Re:GRAND JURY DECISION IN FERGUSON:NONE! (215)
Thanks for the detailed info.
From your last paragraph!!
I think Officer Wilson was prepared ti KILL,
and NOT to injured Brown.
And what is Offiser Wilson excuse for shooting Brown on the head???,
instead both legs???
From your last paragraph!!
I think Officer Wilson was prepared ti KILL,
and NOT to injured Brown.
And what is Offiser Wilson excuse for shooting Brown on the head???,
instead both legs???
secretagent09: The thing you might not be understanding Chris is that Michael Brown had attempted to use his huge body as his weapon. He didn't need a gun or knife in his hand. The kid was no comparison to Officer Wilson's body size especially since Wilson was sitting in the car.
When Wilson was sitting in the car Brown went for the officer's gun. This was a red flag to Wilson that if Brown got the gun he would kill him. In addition, once you aggressively put your hands on an officer, the officer is within his regulated right to treat you as a threat.
So now you have Brown attempting to kill the officer. Wilson could not let him get away according to Missouri police guidelines or for that matter, in any state.
The first thing that Brown did wrong was rob the convenience store
Second thing was assault the store owner
Third thing defy the officer when he asked Brown and his friend to get out of the street
Fourth thing Brown forcefully shoved the door of the officers car to close it
You'll keep hearing that Brown walked away with his hands up. He WALKED AWAY like that probably because he was fed up. At this point, being a kid and not thinking clearing, he turned around, put his arms down, lowered his head and charged towards Officer Wilson.
At that point Brown's body was the weapon.
With Officer Wilson knowing what Brown attempted to do in the car, Wilson had no choice but to stop him.
If I was Officer Wilson the only thing I would have done differently is I wouldn't have gone for the head shot. Go for both knees. That would have stopped Brown.
When Wilson was sitting in the car Brown went for the officer's gun. This was a red flag to Wilson that if Brown got the gun he would kill him. In addition, once you aggressively put your hands on an officer, the officer is within his regulated right to treat you as a threat.
So now you have Brown attempting to kill the officer. Wilson could not let him get away according to Missouri police guidelines or for that matter, in any state.
The first thing that Brown did wrong was rob the convenience store
Second thing was assault the store owner
Third thing defy the officer when he asked Brown and his friend to get out of the street
Fourth thing Brown forcefully shoved the door of the officers car to close it
You'll keep hearing that Brown walked away with his hands up. He WALKED AWAY like that probably because he was fed up. At this point, being a kid and not thinking clearing, he turned around, put his arms down, lowered his head and charged towards Officer Wilson.
At that point Brown's body was the weapon.
With Officer Wilson knowing what Brown attempted to do in the car, Wilson had no choice but to stop him.
If I was Officer Wilson the only thing I would have done differently is I wouldn't have gone for the head shot. Go for both knees. That would have stopped Brown.
------ This thread is Archived ------
chris27292729: Thanks for the detailed info.
From your last paragraph!!
I think Officer Wilson was prepared ti KILL,
and NOT to injured Brown.
And what is Offiser Wilson excuse for shooting Brown on the head???,
instead both legs???
From your last paragraph!!
I think Officer Wilson was prepared ti KILL,
and NOT to injured Brown.
And what is Offiser Wilson excuse for shooting Brown on the head???,
instead both legs???
You're picking up on what I would have done....re: his legs....and that has nothing to do with what happened. I don't know why he didn't shoot him in the legs.
From what I've read and heard, Michael Brown was 6 feet 6 inches and weight 300 pounds. Officer Wilson was 6 feet 3 inches and weighed 220 pounds. It may not seem like much of a difference but the 80 pound difference in a man who was showing rage could have killed Wilson.
Something I remember General Schwarzkopf saying during the 1991 Gulf War. A reporter asked him "Do you think your men are afraid when going out there". He responded....I hope they are afraid because that gives them an edge to be aware of what is about to happen.
No doubt about it, Officer Wilson was afraid/scared that he was about to be killed by Michael Brown.
------ This thread is Archived ------
So he thought and fired. "Your death is my survival".
