Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Witnesses against Wilson

LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2014 6:41:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
In the immediate aftermath of the Brown shooting, grand jury documents show, witness intimidation and lying became the order of the day. Witness after witness told police that local thugs were intimidating those who had seen the events. One witness told police, according to the St. Louis Police Investigative Report, that threats "had been made to the residents of Canfield Green Apartment Complex." This witness said that "notes had been posted on various apartment buildings threatening people not to talk to the police, and gunshots were still being fired every night."

The witness wasn"t alone. Other witnesses stated that supposed witnesses were lying to the media about events, that others who had seen the events were "embellishing their stories" in order to convict Wilson.

One witness stated, "You have to understand the mentality of some of these young guys they have nothing to do. When they can latch on the something they embellish it because they want something to do."

Some 16 witnesses testified that Brown"s hands were up when he was shot, which was factually false according to the autopsy. Another 12 witnesses said that Wilson shot Brown from behind " again, false according to the autopsy. One witness testified that Wilson used both a Taser and a gun " false. Another said that Brown had kneeled before Wilson shot him. When confronted with the fact that the physical evidence made such an account impossible, the witness acknowledged he hadn"t seen the event, and then asked if he could leave the grand jury because he was "uncomfortable."
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2014 9:51:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/3/2014 6:41:51 PM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
In the immediate aftermath of the Brown shooting, grand jury documents show, witness intimidation and lying became the order of the day. Witness after witness told police that local thugs were intimidating those who had seen the events. One witness told police, according to the St. Louis Police Investigative Report, that threats "had been made to the residents of Canfield Green Apartment Complex." This witness said that "notes had been posted on various apartment buildings threatening people not to talk to the police, and gunshots were still being fired every night."

The witness wasn"t alone. Other witnesses stated that supposed witnesses were lying to the media about events, that others who had seen the events were "embellishing their stories" in order to convict Wilson.

One witness stated, "You have to understand the mentality of some of these young guys they have nothing to do. When they can latch on the something they embellish it because they want something to do."

Some 16 witnesses testified that Brown"s hands were up when he was shot, which was factually false according to the autopsy. Another 12 witnesses said that Wilson shot Brown from behind " again, false according to the autopsy. One witness testified that Wilson used both a Taser and a gun " false. Another said that Brown had kneeled before Wilson shot him. When confronted with the fact that the physical evidence made such an account impossible, the witness acknowledged he hadn"t seen the event, and then asked if he could leave the grand jury because he was "uncomfortable."

Almost all of the witnesses retracted those statements, saying it was just what they were told. Only Brown's friend supports it still. Also, autopsy and the blood trail establishes that Brown was running when he collapsed from the 6th bullet. He was not, in fact, on the ground.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2014 11:00:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/3/2014 9:51:48 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 12/3/2014 6:41:51 PM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
In the immediate aftermath of the Brown shooting, grand jury documents show, witness intimidation and lying became the order of the day. Witness after witness told police that local thugs were intimidating those who had seen the events. One witness told police, according to the St. Louis Police Investigative Report, that threats "had been made to the residents of Canfield Green Apartment Complex." This witness said that "notes had been posted on various apartment buildings threatening people not to talk to the police, and gunshots were still being fired every night."

The witness wasn"t alone. Other witnesses stated that supposed witnesses were lying to the media about events, that others who had seen the events were "embellishing their stories" in order to convict Wilson.

One witness stated, "You have to understand the mentality of some of these young guys they have nothing to do. When they can latch on the something they embellish it because they want something to do."

Some 16 witnesses testified that Brown"s hands were up when he was shot, which was factually false according to the autopsy. Another 12 witnesses said that Wilson shot Brown from behind " again, false according to the autopsy. One witness testified that Wilson used both a Taser and a gun " false. Another said that Brown had kneeled before Wilson shot him. When confronted with the fact that the physical evidence made such an account impossible, the witness acknowledged he hadn"t seen the event, and then asked if he could leave the grand jury because he was "uncomfortable."

Almost all of the witnesses retracted those statements, saying it was just what they were told. Only Brown's friend supports it still. Also, autopsy and the blood trail establishes that Brown was running when he collapsed from the 6th bullet. He was not, in fact, on the ground.

It's a disgrace to anybody who is ignoring the evidence. There is only one person to blame for the death, and it's not Wilson.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 12:20:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago

Some 16 witnesses testified that Brown"s hands were up when he was shot, which was factually false according to the autopsy.

