Michael Brown Shooting

JimmyV

Gern Blansten said:

JimmyV said:

I don't know what happened in Ferguson that day and I'm not going to pretend to. Maybe Wilson had other options, maybe he didn't. But the lack of wounds to Brown's back and the trail of his blood - which indicates he did turn around head back towards Wilson - disproves much of what we heard about in this case. If I was presented with that hard evidence it would carry more weight than a slew of contradictory and changing eyewitness accounts. It doesn't seem like the grand jury got this wrong based on the evidence they were presented.

I keep hearing this line of thinking and I don't understand it.

The lack of wounds to Brown's back really means nothing....it doesn't mean that the cop wasn't shooting AT him it just means he didn't connect any shots while his back was turned...right?

Heading back toward Wilson wasn't really disputed....three eyewitnesses said that he turned and surrendered after multiple shots were directed at him. To me it is more likely that he was surrendering rather than "charging" someone who had a gun but I wasn't on the jury obviously.

But we heard over and over again that Wilson shot him in the back. There were even some insinuations that Wilson shot him while he was lying on the ground, execution style. None of that happened.

We can try to interpret the forensic evidence and a case can be made for what you are saying. I don't read it that way though. Moving back towards someone who is shooting at you is a strange way to surrender. Stop and put your hands up. Don't move at all. Moving back towards the cop is very strange.

JC29856

lets take a show of hands, who is posting actual testimony (my hand goes up in the air) and who is posting nonsense without evidence?
if you're going to make a statement that blood was 25 feet behind brown then post the evidence. im not saying there isnt evidence im saying post it. if its too hard to post the evidence then post your stuff and nonsense in the idiot thread.

rr165892

Jessie Jackson is an idiot.Part of the problem instead of the solution.He has excuses for the looting.smfh

Gern Blansten

Last-12-Exit said:

JC, it's over. The facts are the facts. Brown was the aggressor the entire time. Why is it hard to believe that he charged at Wilson? Not only is that exactly what Wilson's testimony is, but the physical evidence corroborates his story. That's exactly what happened. Why continue to argue?

JimmyV said:

Gern Blansten said:

JimmyV said:

I don't know what happened in Ferguson that day and I'm not going to pretend to. Maybe Wilson had other options, maybe he didn't. But the lack of wounds to Brown's back and the trail of his blood - which indicates he did turn around head back towards Wilson - disproves much of what we heard about in this case. If I was presented with that hard evidence it would carry more weight than a slew of contradictory and changing eyewitness accounts. It doesn't seem like the grand jury got this wrong based on the evidence they were presented.

I keep hearing this line of thinking and I don't understand it.

The lack of wounds to Brown's back really means nothing....it doesn't mean that the cop wasn't shooting AT him it just means he didn't connect any shots while his back was turned...right?

Heading back toward Wilson wasn't really disputed....three eyewitnesses said that he turned and surrendered after multiple shots were directed at him. To me it is more likely that he was surrendering rather than "charging" someone who had a gun but I wasn't on the jury obviously.

But we heard over and over again that Wilson shot him in the back. There were even some insinuations that Wilson shot him while he was lying on the ground, execution style. None of that happened.

We can try to interpret the forensic evidence and a case can be made for what you are saying. I don't read it that way though. Moving back towards someone who is shooting at you is a strange way to surrender. Stop and put your hands up. Don't move at all. Moving back towards the cop is very strange.

Right....that he was shot in the back was bad info and that his back had no wounds does not reflect that shots were not being fired while he was running away.

Gern Blansten

Let's keep in mind that the grand jury required NINE members to support indictment. Maybe there was eight out of twelve? We'll never know.

Last-12-Exit

Gern Blansten said:

Last-12-Exit said:

JC, it's over. The facts are the facts. Brown was the aggressor the entire time. Why is it hard to believe that he charged at Wilson? Not only is that exactly what Wilson's testimony is, but the physical evidence corroborates his story. That's exactly what happened. Why continue to argue?

JimmyV said:

Gern Blansten said:

JimmyV said:

I don't know what happened in Ferguson that day and I'm not going to pretend to. Maybe Wilson had other options, maybe he didn't. But the lack of wounds to Brown's back and the trail of his blood - which indicates he did turn around head back towards Wilson - disproves much of what we heard about in this case. If I was presented with that hard evidence it would carry more weight than a slew of contradictory and changing eyewitness accounts. It doesn't seem like the grand jury got this wrong based on the evidence they were presented.

I keep hearing this line of thinking and I don't understand it.

The lack of wounds to Brown's back really means nothing....it doesn't mean that the cop wasn't shooting AT him it just means he didn't connect any shots while his back was turned...right?

Heading back toward Wilson wasn't really disputed....three eyewitnesses said that he turned and surrendered after multiple shots were directed at him. To me it is more likely that he was surrendering rather than "charging" someone who had a gun but I wasn't on the jury obviously.

But we heard over and over again that Wilson shot him in the back. There were even some insinuations that Wilson shot him while he was lying on the ground, execution style. None of that happened.

We can try to interpret the forensic evidence and a case can be made for what you are saying. I don't read it that way though. Moving back towards someone who is shooting at you is a strange way to surrender. Stop and put your hands up. Don't move at all. Moving back towards the cop is very strange.

Right....that he was shot in the back was bad info and that his back had no wounds does not reflect that shots were not being fired while he was running away.

Can you prove he was shot at while running away? Because there is proof that he wasn't shot in the back.

Last-12-Exit

rr165892 said:

Jessie Jackson is an idiot.Part of the problem instead of the solution.He has excuses for the looting.smfh

100% agree.

Gern Blansten

Last-12-Exit said:

Gern Blansten said:

Last-12-Exit said:

JC, it's over. The facts are the facts. Brown was the aggressor the entire time. Why is it hard to believe that he charged at Wilson? Not only is that exactly what Wilson's testimony is, but the physical evidence corroborates his story. That's exactly what happened. Why continue to argue?

JimmyV said:

Gern Blansten said:

JimmyV said:

I don't know what happened in Ferguson that day and I'm not going to pretend to. Maybe Wilson had other options, maybe he didn't. But the lack of wounds to Brown's back and the trail of his blood - which indicates he did turn around head back towards Wilson - disproves much of what we heard about in this case. If I was presented with that hard evidence it would carry more weight than a slew of contradictory and changing eyewitness accounts. It doesn't seem like the grand jury got this wrong based on the evidence they were presented.

I keep hearing this line of thinking and I don't understand it.

The lack of wounds to Brown's back really means nothing....it doesn't mean that the cop wasn't shooting AT him it just means he didn't connect any shots while his back was turned...right?

Heading back toward Wilson wasn't really disputed....three eyewitnesses said that he turned and surrendered after multiple shots were directed at him. To me it is more likely that he was surrendering rather than "charging" someone who had a gun but I wasn't on the jury obviously.

But we heard over and over again that Wilson shot him in the back. There were even some insinuations that Wilson shot him while he was lying on the ground, execution style. None of that happened.

We can try to interpret the forensic evidence and a case can be made for what you are saying. I don't read it that way though. Moving back towards someone who is shooting at you is a strange way to surrender. Stop and put your hands up. Don't move at all. Moving back towards the cop is very strange.

Right....that he was shot in the back was bad info and that his back had no wounds does not reflect that shots were not being fired while he was running away.

Can you prove he was shot at while running away? Because there is proof that he wasn't shot in the back.

Eyewitness reports.

My point is that no wounds doesn't mean it didn't happen. That was the point I was making in the other post. I'm pretty sure Wilson's testimony indicates he was shooting at him while he was running away doesn't it? No reason to argue over this actually....

JC29856

lets take a show of hands, who is posting actual testimony (my hand goes up in the air) and who is posting nonsense without evidence?
if you're going to make a statement that blood was 25 feet behind brown then post the evidence. im not saying there isnt evidence im saying post it. if its too hard to post the evidence then post your stuff and nonsense in the idiot thread.

Gern Blansten

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/08/13/us/ferguson-missouri-town-under-siege-after-police-shooting.html

JimmyV

Gern Blansten said:

Last-12-Exit said:

Gern Blansten said:

Last-12-Exit said:

JC, it's over. The facts are the facts. Brown was the aggressor the entire time. Why is it hard to believe that he charged at Wilson? Not only is that exactly what Wilson's testimony is, but the physical evidence corroborates his story. That's exactly what happened. Why continue to argue?

JimmyV said:

Gern Blansten said:

JimmyV said:

I don't know what happened in Ferguson that day and I'm not going to pretend to. Maybe Wilson had other options, maybe he didn't. But the lack of wounds to Brown's back and the trail of his blood - which indicates he did turn around head back towards Wilson - disproves much of what we heard about in this case. If I was presented with that hard evidence it would carry more weight than a slew of contradictory and changing eyewitness accounts. It doesn't seem like the grand jury got this wrong based on the evidence they were presented.

I keep hearing this line of thinking and I don't understand it.

The lack of wounds to Brown's back really means nothing....it doesn't mean that the cop wasn't shooting AT him it just means he didn't connect any shots while his back was turned...right?

Heading back toward Wilson wasn't really disputed....three eyewitnesses said that he turned and surrendered after multiple shots were directed at him. To me it is more likely that he was surrendering rather than "charging" someone who had a gun but I wasn't on the jury obviously.

But we heard over and over again that Wilson shot him in the back. There were even some insinuations that Wilson shot him while he was lying on the ground, execution style. None of that happened.

We can try to interpret the forensic evidence and a case can be made for what you are saying. I don't read it that way though. Moving back towards someone who is shooting at you is a strange way to surrender. Stop and put your hands up. Don't move at all. Moving back towards the cop is very strange.

Right....that he was shot in the back was bad info and that his back had no wounds does not reflect that shots were not being fired while he was running away.

Can you prove he was shot at while running away? Because there is proof that he wasn't shot in the back.

Eyewitness reports.

My point is that no wounds doesn't mean it didn't happen. That was the point I was making in the other post. I'm pretty sure Wilson's testimony indicates he was shooting at him while he was running away doesn't it? No reason to argue over this actually....

No wounds in his back does prove that he wasn't shot in the back.

Were shots fired as he ran away? I don't know, but he had just been involved in a physical altercation with a police officer. That the cop pursued and used his firearm during the chase doesn't seem crazy.

Gern Blansten

JimmyV said:

Gern Blansten said:

Last-12-Exit said:

Gern Blansten said:

Last-12-Exit said:

JC, it's over. The facts are the facts. Brown was the aggressor the entire time. Why is it hard to believe that he charged at Wilson? Not only is that exactly what Wilson's testimony is, but the physical evidence corroborates his story. That's exactly what happened. Why continue to argue?

JimmyV said:

Gern Blansten said:

JimmyV said:

I don't know what happened in Ferguson that day and I'm not going to pretend to. Maybe Wilson had other options, maybe he didn't. But the lack of wounds to Brown's back and the trail of his blood - which indicates he did turn around head back towards Wilson - disproves much of what we heard about in this case. If I was presented with that hard evidence it would carry more weight than a slew of contradictory and changing eyewitness accounts. It doesn't seem like the grand jury got this wrong based on the evidence they were presented.

I keep hearing this line of thinking and I don't understand it.

The lack of wounds to Brown's back really means nothing....it doesn't mean that the cop wasn't shooting AT him it just means he didn't connect any shots while his back was turned...right?

Heading back toward Wilson wasn't really disputed....three eyewitnesses said that he turned and surrendered after multiple shots were directed at him. To me it is more likely that he was surrendering rather than "charging" someone who had a gun but I wasn't on the jury obviously.

But we heard over and over again that Wilson shot him in the back. There were even some insinuations that Wilson shot him while he was lying on the ground, execution style. None of that happened.

We can try to interpret the forensic evidence and a case can be made for what you are saying. I don't read it that way though. Moving back towards someone who is shooting at you is a strange way to surrender. Stop and put your hands up. Don't move at all. Moving back towards the cop is very strange.

Right....that he was shot in the back was bad info and that his back had no wounds does not reflect that shots were not being fired while he was running away.

Can you prove he was shot at while running away? Because there is proof that he wasn't shot in the back.

Eyewitness reports.

My point is that no wounds doesn't mean it didn't happen. That was the point I was making in the other post. I'm pretty sure Wilson's testimony indicates he was shooting at him while he was running away doesn't it? No reason to argue over this actually....

No wounds in his back does prove that he wasn't shot in the back.

Were shots fired as he ran away? I don't know, but he had just been involved in a physical altercation with a police officer. That the cop pursued and used his firearm during the chase doesn't seem crazy.

Holy crap man....no shots in the back doesn't prove that shots weren't fired while he was running away or had his back turned ok? It just means the shots didn't connect.

Last-12-Exit

Let's not forget that Wilson was punched in the face by this guy. Unprovoked. He told Brown and his friend to move to the sidewalk and brown punched him in the face. Then he tried to grab Wilson's gun.

That alone is enough to get somebody shot. That is a police officer. You don't fucking do that to the people that are there to protect you. Now all of the Brown supporters are going to try and find any small inconsistencies in Wilson's story. Good luck, you won't find any. The facts are the facts. Wilson acted within his rights as a cop. You people that think otherwise should face the facts and realize that Michael Brown was a threat to Wilson. And had he simply listened to Wilson from the beginning, he'd be alive.

JimmyV

CNN had the blood spatter chart last night. It exists.

JC29856

Gern Blansten said:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/08/13/us/ferguson-missouri-town-under-siege-after-police-shooting.html

Yeah this graphic doesn't say anything about the blood stains you mentioned dude....let's keep this argument halfway intelligent please

if you're going to make a statement that blood was 25 feet behind brown then post the evidence. im not saying there isnt evidence im saying post it. if its too hard to post the evidence then post your stuff and nonsense in the idiot thread.

JC29856

JimmyV said:

CNN had the blood spatter chart last night. It exists.

if you're going to make a statement that blood was 25 feet behind brown then post the evidence. im not saying there isnt evidence im saying post it. if its too hard to post the evidence then post your stuff and nonsense in the idiot thread.

JC29856

did the grand jury have CNN and the NY Times interpretation of the evidence, NYT graphics or did they have the raw evidence?

hedonist

JC29856 said:

JimmyV said:

CNN had the blood spatter chart last night. It exists.

if you're going to make a statement that blood was 25 feet behind brown then post the evidence. im not saying there isnt evidence im saying post it. if its too hard to post the evidence then post your stuff and nonsense in the idiot thread.

I think after four or so posts of similar style - we get it.

BB, reading through this thread now, kudos to your Cosby comment! Needed that levity.

JimmyV

Gern Blansten said:

JimmyV said:

Gern Blansten said:

Last-12-Exit said:

Gern Blansten said:

Last-12-Exit said:

JC, it's over. The facts are the facts. Brown was the aggressor the entire time. Why is it hard to believe that he charged at Wilson? Not only is that exactly what Wilson's testimony is, but the physical evidence corroborates his story. That's exactly what happened. Why continue to argue?

JimmyV said:

Gern Blansten said:

JimmyV said:

I don't know what happened in Ferguson that day and I'm not going to pretend to. Maybe Wilson had other options, maybe he didn't. But the lack of wounds to Brown's back and the trail of his blood - which indicates he did turn around head back towards Wilson - disproves much of what we heard about in this case. If I was presented with that hard evidence it would carry more weight than a slew of contradictory and changing eyewitness accounts. It doesn't seem like the grand jury got this wrong based on the evidence they were presented.

I keep hearing this line of thinking and I don't understand it.

The lack of wounds to Brown's back really means nothing....it doesn't mean that the cop wasn't shooting AT him it just means he didn't connect any shots while his back was turned...right?

Heading back toward Wilson wasn't really disputed....three eyewitnesses said that he turned and surrendered after multiple shots were directed at him. To me it is more likely that he was surrendering rather than "charging" someone who had a gun but I wasn't on the jury obviously.

But we heard over and over again that Wilson shot him in the back. There were even some insinuations that Wilson shot him while he was lying on the ground, execution style. None of that happened.

We can try to interpret the forensic evidence and a case can be made for what you are saying. I don't read it that way though. Moving back towards someone who is shooting at you is a strange way to surrender. Stop and put your hands up. Don't move at all. Moving back towards the cop is very strange.

Right....that he was shot in the back was bad info and that his back had no wounds does not reflect that shots were not being fired while he was running away.

Can you prove he was shot at while running away? Because there is proof that he wasn't shot in the back.

Eyewitness reports.

My point is that no wounds doesn't mean it didn't happen. That was the point I was making in the other post. I'm pretty sure Wilson's testimony indicates he was shooting at him while he was running away doesn't it? No reason to argue over this actually....

No wounds in his back does prove that he wasn't shot in the back.

Were shots fired as he ran away? I don't know, but he had just been involved in a physical altercation with a police officer. That the cop pursued and used his firearm during the chase doesn't seem crazy.

Holy crap man....no shots in the back doesn't prove that shots weren't fired while he was running away or had his back turned ok? It just means the shots didn't connect.

Calm down.

I'm not sure what you are going for here. Shots could have been fired as Brown ran away. But the lack of wounds in his back disproves any eyewitness testimony that Wilson shot him in the back. These shots could have just as easily been fired at his legs in an attempt to wound him.

My point is that eyewitness testimony was incorrect.

Gern Blansten

JimmyV said:

CNN had the blood spatter chart last night. It exists.

yeah...I just posted it above