Michael Brown shooting II

Status
Not open for further replies.
davefoc said:
The claim that there is no evidence to support the possibility that Wilson acted inappropriately is of course true when one defines evidence to be only facts which support their point of view.
Click to expand...

Can you please point out where I have done this? Greatly appreciated in advance. Just because I don't use the Arman video as rock solid evidence that Wilson was a rage fueled, liar that would do anything to cover his own ass, doesn't mean I only accept facts that reflect my point of view. Again, you have blatantly ignored my commentary before. I don't know if it's willful ignorance or if you're doing the exact same thing you're accusing others of, so here it is again:

I've said this multiple times and no one seems to be able to provide me with anything solid. Outside of the Arman video is there anything in his file that shows he had a habit of what you're accusing him of? Before you say nothing was recorded, or the police station covered it up, I've used the example of the police officer that shot the other individual, Meyer jr. Within days of the shooting the media had his criminal file, which he had charges from when he was much younger, tore apart his entire facebook, instagram, and exposed it all in their article. Now we're over 5 months out from this shooting and there is one 15 second video, that has no context, and you're treating it as gospel on how Wilson conducted every interaction on the police force. I mean, seriously.
Click to expand...

I hilited the important part that you should read. I just don't see 15 seconds in a career that spans almost a decade to be a qualifier in stating someone has a propensity to act a certain way.

davefoc said:
I don't believe there is proof that Wilson acted inappropriately I think there is evidence to support the possibility that he did act inappropriately.
Click to expand...

Which I've asked for before, and I'll ask for again. Please present this evidence so it can be reviewed. If the Arman video is all that you have to support that possibility then just say so, but that is the weakest of sauces, should that be the case.

davefoc said:
I've said just about everything that I have to say about this. I have presented the facts which I think are significant. For some people, the fact that what I and others have presented doesn't support what they believe is enough to claim that which has been presented is not evidence.
Click to expand...

I don't believe it's not evidence, I just don't believe the evidence you've presented to be as damning as you believe it to be.

davefoc said:
That is fine. You're not the first group of people to reject facts that don't support your beliefs.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: Hi pot, I'm kettle.

davefoc said:
The notion that I'm not a cop and therefore can't form an opinion about what is appropriate behavior for a cop might not be hypocritical nonsense if the Wilson supporters weren't doing the same thing except in the opposite direction.
Click to expand...

Which is, of course, what we call debating. No one says that you can't form an opinion, but people have the right to say your opinion is incorrect. That's what you see happening, just because you've formed an opinion isn't a requirement for others to accept it as fact. Especially since I have asked for evidence a few times now.

davefoc said:
*snip* not for me
Click to expand...
 
davefoc said:
It is not out of the bounds of possibility that Wilson's actions were provocative enough that Brown's actions were justified. Nobody knows. But my guess is that while I might sympathize a bit with Brown's situation if there was video of the incident, I would still think it was criminal behavior to attack Wilson. Specifically if Wilson had already been very antagonistic towards Brown and now he drove his car in such a way as to frighten Brown I could understand what might drive Brown to attack Wilson. But barring something that looked like an intentional assault on Brown with his car by Wilson, Brown did not have a right to attack Wilson.

A strange fact about all of this is that Wilson acted in a way not consistent with skilled police procedure when he confronted Brown and Johnson the second time if he knew them to be suspects in a strong arm robbery. Any theory about whether Wilson's actions were appropriate or not needs to take this in to consideration.
Click to expand...

Actually, we can't even be certain of this. It's quite possible (though, granted, unlikely) that Wilson stopped a reasonable distance away from the pair, and that Brown then ran up and pushed him into his car.

This is one of those reasons why I said it should just go to trial. I'll freely admit that I have not looked at all of the evidence from the grand jury - I have life matters to attend to, and really, once the prosecutor admitted that he knew one of the people he put on the stand was going to lie, everything he put out related to the case became worthless anyway. But a trial would publicly clear things up, and help to resolve the matter.
 
I've expressed before in this thread that I think Brown merely panicked. There he was, high, full of himself, having just pulled off a robbery and intimidated the store owner so that he won't report the incident...And here comes the police.
All those dreams of college and all.... Suddenly out the window. He's 18....Legally an adult in Missouri. He's going to prison....
And he panics. Any police officer who's worked for more than a few months has seen this reaction.
"Oh no, I can't be arrested! I can't go to jail!" .... Rationality flies out the window. They fight, they run, they go into an irrational panic mode.

Our rational minds are very easily thrown into this state with the right stimulus.
 
Mumbles said:
Actually, we can't even be certain of this. It's quite possible (though, granted, unlikely) that Wilson stopped a reasonable distance away from the pair, and that Brown then ran up and pushed him into his car.

This is one of those reasons why I said it should just go to trial. I'll freely admit that I have not looked at all of the evidence from the grand jury - I have life matters to attend to, and really, once the prosecutor admitted that he knew one of the people he put on the stand was going to lie, everything he put out related to the case became worthless anyway. But a trial would publicly clear things up, and help to resolve the matter.
Click to expand...

That seems like a rational position. "I don't know any of the evidence, I assume it's all garbage anyway since SHE (the person presenting was a she) put someone who knowingly lied (which the prosecutor called her out on) on the stand."

