the expert investigators are saying the evidence is pointing toward the Officer's story being the correct one. I'll take their word over your "unaffiliated sources" every day of the week.
Because Brown may have thought that Wilson was some "Klansman with a badge." Taking something that I said Brown may have been thinking and outright accusing me of thinking it is completely inappropriate.
You and other like yourself are easily influence by your racial ignorance that you will always side on the cop side no matter what. You are not interested in finding out the truth, you are more interested in protecting this white officer.
Ferguson, Mo., police officer Darren Wilson shot and killed unarmed teenager Michael Brown after they fought for control of the officer’s gun and after Brown moved toward Wilson as they faced off in the street, according to interviews, news accounts and the full report of the St. Louis County autopsy of Brown’s body...
Some of the physical evidence — including blood spatter analysis, shell casings and ballistics tests — also supports Wilson’s account of the shooting, The Post’s sources said, which cast Brown as an aggressor who threatened the officer’s life. The sources spoke on condition of anonymity because they are prohibited from publicly discussing the case.
That is a cop out, excuse the pun...
Look, the most likely scenerio, that was talked about early on, and is proving as the case goes on to be the correct one is this
Brown, and his friend strong arm rob a store of cigarellos, and as they are walking down the street they are approached by Officer Wilson, in his patrol SUV, and told to get out of the roadway. Then Wilson pulls ahead of them and parks to make sure he observes them following his instruction. Now, these two don't know why he is parked the car, and is observing them, their paranoia tells them they are about to be arrested, during this time the call for the robbery comes over the radio, and these two fit the description, so as Wilson starts to get out to confront them again, Brown punches him back into the car, and struggles for the gun....Now, it is no longer petty theft for robbery, Now it is Assault of a police officer, Attempted murder of a police officer. So, as Brown and his friend start to walk away thinking that they beat up a cop, and can walk away, they hear Wilson order them to stop. Brown being already shot in the hand from the struggle, turns and taunts Wilson saying "What? You gonna shoot me" as he advances toward Wilson, and Wilson as he should shoots Brown until the threat is stopped. period.
Nothing else in my mind is anything other than ridiculous bs.
I found particularly interesting the part of your version of events where you unknowingly called Darren Wilson a liar.
Oh? And care to share, or is that just a phony charge?
That is a cop out, excuse the pun...
Look, the most likely scenerio, that was talked about early on, and is proving as the case goes on to be the correct one is this
Brown, and his friend strong arm rob a store of cigarellos, and as they are walking down the street they are approached by Officer Wilson, in his patrol SUV, and told to get out of the roadway. Then Wilson pulls ahead of them and parks to make sure he observes them following his instruction. Now, these two don't know why he is parked the car, and is observing them, their paranoia tells them they are about to be arrested, during this time the call for the robbery comes over the radio, and these two fit the description, so as Wilson starts to get out to confront them again, Brown punches him back into the car, and struggles for the gun....Now, it is no longer petty theft for robbery, Now it is Assault of a police officer, Attempted murder of a police officer. So, as Brown and his friend start to walk away thinking that they beat up a cop, and can walk away, they hear Wilson order them to stop. Brown being already shot in the hand from the struggle, turns and taunts Wilson saying "What? You gonna shoot me" as he advances toward Wilson, and Wilson as he should shoots Brown until the threat is stopped. period.
Nothing else in my mind is anything other than ridiculous bs.
Sure, see the bolded below. If you need more information than that, I suggest you try the article in the OP that the thread was started for.
Ok, so my opinion was that Brown and his friend were walking away, and Wilson recounts that they turned and Brown ran toward him while he was ordering him to stop...That's worse....I don't see how you think that helps your attempt to blame the cop here?
FWIW from The Washington Post:
Evidence supports officer
As noted in previous comments on this case, I thought that one should wait for the facts to become clear rather than rushing to judgment. I welcomed the Grand Jury examination of the evidence.
Ok, so my opinion was that Brown and his friend were walking away, and Wilson recounts that they turned and Brown ran toward him while he was ordering him to stop...That's worse....I don't see how you think that helps your attempt to blame the cop here?
the cop, who is motivated to construct a story which exculpates him from liability, had the benefit of knowing what the other witnesses observed previous to issuing his version of events. those other witnesses provided their testimony soon after the incident
and what appears to be significant is that while the victim is alleged by the shooter to have continued to threaten him, those other - more objective - witnesses saw a young man who was defenseless, wounded, and in a subordinating position. hardly the target identified as a threat to the shooter, at the time he was killed by said shooter
Wait, wait!!! This doesn't fit the liberal mantra ... tell me it isn't so!!!
Nonsense bubba....Tell me, what was the motivation for Wilson to just kill Brown would be? It just doesn't make sense here, and I know that when something like that doesn't make sense it is bs.
Don, with all due respect, that WaPo article simply regurgitates things we already know. They give no details about accounts of the new anonymous eyewitnesses, the accounts of which they are getting via hearsay from "sources close to the investigation" also known as law enforcement, other that they "largely" support Wilson's account (which specific parts they support (and don't support) is a fairly relevant detail, no?). They use the new autopsy report to conclude that Brown didn't have his hands up when the bullets went through his eye and skull, like that was some kind of amazing revelation (Michael Brady said he even captured a picture Brown before the final shots were fired, who at that point had curled up and was starting to stumble to the ground). They went into the details about how the forensics support Brown reaching for his gun for whatever reason, which isn't really disputed now that the full autopsy report was leaked to the Post-Dispatch, and does not provide conclusive evidence of either Wilson's or Brown's state of mind (although it narrows the possibilities).
They failed to specifically mention whether the anonymous eyewitnesses heard Wilson say "get on the ground" as he claims he did. They also failed to specifically mention whether the anonymous eyewitnesses said that Brown had his hands in the air after he turned around towards Wilson. They failed to specifically mention whether the anonymous eyewitnesses said that Brown charged at Wilson.
And again, and most importantly, their source for all of this information is undoubtedly law enforcement. The same law enforcement that said that the entire scene from the car door to the shooting was 35 feet. The same law enforcement that said that there were too many specific requests for the store surveillance video to hold back, but then couldn't produce any.
The grand jury proceedings are unusual. Typically in a grand jury case, the lead investigator will provide an overview of his findings and perhaps one or two witnesses will testify.
However, McCulloch decided from the beginning that the grand jury in this case would sort through all the evidence. And, instead of telling grand jury members what charges they believe Wilson should face, prosecutors are involving the grand jury as co-investigators.
let's see. he was on the police force that had been disbanded because of the force's inclination toward racially motivated actions
the two (black) guys he just told to get out of the road; did they follow his instructions or did they piss the officer off by ignoring them?
did that cause him to place the SUV in reverse and return to confront them?
did he - as witnesses have indicated - grab the victim thru the window of the police SUV, which would have identified the officer as the one initiating violence?
all kinds of speculation. speculation which might be substantially resolved at a trial. hopefully, the grand jury will act to require one
"No justice, no peace."
Expect riots.
I understand your point. I haven't reached any premature conclusions. I await the Grand Jury's conclusion, but assuming some of the leaded reports are accurate--and we don't have all the details that the Grand Jury has--a decision not to indict is very much in the realm of possibility.
Are you interested in the truth? Seems the reported forensic evidence is supporting the LEO statements.
Your statement of racial ignorance and always side on the cop side is an opinion not based in fact. Why do you believe those who support the LEO are influenced by racial ignorance? Seems you are the one blind to what the facts are telling about the incident.
I am interested in the truth and I said it multiple times that everyone need to pump their brakes and wait for all the evidence to come out. Do you find it suspicious that Wilson said that Brown didn't have his arms up yet witnesses (both black and white) said that Brown had his arms up. Who wouldn't question that. I'm not on a witch hunt for cops. I am on record saying that the shooting incident in St Louis was a clean shoot and the cop should not face any punishment. A lot of stuff in this case does not smell right
And lets be honest here. Majority of the people siding on the police side already had their mind made up when they say Brown's pictures posted. Maybe not you, but there are many (on both sides) seem to be in it for some kind of racial pissing contest.
here's what i am able to show you. that he was removed from the police force, with his counterparts, because the force was found to act in a discriminatory manner against blacksCan you show me any of Wilson's actions on that force that contributed to this action?
so, you think people do not murder another over petty matters that get them angry?So you think that cops murder people because they get mad at them for not following orders?
not other than the cop had previously been removed from the police force because that police force was found to act in a discriminatory manner towards blacksAlso, that you chose to highlight (black) in parenthesis shows that you think this was racially motivated, and you have NO evidence that was the case.
that is a possibility, but the police spokesman indicated there was no connection between the two incidents. so maybe the police were mistakenOr, did the radio report of the robbery, and these two fitting the description cause that?
at a trial, we would be able to see if these various witnesses all lied about the same thingThat is absurd, and makes NO sense at all...Probably a lie.
if they refuse to indict him, there will be massive demonstrations. a trial would likely eliminate that prospectNope, I think the GJ will not indict, from what we know at this point that would be proper no matter your need to have the cop arrested and face trial for doing his job in a difficult circumstance...
here's what i am able to show you. that he was removed from the police force, with his counterparts, because the force was found to act in a discriminatory manner against blacks
yes, he was a member of that removed police force
so, you think people do not murder another over petty matters that get them angry?
not other than the cop had previously been removed from the police force because that police force was found to act in a discriminatory manner towards blacks
he may have been an innocent who failed to go to court to defend himself from wrongful termination. but he also could have been as racially biased as the others who were fired
it's something something that could be learned at trial
that is a possibility, but the police spokesman indicated there was no connection between the two incidents. so maybe the police were mistaken
at a trial, we would be able to see if these various witnesses all lied about the same thing
if they refuse to indict him, there will be massive demonstrations. a trial would likely eliminate that prospect
if the grand jury ignores the testimony of the other witnesses, then i would expect the DoJ to come into this as a racially motivated matter, just to avoid the prospect of racial demonstrations
here's what i am able to show you. that he was removed from the police force, with his counterparts, because the force was found to act in a discriminatory manner against blacks
yes, he was a member of that removed police force
so, you think people do not murder another over petty matters that get them angry?
not other than the cop had previously been removed from the police force because that police force was found to act in a discriminatory manner towards blacks
he may have been an innocent who failed to go to court to defend himself from wrongful termination. but he also could have been as racially biased as the others who were fired
it's something something that could be learned at trial
that is a possibility, but the police spokesman indicated there was no connection between the two incidents. so maybe the police were mistaken
at a trial, we would be able to see if these various witnesses all lied about the same thing
if they refuse to indict him, there will be massive demonstrations. a trial would likely eliminate that prospect
if the grand jury ignores the testimony of the other witnesses, then i would expect the DoJ to come into this as a racially motivated matter, just to avoid the prospect of racial demonstrations
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?