Situation in Ferguson, MO

[drobeski 3,061]

Their job is done. They have reverted to the Al Sharpton defense of needing to address the overall issue of race.

The racist race baiters are far from done, especially if they don't charge the guy. They'll burn the place down.

[MDC 7,493]

Nobody including the cop says that Brown was shot dead from the car so this doesn't seem to prove or disprove anything.

[kilroy69 1,251]

The racist race baiters are far from done, especially if they don't charge the guy. They'll burn the place down.

do it. They should probably purge that city anyway. Just remember black people, riot and burn your own . Just like the L.A. riots.

[paulinstl 296]

I don't want to rain on the white pride rally, but the issue isn't what happened during the scuffle in the car, it's about what happened later in the incident when Brown wasn't near the cop or the car.

[porkbutt 893]

Nobody including the cop says that Brown was shot dead from the car so this doesn't seem to prove or disprove anything.

does it disprove that the gentle giant wasn't just walking down the street minding his own business when a big bad racist cop gunned him down from 50 feet away?

[drobeski 3,061]

I don't want to rain on the white pride rally, but the issue isn't what happened during the scuffle in the car, it's about what happened later in the incident when Brown wasn't near the cop or the car.

none of it happens is brown doesn't assault the officer.

We'll see what the grand jury thinks.

[paulinstl 296]

none of it happens is brown doesn't assault the officer.

We'll see what the grand jury thinks.

 

I agree 100% with this, but the real issue is going to come down to whether the officer's use of deadly force was justifiable or not. The only thing that will matter is what was going on when the cop, outside of his car, shot the dude. What happened before will not matter, other than giving context.

[MDC 7,493]

does it disprove that the gentle giant wasn't just walking down the street minding his own business when a big bad racist cop gunned him down from 50 feet away?

The question is whether deadly force was justifiable, not whether there was an altercation in the car or if Brown took a bullet during a scuffle. So no, it doesn't prove or disprove anything that matters and in absence of any video I doubt we will ever know what happened. Hacks like you will jump to your own conclusion though and the ale outrage right will keep crying like a bunch of b1tches.

[drobeski 3,061]

So if he is not charged, will the hacks here condem the violence and destruction that will most likely follow ?

 

Will the hacks be satisfied with the grand jury's decision ?

[porkbutt 893]

The question is whether deadly force was justifiable, not whether there was an altercation in the car or if Brown took a bullet during a scuffle. So no, it doesn't prove or disprove anything that matters and in absence of any video I doubt we will ever know what happened. Hacks like you will jump to your own conclusion though and the ale outrage right will keep crying like a bunch of b1tches.

jump to conclusions? the hacks are the liberal cunts like you that immediately side with the criminal. also i'm not burning down a city and calling for this cop's head before any evidence at all has been released. we had his one buddy's "eye witness" account and that's turned out to be a blatant lie. get ur head out of your a$$

 

also...if he's grabbing for the cops gun...deadly force is justifiable. hth

[paulinstl 296]

 

 

also...if he's grabbing for the cops gun...deadly force is justifiable. hth

 

At the time, yes it is. After the kid is at least 20 feet away, is he still a deadly threat to the cop? That is the only issue the grand jury will be ruling on.

[MDC 7,493]

jump to conclusions? the hacks are the liberal cunts like you that immediately side with the criminal. also i'm not burning down a city and calling for this cop's head before any evidence at all has been released. we had his one buddy's "eye witness" account and that's turned out to be a blatant lie. get ur head out of your a$$

 

also...if he's grabbing for the cops gun...deadly force is justifiable. hth

I didn't side with the criminal, I said we are never going to know what happened. You're the one so insistent that deadly force was justified. Even the cop doesn't claim that he killed Brown as Brown was reaching for his gun so the fact that there was gunpowder on him is irrelevant.

 

Course hacks like you won't wait to jump to conclusions.

[paulinstl 296]

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/source-darren-wilson-says-michael-brown-kept-charging-at-him/article_d2cf8b20-c517-592b-96ba-77d8a5f46fef.html

 

Cop's statement from an unnamed source.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

I don't want to rain on the white pride rally, but the issue isn't what happened during the scuffle in the car, it's about what happened later in the incident when Brown wasn't near the cop or the car.

