Missouri Police Officer guns down unarmed 18 year old

[Londo_Jowo]

The shell casings that are around where Michael Brown ended up were from the first volley of rounds. There is a second set of shell casings that shows Officer Wilson had retreated and fired the second/final volley at an advancing Brown.

 

[AllanMoore]

Why police in the US becoming so brutal and violent!? http://picoolio.net/image/emG

 

[Annisman*]

I give any of you guys still trying to have a logical debate with ivwshane mad props, you guys are warriors.

 

[CZroe]

http://youtu.be/ez60_d-WF2A

 

[cubby1223]

I give any of you guys still trying to have a logical debate with ivwshane mad props, you guys are warriors.

He's stubborn as a mule and has changed his official stance of outrage dozens of times throughout this thread, but it's actually interesting to fully think through my thoughts and know for myself what exactly I believe and don't believe and why.

 

[ivwshane]

He's stubborn as a mule and has changed his official stance of outrage dozens of times throughout this thread, but it's actually interesting to fully think through my thoughts and know for myself what exactly I believe and don't believe and why.

No, I've been pretty consistent in what my stance is, you just keep changing it to maintain your belief.

 

[CZroe]

No, I've been pretty consistent in what my stance is, you just keep changing it to maintain your belief.

No, because had stance BEFORE the Grand Jury decision was reached and your current stance is supposedly because of the corrupt system.

THEN you go right back to statements like this:
"This indicates that wilson had followed brown and not retreating from him."



You are so full of it. You have been siding with idiots and changing the goal posts from the start.

 

[ivwshane]

No, because had stance BEFORE the Grand Jury decision was reached and your current stance is supposedly because of the corrupt system.

THEN you go right back to statements like this:
"This indicates that wilson had followed brown and not retreating from him."



You are so full of it. You have been siding with idiots and changing the goal posts from the start.

Oh I see, I'm not allowed to correct misinformation or to state facts that contradict your narrative? Got it!


Idiot!

 

[Londo_Jowo]

LMAO!!!! The only narrative that has been contradicted/debunked is what the media darlings and a known liar went on TV and claimed at the time of the incident. It appears that some can not separate emotion from logic therefore they're still clinging on to the media's false narrative. How this can happen to anyone with more than an average IQ is unbelievable and for someone with higher education is way beyond unbelievable.

 

[CZroe]

Oh I see, I'm not allowed to correct misinformation or to state facts that contradict your narrative? Got it!


Idiot!

You said that you were consistent in your stance right after saying that this was about a corrupt/unfair system. Obviously, that wasn't your stance until it became about the system because that was all you had left. Are you saying that it was "about the corrupt system" BEFORE the Grand Jury decision?

You just got finished misconstruing the bullets on the ground and you have gone full circle from attacking Wilson for something he didn't do, to defending Brown for something he did do, to attacking the prosecutor/Grand Jury while distorting the details of Brown's encounter with Wilson.

Thanks for playing. Where are you going to move those goal posts to next?

 

[Fern]

Lol, dodge number three.

I just told you that there are witnesses for both accounts, including witnesses that didn't witness anything and according to the police your wife did indeed assault a cop.

The physical evidence also doesn't back up or disprove the cops testimony unless you are a fucking moron who doesn't understand that physical evidence doesn't indicate things like, time line or motives or all actions that occurred.

Your whore wife is dead and she deserved it and you apparently are ok with it because justice was served.

I'm guessing you don't realize it but, as above, you have continually argued against an indictment. The objective is not to prove innocence, but rather guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. You own words above scream reasonable doubt. Thus, this should not have even been before a GJ, much less taken to trial.

Lol! So when 99%+ indictments end in a true bill and every prosecutor admits that you could indict a ham sandwich, this one prosecutor just got unlucky and not only could he not indict this one ham he hurt his record as well?

Sure, tell yourself what ever you need while claiming justice was served.

He didn't get 'unlucky'. He got pressured into charging when it shouldn't have happened. The fact that you can easily indict a ham sandwich, but not officer Wilson should be instructive. This may seem redundant, but in your case necessary: He shouldn't have even been charged.

Fern

 

[ivwshane]

You don't see me condemning the officer or saying he is guilty did you? Do you see me saying brown was innocent? The person I was replying to said the evidence is pointing to browns death as being justified, I'm asking what evidence is that.

