Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Silence continues on the forum regarding Ferguson.

+8
Markle
gatorfan
Hospital Bob
Vikingwoman
Sal
boards of FL
2seaoat
Joanimaroni
12 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Go down  Message [Page 3 of 8]

Sal

Sal

The autopsy results aren't conclusive either way, yet the story is that it supports Wilson's version.

No, it just doesn't contradict Wilson's version, which is unsurprising since he had ample opportunity to create a story that fit the physical evidence.

The results are also entirely consistent with Brown's companion's story and those of the eyewitnesses.

2seaoat



You made the case prior to the evidence.

There can be no evidence until there is a trial. Planned releases favorable to justify no bill issuing is not evidence. Four immediate witness statements which were consistent and truthful call for a trial. It may not happen, as it never happened when a kid got ran over by a squad. It is the trial which will bring evidence and the clarity of cross examination. Continue to post second hand reports of the evidence or witness statements........we have all seen first hand statements immediately after the incident.....all conform with the others.

Joanimaroni

Joanimaroni

2seaoat wrote:You made the case prior to the evidence.

There can be no evidence until there is a trial.  Planned releases favorable to justify no bill issuing is not evidence.  Four immediate witness statements which were consistent and truthful call for a trial.   It may not happen, as it never happened when a kid got ran over by a squad.   It is the trial which will bring evidence and the clarity of cross examination.  Continue to post second hand reports of the evidence or witness statements........we have all seen first hand statements immediately after the incident.....all conform with the others.

Truthful.....that Seaoat, is an assumption.

Markle

Markle

boards of FL wrote:There were multiple eye witnesses who all - in chorus - are saying the same thing.  

Multiple "eye witnesses" in chorus...all saying the same thing. Nothing suspicious about that chorus.

They have also been contradicted by the PHYSICAL evidence. Once there is no indictment, we will see riots that will make LA look tame.

They don't want justice...they want a lynching.

Sal

Sal

Why would the eyewitnesses not be truthful?

Those landscaper guys didn't know Michael Brown and weren't even from the area.

2seaoat



Truthful.....that Seaoat, is an assumption.


No, it is not an assumption. There has been ZERO first hand accounts given to the media which contradict the same. ZERO. There have been carefully planned released witness statements which are second hand, but no face attached to the same. So in the absence of one scintilla of evidence to contradict those four independent witnesses the truth is self evident and requires no assumption.

I do not know of one person who wants a lynch mob. People are upset because there is no trial. This is contrary to American jurisprudence. I personally would be fine if the officer was found not guilty, but I am incensed that no trial has happened, or charges made. This happens too often. Justice for all requires a fair trial for the officer.......not a cover up or dilatory actions by the SA.

Vikingwoman



2seaoat wrote:If an officer pulls his gun and you grab it, I think you can safely assume the gun would be used on you. That would be an attempt to murder the officer and running away as a fleeing felon would under the law justify shooting someone. I think he probably didn''t have to shoot him that many times but it seems like it would be justified if he attempted to take his gun. The struggle had everything to do w/ the shooting.



Not getting on the F'ing sidewalk is an excuse to murder a person who is unarmed and has their hands raised over their head......I think not.   This police officer set in motion something that Barney would approve, but Andy and cooler heads would find Michael alive and a community not in turmoil.

If this was a white kid, this officer would have been charged in every state in this union.  Witness statements would have been taken immediately, and the police report would have been released immediately.  This is simply a cover up from top to bottom.  Letting a shooter explain himself to a grand jury.....one in a thousand cases.........rotten to the core.

It wasn't the not getting on the sidewalk that is in issue,Seaoat. Did the kid try to take the gun from the Officer? I don't know. I'm kind of on the fence about this one. Do I believe the Officer didn't have to shoot him that many times? Absolutely. The fact that there was a struggle and the kid got away gives credence to the Officer pulling his weapon and shooting. If the Officer still perceived him as a threat and was still walking toward him will give the Officer the right to shoot him even w/ his hands up.IMO.

Joanimaroni

Joanimaroni

2seaoat wrote:Truthful.....that Seaoat, is an assumption.


No, it is not an assumption.  There has been ZERO first hand accounts given to the media which contradict the same.  ZERO.   There have been carefully planned released witness statements which are second hand, but no face attached to the same.   So in the absence of one scintilla of evidence to contradict those four independent witnesses the truth is self evident and requires no assumption.

I do not know of one person who wants a lynch mob.  People are upset because there is no trial.  This is contrary to American jurisprudence.  I personally would be fine if the officer was found not guilty, but I am incensed that no trial has happened, or charges made.   This happens too often.  Justice for all requires a fair trial for the officer.......not a cover up or dilatory actions by the SA.

Of course a lynch mob is wanted......ask the protestors burning the town . A trial will be held pending the grand jury finding cause.

2seaoat



There is probable cause based on the four witness statements. The SA could have brought the charges, but chose to orchestrate a grand jury by inviting the shooter in......unheard of.....one in a thousand.

Viking lets say we just make up what happened in the car. That instead of the officer grabbing Michael and trying to drag him into the car, Michael lunged at the officer trying to steal his gun. The officer took his gun out and defended himself in the car shooting Michael. Michael retreated wounded. The officer pursued and the witnesses said the unarmed teen put his hands up. What happened in the car is irrelevant to the murder charge. An intervening act of surrender allowed the officer to arrest the suspect. What happened in the car does not matter. What matters was Michael a threat to the officer outside the car from fifty feet away with his hands up. If the evidence at trial shows that he ran at the officer trying to attack him, nothing done in the car is relevant and the shooting is justified. If Michael was surrendering with his hands up, nothing in the car is relevant, and the shooting is not justified. This is easy stuff. Bring on the trial and cross examination of the witnesses. The truth will be self evident.

Joanimaroni

Joanimaroni

The Redskins were hardly the only people parroting the “hands up” meme – that meme has now gone national, with protesters and rioters in Ferguson utilizing it, hundreds of students at Howard University throwing up their hands, and Harvard Law Professor Charles Ogletree suggesting that Officer Darren Wilson be arrested based on the “hands up” story.
There is only one problem: the “hands up” story comes from witnesses with significant flaws in their stories.

There were three witnesses who said that Brown was fleeing with his “hands up”: Dorian Johnson, Tiffany Mitchell, and Piaget Crenshaw. All three also had another element of their story in common: they said that Brown was shot from behind.
According to Dorian Johnson, Wilson pulled Brown and him over to the side of the road, where he then attempted to pull the 6’4”, 300 lb. Brown through the window of his patrol vehicle. Johnson stated, “The second time he says, ‘I’ll shoot,’ a second later the gun went off and he let go. That’s how we were able to run at the same time.” Johnson told USA Today that “the officer pursued Brown and fired another shot, which struck Brown in the back.”

Similarly, Mitchell stated that Wilson “was trying to pull him in” to the car. She added that after a shot went off, Brown ran. She then stated that after Brown ran perhaps 20 feet, “Michael jerks his body, as if he’s been hit.”
Crenshaw tells the same story: she says, “I saw the police chase him…down the street and shoot him down.” Both Crenshaw and Mitchell say that when Brown turned around, Wilson continued firing.

The autopsy released on Monday demonstrated that Brown was not in fact shot in the back. He had no wounds to the back whatsoever, despite Brown family attorney Daryl Parks allegedly lying in his press conference that it was “clear” that “the direction of the bullet was in a back-to-front direction.” That prompted Crenshaw to change her story on CNN regarding Brown being shot in the back.

And Dorian Johnson’s story was chock full of holes. It somehow neglected the fact that he and Brown allegedly participated in a strong-arm robbery of a convenience store shortly before they were pulled over by Officer Wilson. Johnson also said that after Brown was shot and “fell dramatically into the fatal position,” he was “hurt…I could see it in his eyes. It was definitely like being shot like an animal.” Dr. Michael Baden, who performed an autopsy for the family, stated clearly that Brown did not feel pain after he was shot in the head.
Dozens of witnesses have reportedly told another story, according to Christine Byers of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch: they say that Brown attacked Wilson through the window of his car, punched him, attempted to reach for Wilson’s gun, then ran. When Wilson shouted at them to freeze, Brown turned around and charged Wilson, prompting the shooting. According to one of the officer’s friends in a call to The Dana Loesch Show, the last shot hit Brown in the head, and the teenager fell “two or three feet in front of Wilson.”
Also, while the original witnesses reported by the media claimed that Wilson attacked Brown, sources have alleged that it was Wilson who suffered an “orbital blowout fracture to the eye socket” as a result of the encounter.

