|
News articles from reputable news sources have been proven false in this very case. Anonymous sources are incredibly lazy and make impossible for any peer review.
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 04:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:10 |
|
|
Centripetal Horse posted:Do you have reading comprehension problems, or what? All the real witnesses who know the truth are afraid to speak up because they fear reprisals from the urban thug protester neighborhood gangbangers. They only feel safe speaking to representatives of national publications. You phrased this like a joke, but that is literally what is happening. ----------------
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
Everyday Lurker posted:
I mean its not like you could use the forums search feature and find several times where Washington Post articles and information from Washington Post articles have been used further this and other threads fascination and "proof" of a certain chain of events in Fergueson and a FTP narrative story. But oh no when an article from the very same newspaper is posted that doesn't play in to D&D's world view and fit the narrative it wants it suddenly becomes a bad paper again. Narciss posted:Ferguson is largely black, and largely lower-class. There is a certain culture that permeates places like this that is insular and hostile to the police, and encourages solidarity in any confrontation with them like we're seeing with this battle over the media narrative. Like taking a loaded gun to a protest with anticipation of making a "get arrested" point. Because that's a step in the right direction on police relations. http://tinyurl.com/letktva
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
It's not like anyone has ever used "unnamed sources" to feed lies to the media to change the national narrative before... Oh wait.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
A HOT TOPIC posted:
The awesome part is that there is going to be an open carry march around the City Garden and Arch and old Courthouse grounds in support of the latest "woohoo wild west guns for every (white)body!" amendment. Because taking an AR-15 to a playground is how one does, apparently. The best part for me was the admonition in the promotional material to leave your "don't tread on me", militia flags, and cammies at home, because this is an "educational walk" not a militia meeting. 2nd amendment enthusiasts need to be told, and told repeatedly not to rep RAHOWA when there are cameras about. Slo-Tek fucked around with this message at 04:49 on Oct 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 04:37
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:The awesome part is that there is going to be an open carry march around the city garden and capitol grounds in support of the latest "woohoo wild west guns for every (white)body!" amendment. Because taking an AR-15 to a playground is how one does, apparently. Surprising thing was she doesn't appear to have been charged with a weapons violation. Not sure what MOs laws are on concealed weapons but most states take a pretty harsh stance on that vs. open carrying weapons without a permit. Especially on or near government property.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 04:46
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:Which makes sense since most defendants probably don't want to testify for a variety of reasons even if given the chance. If Wilson is truly innocent and the evidence supports it, going to trial will get him a Not Guilty verdict and he won't have to worry about being tried for it ever again. Though not perfect (see OJ) a Not Guilty is also a good defense against civil suits. There's lots of reasons why an innocent Wilson would want his day in court. If he isn't even indicted, everyone will know it's the system protecting a cop, if not necessarily promoting racism. At some point in the future some new witness might come forward with new evidence and he could end up going to trial in a much different political climate that's not as favorable to police. He should want to be indicted.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 05:34
|
|
|
Police are the last people who would have any confidence in an innocent person being exonerated in court.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 05:45
|
|
|
I see if the new autopsy doesn't fit the SA narrative it is bogus. Clearly, actual evidence is less trustworthy than an eye witness account (especially when large portions of those accounts have been proven false). Also, Narciss owned this thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 05:46
|
|
|
L-Boned posted:I see if the new autopsy doesn't fit the SA narrative it is bogus. Clearly, actual evidence is less trustworthy than an eye witness account (especially when large portions of those accounts have been proven false). Also, Narciss owned this thread. Promise not to run off now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 05:49
|
|
|
L-Boned posted:I see if the new autopsy doesn't fit the SA narrative it is bogus. Clearly, actual evidence is less trustworthy than an eye witness account (especially when large portions of those accounts have been proven false). Also, Narciss owned this thread. You'll find nobody has a problem with the autopsy, friend. The problem we have with the article is that they bring in someone who has no connection to the case made a definitive and unprovable statement  Feel free to return to the hole you crawled out of at any time
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 05:58
|
|
|
The only statements I recall seeing made were "his wounds are consistent with someone grabbing for a gun" and "the wound on his arm is not consistent with someone who was shot with their arms in the air", though, and neither of those are definitive or unprovable
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 06:07
|
|
|
