quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

What felon? Mike Brown had never been arrested and has never been accused of any felony ever.

Hmmm, you seem to be forgetting that on his way to Grandma's house he robbed a convenience store.

No complaint was ever filed and the value of the goods is far too low to be a felony.

quote:

 Also, based on the testimony from the Grand Jury, he assaulted an officer, tried to steal the officer's weapon, and resisted arrest. Those are all felonies. But you're right, he wasn't arrested.

you mean the testimony by Wilson? He is contradicted by every other witness.

quote:

As far as the rest of your statement, were you at the Grand Jury? If not, I'd say that the folks who were, and voted not to hold officer Wilson over for trial, might know a bit more then you.

I can read the evidence as easily as anyone else. It is all publicly available now. Are you not aware of that fact?

Do you often expect charges to be filed when the suspect is dead?

As far as I'm aware, using a threat of force to take an item is robbery, regardless of the value of the item. It's more about the force or threat of force then the item.

Am I aware of that fact? Why, yes I am. Do I think you're only going to read what you like and ignore the rest. Why, yes I do.

Then you are a clueless fuck and you have no idea what you are talking about. Brown would never have been charged with a felony for simply taking some cheap cigars even if that taking was ever reported which the owners of the store did not do and did not want to do.

He assaulted Wilson over an unrelated situation. Assaulting an officer is a felony. The strong armed robbery is a red herring.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

A defendant in a murder investigation claimed he assaulted him. That is not admissible in any court anywhere in the US. Did you really work for the police?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted

Funny how when Grand Juries vote the way you want, then justice has been served, when they don't it's some sort of bias and conspiracy. It was you who insisted that the Grand Jury clearly had access to more facts then were being presented on right wing news sites when we were discussing the unarmed white suspect who was shot by a black officer, right? You even insisted that he deserved to get his job back, because he'd clearly done nothing wrong.

You're making shit up. Don't do that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

What felon? Mike Brown had never been arrested and has never been accused of any felony ever.

Hmmm, you seem to be forgetting that on his way to Grandma's house he robbed a convenience store.

No complaint was ever filed and the value of the goods is far too low to be a felony.

quote:

 Also, based on the testimony from the Grand Jury, he assaulted an officer, tried to steal the officer's weapon, and resisted arrest. Those are all felonies. But you're right, he wasn't arrested.

you mean the testimony by Wilson? He is contradicted by every other witness.

quote:

As far as the rest of your statement, were you at the Grand Jury? If not, I'd say that the folks who were, and voted not to hold officer Wilson over for trial, might know a bit more then you.

I can read the evidence as easily as anyone else. It is all publicly available now. Are you not aware of that fact?

Do you often expect charges to be filed when the suspect is dead?

As far as I'm aware, using a threat of force to take an item is robbery, regardless of the value of the item. It's more about the force or threat of force then the item.

Am I aware of that fact? Why, yes I am. Do I think you're only going to read what you like and ignore the rest. Why, yes I do.

Then you are a clueless fuck and you have no idea what you are talking about. Brown would never have been charged with a felony for simply taking some cheap cigars even if that taking was ever reported which the owners of the store did not do and did not want to do.

He assaulted Wilson over an unrelated situation. Assaulting an officer is a felony. The strong armed robbery is a red herring.

A defendant in a murder investigation claimed he assaulted him. That is not admissible in any court anywhere in the US. Did you really work for the police?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

What felon? Mike Brown had never been arrested and has never been accused of any felony ever.

Hmmm, you seem to be forgetting that on his way to Grandma's house he robbed a convenience store.

No complaint was ever filed and the value of the goods is far too low to be a felony.

quote:

 Also, based on the testimony from the Grand Jury, he assaulted an officer, tried to steal the officer's weapon, and resisted arrest. Those are all felonies. But you're right, he wasn't arrested.

you mean the testimony by Wilson? He is contradicted by every other witness.

quote:

As far as the rest of your statement, were you at the Grand Jury? If not, I'd say that the folks who were, and voted not to hold officer Wilson over for trial, might know a bit more then you.

I can read the evidence as easily as anyone else. It is all publicly available now. Are you not aware of that fact?

Do you often expect charges to be filed when the suspect is dead?

As far as I'm aware, using a threat of force to take an item is robbery, regardless of the value of the item. It's more about the force or threat of force then the item.

Am I aware of that fact? Why, yes I am. Do I think you're only going to read what you like and ignore the rest. Why, yes I do.

Then you are a clueless fuck and you have no idea what you are talking about. Brown would never have been charged with a felony for simply taking some cheap cigars even if that taking was ever reported which the owners of the store did not do and did not want to do.

He assaulted Wilson over an unrelated situation. Assaulting an officer is a felony. The strong armed robbery is a red herring.

A defendant in a murder investigation claimed he assaulted him. That is not admissible in any court anywhere in the US. Did you really work for the police?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

You don't understand what is going on.

Me, and all the rioters too, it seems. I don't matter, obviously - but they do. This is one reason why public trials exist. Justice needs to be done, to be seen to be done, and accepted to have been done, as I said.

Do you understand that the only thing that would have prevented rioting would be if he was convicted regardless of the evidence. Once again you seem to be under the delusion that you have as much info as the grand jury. \
The legal system has done their job, and people who have assumed murder without the evidence were primed to riot unless Wilson was sacrificed to them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

You don't understand what is going on.

Me, and all the rioters too, it seems. I don't matter, obviously - but they do. This is one reason why public trials exist. Justice needs to be done, to be seen to be done, and accepted to have been done, as I said.

Do you understand that the only thing that would have prevented rioting would be if he was convicted regardless of the evidence. Once again you seem to be under the delusion that you have as much info as the grand jury. \
The legal system has done their job, and people who have assumed murder without the evidence were primed to riot unless Wilson was sacrificed to them.

You're confusing me with someone else, Bama - probably another Brit. I haven't claimed that I have as much info as the grand jury and you haven't accused me of it. In fact my point was and is precisely that people have the information that the grand jury has.

In a democracy, governments and all the agents of the state are the servants of the people, not vice versa. Their job is to make their processes and their knowledge transparent to their masters - the people who elected them and pay for them and their agents (said agents including those who work in the legal system - judges through to police officers).

In a democratic system you do not get to tell the people that they should just defer to your judgment because you have superior knowledge as a result of your being 'in authority'. That isn't how it works, no matter how much you might want it to.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

The thing is, no one has the facts. You claim that the police officer was assaulted but that is not a fact that's been proven in a court.

Sadly, as a result of the grand jury, the facts will not be tested in an open court. So a young man has been killed by a policeman and no one will ever know whether it is murder or self defence.

I know you're passionate about one of the amendments to the constitution, I presume you're aware that there were others?

Perhaps the most important one is the right to due process. Something that the young man in this case was denied.... what with him being shot dead and all

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

The thing is, no one has the facts. You claim that the police officer was assaulted but that is not a fact that's been proven in a court.

Sadly, as a result of the grand jury, the facts will not be tested in an open court. So a young man has been killed by a policeman and no one will ever know whether it is murder or self defence.

I know you're passionate about one of the amendments to the constitution, I presume you're aware that there were others?

Perhaps the most important one is the right to due process. Something that the young man in this case was denied.... what with him being shot dead and all

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gauge

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

A defendant in a murder investigation claimed he assaulted him. That is not admissible in any court anywhere in the US. Did you really work for the police?

Where did you get your law degree? It is definitely admissible.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted

Funny how when Grand Juries vote the way you want, then justice has been served, when they don't it's some sort of bias and conspiracy. It was you who insisted that the Grand Jury clearly had access to more facts then were being presented on right wing news sites when we were discussing the unarmed white suspect who was shot by a black officer, right? You even insisted that he deserved to get his job back, because he'd clearly done nothing wrong.

You're making shit up. Don't do that.

Nope, not making a damn thing up. If you're claiming you didn't say that then you're full of shit. But you go ahead and rewrite history, you're good at that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

The thing is, no one has the facts. You claim that the police officer was assaulted but that is not a fact that's been proven in a court.

Sadly, as a result of the grand jury, the facts will not be tested in an open court. So a young man has been killed by a policeman and no one will ever know whether it is murder or self defence.

I know you're passionate about one of the amendments to the constitution, I presume you're aware that there were others?

