Michael Brown shooting II

[RandFan]

I appreciate your devil's advocate posts, but in this case they're inappropriate. Wilson has been exonerated using facts and evidence.

No he hasn't. There was no adversarial system in the Grand Jury room.

BTW: Had Wison actually gone to trial and had the adversarial system worked, I would have accepted the verdict but not necassarily Wilson's innocence. I'm pretty sure OJ was guilty of murdering Nicole even though he was found not-guilty.

 

[Ammonitida]

1. Objectively demonstrate that Brown advanced toward Wilson.
2. Objectively demonstrate that Wilson was not angry at Brown.

You don't know what happened.

The blood trail shows that he advanced toward Wilson. I know what happened because Darren Wilson told the truth.

 

[NoahFence]

1. Objectively demonstrate that Brown advanced toward Wilson.
2. Objectively demonstrate that Wilson was not angry at Brown.

You don't know what happened.

Did you miss the part where they released all the evidence?

Serious question.

 

[Ammonitida]

No he hasn't. There was no adversarial system in the Grand Jury room.

You didn't read the "cross-examination" of witness 40, did you?

 

[Lerxst]

So, honest question. Has anyone changed their minds after reading the GJ decision and looking at the evidence presented?

 

[RandFan]

You show me equal evidence painting Wilson with that brush and I'll stop sitting here shaking my head in amazement at the lengths you'll go to in order to vilify Wilson for protecting himself and his community from this trash.

I've not vilified Wilson. I've stated categorically that I don't know.

In any event, weighing of the evidence does not at all work that way. Most importantly, the police report does not jive with the evidence. There are important inconsistencies that don't square the official story.

An honest person will say "I don't know" when the evidence is far from conclusive. In this case it is far, far, from conclusive.

 

[NoahFence]

So, honest question. Has anyone changed their minds after reading the GJ decision and looking at the evidence presented?

Me.
I went from "I really don't know" to "I now know".

 

[Mumbles]

I don't buy it but that's fine. How likely is it and is it all possible that Wilson shot Brown out of anger and contempt?

Sure, that's also possible. As I said, that points to a need for a public trial, rather than a farce of a Grand Jury trial.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Sorry if this has been answered.

Is there a scenario that explains Brown's wounds and is consistent with the testimony of Wilson?

I've always had difficulty reconciling the two.

Your logical fallacy is burden of proof

It seems to me you are (also) making a claim that the testimony is not consistent with the physical evidence.

Perhaps if you could be more specific ... what specific difficulties are you have trouble reconciling ?

I've not vilified Wilson. I've stated categorically that I don't know.

In any event, weighing of the evidence does not at all work that way. Most importantly, the police report does not jive with the evidence. There are important inconsistencies that don't square the official story.

An honest person will say "I don't know" when the evidence is far from conclusive. In this case it is far, far, from conclusive.

Again, asking you to provide evidence for your claim that there are important inconsistencies.

 

[RandFan]

You didn't read the "cross-examination" of witness 40, did you?

I'm not at all sure how this demonstrates an adversarial system. Who challenged Wilson on his testimony?

 

[RandFan]

I know what happened because Darren Wilson told the truth.

I know that Jesus is the Christ because the Bible tells the truth.

 

[PhantomWolf]

1. Objectively demonstrate that Brown advanced toward Wilson.
2. Objectively demonstrate that Wilson was not angry at Brown.

You don't know what happened.

Without being there we can't, but we can surmise.

For instance, we have the radio call from Wilson seconds before the confrontation at the SUV, there is not anger or rage in his voice, he's apparently totally calm.

We also know that Brown was high, having 50% more THC in his blood that would indicate impairment, His adrenaline was likely pumping due to having a cop stop him shortly after he strong armed a shopkeeper. The odds are that it started as soon as he became aware of Wilson's vehicle, it heighten on it stopping and Wilson interacting with them to get them off the road. He would have felt relief as Wilson drove off, only to have new spikes flood him when the brakes came on, the vehicle stopped and the reversing lights came on shortly after.

So we have two people. One who has until this point shown himself to be an apparently calm and collected person, he doesn't appear to be expecting trouble, and as a decorated cop with a clean record and good reports, there seems to be no issues with him doing him job correctly. He is also sitting down.