Despite the fact that the witnesses in the “hands up” narrative seem to contradict themselves, the media coverage has now made Dorian Johnson’s story the narrative known around the country. The perception that young black men are apt to be shot while surrendering to police has been reinforced –
it has now made its way west, to Los Angeles, where protesters of Ezell Ford’s shooting are now falsely parroting the Dorian Johnson Ferguson narrative. Ford was shot by two police officers after an alleged scrum in which Ford supposedly reached for one of the officers’ gun; no witnesses reportedly allege that Ford held his hands up to surrender to police. Nonetheless, protester Nicole Tinson, a 23-year-old graduate student at Yale Divinity School, said, “It’s absolutely ridiculous. A man who holds his hands up is surrendering himself.”

The “hands up” story may be true; then again, it may be false. But it is true in the minds of millions of black people around the United States, thanks to a media eager for a race controversy – and it will remain the dominant story, no matter what the truth is.
Ben Shapiro is Senior Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News

2seaoat



Of course a lynch mob is wanted......ask the protestors burning the town . A trial will be held pending the grand jury finding cause.



You are at least consistent. The protestors want a trial, not a lynching. However, making chit up adds to the absurdity of this thread. Second hand information becomes the facts.......the facts will come out at trial or they will be covered up by a corrupt system.

Joanimaroni

Joanimaroni

2seaoat wrote:Of course a lynch mob is wanted......ask the protestors burning the town . A trial will be held pending the grand jury finding cause.



You are at least consistent.  The protestors want a trial, not a lynching.  However, making chit up adds to the absurdity of this thread.  Second hand information becomes the facts.......the facts will come out at trial or they will be covered up by a corrupt system.

Are you forgetting the threats on the officer's life?

The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses.”
― Malcolm X

2seaoat



Are you forgetting the threats on the officer's life?


So you extrapolate some nebulous threat on the officer's life as originating from the protesters. I think not. A seventeen year old kid on a computer could pose a threat to the officer, but to bootstrap that into an indictment of the protestors who want justice, not a lynching, is more absurdity.

You shoot and murder an unarmed man, and I am certain folks are going to be angry and there will be a handful who will make threats. The protesters are protesting a system of coverups and continued injustice more than this individual officer who killed Michael.

Sal

Sal

Joanimaroni wrote:
Ben Shapiro is Senior Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News

Ben Shapiro is a douchenozzle.

Sal

Sal

Joanie and Markle both have suggested that the eyewitnesses who claim that Brown had his hands up are being dishonest, yet neither is willing to offer a plausible motive for them to have lied.

Why is that?


Question Question Question

Guest


Guest

Eye witnesses are notoriously inaccurate. I once opened the door to a convenience store and three black guys were pointing guns at the clerk. One wheeled on me and said don't move... so I literally held the door for them while they left.

I could give nearly no description of them... not even their clothes. But the gun was a silver 357 revolver.

Joanimaroni

Joanimaroni

Sal wrote:Joanie and Markle both have suggested that the eyewitnesses who claim that Brown had his hands up are being dishonest, yet neither is willing to offer a plausible motive for them to have lied.

Why is that?


Question Question Question

I said the eye witness comments were inconsistent. There are also reports that several witnesses gave identical rehearsed statements.

nadalfan



Sal wrote:

Can someone please explain why these men's immediate reactions are to lie?


This was rehearsed??

Vikingwoman



2seaoat wrote:There is probable cause based on the four witness statements.  The SA could have brought the charges, but chose to orchestrate a grand jury by inviting the shooter in......unheard of.....one in a thousand.

Viking lets say we just make up what happened in the car.   That instead of the officer grabbing Michael and trying to drag him into the car, Michael lunged at the officer trying to steal his gun.  The officer took his gun out and defended himself in the car shooting Michael.  Michael retreated wounded.  The officer pursued and the witnesses said the unarmed teen put his hands up.   What happened in the car is irrelevant to the murder charge.   An intervening act of surrender allowed the officer to arrest the suspect.  What happened in the car does not matter.   What matters was Michael a threat to the officer outside the car from fifty feet away with his hands up.  If the evidence at trial shows that he ran at the officer trying to attack him, nothing done in the car is relevant and the shooting is justified.  If Michael was surrendering with his hands up, nothing in the car is relevant, and the shooting is not justified.   This is easy stuff.  Bring on the trial and cross examination of the witnesses.  The truth will be self evident.

See this is where we see it differently. The attack in the car is relevant as Michael attempted to get the officer's gun and then ran when he was shot. That made it a felony and the officer was in pursuit. He could legally shoot him while running away. You can use deadly force on a fleeing felon. It's the law. Now I don't know about shooting him that many times. The officer could have stopped when he shot him a couple of times but now the question is was Michael coming at him or surrendering?

Joanimaroni

Joanimaroni

Did I say that?