Very convenient to ignore the attack in the car. More convenient to ignore all of the eyewitness reports of Brown charging the cop outside the car. Sad really.

[paulinstl 296]

Very convenient to ignore the attack in the car. More convenient to ignore all of the eyewitness reports of Brown charging the cop outside the car. Sad really.

 

I will repeat this once again. The scuffle in the car is irrelevant to what happened at the time of the fatal shot. And I have never given my opinion on what I think happened at that time. Just because I don't fall in line with you goose steppers doesn't mean I think the cop is guilty.

[drobeski 3,061]

Autopsy reveals his hands were not in the raised surrender position when shot.

 

Will the looters rioters and race baiters be charged ? Forced to clean up and pay restitution ?

[TimmySmith 2,782]

 

I will repeat this once again. The scuffle in the car is irrelevant to what happened at the time of the fatal shot. And I have never given my opinion on what I think happened at that time. Just because I don't fall in line with you goose steppers doesn't mean I think the cop is guilty.

I am a goose stepper because I trust a police officer and every eyewitness over a bunch of rioters and parents who claimed he was a good boy.

[paulinstl 296]

I am a goose stepper because I trust a police officer and every eyewitness over a bunch of rioters and parents who claimed he was a good boy.

 

You don't have the story correct. There are many. many eyewitnesses that have conflicting reports. To say every eyewitness all stated that Brown charged the cop just proves you have no idea what you are talking about. Also, the goose step comment was meant more in the following a close-minded narrative than being a nazi. Had I known that your position is based on not knowing actual facts, I probably would have just said your position is based on ignorance. Better?

[porkbutt 893]

I didn't side with the criminal, I said we are never going to know what happened. You're the one so insistent that deadly force was justified. Even the cop doesn't claim that he killed Brown as Brown was reaching for his gun so the fact that there was gunpowder on him is irrelevant.

 

Course hacks like you won't wait to jump to conclusions.

 

are hacks like me why a city is being burned & looted, why race baiters like sharpton try to make this kid look like an angel, and obama sends reps to this criminals funeral?

[TimmySmith 2,782]

 

You don't have the story correct. There are many. many eyewitnesses that have conflicting reports. To say every eyewitness all stated that Brown charged the cop just proves you have no idea what you are talking about. Also, the goose step comment was meant more in the following a close-minded narrative than being a nazi. Had I known that your position is based on not knowing actual facts, I probably would have just said your position is based on ignorance. Better?

Cling to your "conflicting reports", theory and limit the event in scope. It's called rationalization, and it works for people with agendas.

[kilroy69 1,251]

If he is not charged they will have to bring in the national guard to quell the riots that will ensue. Basically Al Sharptons wet dream.

[paulinstl 296]

Cling to your "conflicting reports", theory and limit the event in scope. It's called rationalization, and it works for people with agendas.

 

 

Yeah, right. Just what is my agenda, Timmy? If you want to claim I have an agenda because I feel the need to correct the too many wrong "facts" being thrown around by you and others, than I'm guilty of having an agenda. Will you please explain to me how the fatal shots had anything to do with the threat the officer faced while in the scuffle at the car? That is the key question that will determine whether the grand jury will find whether or not the shooting was justifiable. What happened at the car was a distinctly separate issue.

 

I think the kid was a punk. Anybody that attacks a cop and reaches for their gun is a deadly threat and should face deadly consequences. But, after that scuffle is no longer happening, the immediate threat has been removed, therefore the use of deadly force by the cop is removed as well. Following along, or is that too difficult to grasp?

 

If the grand jury finds, through eyewitness testimonies, that Brown was indeed rushing toward the officer, then the use of deadly force was once again a responsible and justifiable action. This, and only this is what the grand jury will focus on. The earlier robbery and the fight at the car offer nothing more than context as what lead up to the fatal shooting. Who cares what the protestors or Al Sharpton or the thug's parents say or do? The only thing that matters is whether officer Wilson faced a deadly threat at the time he shot and killed Brown. Nothing other than that matters.

