My Thoughts on Ferguson

eyewitness testimony.

 

nope first we are going to do math, you made a statement now back it up. How many times did the police officer shoot in the air according to you?

 

eyewitness testimony.

now, you said they recanted. prove it.

 

Please post citations to this 'good evidence' of which you speak.

 

i posted the video

- - - Updated - - -

evidence?

 

Actually there is ZERO evidence of that. Even the prosecutor said that his own witness testimonies contradicted each other and even among themselves individually. Both autopsies including the one paid for by the family showed that he did not have his hands up when shot. I wish people would quit spreading all these bull(*)(*)(*)(*) lies around.

 

cop took the time to aim at his head?

interesting.

 

evidence please.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/25/u...charged-at-darren-wilson-prosecutor-says.html

The most credible eyewitnesses to the shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., said he had charged toward Police Officer Darren Wilson just before the final, fatal shots, the St. Louis County prosecutor said Monday night as he sought to explain why a grand jury had not found probable cause to indict the officer.

The accounts of several other witnesses from the Ferguson neighborhood where Mr. Brown, 18 and unarmed, met his death on Aug. 9 — including those who said Mr. Brown was trying to surrender — changed over time or were inconsistent with physical evidence, the prosecutor, Robert P. McCulloch, said in a news conference.

The fact that at least nine members of the 12-member panel could not agree to indict the officer indicates that they accepted the narrative of self-defense put forth by Officer Wilson in his voluntary, four hours of testimony before the grand jury. Mr. McCulloch, in his summary of the months of testimony, said it was supported by the most reliable eyewitness accounts — from African-Americans in the vicinity of the shooting — as well as physical evidence and the consistent results of three autopsies.

Next time just use RCP. It has all sorts of coverage of how the defense witnesses lied and changed their story. And the most reliable witness was black so you can't claim it was some white KKK member just making up (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

Michael Brown couldn't have walked towards the cop with his hands up?

interesting.

 

Many people seem to be under the impression that if you believe the cop acted too hastily out of anger, you are automatically painting a picture of Michael Brown as an angel. They don't understand that others are merely trying to analyze the entire picture while taking into account all of the underlying issues. I too believe that Wilson did not necessarily have to shoot to kill and how would anyone ever know for sure unless there was an actual trial.

 

If one just watches that video it does not look good, but CNN has twisted evidence in controversies before. Like during the Zimmerman shooting, for example.

 

When are you going to realize this Hollywood scenario of winging a perp is just theatrics with no basis in reality or police training? Give up the fairy tales.

Oh, and by the way. Got any evidence to prove your hypothesis?

 

It was recanted and/or contradicted, there is no such testimony.

- - - Updated - - -

It was reported in the announcement of the Grand Jury's decision, try to keep up will ya!

- - - Updated - - -

Doesn't show anything at all

 

There was a grand jury proceeding which found no evidence worthy of a trial. So why conduct an actual trial? Illogical.

 

yes, it was contradicted.

but that doesn't mean it was false.

- - - Updated - - -

it shows two eyewitnesses say they saw Brown put his hands up.

 

It was reported that a love more "hand placements" were given than that....

1 - hands were up (From his friend who's story kept changing which disallows it)
2 - down at his side
3 - in a running position
4 - in a fist position
5 - at his waist (from Wilson)

However, many of the witnesses said that he attacked and then turned and charged to attack again. The 20 ft blood trail attests to that.

Why are you ok with assault, let a,one assault on a officer?

 

oh, now we're doing strawman arguments? ok, I'll play.

why are you ok with killing an innocent unarmed black 18 year old?

 

Already addressed this in another post...

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=384517&p=1064490834#post1064490834

 

no, they chose to disregard the evidence that suggested a trial was warranted.

 

The kid was a thug.

He just came out of an act of hooliganism.

He was an over muscles, under brained punk.

And that some eye witnesses corroborate the officers story is validating.

And those that don't, do not agree in substance. Go figure.


What part doesn't anyone get.
That he just came from a violent criminal act & theft speaks to his frame of mind at that moment.
Not that the officer was administering justice for an act he had no knowledge.



Moi
so confused


r < g
No Confusion

View attachment 31648
No Confusion

​

 

The evidence does not back up "your take". Stick with facts, not fictional scenarios.

 

there is evidence he had his hands up when approaching the cop.

 

Meant to be more playful than anything, lack of tone on forums and all.

However I would say he was already guilty of a crime and several infractures with the officer prior to assaulting him, another crime. Definitely not innocent ....

And as someone who competes amaturely in MMA I will say unarmed can still be very dangerous

 

No their isn't.