DM07

-snip-

Were you there or are "you" -as much as "we"- basing your judgement on either version of the "truth"?

I was not there. The medical and forensic investigators who testified before the grand jury were there. The grand jury members were there to hear 60 witnesses and to see all available evidence.

You on the other hand continue to repeat things which were refuted by ballistic evidence, medical and scene investigation and expert testimony. You have NO interest in the real evidence.

Wilson shot brown in the hand while Wilson was reaching inside his police car.

The next time Wilson shot Brown, Brown was facing him at a distance of eight to twelve feet as proven by ballistics experts who can determine the distance of a shot.

Brown's arms were not up because he was facing Wilson at that close distance and three shots hit him in a downward trajectory in the front of his right arm. One bullet grazed his neck from the front, one hit him just above the eye and one hit him in the top of the head.

Officers are trained that if they must shoot, to keep shooting until the perp is neutralized. That's what Wilson did.

Now, stop your nonsense, please. Link to the facts from the Washington Post.

"The physical evidence in the Michael Brown case supported the officer"

They were not "there" to see, what was going on.

They came in after the event.

<snip>

Either way: Willson had A GUN and Browne was UNARMED.

<snip>

Please explain to us precisely HOW Wilson knew Brown was unarmed.

Thank you.

I guess, the move to get hold of Willsons gun instead of using his own, night have given it away.

But that is just a wild guess...

Okay...surprise me: what does this table show?

To me it just shows, that it shows no clear picture.

NA is the overwhelming response, some agree with Willson but as many do not agree with him...

But I guess, you have a rather striking theory about this.

It is 10pm now and maybe you see something, that I can not, at this time of day.

Enlighten me!

Please!

I just put it there for you to read. Draw your own conclusions but at least we have some hard data. The idea is to look at data first and then draw conclusions not the reverse.

Oh, &lt;deleted&gt;!

"Here is a chart...it says nothing, really...except for: some people say this, other people say that! Look at it! It has crosses and letters on it!? Doesn't it look nice?"

That is -in your opinion - "hard data"?

A bunch of people support Willsons version...and another bunch doesn't!

Yeah ...great!

Thanks for wasting another 10 minutes of my life!

The facts of the case showed that under Missouri law — and in accordance with Supreme Court precedent — Officer Wilson was justified in shooting Michael Brown.

Compared to other police use-of-force cases, this incident was pretty simple and pretty easy to evaluate. Under Missouri law, a police officer is authorised to use force in self-defense (when in fear of death or great bodily harm to himself or another person) and to effect an arrest or prevent escape under certain prescribed conditions. Further, the City of Ferguson Police Department’s use of force policy (section 410.01) states:

“An officer may use lethal force only when the officer reasonably believes that the action is in defense of human life, including the officer's own life.”

Two court cases likely had some bearing in the grand jury’s decision-making process:

1. In Jones v. City of St. Louis, 92 F.Supp.2d 949 (E.D. Mo., 2000) the federal district court, in a lawsuit from the police use of deadly force, held that the use of deadly force is reasonable where the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or others.

2. In Fitzgerald v. Patrick, 927 F.2d 1037 (8th Cir., 1991) the 8th circuit federal court of appeals, in another police use-of-force case out of Missouri, said law enforcement officers are justified in using deadly force in self-defense or in defense of a third person if a reasonable person in similar circumstance would believe it was necessary.

Still, the person who knows woefully little about police work (Publicus) will ask, “How can an officer be in fear of death or great bodily harm from an unarmed teenager?”

It really boils down to two things: An unarmed assailant can legitimately threaten life or great bodily harm to another person — even an officer — and an objectively reasonable officer in a similar position to Wilson would have done what Wilson did.

Why do you continue to post nonsensical messages on a topic you know so little about? Don't you think its time to give it a rest?

Great post.

We have repeatedly said that deadly force is justified if person has reason to believe that his, or even a total stranger's life is in danger. It is also justified if there is fear of serious bodily injury to one's self or even to a total stranger. It's as simple as that.

