Silence continues on the forum regarding Ferguson.

Common sense would tell you there was a struggle for the gun.

Common sense would say just the opposite. A person would try to break free of the officer's grasp or flee after being grabbed. It makes zero sense that a person who is just walking down the street would after being grabbed by an officer decide he was going to grab that officers gun. Zero sense.

Let me ask this question? If you were walking down the street and the officer grabbed you from the car, would you try to break his grasp or would you decide to grab his gun? Why would you transfer and intent you would never have onto a black kid? Your assumption paints a clear picture.

2seaoat wrote:Common sense would tell you there was a struggle for the gun.

Common sense would say just the opposite.  A person would try to break free of the officer's grasp or flee after being grabbed.   It makes zero sense that a person who is just walking down the street would after being grabbed by an officer decide he was going to grab that officers gun.  Zero sense.

Let me ask this question?  If you were walking down the street and the officer grabbed you from the car, would you try to break his grasp or would you decide to grab his gun?  Why would you transfer and intent you would never have onto a black kid?  Your assumption paints a clear picture.

Being grabbed by the officer? How did Wilson grab a 300# over 6 feet tall man while sitting in a patrol car?

Being grabbed by the officer? How did Wilson grab a 300# over 6 feet tall man while sitting in a patrol car?



Four witnesses clearly said the officer grabbed Michael from the squad car. No police statement or statement from the officer has contradicted the same. Until a trial or another witness stepping forth FIRST hand, your fantasy is not reality. However, we can wait for a trial to listen to the officer explain to a jury his perception of who grabbed who first. However, please show me a FIRST hand witness which says that Michael jumped into the squad car going after the officer's gun........utter illogical fantasy.....not one witness has reported that behavior.

2seaoat wrote:Common sense would tell you there was a struggle for the gun.

Common sense would say just the opposite.  A person would try to break free of the officer's grasp or flee after being grabbed.   It makes zero sense that a person who is just walking down the street would after being grabbed by an officer decide he was going to grab that officers gun.  Zero sense.

Let me ask this question?  If you were walking down the street and the officer grabbed you from the car, would you try to break his grasp or would you decide to grab his gun?  Why would you transfer and intent you would never have onto a black kid?  Your assumption paints a clear picture.

You just throw word salad up here not, you don't even try to make sense. Not that we expect any more from you.

2seaoat wrote:Being grabbed by the officer? How did Wilson grab a 300# over 6 feet tall man while sitting in a patrol car?



Four witnesses clearly said the officer grabbed Michael from the squad car.  No police statement or statement from the officer has contradicted the same.  Until a trial or another witness stepping forth FIRST hand, your fantasy is not reality.   However, we can wait for a trial to listen to the officer explain to a jury his perception of who grabbed who first.  However, please show me a FIRST hand witness which says that Michael jumped into the squad car going after the officer's gun........utter illogical fantasy.....not one witness has reported that behavior.

Jumped into the squad car.....did I say he jumped ino the squad car?

Joanimaroni wrote:

2seaoat wrote:Being grabbed by the officer? How did Wilson grab a 300# over 6 feet tall man while sitting in a patrol car?



Four witnesses clearly said the officer grabbed Michael from the squad car.  No police statement or statement from the officer has contradicted the same.  Until a trial or another witness stepping forth FIRST hand, your fantasy is not reality.   However, we can wait for a trial to listen to the officer explain to a jury his perception of who grabbed who first.  However, please show me a FIRST hand witness which says that Michael jumped into the squad car going after the officer's gun........utter illogical fantasy.....not one witness has reported that behavior.

Jumped into the squad car.....did I say he jumped ino the squad car?

Now you've done it. You know he doesn't like being corrected or imitated in an inverse proportion.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXvuegYEumc

Jumped into the squad car.....did I say he jumped ino the squad car?

