Ferguson?

[oneforthebus]

It's just a hype story. Anyone can be called an "expert" by merely having a degree in any given subject.

Paid experts are hardly objective. The prosecution has people they pay to give favorable testimony. This is not news to anyone who knows anything about criminal law. So whomever these two people are, there's no reason to believe they are being objective. You give them credence because you're in the tank for the cop. I have no position on this case because no nearly enough evidence has been released to the public (that hasn't been washed through some biased analysis) to make a fair judgement as of yet.

The bullet through the forearm is a perfect example. If it went from outside in it could mean Brown had his hands up with his back to the officer, which would be supported by some reports. Meaning: the officer shot an unarmed man, with his hand in the air, in the back. That conclusion does not bode well at all for the cop.

But again, not enough information is available to get that far. We're all just guessing, some with agendas, without actually knowing. I don't claim to know what the agenda of these so called "experts" is, but I do know that most paid legal experts are biased one way or another.

Facts are facts.

And please stop saying I am "in the tank for the cop". I am "in the tank" for the truth. I follow criminal trials all the time because I have a fascination with them. It interests me how evidence can tell a story. When I hear a story of something that doesn't sound logical to me, I have hunches that I am not getting the whole truth. It never made sense to me that, as initially reported, this 6 year veteran police officer just up and shot some innocent kid one day as he was surrendering with his hands up or running away. That was the narrative that was originally fed to us, and that narrative defies logic.

Unfortunately many people accepted that implausible narrative immediately, and are stubbornly unwilling to give it up no matter how much evidence is presented to the contrary. Just like with the Martin case. An innocent child shot while walking home, minding his own business, with his Skittles. I initially suspected there was probably more to that story as well. By and large people don't go around intentionally shooting little kids for no reason. And I was right.

The cop is presumed innocent. He has apparently told a story that is supported by every shred of physical evidence that has been made public so far. The only thing that goes against him are some questionable eyewitness reports that conflict with each other and are not backed by any physical evidence. Do you really think it's that easy to commit a crime and then concoct a false story that conveniently fits with every shred of physical evidence? That happens in the movies, not in real life. People are mistaken, people exaggerate, people lie. Evidence doesn't.

What scares me way more than over zealous police work is the idea that if you defend yourself, or a police officer defends himself,. he can be charged and tried and his life destroyed based on nothing more than mob rule. It happened to Zimmerman. I hope it doesn't happen here. It's a disturbing trend that does not bode well for any of our public safety.

 

[Supersteeler]

OFTB, I am starting to get pretty afraid also. We've have reduced as a society where people are no longer safe to defend themselves even under attack of full fledged criminals. If you do and are lucky enough to be the one who survives, you'll be sorry. because a violent mob will right be there to make your life a living hell. They will bully and threaten you, the police, the city government, etc. They will riot, burn things, smash things. It's mob rule and who gives a **** about the truth. It's "we will ******* burn this city to the ground if you don't give us what we want" Evidence doesn't matter. Facts don't matter. Innocent or guilty....doesn't matter. It's "You just better give us what we want". Frightening.

 

[Steel Not A Player]

Facts are facts.

And please stop saying I am "in the tank for the cop". I am "in the tank" for the truth. I follow criminal trials all the time because I have a fascination with them. It interests me how evidence can tell a story. When I hear a story of something that doesn't sound logical to me, I have hunches that I am not gtting the whole truth. It never made sense to me that, as initially reported, this 6 year veteran police officer just up and shot some innocent kid one day as he was surrendering with his hands up or running away. That was the narrative that was originally fed to us, and that narrative defies logic.

It defies logic that veteran detectives of the NYPD would put 42 bullets into an innocent man over a wallet.

But it happened.

It defies logic that veteran detectives of the NYPD would sodomize an innocent man with a broken plunger handle.

But it happened.

It defies logic that a veteran officer of the CHP would sit on a 70 year old woman and bash her repeatedly in the face.

But it happened.

That list goes on.

And on...

...and on...

Unfortunately many people accepted that implausible narrative immediately, and are stubbornly unwilling to give it up no matter how much evidence is presented to the contrary. Just like with the Martin case. An innocent child shot while walking home, minding his own business, with his Skittles. I initially suspected there was probably more to that story as well. By and large people don't go around intentionally shooting little kids for no reason. And I was right.

It's not relevant whether or not Brown was "innocent". What's relevant is whether or not he posed a genuine threat, and whether or not procedure was followed. That's it. That's all that matters. Whether Brown is a saint or scoundrel is completely irrelevant to the police officer's actions because by his own account he had no idea who Brown was.

The cop is presumed innocent. He has apparently told a story that is supported by every shred of physical evidence that has been made public so far. The only thing that goes against him are some questionable eyewitness reports that conflict with each other and are not backed by any physical evidence. Do you really think it's that easy to commit a crime and then concoct a false story that conveniently fits with every shred of physical evidence? That happens in the movies, not in real life. People are mistaken, people exaggerate, people lie. Evidence doesn't.

"Every shred" of evidence available isn't much, and is largely ambiguous. For you to support the officer's version you have to make alot of assumptions. Such as when the forearm shot was fired. Was it first, or was it last? And how you know which? If it was fired first into Brown as he had his hands raised and back turned, your whole version of events falls apart fairly quickly. So it's imperative for you to assume that the forearms shot was fired last. That's why I say you're in the tank for the cop. "Every shred" of evidence is always assumed by you to support your case, even though there are plenty of other scenarios those data points could allude to.

And for the record, I don't have a problem with you or the other whites on this board defending your race. The Black "leaders" in this case are certainly defending theirs. If this case makes you feel racially attacked, and thereby obligated to defend your skin then by all means do so. It doesn't make you a villain. Just a product of a conflict much older than you or I.

What scares me way more than over zealous police work is the idea that if you defend yourself, or a police officer defends himself,. he can be charged and tried and his life destroyed based on nothing more than mob rule. It happened to Zimmerman. I hope it doesn't happen here. It's a disturbing trend that does not bode well for any of our public safety.

That is not what happened to Zimmerman. I'm not going to rehash that discussion, there's already a thread for it.

This cop may well be totally in the right. I have no idea. But there are an awful lot of assumptions you're having to make based on someone else's "expert" analysis of the evidence. "Experts" whom I remind you are notoriously biased.

 

[Stainless]

I believe what I want.

 

[Steel Not A Player]

I believe what I want.

From the mouths of babes.

This is the sad truth for the vast majority of or nation. Democracy only works when you have an informed and engaged citizenry. Sadly, we do not.

Once again it's Stainless who's the voice of reason on this board.

EDIT -"you must spread some reputation around before giving it to stainless again"

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

It defies logic that veteran detectives of the NYPD would put 42 bullets into an innocent man over a wallet.

But it happened.

It defies logic that veteran detectives of the NYPD would sodomize an innocent man with a broken plunger handle.

But it happened.

It defies logic that a veteran officer of the CHP would sit on a 70 year old woman and bash her repeatedly in the face.

But it happened.

That list goes on.

And on...

...and on...



It's not relevant whether or not Brown was "innocent". What's relevant is whether or not he posed a genuine threat, and whether or not procedure was followed. That's it. That's all that matters. Whether Brown is a saint or scoundrel is completely irrelevant to the police officer's actions because by his own account he had no idea who Brown was.



"Every shred" of evidence available isn't much, and is largely ambiguous. For you to support the officer's version you have to make alot of assumptions. Such as when the forearm shot was fired. Was it first, or was it last? And how you know which? If it was fired first into Brown as he had his hands raised and back turned, your whole version of events falls apart fairly quickly. So it's imperative for you to assume that the forearms shot was fired last. That's why I say you're in the tank for the cop. "Every shred" of evidence is always assumed by you to support your case, even though there are plenty of other scenarios those data points could allude to.

And for the record, I don't have a problem with you or the other whites on this board defending your race. The Black "leaders" in this case are certainly defending theirs. If this case makes you feel racially attacked, and thereby obligated to defend your skin then by all means do so. It doesn't make you a villain. Just a product of a conflict much older than you or I.