semper wifi posted:The only statements I recall seeing made were "his wounds are consistent with someone grabbing for a gun" and "the wound on his arm is not consistent with someone who was shot with their arms in the air", though, and neither of those are definitive or unprovable My friend, if you would kindly take the time to go back and read the article, I'm sure you yourself could easily find the part where the forensic pathologist from San Francisco that the newspaper had independently look at the autopsy information states that the residue on the hand "supports the fact" that he was reaching for the gun, and that it backs up the officer's version of events. Of course, my friend, I'm sure you will also note that it is written in an incredible biased way, and makes it appear as if this is part of the official report, and not the paper's own interpretation of events, which is what everyone has a problem with. You'll also note that we already know Brown fell down, because he was killed, so it is entirely unsurprising that he was shot again after his arms were no longer in the air. I hope this helps your understanding of the situation
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 06:18
|
|
|
rip mike brown rip this thread
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 07:09
|
|
|
Oh yeah:chitoryu12 posted:Why do all of your posts always seem to be filtered through a tin foil hat even when relatively benign? It's called "style"
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 08:36
|
|
|
gently caress all the racists in this thread. I'm so tired of seeing all this bullshit dancing around the truth. Admit it, you dont think black people are as smart, trustworthy, or respectable. Please, post some more statistics that prove my point, and pretend that they prove your point. I'm looking at you, semper wifi. Your willful intellectual dishonesty is astounding. But please don't respond or I will be forced to use lethal forums force in response to your violent carjacking of this thread. I, in this situation, may respond as officer wilson did, and smoke your rear end like a quality brisket. Of a lower income bracket repeating fucked around with this message at 10:14 on Oct 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 10:05
|
|
|
repeating posted:gently caress all the racists in this thread. I'm so tired of seeing all this bullshit dancing around the truth. Admit it, you dont think black people are as smart, trustworthy, or respectable. Please, post some more statistics that prove my point, and pretend that they prove your point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 10:33
|
|
|
So if Darren Wilson's story might be true that means that systemic racism doesn't exist, right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 11:55
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:Are you saying it makes any more or less sense than Brown diving through a truck window across a cop's lap to grab his gun? How many times has this even happened in the real world, that someone has tried to take a cop's gun?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 12:11
|
|
|
Arri posted:So if Darren Wilson's story might be true that means that systemic racism doesn't exist, right? Well if it existed you could bring up a case that hasn't been justified and excused by white people. Bet you can't do that, huh?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 12:12
|
|
|
ClearAirTurbulence posted:If Wilson is truly innocent and the evidence supports it, going to trial will get him a Not Guilty verdict and he won't have to worry about being tried for it ever again. Though not perfect (see OJ) a Not Guilty is also a good defense against civil suits. There's lots of reasons why an innocent Wilson would want his day in court. If he isn't even indicted, everyone will know it's the system protecting a cop, if not necessarily promoting racism. At some point in the future some new witness might come forward with new evidence and he could end up going to trial in a much different political climate that's not as favorable to police. He should want to be indicted. Plus a criminal trial doesn't remove the threat of federal civil rights charges so yeah he would still have to worry. Plus a criminal trial doesn't mean poo poo to the activists and mob calling for his head. Ask Zimmerman how much his acquittal silenced his critics. The idea that an acquittal at trial for Wilson wouldn't be ignored by his critics as "the system protecting a cop, if not necessarily promoting racism" is laughable. So why exactly should Wilson want to roll the dice with an indictment again? Unknown new evidence that might pop up? A possibility of a political climate worse than the literal President of the United States taking notice, mentioning the incident in international speeches and ordering investigations up Wilson's rear end?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 12:35
|
|
|
Gorilla Salad posted:How many times has this even happened in the real world, that someone has tried to take a cop's gun? Like, all the time, bro. Don't you remember that time in Legal Weapon 4 where Donnie Yen totally takes Danny Gibson's gun apart with his bare hands? I'm pretty sure I'd remember if I hadn't seen that first-hand.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 13:05
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:So trials don't ever wrongly convict innocent people? Wilson personally shouldn't want a trial, but if his supporters, colleagues, department, and state government believe in his actions so much they should want to have a public trial air out all the details. The fact that everyone involved seems thrilled that he won't even be indicted or contributed to undermining the indictment implies that they realize something wrong happened here, but don't really want to look too closely because of the possible conclusions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 13:14
|
|
|
The autopsy could support either story as it doesn't detail what the sequence of shots was, or what was happening directly before it. Either way, as a cop you should be capable of restraining a fat man with a bullet in him without having to shoot him instead of "He's coming right for me!". Also, whoever said bringing a gun to the protest was the wrong idea is completely wrong. Everyone there should have a gun. I'm not even a fan of guns, but as long as open carry is a thing, it should be a thing at real protests as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 13:36
