal trauma. Rather he has strength of convictions. And that's something to respect. On the other hand consider your statement as applied to your own posts on religion. You go crazy with ridicule of religion and of those who have belief.

Plus 1-
The one that truly has inner turmoil is usually the one that has to interject themselves into conversations that really should concern them; not to enlighten, educate or bring anything constructive to the conversation. People who have inner turmoil just try to mock or make fun of others beliefs.


-

 

[XD40scinNC]

XD you need to rethink that. I wouldn't say Blues has internal trauma. Rather he has strength of convictions. And that's something to respect. On the other hand consider your statement as applied to your own posts on religion. You go crazy with ridicule of religion and of those who have belief.

No, when those convictions are biased, and based on very little knowledge, they are a weakness. Blue has a clear bias against cops, and the system (grand jury, prosecutors) and has thrown them all under the bus with only the limited facts that is public information. And if in fact the truth of what happened is counter to his view, he will also throw that under the bus. And to support his position, insults.

None of us know if the cop acted appropriately or not, and are open to allowing the investigation and the system sort it out, except blue who is building the gallows.

 

[BC1]

No, when those convictions are biased, and based on very little knowledge, they are a weakness. Blue has a clear bias against cops, and the system (grand jury, prosecutors) and has thrown them all under the bus with only the limited facts that is public information. And if in fact the truth of what happened is counter to his view, he will also throw that under the bus. And to support his position, insults.

None of us know if the cop acted appropriately or not, and are open to allowing the investigation and the system sort it out, except blue who is building the gallows.

I understand the argument about the cop. I too will withhold judgment until the facts are public. People are entitled to their opinion. Just as I did in the Zimmerman case.
.
But your atheist arguments are biased, insulting to some very undeserving people and not based on any settled science or subject matter. The subject is still open and no conclusions have been determined by anyone. He's not insulting as much as he's refusing to sugar-coat his responses. He's hammered me too but I respect his opinion. ANd he hasn't been out of line as far as I can see with persons other than those who initiated the insults.

 

[AndeyHall]

Those two frames are irrelevant to the Michael Brown shooting. The same merchant whom you claim would've been justified in using deadly force for what's depicted in those two frames, didn't even report the incident to the cops. As far as anyone knows, he still hasn't volunteered a statement. It was a customer who was in the store that made the report, and the cop who shot Brown had no inkling of the incident before he shot Brown.

Just curious, but did you peruse this long thread before making that post? It's not like the security camera footage hasn't been discussed ad nauseam already.

Blues

Whether I know about a crime having been committed does not change the fact that the person who committed the crime knows they committed it and when law enforcement shows up, their immediate assumption is going to be that they are going to be arrested for the crime they just committed. It has happened COUNTLESS times where an officer was killed during a "routine traffic stop" because he just pulled over someone who committed a (fill in the blank) crime and thought they were being pulled over for said crime, when they were actually just being pulled over for something stupid like a tag light or didn't use a turn signal. So yes Blues, the 2 frames bear full relevance to the shooting.

Here's some good reading material:
http://chrishernandezauthor.com/2014/08/24/a-dose-of-reality-for-ferguson-missouri/

Oh and I've also learned that the recently released toxicology report has stated that he had enough marijuana in his system to possibly cause hallucinations. But I know that doesn't matter to you. Wilson is a murderer end of story.

 

[BluesStringer]

Whether I know about a crime having been committed does not change the fact that the person who committed the crime knows they committed it and when law enforcement shows up, their immediate assumption is going to be that they are going to be arrested for the crime they just committed. It has happened COUNTLESS times where an officer was killed during a "routine traffic stop" because he just pulled over someone who committed a (fill in the blank) crime and thought they were being pulled over for said crime, when they were actually just being pulled over for something stupid like a tag light or didn't use a turn signal. So yes Blues, the 2 frames bear full relevance to the shooting.

Here's some good reading material:
A Dose of Reality for Ferguson, Missouri | chrishernandezauthor

Oh and I've also learned that the recently released toxicology report has stated that he had enough marijuana in his system to possibly cause hallucinations. But I know that doesn't matter to you. Wilson is a murderer end of story.