That applies not only to police officers but to private citizens. I could have legally shot the guy.

But the drones go on and on, as if they also spent the three weeks with the grand jury, were in the cop's shoes, and know more than those who had to make this decision. A decision had to be made by the officer quickly, and then a decision was made by the grand jury which had lots of time to review evidence and make that decision.

Were the naysayers on here there?

The mind boggles.

"We have repeatedly said that deadly force is justified if person has reason to believe that his, or even a total stranger's life is in danger."

No, we weren't there- were you?

For all we know, there are two versions out there and one of them says: Brown was walking AWAY (the possible struggle at the car was HISTORY- call for back-up, arrest the guy later for attacking an officer) and as he turned around, his hands were up, as he was surrendering.

The other says: Brown was walking AWAY and when he turned around, he charged at Willson.

Either way: Willson had A GUN and Browne was UNARMED.

In which universe can an unarmed man, who is (possibly) 30 feet away, put an armed mans life in danger (please keep in mind: one version of the truth is, that Brown was having his hands up, surrendering).

Were you there or are "you" -as much as "we"- basing your judgement on either version of the "truth"?

So which is it? You do care about the evidence that was presented or you don't give a hoot about the evidence that was presented?

I think, I made it very clear, several times: I don't find the evidence very convincing and for most, I in deed don't give a hoot!

But I also believe, I listed very clearly, where my doubts are and I made it clear,why I have huge problems.

To reduce my explanations to one sentence, is not a fair representation.

Kind of what is done with the case in question!

Perhaps this will help. I found the hands up witnesses rather interesting but since you don't find it convincing I guess you don't care. Although I'll just bet you will find the hands up evidence convincing - right?

Okay...surprise me: what does this table show?

To me it just shows, that it shows no clear picture.

NA is the overwhelming response, some agree with Willson but as many do not agree with him...

But I guess, you have a rather striking theory about this.

It is 10pm now and maybe you see something, that I can not, at this time of day.

Enlighten me!

Please!

I dont give a hoot about the "evidence" that was presented!

That has become VERY obvious.

Don't you think, you slightly misrepresent my views?

But don't bother: you and your ilk are great at misrepresenting!

So which is it? You do care about the evidence that was presented or you don't give a hoot about the evidence that was presented?

I think, I made it very clear, several times: I don't find the evidence very convincing and for most, I in deed don't give a hoot! But I also believe, I listed very clearly, where my doubts are and I made it clear,why I have huge problems. To reduce my explanations to one sentence, is not a fair representation.

Kind of what is done with the case in question!

I dont give a hoot about the "evidence" that was presented!

That has become VERY obvious.

Don't you think, you slightly misrepresent my views?

But don't bother: you and your ilk are great at misrepresenting!

Because I gave you a good source with valid information. It is not an adhominem attack. You have chosen to make up information out of thin air to support an argument in rebuttal. I don't see how you can do that without giving something to support the legitimacy or your view.

In other words I'm saying the newspapers and all the reputable sources I can find say it is daylight now in Thailand. You say it is night. And you think that is a valid argument?

Evidence is what a grand jury is all about. You say, "I don't give a hoot about the evidence." Makes no sense. Why would you post a completely erroneous personal opinion with no evidence to back it up?

I don't think it is an ad hominem attack to say that your opinion is worthless unless backed up by some reputable evidence.

How can I accept "evidence", when IMHO, the prosecution was flawed?

Do you believe the "evidence" in the Koh Tao - murders?

The RTP says, it was the B2...they have evidence!

Just because something is presented as "evidence", doesn't make it true!

The story, that Willson is telling stinks!

The narrative of the events has changed conveniently for Willson from "he didn't know about the robbery" (police chief) to "he was fully aware of the robbery and he had a description of the robber, matching with Brown"...but there is no evidence of that!

There are eyewitnesses (the contractors, captured on video), who say, that Brown had his hands up in surrender aso.

But that does not count as evidence, since ...well...it just doesn't count and Willson did everything right and Brown was rightfully shot!

