- Joined
- Nov 11, 2011
- Messages
- 12,895
- Reaction score
- 2,909
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
update to this
Marlon Brown's family want charges against DeLand police officer in Brown's death - Orlando Sentinel
FDLE launches investigation into Marlon Brown's autopsy
although it looks doubtful at least some further steps are being done, hopefully justice will be served
what exactly is an investigation into the autopsy suppose to reveal that wouldn't have been covered by the grand jury?
guess youll find out when its done :shrug:
the accusation was dependent on the idea that he purposely hit the guy, as opposed to it being an accident. I just fail to see how an investigation is going to impact the evidence viewed by the grand jury or how they saw the case
update to this
Marlon Brown's family want charges against DeLand police officer in Brown's death - Orlando Sentinel
FDLE launches investigation into Marlon Brown's autopsy
although it looks doubtful at least some further steps are being done, hopefully justice will be served
Justice was served. Dumbass Criminal Dead, no longer threat to public safety.
you are welcome to that meaningless opinion :shrug:
but the supervising officer, one of the corners and this special investigation team disagree with you
1.)Then they should be fired. Any so called "person" who sympathizes with a criminal should never be allowed to work in criminal justice.
3.) In fact, they are probably liberals if they do. In which case, someone should run their asses over also.
1.) you are welcome to the opinion too
2.) did read anybody sympathizing with the criminal but please feel free to make other straw man up
3.) well since number 2 is made up your opinion in number 3 is also meaningless
your angry is funny
:shrug:
yeah the link is posted now and of course i cant be certain either because it could be one of those instances where the gas was hit on accident in a panic or he threw his car in neutral and hit the brake.
But the engine definitely revs hard.
well its a good thing your insight isnt need for the investigation or the case :shrug:
you are welcome to that meaningless opinion :shrug:
but the supervising officer, one of the corners and this special investigation team disagree with you
According to Latinsky, Harris drove onto the grass because he thought Brown ran into the woods that lined the field. Harris planned to park his car on the field and had no intention of hurting Brown, Latinsky said.
When the State Attorney's Office took the case to a grand jury on Sept. 10, the panel decided that Harris, who was fired three weeks after the crash, committed no crime.
"There is a distinction between doing something criminal and violating police protocol," said Lyle Mazin, an Orlando defense attorney.
As a new employee, Harris was on probation when the crash occurred. After watching the video, DeLand Police Chief William Ridgway fired Harris for acting carelessly during the short pursuit.
Mazin said Harris is unlikely to ever face charges unless the family's attorney, Benjamin Crump — who represented Trayvon Martin's family — can find additional evidence.
Short of that, "I don't see why the State Attorney's Office would ignore the grand jury and independently file (charges) against this police officer," Mazin said.
Firing a cop and wanting charges brought against him for taking an dangerous animal off the streets is having sympathy for the criminals.
1.)talk about a post devoid of content
2.) I outlined why and how the charges are being pursued and how the stated investigation will seem to have little impact on that.
3.) Of course the investigation isn't dependent on my say so, but the apparent issues I outlined would still exist
that isn't what your article states at all:
nothing in your posted articles indicates "the supervising officer, one of the corners and this special investigation team disagree" with the findings of the grand jury
Did you maybe post the wrong article?
nope its simply not :shrug:
the firing was justified and investigating what happened is simply typical especially when corners come up with different things but like i said feel free to make more stuff up, its funny
1.)If he hadn't run, he wouldn't of died. Period.
2.) He was a criminal
3.) and an animal, period.
4.) His death was a benefit to society, period.
1.) another opinion you are free to have but thats all it is
2.) meaningless
3.) more meaningless opinion
4.) more meaningless opinion
:shrug: its cute you think your opinion matters
what exactly is an investigation into the autopsy suppose to reveal that wouldn't have been covered by the grand jury?
Not opinion. Fact, if he had not chose to run, there would of been no further incident. That is absolute fact. Since he chose to run, he instigated the incident and bears responsibility for it. Again, not opinion, absolute unyielding fact.
1.)Not opinion. Fact, if he had not chose to run, there would of been no further incident. That is absolute fact. Since he chose to run, he instigated the incident and bears responsibility for it. Again, not opinion, absolute unyielding fact.
That's absurd. The police can not just run over people with their cruisers because a person is running - just like they can't just shoot the person in the back - no difference - and particularly when the allegation/perp's offense leading to this was the lowest possible misdemeanor - no seatbelt.
I suppose you also think if some officer shouts at kids on skateboards on sidewalk where shakeboarding is prohibited by ordinance, "HEY, YOU KIDS ON SKATEBOARDS, GET OVER HERE!" - and instead the kids run - then the officer should shoot all of them as they flee because "as absolute fact they choose to run."
LMAO thank you for proving you dont know what that word is, nope just an opinion. The chief had the opinion the officer acted irresponsible so the OPINION could also be said if he doesnt this doesnt happen.
nope just an opinion, one you are free to have and one that is meaningless hence whats going on, its cute you think its a fact though VERY funny too.
That the death was caused by being hit by the cruiser. The prosecution's witness (obviously really the "defense's witness" to call it correctly) stated the autopsy showed on evidence of being impacted by the car. Yet you see it and even hear his head hitting the front of the car. The relevancy is it was claimed by the DA-defense and defense "expert" that the impact by the car not only didn't kill him, but that it never even happened.
A legit autopsy would obviously show otherwise.
Not for this case, but if the coroner's office is THAT much lying in terms of investigations and causes of death, it is a HUGE problem in general. How many other cases and for how many other deaths of any kind has the coroner lied about what the autopsy showed?
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?