I guess I can't call you a badgefluffer anymore, unless you're limber enough to actually fluff yourself? Congratulations if you are, you dog you. LOL

Anyway, you're still allergic to actually reading and replying to what I've written. You seem to fail to recognize the significance of what I said that you quoted. The reason those two frames are irrelevant is because the so-called victim has not cooperated with police that anybody knows of. Cops had to subpoena the video to begin with, and right after they released those two frames, the so-called victim made it quite clear publicly that he never even reported any crime against him or his store to the cops perpetrated by Michael Brown. If Brown had survived, there would've never been any court proceedings because of what those two frames depict, so why should they be included in any court proceedings against Wilson considering that it's completely irrelevant to his defense since he didn't even know about any incident at Ferguson Market? The only state of mind evidence that ever comes in in (some degree of) a homicide trial is the killer's state of mind. Even if Wilson's defense team managed to get it in to show Brown's state of mind at the beginning, it's irrelevant in answering the question of were the kill shot(s) justified or not, which clearly happened at the end of the incident, not the beginning.

Secondly, I've said many times that Wilson may have been justified in firing a shot, maybe two, maybe all 10 or 11 that he fired altogether, but in order for us to ever know the truth of that question (actually, a separate question for each individual shot fired), a trial must ensue and the six witnesses who all say basically the same thing need to be adequately discredited to the point of creating reasonable doubt in the jury's mind about their unequivocal statements of the end of the event, not the beginning, which is all you're focused on. I have focused entirely upon the probable cause to bring a charge. That's it as far as what is relevant and what ain't in this case. But you're right, I don't trust cops and I'm more than willing to take unrelated witnesses' words at face value until evidence comes out saying they're not reliable, which by the way, I have already said throw Dorian Johnson's account out because he has been accused of lying to investigators in the past. That still leaves a mountain of witness testimony that goes heavily against the "official" account.

I've acknowledged several times that two things can be true at the same time: 1) Michael Brown could've been a hardened criminal who started a fight with a cop, and 2) Darren Wilson could've fired one or more rounds into Brown's head as he was attempting to surrender, which five of the six eye-witnesses say is what happened, and the sixth one says the kill-shot was delivered as Brown was falling to the ground. Or 2a) All of Wilson's shots could be justified, and all of the eye-witnesses could be proven to not be credible. In the system you've sworn to participate in faithfully, how do we answer those questions? With a trial based on probable cause to bring a charge, that's how.

But why let the truth of what I've said get in the way? I mean, when it comes to questions of the law, truth, justice and the American Way are only what you're sworn to uphold. Pffft.

Blues

 

[AndeyHall]

I guess I can't call you a badgefluffer anymore, unless you're limber enough to actually fluff yourself? Congratulations if you are, you dog you. LOL

Anyway, you're still allergic to actually reading and replying to what I've written. You seem to fail to recognize the significance of what I said that you quoted. The reason those two frames are irrelevant is because the so-called victim has not cooperated with police that anybody knows of. Cops had to subpoena the video to begin with, and right after they released those two frames, the so-called victim made it quite clear publicly that he never even reported any crime against him or his store to the cops perpetrated by Michael Brown. If Brown had survived, there would've never been any court proceedings because of what those two frames depict, so why should they be included in any court proceedings against Wilson considering that it's completely irrelevant to his defense since he didn't even know about any incident at Ferguson Market? The only state of mind evidence that ever comes in in (some degree of) a homicide trial is the killer's state of mind. Even if Wilson's defense team managed to get it in to show Brown's state of mind at the beginning, it's irrelevant in answering the question of were the kill shot(s) justified or not, which clearly happened at the end of the incident, not the beginning.

Secondly, I've said many times that Wilson may have been justified in firing a shot, maybe two, maybe all 10 or 11 that he fired altogether, but in order for us to ever know the truth of that question (actually, a separate question for each individual shot fired), a trial must ensue and the six witnesses who all say basically the same thing need to be adequately discredited to the point of creating reasonable doubt in the jury's mind about their unequivocal statements of the end of the event, not the beginning, which is all you're focused on. I have focused entirely upon the probable cause to bring a charge. That's it as far as what is relevant and what ain't in this case. But you're right, I don't trust cops and I'm more than willing to take unrelated witnesses' words at face value until evidence comes out saying they're not reliable, which by the way, I have already said throw Dorian Johnson's account out because he has been accused of lying to investigators in the past. That still leaves a mountain of witness testimony that goes heavily against the "official" account.

I've acknowledged several times that two things can be true at the same time: 1) Michael Brown could've been a hardened criminal who started a fight with a cop, and 2) Darren Wilson could've fired one or more rounds into Brown's head as he was attempting to surrender, which five of the six eye-witnesses say is what happened, and the sixth one says the kill-shot was delivered as Brown was falling to the ground. Or 2a) All of Wilson's shots could be justified, and all of the eye-witnesses could be proven to not be credible. In the system you've sworn to participate in faithfully, how do we answer those questions? With a trial based on probable cause to bring a charge, that's how.

But why let the truth of what I've said get in the way? I mean, when it comes to questions of the law, truth, justice and the American Way are only what you're sworn to uphold. Pffft.

Blues

Sorry I haven't read the majority of your post as I only got through the first paragraph before I couldn't go any further without commenting on it. WHATTHEFUCK does it matter whether or not the store owner called the police and/or is or is not cooperating with the police? What does it matter if they had to subpoena the footage? That doesn't change one bit of the fact that Brown ROBBED THE STORE. No matter how the video was obtained, it was obtained and is proof that Brown did what he did. And again, he has no idea if the store owner called the police or not. For all he knows, he did and the police were looking for him.

If the rest of your post is nearly as ignorant as that first paragraph I'm not wasting my time reading it.

And you can make all the jokes and quips you want about my feelings towards law enforcement...but I know it is nothing more than a childish, politicians tactic to desperately sway the majority to your side without any relevance to the issue at hand. Based on the evidence and facts that have been released so far, Wilson should be acquitted based on Graham v. Conner alone.

 

[whodat2710]

The reason those two frames are irrelevant is because the so-called victim has not cooperated with police that anybody knows of. Cops had to subpoena the video to begin with, and right after they released those two frames, the so-called victim made it quite clear publicly that he never even reported any crime against him or his store to the cops perpetrated by Michael Brown. If Brown had survived, there would've never been any court proceedings because of what those two frames depict, so why should they be included in any court proceedings against Wilson considering that it's completely irrelevant to his defense since he didn't even know about any incident at Ferguson Market?...

Wake up Blues. MB knew that he robbed the store. MB was approached by a cop. People in this circumstance assume the cop knows, especially when they are under the influence. His already video taped penchant for aggression is pertinent to the fact that he then chose to attack the cop in order to secure his freedom from incarceration. A cop then forced to defend himself, who may or may not have taken it too far is very different from the "pants up-don't loot", (I mean "hands up -don't shoot") story being perpetrated by the protesters. It would also factor into probable cause to pursue an indictment. Notice I did not say FACT, any more than witness testimony is "fact".
-
In a criminal justice class in high school (years ago) we were in the middle of a lecture when a person came into the classroom with a ski mask on, ran to the front of the class stole something off the teachers desk and ran out. This was staged (obviously) and we all immediately had to write a statement. The result was a white/black/latino, man/woman, 18-60, wearing every item of clothes in the world. Here's the interesting part, a week later the teacher had us write another statement. Needless to say, we had discussed the incident ad nauseum because it was the coolest thing we had seen since the fight in the cafeteria. The statements were now eerily similar. Your "six witnesses who all say basically the same thing" is like so much MSNBC fluff.

 

[whodat2710]

I'll add that the decision of whether or not to put him up for a murder charge is a little more serious than for brutality or any other cop-crime you hear about. There is now evidence that discounts part of the witnesses testimony. That may be enough to question the veracity of the other "facts" they all "saw". After a traumatic event, the mind can see what it wants to see. In a community that was apparently already anti-cop, that would factor in to how they perceived what they "saw"

 

[BluesStringer]

Sorry I haven't read the majority of your post as I only got through the first paragraph before I couldn't go any further without commenting on it. WHATTHEFUCK does it matter whether or not the store owner called the police and/or is or is not cooperating with the police? What does it matter if they had to subpoena the footage? That doesn't change one bit of the fact that Brown ROBBED THE STORE. No matter how the video was obtained, it was obtained and is proof that Brown did what he did. And again, he has no idea if the store owner called the police or not. For all he knows, he did and the police were looking for him.

