Michael Brown

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by MrSparkle001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

and that doesn't mean the cop was correct in using deadly force. Apparently the autopsy shows that he was shot at a distance (something about gunpowder residue, which I remember from the Trayvon case). So how can deadly force be used appropriately vs someone unarmed at a distance?

Apparently you didn't go directly to the source of the info. All they could determine so far was that he was at least 2 feet from the officer. Could be 2, could be 30, could be a quarter mile. I think if someone who was 300 lbs was charging at you, you'd be right to shoot even from 30 feet.

As for eyewitnesses changing their stories to match the facts, nobody is going to buy it. We now can discount any eyewitness who claimed he was shot while running away (does such a person exist?) That's how an investigation works. Forensic science can help us determine which eyewitnesses are most credible in order to determine things that can't be determined through forensic science alone.

[MrSparkle001]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Apparently you didn't go directly to the source of the info. All they could determine so far was that he was at least 2 feet from the officer. Could be 2, could be 30, could be a quarter mile. I think if someone who was 300 lbs was charging at you, you'd be right to shoot even from 30 feet.

As for eyewitnesses changing their stories to match the facts, nobody is going to buy it. We now can discount any eyewitness who claimed he was shot while running away (does such a person exist?) That's how an investigation works. Forensic science can help us determine which eyewitnesses are most credible in order to determine things that can't be determined through forensic science alone.

I watched the news conference live. I think the medical examiner was the same guy from the Trayvon case but I'm not positive (I know I've seen him talk about this sort of thing before).

He mentioned that the lack of gunpowder residue meant he was not shot up close, which brings into question any statements that he was going after the officer's gun.

And yes I agree about eyewitnesses, I'm just predicting what will be said by some people. There are people who are automatically finding the officer guilty and exonerating Brown and they'll say whatever's necessary to confirm it.

What's funny is during the news conference Brown's lawyer said the autopsy confirms the accounts that Brown was facing away and the kill shots were back to front, claiming a small bullet wound on top of the head led to an exit wound out the right eye. The medical examiner took the podium after and said something different, that it exited the eye and re-entered the jaw, like he was shot with his head down not back to front.

Here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhHh...tailpage#t=492

[MrSparkle001]

Originally Posted by MrSparkle001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

that it exited the eye and re-entered the jaw

I mean re-entered near the collarbone.

[iruinedyourday]

Originally Posted by MrSparkle001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

There are people who are automatically finding the officer guilty and exonerating Brown and they'll say whatever's necessary to confirm it.

Even if this were true, you don't think that this could be equally said for people who automatically think that the officer is innocent?

[MrSparkle001]

Originally Posted by iruinedyourday [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Even if this were true, you don't think that this could be equally said for people who automatically think that the officer is innocent?

How many people thought the officer was automatically innocent? More and more people are starting to think that it's a real possibility as more evidence is revealed but I don't know anyone who automatically presumed the officer was innocent without hearing any evidence.

I'm sure there were people who did though, especially other cops.

It's still quite possible he was not justified in using deadly force although that's becoming less and less likely.

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by MrSparkle001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

How many people thought the officer was automatically innocent? More and more people are starting to think that it's a real possibility as more evidence is revealed but I don't know anyone who automatically presumed the officer was innocent without hearing any evidence.

I'm sure there were people who did though, especially other cops.

It's still quite possible he was not justified in using deadly force although that's becoming less and less likely.

I didn't say anything on this matter until relevant information was released, which was after the demonstrations... er lootings started. Fact is I had no opinion at all for at least a couple days until the facts stared to emerge.

Same thing on the Kelly Thomas murder. Oh yeah.. guy was white, not a huge story, no reason to go out and burn down our own neighborhoods led by the NAACP and Black Panthers. But cops do screw up, nothing new, but usually it's dealt with if allowed due process to succeed.

I can say I have been threatened to be shot by cops before. One thing for sure, I didn't charge at him, that's simply considered suicide. But then I didn't rob a liquor store minutes before, I was just a teen headed home from a friends house after curfew, ducked back into my friends back yard and closed the door of the shed behind me. "come out or you might get shot" "come out or we may shoot you" "you don't want to get shot, do you?" etc etc. Yeah... my friend told them to F'off and get the hell off his property [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Not my only encounter with cops in the wrong.

But yeah, lets just overlook the fact that cops work for local, state and federal government agencies (Holder and Obama are just suuch victims). Lets just blame it all on white people, or cops, or the mom and pops store they just looted and burnt to the ground, since they are the "evil rich 1%'ers" anyway, teh maaan holding them down. "no justice no peace" - "no justice no peace" and free TV sets!

Other than that, what someone said, yes militarization of the police, agreed. Possible FEMA camps in the future, of course. But all these black people are just blowing their rage led by the very people that will do those things to them. If we were only untied to make sure the gov wouldn't overstep their bounds (as we have been, as we were); but being divided as they would have you, it only plays into their own power struggle and a reason to see the US fall into a state of complete strife, into anarchy. Then they will happily come in and save you from yourselves, and put everyone in chains for your safety.

Breaking: And now enters the National Guard... [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Was this why 0bama had an undisclosed emergency meeting with Biden, cutting his vacation short? imo a move to worsen the situation after 0bama's limp-wrist appeals for civil order. Good time to get out of the cities for a short vacation imo.. or long vacation.

0bama: "Turns out I'm really good at killing people".

[Sidelle]

I wish people could see how easily they are being used by agitators like Al Sharpton and the Black Panthers. Makes me sick.

They love having everyone divided and fighting against each other. I'm thinkng maybe some of the stuff I've heard is true. The looters (most of them) maybe not from Ferguson at all?

[Archalen]

Originally Posted by Sidelle [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I wish people could see how easily they are being used by agitators like Al Sharpton and the Black Panthers. Makes me sick.

They love having everyone divided and fighting against each other. I'm thinkng maybe some of the stuff I've heard is true. The looters (most of them) maybe not from Ferguson at all?

Al Sharpton, Black Panthers, Obama, Michael Brown... you seem to have a healthy curiosity for a certain race of people.

[MrSparkle001]

Originally Posted by MrSparkle001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

How many people thought the officer was automatically innocent? More and more people are starting to think that it's a real possibility as more evidence is revealed but I don't know anyone who automatically presumed the officer was innocent without hearing any evidence.

I'm sure there were people who did though, especially other cops.

It's still quite possible he was not justified in using deadly force although that's becoming less and less likely.

We saw this coming in August by the way.

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by iruinedyourday [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Even if this were true, you don't think that this could be equally said for people who automatically think that the officer is innocent?

I automatically think everyone is innocent until proven otherwise. You clearly do not believe in one of the basic tenets of modern society.