First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Post Reply When is it Far Enough?
21093 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/29/15
Can't believe this turned into another MB thread.
27705 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / TX
Offline
Posted 8/29/15

anzn wrote:


Tarya wrote:
Considering the vast majority of what you say was "proven" yet no one on here posting seems to know it except for you leads me to believe that you are mistaken. Especially since if what you say were the case, then Darren Wilson would not be free at the moment.
Good try though.

Majority opinion formed due to media =\= the actual fact about what happened.
If you actually read & kept up with this stuff since the incident like I did & not watch it all from Fox News & CNN, you'd know.

Also we clearly see tons of cops killing innocent people yet they still roam free & almost never get jailed.
Good try though.

Really shows how informed you are on this stuff huh?


Post some links to show your proof. The grand jury saw information that wasn't release to the public and based on that info former Officer Wilson was found not guilty.
http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2014/11/ferguson_darren_wilson_intervi.html
Tarya 
52889 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / F / Virginia, US
Offline
Posted 8/29/15

anzn wrote:


Tarya wrote:
Considering the vast majority of what you say was "proven" yet no one on here posting seems to know it except for you leads me to believe that you are mistaken. Especially since if what you say were the case, then Darren Wilson would not be free at the moment.
Good try though.

Majority opinion formed due to media =\= the actual fact about what happened.
If you actually read & kept up with this stuff since the incident like I did & not watch it all from Fox News & CNN, you'd know.

Also we clearly see tons of cops killing innocent people yet they still roam free & almost never get jailed.
Good try though.

Really shows how informed you are on this stuff huh?


I actually did keep up with this, and I don't watch Fox or CNN often, but whenever someone has a differing opinion that is the first thing to throw out there, huh?
I don't see cops killing many innocent people.

And as far as your information goes, it obviously isn't mainstream.

This thread isn't about Michael Brown though, it is about a man that was killed for no other reason other than being a police officer.
Posted 8/29/15 , edited 8/29/15

sundin13 wrote:

1. Johnson's testimony:
"Johnson testified he had planned to pay for the cigarillos, but Brown reached over the counter and grabbed them. Brown walked toward the door and the store clerk rushed around the counter to prevent his exit. He shoved the clerk and left the store. As they walked out, the clerk said he would call the police.

“I asked [Brown], I looked at him, actually, looked at him for a while and stared at him because the times when I did meet him before that day, he didn’t strike me as a person who would do anything like that. … He was basically laughing it off, be cool, be calm, stuff like that, laughing it off, but in my head I’m like, I can’t be calm, I can’t be cool because I know what just happened and we were on camera,” Johnson said."

2. ME's testimony:
"The ME found a tangential injury on Brown’s right thumb that traveled along the surface of the thumb — grand jury testimony Volume 3 (Sept. 9), page 114, line 12 etc. (hereafter cited by just page and line number). The ME further explained that he saw what appeared to be “soot” in the wound, which was consistent with a shot from close range (116:22). Indeed, based on his training and expertise, the ME thought that the soot would be indicative of the gun that fired the bullet causing the wound having been only 6 to 9 inches away (118:12). The soot was consistent with that discharged from a gun (122:13)."

3. Please site the law. It doesn't exist

4. Autopsy reports say that it isn't possible to determine the position of the arms from the bullet wound on one of them due to the amount of scenarios which could account for such a wound. As for witness testimony, there are plenty of inconsistencies, but many say that his hands were at his sides.

5. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/28/the-physical-evidence-in-the-michael-brown-case-supported-the-officer/

God you're full of shit.
As always.

1. https://youtu.be/maA1FUJqhew
Hmm

2. Citation Needed

3.http://www.copblock.org/19331/tennessee-v-garner/
Ruled by the Supreme Court.
A different case, but the reason why it was created in the first place.

The Court explained that shooting a fleeing felon dead is constitutionally unreasonable because “The intrusiveness of a seizure by means of deadly force is unmatched. The suspect’s fundamental interest in his own life need not be elaborated upon. The use of deadly force also frustrates the interest of the individual, and of society, in judicial determination of guilt and punishment. Against these interests are ranged governmental interests in effective law enforcement….we are not convinced that the use of deadly force is a sufficiently productive means of accomplishing them to justify the killing of nonviolent suspects.” [Emphasis added].

The Court went on to say, “The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead. The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against such fleeing suspects.” [Emphasis added].


4.http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1370608-michael-brown-private-autopsy-report.html
Very bottom.
Manner of death: Homicide.

