quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

You really think the people at Mother Earth are all American Indians?

You mean Mother Jones? I have no idea.

I'm just trying to learn what this unfamiliar pejorative means.

Tree huggers

"Save the planet" types

What's wrong with trees?

Most Americans live in stick houses, after all...

I have heard the term tree huggers since I was young. This is the first time I have ever heard anyone suggest it meant there was something wrong with trees. I suppose anything to start an argument right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

No, you say any killing is a criminal act and "I was only following orders" is not a defense. The first cop on the scene of a mass shooting has to go on trial by your standard if he shoots the shooter, for that matter, if he just subdues him he should go on trial for assault, and can explain at the trial the need.
When the investigation shows self defense the is no trial and you know it. That is what happened here and you have do be smart enough to know that, you dress yourself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

No, you say any killing is a criminal act and "I was only following orders" is not a defense. The first cop on the scene of a mass shooting has to go on trial by your standard if he shoots the shooter, for that matter, if he just subdues him he should go on trial for assault, and can explain at the trial the need.
When the investigation shows self defense the is no trial and you know it. That is what happened here and you have do be smart enough to know that, you dress yourself.

Wrong!
This case is not cut and dried. The witnesses contradict and the physical evidence says that it was not self defense. You simply believe what the prosecutor says about the evidence rather than actually looking at the physical evidence which contradicts every claim Wilson made about the circumstances of the fatal shots which all by itself should be enough to bring him to trial even by your standards.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

This place gets dumber every day, both in the made up "facts" and the bullshit things people choose to argue about.

Many, many structures in cities are built of wood, including houses.

90% of American homes are made from wood.

http://continuingeducation.construction.com/article.php?L=5&C=645

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

No, you say any killing is a criminal act and "I was only following orders" is not a defense. The first cop on the scene of a mass shooting has to go on trial by your standard if he shoots the shooter, for that matter, if he just subdues him he should go on trial for assault, and can explain at the trial the need.
When the investigation shows self defense the is no trial and you know it. That is what happened here and you have do be smart enough to know that, you dress yourself.

Wrong!
This case is not cut and dried. The witnesses contradict and the physical evidence says that it was not self defense. You simply believe what the prosecutor says about the evidence rather than actually looking at the physical evidence which contradicts every claim Wilson made about the circumstances of the fatal shots which all by itself should be enough to bring him to trial even by your standards.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

No, you say any killing is a criminal act and "I was only following orders" is not a defense. The first cop on the scene of a mass shooting has to go on trial by your standard if he shoots the shooter, for that matter, if he just subdues him he should go on trial for assault, and can explain at the trial the need.
When the investigation shows self defense the is no trial and you know it. That is what happened here and you have do be smart enough to know that, you dress yourself.

Wrong!
This case is not cut and dried. The witnesses contradict and the physical evidence says that it was not self defense. You simply believe what the prosecutor says about the evidence rather than actually looking at the physical evidence which contradicts every claim Wilson made about the circumstances of the fatal shots which all by itself should be enough to bring him to trial even by your standards.

Interesting. and yet the people who actually heard the witnesses and actually saw the evidence don't agree with you. Perhaps from now on we should have the jury sit at home on their computers and decide from there. After all you seem to think it's makes you a better judge of things than the people who where actually present.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

brick houses





I could probably snap 100 pics within a 5 mile radius of my house and not find a single wood house

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

brick houses


I could probably snap 100 pics within a 5 mile radius of my house and not find a single wood house

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

No, you say any killing is a criminal act and "I was only following orders" is not a defense. The first cop on the scene of a mass shooting has to go on trial by your standard if he shoots the shooter, for that matter, if he just subdues him he should go on trial for assault, and can explain at the trial the need.
When the investigation shows self defense the is no trial and you know it. That is what happened here and you have do be smart enough to know that, you dress yourself.

Wrong!
This case is not cut and dried. The witnesses contradict and the physical evidence says that it was not self defense. You simply believe what the prosecutor says about the evidence rather than actually looking at the physical evidence which contradicts every claim Wilson made about the circumstances of the fatal shots which all by itself should be enough to bring him to trial even by your standards.

Interesting. and yet the people who actually heard the witnesses and actually saw the evidence don't agree with you. Perhaps from now on we should have the jury sit at home on their computers and decide from there. After all you seem to think it's makes you a better judge of things than the people who where actually present.

You are aware that experts think the prosecutor did his job properly in this case right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

No, you say any killing is a criminal act and "I was only following orders" is not a defense. The first cop on the scene of a mass shooting has to go on trial by your standard if he shoots the shooter, for that matter, if he just subdues him he should go on trial for assault, and can explain at the trial the need.
When the investigation shows self defense the is no trial and you know it. That is what happened here and you have do be smart enough to know that, you dress yourself.

Wrong!
This case is not cut and dried. The witnesses contradict and the physical evidence says that it was not self defense. You simply believe what the prosecutor says about the evidence rather than actually looking at the physical evidence which contradicts every claim Wilson made about the circumstances of the fatal shots which all by itself should be enough to bring him to trial even by your standards.

Interesting. and yet the people who actually heard the witnesses and actually saw the evidence don't agree with you. Perhaps from now on we should have the jury sit at home on their computers and decide from there. After all you seem to think it's makes you a better judge of things than the people who where actually present.

You are aware that experts think the prosecutor did his job properly in this case right?

That should read
You are aware that experts think the prosecutor did his job improperly in this case right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

brick houses





I could probably snap 100 pics within a 5 mile radius of my house and not find a single wood house

I spotted one in your picture.
The tan condo/row house in the background has siding (vinyl or composite from the looks of it)
In 17 years as a Real Estate Broker in 2 states, I never saw siding put onto a house over brick.
Ergo, it is probably wood.
Also, so called "Brick houses" are actually a vast majority of the time brick veneer over, you guessed it, a wooden frame.
Homes that are made of 100% brick masonry are quite rare. The interior finish is problematic as it is difficult to run plumbing and electricity to the various rooms of a home that is of 100% masonry construction.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

No, you say any killing is a criminal act and "I was only following orders" is not a defense. The first cop on the scene of a mass shooting has to go on trial by your standard if he shoots the shooter, for that matter, if he just subdues him he should go on trial for assault, and can explain at the trial the need.
When the investigation shows self defense the is no trial and you know it. That is what happened here and you have do be smart enough to know that, you dress yourself.

Wrong!
This case is not cut and dried. The witnesses contradict and the physical evidence says that it was not self defense. You simply believe what the prosecutor says about the evidence rather than actually looking at the physical evidence which contradicts every claim Wilson made about the circumstances of the fatal shots which all by itself should be enough to bring him to trial even by your standards.

Interesting. and yet the people who actually heard the witnesses and actually saw the evidence don't agree with you. Perhaps from now on we should have the jury sit at home on their computers and decide from there. After all you seem to think it's makes you a better judge of things than the people who where actually present.

You are aware that experts think the prosecutor did his job properly in this case right?

That should read
You are aware that experts think the prosecutor did his job improperly in this case right?

which experts would those be, I asked for a quote of any experts that said that, so for seen NONE

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

No, you say any killing is a criminal act and "I was only following orders" is not a defense. The first cop on the scene of a mass shooting has to go on trial by your standard if he shoots the shooter, for that matter, if he just subdues him he should go on trial for assault, and can explain at the trial the need.
When the investigation shows self defense the is no trial and you know it. That is what happened here and you have do be smart enough to know that, you dress yourself.

Wrong!
This case is not cut and dried. The witnesses contradict and the physical evidence says that it was not self defense. You simply believe what the prosecutor says about the evidence rather than actually looking at the physical evidence which contradicts every claim Wilson made about the circumstances of the fatal shots which all by itself should be enough to bring him to trial even by your standards.

Interesting. and yet the people who actually heard the witnesses and actually saw the evidence don't agree with you. Perhaps from now on we should have the jury sit at home on their computers and decide from there. After all you seem to think it's makes you a better judge of things than the people who where actually present.

You are aware that experts think the prosecutor did his job properly in this case right?

That should read
You are aware that experts think the prosecutor did his job improperly in this case right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

That should read
You are aware that experts think the prosecutor did his job improperly in this case right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

That should read
You are aware that experts think the prosecutor did his job improperly in this case right?

The Washington Post had a long article today reconstructing all the events of the encounter between Wilson and Brown. It seems established that there was an altercation at the police car. The specifics are a little murky (did brown go for the gun or try to prevent Wilson from drawing it, did Brown hit Wilson (not clear), and YES shots were fired in the vehicle.

This event triggered Wilson's lawful right to defend himself and use force to subdue / arrest Brown.

The next issue is whether or not Brown posed a threat to the community so that his escape was something that had to be stopped by force.

After that is whether or not Brown surrendered before being shot or after he was hit after stopping and turning around.

Witness accounts are mixed about the surrender and / or the hands being up.

Even if the prosecutor had gotten an indictment, it seems unlikely any charges would stick in CT b/c once a citizen challenges or threatens a police officer -- all the legal protections pretty much swing to the officer. He's also allowed to make mistakes in the heat of the moment and jurors would believe the moment was quite heated.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/in-three-minutes-two-lives-collide-and-a-nation-divides-over-ferguson-shooting/2014/12/06/b78b878e-7983-11e4-9a27-6fdbc612bff8_story.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

That should read
You are aware that experts think the prosecutor did his job improperly in this case right?

The Washington Post had a long article today reconstructing all the events of the encounter between Wilson and Brown. It seems established that there was an altercation at the police car. The specifics are a little murky (did brown go for the gun or try to prevent Wilson from drawing it, did Brown hit Wilson (not clear), and YES shots were fired in the vehicle.

This event triggered Wilson's lawful right to defend himself and use force to subdue / arrest Brown.

The next issue is whether or not Brown posed a threat to the community so that his escape was something that had to be stopped by force.

After that is whether or not Brown surrendered before being shot or after he was hit after stopping and turning around.

Witness accounts are mixed about the surrender and / or the hands being up.

Even if the prosecutor had gotten an indictment, it seems unlikely any charges would stick in CT b/c once a citizen challenges or threatens a police officer -- all the legal protections pretty much swing to the officer. He's also allowed to make mistakes in the heat of the moment and jurors would believe the moment was quite heated.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/in-three-minutes-two-lives-collide-and-a-nation-divides-over-ferguson-shooting/2014/12/06/b78b878e-7983-11e4-9a27-6fdbc612bff8_story.html

That story relies heavily upon Wilson's testimony and not upon the physical evidence of the scene which directly contradicts his testimony. I'll stick to the physical evidence.