And if the "left wing media" says something, it is biased and if the rest of the media states something else, it is the gospel!

Again: there are doubts that I have about Michael Browns total innocence and I said so.

And I am giving it, that Willson may have snapped- so it is not murder, but manslaughter.

But the people who defend Willson are 100% convinced, that their man is pure as fresh snow.

So what chance do I actually have?

So I am sticking with my "hypotheses": Willson lost it after the confrontation with Brown and gunned Brown down, while he was surrendering.

You may stick with all the BS of "he knew that Brown was the suspect in a robbery" and "Willson was scared to death by the demon Hulk Hogan- like black man? and all that!

Have a good day!

The Washington post is an unbiased media source that supports the evidence that the grand jury heard.

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

I think you are 14 years old. I doubt if your parents would listen to your opinion about what time to go to bed.

If you want to debate on an open forum the opinion of a 14 year old is not sufficient. However it makes no difference; your age or education or level of intelligence if you present facts and reputable sources.

If you don't present facts or reputable sources I have no alternative but to try and match your opinions to what I think a reasonable age group for that opinion.

Do you understand what I am writing? Your opinion by itself is only as valid as you are. So age and education and profession are all important. If you quote facts and use reputable sources for those facts then your age or education or anything else about you is not relevant.

I'll say it again. In my opinion the day is 18 hours long. (expect to be questioned as to who you are) The NYT and Washington post confirm that a day is 24 hours long. (no need to ask who you are.) If I don't believe the NYT and Washington post I will post another unbiased source.

Wow...can you be a bit more condescending, please?

The Washington Post and the NYT are as biased or unbiased as any other newspaper or media- outlet.

Did you actually read the article?

F.e. the "extremely helpful" graphical version of things?

Well...Willson says A, Johnson says B and from time to time, someone else says A,5 or C or whatever!

And that exactly is evidence for ...what, precisely?

And the forensic experts say something that is about their findings, but as they themselves are no eye- witnesses, their conclusions base clearly on their knowledge and expertese...but are they 100% the gospel?

Can they actually tell, if Brown was "charging at" or just "moving towards" Willson?

If he had his hands up or at his waist?

Or somewhere in between?

Can they enlighten us about the confrontation that took place between Brown and Willson?

Do they know, what was said, how and when?

And except for the word of mouth: do we know, that Willson knew about the robbery?

So...the Washington Post has a narrative, that is based on conflicting witnesses and the conclusions of the forensics.

And as it is the Washington Post, it sure must be true?!

Don't worry: I am older than 14 and if I will win a million $ in the lottery tomorrow (which I do not play), I assure you, I will take that money and dedicate my spare free time to finding evidence!

Until then, I trust my instincts, my humanity, my logic and my common sense and try to make up my mind about "facts and evidences".

Have a good day...again!

Are there any on the "side" of Officer Willson, who will not go all out ad hominem attacs?

You must be fairly insecure, if you have to go on name-calling people with an opposite opinion.

Sad, really!

You stated in a previous post that the criminal was shot while trying to surrender. The evidence presented to the Grand Jury does not support your hypothesis.

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

Okay...I'll bite: what has this got to do, with the post you quoted?

...and by the way: since me "hypothesis" is, that the whole prosecution was flawed, I dont give a hoot about the "evidence" that was presented!

Because I gave you a good source with valid information. It is not an adhominem attack. You have chosen to make up information out of thin air to support an argument in rebuttal. I don't see how you can do that without giving something to support the legitimacy or your view.

In other words I'm saying the newspapers and all the reputable sources I can find say it is daylight now in Thailand. You say it is night. And you think that is a valid argument?

Evidence is what a grand jury is all about. You say, "I don't give a hoot about the evidence." Makes no sense. Why would you post a completely erroneous personal opinion with no evidence to back it up?

I don't think it is an ad hominem attack to say that your opinion is worthless unless backed up by some reputable evidence.

How can I accept "evidence", when IMHO, the prosecution was flawed?

