- Joined
- Oct 17, 2006
- Messages
- 59,366
- Reaction score
- 27,052
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
There's no need to continue on with the dodging. Everyone saw what you did and how wrong you were. Now you're just continuing to embarrass yourself. I'm fine allowing you to do that. But you've distracted from the thread topic enough, got anything more to say to me, make sure it's on topic. Everyone here has your number.
#675
Read it, learn it, take it to heart. Get back on topic.
No problem with Disney's actions?
No, no. I asked you to show us what the post says. Did I state "coming from the ideology"? Are you not right wing? I'll wait. The best part is that SMTA who is also right wing and then another right wing poster espoused those very opinions minutes later I stated it. That you're not trying to avoid like the plague what was actually said in the post is funny.
Lmao - I literally posted my response when you were still online. I can even prove it. You're not right wing now? That's not an argument made by the right wing ideology?You need to stop this before you look even worse.
if the photos are out there - photos which will show us a face that was so damaged there was reasonable fear that the next punch to it could have been fatal, as the cop attested, then show it to us on this debate site and convince us that it is you who is correct instead of meNo-the photos are out there, taken at the same time as this-im not going to spoon feed you while you tap dance. But thats not the real issue here.
i posted the photo of the cop on the evening of the event, soon after he insisted that the next blow to his face could have been fatal. to ask the viewer to question how legitimate that cop's testimony was based on the photoWHY would you post the view that shows no injury when there are others out there that do? Are you trying to misrepresent here?
then let's ask a different questionI think we know the answer to this.
which exactly why a trial was needed. others of us have an issue with that conclusion. the cop was seated in his SUV and backed up to confront the young men walking in the road for a second time. who was the party to actually initiate this physical conflict. it may have been brown. but let's see this at trial. what might be found is that it was the cop who assaulted brown and brown was defending himself from the cop's assaultBrown was a thug who attacked a cop and then tried to shoot him with the cops own gun.
from the video i watched, my recollection was that brown was headed out the door when he was approached by the store operator, and then shook him off. at a trial we would be better able to assess what that was about. did brown steal those cigars or was he leaving abruptly after being approached to determine if he was old enough to make that purchase. right now, i don't knowBrown had just assaulted a store clerk (who's store was looted tonight) and then robbed him.
were there other witnesses who saw brown not charge but instead place his hands in a position of surrender. i believe there were. which alone would tell us there was probable cause to have a trial to learn the truth. something which will not come out without a trialBrown charged the cop according to black witnesses in the grand jury.
i can accept the truth. but it will require a trial for the truth to emerge. only a simpleton would believe a grand jury determines truth. it only evaluates probable cause for or against a trial going forwardWhy can't you accept the truth?
again, how do you know which narrative is false? there has been no trial for all sides of the issue to emergeWhy are you willing to deceive yourself and others over a false narrative?
You just love that victim card, and play it poorly.
#675
Read it, learn it, take it to heart. Get back on topic.
What?
Nothing to do with Disney.
What do the protesters want? Justice? I do to. The truth? I do to. We have a process to find the answers and they don't like it
but that was not the issue i was presentingProportional response is not the standard. Police carry weapons and it's their duty to protect themselves harm and keep their weapon in control at all times. The standard is not, you busted my lip so I give you a black eye. The standard is obey the law and don't assault a cop.
but that was not the issue i was presenting
my point was to look at the face of the cop, photographed at the emergency room immediately after the incident
and by looking at that photo to conclude how truthful the cop's testimony was when asserting that he believed the next blow to that face could have been fatal
View attachment 67176385
and i asked the forum community to ask themselves, is this the face of a shooter who reasonably believed the next punch to it could have proven fatal? was the cop being honest in his grand jury testimony?