If the rest of your post is nearly as ignorant as that first paragraph I'm not wasting my time reading it.

And you can make all the jokes and quips you want about my feelings towards law enforcement...but I know it is nothing more than a childish, politicians tactic to desperately sway the majority to your side without any relevance to the issue at hand. Based on the evidence and facts that have been released so far, Wilson should be acquitted based on Graham v. Conner alone.

OK. You make an argument bitchin' about what I didn't say, and then refuse to read my response clarifying for you what I did say, and commence to restating the exact same incompletely-considered argument. Is that a tactic they taught you in cop school, or does it just come naturally to refuse to listen to the valid explanation/clarification given by the person you're asserting your superiority/authority over? You know the F word is against the rules here, right? Can't control your anger impulses already after only what? Six months on the job? You're exactly the kind of short-fused automaton cop-shops around the country are looking for.

It's ridiculous of you to admit that you haven't even read the post that you're arguing has no validity to it. It's a tacit admission that your own argument has no validity since you don't even know, or refuse to consider, what my argument actually asserts.

So what does Graham v. Conner say about the 4th Amendment reasonable standard of shooting a suspect who's in the act of surrendering? Nice try Junior. As per usual, you parrot the ramblings of your cop teachers or training officers and have no freakin' clue how to apply it to the case being discussed.

Me, a politician? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I'd sooner join the "good side" of the force than commingle with tyrants and criminals, though admittedly, it's a very thin line separating the two groups in that regard. You have shown no instincts for making that line clearer for the citizens you "serve" either.

Blues

 

[AndeyHall]

OK. You make an argument bitchin' about what I didn't say, and then refuse to read my response clarifying for you what I did say, and commence to restating the exact same incompletely-considered argument. Is that a tactic they taught you in cop school, or does it just come naturally to refuse to listen to the valid explanation/clarification given by the person you're asserting your superiority/authority over? You know the F word is against the rules here, right? Can't control your anger impulses already after only what? Six months on the job? You're exactly the kind of short-fused automaton cop-shops around the country are looking for.

It's ridiculous of you to admit that you haven't even read the post that you're arguing has no validity to it. It's a tacit admission that your own argument has no validity since you don't even know, or refuse to consider, what my argument actually asserts.

So what does Graham v. Conner say about the 4th Amendment reasonable standard of shooting a suspect who's in the act of surrendering? Nice try Junior. As per usual, you parrot the ramblings of your cop teachers or training officers and have no freakin' clue how to apply it to the case being discussed.

Me, a politician? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I'd sooner join the "good side" of the force than commingle with tyrants and criminals, though admittedly, it's a very thin line separating the two groups in that regard. You have shown no instincts for making that line clearer for the citizens you "serve" either.

Blues

Sorry but there's just as much, if not more forensic evidence to show that he wasn't surrendering than there is showing that he was surrendering. The gun was fired inside the vehicle corroborating Wilson's story. At that point Brown has made it very clear what his intentions are, and armed or not, at 6'4" and nearly 300lbs, any reasonable officer would be in fear for their life once the perp started charging him once again.

Oh crap but I forgot, it was Wilson who pulled the 6'4" Brown into his car...by his neck...seated in his car...right.

 

[BluesStringer]

Sorry but there's just as much, if not more forensic evidence to show that he wasn't surrendering than there is showing that he was surrendering. The gun was fired inside the vehicle corroborating Wilson's story. At that point Brown has made it very clear what his intentions are, and armed or not, at 6'4" and nearly 300lbs, any reasonable officer would be in fear for their life once the perp started charging him once again.

Oh crap but I forgot, it was Wilson who pulled the 6'4" Brown into his car...by his neck...seated in his car...right.