The autopsy could make no specific determination about this.

Another 12 witnesses said that Wilson shot Brown from behind " again, false according to the autopsy.

Again, the autopsy could make no specific determination about this, and second, being shot at from behind, and being shot from behind are two different things, just like 'being shot IN THE BACK' is.

One witness testified that Wilson used both a Taser and a gun " false. Another said that Brown had kneeled before Wilson shot him. When confronted with the fact that the physical evidence made such an account impossible, the witness acknowledged he hadn"t seen the event, and then asked if he could leave the grand jury because he was "uncomfortable."

Almost all of the witnesses retracted those statements, saying it was just what they were told. Only Brown's friend supports it still. Also, autopsy and the blood trail establishes that Brown was running when he collapsed from the 6th bullet. He was not, in fact, on the ground.

It's a disgrace to anybody who is ignoring the evidence. There is only one person to blame for the death, and it's not Wilson.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 12:27:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/4/2014 12:20:23 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:

Some 16 witnesses testified that Brown"s hands were up when he was shot, which was factually false according to the autopsy.

The autopsy could make no specific determination about this.

how do you know?

Another 12 witnesses said that Wilson shot Brown from behind " again, false according to the autopsy.

Again, the autopsy could make no specific determination about this, and second, being shot at from behind, and being shot from behind are two different things, just like 'being shot IN THE BACK' is.

An autopsy cannot determine if a bullet entered from the front or from the back? So we have to go with the witnesses and forget the autopsy?


One witness testified that Wilson used both a Taser and a gun " false. Another said that Brown had kneeled before Wilson shot him. When confronted with the fact that the physical evidence made such an account impossible, the witness acknowledged he hadn"t seen the event, and then asked if he could leave the grand jury because he was "uncomfortable."

Almost all of the witnesses retracted those statements, saying it was just what they were told. Only Brown's friend supports it still. Also, autopsy and the blood trail establishes that Brown was running when he collapsed from the 6th bullet. He was not, in fact, on the ground.

It's a disgrace to anybody who is ignoring the evidence. There is only one person to blame for the death, and it's not Wilson.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 12:35:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/4/2014 12:27:53 AM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
At 12/4/2014 12:20:23 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:

Some 16 witnesses testified that Brown"s hands were up when he was shot, which was factually false according to the autopsy.

The autopsy could make no specific determination about this.

how do you know?

Because I reviewed it. The various bullet contacts, save for 2 major ones, don't indicate any specific position of his feet, torso, etc. Hands that were up could very well have been shot at and earned the same look from being hit from behind.


Another 12 witnesses said that Wilson shot Brown from behind " again, false according to the autopsy.

Again, the autopsy could make no specific determination about this, and second, being shot at from behind, and being shot from behind are two different things, just like 'being shot IN THE BACK' is.

An autopsy cannot determine if a bullet entered from the front or from the back? So we have to go with the witnesses and forget the autopsy?

Depends on where you are referring to on the body. An autopsy cannot make a chronology of span of motion, it can only attempt to explain current damage. A shot at an arm above one's head can carry the same damage indicators as the same one at the side when one's back is turned. This is why a witness could easily see shots fired, one of the arm wounds being the result, the person in flight could then turn. This situation could easily reconcile both witness statements and the autopsy findings.


One witness testified that Wilson used both a Taser and a gun " false. Another said that Brown had kneeled before Wilson shot him. When confronted with the fact that the physical evidence made such an account impossible, the witness acknowledged he hadn"t seen the event, and then asked if he could leave the grand jury because he was "uncomfortable."

Almost all of the witnesses retracted those statements, saying it was just what they were told. Only Brown's friend supports it still. Also, autopsy and the blood trail establishes that Brown was running when he collapsed from the 6th bullet. He was not, in fact, on the ground.

It's a disgrace to anybody who is ignoring the evidence. There is only one person to blame for the death, and it's not Wilson.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 12:44:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/4/2014 12:35:24 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/4/2014 12:27:53 AM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
At 12/4/2014 12:20:23 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:

Some 16 witnesses testified that Brown"s hands were up when he was shot, which was factually false according to the autopsy.

The autopsy could make no specific determination about this.

how do you know?

Because I reviewed it. The various bullet contacts, save for 2 major ones, don't indicate any specific position of his feet, torso, etc. Hands that were up could very well have been shot at and earned the same look from being hit from behind.

You are speculating and ignoring the facts and the evidence. The point of entry of a bullet and the line it traveld show that the entry point was facing the gun. The way you are talking is if it's all a mystery.

Another 12 witnesses said that Wilson shot Brown from behind " again, false according to the autopsy.

Again, the autopsy could make no specific determination about this, and second, being shot at from behind, and being shot from behind are two different things, just like 'being shot IN THE BACK' is.

An autopsy cannot determine if a bullet entered from the front or from the back? So we have to go with the witnesses and forget the autopsy?

Depends on where you are referring to on the body. An autopsy cannot make a chronology of span of motion, it can only attempt to explain current damage. A shot at an arm above one's head can carry the same damage indicators as the same one at the side when one's back is turned. This is why a witness could easily see shots fired, one of the arm wounds being the result, the person in flight could then turn. This situation could easily reconcile both witness statements and the autopsy findings.

You are ignoring a lot of facts trying to stretch things. Why? Why are you ingoring the fact that almost all of the witnesses retracted their statements? I have heard many people make arguements like you are making, and all of them have an agenda. What is you agenda that makes you ignore the evidence?

One witness testified that Wilson used both a Taser and a gun " false. Another said that Brown had kneeled before Wilson shot him. When confronted with the fact that the physical evidence made such an account impossible, the witness acknowledged he hadn"t seen the event, and then asked if he could leave the grand jury because he was "uncomfortable."

Almost all of the witnesses retracted those statements, saying it was just what they were told. Only Brown's friend supports it still. Also, autopsy and the blood trail establishes that Brown was running when he collapsed from the 6th bullet. He was not, in fact, on the ground.

There is only one person to blame for the death, and it's not Wilson.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 12:54:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/4/2014 12:44:26 AM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
At 12/4/2014 12:35:24 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/4/2014 12:27:53 AM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
At 12/4/2014 12:20:23 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:

Some 16 witnesses testified that Brown"s hands were up when he was shot, which was factually false according to the autopsy.

The autopsy could make no specific determination about this.

how do you know?

Because I reviewed it. The various bullet contacts, save for 2 major ones, don't indicate any specific position of his feet, torso, etc. Hands that were up could very well have been shot at and earned the same look from being hit from behind.

You are speculating and ignoring the facts and the evidence. The point of entry of a bullet and the line it traveld show that the entry point was facing the gun. The way you are talking is if it's all a mystery.

As opposed to an exit point facing the gun? I am simply stating what an autopsy is qualified to represent. In this instance, exact body position is not one of them. You do realize that when an arm is up, the same facing is presented from behind if the same arm is down. I don't think thus far I have relied upon 'mystery' to present objective review. Its not religion we are discussing here.


Another 12 witnesses said that Wilson shot Brown from behind " again, false according to the autopsy.

Again, the autopsy could make no specific determination about this, and second, being shot at from behind, and being shot from behind are two different things, just like 'being shot IN THE BACK' is.

An autopsy cannot determine if a bullet entered from the front or from the back? So we have to go with the witnesses and forget the autopsy?

Depends on where you are referring to on the body. An autopsy cannot make a chronology of span of motion, it can only attempt to explain current damage. A shot at an arm above one's head can carry the same damage indicators as the same one at the side when one's back is turned. This is why a witness could easily see shots fired, one of the arm wounds being the result, the person in flight could then turn. This situation could easily reconcile both witness statements and the autopsy findings.

You are ignoring a lot of facts trying to stretch things. Why?

Oh? Please explain what part of the autopsy rules that out.

Why are you ingoring the fact that almost all of the witnesses retracted their statements?

I'm not. I am just not ignoring the ones who DIDN'T retract their statements.

I have heard many people make arguements like you are making, and all of them have an agenda.

Explanation of the given situation. You claim the autopsy can do x y z. It can't.

What is you agenda that makes you ignore the evidence?

Because its not ignoring evidence. Its an explanation for how the wounds were recieved, reconciled against what people think they saw.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 9:38:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/4/2014 12:54:10 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/4/2014 12:44:26 AM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
At 12/4/2014 12:35:24 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/4/2014 12:27:53 AM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
At 12/4/2014 12:20:23 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:

Some 16 witnesses testified that Brown"s hands were up when he was shot, which was factually false according to the autopsy.

The autopsy could make no specific determination about this.

how do you know?

Because I reviewed it. The various bullet contacts, save for 2 major ones, don't indicate any specific position of his feet, torso, etc. Hands that were up could very well have been shot at and earned the same look from being hit from behind.

You are speculating and ignoring the facts and the evidence. The point of entry of a bullet and the line it traveld show that the entry point was facing the gun. The way you are talking is if it's all a mystery.

As opposed to an exit point facing the gun? I am simply stating what an autopsy is qualified to represent. In this instance, exact body position is not one of them. You do realize that when an arm is up, the same facing is presented from behind if the same arm is down. I don't think thus far I have relied upon 'mystery' to present objective review. Its not religion we are discussing here.


Another 12 witnesses said that Wilson shot Brown from behind " again, false according to the autopsy.

Again, the autopsy could make no specific determination about this, and second, being shot at from behind, and being shot from behind are two different things, just like 'being shot IN THE BACK' is.

An autopsy cannot determine if a bullet entered from the front or from the back? So we have to go with the witnesses and forget the autopsy?

Depends on where you are referring to on the body. An autopsy cannot make a chronology of span of motion, it can only attempt to explain current damage. A shot at an arm above one's head can carry the same damage indicators as the same one at the side when one's back is turned. This is why a witness could easily see shots fired, one of the arm wounds being the result, the person in flight could then turn. This situation could easily reconcile both witness statements and the autopsy findings.

You are ignoring a lot of facts trying to stretch things. Why?

Oh? Please explain what part of the autopsy rules that out.

Why are you ingoring the fact that almost all of the witnesses retracted their statements?

I'm not. I am just not ignoring the ones who DIDN'T retract their statements.

I have heard many people make arguements like you are making, and all of them have an agenda.

Explanation of the given situation. You claim the autopsy can do x y z. It can't.

What is you agenda that makes you ignore the evidence?

Because its not ignoring evidence. Its an explanation for how the wounds were recieved, reconciled against what people think they saw.

You are not looking at the evidence objectively, you are ignoring evidence based on a bias which makes it appear you have an agenda. Your explanation is based on speculation, not evidence. You are using your own personal biases as an excuse to ignore evidence. You apparently have a lot less knowledge of physiology than I do, and mine is only enough to know that a physician can prove by examining a corpse a lot more than you seem to think they can. You are using speculation attempting to support the stories of "witnesses" who all except for one holdout who was a close friend of brown have recanted their stories. Why are you doing this? What is your agenda? What do you want? Obviously you are not interested in justice. Brown got justice. He was attempting to do great bodily harm to that cop and threatening murder. The cop had to stop him. I would do the same, I have done the same (bare handed, no weapons) when attacked. If those attackers lived to walk away after I walked away, they did not deserve to live. If they had not stopped attacking me, I could not have stopped trying to stop them from attacking me. I tried to reason with them first. They would not listen to reason and forced me to give them something they had no choice but to listen to, and I gave it to them and they did not deserve to walk away if they walked away.

I have a friend who was a cop in a similar situation. You do what you have to do when you are attacked. If the cop wanted to kill the thug, and he was standing there with his hands up, do you really think he needed to shoot him six times? Do you really think the cop could stand there and shoot a person six times, five non-fatal, while he had his hands up in the air, and get away with it?

You are ignoring a lot of evidence and making a lot of speculation because you have an agenda and I wonder what it is.
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 9:49:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/4/2014 12:54:10 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Some 16 witnesses testified that Brown"s hands were up when he was shot, which was factually false according to the autopsy.
Another 12 witnesses said that Wilson shot Brown from behind " again, false according to the autopsy.

An autopsy cannot determine if a bullet entered from the front or from the back? :

Why are you ingoring the fact that almost all of the witnesses retracted their statements?

I'm not. I am just not ignoring the ones who DIDN'T retract their statements.

The only witness who did not retract their statement was a close friend of Brown who can claim temporary insanity from the trauma of seeing his fried lose that battle as his excuse for lying.

What is you agenda that makes you ignore the evidence?

Because its not ignoring evidence. Its an explanation for how the wounds were recieved, reconciled against what people think they saw.

Again, you are referring to people who failed to be honest witnesses. You are caling the doctors who performed the autopsy liars, in spite of the fact that virtually all of the witnesses against the police officer recanted and withdrew their testimony which was obviously fabricated.

You are not looking at the evidence objectively, you are ignoring evidence based on a bias which makes it appear you have an agenda. Your explanation is based on speculation, not evidence. You are using your own personal biases as an excuse to ignore evidence. You apparently have a lot less knowledge of physiology than I do, and mine is only enough to know that a physician can prove by examining a corpse a lot more than you seem to think they can. You are using speculation attempting to support the stories of "witnesses" who all except for one holdout who was a close friend of brown have recanted their stories. Why are you doing this? What is your agenda? What do you want? Obviously you are not interested in justice. Brown got justice. He was attempting to do great bodily harm to that cop and threatening murder. The cop had to stop him. I would do the same. You do what you have to do when you are attacked. If the cop wanted to kill the thug, and he was standing there with his hands up, do you really think he needed to shoot him six times, and not just once to put him down for good? Do you really think the cop could stand there and shoot a person six times, five non-fatal, while he had his hands up in the air, and get away with it?

You are ignoring a lot of evidence and making a lot of speculation because you have an agenda and I wonder what it is.

You are also ignoring the witnesses who have not retrated their testimonies of intimidation being used against people who would suppor the police officers testomony.

Being black does not make you innocent. Being white does not make you innocent. Emotional responses that ignore facts don't do anybody any good, especially the people who are fooling themselves by ignoring the facts.
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 9:50:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
In the immediate aftermath of the Brown shooting, grand jury documents show, witness intimidation and lying became the order of the day. Witness after witness told police that local thugs were intimidating those who had seen the events. One witness told police, according to the St. Louis Police Investigative Report, that threats "had been made to the residents of Canfield Green Apartment Complex." This witness said that "notes had been posted on various apartment buildings threatening people not to talk to the police, and gunshots were still being fired every night."

The witness wasn"t alone. Other witnesses stated that supposed witnesses were lying to the media about events, that others who had seen the events were "embellishing their stories" in order to convict Wilson.

One witness stated, "You have to understand the mentality of some of these young guys they have nothing to do. When they can latch on the something they embellish it because they want something to do."
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 10:40:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/4/2014 9:49:46 AM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
At 12/4/2014 12:54:10 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Some 16 witnesses testified that Brown"s hands were up when he was shot, which was factually false according to the autopsy.
Another 12 witnesses said that Wilson shot Brown from behind " again, false according to the autopsy.

An autopsy cannot determine if a bullet entered from the front or from the back? :

Why are you ingoring the fact that almost all of the witnesses retracted their statements?

I'm not. I am just not ignoring the ones who DIDN'T retract their statements.

The only witness who did not retract their statement was a close friend of Brown who can claim temporary insanity from the trauma of seeing his fried lose that battle as his excuse for lying.

What is you agenda that makes you ignore the evidence?

Because its not ignoring evidence. Its an explanation for how the wounds were recieved, reconciled against what people think they saw.

Again, you are referring to people who failed to be honest witnesses. You are caling the doctors who performed the autopsy liars, in spite of the fact that virtually all of the witnesses against the police officer recanted and withdrew their testimony which was obviously fabricated.

You are not looking at the evidence objectively, you are ignoring evidence based on a bias which makes it appear you have an agenda. Your explanation is based on speculation, not evidence. You are using your own personal biases as an excuse to ignore evidence. You apparently have a lot less knowledge of physiology than I do, and mine is only enough to know that a physician can prove by examining a corpse a lot more than you seem to think they can. You are using speculation attempting to support the stories of "witnesses" who all except for one holdout who was a close friend of brown have recanted their stories. Why are you doing this? What is your agenda? What do you want? Obviously you are not interested in justice. Brown got justice. He was attempting to do great bodily harm to that cop and threatening murder. The cop had to stop him. I would do the same. You do what you have to do when you are attacked. If the cop wanted to kill the thug, and he was standing there with his hands up, do you really think he needed to shoot him six times, and not just once to put him down for good? Do you really think the cop could stand there and shoot a person six times, five non-fatal, while he had his hands up in the air, and get away with it?

You are ignoring a lot of evidence and making a lot of speculation because you have an agenda and I wonder what it is.

You are also ignoring the witnesses who have not retrated their testimonies of intimidation being used against people who would suppor the police officers testomony.

Being black does not make you innocent. Being white does not make you innocent. Emotional responses that ignore facts don't do anybody any good, especially the people who are fooling themselves by ignoring the facts.

That was a LOT of retort to an argument not made. I am merely stating what an autopsy can and cannot conclude. In this instance, due to the nature of some of the shots, 'facing' or 'position' is not one of them. I am not calling ANYONE a liar. No professional has looked as solely the autopsy, and stated definetively what or where Brown was at the time he was shot.

