Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
hoytdwow

Situation in Ferguson, MO

Recommended Posts

If the feds' autopsy verifies the location of the gunshots to the arm, the 'holding his arms in the air to surrender' argument will be conclusively debunked. Not that things like 'scientific evidence' will bother the protestors/lawyers.

 

Depends what shot hit him in the arm...natural reaction to being shot in the chest/abdomen area is probably to bring your arms down and cover, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nonsense, the child was shot in the back by a racist cop who got beat down by a little kid.

 

Something nobody in this thread has claimed...glad you are still throwing out nonsense (as usual).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not playing this game with you Geaglesin14Pilot. You're perfectly capable of reading media reports on what the kid's friend says happened and, more importantly, what the bystander woman said happened

 

 

 

Depends what shot hit him in the arm...natural reaction to being shot in the chest/abdomen area is probably to bring your arms down and cover, no?

 

 

Whole lotta straw grasping going on around here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First Amendement: 'the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances'

 

Protesting, Marching, Assembling to redress grievance is not only okay it is a protected right. However, once those doing so do not do it peaceably (i.e. commiting any act of violence towards anyone including the police) then they are breaking the law. And law must be restored. If not, you'll have chaos.

 

I have zero idea if this young guy was at fault, if the cop was at fault or if they both were somewhat at fault. However people need to protest peaceably. And if they do not they need to be handled.

 

The.End.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not playing this game with you Geaglesin14Pilot. You're perfectly capable of reading media reports on what the kid's friend says happened and, more importantly, what the bystander woman said happened

If only there was a lawyer here to debunk the accuracy of eyewitness testimony. :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If only there was a lawyer here to debunk the accuracy of eyewitness testimony. :dunno:

 

There seems to be conflicting testimony is the point.

But you all can keep on your little quest with Worms if it makes you feel better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will never, ever be a republican. Nixon was a dishonest disgrace, Reagen a useful idiot for money men, and W a complete failure, but these people in Ferguson and the Attorney General sure make it hard to be a Democrat. I was talking to my dad last week, a hard working, trade union J F K man staunch democrat. We both came to the conclusion that while Obama was the better choice than Romney, he's a dissapointment and seems to be going about his duties as president with only his self interests in mind. He's not corrupt, or a Muslim or evil. He's just aint getting it done. Looks like he peaked when we got Bin Laden. Defeated by victory. (Bain)

Were you a 2-4 in the marines by chance? Just asking, based on your handle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There seems to be conflicting testimony is the point.

But you all can keep on your little quest with Worms if it makes you feel better.

I'm not sure anyone needs your permission to do anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure anyone needs your permission to do anything.

A bit of a man-crush going on there.

 

Lawyering 101 is eyewitnesses suck and even worms knows it. Good for race-baiting though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit of a man-crush going on there.

 

Lawyering 101 is eyewitnesses suck and even worms knows it. Good for race-baiting though.

Eyewitness testimony is problematic for a few reasons, a big one being the passage of time where people tend to forget or fill in details that they never actually saw. That's not really a huge issue at this point.

 

Obviously with things that are said now, you have to wonder if the person's story is colored by the controversy that followed, but as far as the initial statements they made about what happened--those should be pretty accurate though always colored by personal perception, biases, etc.

 

The statements from the people in the neighborhood are what bother me. I'm not too worried about what the kid's friend said - although he was one of the people in the best position to say what all went down, he's not too credible as evidenced by having been part of a robbery just minutes before the shooting. But the people in the neighborhood are probably pretty credible and should have no obvious bias for the parties, though it sounds like there is a general distaste for the police amongst many there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now the story is that the family's autopsy shows some of the entrance wounds came from behind. Guess the feds will be needed after all to provide the tie-breaker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit of a man-crush going on there.

 

Lawyering 101 is eyewitnesses suck and even worms knows it. Good for race-baiting though.

 

Yes, you and a few of the other hacks do have a man crush on worms...why do you think you all follow him around everywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now the story is that the family's autopsy shows some of the entrance wounds came from behind. Guess the feds will be needed after all to provide the tie-breaker.

 

Misinformation is a requisite here, you need it to keep the mob whipped into a frenzyh and make any announcement suspect, part of the white-man's lies etc.

 

The truth matters little, unfortunately. We saw that during the abortion that was the Martin trial

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now the story is that the family's autopsy shows some of the entrance wounds came from behind. Guess the feds will be needed after all to provide the tie-breaker.

I watched that dog and pony show.