Still missing the relevant allegations. What happened between the beginning of the incident at/in the car, and where the kill-shot(s?) were delivered approximately 35' away from the car? Did one of your cop trainers convince you that once you're justified in starting to fire that you can keep firing no matter what the suspect is doing in between the first volley and the last? Unless you can discredit the testimony of at least four witnesses (having already thrown out Johnson's) who all say he was in the act of surrendering at the end of the incident when the last volley was fired, you're left with Wilson's self-serving singular account against everybody else who is on any kind of public record at this point. You may disregard their accounts because they go against the cop's story. Others may think their accounts don't matter because they think Brown got what was coming to him for whatever reason, the robbery, he's black, he was high, whatever. Bottom line is that four as-of-now credible witnesses say he was in the act of surrender. That equals more probable cause to bring a charge than many cases are brought with, except of course, if the case would be against a cop, in which case the Prosecutor bails on his autonomous authority to file charges himself and instead takes it to the grand jury to let them take the heat for whichever controversial decision they make. No matter which way they go, it will be controversial, and the Prosecutor set it up so that he won't take any heat for it. And you call me a politician? I see probable cause and say charge the guy and let a jury of his peers decide. You see a cop facing the charges that come with that probable cause and start talking about forensics that don't speak at all to the end of the incident when Brown was actually killed, and say don't indict. It is clearly you and your ilk who are biased and devoid of objectivity if you can say that four eye-witnesses saying very nearly the exact same thing about Brown being in a surrendering posture don't count, let the cop go home without accounting for those eye-witness accounts.

Just admit it; he's a cop, so in your mind, he did no wrong no matter what any witness says, right?

Blues

 

[AndeyHall]

Still missing the relevant allegations. What happened between the beginning of the incident at/in the car, and where the kill-shot(s?) were delivered approximately 35' away from the car? Did one of your cop trainers convince you that once you're justified in starting to fire that you can keep firing no matter what the suspect is doing in between the first volley and the last? Unless you can discredit the testimony of at least four witnesses (having already thrown out Johnson's) who all say he was in the act of surrendering at the end of the incident when the last volley was fired, you're left with Wilson's self-serving singular account against everybody else who is on any kind of public record at this point. You may disregard their accounts because they go against the cop's story. Others may think their accounts don't matter because they think Brown got what was coming to him for whatever reason, the robbery, he's black, he was high, whatever. Bottom line is that four as-of-now credible witnesses say he was in the act of surrender. That equals more probable cause to bring a charge than many cases are brought with, except of course, if the case would be against a cop, in which case the Prosecutor bails on his autonomous authority to file charges himself and instead takes it to the grand jury to let them take the heat for whichever controversial decision they make. No matter which way they go, it will be controversial, and the Prosecutor set it up so that he won't take any heat for it. And you call me a politician? I see probable cause and say charge the guy and let a jury of his peers decide. You see a cop facing the charges that come with that probable cause and start talking about forensics that don't speak at all to the end of the incident when Brown was actually killed, and say don't indict. It is clearly you and your ilk who are biased and devoid of objectivity if you can say that four eye-witnesses saying very nearly the exact same thing about Brown being in a surrendering posture don't count, let the cop go home without accounting for those eye-witness accounts.

Just admit it; he's a cop, so in your mind, he did no wrong no matter what any witness says, right?

Blues

I am not missing the relevant allegations...you're just ignoring them when they discredit your argument. The medical examiner from the autopsy that the family had done has stated in his narrative that the sequence of events, from his findings, align with Darren Wilson's story. Brown was shot at ranges from 1ft to 30ft, however they don't know in what order, except the 1ft shot lost likely happened in the car over the struggle for his gun. But the 21 foot rule is just that...a rule. It is not the end-all-be-all law of self defense shooting. If I just got in a fight over my gun with someone (which justifies deadly force at that point), sustained who knows what injuries during that fight, then when I confront the individual (who is much larger than me mind you, and has already made it clear they want to kill me) and they turn and begin to charge at me, then please pardon my depth perception just a bit...cause I doubt he gave him time to whip out his tape measure.

And sure Blues, I'll admit that just as soon as you admit that in your mind, he's a cop and is guilty no matter what any witnesses say.

 

[BluesStringer]

I am not missing the relevant allegations...you're just ignoring them when they discredit your argument. The medical examiner from the autopsy that the family had done has stated in his narrative that the sequence of events, from his findings, align with Darren Wilson's story. Brown was shot at ranges from 1ft to 30ft, however they don't know in what order, except the 1ft shot lost likely happened in the car over the struggle for his gun. But the 21 foot rule is just that...a rule. It is not the end-all-be-all law of self defense shooting. If I just got in a fight over my gun with someone (which justifies deadly force at that point), sustained who knows what injuries during that fight, then when I confront the individual (who is much larger than me mind you, and has already made it clear they want to kill me) and they turn and begin to charge at me, then please pardon my depth perception just a bit...cause I doubt he gave him time to whip out his tape measure.