 

But for you to claim that all the eyewitnesses said Brown was rushing the cop is just flat out wrong. Add in the fact that you can't or won't accept the fact that the earlier confrontation at the car is completely irrelevant to the fatal shots makes me believe that maybe you are the one with an agenda.

[MDC 7,493]

 

are hacks like me why a city is being burned & looted, why race baiters like sharpton try to make this kid look like an angel, and obama sends reps to this criminals funeral?

 

No. Hacks like you are just leaping to the conclusion that deadly force was justified and pointing to irrelevant "evidence" like the gunpowder or the character of the victim to justify your beliefs. That has nothing to do with the riots or Obummer but it does say a lot about you and other people of your ilk.

[Vikings4ever 556]

If the grand jury finds, through eyewitness testimonies, that Brown was indeed rushing toward the officer, then the use of deadly force was once again a responsible and justifiable action. This, and only this is what the grand jury will focus on. The earlier robbery and the fight at the car offer nothing more than context as what lead up to the fatal shooting. Who cares what the protestors or Al Sharpton or the thug's parents say or do? The only thing that matters is whether officer Wilson faced a deadly threat at the time he shot and killed Brown. Nothing other than that matters.

In the eyes of the law, you're right.

 

In reality, you're wrong. Brown's parents and the likes of Sharpton have propagated the storyline that Brown was an angel who would never, ever do ANYTHING that would justify a cop shooting him. That's one of the biggest things in getting the protestors riled up. And when bullshiite like that results in riots and millions in property damage, they absolutely should be called on it.

[paulinstl 296]

In the eyes of the law, you're right.

 

In reality, you're wrong. Brown's parents and the likes of Sharpton have propagated the storyline that Brown was an angel who would never, ever do ANYTHING that would justify a cop shooting him. That's one of the biggest things in getting the protestors riled up. And when bullshiite like that results in riots and millions in property damage, they absolutely should be called on it.

 

 

Again, I agree with that completely, but it has nothing to with whether Wilson is guilty or innocent.

[IGotWorms 4,058]

I don't really have a dog in this fight but some people seem to be misunderstanding what is at issue here. The dead fella was indisputably shot and killed some distance away from the cop car. The fact that there was apparently a rather significant scuffle inside the cop car before the shooting is certainly relevant but does not by itself establish that the subsequent fatal shots were justified.

 

Say, hypothetically, that there was a violent scuffle in the cop car and the perp then walked away. Perp is about fifty feet away and no longer posing any direct danger to the cop or anyone. Cop, pissed off that the perp got the upper hand in the car, decides to get out of car and shoot the perp.

 

Justified? I certainly wouldn't weep for that perp but I also wouldn't call it a justified shooting under those circumstances.

[MDC 7,493]

I don't really have a dog in this fight but some people seem to be misunderstanding what is at issue here. The dead fella was indisputably shot and killed some distance away from the cop car. The fact that there was apparently a rather significant scuffle inside the cop car before the shooting is certainly relevant but does not by itself establish that the subsequent fatal shots were justified.

 

Say, hypothetically, that there was a violent scuffle in the cop car and the perp then walked away. Perp is about fifty feet away and no longer posing any direct danger to the cop or anyone. Cop, pissed off that the perp got the upper hand in the car, decides to get out of car and shoot the perp.

 

Justified? I certainly wouldn't weep for that perp but I also wouldn't call it a justified shooting under those circumstances.

 

Obviously you're one of those liberal hacks who gets hung up on things like "facts" and "logic." Also you must love Al Sharpton and protestors.

[5-Points 3,566]

I don't really have a dog in this fight but some people seem to be misunderstanding what is at issue here. The dead fella was indisputably shot and killed some distance away from the cop car. The fact that there was apparently a rather significant scuffle inside the cop car before the shooting is certainly relevant but does not by itself establish that the subsequent fatal shots were justified.

 

Say, hypothetically, that there was a violent scuffle in the cop car and the perp then walked away. Perp is about fifty feet away and no longer posing any direct danger to the cop or anyone. Cop, pissed off that the perp got the upper hand in the car, decides to get out of car and shoot the perp.

 

Justified? I certainly wouldn't weep for that perp but I also wouldn't call it a justified shooting under those circumstances.

No, in your hypothetical situation the shooting is not justified.

 

However, if the cop sustained a fractured face and almost lost consciousness in the car "scuffle" and gets out to chase his assailant and that assailant turns around and advances on the cop after being told to stop, yes, the shooting is justified.

[IGotWorms 4,058]

 

Obviously you're one of those liberal hacks who gets hung up on things like "facts" and "logic." Also you must love Al Sharpton and protestors.

Damn, you got me

[drobeski 3,061]

Gunshot residue is not relevant!

 

 

 

[KSB2424 3,148]

 

At the time, yes it is. After the kid is at least 20 feet away, is he still a deadly threat to the cop? That is the only issue the grand jury will be ruling on.

 

If the guy tried once to get your gun and assaulted you 30 seconds ago, then he turns around and comes back towards you the previous 30 seconds gives you a pretty good inclination about what the guy will try to do.

 

Forensics has proven the gun shot was in the front and not the back, there is pretty good evidence that a person who just robbed a store, then assaulted a cop / tried to grab his gun, is in an agressive state of mind.

 

All of that is evidence.

[KSB2424 3,148]

I don't really have a dog in this fight but some people seem to be misunderstanding what is at issue here. The dead fella was indisputably shot and killed some distance away from the cop car. The fact that there was apparently a rather significant scuffle inside the cop car before the shooting is certainly relevant but does not by itself establish that the subsequent fatal shots were justified.

 

Say, hypothetically, that there was a violent scuffle in the cop car and the perp then walked away. Perp is about fifty feet away and no longer posing any direct danger to the cop or anyone. Cop, pissed off that the perp got the upper hand in the car, decides to get out of car and shoot the perp.

 

Justified? I certainly wouldn't weep for that perp but I also wouldn't call it a justified shooting under those circumstances.

 

How-a-bout we don't deal in hypotheticals but facts?

 

State of mind is big in these type of cases Mr.Lawyer Man. A person that just robbed a store, then asaulted a cop is in an agressive state of mind. Those guys generally don't just walk away like your little hypothetical.

 

Secondly, forensics say he was shot in the front, not in the back (walking away).

 

Yes, of course there is more evidence to come and this new evidence doesn't OVERWHELMING prove guilt or innocence, but it does lend credibility to the cops version of events. Most all the facts and evidence so far has as well.

 

But lets get to the real point. It doesn't matter anyway. Either the cop gets arrested or the city burns. Facts, evidence be damned.

[MDC 7,493]

Gunshot residue is not relevant!

 

 

 

 

Yes dummy, the fact that Brown got shot at close range while a scuffle was going on in the cop car doesn't prove anything about whether the fatal shooting outside the car was justified. I realize this might be a little too high level for a fat dumb plumber with "some college" so maybe stick to something you actually know about like cleaning toilets and the best $5 six-pack on the market.

[paulinstl 296]

No, in your hypothetical situation the shooting is not justified.

 

However, if the cop sustained a fractured face and almost lost consciousness in the car "scuffle" and gets out to chase his assailant and that assailant turns around and advances on the cop after being told to stop, yes, the shooting is justified.

 

Where are you guys getting this? The cop did not have a fractured face, and once again, the facts are still in dispute whether Brown was advancing on the cop.

[paulinstl 296]

 

If the guy tried once to get your gun and assaulted you 30 seconds ago, then he turns around and comes back towards you the previous 30 seconds gives you a pretty good inclination about what the guy will try to do.

 

Forensics has proven the gun shot was in the front and not the back, there is pretty good evidence that a person who just robbed a store, then assaulted a cop / tried to grab his gun, is in an agressive state of mind.

 

All of that is evidence.

 

 

No, that is not evidence. It has not been proven that Brown was advancing on the cop. And I already stated that if he was, the shooting was justifiable and responsible. Did everyone here learn how to have a discussion from RP/

 

Holy Jeebus.