|
|
|
mugrim posted:sequence of shots
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 13:43
|
|
|
Wadjamaloo posted:How do they determine this? I could see it being a bit obvious if the shots were far apart in time based on amount of bleeding and maybe platelet counts or something. The report specifically says the shot to his arm came after the fatal shot to his head, and I wonder how they determine sequence when the shots happens within the span of a few seconds. In Brown's case it doesn't seem they've established one. In unrelated cases, I've seen blood layering on clothes or (more often than not) Officer testimony.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 13:55
|
|
|
mugrim posted:
You're sortof rhetorically right but being black and armed in front of the Ferguson PD is just going to get you shot. I mean, live forever in history or whatever but still.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 14:05
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Wilson personally shouldn't want a trial, but if his supporters, colleagues, department, and state government believe in his actions so much they should want to have a public trial air out all the details. The fact that everyone involved seems thrilled that he won't even be indicted or contributed to undermining the indictment implies that they realize something wrong happened here, but don't really want to look too closely because of the possible conclusions. Wilson's supporters and colleagues will view no indictment as not just validation of their position but validation with a cherry on top: it'll be spun as there was so little evidence that there couldn't be an indictment. No indictment is a slam dunk for them. The local government? They want this affair over ASAP: it's embarrassing and probably super costly. No indictment just means this drops out of the news sooner. People who would be upset at no indictment are still going to be upset at an acquittal. Only in some fantasy land where trials are free, totally accurate and completely definitive in the public mind should any of these people welcome an indictment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 14:07
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Wilson (apparently) testified that he drew his gun before Brown tried to grab it, so this scenario isn't what anyone is saying happened. ^Ding ding ding ding ding. Roll up window. Call for backup. Even if Wilson had been punched. Roll up window. Call for backup. And just to clear a few misinformation/misperception issues here: 1. The fact the prosecutor called Wilson should not be seen as bad faith. Prosecutors jizz themselves at the prospect of getting a defendant on the stand and almost never do because most invoke their constitutional right not to testify. If you have the opportunity to put the defendant on the stand...you ALWAYS do it. Here, if there is an indictment, if he says anything inconsistent at trial, he can be impeached with his grand jury testimony. If he doesn't testify at trial, his grand jury testimony can be introduced as a statement of the defendant, and then contradicted by other witnesses. So I don't see a red flag with his being put on the stand. (At least in my state...does anyone know if grand jury testimony in Missouri can be used for impeachment? Too lazy to look it up, but I imagine so.) 2. We don't now what any of the witness testimony was. We have 3. Saying the prosecutor needs to recuse himself b/c he is pro law enforcement is dumb. Almost all prosecutors are pro law enforcement. However, as a matter of perception, were I a prosecutor whose father had been shot in the line of duty, I would probably recuse myself. The flip side, as this is going to be messy regardless, is a senior person may want to spare their staff from being involved in this clusterfuck. Usually the top dog takes the high profile/messy cases. That's what they are paid for. Still, I'd probably recuse because of the family/perception issue. 4. There are ethics issues with prosecutors defining the battle space by speaking to the media. If the leaks are coming from the prosecution office, this is a big problem, and should be investigated. Actually, they should be investigated regardless, because grand jury is supposed to be sealed. 5. There is still a civil rights investigation. Presumably, although grand jury testimony is sealed, a federal investigation would have access for official use only. If there is fear that Ferguson is just a bunch of racists, can we at least acknowledge that Holder's justice department will not take that position? And if the federal investigation matches the state, then perhaps there really wasn't enough evidence to indict. 6. Not being indicted/convicted does not necessarily mean innocent. See e.g. OJ Simpson, Casey Anthony etc. This is a good thing. Our system is designed to hold the state to a high burden. This rule benefits all accused...even politically unpopular ones. 7. No one is claiming brown lunged into the car at a holstered gun. That's stupid. 8. Pot does not = crazed aggressive brute. (And it's tested by nanogram level...so there's no conclusive way to say how much was consumed and when. It can only reveal "Consistent with" or inconsistent with" Example: Is this nanogram level consistent with a person who smoked a joint within the last 24 hours? Yes. Cross Examination: Is it also consistent with someone who smoked a lot more than that a week ago? Yes. And of course there are metabolic differences etc. And nanogram level does not reflect individual impact. Some people are less affected than others.) 9. It is not uncommon for witnesses to refuse to testify, or to provide a different account to the media than they did to the police. Or to lie to the police. Or to lie in court. That's why the grand jury is specifically instructed to assess their credibility. 10. Law gives people resisting use of force from a cop a lot less latitude than people resisting an assault from a civilian. There isn't really a "self defense" argument if you are in fear of bodily harm because of law enforcement. If there were it would essentially negate offenses relating to assaults on officers. 11. Biometric triggers/wrist sensors for law enforcement guns is an asinine idea. 12. If you believe that racial profiling doesn't exist you are woefully naïve. This case actually does a really great job showing the racial polarization in this country. I don't believe for one moment that Wilson shot Brown because he was black, but the fact OK, with that, carry on. ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 14:55 on Oct 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 14:13
|
|
|
semper wifi posted:The only statements I recall seeing made were "his wounds are consistent with someone grabbing for a gun" and "the wound on his arm is not consistent with someone who was shot with their arms in the air", though, and neither of those are definitive or unprovable It's irresponsible reporting when the latter point could still support either story, and you only say it supports the killer's testimony, and not the testimony of every other eyewitness. Given that he was struck many times it's not at all a stretch to believe any of the numerous other bullets struck him before he was hit in the arm. "His arm was not raised when the bullet struck it" being reported as "Autopsy indicates he did not have his hands raised" is straight up dishonest and borderline lying.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 15:10
|
|
|
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/23/us-usa-missouri-shooting-doj-idUSKCN0IC1U320141023quote:(Reuters) - U.S. Justice Department officials on Thursday criticized local authorities' investigation of the shooting death of an unarmed black teenager in Ferguson, Missouri, saying the case had been handled in a "selective" and "inappropriate" manner. I guess we're not the only ones who question the information that's being released.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
Dum Cumpster posted:http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/23/us-usa-missouri-shooting-doj-idUSKCN0IC1U320141023 ABA Rule 3.8 regarding special considerations for prosecutors: quote:(f) except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor's action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused and exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.6 or this Rule. I imagine making statements by proxy via media leaks is also frowned upon. The leaks are a huge problem and need to be investigated. Now, granted, this is geared at condemnation of the accused however, the spirit of the rule is that the prosecution should remain neutral and not try to inflame the public at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
Lessail posted:rip mike brown rip this thread I don't care what the evidence says, this thread made threatening gestures toward us and has to be put down 
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
Reuters posted:Brown, who was shot six times, died about 30 feet from the patrol car. Even this appropriately neutral Reuters article is repeating this incorrect distance falsely claimed by the police chief in the initial press report. Brown was over 100 feet away from the car. It's been like two months since that was debunked.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:Even this appropriately neutral Reuters article is repeating this incorrect distance falsely claimed by the police chief in the initial press report. Brown was over 100 feet away from the car. It's been like two months since that was debunked. Got a link? Cause drat E: vvvvv man I hate this country 
Magres fucked around with this message at 17:36 on Oct 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 17:32
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:Even this appropriately neutral Reuters article is repeating this incorrect distance falsely claimed by the police chief in the initial press report. Brown was over 100 feet away from the car. It's been like two months since that was debunked.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:
Wilson did not shoot Brown because he was black (because even phrasing that way sets up a "premeditation" straw man), but I think that the bar for lethal force against a white suspect is significantly higher than for a black suspect. LEOs consistently give the benefit of the doubt to white suspects in use of force decision making that they do not give to black suspects. The death of Brown is the result of poor decision making by Wilson, and those poor decisions were escalated by racial profiling.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
American police officers are trained to shoot and kill black men. How else would they be so consistent and prolific in doing so? (racist trolls please answer).
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
I like the use of passive voice in the police report attached to the local autopsy:quote:As Officer Wilson attempted to exit out of his patrol vehicle the deceased pushed his door shut and began to struggle with Officer Wilson, during the struggle the Officers weapon was un-holstered. The weapon discharged during the struggle. The gun arose from his holster of its own accord! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:10 |
|
|
amanasleep posted:Wilson did not shoot Brown because he was black (because even phrasing that way sets up a "premeditation" straw man), but I think that the bar for lethal force against a white suspect is significantly higher than for a black suspect. LEOs consistently give the benefit of the doubt to white suspects in use of force decision making that they do not give to black suspects. that's kind of what I was going for here. It wasn't an intentional "I'm going to shoot this black guy" but it's a good illustration of how race is still a factor in this country even if a subconscious one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2014 18:00
|
|