Not one single reference to any of the witness accounts. None of what you say here is consistent with all six of the witness accounts. None of them saw a "charging" Michael Brown. All of them say he was stationary when the last volley was fired. Four of them say his hands were up, one can be seen on video just seconds after the shooting gesturing and stating that he had his hands up, and one witness says he was falling with his hands/arms wrapped around his torso when the last two shots were fired.

Autopsies and forensics analysis are only parts of the evidence. They may or may not prove out to be credible under cross examination of whoever is presenting the findings. That's the way it works. Both the state and the defendant get to test the evidence for and against their sides of the story. But they won't get to do that, and the public will never get any closer to the truth than we are right now, if a trial doesn't happen. So......

And sure Blues, I'll admit that just as soon as you admit that in your mind, he's a cop and is guilty no matter what any witnesses say.

No deal. I'm calling for a trial, not a guilty verdict. I'm calling for the case to be resolved the constitutional way, not the chicken-crap way that the Prosecutor has foisted upon the citizens of MO by bailing on his duty to take all the evidence into consideration and charge if there's probable cause to do so, which there clearly is.

You? You're calling for the cop to face no scrutiny, get back to work and retire with full benefits and a pension even though six of the citizens he supposedly "serves" say he's a murderer. Only a trial will get anywhere near establishing whether or not he is, but you don't trust the system you work for enough to support that happening, so cut 'em loose, right?

I don't make deals with what I believe to be right and proper. Besides, you've already admitted that you couldn't care any less about the eye-witness accounts with your first BS paragraph in this post.

Blues

 

[AndeyHall]

Not one single reference to any of the witness accounts. None of what you say here is consistent with all six of the witness accounts. None of them saw a "charging" Michael Brown. All of them say he was stationary when the last volley was fired. Four of them say his hands were up, one can be seen on video just seconds after the shooting gesturing and stating that he had his hands up, and one witness says he was falling with his hands/arms wrapped around his torso when the last two shots were fired.

Autopsies and forensics analysis are only parts of the evidence. They may or may not prove out to be credible under cross examination of whoever is presenting the findings. That's the way it works. Both the state and the defendant get to test the evidence for and against their sides of the story. But they won't get to do that, and the public will never get any closer to the truth than we are right now, if a trial doesn't happen. So......



No deal. I'm calling for a trial, not a guilty verdict. I'm calling for the case to be resolved the constitutional way, not the chicken-crap way that the Prosecutor has foisted upon the citizens of MO by bailing on his duty to take all the evidence into consideration and charge if there's probable cause to do so, which there clearly is.

You? You're calling for the cop to face no scrutiny, get back to work and retire with full benefits and a pension even though six of the citizens he supposedly "serves" say he's a murderer. Only a trial will get anywhere near establishing whether or not he is, but you don't trust the system you work for enough to support that happening, so cut 'em loose, right?

I don't make deals with what I believe to be right and proper. Besides, you've already admitted that you couldn't care any less about the eye-witness accounts with your first BS paragraph in this post.

Blues

As the article I posted has said, friends often lie to protect their friends. I'm not saying they are lying, but what I am saying is that the forensic evidence does not support that claim. Can't tell you how many fight calls I've been on where people who didn't even see the fight or showed up after we did tried to tell us what happened to keep their friends out of trouble. Most lower class neighborhoods hate the cops, and will say whatever they can to keep us from arresting their buddies. So yeah, 6 give relatively the same story, 4 of those give similar, but relatively different stories than the other 2. So their different stories already bring doubt in my mind. Especially when they are countered by the medical examiner account of what happened.

By demanding he go to trial is demanding that he be found guilty. There is absolutely no way that the media won't shove a guilty verdict down any juror's throat. You can't possibly believe that he would get anything close to a fair trial.

 

[Firefighterchen]

I didn't realize all the witnesses were MB friends...and lived in the neighborhood...or that police don't lie for their friends to get them out of trouble...if civilians can buy a medical examiner, why wouldn't police?

If a jury is unreliable, should we just start training judge dredds? Skip the whole trial shenanigans?

