By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Ferguson officer Darren Wilson not indicted

Lawlight on 02 December 2014

Anyone justified the rioting yet?



Around the Network
TheBlackNaruto on 02 December 2014
Aeolus451 said:
prayformojo said:


If Brown was shot IN THE CAR, sure. That is not what happened.

There was a struggle in the car, the cop reached for his gun to protect himself, fearing for his life. At that point, Brown grabs the gun, it goes off and he flees. Did you read that? HE FLED. Wilson then gets out of his car, fires 6 shots that miss into the direction of the man running some several feet away. At this point, Brown stops, says something to the effect of "Ok, ok, ok I give up", puts his hands in the air, turns around and then Wilson pumps his body with 6 MORE shots, leaving him dead in the street.

That, my friend, is NOT protecting yourself. That is a case of a cop who's pissed off, full of adrenaline and ready to make someone pay. He didn't have to shoot. His life was not in danger when that kid was running away. He could have stayed in the car and called for backup. He could have run on foot, like most cops do, and pursued Brown. He could have, you know, NOT gunned him down as he stood with his hands up, and ordered him to the ground before handcuffing him and charging him with assault on an officer.

But no. He chose to erase him. That, is where the anger comes from. That is where his crime was commited and why ultimately, he'll probably end up getting killed or beaten within minutes of it. 

He was shot 1 to 2 times in the arm while in the car by wilson then brown fled. Wilson gave chase and brown turned around then charged wilson with his hand near his waistband. Wilson shot him several times. Forensic evidence supports wilson's side of the story and not the "hands up" scenario. Brown wasn't shot in the back at all. The witnesses that said that brown had his hands up and tried to surrender were caught lying about it. There's also a few black witnesses that support wilson's side of the story. The evidence and witnesses for the most part support wilson hence why there was no indictment. No amount of rioting and race baiting will change the truth.

Question how did the Forensic eveidence support Wilson side of the story? It just showed that Brown was not shot in the back. Doesnt prove if he charged him or not. How were the people who said he had his hands up caught lying about it? Weren't there still different sides of the story? Why is one witness more credible than the others if the stories are not consistent? The reason there was no indictment WAS NOT because the evidence supported Wilsons side of the story there was no indictement because there was too much room for reasonable doubt and nothing concrete outside of the altercation that happened inside the car. Everything else is a toss up so with nothing solid there can be no indictment. 



The absence of evidence is NOT the evidence of absence...

PSN: StlUzumaki23

Aeolus451 on 02 December 2014
TheBlackNaruto said:
Aeolus451 said:
prayformojo said:


If Brown was shot IN THE CAR, sure. That is not what happened.

There was a struggle in the car, the cop reached for his gun to protect himself, fearing for his life. At that point, Brown grabs the gun, it goes off and he flees. Did you read that? HE FLED. Wilson then gets out of his car, fires 6 shots that miss into the direction of the man running some several feet away. At this point, Brown stops, says something to the effect of "Ok, ok, ok I give up", puts his hands in the air, turns around and then Wilson pumps his body with 6 MORE shots, leaving him dead in the street.

That, my friend, is NOT protecting yourself. That is a case of a cop who's pissed off, full of adrenaline and ready to make someone pay. He didn't have to shoot. His life was not in danger when that kid was running away. He could have stayed in the car and called for backup. He could have run on foot, like most cops do, and pursued Brown. He could have, you know, NOT gunned him down as he stood with his hands up, and ordered him to the ground before handcuffing him and charging him with assault on an officer.

But no. He chose to erase him. That, is where the anger comes from. That is where his crime was commited and why ultimately, he'll probably end up getting killed or beaten within minutes of it. 

He was shot 1 to 2 times in the arm while in the car by wilson then brown fled. Wilson gave chase and brown turned around then charged wilson with his hand near his waistband. Wilson shot him several times. Forensic evidence supports wilson's side of the story and not the "hands up" scenario. Brown wasn't shot in the back at all. The witnesses that said that brown had his hands up and tried to surrender were caught lying about it. There's also a few black witnesses that support wilson's side of the story. The evidence and witnesses for the most part support wilson hence why there was no indictment. No amount of rioting and race baiting will change the truth.

Question how did the Forensic eveidence support Wilson side of the story? It just showed that Brown was not shot in the back. Doesnt prove if he charged him or not. How were the people who said he had his hands up caught lying about it? Weren't there still different sides of the story? Why is one witness more credible than the others if the stories are not consistent? The reason there was no indictment WAS NOT because the evidence supported Wilsons side of the story there was no indictement because there was too much room for reasonable doubt and nothing concrete outside of the altercation that happened inside the car. Everything else is a toss up so with nothing solid there can be no indictment. 

Well, for one thing, the angle of the gunshot wounds showed that brown had his hands forward like he was charging and not up in the air as some witnesses were saying.The forensic evidence supports wilson's and some witnesses' side of the story. You'll have to look up about the different forensic evidence and how it showed what probably happened for yourself. The others got caught lying.  Once a witness is caught lying, it discredits them as a credible witness for the most part. 



Machiavellian on 02 December 2014
Aeolus451 said:

Well, for one thing, the angle of the gunshot wounds showed that brown had his hands forward like he was charging and not up in the air as some witnesses were saying.The forensic evidence supports wilson's and some witnesses' side of the story. You'll have to look up about the different forensic evidence and how it showed what probably happened for yourself. The others got caught lying.  Once a witness is caught lying, it discredits them as a credible witness for the most part. 

What I find interesting is how you jump to the conclusions you have on less then 3rd hand report.  One witness who was close to the action actually stated that it was Wilson who grabbed Mike Brown and was the aggressor.  He stated Mike attempted to get away and it was Wilson who prevented him from leaving and shot Mike Brown as he tried to remove himself from the car.  

The difference between this witness testimony and Wilson is that one or the other could be correct.  You only have Wilson testimony that Mike Brown was the agressor and reached for his gun.  Lets just think this through a bit.  If you want to justify shooting an unarmed man, stating that the person attempted to grab your gun wold be a pretty good excuse.  In the end, we as the people will never hear or see all of the evidence for the case.  Without hearing all of the witnesses, testimony and evidence, people are left fustrated and made because we cannot get to what really happen that day.  Either way what you consider is a lock really isnt.  Its just another side of the story that can be spinned in any direction and only Mike Brown and Wilson know the total truth.



TheBlackNaruto on 02 December 2014
Aeolus451 said:
TheBlackNaruto said:

Question how did the Forensic eveidence support Wilson side of the story? It just showed that Brown was not shot in the back. Doesnt prove if he charged him or not. How were the people who said he had his hands up caught lying about it? Weren't there still different sides of the story? Why is one witness more credible than the others if the stories are not consistent? The reason there was no indictment WAS NOT because the evidence supported Wilsons side of the story there was no indictement because there was too much room for reasonable doubt and nothing concrete outside of the altercation that happened inside the car. Everything else is a toss up so with nothing solid there can be no indictment. 

Well, for one thing, the angle of the gunshot wounds showed that brown had his hands forward like he was charging and not up in the air as some witnesses were saying.The forensic evidence supports wilson's and some witnesses' side of the story. You'll have to look up about the different forensic evidence and how it showed what probably happened for yourself. The others got caught lying.  Once a witness is caught lying, it discredits them as a credible witness for the most part. 

Well that's the thing I have already looked up all the information that has been given. And what you are saying could go both ways the forensic evidence shows that he could have been charging, he could have had his hands up or that he could have even been falling forward. It doesn't just support what you are saying. Again hence the reason there was no indictment because there was not sufficent evidence to say for sure if it was one way or the other. And again with so many of the witnesses' having different stories and opinions what makes one more credible than the other? Leaving out the ones that were "caught lying" there are still far too many conflicting stories. And there were onl 2 people who ACTUALLY know what happened we have one side of the story from one of the two but the other side will never be known because the other party is no longer with us.



The absence of evidence is NOT the evidence of absence...

PSN: StlUzumaki23

Around the Network
Machiavellian on 02 December 2014

Interesting

http://us7.campaign-archive1.com/?u=b493e6c4d31beda32fdaf8e2d&id=73514e334b



RCTjunkie on 02 December 2014
Machiavellian said:
Interesting

http://us7.campaign-archive1.com/?u=b493e6c4d31beda32fdaf8e2d&id=73514e334b


Can they do "Double Jepordy" on Wilson since he technically wasn't indicted? Or since he was already charged it became too late?



WHO IS JESUS REALLY?

pepharytheworm on 03 December 2014
RCTjunkie said:
Machiavellian said:
Interesting

http://us7.campaign-archive1.com/?u=b493e6c4d31beda32fdaf8e2d&id=73514e334b


Can they do "Double Jepordy" on Wilson since he technically wasn't indicted? Or since he was already charged it became too late?


There can be no double jeopordy here as this wasn't a criminal trial. He was never found innocent or guilty. He can be put before a grand jury again as long as the prosecutor is willing.



GamechaserBE on 03 December 2014

And another case:

NYPD officer who killed Eric Garner in chokehold won't face criminal charges

Garner's death was captured on video. One video, reported by New York Daily News, shows multiple police officers pulling Garner to the ground, with one officer grabbing the 43-year-old in a chokehold. Garner can be heard saying, "I can't breathe," numerous times before he died.


Great justice system



Ljink96 on 03 December 2014

It's a shame that somebody died and nothing happens as a result and the killer gets away with it. It's been happening too much recently and it is making me sick. If it was a white boy getting shot by a black cop, you best believe he'd be in jail for life. White police, some of them are descendants of the KKK, and that mentality is silent yet deadly. It really saddens my heart that justice hasn't come and won't come. I heard that Obama is calling for ALL police to wear body cameras. I LOVE it.