Do you believe the "evidence" in the Koh Tao - murders?

The RTP says, it was the B2...they have evidence!

Just because something is presented as "evidence", doesn't make it true!

The story, that Willson is telling stinks!

The narrative of the events has changed conveniently for Willson from "he didn't know about the robbery" (police chief) to "he was fully aware of the robbery and he had a description of the robber, matching with Brown"...but there is no evidence of that!

There are eyewitnesses (the contractors, captured on video), who say, that Brown had his hands up in surrender aso.

But that does not count as evidence, since ...well...it just doesn't count and Willson did everything right and Brown was rightfully shot!

And if the "left wing media" says something, it is biased and if the rest of the media states something else, it is the gospel!

Again: there are doubts that I have about Michael Browns total innocence and I said so.

And I am giving it, that Willson may have snapped- so it is not murder, but manslaughter.

But the people who defend Willson are 100% convinced, that their man is pure as fresh snow.

So what chance do I actually have?

So I am sticking with my "hypotheses": Willson lost it after the confrontation with Brown and gunned Brown down, while he was surrendering.

You may stick with all the BS of "he knew that Brown was the suspect in a robbery" and "Willson was scared to death by the demon Hulk Hogan- like black man? and all that!

Have a good day!

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Darren Wilson is so wrongly righteous that his own attorneys say.....

Wilson's attorneys: He'll never be a police officer again

http://www.ksdk.com/media/cinematic/video/70133190/

If officer Darren Wilson has proved any one thing, it is that when a cop decides to be petty, it can color an officer's life and also become a career ending fault. Darren Wilson is now the poster boy to the tiny minority of police in the United States that are Dirty Harry cops in Dirty Harry police departments wherever they may exist.

The Darren Wilsons of police work give the 98% that are honorable and conscientious cops a bad name. Fortunately, most people in the US and elsewhere can recognize and make the distinction between the numbnut Darren Wilson and Ferguson PD cops, in contrast to the 98% of police who take pride in doing their demanding job professionally and well without shooting to death unarmed citizens after chasing them down while the unarmed citizens try to flee the hail of bullets loosed upon them.

Like I mentioned to your friend. You can write nonsensical posts from now to domesday, it won't alter the facts of this incident.

Ah yes, facts.

It is accepted that Darren Wilson will never be a cop again because of the fact of what he did and due to the fact Darren Wilson is, well, Darren Wilson.

Some additional facts are that Wilson was never arrested, never charged, never arraigned, never booked....that Wilson was not pursued by law enforcement authorities when he went underground immediately after he killed Michael Brown....I think that's called fleeing the scene except that in this instance it was a killer cop who took flight.

Darren Wilson and his attorneys have no sense of the realities at work in this case. The time for Wilson to go incognito and be the invisible man was after the grand jury whitewash had been announced. It is in Wilson's best interests to let the grand jury furor occur while he was holed up somewhere remote. Wilson would at least be out of sight if not out of mind.

But no, Wilson went on tv to say a lot of things and to present himself as the high school graduate with bush league lawyers that he is. It was provocative for Wilson to accost Brown for jaywalking and it is provocative to try to make Michael Brown into a black Incredible Hulk that was going to break Wilson in two or some such.

Wilson going on tv is to stream gasoline into the fire, especially when he says the wounded Brown reached to his waistband as if Brown had a gun, which Brown did not have, and would reach for it only then after Wilson himself claimed Brown had tried to reach for Wilson's gun back in the car.

The fact is the more Darren Wilson talks the more he indicts himself so stay tuned to this network for further developments.

The facts? When have you ever paid attention to the facts of any situation! Far left wing nuts like yourself don't need any stinking facts to get in the way, you guys just make up a fairytale and call them "the facts" Officer Wilson was responding to a call about a convenience store robbery and the description of the primary suspect was a BMA wearing a white T shirt, khaki shorts, a red baseball cap, yellow socks, and approximately 6'5" (brown was actually 6'6") and around 300lbs- Now just how many people matching that description do you suppose were walking around that neighborhood shortly after the robbery??? He wasn't stopped for Jaywalking you twit, he was stopped because he matched the exact description of a robbery suspect Why you liberal extremists can't get your head around the facts of a situation I'll never understand, but it seems to happen almost every time

Talk about "making up facts" and then ...make up some facts!