So, to paraphrase: you said, specifically, the autopsy says 'x y z', to which I stated that is not something an autopsy can conclude.

Have a nice day.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 11:49:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Actually, it can (for all but 1 of the 6 shots). Entry and exit wounds are extremely different, and easy to tell apart. The medical staff clearly said IN THE AUTOPSY what angle the bullets entered in, and also deteimed which way MB was facing in respect to the gun. The only unknown wound was a graze wound on the arm, because the elbow could be in such a wide veriety, it is not possible to tell for that wound, but the rest are easy.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 1:53:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
We get so bogged down and distracted by secondary details of the case, we lose sight of the big picture. The bottom line is that Darren Wilson had a responsibility to handle the situation of Michael Brown walking in the middle of the street/possessing stolen cigarellos in a way that didn't involve riddling his body with several bullets and leaving it on the ground for 4 hours as the neighborhood gathered round and this 18 year old college bound kid's blood trickled down the streets. Homocide at worst, criminal negligence at best, and we ought to hold police officers to higher legal standards than the average citizen, not less - although everybody knows how impossibly difficult it is for a police officer to get indicted in this country, let alone get sentenced. Look at Eric Garner. If you don't believe that's a problem in this country, you're perpetuating it. Mind you this is a problem of police brutality/unaccountability of unwarranted aggression against non-threatening civilians that extends far beyond race.

It is very hard for me to believe that Michael Brown, who had just robbed a convenient store and was probably stoned off his @$$, suddenly became aggressive with a supposedly totally peaceful, well mannered, and respectful police officer, and then went from cursing him out to reaching into his car and assaulting him within seconds. This is defies all logic. It makes far more sense to assume that Wilson ordered them to get out of the road, Brown foolishly mouthed off to him in return, and sh!t escalated from there. Also makes more sense to assume Wilson took hold of Brown, rather than Brown, unarmed and high and already having committed a felony and nearly at his house, spontaneously reaching through the car window to sock a police officer in the face (to the point that Wilson said, after 2 of these punches in their car confrontation, he thought he might black out or die from 1 more - also sounds like a stretch).

In Wilson's testimony, he notes how he "felt like a 5 year old" being held by Hulk Hogan when they got into confrontation in the car, despite the fact that Wilson like Brown is 6'4; unlike Brown he is a trained police officer with mace and a gun. If he feels like a 5 year old being thrashed by Hulk Hogan in this situation, again he has no business being a police officer or even owning a gun, and deserves to be held accountable for Brown's death. Wilson also claimed before the grand jury that after he shot Brown a few times, it didn't phase Brown at all, he looked at him like some sort of possessed "Demon" and started charging through the bullets as if they simply had no effect on him. So maybe MB's hands weren't up in surrender - but odds are, as many witnesses have agreed on, he wasn't charging at Wilson like a bulldozer or posing a lethal threat at all; rather, as many witnesses confirmed, he was slowly lurching forward, incapacitated and ready to topple over, over 100 feet away from Wilson's car. Wilson proceeded to impulsively discharge a few more bullets into the body of a clearly unarmed, wounded, non-lethally threatening young adult. Bottom line? Darren Wilson should have been indicted, at LEAST.
iMagUdspEllr89
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 11:53:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
@jat93: You can't imagine why a high criminal might become violent when confronted by someone who would likely take him to jail?

It seems like you are implying that Wilson said some disparaging words to Brown, so Brown decided to beat up Wilson while he was seated in the vehicle. Let's just pretend that is what happened. Okay, so if I call you names does that mean you are allowed to beat me up while I am seated in my vehicle? Nope, that is still a crime.

Wilson did not take hold of Brown. Wilson would not have ordered Brown to approach the vehicle. It makes no sense to confront someone you want to arrest from a seated position.

Wilson discharged multiple bullets into and near Brown's hand and arm during the struggle while Wilson was seated. The bullets that killed Brown (or would have caused him to "slowly lurch forward") were delivered after Brown broke contact with Wilson. i.e. Wilson had not inflicted any wounds that would cause you to "lurch forward" yet. Then, those final shots all had a downward trajectory and were delivered to the upper body and head instead of the center of mass. Even the ones to the head had a downward trajectory. Since Wilson and Brown are the same height, it makes no sense that those shots have a downward trajectory unless Brown was rushing Wilson. I already confirmed that none of the shots would cause a "lurching forward" or clutching of the stomach because none of them were delivered to the stomach or lower body.