Perhaps the most important one is the right to due process. Something that the young man in this case was denied.... what with him being shot dead and all

You are wrong. It has been proven that the officer was assaulted in the car.
The medical examiners proved that Brown was moving toward, not away from Wilson. When you attack another person you have to realize that you may not get a trial. In effect the refusal to indite is validation of self defense. The fact that you didn't get a trial to attack all of US society doesn't mean that the court system didn't handle it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

The thing is, no one has the facts. You claim that the police officer was assaulted but that is not a fact that's been proven in a court.

Sadly, as a result of the grand jury, the facts will not be tested in an open court. So a young man has been killed by a policeman and no one will ever know whether it is murder or self defence.

I know you're passionate about one of the amendments to the constitution, I presume you're aware that there were others?

Perhaps the most important one is the right to due process. Something that the young man in this case was denied.... what with him being shot dead and all

You are wrong. It has been proven that the officer was assaulted in the car.
The medical examiners proved that Brown was moving toward, not away from Wilson. When you attack another person you have to realize that you may not get a trial. In effect the refusal to indite is validation of self defense. The fact that you didn't get a trial to attack all of US society doesn't mean that the court system didn't handle it.

No. The ME proved no such thing. I've read the entire forensic report and he reached no such conclusion.

As a matter of fact the crime scene investigators kept showing evidence that got ignored by the prosecutors. For instance why did they allow Wilson to claim the shooting occurred at less than 30 feet from his SUV when it really occurred 150 feet away? It is clear from the location of the recovered shell casings that Brown was not the8 to 10 feet away that Wilson claims when the fatal shot was fired but more like 130 feet away. Which pretty much makes the self defense argument moot. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

The thing is, no one has the facts. You claim that the police officer was assaulted but that is not a fact that's been proven in a court.

Sadly, as a result of the grand jury, the facts will not be tested in an open court. So a young man has been killed by a policeman and no one will ever know whether it is murder or self defence.

I know you're passionate about one of the amendments to the constitution, I presume you're aware that there were others?

Perhaps the most important one is the right to due process. Something that the young man in this case was denied.... what with him being shot dead and all

You are wrong. It has been proven that the officer was assaulted in the car.
The medical examiners proved that Brown was moving toward, not away from Wilson. When you attack another person you have to realize that you may not get a trial. In effect the refusal to indite is validation of self defense. The fact that you didn't get a trial to attack all of US society doesn't mean that the court system didn't handle it.

No. The ME proved no such thing. I've read the entire forensic report and he reached no such conclusion.

As a matter of fact the crime scene investigators kept showing evidence that got ignored by the prosecutors. For instance why did they allow Wilson to claim the shooting occurred at less than 30 feet from his SUV when it really occurred 150 feet away? It is clear from the location of the recovered shell casings that Brown was not the8 to 10 feet away that Wilson claims when the fatal shot was fired but more like 130 feet away. Which pretty much makes the self defense argument moot. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

The thing is, no one has the facts. You claim that the police officer was assaulted but that is not a fact that's been proven in a court.

Sadly, as a result of the grand jury, the facts will not be tested in an open court. So a young man has been killed by a policeman and no one will ever know whether it is murder or self defence.

I know you're passionate about one of the amendments to the constitution, I presume you're aware that there were others?

Perhaps the most important one is the right to due process. Something that the young man in this case was denied.... what with him being shot dead and all

You are wrong. It has been proven that the officer was assaulted in the car.
The medical examiners proved that Brown was moving toward, not away from Wilson. When you attack another person you have to realize that you may not get a trial. In effect the refusal to indite is validation of self defense. The fact that you didn't get a trial to attack all of US society doesn't mean that the court system didn't handle it.

No. The ME proved no such thing. I've read the entire forensic report and he reached no such conclusion.

As a matter of fact the crime scene investigators kept showing evidence that got ignored by the prosecutors. For instance why did they allow Wilson to claim the shooting occurred at less than 30 feet from his SUV when it really occurred 150 feet away? It is clear from the location of the recovered shell casings that Brown was not the8 to 10 feet away that Wilson claims when the fatal shot was fired but more like 130 feet away. Which pretty much makes the self defense argument moot. 

There is a post 415 in this thread.
You need to quit believing left wing blogs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

That is if your proposed version is right... what if it is not... what if the physical evidence backs up the offers story... or if the evidence could go either way... what do you say then? Do you really think any innocent declaration of this officer will be believed? Be truthful DomKen... I really would like an honest answer.

What if there is not enough evidence to bring charges because it is ones word against another? In normal circumstances charges would not be leveled in that case. What happens then?

I think we're going to have 2 autopsy reports. If they both say that all the shots hit him in back then it's a good shooting. If they all hit him in the back or while standing it is at least ambiguous. But if any hit him while he was kneeling the cop is toast.

I'm completely ignoring the witnesses. Although I would dearly like to have seen what was on the witnesses cell phones before the local cops got hold of them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

The thing is, no one has the facts. You claim that the police officer was assaulted but that is not a fact that's been proven in a court.

Sadly, as a result of the grand jury, the facts will not be tested in an open court. So a young man has been killed by a policeman and no one will ever know whether it is murder or self defence.

I know you're passionate about one of the amendments to the constitution, I presume you're aware that there were others?

Perhaps the most important one is the right to due process. Something that the young man in this case was denied.... what with him being shot dead and all

You are wrong. It has been proven that the officer was assaulted in the car.
The medical examiners proved that Brown was moving toward, not away from Wilson. When you attack another person you have to realize that you may not get a trial. In effect the refusal to indite is validation of self defense. The fact that you didn't get a trial to attack all of US society doesn't mean that the court system didn't handle it.

No. The ME proved no such thing. I've read the entire forensic report and he reached no such conclusion.

As a matter of fact the crime scene investigators kept showing evidence that got ignored by the prosecutors. For instance why did they allow Wilson to claim the shooting occurred at less than 30 feet from his SUV when it really occurred 150 feet away? It is clear from the location of the recovered shell casings that Brown was not the8 to 10 feet away that Wilson claims when the fatal shot was fired but more like 130 feet away. Which pretty much makes the self defense argument moot. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

The thing is, no one has the facts. You claim that the police officer was assaulted but that is not a fact that's been proven in a court.

Sadly, as a result of the grand jury, the facts will not be tested in an open court. So a young man has been killed by a policeman and no one will ever know whether it is murder or self defence.

I know you're passionate about one of the amendments to the constitution, I presume you're aware that there were others?

Perhaps the most important one is the right to due process. Something that the young man in this case was denied.... what with him being shot dead and all

You are wrong. It has been proven that the officer was assaulted in the car.
The medical examiners proved that Brown was moving toward, not away from Wilson. When you attack another person you have to realize that you may not get a trial. In effect the refusal to indite is validation of self defense. The fact that you didn't get a trial to attack all of US society doesn't mean that the court system didn't handle it.

No. The ME proved no such thing. I've read the entire forensic report and he reached no such conclusion.

As a matter of fact the crime scene investigators kept showing evidence that got ignored by the prosecutors. For instance why did they allow Wilson to claim the shooting occurred at less than 30 feet from his SUV when it really occurred 150 feet away? It is clear from the location of the recovered shell casings that Brown was not the8 to 10 feet away that Wilson claims when the fatal shot was fired but more like 130 feet away. Which pretty much makes the self defense argument moot. 

There is a post 415 in this thread.
You need to quit believing left wing blogs.

hey moron, what has this

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

That is if your proposed version is right... what if it is not... what if the physical evidence backs up the offers story... or if the evidence could go either way... what do you say then? Do you really think any innocent declaration of this officer will be believed? Be truthful DomKen... I really would like an honest answer.

What if there is not enough evidence to bring charges because it is ones word against another? In normal circumstances charges would not be leveled in that case. What happens then?

I think we're going to have 2 autopsy reports. If they both say that all the shots hit him in back then it's a good shooting. If they all hit him in the back or while standing it is at least ambiguous. But if any hit him while he was kneeling the cop is toast.

I'm completely ignoring the witnesses. Although I would dearly like to have seen what was on the witnesses cell phones before the local cops got hold of them.

got to do with the above post? Or is this you just making shit up and hoping I wouldn't actually dig up the actual post?