 

They said there was one shot that was possibly from behind, but could be from the front as well. The family is grasping at the same straws as Worms and Sho Nuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There seems to be conflicting testimony is the point.

But you all can keep on your little quest with Worms if it makes you feel better.

did you just give him permission?

 

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched that dog and pony show.

 

They said there was one shot that was possibly from behind, but could be from the front as well. The family is grasping at the same straws as Worms and Sho Nuff.

I said the autopsy showed the shots came from in front. I suppose other autopsies could show otherwise but that'd be pretty unusual.

 

You must not read too good - trying to start sissy slap fights where there isn't even any disagreement :doh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IF he was not shot in the back that is something of a "good" thing at least, when I say good I refer to this not being a horrif crime, still might be a crime, but at least not shot in the back.

 

IF the wounds can be shown to be consistent with arms not raised then this too shows that he was not in full surrender mode as family and others are trying to portray.

 

In the end we may only have the words of the cops and then of some witrnesses, neither of which I trust to any real level.

 

Hopefully there is enough evidence to make a reasoned assessment, and hopefully the announced assessment does not bow to the mob, nor the cops.

 

In the end I postulate that the cop said something that pissed this guy off, and stupidly the guy turned on the cop, then the cop overreacted and would up killing the moron in the process. I wonder just how much training that townie-cop had in dealing with these situations, I suspect he likely escalated the situation as no normal punk-ass would actually go after a cop like that unless they were really keyed up about something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How odd that this thread turned political?

 

So weird for these parts.

It started with the OP, Einstein.

 

It began as a political thread. :doh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cop seemed to be a bad shot given all the arm hits. That being said if there was a physical confrontation and the cop staggered from the car and just started blasting away it makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So they are blaming the recent violence on the release of a video

 

 

 

 

 

 

Where have we heard this narrative before ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cop seemed to be a bad shot given all the arm hits. That being said if there was a physical confrontation and the cop staggered from the car and just started blasting away it makes sense.

I guess it's possible he thought he had something in his hand, in which case all those arm shots are pretty good. It's also possible that there were only arm shots, and the head shots were re-entry woulds which might indicate an arm outstretched toward the officer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So they are blaming the recent violence on the release of a video

 

 

 

 

 

 

Where have we heard this narrative before ?

Susan Rice must be behind this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So they are blaming the recent violence on the release of a video

 

 

 

 

 

 

Where have we heard this narrative before ?

 

Does not matter what they do, the parasites that feed on this kind of event will twist it into a negative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said the autopsy showed the shots came from in front. I suppose other autopsies could show otherwise but that'd be pretty unusual.

 

You must not read too good - trying to start sissy slap fights where there isn't even any disagreement :doh:

 

Grasping at straws is funny too...considering I have said we are not sure what happened.

Its all RP does is start crap with those who he disagrees with politically.

Its obvious to anyone who cares to see it (but some won't ever see it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The statements from the people in the neighborhood are what bother me. I'm not too worried about what the kid's friend said - although he was one of the people in the best position to say what all went down, he's not too credible as evidenced by having been part of a robbery just minutes before the shooting. But the people in the neighborhood are probably pretty credible and should have no obvious bias for the parties, though it sounds like there is a general distaste for the police amongst many there.

There does appear to be corroboration that Brown was moving in the direction of the officer when the fatal shots came, which contradicts other witnesses. All witnesses seem to agree on a scuffle followed by a separation, followed by shots, followed by Brown stopping. Some say Brown turned and stayed put (possible), some say Brown started back toward the officer (which is the official account of the officer), some say he then kept going away form the officer (obviously untrue due to the autopsy).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There does appear to be corroboration that Brown was moving in the direction of the officer when the fatal shots came, which contradicts other witnesses. All witnesses seem to agree on a scuffle followed by a separation, followed by shots, followed by Brown stopping. Some say Brown turned and stayed put (possible), some say Brown started back toward the officer (which is the official account of the officer), some say he then kept going away form the officer (obviously untrue due to the autopsy).

I haven't seen anything showing that he was moving in the direction of the officer other than the officer's account. But perhaps I missed something along the way.

 

Good analysis though, the question is was he moving towards the officer in a manner that would justify shooting? Given the guy's size, apparent disposition and the previous tussle in/around the cop car, it wouldn't take a whole lot IMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't seen anything showing that he was moving in the direction of the officer other than the officer's account. But perhaps I missed something along the way.

 

Good analysis though, the question is was he moving towards the officer in a manner that would justify shooting? Given the guy's size, apparent disposition and the previous tussle in/around the cop car, it wouldn't take a whole lot IMO

there's a video ..which contains audio which claims he was going back towards the officer, but you're too much of a twat to check it out.

 

 

 

Hth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There does appear to be corroboration that Brown was moving in the direction of the officer when the fatal shots came, which contradicts other witnesses. All witnesses seem to agree on a scuffle followed by a separation, followed by shots, followed by Brown stopping. Some say Brown turned and stayed put (possible), some say Brown started back toward the officer (which is the official account of the officer), some say he then kept going away form the officer (obviously untrue due to the autopsy).

 

If this timeline is shots...then the guy stopped and turned to him or came to him after shots were fired...that would also be pretty damning to an officer and would show Brown only advanced after being shot at (still stupid for sure).

If shots were fired prior to him doing anything threatening (after the cop had control of his weapon and the situation).

 

There are so many ifs in all of this at this point though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good analysis though, the question is was he moving towards the officer in a manner that would justify shooting? Given the guy's size, apparent disposition and the previous tussle in/around the cop car, it wouldn't take a whole lot IMO

By most accounts the shooting started when Brown was moving away from the officer. Brown may or may not have been hit with these (some witnesses claim he was). Brown stopped, turned and said something to the officer (taunted is a word that has been used). Then the fatal shots came. No one (that I have heard) has stated that Brown was giving himself up, just that he had his arms out (proven by the autopsy). Since the officer had started shooting prior to the turn, it seems logical that he was intent on shooting Brown down to the ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By most accounts the shooting started when Brown was moving away from the officer. Brown may or may not have been hit with these (some witnesses claim he was). Brown stopped, turned and said something to the officer (taunted is a word that has been used). Then the fatal shots came. No one (that I have heard) has stated that Brown was giving himself up, just that he had his arms out (proven by the autopsy). Since the officer had started shooting prior to the turn, it seems logical that he was intent on shooting Brown down to the ground.

 

Which seems to be look pretty bad for the officer the way you describe it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Which seems to be look pretty bad for the officer the way you describe it.

The entire incident was triggered by Brown who was walking down the middle of the street and by most if not all accounts initiated physical contact. If you add up Brown's actions in the time leading up to the incident and during the incident, it appears he was looking for an altercation. There is nothing that I have heard or seen that gives me the impression that the officer was anything but in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The entire incident was triggered by Brown who was walking down the middle of the street and by most if not all accounts initiated physical contact. If you add up Brown's actions in the time leading up to the incident and during the incident, it appears he was looking for an altercation. There is nothing that I have heard or seen that gives me the impression that the officer was anything but in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

While things were triggered by him...he was away from the cop (even as you describe) and walking away.

Cop had control of the situation and elevated it by firing shots with his weapon.

There is nothing in what you described of when shots were fired that seems to warrant shots being fired or a young man losing hi slife.

 

Firing shots as you described...that is more than wrong place at the wrong time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Grasping at straws is funny too...considering I have said we are not sure what happened.

 

 

 

 

While things were triggered by him...he was away from the cop (even as you describe) and walking away.

Cop had control of the situation and elevated it by firing shots with his weapon.

 

 

 

You seem pretty sure about what happened in the last post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The entire incident was triggered by Brown who was walking down the middle of the street and by most if not all accounts initiated physical contact. If you add up Brown's actions in the time leading up to the incident and during the incident, it appears he was looking for an altercation. There is nothing that I have heard or seen that gives me the impression that the officer was anything but in the wrong place at the wrong time.

IF the scenario was exactly as you stated, the officer damn sure would have committed a crime. You can't justify shooting a perp who is 30 ft away from you and not posing an imminent threat simply because he assaulted you beforehand. Shooting him while he pounds on you or if he goes for your weapon = self-defense. Shooting him 6 times after he has disengaged and walked well out of reach of you (while unarmed) is closer to payback.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Must get tired logging in and out under 2 IDs only to be ignored by the people you are trying to follow around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IF the scenario was exactly as you stated, the officer damn sure would have committed a crime. You can't justify shooting a perp who is 30 ft away from you and not posing an imminent threat simply because he assaulted you beforehand. Shooting him while he pounds on you or if he goes for your weapon = self-defense. Shooting him 6 times after he has disengaged and walked well out of reach of you (while unarmed) is closer to payback.

 

Absolutely correct, and the scenerio that the racially perverse sects of society are desperately hoping to sell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×