He was NOT there because of the robbery, he was there because he was called to assist in a medical emergency!

He didn't know about the robbery and he had no description of the robber, as was repeatedly stated, before the narrative of the case conveniently changed, with no proof for that.

Brown was stopped for jaywalking, as even Willson personally stated, in the laughable interview on CBS.

I can only hope, the excessive use of smileys is somehow hinting to sarcasm (in which case I apologize for not getting your drift), otherwise you did a real disservice to the side of the Willson- defenders!

Are there any on the "side" of Officer Willson, who will not go all out ad hominem attacs?

You must be fairly insecure, if you have to go on name-calling people with an opposite opinion.

Sad, really!

You stated in a previous post that the criminal was shot while trying to surrender. The evidence presented to the Grand Jury does not support your hypothesis.

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

Okay...I'll bite: what has this got to do, with the post you quoted?

...and by the way: since me "hypothesis" is, that the whole prosecution was flawed, I dont give a hoot about the "evidence" that was presented!

Amazing! Just amazing! No freedom of speech, martial law, students getting adjust....oh, look...a bird!

The compassion some of the finest among you express here, is truly heartwarming!

Most of you, who grew up in countries with relative freedom, relative economic stability...did you ever think, that you were lucky and did you ever imagine, how life would look for you, being a Rohinga or a Hmong or a Moken?

I didn't think so!

Are there any on the "side" of Officer Willson, who will not go all out ad hominem attacs?

You must be fairly insecure, if you have to go on name-calling people with an opposite opinion.

Sad, really!

The neighborhood is armed and dangerous. The neighborhood has no respect for law and order and/or police. If you meet ten people there 8 will have a criminal background.

There are many poor neighborhoods in the world East St. Louis is not only poor it is criminal and dangerous for police and fire department. The police are frightened and keep a finger on the trigger and rightly so.

Violent crime rate USA 214

Violent crime rate East St. Louis 3000 - 4000

http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-East-St.-Louis-Illinois.html

A murder rate 17 times the U.S. average, the nation’s highest according to the FBI.

There’s the shopping mall where a police officer was shot in the face, a youth center that saw a triple homicide in September, and scattered about the city of 27,000 are brightly lit gas stations that serve as magnets for carjackers, hit-and- run robbers and killers.

The city’s killings, which hit 25 in 2011, the most recent year for which FBI statistics are available, or 9.23 per 10,000 people compared with the national rate of 0.55.

East St. Louis Cops Outgunned as Cuts Let Killers Thrive http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-04/east-st-louis-cops-outgunned-as-cuts-let-killers-thrive.html

It is not a quaint little hamlet with disadvantaged farmers milking goats trying to cope with the occasional stealing of a pound of feta cheese.

Still: what is your point?

There are bad neighbourhoods!

We all know that...

So?

I don't get it!

According to OFFICER WILLSON, he was stopping the guy for walking in the middle of the street, asking him politely (OF COURSE!) to get on the sidewalk!

If the police are so damn scared about that neighborhood, that they constantly have their finger on the trigger, sure it is a really brilliant idea, to get into an argument about jaywalking!

"oh god...I am so scared, going into Fergusson, I am gonna stop the first huge black guy and get into an argument with him about nothing!"

Sound totally legit to me!

So again: what is your point?

There is so much crime in East St. Louis that a state of war exists between the citizens and the police force.

Now do you understand?

In the UK you can punch a cop and not get killed because the police don't have guns.

In the USA if you punch a cop you might get killed. That's the way it is. That is always the way it has been. Smart criminals don't punch cops. Get it?

Or are you saying that the criminal did not punch the cop?

No I don't understand!

