How many rounds did the officer fire?
In Brown? From the audio tape it sounded like 10-11.
the only way an indictment cannot happen is if they can absolutely show that the policeman acted appropriately
and there is nothing to indicate that
just as with the trayvon case, a trial is needed to show the community that justice resulted after the shooting
We see the fiber of your fabric..You do realize that the way you typed that shows us that you think the cop is guilty until proven innocent.
But yes, the Mob must have it's Circus I suppose...
How many hits, with a busted eye?
You do realize that the way you typed that shows us that you think the cop is guilty until proven innocent. We see the fiber of your fabric..
But yes, the Mob must have it's Circus I suppose...
Do you know how many of the first 130 persons exonerated by DNA were convicted because of eyewitness testimony in the first place? 80 percent. You can look it up on Google. 80 percent, and all of them convicted because of bad eyewitness testimony, and in most of those cases, testimony by multiple eyewitnesses.
An indictment isn't a conviction. The standard for an in indictment is much lower than that for a conviction.
This has nothing to do with the assumption of guilt. The assumption is suppose to be innocent, until proven guilty. The poster to whom I addressed had that reversed.
I honestly would love to believe that you're right about the spray and pray part. Though understand I'm not saying that any of this is willful. I was more thinking a scared guy resorting to overkill.
And I'm astounded that the hit rate is so low. Maybe it means they need more rounds. Maybe it means different training. I don't know.
You fire until the threat is down. Period.
The only burden is one of reasonable doubt in a Grand Jury.iLOL
Worthless witnesses are worthless.
There has been no credible witness that said Brown was surrendering.
What we do know though from a spontaneous, unscripted, uncoached and unrehearsed witness is that Brown was running towards the Officer, while the Officer was shooting at him. He was surprised as he thought the Officer was missing.
No one said they were there to determine guilt, so why are you bringing up irrelevancy?
And you really shouldn't speak about things you know not.
A GJ is looking for sufficient evidence to indict. Not doubt.
:
Or just as likely that he was lying on the ground with blood seeping out of multiple bullet wounds, eh?
How can anyone really know if they weren't an eyewitness?
Those were almost all cases of mistaken identity by one person.Do you know how many of the first 130 persons exonerated by DNA were convicted because of eyewitness testimony in the first place? 80 percent. You can look it up on Google. 80 percent, and all of them convicted because of bad eyewitness testimony, and in most of those cases, testimony by multiple eyewitnesses.
This has been a huge issue in the court system that has been studied, documented and analyzed for the last 20 year. Eyewitness testimony, for a number of reasons, doesn't hold up in court the way it once did - for or against the person accused. It's like trace evidence. It can be contaminated. Our memories fade over time. And it isn't scientific.
This has nothing to do with the assumption of guilt. The assumption is suppose to be innocent, until proven guilty. The poster to whom I addressed had that reversed.
What evidence is there to show that he had a " busted eye"?How many hits, with a busted eye?
Those were almost all cases of mistaken identity by one person.
We know the identity of all the primary people in this case.
The case hinges on what witnesses saw happen ...not who.
Four agree on what that was and the hard evidence backs them up.
You should note that the testimony of someone accused of murder is far less reliable than witnesses.
What evidence is there to show that he had a " busted eye"?
The hospital reported examining Wilson for a slight swelling on his face and releasing him almost immediately.
All talk of a "busted eye" is pure conjecture or debunked made up lies.
What evidence is there to show that he had a " busted eye"?
The hospital reported examining Wilson for a slight swelling on his face and releasing him almost immediately.
All talk of a "busted eye" is pure conjecture or debunked, made up lies.
To put all your eggs into the one basket of what the killer might say to keep himself free is far less reliable.great point. the people defending this guy are putting all their eggs into the "eyewitnesses say" basket. However if this had been a black person being shot in a white neighborhood his defenders would say "we can't believe a thing the eyewitnesses say", but in this situation they accept the eyewitness testimony as GOLD. funny, but also sad.
That is the opinion of CBS-KMOX not the forensic surgeons.I believe your correct about the injury to the officer's eye.
However it is shown that the eye witnessess that stated Brown was shot in the back was false
Expert: Autopsy Reveals Eyewitness Accounts That Brown Was Shot In Back Are ‘False’ « CBS St. Louis
Those were almost all cases of mistaken identity by one person.
We know the identity of all the primary people in this case.
The case hinges on what witnesses saw happen ...not who.
Four agree on what that was and the hard evidence backs them up.
You should note that the testimony of someone accused of murder is far less reliable than witnesses.
The witnesses’ testimony also grew more damning after authorities had concluded, in the beginning of January, 1992, that Willingham was likely guilty of murder. In Diane Barbee’s initial statement to authorities, she had portrayed Willingham as “hysterical,” and described the front of the house exploding. But on January 4th, after arson investigators began suspecting Willingham of murder, Barbee suggested that he could have gone back inside to rescue his children, for at the outset she had seen only “smoke coming from out of the front of the house”—smoke that was not “real thick.”
An even starker shift occurred with Father Monaghan’s testimony. In his first statement, he had depicted Willingham as a devastated father who had to be repeatedly restrained from risking his life. Yet, as investigators were preparing to arrest Willingham, he concluded that Willingham had been too emotional (“He seemed to have the type of distress that a woman who had given birth would have upon seeing her children die”); and he expressed a “gut feeling” that Willingham had “something to do with the setting of the fire.”
Think about what you just implied... If everyone had to presume the innocence of an accused defendant NO witness could ever testify that they thought they were guilty of anything.
The principle is that the accused must be; "presumed innocent in the eyes of the law until proven guilty". The law must presume innocence ...a poster on an internet site offering their opinion has no such legal constraint ... just like a witness .
Those were almost all cases of mistaken identity by one person.
We know the identity of all the primary people in this case.
The case hinges on what witnesses saw happen ...not who.
Four agree on what that was and the hard evidence backs them up.
You should note that the testimony of someone accused of murder is far less reliable than witnesses.
Think about what you just implied... If everyone had to presume the innocence of an accused defendant NO witness could ever testify that they thought they were guilty of anything.
The principle is that the accused must be; "presumed innocent in the eyes of the law until proven guilty". The law must presume innocence ...a poster on an internet site offering their opinion has no such legal constraint ... just like a witness .
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?