And is whom testimony??? we based might has happened
this way??
And another question is coming up,as a result,of this senseless
Killing.
Are countries make the Police Force, """trigger happy"""???
And is whom testimony??? we based might has happened
this way??
And another question is coming up,as a result,of this senseless
Killing.
Are countries make the Police Force, """trigger happy"""???
secretagent09: You're picking up on what I would have done....re: his legs....and that has nothing to do with what happened. I don't know why he didn't shoot him in the legs.
From what I've read and heard, Michael Brown was 6 feet 6 inches and weight 300 pounds. Officer Wilson was 6 feet 3 inches and weighed 220 pounds. It may not seem like much of a difference but the 80 pound difference in a man who was showing rage could have killed Wilson.
Something I remember General Schwarzkopf saying during the 1991 Gulf War. A reporter asked him "Do you think your men are afraid when going out there". He responded....I hope they are afraid because that gives them an edge to be aware of what is about to happen.
No doubt about it, Officer Wilson was afraid/scared that he was about to be killed by Michael Brown.
From what I've read and heard, Michael Brown was 6 feet 6 inches and weight 300 pounds. Officer Wilson was 6 feet 3 inches and weighed 220 pounds. It may not seem like much of a difference but the 80 pound difference in a man who was showing rage could have killed Wilson.
Something I remember General Schwarzkopf saying during the 1991 Gulf War. A reporter asked him "Do you think your men are afraid when going out there". He responded....I hope they are afraid because that gives them an edge to be aware of what is about to happen.
No doubt about it, Officer Wilson was afraid/scared that he was about to be killed by Michael Brown.
------ This thread is Archived ------
chris27292729: So he thought and fired. "Your death is my survival".
And is whom testimony??? we based might has happened
this way??
And another question is coming up,as a result,of this senseless
Killing.
Are countries make the Police Force, """trigger happy"""???
And is whom testimony??? we based might has happened
this way??
And another question is coming up,as a result,of this senseless
Killing.
Are countries make the Police Force, """trigger happy"""???
Your post is confusing
but one thing I get out of it is that you think it was a senseless killing.The grand jury didn't think that way.
In the United States, when you are tried by a jury of your peers, whatever the outcome, that is what you stand by.
We have had "not guilty" verdicts on cases tried by a jury but the public tried the person and found them guilty. It doesn't matter what the public thinks. The law serves it's purpose and that is the end result unless there is an appeal.
I don't think they can appeal a grand jury's verdict BUT Officer Wilson is not off the hook completely
He can still be charged with a wrongful death and recklessness
------ This thread is Archived ------
secretagent09: Your post is confusing but one thing I get out of it is that you think it was a senseless killing.
The grand jury didn't think that way.
In the United States, when you are tried by a jury of your peers, whatever the outcome, that is what you stand by.
We have had "not guilty" verdicts on cases tried by a jury but the public tried the person and found them guilty. It doesn't matter what the public thinks. The law serves it's purpose and that is the end result unless there is an appeal.
I don't think they can appeal a grand jury's verdict BUT Officer Wilson is not off the hook completely
He can still be charged with a wrongful death and recklessness
The grand jury didn't think that way.
In the United States, when you are tried by a jury of your peers, whatever the outcome, that is what you stand by.
We have had "not guilty" verdicts on cases tried by a jury but the public tried the person and found them guilty. It doesn't matter what the public thinks. The law serves it's purpose and that is the end result unless there is an appeal.
I don't think they can appeal a grand jury's verdict BUT Officer Wilson is not off the hook completely
He can still be charged with a wrongful death and recklessness
just to clarify, there was no trial. A Grand Jury is not a trial jury. They examine the evidence to decide on whether to file charges. They simply did not find enough evidence to bring charges.
Any killing is senseless.....what was determined is that there was not sufficient evidence to file charges.
Whether or not one likes the result of the grand jury, peeps need to abide by the law. There has been some pretty disgusting behavior so far. I feel sorry for the people of Ferguson though because I think outside agitators and media sensationalism are behind most of it. They can all leave and go home when it's over...leaving the people in Ferguson to clean up the mess.....
------ This thread is Archived ------
felixis99: just to clarify, there was no trial. A Grand Jury is not a trial jury. They examine the evidence to decide on whether to file charges. They simply did not find enough evidence to bring charges.
Any killing is senseless.....what was determined is that there was not sufficient evidence to file charges.
Whether or not one likes the result of the grand jury, peeps need to abide by the law. There has been some pretty disgusting behavior so far. I feel sorry for the people of Ferguson though because I think outside agitators and media sensationalism are behind most of it. They can all leave and go home when it's over...leaving the people in Ferguson to clean up the mess.....
Any killing is senseless.....what was determined is that there was not sufficient evidence to file charges.
Whether or not one likes the result of the grand jury, peeps need to abide by the law. There has been some pretty disgusting behavior so far. I feel sorry for the people of Ferguson though because I think outside agitators and media sensationalism are behind most of it. They can all leave and go home when it's over...leaving the people in Ferguson to clean up the mess.....
Being that I've been in the legal field for 16 years I KNOW there wasn't a trial and I KNOW what a grand jury does
I also KNOW that there wasn't enough evidence to indict Officer Wilson.
IMO, a killing isn't senseless if the perpetrator meant to kill someone, namely this officer
If Michael Brown had been shot in the arm and survived I have no doubt that he would have been a bigger burden to society in years down the road.
------ This thread is Archived ------
my clarification was meant for those who are not from the USA. there is no need to capital letters...lol
here is why I thought your comment might have confused non citizens, agent:
"n the United States, when you are tried by a jury of your peers, whatever the outcome, that is what you stand by.
We have had "not guilty" verdicts on cases tried by a jury but the public tried the person and found them guilty. It doesn't matter what the public thinks. The law serves it's purpose and that is the end result unless there is an appeal."
I totally agree where you say that it does not matter what the public thinks because most citizens at large do not have the evidence that the Grand Jury has, nor do most know the law well enough to evaluate the evidence....it is not a matter of what the rioters want, it is a matter of the evidence according to the law. I congratulate the Grand Jury on not bowing to intimidation of rioters
here is why I thought your comment might have confused non citizens, agent:
"n the United States, when you are tried by a jury of your peers, whatever the outcome, that is what you stand by.
We have had "not guilty" verdicts on cases tried by a jury but the public tried the person and found them guilty. It doesn't matter what the public thinks. The law serves it's purpose and that is the end result unless there is an appeal."
I totally agree where you say that it does not matter what the public thinks because most citizens at large do not have the evidence that the Grand Jury has, nor do most know the law well enough to evaluate the evidence....it is not a matter of what the rioters want, it is a matter of the evidence according to the law. I congratulate the Grand Jury on not bowing to intimidation of rioters
------ This thread is Archived ------
felixis99: my clarification was meant for those who are not from the USA. there is no need to capital letters...lol
here is why I thought your comment might have confused non citizens, agent:
"n the United States, when you are tried by a jury of your peers, whatever the outcome, that is what you stand by.
We have had "not guilty" verdicts on cases tried by a jury but the public tried the person and found them guilty. It doesn't matter what the public thinks. The law serves it's purpose and that is the end result unless there is an appeal."
Okay, I see why you objected to use of the word "tried" and you are right. I wasn't using it as a trial jury but rather that the jurors were judging and evaluating the evidence.
I'm not sure why you highlighted "not guilty" verdicts on cases tried by a jury". In your state of Florida when Casey Anthony was found not guilty of killing her daughter Caylee, the public went wild. That is what I'm referring too.
And to go a step further, is there anyone who believes that OJ didn't kill his wife or that he had something to do with it. The jury said he was not guilty but the public believes he is guilty.
In a way I think it might have been better for Officer Wilson to have been indicted and then stand trial. He would have been found not guilty IMO. The prosecutor was on the side of Wilson which is unusual because they usually don't favor law enforcement. How do I know he favored Wilson? I have watched hours and hours of news coverage and well accredited scholars commented about the way he interviewed witnesses in front of jurors was favorable to Wilson.
In his interview today he said he knows he did the right thing and his conscience is clear. However, Wilson can never be a cop again. He has only been an officer for five years but that's five years of pension that he won't get because he did his job.
I totally agree where you say that it does not matter what the public thinks because most citizens at large do not have the evidence that the Grand Jury has, nor do most know the law well enough to evaluate the evidence....it is not a matter of what the rioters want, it is a matter of the evidence according to the law. I congratulate the Grand Jury on not bowing to intimidation of rioters
here is why I thought your comment might have confused non citizens, agent:
"n the United States, when you are tried by a jury of your peers, whatever the outcome, that is what you stand by.
We have had "not guilty" verdicts on cases tried by a jury but the public tried the person and found them guilty. It doesn't matter what the public thinks. The law serves it's purpose and that is the end result unless there is an appeal."
Okay, I see why you objected to use of the word "tried" and you are right. I wasn't using it as a trial jury but rather that the jurors were judging and evaluating the evidence.
I'm not sure why you highlighted "not guilty" verdicts on cases tried by a jury". In your state of Florida when Casey Anthony was found not guilty of killing her daughter Caylee, the public went wild. That is what I'm referring too.
And to go a step further, is there anyone who believes that OJ didn't kill his wife or that he had something to do with it. The jury said he was not guilty but the public believes he is guilty.
In a way I think it might have been better for Officer Wilson to have been indicted and then stand trial. He would have been found not guilty IMO. The prosecutor was on the side of Wilson which is unusual because they usually don't favor law enforcement. How do I know he favored Wilson? I have watched hours and hours of news coverage and well accredited scholars commented about the way he interviewed witnesses in front of jurors was favorable to Wilson.
In his interview today he said he knows he did the right thing and his conscience is clear. However, Wilson can never be a cop again. He has only been an officer for five years but that's five years of pension that he won't get because he did his job.
I totally agree where you say that it does not matter what the public thinks because most citizens at large do not have the evidence that the Grand Jury has, nor do most know the law well enough to evaluate the evidence....it is not a matter of what the rioters want, it is a matter of the evidence according to the law. I congratulate the Grand Jury on not bowing to intimidation of rioters
------ This thread is Archived ------
secretagent09: You're picking up on what I would have done....re: his legs....and that has nothing to do with what happened. I don't know why he didn't shoot him in the legs.
From what I've read and heard, Michael Brown was 6 feet 6 inches and weight 300 pounds. Officer Wilson was 6 feet 3 inches and weighed 220 pounds. It may not seem like much of a difference but the 80 pound difference in a man who was showing rage could have killed Wilson.
Something I remember General Schwarzkopf saying during the 1991 Gulf War. A reporter asked him "Do you think your men are afraid when going out there". He responded....I hope they are afraid because that gives them an edge to be aware of what is about to happen.
No doubt about it, Officer Wilson was afraid/scared that he was about to be killed by Michael Brown.
I have several neighbors/friends that work in public law enforcement. It is my understanding that police officers are by and large taught in academy that if they need to shoot, then shoot to kill. There are a couple of reasons for that, as I understand. The first is that the alleged criminal, though maimed, will continue his rampage. (I actually can see this argument as valid). The second is about decades of lawsuits following permanent injury--that would exhaust the financial structures of public safety agencies. For the record, I fully admit that I am torn about the case. I did pray diligently Sunday night for the best possible result in this tragedy. Both sides have compelling, valid arguments. In the final analysis, because our justice system works the way it does, in this particular case this officer needed to be found as the jury ultimately did--in America, everyone is entitled to the benefit of the doubt and since there is doubt in this, the benefit goes to the man being accused. That's how we do business here, and it is far more fairer than many other countries. JMOFrom what I've read and heard, Michael Brown was 6 feet 6 inches and weight 300 pounds. Officer Wilson was 6 feet 3 inches and weighed 220 pounds. It may not seem like much of a difference but the 80 pound difference in a man who was showing rage could have killed Wilson.
Something I remember General Schwarzkopf saying during the 1991 Gulf War. A reporter asked him "Do you think your men are afraid when going out there". He responded....I hope they are afraid because that gives them an edge to be aware of what is about to happen.