What you are doing, is basically saying "rape victims are asking for it"!

So the neighborhood is problematic, so everybody basically lives with the risk of being shot, armed, unarmed...

I stated before, the one thing about the encounter, that I am not sure about, is the confrontation between (the 5 year old) Willson and Michael (Hulk) Brown! I am not buying 99% of what Willson says! And I don't know, if "the criminal" punched "the cop".

But: if Willson just would have let go of Brown, walking the way he was walking...in a WAR ZONE, as you say...none of that would have happened.

There is a "war" raging!

And jaywalking is a problem?

Yeah right!

Thank God, you are so mature and intellectual superior.

Sure you noticed, that in one of my earlier posts, I mention the confrontation between Willson and Brown as the one point, that I can not make heads or tail of. There has been a confrontation and Brown may as well have been the driving force. Having said that, I highly doubt, that the thing went from Willlson politely asking "Good Sir, you are aware that you are walking in the middle of the road and you may be in harms way. May I kindly ask you to step on the sidewalk for your own safety" to a struggle in 3 seconds, but I don't know that.

He sure was stopped for jaywalking.

And if Willson was so freaking scared by "Hulk Hogan"...why did he chase the guy, after he turned and walked away?

Oh...I know: he had the right...no ...the obligation to do so!

And because he had a gun, which makes him more powerful than the Hulkster!

By the way: what is that waistband - story about?

Willson was scared about Brown, having a weapon on him?

A weapon, he didn't use before but instead tried to get hold of Willsons gun?

Here is the deal: I don't believe a word Willson says!

Wanna know why?

Because it makes NO <deleted> SENSE and his story is full of holes!

I really would love to hear Michael Browns story, but -as I said before- that will not happen, because he is STONE COLD DEAD!

Shot several times, while surrendering!

I'm certainly not going to argue with you about your first sentence. The rest of your post is basically things that have already been discussed and cleared up. Officer Wilson didn't violate any laws and didn't shoot Brown while he was surrendering. You can write nonsenscial posts from now to domesday, it isn't going to alter the facts of this incident.

"have already been discussed and cleared up"...by who?

The prosecution, that was flawed?

Office Willson?

There are different opinions on if Willson violated laws and if Brown was or was not being shot while surrendering.

Just because 12 people say something, that doesn't make it true!

"The facts of this incident" are controversial, to say the least and you writing nonsensical post from...whatever...will also not change that!

You may want to look for the press-conference, the prosecutor gave and listen very closely to what he says, because he is actually using almost the exact same words I used., concerning the evidence and making it as fair as possible.

Again: it is not his job to defend anyone nor to present evidence, to make it "fair".

Again: what has your description of East St. Louis to do with anything?

It is a problematic neighborhood- so what?

Does that mean, cops should just shoot people willy-nilly, because there are poor people? Minorities? Uneducated people?

What is the point, in telling me about that?

The neighborhood is armed and dangerous. The neighborhood has no respect for law and order and/or police. If you meet ten people there 8 will have a criminal background.

There are many poor neighborhoods in the world East St. Louis is not only poor it is criminal and dangerous for police and fire department. The police are frightened and keep a finger on the trigger and rightly so.

Violent crime rate USA 214

Violent crime rate East St. Louis 3000 - 4000

http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-East-St.-Louis-Illinois.html

A murder rate 17 times the U.S. average, the nation’s highest according to the FBI.

There’s the shopping mall where a police officer was shot in the face, a youth center that saw a triple homicide in September, and scattered about the city of 27,000 are brightly lit gas stations that serve as magnets for carjackers, hit-and- run robbers and killers.

The city’s killings, which hit 25 in 2011, the most recent year for which FBI statistics are available, or 9.23 per 10,000 people compared with the national rate of 0.55.

East St. Louis Cops Outgunned as Cuts Let Killers Thrive http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-04/east-st-louis-cops-outgunned-as-cuts-let-killers-thrive.html

It is not a quaint little hamlet with disadvantaged farmers milking goats trying to cope with the occasional stealing of a pound of feta cheese.