It seems, to me, the prudent thing to do would be to ignore crump

Other than him being mentioned here, I've never heard of him nor have I seen him or any statements he has made.

You don't counter suspect motives and bad info with more suspect motives and more bad info

So I feel like the majority of the people in this thread are saying the same thing...we don't know the answers, only real evidence will provide the truth, in the mean time here is a possible scenario of events, poke holes in it.

That's the position I've taken, that's the position Jedi has, I even think terry has that view, as does hayabusa, and a few others like cubby. There are a few that seem to have already made a judgement, spidey comes to mind.

Does everyone agree with my conclusion? More importantly does everyone feel the same way hayabusa feels? Feel free to respond so everyone knows where you stand.

If so, can we simply ignore the trolls (aka spidey, spatially, and whoever else), and all agree that at this point we are simply trying to figure out what happened based on the info we do have. Can we agree that nothing anyone posts is a fact and should not be taken as a fact (unless it is a universally accepted fact) and that we take the posts as merely a suggestion of possibility and not as statements of supporting said suggestions?

Can we preface posts where we are about to propose a possibility of what transpired with the words, "in my opinion"? Because reading many of the posts here it certainly seems like people are trying to state something as fact when they are really just trying come up with an educated guess as to what happened (you can see this in posts by terry and hayabusa where they had to clarify themselves).

Lol! And you don't think past and current police behavior is part of the story? If so you are dumber than the poster I was responding to and the insults are most definitely warranted! Idiot troll apologists don't deserve any respect, especially when they are full of hypocrisy.

And I really don't care if you take my comments seriously, who the fuck are you? All I know is that a couple of posters have decided to complain about protestors who are sick and tired of an abusive police force and anyone who wants to talk about why is told to shut up. Well I'm not shutting up, it's part of the story just as much as the protestors are.

Sorry you don't like being called out on your bullshit

No what proved brown was fleeing was his distance from Wilson, all accounts say brown fled from the vehicle, all accounts say brown turned around, most accounts say his hands were up, most accounts say he wasn't charging back towards Wilson but rather moved toward him.

The autopsy and the new info do nothing to disprove eye witness accounts and only confirm that brown went for the gun. Neither prove or disprove motives of the victim or the shooter.

Those are the facts, period. Adding anything more than that is pure opinion and can be countered with pure opinion.

Wait, so stating what I believe went down is me saying, "I'm right, prove me wrong", but you stating your opinion isn't saying that?

I gave a version of the events that I think (as in it's just an opinion, like your claims are opinion) happened based on a known timeline which also included the version of events from an actual witness who was there from beginning to end, which you somehow dismiss as not having any direct evidence.

Hypocrite much? Yeah, I think so. Absolutely nothing you just stated was a fact, none of it. Did I state my opinion was fact? Nope! So yeah, don't talk to me about not having an open mind when you just got done overstating what is known.

I don't know why anyone would be against wilson going to trial. What happened wasn't clear cut and it should be played out in court where the facts can be presented to a jury. He will most likely be acquitted for the exact same reasons he was indicted, not enough evidence either way. The verdict isn't the issue, it's the process.

Me wanting a trial has nothing to do with any angry mobs or outside influence, I haven't paid any attention to that and quite honestly I don't let people who aren't involved with the issue bother me. It's why I don't hangout at "expert ferguson" websites. I also don't care what the outcome is so long as the process was fair and honest nor do I care how people will react one way or another, justice is and should be blind to anything but the facts and only serves one purpose, to find the truth and react accordingly.

Continue on with your distraction

I absolutely agree, sadly this message is lost on most posters here. Just look at the comments, "the thug got what he deserved", "the evidence proved Wilson's innocents". This wasn't a trial it was an indictment which simply asks the question, is there enough evidence to bring this to a trial. A lack of evidence doesn't mean wilson didn't commit a crime nor does it mean brown did what he was accused of. It simply means that the evidence that was presented wasn't compelling enough to go to trial.

Now I'm not an expert on how grand jury's work but I was under the impression that the prosecutor was to supply the evidence for guilt with no defense to counter. If that's so I find it odd that the prosecutor would have multiple testimonies from officers that basically retold the incident according to Wilson's version of events (one of the testimonies even gave a closing speech about wilson being a good man). Is that normal?