No doubt about it, Officer Wilson was afraid/scared that he was about to be killed by Michael Brown.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Kaybee50: I respect the Grand Jury's decision.
They are the ONLY 12 people who have seen all of the evidence, heard and questioned all of the witnesses, did not bow under the pressure for a quick answer, but took their time.
They are 12 people that made a decision based solely on evidence and scientific analysis, and not from emotion.
They are the ONLY 12 people who have seen all of the evidence, heard and questioned all of the witnesses, did not bow under the pressure for a quick answer, but took their time.
They are 12 people that made a decision based solely on evidence and scientific analysis, and not from emotion.
Do Grand Juries only have twelve on it? I thought the Grand Jury is set up a little bit different than regular juries?
------ This thread is Archived ------
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know if you're going to a steal from a store ,then assault the person working there on the way out and then figure you're going to get into a argument and fight with a police officer and try and grab the P.O. gun , yea, you're probably going for "suicide by cop". The parents failed to teach their son to respect authority and to be responsible for your actions.
------ This thread is Archived ------
excerpt from the Florida Bar....
Traditionally, grand juries served as a shield between unjust prosecution by the state and the individual. Grand juries serve dual functions. The grand jury's primary role is to determine whether sufficient evidence exists to justify indicting an accused individual. 1 To make such determinations, a grand jury also serves as an investigating body with subpoena powers. 2 In Florida, a grand jury indictment is required only to try a person for a capital offense; i.e., one where the death penalty may be given. 3 Otherwise, the state attorney has concurrent authority to file a formal accusation of the commission of a crime (an "information"). 4 The information is used routinely to charge individuals in Florida. In addition to capital cases, grand juries often are utilized for controversial cases such as those involving alleged wrongdoing by public officials.
I. Florida's Grand Jury Structure.
A grand jury must consist of between 15 and 21 persons. 5 Grand jurors are appointed for one term of court, normally five to six months of intermittent service. 6 The concurrence of 12 grand jurors is necessary to indict an individual. 7 Whether or not an indictment is returned, the grand jury may issue presentments or reports recording their findings. 8 In Florida, grand juries may investigate and report on official misconduct and matters generally concerning the public welfare — even if no criminal activity is suspected.
So if this is how the State of Florida sets it up, I am wondering how many appointed in other states.
Traditionally, grand juries served as a shield between unjust prosecution by the state and the individual. Grand juries serve dual functions. The grand jury's primary role is to determine whether sufficient evidence exists to justify indicting an accused individual. 1 To make such determinations, a grand jury also serves as an investigating body with subpoena powers. 2 In Florida, a grand jury indictment is required only to try a person for a capital offense; i.e., one where the death penalty may be given. 3 Otherwise, the state attorney has concurrent authority to file a formal accusation of the commission of a crime (an "information"). 4 The information is used routinely to charge individuals in Florida. In addition to capital cases, grand juries often are utilized for controversial cases such as those involving alleged wrongdoing by public officials.
I. Florida's Grand Jury Structure.
A grand jury must consist of between 15 and 21 persons. 5 Grand jurors are appointed for one term of court, normally five to six months of intermittent service. 6 The concurrence of 12 grand jurors is necessary to indict an individual. 7 Whether or not an indictment is returned, the grand jury may issue presentments or reports recording their findings. 8 In Florida, grand juries may investigate and report on official misconduct and matters generally concerning the public welfare — even if no criminal activity is suspected.
So if this is how the State of Florida sets it up, I am wondering how many appointed in other states.
------ This thread is Archived ------
JeanKimberley: Do Grand Juries only have twelve on it? I thought the Grand Jury is set up a little bit different than regular juries?
It differs from state to state. In Missouri, it is twelve, chosen at random.This Grand Jury has been hearing cases since May, and they were scheduled to wrap up end of September. Until this case. They all voluntarily chose to stay on and see this through until the end.
This Grand Jury had a complicated case and the pressure from the public and certain media outlets to do "Justice". They followed the evidence, interviewed witnesses several times, and didn't allow public outrage to sway their final decision.