Nope. I have no problem with a cop using deadly force where it is warranted. Here it clearly was not. Like I said....hopefully one day the good cops out there (and I will say that they vastly outnumber the bad) will get wise to the fact that the code of silence makes it much more difficult to do their job. They should actively help weed out the bad apples, but all too often their sense of brotherhood does not allow them to do this. Hopefully that will change one day.
you show it to us
PLEASE!
i want to see a face that tells us he had reasonable reason to believe the next blow to it could have been fatal
so, please do show us that photo
View attachment 67176372
this is all that i have. show us the photo you insist will exculpate the shooter
but that was not the issue i was presenting
my point was to look at the face of the cop, photographed at the emergency room immediately after the incident
and by looking at that photo to conclude how truthful the cop's testimony was when asserting that he believed the next blow to that face could have been fatal
View attachment 67176385
and i asked the forum community to ask themselves, is this the face of a shooter who reasonably believed the next punch to it could have proven fatal? was the cop being honest in his grand jury testimony?
you won
coldest post ever on the internet
Did Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson assault Darren Wilson? Yes, or no?
which exactly why a trial was needed. others of us have an issue with that conclusion. the cop was seated in his SUV and backed up to confront the young men walking in the road for a second time. who was the party to actually initiate this physical conflict. it may have been brown. but let's see this at trial. what might be found is that it was the cop who assaulted brown and brown was defending himself from the cop's assault
were there other witnesses who saw brown not charge but instead place his hands in a position of surrender. i believe there were. which alone would tell us there was probable cause to have a trial to learn the truth. something which will not come out without a trial
i don't know
which is why a trial is needed to make that determination
Ever been in what is essentially a life or death situation where you are not the aggressor? Can I imagine/believe that Wilson was fearful that the next blow could have disabled him (knocked out, stunned, etc) and Brown uses Wilson handgun to shoot him? I can absolutely believe that could have been going through Wilson's mind.
i don't know
which is why a trial is needed to make that determination
how do you know that they were wrong? there was no trialWilson, from his own testimony, backed up because of Brown's comments and the cigarillos in Brown's hand. He had heard about the theft on his radio prior to his contact with Brown. Imagine if Brown and his buddy were walking on the sidewalk, or at least complied with Wilson when he suggested to them that the sidewalk was a better place to walk.
I believe all of the witnesses who saw Brown in a position of surrender were found out to be wrong.
if the photos are out there - photos which will show us a face that was so damaged there was reasonable fear that the next punch to it could have been fatal, as the cop attested, then show it to us on this debate site and convince us that it is you who is correct instead of me
you insist there are other available photos to offer. so, offer them
i posted the photo of the cop on the evening of the event, soon after he insisted that the next blow to his face could have been fatal. to ask the viewer to question how legitimate that cop's testimony was based on the photo
so, again, share with us your photo which will support your position
then let's ask a different question
the grand jury is intended to make a determination of probable cause. to assess whether there was enough reason to proceed with a case at trial, for a jury to make a decision
based on what i have seen, there was an abundance of evidence to cause a reasonable person to conclude that there was probable cause for a trial. not to make a determination of guilt or acquittal, but enough to warrant a trial
which exactly why a trial was needed. others of us have an issue with that conclusion. the cop was seated in his SUV and backed up to confront the young men walking in the road for a second time. who was the party to actually initiate this physical conflict. it may have been brown. but let's see this at trial. what might be found is that it was the cop who assaulted brown and brown was defending himself from the cop's assault
from the video i watched, my recollection was that brown was headed out the door when he was approached by the store operator, and then shook him off. at a trial we would be better able to assess what that was about. did brown steal those cigars or was he leaving abruptly after being approached to determine if he was old enough to make that purchase. right now, i don't know
were there other witnesses who saw brown not charge but instead place his hands in a position of surrender. i believe there were. which alone would tell us there was probable cause to have a trial to learn the truth. something which will not come out without a trial
i can accept the truth. but it will require a trial for the truth to emerge. only a simpleton would believe a grand jury determines truth. it only evaluates probable cause for or against a trial going forward
again, how do you know which narrative is false? there has been no trial for all sides of the issue to emerge
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?