Jump to content
Paulding.com
Sign in to follow this  
HardwareDJ

Officer's version of Ferguson shooting revealed

Recommended Posts

If an investigation concludes the officer acted in self-defense, why should there be a trial?

 

Because many people think any investigation that says it was a "good shoot" would be a false report.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tiffany Mitchell was the woman who drove up on the scene and I haven't seen an interview where she made that statement.

Can you provide a link?

 

Ms. Mitchell stated (in all 3 interviews I've seen) that after the initial gunfire, MB breaks away from the officer. "The officer gets out of his vehicle and pursues him as he's shooting his weapon. Michael jerks his body as if he was hit and he turns around facing the officer and puts his hands up and the officer continues to shoot him until he goes down to the ground."

 

Nothing about charging nor going down on his knees. Notice she said the officer shot"until" MB went down to the ground not before as you are trying to suggest.

 

How does he get a round though the top of his head ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Doesn't sound suitable? Are you serious?? The ME has determined the shot to the top of his head was the final shot. If the man was charging the officer with his arms out and his head down, this could explain the wounds he received to his arms as "warning shots" and when it became clear those weren't stopping him, and it became clear the officer was about to be body slammed by a now VERY angry giant of a man, the final shot to the top of the head. )

 

 

 

Yes I am quiet serious.

 

Anyone who would rush a police officer that is already in the process of shooting them is a moron. This guy had no criminal record, and was a college student. He was far from being the moron you seem to think he was, Am! He may even have been a bully, but not that big of a bully. Enough to charge at a gunman in the process of putting led in his body.

 

Its more rare for a person, without suicidal tendencies, to charge a police officer who is already shooting him full of lead than it is for a Police Officer to kill an unarmed man.

 

What did the officer think this shot up man was going to do; get some blood on him? If the kid was that close he could have used his head knocker, hid boot, or the gun butt; not a bullet.

Edited by The Postman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does he get a round though the top of his head ?

Ooooh, I don't know. Head down, arms out in a tackling position maybe????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tiffany Mitchell was the woman who drove up on the scene and I haven't seen an interview where she made that statement.

Can you provide a link?

 

Ms. Mitchell stated (in all 3 interviews I've seen) that after the initial gunfire, MB breaks away from the officer. "The officer gets out of his vehicle and pursues him as he's shooting his weapon. Michael jerks his body as if he was hit and he turns around facing the officer and puts his hands up and the officer continues to shoot him until he goes down to the ground."

 

Nothing about charging nor going down on his knees. Notice she said the officer shot"until" MB went down to the ground not before as you are trying to suggest.

 

I didn't commit her testimony to memory. I'm reading that he fell to his knees as he fell.

 

If an investigation concludes the officer acted in self-defense, why should there be a trial?

 

I think the vice.com article entitled "Cops are liars that get away with perjury" that came up on the testilying search pretty much states the case:

 

 

snip...

 

A 1987 study from Chicago found that 76 percent of officers agreed that that they frequently bent the facts to establish probable cause; 48 percent said that judges were right in tossing police testimony as untrustworthy.

 

Judge Alex Kozinski of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, publicly stated in the 1990s:

 

"It is an open secret long shared by prosecutors, defense lawyers, and judges that perjury is widespread among law enforcement officers … police lie to avoid letting someone they think is guilty, or they know is guilty, go free."

 

By not acknowledging rampant police misconduct, by not demanding that criminal justice is meted out in a fair way, what are we giving up? Are we sacrificing a moral claim to justice by sanctioning the police—and thus the state—the freedom to circumvent the rule of law in the pursuit of a particular type of social order?

 

“That is assuming that the justice system ever had any moral claim, which I would not assume,” former NYPD officer and Queens county prosecutor Eugene O’Donnell says. “There is dishonesty in court, prosecutorial dishonesty. It’s legislative dishonesty that sets up this system and by no means are cops exempt from a system that is dishonest and fundamentally flawed.”

 

snip ...

Although judges and juries are not supposed to consider the word of an officer above that of a defendant, most typically do. Most people have been socialized to see the police officer as a generally good person and the accused as generally bad. Upon closer inspection, this assumption doesn’t make much sense, but nevertheless it empowers law enforcement to stretch the truth. They can count on getting the benefit of the doubt.

 

“Everyone assumes that the defendant is self-interested and is motivated to lie, and that the officer is there just to say what happened,” said former New York City assistant district attorney Bennett Capers, now a professor at Brooklyn Law School.

 

But this is not really true.

 

Officers may gain some tangible benefits from seeing that their arrests turn into convictions—such as promotions or preferential assignments—but more powerful still is the culture of law enforcement that degrades any type of perceived weakness and indoctrinates an us-against-the-world mentality that provides rationalization for almost any activity, legal or not.

 

snip ...

 

“Police see the world in black and white, there are not a lot of shades of gray. There is us, on the job, and our families and people who are sympathetic to our worldview and everybody else is an asshole…. Anything that I, as one of the good guys, that I can do to get the bad guys in jail is justifiable,” former Boston Police Department Lieutenant Thomas Nolan says.

 

It’s this mindset that makes a police officer feel he is entitled to lie, justified to do whatever it takes and even, in a way, obligated to violate people’s rights if he deems it necessary to his purpose of getting the “scum” off the streets.

Officers see themselves in a dangerous, noble cause against the underworld, and this is further instilled through the same types of bonding, secrecy, and war metaphors that have historically been part of the languages of those engaged in the practices of exterminating the “other.” Psychologically the police are indoctrinated into something akin to genocidal project: the forced removal of a class of people from their homes to prison.

 

There is a deep-seated disregard for what they consider to be silly little laws made by a silly little Supreme Court in a backroom far removed from the dangerous streets they are trying to bring into order.

 

... snip ...

Meanwhile, officers can rely on further protection from each other.

 

“You’ve been brainwashed into this way of thinking it’s us against them. You are spending more time with these guys than with your wife and kids; they might save your life in a shoot out. You do whatever you can for your brother,” Berkley said.

 

If you go against this code, you are labeled a “rat” and there are real repercussions, he added. All of sudden your tires are flat at the end of a shift, you have urine or feces on your locker, your wife is getting phone calls, you’re getting a type of supervision where you can’t really breathe.

 

“It’s not worth it, because these guys are capable of really carrying out their threats, because who are they? They are the police,” Berkley said. Meanwhile, if you play by the rules you are beloved by everyone.

 

This code, the Blue Wall of Silence, has been one reason that holding police accountable is so difficult. In 1995 Boston Police officers beat one of their own, a Black undercover officer named Michael Cox, nearly to death after mistaking him for a homicide suspect. As he lay intubated in a hospital, the 21 officers at the scene each denied having any idea what had happened to their “brother.”

 

In November 2012, a federal judge in Chicago held the city responsible for the pervasive deception of its police department after its officers refused to properly investigate the complaint of a bartender who was severely beaten by a drunk off-duty cop to whom she had denied service. The arresting officers went to great lengths to protect their coworker, and another city employee attempted to bribe the victim into silence.

 

snip...

“For a lot of minority communities, they see evidence of police abuses and manipulating the evidence all the time. They show up in the courthouse and say ‘That’s not what happened!” In poor communities we’ve seen officers harassing people on the street, using excessive force and then claiming they did not, and so how can we take any officers seriously?” Capers said.

 

The continued surveillance of the police by civilians has been critical, both to the protection of people’s lives, liberty, and rights, and to the creation of a culture that might become more amenable to acknowledging the abuse of police officers and its corrosive impact.

 

“With people monitoring the police on their cell phones, evidence of police lying is much more common. Now we can prove it,” Capers said. “We really only prosecute officers when we can prove it, and I mean prove it by it’s on tape or we have several preachers up there to say this is what happened.”

 

As more of mainstream America sees this type of footage, the political will to make institutional changes will grow, perhaps supporting a higher level of disobedience to law enforcement.

 

People do not have to tolerate police abuse, but you have to be willing and able to get arrested and maybe go to jail if you are going to stand up for yourself, Berkley said.

 

snip...

We know that people are more likely to follow laws that they think are just, and more likely to support a legal system that treats them fairly. By giving law enforcement a free pass to break the law, by bending over backwards to ensure that there is no accountability for police officers except in the most unavoidable circumstances (i.e. alleged cannibalism), we are making illegitimate our entire system of justice and thus likely creating more so-called crime than we are eliminating by doing whatever it takes to get convictions on a handful of cases.

 

If we started taking police lies more seriously—prosecuting them as we would civilian perjurers—people in the communities most negatively impacted by police abuses (also typically communities with high levels of violence) would get the message that they are being protected by the law not persecuted by the law.

It’s not a problem of a few bad apples, as some people suggest, but instead a matter of irresponsible leadership, a pathological law enforcement culture, and a public ready and willing to sacrifice notions of justice, fairness and humanity for… what exactly?

 

Cops are like everyone else... when it is easy for them to do the right thing, they'll do the right thing. Bringing a brother officer up on charges frankly, is never an easy thing to do and the average cop, even though it might be the right thing to do, will avoid bringing a brother officer up on charges because it is a very hard thing to do.

 

I'm personally of the opinion that police ought to be held to a higher level of performance and duty because as a citizen, I'm not willing to sacrifice my notion of justice, fairness and humanity for a system that so compromises the good guys that any brother in blue feels the need to perjure themselves even once.

 

But then I've never been a fan of the notion that the ends justify the means.

 

pubby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^\

 

Almost 1700 words.

 

I guess if you can't dazzle 'em with diamonds, you baffle 'em with BS, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Yes I am quiet serious.

 

Anyone who would rush a police officer that is already in the process of shooting them is a moron. This guy had no criminal record, and was a college student. He was far from being the moron you seem to think he was, Am! He may even have been a bully, but not that big of a bully. Enough to charge at a gunman in the process of putting led in his body.

 

Its more rare for a person, without suicidal tendencies, to charge a police officer who is already shooting him full of lead than it is for a Police Officer to kill an unarmed man.

 

What did the officer think this shot up man was going to do; get some blood on him? If the kid was that close he could have used his head knocker, hid boot, or the gun butt; not a bullet.

Or maybe he was so enraged he actually believed he could knock the officer off his feet.

 

Rare but not unheard of.

Remember- just a few minutes before, this guy had robbed a store and shoved the clerk when he attempted to prevent him from leaving. If it's true he was enrolled in college, he had a LOT to lose. Maybe he was confident of his ability to 'disable' the officer and no one would be the wiser to who the culprit was.

Edited by Armymom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or maybe he was so enraged he actually believed he could knock the officer off his feet.

 

Rare but not unheard of. Remember- just a few minutes before this guy just robbed a store and shoved the clerk when he attempted to prevent him from leaving. If it's true he was enrolled in college, he had a LOT to lose. Maybe he was confident of his ability to 'disable' the officer and no one would be the wiser to who the culprit was.

It was more like a technical school he was enrolled on to study HVAC repair. The news media is intentionally making the allusion he was getting ready to start college.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ooooh, I don't know. Head down, arms out in a tackling position maybe????

 

So this 18 year old that has just taken a bullet to the forearm, two to the shoulder and one to the face that excited through his neck was still charging like an angry bull ? Sounds like a feat one could only perform on PCP but that test was negative.

I don't buy it.

SUB-JP-BROWN-2-master495.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't commit her testimony to memory. I'm reading that he fell to his knees as he fell.

 

 

 

pubby

I thought you were all about facts pubby.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So this 18 year old that has just taken a bullet to the forearm, two to the shoulder and one to the face that excited through his neck was still charging like an angry bull ? Sounds like a feat one could only perform on PCP but that test was negative.

I don't buy it.