5. Citation needed.

Now stop bothering me with your horseshit while also trying to derail the thread, once again.
55107 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / West
Offline
Posted 8/29/15
Who needs cops when you have George Zimmerman's out there patrolling our neighborhoods and streets, making our society safe from what he considers criminals.
Posted 8/29/15 , edited 8/29/15

Tarya wrote:


anzn wrote:


Tarya wrote:
Considering the vast majority of what you say was "proven" yet no one on here posting seems to know it except for you leads me to believe that you are mistaken. Especially since if what you say were the case, then Darren Wilson would not be free at the moment.
Good try though.

Majority opinion formed due to media =\= the actual fact about what happened.
If you actually read & kept up with this stuff since the incident like I did & not watch it all from Fox News & CNN, you'd know.

Also we clearly see tons of cops killing innocent people yet they still roam free & almost never get jailed.
Good try though.

Really shows how informed you are on this stuff huh?


I actually did keep up with this, and I don't watch Fox or CNN often, but whenever someone has a differing opinion that is the first thing to throw out there, huh?
I don't see cops killing many innocent people.

And as far as your information goes, it obviously isn't mainstream.

This thread isn't about Michael Brown though, it is about a man that was killed for no other reason other than being a police officer.

Its not a different opinion.
Its the unheard voices, and literal facts.

And you never hear if it because you're sleeping in on it like most people on this thread who doesn't get the fucking point.
13129 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 8/29/15

anzn wrote:
God you're full of shit.
As always.

1. https://youtu.be/maA1FUJqhew
Hmm

2. Citation Needed

3.http://www.copblock.org/19331/tennessee-v-garner/
Ruled by the Supreme Court.
A different case, but the reason why it was created in the first place.

The Court explained that shooting a fleeing felon dead is constitutionally unreasonable because “The intrusiveness of a seizure by means of deadly force is unmatched. The suspect’s fundamental interest in his own life need not be elaborated upon. The use of deadly force also frustrates the interest of the individual, and of society, in judicial determination of guilt and punishment. Against these interests are ranged governmental interests in effective law enforcement….we are not convinced that the use of deadly force is a sufficiently productive means of accomplishing them to justify the killing of nonviolent suspects.” [Emphasis added].

The Court went on to say, “The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead. The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against such fleeing suspects.” [Emphasis added].


4.http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1370608-michael-brown-private-autopsy-report.html
Very bottom.
Manner of death: Homicide.

5. Citation needed.


1. Johnson testified otherwise which is a little strange

2. The link I posted

3. Theres a huge difference between "shooting someone who is unarmed" and "shooting someone who is running away". In this case, Brown was unarmed, but none of the bullet wounds indicated entrance from the back.

4. I don't think you know what Homicide means. It simply means that he was killed (which everybody already knew). It says nothing about whether or not it was justified. It is also completely irrelevant to this point, so I'm not sure what you are trying to prove.

5. ....my citation needs a citation? What? Regardless, there are plenty of citations within the article to ME reports and thousands of pages of witness testimony.
Posted 8/29/15 , edited 8/29/15

sundin13 wrote:


anzn wrote:
God you're full of shit.
As always.

1. https://youtu.be/maA1FUJqhew
Hmm

2. Citation Needed

3.http://www.copblock.org/19331/tennessee-v-garner/
Ruled by the Supreme Court.
A different case, but the reason why it was created in the first place.

The Court explained that shooting a fleeing felon dead is constitutionally unreasonable because “The intrusiveness of a seizure by means of deadly force is unmatched. The suspect’s fundamental interest in his own life need not be elaborated upon. The use of deadly force also frustrates the interest of the individual, and of society, in judicial determination of guilt and punishment. Against these interests are ranged governmental interests in effective law enforcement….we are not convinced that the use of deadly force is a sufficiently productive means of accomplishing them to justify the killing of nonviolent suspects.” [Emphasis added].

The Court went on to say, “The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead. The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against such fleeing suspects.” [Emphasis added].


4.http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1370608-michael-brown-private-autopsy-report.html
Very bottom.
Manner of death: Homicide.

5. Citation needed.


1. Johnson testified otherwise which is a little strange

2. The link I posted

3. Theres a huge difference between "shooting someone who is unarmed" and "shooting someone who is running away". In this case, Brown was unarmed, but none of the bullet wounds indicated entrance from the back.