Sent from my D6616 using USA Carry mobile app

 

[BluesStringer]

As the article I posted has said, friends often lie to protect their friends. I'm not saying they are lying, but what I am saying is that the forensic evidence does not support that claim. Can't tell you how many fight calls I've been on where people who didn't even see the fight or showed up after we did tried to tell us what happened to keep their friends out of trouble.

Only one of the six, Johnson, even knew Brown, much less were "friends" of his. One said he's seen him around but had never talked to him (Brown visited his grandmother at the apartments).

You're just making stuff up as you go along.

Most lower class neighborhoods hate the cops, and will say whatever they can to keep us from arresting their buddies. So yeah, 6 give relatively the same story, 4 of those give similar, but relatively different stories than the other 2.

You really have trouble following the gist of my posts. I never said that 2 give a different story, I dismissed Johnson's story because of his record of lying to cops, but his story is 100% consistent with the other four who all say Brown had his hands up attempting to surrender when the final volley of shots were fired. The other witness doesn't tell a "different" story, he was just late getting to a vantage point where he could see Brown's final position and only saw him falling as the final two shots were being fired.

And where in the Constitution does it say that cops get to evaluate the "class" of the neighborhood (or is that the citizens who are being evaluated as "low class?") in determining when or if a killing is justifiable?

So their different stories already bring doubt in my mind. Especially when they are countered by the medical examiner account of what happened.

You have proven that zero evidence is needed to establish doubt in your mind about a cop who six witnesses say murdered a "low-class" citizen.

Aside from that though, some of the ME's account conflicts with witness testimony, but that only raises questions about both accounts. Neither side's story conclusively counters the other. That's for a jury to decide.

Have you always hated our constitutional form of government, or are you just on a quest to tarnish the badge you donned within the first year of being sworn in?

By demanding he go to trial is demanding that he be found guilty. There is absolutely no way that the media won't shove a guilty verdict down any juror's throat. You can't possibly believe that he would get anything close to a fair trial.

Oh man, it's much, much worse than I thought. Now cops are routinely and unfairly persecuted, prosecuted, convicted and sentenced? Cops are rarely prosecuted for the crimes they are alleged to have committed, and when they are, the conviction rate is many, many times less than the general public's for the same alleged crimes, and of those who are convicted, they rarely, if ever, get similar sentences as general public defendants get.

Choke-holds illegal? Yep. When used by a cop resulting in the death of a citizen are they illegal? Link Removed.

First threatening and then carrying out a threat to "F you up" with the thug's own fists towards a non-threatening homeless, mentally-ill man illegal? Yep. Same thing if the threatening thugs are cops? Apparently not. After being acquitted of all charges in the death of Kelly Thomas, one of Manuel Ramos' and Jay Cicinelli's defense team said, "These peace officers were doing their jobs...they did what they were trained to do."

Umm....yeah....and that's exactly the problem!

I could go on for pages and pages of cops getting away with murder and nearly any other types of crime one can imagine. Your idiotic persecution complex is total BS.

Everybody with even one eye only partially open knows that last paragraph of yours is total BS. A "fair trial" is not determined by either a guilty or not guilty verdict, but by adherence to the Constitution, the processes it mandates, and rules of evidence by the judge, defense attorneys, prosecutors and jurors. But like I said already, you don't trust the very system you swore an oath to, enough to let it work. And everybody with even one eye only partially open can see that now too.

Blues

 

[AndeyHall]

Only one of the six, Johnson, even knew Brown, much less were "friends" of his. One said he's seen him around but had never talked to him (Brown visited his grandmother at the apartments).

You're just making stuff up as you go along.



You really have trouble following the gist of my posts. I never said that 2 give a different story, I dismissed Johnson's story because of his record of lying to cops, but his story is 100% consistent with the other four who all say Brown had his hands up attempting to surrender when the final volley of shots were fired. The other witness doesn't tell a "different" story, he was just late getting to a vantage point where he could see Brown's final position and only saw him falling as the final two shots were being fired.

And where in the Constitution does it say that cops get to evaluate the "class" of the neighborhood (or is that the citizens who are being evaluated as "low class?") in determining when or if a killing is justifiable?



You have proven that zero evidence is needed to establish doubt in your mind about a cop who six witnesses say murdered a "low-class" citizen.

