One type is where you do community service for 6 months and by degrees the others are jail time.
Michael Brown verdict discussion policy
by Simon 254 Replies latest forum announcements
-
-
DesirousOfChange
So, if you don't see a severe injury in a video you doubt there was a struggle?
I was not simply an injury that was reported.
Please take the time to go to the links and read the articles.
"Broken eye socked"
"Bruised and swollen face"
ALL LIES.
It's just like the JWs -- if the cops are lying about this, what else are they lying about?
If the FACTS proved that Wilson was justified in his actions, they would not have needed LIES.
Doc
-
Simon
One type is where you do community service for 6 months and by degrees the others are jail time.
I presume that if you are already doing community service for previous theft that it becomes jail time if you are caught again?
-
Simon
"Bruised and swollen face"
ALL LIES.
And now you are determined to spread the opposite? One bad or factually inaccurate report does not negate all evidence. A low quality B&W video is not a medial examination. What matters is the medical evidence given to the jury, not what fox news was reporting that day.
Would you be happy if we just took one lie from the MB witnesses to dismiss everything else as "ALL LIES" - tada, no need to investigate further !
That's not how it works and we're not going to have that kind of discussion. Please refer to the OP.
-
Marvin Shilmer
One type is where you do community service for 6 months and by degrees the others are jail time.
The cited lawyer said what Mr. Brown participated in was NOT THEFT.
A lawyer who suggests 'Shoplifting is NOT THEFT' is part of the problem.
Hence three questions:
Designs do YOU beleive shoplifting IS theft?
Designs do you AGREE or DISAGREE that a lawyer who suggests 'Shoplifting is NOT THEFT' is part of the problem?
Designs do you AGREE or DISAGREE that a person who threatens violence toward a person engaged in non-violent protest of THEFT is someone who strongly and unfairly dislikes another person’s protest solely because they hold a different opinion?
-
Fisherman
I just heard a news report that seems to contradict sameelee post about the convenience store incidence. According to the report," there is no link between the convenience store incident and the shooting of MB.."
The report also states that the apparent injuries on OW "were exagerrated and fabricated by the police." If this is the case, Police credibility and integrity is challenged in connection with this case.
It is fair to say that allegations have been presented by both the prosecution and defense but that does not excuse the police to tamper with modify or manufacture evidence. Evidently, evidence must be interpreted.
A competent fact finding forum will interpret all allegations and evidence and decide what are or may be the facts.
There is one indisputable fact and that is that Ow shot an unarmed teenager at least six times and killed him.
-
TheSilence
Why on earth would Dorian Johnson's lawyer admit to the media that his client and Michael brown were involved in the theft if they weren't? how would it possibly benefit his client to lie about that?
-
Simon
I just heard a news report that seems to contradict sameelee post about the convenience store incidence. According to the report," there is no link between the convenience store incident and the shooting of MB.."
I think you are misinterpreting things. The "no link" is in relation to whether officer wilson was responding directly to a call about the robbery. He was not. That is the "no link" part.
Was the robbery a factor in the incident? I believe it was - I think MB was reacting in the possibly mistaken belief that officer wilson was in fact responding to the robbery and was determined to resist the arrest.
So, there can be "no link" from one perspective while also having a strong connection from another.
The report also states that the apparent injuries on OW "were exagerrated and fabricated by the police." If this is the case, Police credibility and integrity is challenged in connection with this case.
Were they exaggerated or were they fabricated? They are quite different things with "and" being impossible. Again, until we see medical reports given to the jury we don't know. Everthing is 'claimed'.
It is fair to say that allegations have been presented by both the prosecution and defense but that does not excuse the police to tamper with modify or manufacture evidence. Evidently, evidence must be interpreted.
Yes, it's always interpreted to build a picture. If there are contradictions then you know something is incorrect or false, very often 'eyewitness testimony'.
The community claims are just as doubtful as the police's - for instance they have vehemently denied that it is MB in the shop video but now the attourney says it is:
"The announcement was met with immediate disbelief and anger by community members who insisted Brown wasn't the man seen in a security camera video of the robbery."
Do we believe that they were "honestly mistaken" or simply lying?
A competent fact finding forum will interpret all allegations and evidence and decide what are or may be the facts.
There is one indisputable fact and that is that Ow shot an unarmed teenager at least six times and killed him.
It's a fact but sensationalist. The issue of whether it was justified is really what matters.
-
Ruby456
I don't think these protest are just about Michael Brown
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/10/michael-brown-jury-black-life-united-states
It turns out there’s only so many black kids you can shoot dead before it becomes a national scandal. The St Louis area may just have reached its tipping point.
-
Fisherman
Regarding my question: "How far was OW from MB when he first saw him..." is not an opinion, I did not ask how long was the encounter that resulted in the death of MB. Assuming Samlees post is true and Ow did know about the incident and that he did call for backup and that he did see MB and that he did identify MB as the suspect., we need to know the time when he first saw him, the time when he first identified him how far away was he when he first saw how far away was he when first identify him.
It is cracy for a police officer to drive by someone he suspects commited a violent felony and let him get so close to his gun. What an officer must do is call for back up and wait for backup up.
If he decides he wants to detain the subject without backup, he gets out of the car with the gun drawn (he has probable cause) and he orders the subject from a distance to get on the ground. But this is unlikely because if the suspect runs away he cannot shhot him in the back and has to run after him and subdue him. Of course if the subject pulls out a weapon or something he believes is a weapon, he can kill him. Bottom line he knows that he cannot subdue a subject of MB size if he resists without possibly killing him.Next option is to surprise the subject and point a gun at him close range, but that is hard to do for a marked car or uniformed officer and he still has to subdue him and he knows he may have to kill him.