How would he fit into the window? Two pounds of stuff in a one pound bag....so if I am going to attack an officer I am going to want to get the jump on that officer if the goal is to take his gun, and a jump leap, or lunge was going to be required. The witnesses all said the officer appeared to be reaching from his squad grabbing michael. The friend with him immediately gave that observation which was confirmed by other witnesses. So, do you deny the witness observations? The person standing right next to him said he was grabbed and michael was struggling with the officer and two shots were fired and they both ran.......so what first hand witness do you have that contradicts the same.......

Jumping into a squad car? Your words not mine.

Jumping into a squad car? Your words not mine.

That is fair. However, let us get to what is relevant. If as you claimed Michael was attacking the officer and reaching for his gun. Why would he choose the window to get the police officer? Or, would it be more logical that the witnesses are correct that the officer reached out the open window and grabbed Michael. That Michael resisted and struggled with the officer and two shots were fired.

2seaoat wrote:Jumping into a squad car? Your words not mine.

That is fair.  However, let us get to what is relevant.  If as you claimed Michael was attacking the officer and reaching for his gun.  Why would he choose the window to get the police officer?  Or, would it be more logical that the witnesses are correct that the officer reached out the open window and grabbed Michael.  That Michael resisted and struggled with the officer and two shots were fired.

I claimed? The officer and witnesses said Brown assaulted the officer. The gun was fired twice inside the police car, Brown was shot in the thumb, his blood was in the car...obviously his hand and arm was inside the car. What was Brown doing.... trying to change the channel on the radio?

So you deny that the officer grabbed Brown?

2seaoat wrote:So you deny that the officer grabbed Brown?

Johnson said ......
Wilson then shoved open the car door, grabbed Brown around the neck and tried to pull him through the window. He said Brown never tried to reach for Wilson's weapon.

Dorian Johnson later admitted that Michael Brown attacked Officer Wilson and attempted to take his gun.

Who knows?

2seaoat wrote:Common sense would tell you there was a struggle for the gun.

Common sense would say just the opposite.  A person would try to break free of the officer's grasp or flee after being grabbed.   It makes zero sense that a person who is just walking down the street would after being grabbed by an officer decide he was going to grab that officers gun.  Zero sense.

Let me ask this question?  If you were walking down the street and the officer grabbed you from the car, would you try to break his grasp or would you decide to grab his gun?  Why would you transfer and intent you would never have onto a black kid?  Your assumption paints a clear picture.

Brown punched the officer in the face,Seaoat. I'm sure the officer grabbed him and Brown then punched him in the face. He had a swollen face and scratches. The officer then went for his gun and the struggle ensued for the gun. Assault on a LEO! Felony! I can tell you right now your scenario didn't happen. Brown was no innocent kid just walking down the street while black and the cop started beating on him and just killed him when he ran. He assaulted a police officer and tried to take his gun. Get real man! You want to make it a black thing but you left out a few parts.

You still do not understand. I have made it very clear if the second bullet hit Michael between the eyes and killed him at the squad......I would have ZERO problem. As I have said from day one, little if anything is relevant as to what happened in the car. If the officer killed Michael at the car, there would be no demonstrations, there would be no grand jury, and this would be just one more shooting which was justified.

I am talking about what is relevant. What happened outside the squad which justified the officer summarily executing an unarmed man. I have not heard one witness which contradicted the first four witnesses I saw on CNN. I have seen people post false second and third hand facts which the doctor who did the autopsy clearly argued were not her findings, yet people here repeated the Dispatch second hand facts which on the Odonnell show clearly made the source coming from the defense lawyers for the officer. We need a trial. Anything short of that is just more cover up and white wash. Do not continue being confused that this is simply a racial matter. It is entirely a standard which every sworn officer must adhere and when they do not........they are not above the law.

No, you don't get it at all. He assaulted a police officer and tried to take his gun then ran. And you say it had nothing to do w/ that? WTF?

Dorian Johnson later admitted that Michael Brown attacked Officer Wilson and attempted to take his gun.


No he didn't, that was a claim started by a radio station and picked up by right wing media.  Just like the fractured eye socket claim.  Why do they need to put out false claims?