Aside from that though, some of the ME's account conflicts with witness testimony, but that only raises questions about both accounts. Neither side's story conclusively counters the other. That's for a jury to decide.

Have you always hated our constitutional form of government, or are you just on a quest to tarnish the badge you donned within the first year of being sworn in?



Oh man, it's much, much worse than I thought. Now cops are routinely and unfairly persecuted, prosecuted, convicted and sentenced? Cops are rarely prosecuted for the crimes they are alleged to have committed, and when they are, the conviction rate is many, many times less than the general public's for the same alleged crimes, and of those who are convicted, they rarely, if ever, get similar sentences as general public defendants get.

Choke-holds illegal? Yep. When used by a cop resulting in the death of a citizen are they illegal? Link Removed.

First threatening and then carrying out a threat to "F you up" with the thug's own fists towards a non-threatening homeless, mentally-ill man illegal? Yep. Same thing if the threatening thugs are cops? Apparently not. After being acquitted of all charges in the death of Kelly Thomas, one of Manuel Ramos' and Jay Cicinelli's defense team said, "These peace officers were doing their jobs...they did what they were trained to do."

Umm....yeah....and that's exactly the problem!

I could go on for pages and pages of cops getting away with murder and nearly any other types of crime one can imagine. Your idiotic persecution complex is total BS.

Everybody with even one eye only partially open knows that last paragraph of yours is total BS. A "fair trial" is not determined by either a guilty or not guilty verdict, but by adherence to the Constitution, the processes it mandates, and rules of evidence by the judge, defense attorneys, prosecutors and jurors. But like I said already, you don't trust the very system you swore an oath to, enough to let it work. And everybody with even one eye only partially open can see that now too.

Blues

I trust the system just fine as long as the media keeps their nose out of it. They beat race so hard into every report that it has now become a matter of guilty=justice, not guilty=racist.

 

[BluesStringer]

I trust the system just fine as long as the media keeps their nose out of it. They beat race so hard into every report that it has now become a matter of guilty=justice, not guilty=racist.

The free media is part of the system too! Do you really not get that? It's right there in the 1st Amendment!

I think the media is full of crap too. That's why I'm more concerned with witness accounts and sussing out the legal issues for myself. You will not see me taking race into consideration when expressing an opinion on the legal issues. I call Brown a citizen or the dead man, and call Wilson the cop who shot him. I literally couldn't care any less about the race of either men or of the community where the shooting happened. Wilson was either justified or not. Six citizens say he wasn't. That equals probable cause to bring a charge. Bringing a charge would allow the public airing of all the truth that can be squeezed out of the incident. The grand jury not returning an indictment will prevent any truth from being aired, and it seems to me that's exactly what you want to see happen.

Blues

 

[AndeyHall]

The free media is part of the system too! Do you really not get that? It's right there in the 1st Amendment!

I think the media is full of crap too. That's why I'm more concerned with witness accounts and sussing out the legal issues for myself. You will not see me taking race into consideration when expressing an opinion on the legal issues. I call Brown a citizen or the dead man, and call Wilson the cop who shot him. I literally couldn't care any less about the race of either men or of the community where the shooting happened. Wilson was either justified or not. Six citizens say he wasn't. That equals probable cause to bring a charge. Bringing a charge would allow the public airing of all the truth that can be squeezed out of the incident. The grand jury not returning an indictment will prevent any truth from being aired, and it seems to me that's exactly what you want to see happen.

Blues

A grand jury is part of the system too. If they don't bring an indictment then the system has run its course.

 

[BluesStringer]

A grand jury is part of the system too. If they don't bring an indictment then the system has run its course.

Not in public, it hasn't, if that be the case. Not to a reasonable doubt it hasn't run its course. We'll be left with however many of the grand jury who speak publicly doing exactly what you and I have been doing for last day or two; arguing over what the evidence showed them without any cross examination as to the validity of that evidence. None of it, not Wilson's side nor the witnesses' side, will be tested for credibility. And the fact remains, the Prosecutor had the autonomous authority to bring a charge on his own, but chickened out.

If you think that's what the authors of the Fifth Amendment had in mind when they wrote, lobbied for, and got it passed, you've got the common sense of a flea and the brain-power of a fence-post.

Blues