Regarding the witnesses, many proved not credible. Their stories changed, some recanted their stories and said they really didn't witness the encounter but were relaying what they heard through the grapevine, some just outright lied.
The testimony that the Grand Jury gave credence to were those that stuck to their story, and that their version was in line with the forensic and physical evidence.
------ This thread is Archived ------
JeanKimberley: Do Grand Juries only have twelve on it? I thought the Grand Jury is set up a little bit different than regular juries?
It can be from 6 to 23 people
From findlaw.com
The grand jury plays an important role in the criminal process, but not one that involves a finding of guilt or punishment of a party. Instead, a prosecutor will work with a grand jury to decide whether to bring criminal charges or an indictment against a potential defendant -- usually reserved for serious felonies. Grand jury members may be called for jury duty for months at a time, but need only appear in court for a few days out of every month. Regular court trial juries are usually 6 or 12 people, but in the federal system, a grand jury can be 16 to 23 people. - See more at:
------ This thread is Archived ------
The United States Supreme Court has enumerated the policies underlying grand jury secrecy:
1. The fear that witnesses will not come forward voluntarily if their identity is not protected;
2. The fear that witnesses will be less likely to give full and frank testimony if their identity is known so that they become subject to retribution or inducements;
3. The risk that the indicted will flee if indictments are made public prior to arrest;
4. The danger that a potential defendant might influence the votes of grand jurors; and
5. The protection of the reputation of an individual who is accused but not indicted by the grand jury.
1. The fear that witnesses will not come forward voluntarily if their identity is not protected;
2. The fear that witnesses will be less likely to give full and frank testimony if their identity is known so that they become subject to retribution or inducements;
3. The risk that the indicted will flee if indictments are made public prior to arrest;
4. The danger that a potential defendant might influence the votes of grand jurors; and
5. The protection of the reputation of an individual who is accused but not indicted by the grand jury.
------ This thread is Archived ------
my vote, if on the grand jury, would have been for an indictment…
voluntary manslaughter
I believe officer wilson was justified in defending himself within the patrol car where he brandished his weapon and fired the first shots.
it is what allegedly took place after officer wilson exited his vehicle that I have a problem with. and, I also believe he (wilson) wasn’t telling the entire truth in his interview to the grand jury about this part of the altercation
the situation between the two that required deadly force by wilson was clearly over with by the time wilson exited the patrol car.
wilson’s acts were excessive and unjustified when he chose to fire the final shots.
nice job CNN with the coverage the other night.
and
the two women CNN reporters deserve a pay raise!!!!!
voluntary manslaughter
I believe officer wilson was justified in defending himself within the patrol car where he brandished his weapon and fired the first shots.
it is what allegedly took place after officer wilson exited his vehicle that I have a problem with. and, I also believe he (wilson) wasn’t telling the entire truth in his interview to the grand jury about this part of the altercation
the situation between the two that required deadly force by wilson was clearly over with by the time wilson exited the patrol car.
wilson’s acts were excessive and unjustified when he chose to fire the final shots.
nice job CNN with the coverage the other night.
and
the two women CNN reporters deserve a pay raise!!!!!
------ This thread is Archived ------
Since the announcement of the grand jury decision, there has been rioting and looting in Ferguson. I'll stake my knowledge of past events and say the most of the rioters and looters are not members of that community. Also, as far as I'm concerned, the looters should be shot on site. You don't express your disagreement with decisions of our criminal justice system which is the only one of it's kind in the world by committing crimes. Those individuals who are taking and destroying what does not belong to them wonder why no business wants to setup shop in that community that most of them don't live in, that's easy, who want to watch all their money and property go up in smoke and anyone who support their actions is not a good citizen of our great nation. They focus on the police shooting, but not on the black on black crime that's being committed in the same area. That teen was a bully and criminal, therefore I think they need to step back and re-evaluate how not to continue the cycle of violence.
------ This thread is Archived ------
secretagent09: When you post something many might read it and many might interpret it differently.
To say "give it a rest" was interpreted by me that you were saying that to people who commented about Ferguson. And.....if you are honest with yourself, you know that comment was toward CS posters.