So basically all along I've asked for only the facts and I've stated when things were based on opinion. I have called out plenty of people who made claims as statements of fact that wasn't supported by known evidence at the time. Nor have I at any time said wilson was guilty or not.

I then was concerned with the process itself and it turns out my concerns were right and that there is an even bigger issue than just police brutality.

I've been nothing but consistent!

 

[CZroe]

So basically all along I've asked for only the facts and I've stated when things were based on opinion. I have called out plenty of people who made claims as statements of fact that wasn't supported by known evidence at the time. Nor have I at by time said wilson was guilty or not.

I then was concerned with the process itself and it turns out my concerns were right and that there is an even bigger issue than just police brutality.

I've been nothing but consistent!

This doesn't look like "asking for facts."

No, the shell casings indicate wilson was chasing a fleeing brown. The blood spatter behind brown indicate that he turned around and moved toward wilson. It doesn't indicate speed or a charging brown.

Looks more like making baseless conclusions to me that fly in the face of logic and reason. You brainlessly assert mistruths without facts and DO NOT question them while challenging everything else we tell you. It's clear that you are on a shameless witchhunt. To even pretend that this statement was "asking for the facts" is laughable.

 

[ivwshane]

I'm guessing you don't realize it but, as above, you have continually argued against an indictment. The objective is not to prove innocence, but rather guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. You own words above scream reasonable doubt. Thus, this should not have even been before a GJ, much less taken to trial.



He didn't get 'unlucky'. He got pressured into charging when it shouldn't have happened. The fact that you can easily indict a ham sandwich, but not officer Wilson should be instructive. This may seem redundant, but in your case necessary: He shouldn't have even been charged.

Fern

Wrong. The point of an indictment is to determine if there is probable cause to bring to a trial. Proving if one is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is what a trial is for.

http://www.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_purpose_of_an_indictment

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/how-does-a-grand-jury-work.html

It's not surprising you and others continually misrepresent it's purpose.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

The fact of the matter is the grand jury decided there wasn't any evidence or witness statement that met the probable cause requirement for an indictment. Nothing can change that decision. There's also no evidence of any violations of federal laws either or Officer Wilson would have been indicted on them by now.

 

[ivwshane]

This doesn't look like "asking for facts."

Looks more like making baseless conclusions to me that fly in the face of logic and reason. You brainlessly assert mistruths without facts and DO NOT question them while challenging everything else we tell you. It's clear that you are on a shameless witchhunt. To even pretend that this statement was "asking for the facts" is laughable.

Oh really? So you are saying wilson didn't chase down brown, despite Wilson's own testimony? Despite forensic evidence like the shell casings? Despite witness testimony?

Brown didn't turn around and move forward? Despite the exact same type of evidence as above plus blood stains?

Was there forensic evidence that also indicated the speed of which brown was moving forward? No? Then who is making baseless conclusions?

 

[ivwshane]

The fact of the matter is the grand jury decided there wasn't any evidence or witness statement that met the probable cause requirement for an indictment. Nothing can change that decision. There's also no evidence of any violations of federal laws either or Officer Wilson would have been indicted on them by now.

Good, then you can stop posting in this thread as you have continually reminded me how this topic is over. I look forward to you shutting the fuck up and not disputing any of my claims when I prove your claims as false or misleading.

Fantastic! See ya!

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Good, then you can stop posting in this thread as you have continually reminded me how this topic is over. I look forward to you shutting the fuck up and not disputing any of my claims when I prove your claims as false or misleading.

Fantastic! See ya!

I see you're still putting forth the fairytale narrative even though the forensic evidence and witness statements shows it wrong but I'm sure you will continue to blather on and on and on.

 

[ivwshane]

I see you're still putting forth the fairytale narrative even though the forensic evidence and witness statements shows it wrong but I'm sure you will continue to blather on and on and on.

Lol! You are so fucking clueless, it's beyond rediculous!

 

[Darwin333]

But here is the issue:

Why is it taboo to make these statements simultaneously:

(1) police officers should face stronger consequences when they use excessive force (Wilson did not use excessive force in my opinion, we just have to agree to disagree on that one)
(2) civilians need to take greater responsibility and make better choices and follow the law

Why is it so taboo to mention the second, even when accompanied with the first?

While I agree with everything you said, something is obviously wrong with our legal system. We have 5% of the worlds population and 50% of the worlds prisoners. We have more people locked up both per capita AND total than any other country in the world.