Still: what is your point?

There are bad neighbourhoods!

We all know that...

So?

I don't get it!

According to OFFICER WILLSON, he was stopping the guy for walking in the middle of the street, asking him politely (OF COURSE!) to get on the sidewalk!

If the police are so damn scared about that neighborhood, that they constantly have their finger on the trigger, sure it is a really brilliant idea, to get into an argument about jaywalking!

"oh god...I am so scared, going into Fergusson, I am gonna stop the first huge black guy and get into an argument with him about nothing!"

Sound totally legit to me!

So again: what is your point?

@ DM07

"Shot several times, while surrendering!"

If you can't prove it, you might want to preface that sort of remark with an "IMHO".

...and you are the Forum- police, I assume?!

But of course, I will take your well meaning advice to heart!

Here is the deal: I don't believe a word Willson says!

Wanna know why?

Because it makes NO <deleted> SENSE and his story is full of holes!

I really would love to hear Michael Browns story, but -as I said before- that will not happen, because he is STONE COLD DEAD!

Shot several times, while surrendering!

A couple of things. 1. 12 people listened to all the evidence and did not indict. 2. 12 people from the area listened to all the evidence and did not indict. 3. You did not listen to any of the evidence and are not from the area but you don't believe a word Wilson says. 4. Given the above who would you believe? A. You who have not heard all the evidence or ever been to East St. Louis or B. The Grand jury who lives in the area and has heard all the evidence?

I know you don't know but East St. Louis is like a war zone between the races. A race riot. One of the bloodiest race riots in the nation's history took place in East St. Louis, Illinois, on July 1-3. 1917 A Congressional committee reported that 40 to 200 people were killed, hundreds more injured, and 6,000 driven from their homes.

Chances are you would feel uncomfortable or downright afraid to walk down the street in East St. Louis. It is now and has been for 100 years one of the worst neighborhoods in the USA. People from the South Side of Chicago and Detroit are afraid to go to East St. Louis.

a) I don't believe they listened to "all the evidence". That is my point: the whole prosecution was flawed!

It is NOT the duty of the prosecutor, to deliver a defense, to present all the evidence, to be fair to all parties!

What has your little sightseeing- tour of East St. Louis to do with anything?

The prosecutor has the job of prosecuting; cop or no cop that's his job, not defense. How would you know what they heard? Did you read all of the testimony?

My sightseeing trip to East St. Louis? I went with two body guards to apply for a job there. If you drive through town and get a flat tire you keep driving on the rims till you get out of town to get it fixed. You ever been a soldier in a war walking thru an enemy town? It's like that. To understand the shooting you have to understand the area. I know most of the folks who read Thai Visa can't imagine the USA can be that bad but in places like East St. Louis it is. Look at the two videos below and you will realize why the media keep referring to Ferguson instead of East. St Louis although Ferguson is in East St. Louis. The media thinks we the people are not smart enough to google videos East St. Louis and find out what the area is really like.

You may want to look for the press-conference, the prosecutor gave and listen very closely to what he says, because he is actually using almost the exact same words I used., concerning the evidence and making it as fair as possible.

Again: it is not his job to defend anyone nor to present evidence, to make it "fair".

Again: what has your description of East St. Louis to do with anything?

It is a problematic neighborhood- so what?

Does that mean, cops should just shoot people willy-nilly, because there are poor people? Minorities? Uneducated people?

What is the point, in telling me about that?

Here is the deal: I don't believe a word Willson says!

Wanna know why?

Because it makes NO <deleted> SENSE and his story is full of holes!

I really would love to hear Michael Browns story, but -as I said before- that will not happen, because he is STONE COLD DEAD!

Shot several times, while surrendering!

A couple of things. 1. 12 people listened to all the evidence and did not indict. 2. 12 people from the area listened to all the evidence and did not indict. 3. You did not listen to any of the evidence and are not from the area but you don't believe a word Wilson says. 4. Given the above who would you believe? A. You who have not heard all the evidence or ever been to East St. Louis or B. The Grand jury who lives in the area and has heard all the evidence?