SUB-JP-BROWN-2-master495.jpg

He was a big guy. Shots to the arm isn't going to incapacitate him; he would still be fully capable of rushing the officer. Had you been Infantry instead of Artillery, you could have seen that happen while you were in Vietnam.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was more like a technical school he was enrolled on to study HVAC repair. The news media is intentionally making the allusion he was getting ready to start college.

Gotcha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was a big guy. Shots to the arm isn't going to incapacitate him; he would still be fully capable of rushing the officer. Had you been Infantry instead of Artillery, you could have seen that happen while you were in Vietnam.

 

When I want advice from a army traffic cop I'll ask for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In your imagination maybe.

So you think it's impossible for a person to continue advancing after being shot a few times in the arm?

CC, just an example of how someone can continue to move about physically after being wounded.

 

BEIKIRCH, GARY B. Medal of Honor

  • Rank and Organization: Sergeant, U.S. Army, Company B, 5th Special Forces Group, 1st Special Forces
  • Place and Date: Kontum Province, Republic of Vietnam, 1 April 1970
  • Date of Issue: 10/15/1973

Citation: For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty. Sgt. Beikirch, medical aidman, Detachment B-24, Company B, distinguished himself during the defense of Camp Dak Seang. The allied defenders suffered a number of casualties as a result of an intense, devastating attack launched by the enemy from well-concealed positions surrounding the camp. Sgt. Beikirch, with complete disregard for his personal safety, moved unhesitatingly through the withering enemy fire to his fallen comrades, applied first aid to their wounds and assisted them to the medical aid station. When informed that a seriously injured American officer was lying in an exposed position, Sgt. Beikirch ran immediately through the hail of fire. Although he was wounded seriously by fragments from an exploding enemy mortar shell, Sgt. Beikirch carried the officer to a medical aid station. Ignoring his own serious injuries, Sgt. Beikirch left the relative safety of the medical bunker to search for and evacuate other men who had been injured. He was again wounded as he dragged a critically injured Vietnamese soldier to the medical bunker while simultaneously applying mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to sustain his life. Sgt. Beikirch again refused treatment and continued his search for other casualties until he collapsed. Only then did he permit himself to be treated. Sgt. Beikirch's complete devotion to the welfare of his comrades, at the risk of his life are in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit on him, his unit, and the U.S. Army.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Yes I am quiet serious.

 

Anyone who would rush a police officer that is already in the process of shooting them is a moron. This guy had no criminal record, and was a college student. He was far from being the moron you seem to think he was, Am! He may even have been a bully, but not that big of a bully. Enough to charge at a gunman in the process of putting led in his body.

 

Its more rare for a person, without suicidal tendencies, to charge a police officer who is already shooting him full of lead than it is for a Police Officer to kill an unarmed man.

 

What did the officer think this shot up man was going to do; get some blood on him? If the kid was that close he could have used his head knocker, hid boot, or the gun butt; not a bullet.

 

He had just committed assault/battery/thief. Remember O.J.? Some people think they can get away with anything. He was a bully, we all saw that on the video.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was a big guy. Shots to the arm isn't going to incapacitate him; he would still be fully capable of rushing the officer. Had you been Infantry instead of Artillery, you could have seen that happen while you were in Vietnam.

And let's not forget, only 3 bullets entered Brown's body.

Of the 4 wounds to his right arm, 2 of those were "graze wounds".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you think it's impossible for a person to continue advancing after being shot a few times in the arm?

CC, just an example of how someone can continue to move about physically after being wounded.