That is not what happened to Zimmerman. I'm not going to rehash that discussion, there's already a thread for it.

This cop may well be totally in the right. I have no idea. But there are an awful lot of assumptions you're having to make based on someone else's "expert" analysis of the evidence. "Experts" whom I remind you are notoriously biased.

In short, what you are saying, is that you will Zimmerman this one too. No matter what evidence anyone provides, no matter what the court decides, your mind is made up.

Thanks.

 

[oneforthebus]

It defies logic that veteran detectives of the NYPD would put 42 bullets into an innocent man over a wallet.

But it happened.

It defies logic that veteran detectives of the NYPD would sodomize an innocent man with a broken plunger handle.

But it happened.

It defies logic that a veteran officer of the CHP would sit on a 70 year old woman and bash her repeatedly in the face.

But it happened.

That list goes on.

I'm not suggesting that illogical things can't happen. I'm only saying, when I am told something that seems to defy logic I start asking questions and investigating. Too many people jump right on board with the initial reports and then cling to them desperately despite all evidence to the contrary. It's frightening.

It's not relevant whether or not Brown was "innocent". What's relevant is whether or not he posed a genuine threat, and whether or not procedure was followed. That's it. That's all that matters. Whether Brown is a saint or scoundrel is completely irrelevant to the police officer's actions because by his own account he had no idea who Brown was.

In terms of the initial narrative we were fed it is relevant. We were originally told he had done nothing wrong...it now appears that's not true. The robbery is not relevant to the final seconds of his life, but it certainly is relevant in determining if violence and criminal behavior were his MO, which would tend to support the cop's story if true. It would also help explain why he might react violently to being confronted by the cop. Certainly his innocence or guilt in assaulting a police officer is relevant.

This cop may well be totally in the right. I have no idea. But there are an awful lot of assumptions you're having to make based on someone else's "expert" analysis of the evidence. "Experts" whom I remind you are notoriously biased.

I'm no "expert" but I can read an autopsy report and draw certain conclusions. There are some things that can't be spun. These experts have no skin in the game...why would the St. Louis Dispatch want to pay people to put forth bogus opinions? That makes no sense. The more people find evidence that doesn't support their opinions, the more they start reaching for wild conspiracy theories and accusations of bias and unfairness.

Like I said, it would be extremely difficult for this cop to have fabricated a story this elaborate and complex and have it be supported by all of the physical evidence that has come forth so far. If I see any physical evidence that refutes his story, I'll be the first one to admit I'm wrong. Until then, he is innocent until proven guilty.

 

[oneforthebus]

From the mouths of babes.

This is the sad truth for the vast majority of or nation. Democracy only works when you have an informed and engaged citizenry. Sadly, we do not.

Once again it's Stainless who's the voice of reason on this board.

EDIT -"you must spread some reputation around before giving it to stainless again"

An informed and engaged citizenry does not ignore facts and evidence that don't support their preferred narrative.

 

[hamster]

This is the sad truth for the vast majority of or nation. Democracy only works when you have an informed and engaged citizenry. Sadly, we do not.

Obama/Biden is proof of that.

 

[oneforthebus]

And for the record, I don't have a problem with you or the other whites on this board defending your race. The Black "leaders" in this case are certainly defending theirs. If this case makes you feel racially attacked, and thereby obligated to defend your skin then by all means do so. It doesn't make you a villain. Just a product of a conflict much older than you or I.

Skimmed over this little gem.

I have not said one word about my race. So you can STFU about that. My impressions of this case have absolutely nothing to do with race and everything to do with facts and evidence. Idiot.

 

[Supersteeler]

In short, what you are saying, is that you will Zimmerman this one too. No matter what evidence anyone provides, no matter what the court decides, your mind is made up.

Thanks.

Just as it is with the voice of the mob. Nothing can change how they feel, what they think, what they want. We could find out tomorrow that Brown was leaning in to the cruiser and choking the officer within an inch of his life before he unloaded his gun into him. And if would make NO difference to the mob....NONE. They are bent on chaos and disorder and no evidence can't change that. This is the reality of America.

 

[oneforthebus]

"Every shred" of evidence is always assumed by you to support your case, even though there are plenty of other scenarios those data points could allude to.

You can't seem to grasp the difference between supporting evidence and refuting evidence. Certainly the evidence could support any number of things that could have happened. The point is, there is nothing that REFUTES the officer's story. Every shred supports it. The fact that it may also support other theories is irrelevant. You can't just prove "well, something else might have happened than what he said", you have to prove "something else DID happen...and here's the evidence".

 

[IndySteel]

The saddest thing about this story, besides the retards Polio and Player complaining about it, is that if Brown had been successful in taking the gun and shooting Wilson then it probably wouldn't have even made the national news. Instead, after gotten beaten the cop shot him while getting bum rushed by the criminal thug and morons riot and protest over it. It speaks for how far this country has fallen under Obama.

 

[oneforthebus]

The saddest thing about this story, besides the retards Polio and Player complaining about it, is that if Brown had been successful in taking the gun and shooting Wilson then it probably wouldn't have even made the national news. Instead, after gotten beaten the cop shot him while getting bum rushed by the criminal thug and morons riot and protest over it. It speaks for how far this country has fallen under Obama.

Th saddest thing is that this story is probably going to get some cops killed. They'll hesitate to do what they need to do in fear of the fallout.

 

[Supersteeler]

The saddest thing about this story, besides the retards Polio and Player complaining about it, is that if Brown had been successful in taking the gun and shooting Wilson then it probably wouldn't have even made the national news. Instead, after gotten beaten the cop shot him while getting bum rushed by the criminal thug and morons riot and protest over it. It speaks for how far this country has fallen under Obama.

While I agree with most of what you are saying I don't agree that it's Obama that's causing it. It's just where we have fallen to as a society and how ****** up people are in this day and age. Obama is a political puppet just like every other fake *** politician running around. I don't give Obama credit for helping anything at all but I am of the mind that all politicians are phony, lying, pieces of crap so...

 

[IndySteel]

While I agree with most of what you are saying I don't agree that it's Obama that's causing it. It's just where we have fallen to as a society and how ****** up people are in this day and age. Obama is a political puppet just like every other fake *** politician running around. I don't give Obama credit for helping anything at all but I am of the mind that all politicians are phony, lying, pieces of crap so...

I think he definitely has had a leading role in promoting racial strife.

 

[Supersteeler]

I think he definitely has had a leading role in promoting racial strife.

I think people mostly believe what they were taught to believe by their parents. Not that Obama exactly has a positive effect on race relations, but I think racial relations is mostly a learned behavior from a young age. If you are taught to mistrust a particular race from the time you are old enough to understand, then you most likely will. Some people overcome that and draw their own conclusions as adults but not nearly enough IMO.

 

[oneforthebus]

I think that he could calm the situation but it benefits him more to have division. I don't think he's responsible for it.

I think African Americans have plenty of legitimate grievances with the way they are profiled and treated by some people and some police. I just don't think it's right or just to make a possibly innocent individual the sacrificial lamb in order to appease those grievances. Obama should be saying this, as should Al Sharpton and the rest.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

I think he definitely has had a leading role in promoting racial strife.

There is no "think" about this. While these issues have been growing over time, spanning many Presidents, Obama has exacerbated the racial divide.

Sending WH officials to Brown's funeral, none to our General killed overseas...
allowing the AG to press hate crime charges against the one white knock-out perpetrator, NONE against the thousands of black knock-out perps...
allowing the AG to investigate the Ferguson police Dept, but doing nothing against the Albuquerque PD that is also slaying innocents
the WH and O showing no interest in the white pregnant couple brutally attacked outside a night club
standing up for Trayvon..."If I had a son..."

...and himself never standing up for a white victim of a black crime.

Fair and Balanced shouldn't just be the tag line for Fox News. Politicians should try to practice it as well.

 

[Steel Not A Player]

I'm no "expert" but I can read an autopsy report and draw certain conclusions.

So far, with the limted information available and ambiguous evidence, you've only drawn the conclusion that you are clearly predisposed to: cop as victim.

There are some things that can't be spun.

Give me an example of evidence that has only one possible conclusion in this case.

These experts have no skin in the game...

Another assumption. How can you possibly know this? Who are they, who pays them, what's their political bent? "Experts" slant things in favor of of one side all the time, this is not news.

why would the St. Louis Dispatch want to pay people to put forth bogus opinions?

Whoa, now wait a minute. You started this discussion talking about facts, and evidence. Now we're saying "opinions"? Well opinions can differ, now can't they? This is why I come back to the point that "experts" are often biased and their analysis tainted by their (your word here) "opinions."

That makes no sense. The more people find evidence that doesn't support their opinions, the more they start reaching for wild conspiracy theories and accusations of bias and unfairness.

And there in lies the problem. This evidence does not specifically support the officer's case, but it is being slanted that way by people like you who are totally in the tank for him. Your bias is obvious, and stated by you repeatedly. You are only seeing what you want to see. I have yet to draw a conclusion or take a side because I don't have enough information.

Like I said, it would be extremely difficult for this cop to have fabricated a story this elaborate and complex and have it be supported by all of the physical evidence that has come forth so far. If I see any physical evidence that refutes his story, I'll be the first one to admit I'm wrong. Until then, he is innocent until proven guilty.

More assumptions. The evidence is sparse so far, and the cop's story is not elaborate. There was an argument which precipitated a fight that ended in a shooting. That's a fairly straightforward narrative, and a pretty common one in shootings. The devil is in the details. If the cop followed procedure and an out of control suspect posed a thread, he should be vindicated. If he lost his temper and shot the guy because he was pissed off about the altercation, that is another story entirely. I'm not saying either thing happened, I'm saying (for the umpteenth time) that we need more information before drawing any conclusions.

You can't seem to grasp the difference between supporting evidence and refuting evidence. Certainly the evidence could support any number of things that could have happened. The point is, there is nothing that REFUTES the officer's story. Every shred supports it. The fact that it may also support other theories is irrelevant. You can't just prove "well, something else might have happened than what he said", you have to prove "something else DID happen...and here's the evidence".

This is spin. You say the evidence supports him, having already conceded that the evidence is ambiguous when you conceded that it could mean a number of things. You WANT it to support him. But that doesn't mean the evidence does. It supports a version of what happened, but also supports a version that could damn him. If the forearm shot was first, and we have no idea if it was or not, your scenario falls to pieces. So, I say again, more information is needed.

The saddest thing about this story, besides the retards Polio and Player complaining about it, is that if Brown had been successful in taking the gun and shooting Wilson then it probably wouldn't have even made the national news. Instead, after gotten beaten the cop shot him while getting bum rushed by the criminal thug and morons riot and protest over it. It speaks for how far this country has fallen under Obama.

The saddest thing about your statement is that I haven't taken a position on this case. I have taken NO POSITION. Not guilt, or innocence, or even a mitigating grey area. I've drawn no conclusions. But all of you seem to have. This board has serious race issues, so whenever a race issue comes up you all fly off into "defend the skin" mode. I don't actually care how this case shakes out, other than to hope no further violence occurs as a result of it. I hope the grand jury gets it right, whichever way right is under the law.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

The saddest thing about your statement is that I haven't taken a position on this case. I have taken NO POSITION. Not guilt, or innocence, or even a mitigating grey area. I've drawn no conclusions. But all of you seem to have. This board has serious race issues, so whenever a race issue comes up you all fly off into "defend the skin" mode. I don't actually care how this case shakes out, other than to hope no further violence occurs as a result of it. I hope the grand jury gets it right, whichever way right is under the law.

You haven't directly taken a position, save for attempting to mitigate every piece of evidence that says Wilson's story is correct...which, is a position. Nice try. You've not made one, single argument to say that Wilson's story may have been correct. Just to attack any evidence/reporting that says Wilson was justified. OK...

Then you generalize...saying the "board" (i.e., everyone) has race issues, overlooking the fact that many here have stated - we want the truth. This isn't about race. Only Libtards, like yourself, insert these blatant claims of racism in situations like these.

And you clearly care how this case shakes out. CLEARLY.

All of this, from the man, that says the Officer is required to touch the dead body, to cuff him...LOL. Too funny. Did you see those Michael Brown-dead-in-the-street photos? You're quite the expert

 

[oneforthebus]

So far, with the limited information available and ambiguous evidence, you've only drawn the conclusion that you are clearly predisposed to: cop as victim.

Nope. I've given the cop the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise.

Give me an example of evidence that has only one possible conclusion in this case.

Again, you can't seem to grasp this simple fact...any evidence can have any number of possible conclusions. I'm looking for evidence the REFUTES the cop's story. So far there is only evidence that supports it (again, beyond some conflicting and in some ways dubious witness accounts).

Another assumption. How can you possibly know this? Who are they, who pays them, what's their political bent? "Experts" slant things in favor of of one side all the time, this is not news.

How do you "slant" the trajectory of a bullet? Or the location of entrance and exit wounds? Or the presence of fragments discharged at close range? Unless you are suggesting the county coroner is just making this stuff up, I don't know how it's possible to "slant" these things.

Whoa, now wait a minute. You started this discussion talking about facts, and evidence. Now we're saying "opinions"? Well opinions can differ, now can't they? This is why I come back to the point that "experts" are often biased and their analysis tainted by their (your word here) "opinions."

No, YOU are saying opinions. I asked YOU if you think they are being paid to offer bogus opinions. You are suggesting these experts may have been paid to offer up slanted analysis of the autopsy. I believe they are discussing facts and evidence.

And there in lies the problem. This evidence does not specifically support the officer's case, but it is being slanted that way by people like you who are totally in the tank for him.

But the evidence (unless these leaks are just baldfaced lies) DOES support his case. Every piece of physical evidence that has come out supports an aspect of his story. He is either the greatest criminal mind of our time, or he is likely to be telling the truth. Again, unless something comes out that refutes his story. As I have said repeatedly. the evidence that has come out SO FAR supports his case.

There was an argument which precipitated a fight that ended in a shooting. That's a fairly straightforward narrative, and a pretty common one in shootings.

That is not the extent of the narrative, by far.

The devil is in the details.

Absolutely. And so far the evidence that has come forward has supported all of the details he offered. Nothing has refuted any of them (save for some conflicting witness statements).

You say the evidence supports him, having already conceded that the evidence is ambiguous when you conceded that it could mean a number of things. You WANT it to support him. But that doesn't mean the evidence does. It supports a version of what happened, but also supports a version that could damn him. If the forearm shot was first, and we have no idea if it was or not, your scenario falls to pieces. So, I say again, more information is needed.

Once again, the fact that other versions could potentially be supported are irrelevant. He doesn't have to disprove every other possible version. He is presumed innocent.

But I will mention in case you missed it that according to the county coroner's report, the forearm shot trajectory was upward, backward and leftward. So unless Wilson was floating above Brown in the sky and shooting down at his upstretched arm, there was no way Brown could have had his hands in the air when that shot was fired.

 

[oneforthebus]

You haven't directly taken a position, save for attempting to mitigate every piece of evidence that says Wilson's story is correct...which, is a position. Nice try. You've not made one, single argument to say that Wilson's story may have been correct. Just to attack any evidence/reporting that says Wilson was justified. OK...

Yep....................

 

[Superman]

can someone explain to me how a person can have their back to a cop, get shot in the back of the wrist and have it exit the inside of their upper arm?
I'm really trying to understand that one.

 

[Buster]

Opinions on this all come down to common sense. We will probably never know exactly what happened. The only hard evidence that you and I have at this point is the robbery video which shows Brown's violent actions. With that said, is it more likely that he was aggressive and put the cop in a situation where he had to shoot or more likely the this cop was a renegade who was just itching to unnecessarily shoot a kid the first chance he gets?
If you don't have enough common sense to figure that one out, you're lost.