[KSB2424 3,148]

 

 

Holy Jeebus. I'm not following very well.

 

Agreed.

 

This new evidence is on par and lends itself to the Cops version of events. That matters, as evidence is corroborating the officers story.

 

Officer Wilson stated he was attacked, the guy went after his gun, there was a sturggle, and that Michael Brown after running away turned back again at him.

 

Wilson fired again when Brown turned back and charged at him, Wilson told investigators.

 

The more evidence comes in, the more and more the version of events that the Officer stated are true. This is important when trying to peice together a potential crime. I'm sorry if that upsets you.

[5-Points 3,566]

 

Where are you guys getting this? The cop did not have a fractured face, and once again, the facts are still in dispute whether Brown was advancing on the cop.

There were early reports that Wilson suffered a fractured eye socket during the fight for his gun. There's a link a few pages back.

 

While there may be some dispute over whether or not Brown was advancing on Wilson outside the car, there were no entry wounds in Brown's back, indicating he was facing Wilson when he was shot. I suppose he could have been moonwalking away but I doubt it.

 

All the facts are not out yet but the fact that Holder decided not to bring Federal charges against Wilson is a pretty good indication that the evidence supports Wilson's version of events.

[IGotWorms 4,058]

 

If the guy tried once to get your gun and assaulted you 30 seconds ago, then he turns around and comes back towards you the previous 30 seconds gives you a pretty good inclination about what the guy will try to do.

 

Forensics has proven the gun shot was in the front and not the back, there is pretty good evidence that a person who just robbed a store, then assaulted a cop / tried to grab his gun, is in an agressive state of mind.

 

All of that is evidence.

I agree. See you are doing this thing again, which you often do, where you confuse the argument and then try to pick a fight where none exists.

 

People are holding this piece of evidence up and saying "see, this proves the cop is innocent!"

 

Not quite, no it doesn't. Because the guy was actually shot 50 feet away.

 

Now if we're asking whether this fact helps out the cop, yes it definitely does. Because as you pointed out, IF the guy was coming back towards the cop then we know that the cop would be justified in thinking the guy's intentions were to do violence.

 

So that's really the question - whether this guy was threatening anyone when the cop shot him. And given what happened before it sure wouldn't take much to consider any action taken by this guy to be threatening. At the end of the day nobody is going to convict this cop unless it were definitely proven that he was just pissed off and shot the guy.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

 

No, that is not evidence. It has not been proven that Brown was advancing on the cop. And I already stated that if he was, the shooting was justifiable and responsible. Did everyone here learn how to have a discussion from RP/

 

Holy Jeebus.

Yep, your full court press on a public message board is agendaless. One side has a unified story from several sources, the other does not. The attack on an officer 5 seconds prior to Brown's death means nothing. Why not show some integrity and admit that your are on Brown's side here?

[KSB2424 3,148]

I agree. See you are doing this thing again, which you often do, where you confuse the argument and then try to pick a fight where none exists.

 

People are holding this piece of evidence up and saying "see, this proves the cop is innocent!"

 

Not quite, no it doesn't. Because the guy was actually shot 50 feet away.

 

Now if we're asking whether this fact helps out the cop, yes it definitely does. Because as you pointed out, IF the guy was coming back towards the cop then we know that the cop would be justified in thinking the guy's intentions were to do violence.

 

So that's really the question - whether this guy was threatening anyone when the cop shot him. And given what happened before it sure wouldn't take much to consider any action taken by this guy to be threatening. At the end of the day nobody is going to convict this cop unless it were definitely proven that he was just pissed off and shot the guy.

 

Agreed for the most part.

 

This new evidence isn't the end all be all, but this is really big evidence, it does help prove that there was a struggle for his gun and the officer was attacked. It is corroborating the officers story, that matters.

 

They may can never prove if Michael Brown was advancing towards the officer (again) as so far that is he said / he said. But if the other 80% of the officer's story is backed up by physical evidence a grand jury will, and justifiably so, believe the other 20% to be true as well.