Joanimaroni

Joanimaroni

http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2014/08/eyewitnesses-wont-solve-the-michael-brown-case.html

2seaoat



To date I am unaware of this case meeting the supreme court standard.

A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead...however...Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.

United States Supreme Court 1985

Prior to the officer attempting to pull Michael into his squad, he had not broke any law known by the officer. In the struggle the officer shot Michael. He was not a risk to the officer or the public running unarmed from just being shot.

NON LETHAL FORCE IS ACCEPTABLE.

Mo law
(2) When he reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested

(a) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony; or

(b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon; or

(c) May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.

4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.

This is essentially the "fleeing felon" rule that was widely used in the U.S. for many decades -- but the Supreme Court struck it down in the mid-1980s. Now, police officers are allowed to use deadly force against a fleeing felon only if they have reason to believe the felon is dangerous. Missouri may not have changed the text of its law to reflect the ruling, but the ruling still applies.

The officer failed to meet the old Mo law and certainly failed the Supreme Court Standard. What happened in the car is irrelevant. Did the officer believe he was in imminent danger from a fleeing Michael Brown, or another member of the public was in danger.

2seaoat



http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2014/08/eyewitnesses-wont-solve-the-michael-brown-case.html


By golly is that not convenient. Eyewitnesses are unreliable. One of the key things an investigation does is spread out and take all those eyewitness statements immediately. Here weeks went by with no witness being interviewed by the police......hmmmmm. I guess standard procedure was thrown to the wind......like asking a shooter to testify to a grand jury......and not releasing a police report.....no nothing wrong here.....no reason to be protesting about injustice here. We just will not take any statement which conflict with what the officer says.......hmmmm another eyewitness who gets an invite to the grand jury and gets gift wrapped SA cooperation.......ask any attorney you know if in their lifetime in their local courts have they ever heard of such a procedure......yep the folks did not see Michael murdered with his hands up.......really?

Vikingwoman



2seaoat wrote:To date I am unaware of this case meeting the supreme court standard.

A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead...however...Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.

United States Supreme Court 1985

Prior to the officer attempting to pull Michael into his squad, he had not broke any law known by the officer.   In the struggle the officer shot Michael.  He was not a risk to the officer or the public running unarmed from just being shot.

NON LETHAL FORCE IS ACCEPTABLE.

Mo law
(2) When he reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested

(a) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony; or

(b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon; or

(c) May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.

4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.

This is essentially the "fleeing felon" rule that was widely used in the U.S. for many decades -- but the Supreme Court struck it down in the mid-1980s. Now, police officers are allowed to use deadly force against a fleeing felon only if they have reason to believe the felon is dangerous. Missouri may not have changed the text of its law to reflect the ruling, but the ruling still applies.

The officer failed to meet the old Mo law and certainly failed the Supreme Court Standard.   What happened in the car is irrelevant.   Did the officer believe he was in imminent danger from a fleeing Michael Brown, or another member of the public was in danger.

Battery on a Leo is a felony,Seaoat. If in fact Brown did attempt to take his gun it makes it more egregious. If in fact Brown did attempt to take his gun it makes him dangerous. You are simply taking the word of his friend and I'm not so clear as what the struggle was in the car but a gun was drawn and Brown was clearly fighting the officer. What if Brown did try to take his gun? Do you still feel the officer shouldn't have shot a fleeing felon?

Vikingwoman



2seaoat wrote:To date I am unaware of this case meeting the supreme court standard.

A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead...however...Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.

United States Supreme Court 1985

Prior to the officer attempting to pull Michael into his squad, he had not broke any law known by the officer.   In the struggle the officer shot Michael.  He was not a risk to the officer or the public running unarmed from just being shot.

NON LETHAL FORCE IS ACCEPTABLE.

Mo law
(2) When he reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested

(a) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony; or

(b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon; or

(c) May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.

4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.

This is essentially the "fleeing felon" rule that was widely used in the U.S. for many decades -- but the Supreme Court struck it down in the mid-1980s. Now, police officers are allowed to use deadly force against a fleeing felon only if they have reason to believe the felon is dangerous. Missouri may not have changed the text of its law to reflect the ruling, but the ruling still applies.

The officer failed to meet the old Mo law and certainly failed the Supreme Court Standard.   What happened in the car is irrelevant.   Did the officer believe he was in imminent danger from a fleeing Michael Brown, or another member of the public was in danger.

No, I think you're gravely wrong to say what happened in the car is irrelevant. Trying to take an officer's gun, if that's what happened, is very relevant and dangerous.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 3 of 8]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum