By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Aeolus451 on 02 December 2014
Edit Thread
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.