 

BEIKIRCH, GARY B. Medal of Honor

  • Rank and Organization: Sergeant, U.S. Army, Company B, 5th Special Forces Group, 1st Special Forces
  • Place and Date: Kontum Province, Republic of Vietnam, 1 April 1970
  • Date of Issue: 10/15/1973

Citation: For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty. Sgt. Beikirch, medical aidman, Detachment B-24, Company B, distinguished himself during the defense of Camp Dak Seang. The allied defenders suffered a number of casualties as a result of an intense, devastating attack launched by the enemy from well-concealed positions surrounding the camp. Sgt. Beikirch, with complete disregard for his personal safety, moved unhesitatingly through the withering enemy fire to his fallen comrades, applied first aid to their wounds and assisted them to the medical aid station. When informed that a seriously injured American officer was lying in an exposed position, Sgt. Beikirch ran immediately through the hail of fire. Although he was wounded seriously by fragments from an exploding enemy mortar shell, Sgt. Beikirch carried the officer to a medical aid station. Ignoring his own serious injuries, Sgt. Beikirch left the relative safety of the medical bunker to search for and evacuate other men who had been injured. He was again wounded as he dragged a critically injured Vietnamese soldier to the medical bunker while simultaneously applying mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to sustain his life. Sgt. Beikirch again refused treatment and continued his search for other casualties until he collapsed. Only then did he permit himself to be treated. Sgt. Beikirch's complete devotion to the welfare of his comrades, at the risk of his life are in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit on him, his unit, and the U.S. Army.

 

Seriously, you are comparing a Army trained Special Forces jungle fighter living in a war zone to an overweight generation zero xbox playing urban dwelling barely out of high school street kid ?

 

If you are then answer me this, in a fair fight who would come out on top The Hulk or Superman ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Seriously, you are comparing a Army trained Special Forces jungle fighter living in a war zone to an overweight generation zero xbox playing urban dwelling barely out of high school street kid ?

 

If you are then answer me this, in a fair fight who would come out on top The Hulk or Superman ?

The human body can do some amazing things when pumped with adrenaline.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I consider myself to be pretty unbiased in all of this. As a matter fact, I haven't commented because I honestly feel like I don't have all the facts, I don't trust the media. The question that I've had playing on my mind for days now though is, why in the world would a teenager that just stole from a store confront a cop in that manner? Nobody wants to go to jail. The kid has no priors, he's all of a sudden going to bow up on a cop after stealing from a store? You would have to be an idiot to do something like that. If he's that much of an idiot, why is this his first run in with the cops? I agree that the media does us no favors in cases like this, but the outrage is real and I think there's a good reason for that. Not only because of this incident in particular but there seems to be a trend.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Seriously, you are comparing a Army trained Special Forces jungle fighter living in a war zone to an overweight generation zero xbox playing urban dwelling barely out of high school street kid ?

 

If you are then answer me this, in a fair fight who would come out on top The Hulk or Superman ?

Training has nothing to do with be able to move when wounded. The soldier in the example I provided was wounded in the legs, yet he was not only able to walk, but carry another wounded person as well.

 

Please explain to me how a wound to the arm can prevent someone from walking?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Training has nothing to do with be able to move when wounded. The soldier in the example I provided was wounded in the legs, yet he was not only able to walk, but carry another wounded person as well.

 

Please explain to me how a wound to the arm can prevent someone from walking?

 

I am not a doctor but we could settle this by letting me shoot you six times and see what happens. I am free tomorrow if you're interested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So this 18 year old that has just taken a bullet to the forearm, two to the shoulder and one to the face that excited through his neck was still charging like an angry bull ? Sounds like a feat one could only perform on PCP but that test was negative.

I don't buy it.

 

 

Yehhhhh, that never happens.

A good example is the mother, here in ATL, who was hiding with her kids when another criminal broke down, what was it..2 or 3 doors, to get to her and her kid.

She shot him at close range, and yet he still kept coming.

She ended up shooting him, what...5 or 6 times, and by golly that stopped him didn't it, he was incapacitated after all of those bullets.

Oh wait.....he wasn't.

In fact he ran from the house, got in a car and drove off.

Crap, he should have read these posts, then he would have known that he couldn't have done that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yehhhhh, that never happens.

A good example is the mother, here in ATL, who was hiding with her kids when another criminal broke down, what was it..2 or 3 doors, to get to her and her kid.

She shot him at close range, and yet he still kept coming.

She ended up shooting him, what...5 or 6 times, and by golly that stopped him didn't it, he was incapacitated after all of those bullets.

Oh wait.....he wasn't.

In fact he ran from the house, got in a car and drove off.

Crap, he should have read these posts, then he would have known that he couldn't have done that.

 

My offer to EZ could also include you, plenty of ammo on hand. I will put together a release form tonight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yehhhhh, that never happens.

A good example is the mother, here in ATL, who was hiding with her kids when another criminal broke down, what was it..2 or 3 doors, to get to her and her kid.

She shot him at close range, and yet he still kept coming.

She ended up shooting him, what...5 or 6 times, and by golly that stopped him didn't it, he was incapacitated after all of those bullets.

Oh wait.....he wasn't.

In fact he ran from the house, got in a car and drove off.

Crap, he should have read these posts, then he would have known that he couldn't have done that.

I remembered Steve Foley who played in the NFL and was shot by a police officer in the knee, but that didn't stop him from advancing the police officer who had to shoot him again. Foley by the way was armed.

 

My offer to EZ could also include you, plenty of ammo on hand. I will put together a release form tonight.

I bet I'm a better shot than you. How about I shoot you in the arm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

My offer to EZ could also include you, plenty of ammo on hand. I will put together a release form tonight.

 

Nah, you would enjoy it too much. :)

Just kidding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

He had just committed assault/battery/thief. Remember O.J.? Some people think they can get away with anything. He was a bully, we all saw that on the video.

 

 

Very bully I ever met surrendered after a couple bumps on the head, with a wooden ball bat, yathink!

 

I'm surprised I wasn't arrested. .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has been claimed that there is "solid proof" that there was a struggle between Brown and Wilson for the policeman’s firearm, resulting in the gun going off – although it still remains unclear at this stage who pulled the trigger.

 

Why haven't Brown's fingerprints been lifted from the gun. His prints may be on the trigger, also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So this 18 year old that has just taken a bullet to the forearm, two to the shoulder and one to the face that excited through his neck was still charging like an angry bull ? Sounds like a feat one could only perform on PCP but that test was negative.

I don't buy it.

SUB-JP-BROWN-2-master495.jpg

 

Look at the placement of the shots to the arm for a moment.

 

Consider that Michael Brown was not laying down when he was shot and the shots entered the inside of the arms. Typically, unless you're really, really 'gay' and walk like a woman, the location you'd like be shot in the arm would be on the 'outside' of the arm - especially if you were 'charging' a target. In fact, if you were presenting the insides of your arm while standing your posture would be downright weird.

 

Now, think about arms in the air. Now the inside of your arm is exposed to the front of the body. Also with arms raised, the location of the shots and where they enter the arm are roughly 'head high.'

 

If nothing else, the pattern of shots would be a lot tighter if the right arm were raised.

 

I think the location of the shots more or less shows that Michael Brown had his hands raised when the shots were fired.

 

Go ahead, stand and act like you're charging someone. then see how awkward it is to expose those parts of your arm to someone dead ahead.

 

Now, raise your hands and see how that part of your arm is 'head high' and exposed to front-facing shots.

 

Also, hands up is hardly the way to mount a charge, as is alleged. If you are in attack mode, you're hunched over lower to the ground and pumping your arms forward with your thumbs pointed in toward the body.

 

Further, there is additional physical evidence, which obviously hasn't been released (and we can hope was collected) that would show where, in the context of the street, first blood is found. From that point to the point where the youth fell ... which obviously wasn't very close to the officers patrol car ... (I don't think the SUV was the vehicle the officer was driving when the event happened even though the image below is when the EMTs came to call the youths death.)

 

article-2726609-20905EED00000578-989_634

 

pubby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My only question is, why does it seem that some want this to be the policeman's fault?

Not just questioning, but really want it to be LE's fault.

I find it rather disturbing.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My only question is, why does it seem that some want this to be the policeman's fault?

Not just questioning, but really want it to be LE's fault.

I find it rather disturbing.

 

Yeah I think other response was thank goodness another thug is dead and off the streets, so that supposed search for the truth ended the day the story hit the news. Disturbing yes I would say so....

 

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

Edited by CitizenCain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My only question is, why does it seem that some want this to be the policeman's fault?

Not just questioning, but really want it to be LE's fault.

I find it rather disturbing.

what gets me stradial is that all those folks who are so suspicious of anything that government does, except shoot unarmed people in the middle of the street in broad daylight is fair game. I just heard my former opponent accuse the county commission of being corrupt and crooked and these are people that I know and believe are in the case of the airport, doing something to bring business and industry to the county. Yet apparently more people - given the results of the May 20 election - feel otherwise. Why do you say that this is their fault?

 

Could it be that you're just skeptical of Paulding County Government but believe whole heartedly in the veracity of and honesty of a 28 year old policeman who doesn't live in the town that he is a police man who shot an unarmed kid he'd stopped for not walking on the sidewalk.

 

You also no doubt have problems with obamacare, benghazi and question even if the president was born in Hawaii in 1962 ... but you swallow the hearsay excuse of an officer who again, shot an unarmed man whom some witnesses (and at least a cursory review of the autopsy) would suggest that he had his hands up and was surrendering?

 

I'm not saying he is guilty but I am saying that there needs to be a fully public inquest on the matter and a trial would be an appropriate venue, IMHO.

 

The disconnect is that you're so sure that the officer is innocent as the driven snow but so sure of the other 'conspiracies' ... that is what doesn't make sense.

 

 

Yea I think your original response was thank goodness another thug is dead and off the streets, so your supposed search for the truth ended the day the story hit the news. Disturbing yes I would say so....

 

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

 

I think instead that regardless we are all after truth and justice.

 

I think that there are too many questions to assume that the truth is currently known. We have procedures and processes and we use them because they give us confidence. Assertions and blind faith is not good enough. Hell, Reagan was the one who said trust but verify.

 

pubby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yeah I think other response was thank goodness another thug is dead and off the streets, so that supposed search for the truth ended the day the story hit the news. Disturbing yes I would say so....

 

 

 

Why I say he was a thug.

Fact: He attacking a store owner while stealing from that store.

Fact: He attacked and injured a police officer.

 

Why I said it is good he is off the streets.

Fact: Anyone who who would attack and injure an armed police officer, would not hesitate one nanosecond to attack an unarmed citizen

 

what gets me stradial is that all those folks who are so suspicious of anything that government does, except shoot unarmed people in the middle of the street in broad daylight is fair game. I just heard my former opponent accuse the county commission of being corrupt and crooked and these are people that I know and believe are in the case of the airport, doing something to bring business and industry to the county. Yet apparently more people - given the results of the May 20 election - feel otherwise. Why do you say that this is their fault?

 

Could it be that you're just skeptical of Paulding County Government but believe whole heartedly in the veracity of and honesty of a 28 year old policeman who doesn't live in the town that he is a police man who shot an unarmed kid he'd stopped for not walking on the sidewalk.

 

You also no doubt have problems with obamacare, benghazi and question even if the president was born in Hawaii in 1962 ... but you swallow the hearsay excuse of an officer who again, shot an unarmed man whom some witnesses (and at least a cursory review of the autopsy) would suggest that he had his hands up and was surrendering?

 

I'm not saying he is guilty but I am saying that there needs to be a fully public inquest on the matter and a trial would be an appropriate venue, IMHO.

 

The disconnect is that you're so sure that the officer is innocent as the driven snow but so sure of the other 'conspiracies' ... that is what doesn't make sense.

 

 

I think instead that regardless we are all after truth and justice.

 

I think that there are too many questions to assume that the truth is currently known. We have procedures and processes and we use them because they give us confidence. Assertions and blind faith is not good enough. Hell, Reagan was the one who said trust but verify.

 

pubby

 

I do not see one lone, injured, police officer defending his life as "government".