If you said "give it a rest everyone" that certainly wasn't meant for the media because the media doesn't read CS. If you said "the media needs to give this subject a rest" you could have avoided this banter. You and I both know that your "give it a rest" was meant for CS posters.
To say "give it a rest" was interpreted by me that you were saying that to people who commented about Ferguson. And.....if you are honest with yourself, you know that comment was toward CS posters.
If you said "give it a rest everyone" that certainly wasn't meant for the media because the media doesn't read CS. If you said "the media needs to give this subject a rest" you could have avoided this banter. You and I both know that your "give it a rest" was meant for CS posters.
=======================================================================
In Internet slang, a troll (/'tro?l/, /'tr?l/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
This sense of the word troll and its associated verb trolling are associated with Internet discourse, but have been used more widely. Media attention in recent years has equated trolling with online harassment. For example, mass media has used troll to describe "a person who defaces Internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families
------ This thread is Archived ------
Conrad73: Yep,I guess he should have let Brown take his Gun!
Unfortunately, it was not a trial with cross examinations. Browns' friend claimed--who knows how truthful his testimony was--was that Brown never reached into the car to reach for the gun. Brown would have had to literally lean with his upper body into the car to do that. Some discrepancies in the cop's story, too, according to an article written by a reporter. Anyways, this cop shot to kill, not to just stop the threat, it seems. Browns' friend Johnson has been traumatized and was vomiting all the way back to his apartment. Much of his testimony, according to this reporter, matched what the cop said, but much of it did not. The cops' version did not make as much sense, opionion of the reporter, and she saw discrepancies in his story. Just her opinion for what it's worth, but I agree with many others that this should have went to trial.
------ This thread is Archived ------
This Thread is Archived
This Thread is archived, so you will no longer be able to post to it. Threads get archived automatically when they are older than 3 months.
« Go back to All Threads
« Go back to All Threads
More Threads
The GOP Representatives owned by Vladimir Putin
Would you hire this guy - for any job?
See It All The Time
The weird and the random facts around the world
Karen McDougal - Playmate Model will testify in Hush Money Trial
who shaped your life?
Have it both ways!
Trump Elementary
s*xual skills
I'm a 53 YEAR'S YUNG MAN that lives back in the 80s
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
Related Forums
- The GOP Representatives owned by Vladimir Putin
- Would you hire this guy - for any job?
- See It All The Time
- The weird and the random facts around the world
- Karen McDougal - Playmate Model will testify in Hush Money Trial
- who shaped your life?
- Have it both ways!
- Trump Elementary
- s*xual skills
- I'm a 53 YEAR'S YUNG MAN that lives back in the 80s
Hypothetically speaking ,if it was the opposite,
9 blacks and 3 whites, i bet you,
the grand jury would voted for indictment.
Unarmed, shot and killed and the killer,not to face trial,???
its something,non Americans cannot understand.-
The thing you might not be understanding Chris is that Michael Brown had attempted to use his huge body as his weapon. He didn't need a gun or knife in his hand. The kid was no comparison to Officer Wilson's body size especially since Wilson was sitting in the car.
When Wilson was sitting in the car Brown went for the officer's gun. This was a red flag to Wilson that if Brown got the gun he would kill him. In addition, once you aggressively put your hands on an officer, the officer is within his regulated right to treat you as a threat.
So now you have Brown attempting to kill the officer. Wilson could not let him get away according to Missouri police guidelines or for that matter, in any state.
The first thing that Brown did wrong was rob the convenience store
Second thing was assault the store owner
Third thing defy the officer when he asked Brown and his friend to get out of the street
Fourth thing Brown forcefully shoved the door of the officers car to close it
You'll keep hearing that Brown walked away with his hands up. He WALKED AWAY like that probably because he was fed up. At this point, being a kid and not thinking clearing, he turned around, put his arms down, lowered his head and charged towards Officer Wilson.
At that point Brown's body was the weapon.
With Officer Wilson knowing what Brown attempted to do in the car, Wilson had no choice but to stop him.
If I was Officer Wilson the only thing I would have done differently is I wouldn't have gone for the head shot. Go for both knees. That would have stopped Brown.