Michael Brown verdict discussion policy

by Simon 254 Replies latest forum announcements

  • Simon
    Simon

    What about the people on the street witnessing the events, what were their observations.

    There are witnesses that say he had his hands up and was surrendering and others say he was not. Some say there was no struggle at the car but we know there definitely was. His friend said he was running away when he was shot (also already debunked by forensic evidence).

    I think you are putting too much weight on eye witness accounts, they are often very unreliable and the media tends to pick the ones that sound best to keep a story going / feed controversy / get viewers. What carries more weight is the forensic evidence - if it's shown he was moving toward the officer for instance.

    But also the different vantage point could mean that someone with their arms outstretched could quite easily have appeared differently to the different onlookers so they don't have to be 'lying' (though some clearly are). They will all be interpreting what they saw and then someone else will interpret and put together all the disparate stories to piece together a likely replay of what actually happened.

    Also worth bearing in mind: going on the news and publicly saying "MB was surrendering" if you live in ferguson is easy. I think it would be a brave person who stands up there and says the opposite so the full and fair evidence has likely only really been heard by the grand jury.

  • minimus
    minimus

    People see what they want to see. They hear what they want to hear. I have seen many mothers say, in the midst of hard evidence, "my baby would never kill anyone" . They have them on video and hear them say it but still refuse to believe the truth.

  • TheSilence
    TheSilence

    Eye witness testimony is not very reliable in a high stress situation. I used to manage a restaurant before working in the casino. One night we were held up at gun point. When the police got there and took statements some of us thought there was one robber and others thought there were two. Some people invented a whole other person in their head due to the stress of the situation. It wasn't that they were trying to put one over on the police, eye witness testimony is just unreliable in such instances. That's why we don't take it at face value but look for forensic evidence to back it up.

  • Ruby456
    Ruby456

    thesilence

    I'm not sure how using the word allegedly refutes the cherry picking

    allegedly, eye witnesses said this and so and so said this or that tell me that the newspaper is not reporting hard facts and that it is aware of this but that it still wants readers to know about what is controversial about this case and about what people over there are protesting about and giving us their human angle rather than that of the police.

    for myself I,m afraid I always question what the police say - always a little suspicious and skeptical of authority and I find lots to question about Darren Wilson. on the other hand in no way do I want to see him punished with a prison sentence.

    edit: I so agree about oral testimony or eye witnesstestimony being unreliable unless there is a striking detail that everyone agrees on

  • TheSilence
    TheSilence

    Cherry picking means only reporting the details that you think support your agenda. Using the word allegedly does not refute that the article cherry picked the details it chose to report vs. those they chose not to.

  • TheSilence
    TheSilence

    You also used the article to support a claim that officer Wilson showed "quite a lot of aggression" and knew that Michael was unarmed. Neither of which do I think is supported, especially if your only referenced article is only cherry picking details.

  • Ruby456
    Ruby456

    lol now who is cherry picking. I'm not having this conversation with you no time

  • TheSilence
    TheSilence

    I honestly have no idea what you mean. But I hope you have a good day.

  • Simon
    Simon

    allegedly, eye witnesses said this and so and so said this or that tell me that the newspaper is not reporting hard facts and that it is aware of this but that it still wants readers to know about what is controversial about this case and about what people over there are protesting about and giving us their human angle rather than that of the police.

    News reports can use "allegedly" but still give a biased opinion by only including the "alleged" eye-witness accounts that support one point of view and not the other. All it means is that it's claimed but not proven, not that it's unbiased - don't confuse the two.

    For instance:

    "Eye witnesses allege they saw the victim running from the officer before he was shot"

    Gives a very different impression than:

    "Some eye witnesses allege they saw the victim running from the officer before he was shot but others allege he was running toward the officer instead"

    The first sounds like a no brainer clear cut case and that it's just pending a rubber stamp to make official / no one is contesting things but the latter makes clear that there are very different opinions and someone is obviously mistaken or lying about what they saw.

  • Giordano
    Giordano

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XFYTtgZAlE

    South Carolina Trooper shoots unarmed man.

    There was a dash cam that recorded this.

    You will not see blood and gore. The man sustained a hip injury and was treated and released from the hospital the same day.

    There was a dash cam that recorded this.

    Please note the speed that this took place in, the reason the police officer reacted as he did (I am not agreeing with his actions). The amount of shots fired in rapid succession.

    And if you listen carefully you can hear the officer and victim discussing what just happened.

    The officer is up on charges and was fired a week or so later.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit