Did someone say REEFER MADNESS????...or, the cop pulled his gun and Brown went into defense mode and tried to grab the gun to keep from getting shot. If someone was close enough to me where I could grab their gun I'd do the same thing. As would you, cop or not.
None of this contradicts any of the evidence we already knew. In fact, that's exactly what his friend said happened right after the shooting: struggle at the car, shots fired, Brown ran away, cop fired at him, Brown turned around and put his hands up, cop gunned him down. The only thing that's changed is that now we know the shot from the truck hit Brown. And as for the weed in his system, stop using Reefer Madness as a frame of reference on what weed does to the human body, unless you think that THC turns young black men into mini Hulks.
But yes, let's continue with the "darkie had it coming" framing that the usual suspects in VS absolutely love to use.
I've noticed quite a trend in cases like this: whenever a black person is the victim of a shooting by a cop or a vigilante, racist white people can't seen to stop saying "stop making things about race!" while at the same time looking for any tiny little nugget of evidence that proves that the shooting was justified, be it character assassination (digging up pictures of them looking "thuggish" or otherwise intimidating), or trying to twist the facts of the case to fit their worldview ("His arms weren't hit in a way that shows his hands were, so CLEARLY he was bunrushing the cop!")I don't know why race keeps getting brought into this. Or why so much is read into the THC argument other than he's not the "pure, innocent kid" that the family / protesters keep making him out to be.
I also don't understand how some people in this thread are arguing the autopsy results. Based off the bullet trajectories through his body, he did not have his arms up in a standard surrender position. His blood being on the gun means he was close enough to the gun when it went off to be a credible threat to the officer. Now, I've heard the argument that "Officer Wilson pulled Brown into his car".
Why in the world would he do that?! He had no logical reason to do that. Period. It puts him in a bad position tactically. Especially considering the size of Brown. Add in the fact that there's a second person there, and Wilson could've been royally ed by being pinned in his own car. Anyone who's been in that position before knows that the last place you want to be is trapped in your vehicle (unless you're driving away).
But hey, " the police!" and all that. Or make it about race. Whatever.
"Who cares what color his skin is?" = racistI've noticed quite a trend in cases like this: whenever a black person is the victim of a shooting by a cop or a vigilante, racist white people can't seen to stop saying "stop making things about race!" while at the same time looking for any tiny little nugget of evidence that proves that the shooting was justified, be it character assassination (digging up pictures of them looking "thuggish" or otherwise intimidating), or trying to twist the facts of the case to fit their worldview ("His arms weren't hit in a way that shows his hands were, so CLEARLY he was bunrushing the cop!")
It's like it's impossible for a young black male to NOT be put on trial for his own death in this country.
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAAAA....whew....thanks for the laugh. The crazy victim mentality and persecution paranoia that you project really cracks me up. "Tiny little nuggets" like an eye witness testifying that Trayvon Martin was on top of George Zimmerman punching him, ballistics evidence, blood evidence, etc. And character assassination??? There is video of Michael Brown stealing from a store, then pushing the clerk and threatening him with further violence. Brown assassinated his own character.....I've noticed quite a trend in cases like this: whenever a black person is the victim of a shooting by a cop or a vigilante, racist white people can't seen to stop saying "stop making things about race!" while at the same time looking for any tiny little nugget of evidence that proves that the shooting was justified, be it character assassination (digging up pictures of them looking "thuggish" or otherwise intimidating), or trying to twist the facts of the case to fit their worldview ("His arms weren't hit in a way that shows his hands were, so CLEARLY he was bunrushing the cop!")
It's like it's impossible for a young black male to NOT be put on trial for his own death in this country.
The thing is, even the "strong-arm robbery" video is completely irrelevant. All bringing it up does is give Brown defenders another soapbox to cry police brutality/racism from...since the punishment for such an offense is not being shot to death on a city street. Sure, it shatters the kid's supposed squeaky clean image, but it does nothing to justify Wilson's actions.HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAAAA....whew....thanks for the laugh. The crazy victim mentality and persecution paranoia that you project really cracks me up. "Tiny little nuggets" like an eye witness testifying that Trayvon Martin was on top of George Zimmerman punching him, ballistics evidence, blood evidence, etc. And character assassination??? There is video of Michael Brown stealing from a store, then pushing the clerk and threatening him with further violence. Brown assassinated his own character.....
While I agree to a point, I think you're missing a big reason as to why certain aspects have been brought up. Past history is a good predictor of future events. If you're willing to rob someone with witnesses around, in broad daylight, and then walk casually home . . . well, you're more likely to have a physical altercation with police. If you're willing to break one law (smoking weed), you're more likely to break more.The thing is, even the "strong-arm robbery" video is completely irrelevant. All bringing it up does is give Brown defenders another soapbox to cry police brutality/racism from...since the punishment for such an offense is not being shot to death on a city street. Sure, it shatters the kid's supposed squeaky clean image, but it does nothing to justify Wilson's actions.
All that needs to be known is what happened in that confrontation between the two of them...which we see from the autopsy report and the evidence that was revealed about the police cruiser. How "thugish" he dressed, or having marijuana in his system are just pile on points that make you look like you're "out to get him".
They're not even necessary. Wilson's injuries, placement of gunshot wounds, Brown's blood on the gun, etc. Facts about the specific incident in question. When you have the facts, you shouldn't have to do any extra convincing.
Yeah...but you're essentially making a case for profiling (which people will call you racist for) and you're mucking up solid, hard, irrefutable evidence with "probabilities" and "likelihoods". This case doesn't need any of that. Let the facts stand on their own and let the doubters argue with themselves.While I agree to a point, I think you're missing a big reason as to why certain aspects have been brought up. Past history is a good predictor of future events. If you're willing to rob someone with witnesses around, in broad daylight, and then walk casually home . . . well, you're more likely to have a physical altercation with police. If you're willing to break one law (smoking weed), you're more likely to break more.
This is why background checks are run when someone goes to a job interview. Or why drug tests are run when someone applies for security clearances within the government. Past behavior is a good indicator of habits and tendencies.
Now, dressing like a thug? Meh. Doesn't matter one way or the other what a person was wearing in most cases. But it can be an indicator in some. For example, if someone is wearing a lot of jewelry, designer clothes, and top of the line sneakers in a poor neighborhood . . . well, I'm assuming they made money in illegitimate means depending on how they portray themselves (ie: saggy pants, only wearing gang colors, etc.). In this case though? Meh. Shouldn't really matter what he was wearing.
The courts disagree with you as there are only certain limited circumstances in which a person's past criminal activity is considered relevant and admissible. Thus applies most strongly for the defendant in a criminal trial but also applies to most witnesses in civil or criminal trials. Prior bad acts do not bear on future conduct as far as the rules of evidence are concerned.While I agree to a point, I think you're missing a big reason as to why certain aspects have been brought up. Past history is a good predictor of future events. If you're willing to rob someone with witnesses around, in broad daylight, and then walk casually home . . . well, you're more likely to have a physical altercation with police. If you're willing to break one law (smoking weed), you're more likely to break more.
This is why background checks are run when someone goes to a job interview. Or why drug tests are run when someone applies for security clearances within the government. Past behavior is a good indicator of habits and tendencies.
Now, dressing like a thug? Meh. Doesn't matter one way or the other what a person was wearing in most cases. But it can be an indicator in some. For example, if someone is wearing a lot of jewelry, designer clothes, and top of the line sneakers in a poor neighborhood . . . well, I'm assuming they made money in illegitimate means depending on how they portray themselves (ie: saggy pants, only wearing gang colors, etc.). In this case though? Meh. Shouldn't really matter what he was wearing.
Right. If you gun down someone in cold blood, and then later it's revealed he was a serial killer who had 15 bodies buried in his backyard, the guy who shot him dead is still going to jail.The courts disagree with you as there are only certain limited circumstances in which a person's past criminal activity is considered relevant and admissible. Thus applies most strongly for the defendant in a criminal trial but also applies to most witnesses in civil or criminal trials. Prior bad acts do not bear on future conduct as far as the rules of evidence are concerned.
That's not exactly the point I was making. Instead I was pointing out that in a criminal trial a defendant's past criminal activity is never admissible to prove their guilt in the current charge (it can be taken into account for sentencing typically though). Also, a witness's past criminal activity is never admissible except for certain circumstances because their past criminal activity doesn't mean their testimony is a lie.Right. If you gun down someone in cold blood, and then later it's revealed he was a serial killer who had 15 bodies buried in his backyard, the guy who shot him dead is still going to jail.
Right. If you gun down someone in cold blood, and then later it's revealed he was a serial killer who had 15 bodies buried in his backyard, the guy who shot him dead is still going to jail.
tl;dr LOLZThat's not exactly the point I was making. Instead I was pointing out that in a criminal trial a defendant's past criminal activity is never admissible to prove their guilt in the current charge (it can be taken into account for sentencing typically though). Also, a witness's past criminal activity is never admissible except for certain circumstances because their past criminal activity doesn't mean their testimony is a lie.
So what you're saying is that I (knowingly) employ the same rhetorical tricks as a response when you and n8 pretend not to? In that case, I agree!Except when it's dohdough. Then bullshit just fights bullshit. Ha. In this particular case, I'd guess the robbery would be allowed in trial though because it directly preludes the shooting event. It very well can show motivation as to why Brown would've attacked the officer.
Actually it's all about the source:
But I wouldn't expect someone, who thinks it's a natural and acceptable reaction to grab a cops gun, to think in an unbiased fashion.Daily Kos /ˈkoʊs/ is an American political blog that publishes news and opinions from a liberal point of view.[2][3][4][5] It functions as a discussion forum and group blog for a variety of netroots activists whose efforts are primarily directed toward influencing and strengthening the Democratic Party with a particular focus on progressive policies and candidates. Additionally, the site features a participatory political encyclopedia ("DKosopedia"), glossaries, and other content.
Daily Kos was founded by Markos Moulitsas (Kos from the last syllable of his first name, his nickname while in the military) in 2002. In 2007, its parent company, Kos Media, LLC, began a fellowship program to help fund a new generation of progressive activists. About a dozen contributing editors provide content for the site, with three to four new editors being chosen from the Daily Kos community every year.
...or, the cop pulled his gun and Brown went into defense mode and tried to grab the gun to keep from getting shot. If someone was close enough to me where I could grab their gun I'd do the same thing. As would you, cop or not.
No ing shit he was trying to kill him. Officer Wilson had Brown ON TOP OF HIM IN HIS OWN CAR. No one has refuted that. All the witnesses agree that happened. And there's no reasonable explanation that doesn't point to Brown as the aggressor. If I want to kill you, I'm not pulling you on top of me (putting myself in a defensive position) in my own car. Once again, there's no tactical reason to do this. It is against everything trained, especially when outnumbered (2 to 1).If he has his hand near the gun when it goes off, it means ... his hand was near the gun when it went off. We don't know why or how his hand got there. It's just as likely that he was trying to block the gun because he was afraid that Darren Wilson was about to kill him.
Yes, because calling for backup while being attacked is totally an easy thing to do! Holy shit, your reasoning is awesome! Like how Brown was retreating in a BACKWARDS motion but shot at a DOWNWARD TRAJECTORY! WOW! He must of somehow distorted the laws of physics with his racism!If Officer Wilson was so worried about these possible "multiple" assailants, funny where the audio tapes that he calls in for BACKUP,
you know the part where officers call for additional reinforcements when he/she assume they are dealing with more then one suspect?
And have some one never backed up after being shot..
Oh farking yes, did you see the video of the S.C cop who opened fired on a UNARMED individual. he was facing the cop while also backing up in a running fashion as the officer continuing FIRING!!!!
You sir, are making bullshit in defense of this act
Zimmerman was told not to get involved, he go involved and how do you know Zimmerman didn't put his hands on Martin first. Once a stranger puts a hand on you UNWANTED-LY, he became the aggressor regardless if the end he got his ass kicked..
Unless you think its ok for you as a stranger to grab a women the same way and not expect her to fight/hit back either... Are you justifying possible rape ??
However if she does hit back, I bet its legal to shoot her.... LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You are a farking joke
Hey here is a bright idea,Yes, because calling for backup while being attacked is totally an easy thing to do! Holy shit, your reasoning is awesome! Like how Brown was retreating in a BACKWARDS motion but shot at a DOWNWARD TRAJECTORY! WOW! He must of somehow distorted the laws of physics with his racism!
Is it possible that Zimmerman was the aggressor? Possible, but beyond a reasonable doubt? No. Likely? Ehhhh . . . I don't know. But I do know he was injured and had the forensic evidence to back his story up.
But hey, way to totally strawman it up in here. And make it entirely about race, and how the police and guns are just evil!
i dont remember that.I
No one has refuted that. All the witnesses agree that happened
No, being a tax evader gets you the position of Secretary of the Treasury by President Obama.Don't forget Brown probably never reported his taxes either, he a total harden criminal. I mean he definitely probably not a model citizen and you know how a tax evader can one day choose to commit even bigger crimes....LOL
it changed from all?Multiple witnesses and forensics coincide with this. Including the main eyewitness against, who said Wilson pulled him into the car.
Stop referencing that stupid ass SC shooting video. In what way does a police officer making a quick assumption that a guy is lunging into his truck to grab a weapon make any kind of case for the possibility of a different police officer, in a different situation pulling a much larger man into his car?what "argument" have you made worth engaging?
"I think he acted in self defense based off the fact that no officer in their right mind would pull anyone into a car with them (as the original witness said he did). It's not sound tactically at all. "
There was a video maybe two weeks ago where a LEO asked someone for ID and then shot wildly at them when the person did as they were asked. You are operating from a set of assumptions to put it mildly.
I am not going to stop making a reference so you can feel better.Stop referencing that stupid ass SC shooting video. In what way does a police officer making a quick assumption that a guy is lunging into his truck to grab a weapon make any kind of case for the possibility of a different police officer, in a different situation pulling a much larger man into his car?
I am not going to stop making a reference so you can feel better.Stop referencing that stupid ass SC shooting video. In what way does a police officer making a quick assumption that a guy is lunging into his truck to grab a weapon make any kind of case for the possibility of a different police officer, in a different situation pulling a much larger man into his car?
I am not sure he is in the same reality that we are at times.You should ignore Msut, he doesn't like facts. Trust me, I learned the hard way.