4. I don't think you know what Homicide means. It simply means that he was killed (which everybody already knew). It says nothing about whether or not it was justified. It is also completely irrelevant to this point, so I'm not sure what you are trying to prove.

5. ....my citation needs a citation? What? Regardless, there are plenty of citations within the article to ME reports and thousands of pages of witness testimony.

1. And the testimony as you see is horseshit lol

2. Citation needed.

3. Because we was running & looking back showing his hands were up indicating he momentarily would turn around to look at his murderer, that's why. :)

4.hom·i·cide
noun
the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another; murder.


5. Literally most of the witnesses out of the like 40 of them had the same/similar accounts that contradicts Wilson's poor excuse of a testimony that also changed several times as well.
Which was...
Hands were up. Wilson was the one who was yelling at them to "get on the damn sidewalk". He started shooting. Michael Brown was nowhere near that fucker & he never suffered from any injuries.
13129 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 8/29/15 , edited 8/29/15

anzn wrote:
4.hom·i·cide
noun
the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another; murder.


I highly suggest looking into Manner of Death, because its clear that you don't really understand it. Manner of Death is assigned by the Medical Examiner out of five categories. These categories essentially describe how the cause of death was inflicted. This means that when shot by another person, that would always be considered homicide, which is defined in this scenario as a death caused by another individual. It would be ruled this way no matter if the shooting was justified or not, because the medical examiner neither has that knowledge nor needs to know that information to make this ruling.

Your google dictionary definition isn't really indicative of the legal definition. Here is a slightly better resource which actually gives information stemming from the legal definition: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/homicide

"Although the term homicide is sometimes used synonymously with murder, homicide is broader in scope than murder. Murder is a form of criminal homicide; other forms of homicide might not constitute criminal acts. These homicides are regarded as justified or excusable. For example, individuals may, in a necessary act of Self-Defense, kill a person who threatens them with death or serious injury, or they may be commanded or authorized by law to kill a person who is a member of an enemy force or who has committed a serious crime. "

EDIT: While witness testimonies are often incomplete and poor (just watch My Cousin Vinny), the physical evidence is used to corroborate stories. In this case, the physical evidence did contradict a lot of witness testimony, however, Wilson's testimony was supported by the physical evidence. We have evidence that Brown was extremely close to the gun during the first gunshot. We have evidence that he was moving towards Wilson during the later gunshots. We have no evidence that Brown was ever shot in the back.
Posted 8/29/15 , edited 8/29/15

sundin13 wrote:


anzn wrote:
4.hom·i·cide
noun
the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another; murder.


I highly suggest looking into Manner of Death, because its clear that you don't really understand it. Manner of Death is assigned by the Medical Examiner out of five categories. These categories essentially describe how the cause of death was inflicted. This means that when shot by another person, that would always be considered homicide, which is defined in this scenario as a death caused by another individual. It would be ruled this way no matter if the shooting was justified or not, because the medical examiner neither has that knowledge nor needs to know that information to make this ruling.

Your google dictionary definition isn't really indicative of the legal definition. Here is a slightly better resource which actually gives information stemming from the legal definition: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/homicide

"Although the term homicide is sometimes used synonymously with murder, homicide is broader in scope than murder. Murder is a form of criminal homicide; other forms of homicide might not constitute criminal acts. These homicides are regarded as justified or excusable. For example, individuals may, in a necessary act of Self-Defense, kill a person who threatens them with death or serious injury, or they may be commanded or authorized by law to kill a person who is a member of an enemy force or who has committed a serious crime. "

Tl;dr

Not gonna waste my time on more or your bullshit & easily manipulated sources since there is no real context behind it & twisted stories.

It was a murder.
Illegal.
Against the law.
Unlawful.
Especially in this where he was armed & he wasn't, also running from the guy with his hands up yet was still shot to death.

This guy is walking free, guilt-free, alive & well, on paid leave, married, and Brown is not, to even defend himself either so that's where me & everyone fighting against police brutality step in.
He barely turned 18, just graduated, and couldn't even do half of the things this scum did.

He was the threat, the demon, not a kid where the only thing he did wrong was encountering this poor excuse of a human.

And here you are, defending this scum of the earth just because he had a police badge.
Fucking disgusting.
21093 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/29/15

anzn wrote:


sundin13 wrote:


anzn wrote:
4.hom·i·cide
noun
the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another; murder.


I highly suggest looking into Manner of Death, because its clear that you don't really understand it. Manner of Death is assigned by the Medical Examiner out of five categories. These categories essentially describe how the cause of death was inflicted. This means that when shot by another person, that would always be considered homicide, which is defined in this scenario as a death caused by another individual. It would be ruled this way no matter if the shooting was justified or not, because the medical examiner neither has that knowledge nor needs to know that information to make this ruling.

Your google dictionary definition isn't really indicative of the legal definition. Here is a slightly better resource which actually gives information stemming from the legal definition: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/homicide

"Although the term homicide is sometimes used synonymously with murder, homicide is broader in scope than murder. Murder is a form of criminal homicide; other forms of homicide might not constitute criminal acts. These homicides are regarded as justified or excusable. For example, individuals may, in a necessary act of Self-Defense, kill a person who threatens them with death or serious injury, or they may be commanded or authorized by law to kill a person who is a member of an enemy force or who has committed a serious crime. "

Tl;dr

Not gonna waste my time on more or your bullshit & easily manipulated sources since there is no real context behind it & twisted stories.

It was a murder.
Illegal.
Against the law.
Unlawful.
Especially in this where he was armed & he wasn't, also running from the guy with his hands up yet was still shot to death.
He's alive, and he's not, to even defend himself either so that's where me & everyone fighting against police brutality step in.

He was the threat, the demon, not a kid where the only thing he did wrong was encountering this poor excuse of a human.

And here you are, defending this scum of the earth just because he had a police badge.
Fucking disgusting.


Wow. Lol.
Posted 8/29/15 , edited 8/29/15

blind_fate wrote:
Wow. Lol.

wrow
133 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F
Offline
Posted 8/29/15
Killing, regardless of race, position, or reason, is a horrible thing. Just because African-Americans are getting shot does not make it right to retaliate violently. Yes, cops have been racist, but striking out, even if there's a good reason, is just as bad because in both instances a life was lost.
Tarya 
52889 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / F / Virginia, US
Offline
Posted 8/29/15

anzn wrote:


sundin13 wrote:


anzn wrote:
4.hom·i·cide
noun
the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another; murder.


I highly suggest looking into Manner of Death, because its clear that you don't really understand it. Manner of Death is assigned by the Medical Examiner out of five categories. These categories essentially describe how the cause of death was inflicted. This means that when shot by another person, that would always be considered homicide, which is defined in this scenario as a death caused by another individual. It would be ruled this way no matter if the shooting was justified or not, because the medical examiner neither has that knowledge nor needs to know that information to make this ruling.

Your google dictionary definition isn't really indicative of the legal definition. Here is a slightly better resource which actually gives information stemming from the legal definition: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/homicide

"Although the term homicide is sometimes used synonymously with murder, homicide is broader in scope than murder. Murder is a form of criminal homicide; other forms of homicide might not constitute criminal acts. These homicides are regarded as justified or excusable. For example, individuals may, in a necessary act of Self-Defense, kill a person who threatens them with death or serious injury, or they may be commanded or authorized by law to kill a person who is a member of an enemy force or who has committed a serious crime. "

Tl;dr

Not gonna waste my time on more or your bullshit & easily manipulated sources since there is no real context behind it & twisted stories.

It was a murder.
Illegal.
Against the law.
Unlawful.
Especially in this where he was armed & he wasn't, also running from the guy with his hands up yet was still shot to death.
This demon is walking free, guilt-free, alive & well, on paid leave, married, and Brown is not, to even defend himself either so that's where me & everyone fighting against police brutality step in.
He barely turned 18, just graduated, and couldn't even do half of the things this demon did.

He was the threat, the demon, not a kid where the only thing he did wrong was encountering this poor excuse of a human.

And here you are, defending this scum of the earth just because he had a police badge.
Fucking disgusting.


Wow. Even when you are shown links to actual evidence used in the trial, you still think everyone else is wrong.
Now, how are you going to defend the guy that shot the police officer today?
Posted 8/29/15 , edited 8/29/15

Tarya wrote:
Wow. Even when you are shown links to actual evidence used in the trial, you still think everyone else is wrong.
Now, how are you going to defend the guy that shot the police officer today?

And I shown links with real actual evidence that wasn't even used in trial because they hidden until after the trial.
Knowing damn well it wouldn't matter at this point.

I'm still going because I actually care about this shit unlike you guys who only do it for selfish reasons & for the sake of "winning" an internet argument.
This is why I'm angry, frustrated, tired, because I care, I feel something from this stuff.

Who said I was gonna do that tho??? lol

I can actually distinct between right & wrong & not stick to a bias thought unlike you guys.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.