On the other hand we have a kid who is high on THC, flooded with adrenaline, and has within the previous 15 minutes shown that he is willing to use his strength to bully his way out of a situation. He is currently standing.

Which of these two people is more likely to start a physical confrontation?

 

[RandFan]

Again, asking you to provide evidence for your claim that there are important inconsistencies.

I did not see your post. I sincerely apologize. However, I provided the video of Cyril Wecht. Brown could have only been shot in the top of the head with the bullet exiting out of his chin if he were falling. His wounds are consistent with someone who was shot while incapacitated.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

Which of these two people is more likely to start a physical confrontation?

Bingo.

 

[RandFan]

Without being there we can't, but we can surmise.

For instance, we have the radio call from Wilson seconds before the confrontation at the SUV, there is not anger or rage in his voice, he's apparently totally calm.

How "calm" do you think Wilson was after Brown demonstrated contempt for Wilson? Did you know that there is actually a term called "Contempt of Cop". I know that I'm condescending right now and I'll regret it later... but did you know that contempt of cop actually can change an otherwise objective and rational officer into an angry one?

I'm sorry, we can surmise all kinds of things. Our imaginations are fertile and we only need to sit back and let the thoughts flow.

We don't know. I don't know if Wilson was in reasonable fear of his life. He could have been. It's not an impossibility. On the other hand, Brown may very well have been shot because he decided to **** with the wrong person.

ETA: Even if you will not admit it, you know that thought entered your mind. You know it.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

I did not see your post. I sincerely apologize. However, I provided the video of Cyril Wecht. Brown could have only been shot in the top of the head with the bullet exiting out of his chin if he were falling. His wounds are consistent with someone who was shot while incapacitated.

Why would him being shot while falling present a problem or imply incapacitation?

Cop is squeezing off rounds in rapid succession, Brown begins to stumble forward and his head falls into the line of fire...

I'm not sure what's confusing about that or what's problematic about that.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I know that Jesus is the Christ because the Bible tells the truth.

If only the physical evidence agreed with him, too !

 

[Ammonitida]

I'm not at all sure how this demonstrates an adversarial system. Who challenged Wilson on his testimony?

Crap Salon article written by an intellectually dishonest idiot. Do you have a dailykos or Gawker article to link next?

Here's a gem from your link

"“Darren Wilson, as you can see in these pictures, doesn’t have any obvious injuries, maybe, if you look really closely, a tiny bit of pinkness on his face,”



"That’s the best witness McCulloch can come up with? A man who was 100 yards away when interviewed just days after the incident, and then 50 to 75 yards away six weeks later? Who saw a gesture, but doesn’t know what it was, only what it wasn’t? REALLY???"

Actually, no. Witness 48 is Wilson's best supporting witness, and witness 10's "inconsistency" is understandable as some people are bad at judging distances. It's nothing compared to the inconsistencies told by the majority of Brown's supporting witnesses, which range from two cops in Wilson's SUV to claims completely refuted by forensics (Brown being shot in the back while down on the ground).

 

[PhantomWolf]

I did not see your post. I sincerely apologize. However, I provided the video of Cyril Wecht. Brown could have only been shot in the top of the head with the bullet exiting out of his chin if he were falling. His wounds are consistent with someone who was shot while incapacitated.

Not correct at all, all that is required is that he is bend over to around 90 degrees with his head down. Witness #10, #40 and Wilson all describe this. Witness #48 describes Brown as running at Wilson.

The really convincing thing however is that ALL three bullets that hit Brown's torso required that he was in this position.

In other words, if one of those three hit Brown when he was falling, all three must have, but that raises the huge question, if Brown was falling, what make him fall? He had no other bullets in his torso, only two shorts to the arm, and that certainly wouldn't have done it.

The three bullets to the torso are so close in their position and track that they had to be fired within a fraction of a second of each other. Since we know that the bullet to the top of the head stopped him in his tracks, the others must have been immediately before it, so they were either bullets 1, 2, & 3 or the second volley, or bullets 2, 3, & 4 of it. Either way, these four bullets took just 2 seconds to fire so even if he started falling on the first, the other two shots were justified.

 

[RandFan]

If only the physical evidence agreed with him, too !

If the physical evidence agreed with Wilson I wouldn't bother with this thread.