Again, the kid was only "unarmed", I guess if you call being able to crack the officer's face being unarmed, because he failed to get the officer's gun away from the officer.

This situation has nothing to due with, Obumacare, Watergate, Bengazi, the Teapot Dome scandal, if the government knows aliens are real and lying to us, or who shot JR.

To bring these type of things into the discussion is simply done to deflect from the fact that a criminal attacked and physically harmed a police officer and was killed during the commission of this act.

I have a hard time seeing where the problem is.

Even if it turns out that this police officer's family has pictures showing them picnicking behind the wooden fence in Dealey Plaza...on November 22, 1963...at 12 noon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yehhhhh, that never happens.

A good example is the mother, here in ATL, who was hiding with her kids when another criminal broke down, what was it..2 or 3 doors, to get to her and her kid.

She shot him at close range, and yet he still kept coming.

She ended up shooting him, what...5 or 6 times, and by golly that stopped him didn't it, he was incapacitated after all of those bullets.

Oh wait.....he wasn't.

In fact he ran from the house, got in a car and drove off.

Crap, he should have read these posts, then he would have known that he couldn't have done that.

 

I have to wonder.

If the criminal discussed in the above post had not died, what would some say if he had sued the woman who shot him.

 

I can see it now.

Criminal:

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, once I was a self made man. I had it all. A new car, nice TV, all the crack I could smoke and I was with a new baby's momma every night.

I was at the height of my criminal powers, robbing and stealing whenever and wherever I wanted.

Now, due to the defendant shooting me I have incurred medical bills I cannot pay.

My career as a criminal has been cut short as I am no longer physically able to break into homes, break down doors and cart away the homeowner's hard earned goods.

I am now afraid to even mug people on the streets.

My life of living off other people and their hard work is over.

I now have to exist only on the money the government gives me.

I ask you, is this right?"

 

Poor poor criminals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to know when and where pubby received his degree in Forensic Science.

 

Look a the diagram of where the shots hit. See how the diagram shows the man standing with his palms outward? Now there was one witness who said Brown turned around and said, "What are you going to do, shoot me," before rushing the officer. What's to say that if this witness is right, that Brown was gesturing with his palms facing outward, which is not uncommon when someone stands there and says, "What?"

 

The shot to the top of the head could have occurred by Brown bending forward or possibly Brown stumbling and falling forward. If Brown was down on the ground and shot in the head, the round would have struck at the back of the head.

 

If Brown's hands were up in the air, then of his shots were high and to the right if he was shooting center mass as trained.

 

My point is this, there are a lot of variables that could have occurred. There conflicting witness reports; some say Brown rushed the officer and other say Brown was trying to surrender. Some witnesses have said Brown was shot while running away, but all the entry wounds discount those statements.

 

With all these conflicts and variables that we know about, it can't be determined if Brown was shot in self-defense or if he was murdered. To even suggest a trial should be held if no charges are brought against the officer is ludicrous. You can't try some body in court without charging him with a crime.

 

I find it disgusting there are those here who claim to support the Constitution, but already have the officer determined to be guilty. By law you're innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

 

It seems all too common today to see videos of police officers taken by bystanders as the police are doing something. With all the people in that housing complex not one video has been produced capturing what really happened, but lots of videos were produced that were recorded after the fact. I just find that a little odd.

 

Perhaps a video was taken that showed exactly what happened, but the person doesn't come forward with it because it shows Brown being shot as he rushes the officer and that person like a few here want that officer to be guilty because they hate white cops. Who the heck knows?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to know when and where pubby received his degree in Forensic Science.

 

 

 

 

 

I thought pubby was a journalist, E Z!

 

Forensic science is not worth a sheeze, in the hands of a 94% white police department, who had one of their officers kill an unarmed black kid. There are to many ways to tamper with the forensics, and even the blood spatter, or fingerprint expert, may be white.

 

With that said, there are some white people, like myself, who are much like the two white boys who were killed in Mississippi Burning.

 

 

http://youtu.be/W5QmfT1Zpbc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...