So either Americans are much more likely to be criminal assholes than any other nation in the world or our system is fucked up. There are two reasons IMO, the first is the absurd war on drugs and the second is, at least in a lot of states, locking people up has become very profitable for both .gov and private companies. In my state the state ran out of prison room so they offered huge incentives for local municipalities to build their own prisons and then the state pays them for ever person they have jailed by the day. One of the tricks they do is if you get picked up for a bench warrant (lets say you forgot to pay a ticket) and you bond out at 3pm they won't release you until after midnight because they get paid for an entire "prisoner day".

This leads to judges having motivation to ensure their jails are kept at capacity. The municipality, or whatever .gov entity owns the jail, has built the revenue from the jails being at max capacity into their budgets. A fuckton of municipalities built jails to take advantage of that additional revenue and is one of the largest reason that my state has the highest prisoner population per capita in the country that has the highest number of prisoners by a metric fuckton.

It should never be profitable for the .gov to make money off of locking up its citizens. Anytime there is a profit motivator to do something that something will be done. The only motive the .gov should ever have to lock people up is for the protection of society, period. Just like the war on drugs has made it profitable for police to bust you so they can steal your shit, that must end as well. Literal highway robbery and extortion is committed on a daily basis by police in certain areas of the country due to forfeiture laws, often with out even making an arrest or filing charges.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Lol! You are so fucking clueless, it's beyond rediculous!

You need only look in the mirror to see clueless.

 

[CZroe]

Oh really? So you are saying wilson didn't chase down brown, despite Wilson's own testimony? Despite forensic evidence like the shell casings? Despite witness testimony?

Brown didn't turn around and move forward? Despite the exact same type of evidence as above plus blood stains?

Was there forensic evidence that also indicated the speed of which brown was moving forward? No? Then who is making baseless conclusions?

Don't play dumb. You had just implied that the shell casings ejected forward and to the right. Here, let me make what you were saying a bit more clear so that we may all laugh at your idiocy:

No, the shell casings [which eject forward and to the right] indicate wilson was chasing a fleeing brown. The blood spatter behind brown indicate that he turned around and moved toward wilson. It doesn't indicate speed or a charging brown.

If Brown's body was found past the shell casings then he made it all the way past the point that they would eject to from where Wilsom was standing. If Wilson had not backed up then Brown would have reached him just past the casings by the time he got there. Clearly, Wilson was moving backwards as he fired and Brown was moving forward. To get that far while someone is shooting at you without dying implies that he was charging. The angle of the entry wound into the head also implies that he was charging. To move while leaning forward without falling down requires speed. The exact speed is irrelevant except to tantrum-throwing babies who expect magic GPS-calibrated evidence of his exact speed in order to draw any conclusion at all. Even that only provides a degree of detail so you'd dismiss it anyway.

Brown wasn't shot when fleeing. Wilson wasn't pursuing when firing. The evidence agrees. Unless you have evidence that disagrees, it is time to STFU.

 

[LegendKiller]

Don't play dumb. You had just implied that the shell casings ejected forward and to the right. Here, let me make what you were saying a bit more clear so that we may all laugh at your idiocy:

If Brown's body was found past the shell casings then he made it all the way past the point that they would eject to from where Wilsom was standing. If Wilson had not backed up then Brown would have reached him just past the casings by the time he got there. Clearly, Wilson was moving backwards as he fired and Brown was moving forward. To get that far while someone is shooting at you without dying implies that he was charging. The angle of the entry wound into the head also implies that he was charging. To move while leaning forward without falling down requires speed. The exact speed is irrelevant except to tantrum-throwing babies who expect magic GPS-calibrated evidence of his exact speed in order to draw any conclusion at all. Even that only provides a degree of detail so you'd dismiss it anyway.

Brown wasn't shot when fleeing. Wilson wasn't pursuing when firing. The evidence agrees. Unless you have evidence that disagrees, it is time to STFU.

Not to mention Brown fell ~20' from where the blood was. The first series of rounds were fired, then the 2nd series with ~3 second delay according to the audio. That means brown covered ~20' within 3 seconds or so.

 

[BoberFett]

LOL, ivwshane. What a tool.

 

[ivwshane]

You need only look in the mirror to see clueless.

Why? Are you standing behind me?