I know you don't know but East St. Louis is like a war zone between the races. A race riot. One of the bloodiest race riots in the nation's history took place in East St. Louis, Illinois, on July 1-3. 1917 A Congressional committee reported that 40 to 200 people were killed, hundreds more injured, and 6,000 driven from their homes.

Chances are you would feel uncomfortable or downright afraid to walk down the street in East St. Louis. It is now and has been for 100 years one of the worst neighborhoods in the USA. People from the South Side of Chicago and Detroit are afraid to go to East St. Louis.

a) I don't believe they listened to "all the evidence". That is my point: the whole prosecution was flawed!

It is NOT the duty of the prosecutor, to deliver a defense, to present all the evidence, to be fair to all parties!

What has your little sightseeing- tour of East St. Louis to do with anything?

The fact remains Michael Brown was black. 'If' is an attempt to escape to unreality, because 'if' Treyvon Martin had been white....but the reality and the fact is that Treyvon Martin was black too, period.

Both of them indulged in criminal activities, both had a propensity for violence and both were responsible for their own demise. According to all the evidence, being black is not why they were dispatched.

Care to enlighten us, in which "criminal activity" Treyvon Martin was engaged?

And what kind of role actually the criminal activity played in the Michael Browne- shooting?

If you are referring to the robbery, Willson was NOT AWARE of that, according to Fergussons very own police- chief.

Or are you referring to jaywalking and talking back to a policeman?

This may come as shock to you, but Brown wasn't shot for "jaywalking or talking back to a policeman." When Brown decided to attack Office Wilson, inside his vehicle and attempted to relieve Officer Wilson of his weapon was what got Brown shot. What part of this incident don't you understand or are you trying to out do Publicus for having the most immature and nonsensical posts?

Thank God, you are so mature and intellectual superior.

Sure you noticed, that in one of my earlier posts, I mention the confrontation between Willson and Brown as the one point, that I can not make heads or tail of. There has been a confrontation and Brown may as well have been the driving force. Having said that, I highly doubt, that the thing went from Willlson politely asking "Good Sir, you are aware that you are walking in the middle of the road and you may be in harms way. May I kindly ask you to step on the sidewalk for your own safety" to a struggle in 3 seconds, but I don't know that.

He sure was stopped for jaywalking.

And if Willson was so freaking scared by "Hulk Hogan"...why did he chase the guy, after he turned and walked away?

Oh...I know: he had the right...no ...the obligation to do so!

And because he had a gun, which makes him more powerful than the Hulkster!

By the way: what is that waistband - story about?

Willson was scared about Brown, having a weapon on him?

A weapon, he didn't use before but instead tried to get hold of Willsons gun?

Here is the deal: I don't believe a word Willson says!

Wanna know why?

Because it makes NO &lt;deleted&gt; SENSE and his story is full of holes!

I really would love to hear Michael Browns story, but -as I said before- that will not happen, because he is STONE COLD DEAD!

Shot several times, while surrendering!

Trayvon Martin was caught for vandalizing his school and the police found a lot of expensive women's jewelry, that he could not account for, and burglary tools in his bag. He had also been caught for drugs before that.

Officer Wilson stopped Brown for walking in the street, but then realized that he was the robbery suspect, when he saw the stolen items in his hand. The police chief said that Wilson did not realize that Brown was the robbery suspect, until he saw the evidence and realized that he was dressed like the wanted man.

...and thank god, America's best armed hall- monitor, George Zimmermann, took care of the troublemaker in the right manor.

Uuuuuhhh, he did drugs! So...he was an unruly teenager, because I never heard about the "expensive jewelery" before. I guess, it is about as correct, as the sudden enlightenment of officer Willson about Brown, having done a robbery, which there is no account for (the knowledge of Willson...not the robbery of Brown).

I have been there and it is 100% not worth it.

The ad by that bank, who made the place famous is really good.