So you haven't looked at the evidence, and you wouldn't believe it anyway since it's all worthless, but you believe it should go to a public trial. Well, we can seal this up. Why not ruin some witnesses lives so that you can have your trial, which will result in a hung jury at best, because....you believe it should happen?!
 
Last edited:
What upsets me more than anything, is that the authorities spent way to much time focusing on the forensic evidence, while completely ignoring the "witnesses" who testified in front of Judge Oprah.
 
Federal investigators interviewed more than 200 people and analyzed cellphone audio and video, the law enforcement officials said. Officer Wilson’s gun, clothing and other evidence were analyzed at the F.B.I.’s laboratory in Quantico, Va. Though the local authorities and Mr. Brown’s family conducted autopsies, Mr. Holder ordered a separate autopsy, which was conducted by pathologists from the Armed Forces Medical Examiner’s office at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware, the officials said.

The federal investigation did not uncover any facts that differed significantly from the evidence made public by the authorities in Missouri late last year, the law enforcement officials said.
Click to expand...

Well, there you go.
 
Mumbles said:
Actually, we can't even be certain of this. It's quite possible (though, granted, unlikely) that Wilson stopped a reasonable distance away from the pair, and that Brown then ran up and pushed him into his car.

This is one of those reasons why I said it should just go to trial. I'll freely admit that I have not looked at all of the evidence from the grand jury - I have life matters to attend to, and really, once the prosecutor admitted that he knew one of the people he put on the stand was going to lie, everything he put out related to the case became worthless anyway. But a trial would publicly clear things up, and help to resolve the matter.
Click to expand...
That's what the USA is all about, putting people on trial even when there's no evidence a crime has been committed.

:boggled:
 
Bikewer said:
I've expressed before in this thread that I think Brown merely panicked. There he was, high, full of himself, having just pulled off a robbery and intimidated the store owner so that he won't report the incident...And here comes the police.
All those dreams of college and all.... Suddenly out the window. He's 18....Legally an adult in Missouri. He's going to prison....
And he panics. Any police officer who's worked for more than a few months has seen this reaction.
"Oh no, I can't be arrested! I can't go to jail!" .... Rationality flies out the window. They fight, they run, they go into an irrational panic mode.

Our rational minds are very easily thrown into this state with the right stimulus.
Click to expand...

That's also quite possible. In truth, our rational minds are not actually rational, so it's very easy to slip into panic mode. Again, something to hash out in a public trial.
 
Mumbles said:
No.

Here's what you don't understand.

You simply are not the main topic. We have a police force that attacks protestors, mourners, and the press. A force in NYC that screams in anger when the mayor says exactly what they say, which is absurd.
Click to expand...

The funny part, nothing that you've said above is the main topic either, but it doesn't stop you from saying it. Your posts are mind boggling and all over the place. You directly quote me, and then say that your posts aren't aimed at me. You say you don't make a claim, but go on to make a claim. Now you post comments, again, directed at me, that are completely off topic for this thread. This is about the shooting of Michael Brown, of which you admit you haven't even reviewed the case, but still make assertions about what should happen. Interesting.

Mumbles said:
And people notice that.

But this thread is about what Wilson did. And he deserves a public trial.
Click to expand...

First off, you're using the word "deserves" completely incorrectly. As "deserving" something means that you've earned it, which Wilson hasn't. He deserves to have this entire thing dropped, that shouldn't have been picked up in the first place, and to have his life back before this ******** completely destroyed it. That's what he deserves.

What you mean is that in your, again admittedly, uneducated opinion, you want a public trial because *words*. It's a non sequitur. "I don't know what the evidence is, I haven't reviewed the case, and by that logic, public trial."

Thanks for clearing that up for me.
 
I can't believe Holder announced no civil rights charges on this before he announced it for Zimmerman.

Since Zimmerman was never acting as a representative of the government and since he had much more obvious injuries, etc. that is an even more clear cut case of civil rights charges being wildly inappropriate to even CONSIDER yet he drags his feet on making the announcement.

I'm glad to hear Wilson no longer has to worry about such charges, though. He never should have had to.
 
Skeptic Tank said:
I can't believe Holder announced no civil rights charges on this before he announced it for Zimmerman.

Since Zimmerman was never acting as a representative of the government and since he had much more obvious injuries, etc. that is an even more clear cut case of civil rights charges being wildly inappropriate to even CONSIDER yet he drags his feet on making the announcement.

I'm glad to hear Wilson no longer has to worry about such charges, though. He never should have had to.
Click to expand...

But he will have to live with a life-long target on his back.
 
Mumbles said:
... once the prosecutor admitted that he knew one of the people he put on the stand was going to lie, everything he put out related to the case became worthless anyway.
Click to expand...
It's been pointed out repeatedly in this thread that the prosecutor put flawed witnesses from both sides of the story on the stand. It's also been pointed out repeatedly that if he had omitted these witnesses, it would have raised legitimate questions about his impartiality. By bringing all the witnesses to the grand jury, and showing them where the testimony held up and where it didn't, on both sides of the issue, he avoided any serious complaint that he was trying to spin the case one way or the other by omitting certain witnesses.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom