Michael Brown shooting: Ferguson jury reaches verdict

[metisdead]

Some inflammatory baiting posts and replies have been removed.

[VegasVic]

<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

[DM07]

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!

[DM07]

<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!

[thailiketoo]

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.

[chuckd]

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!

Translation:

Don't confuse me with facts. My mind is made up.

[DM07]

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!

[thailiketoo]

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.

Edited November 29, 2014 by thailiketoo

[robblok]

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.

Great unbiased link showing the evidence in the case to be consistent with Wilson his statement.

Cant understand people arguing against these facts. Well done that is how a post should be backed up by facts.

Wonder how anyone could have thought they had more evidence as a grand jury.

[Asiantravel]

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.

Great unbiased link showing the evidence in the case to be consistent with Wilson his statement.

Cant understand people arguing against these facts. Well done that is how a post should be backed up by facts.

Wonder how anyone could have thought they had more evidence as a grand jury.

“Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.”

Leo Tolstoy

[DM07]

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!

[robblok]

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.

Great unbiased link showing the evidence in the case to be consistent with Wilson his statement.

Cant understand people arguing against these facts. Well done that is how a post should be backed up by facts.

Wonder how anyone could have thought they had more evidence as a grand jury.

“Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.”

Leo Tolstoy

Evidence talks bullshit walks.

[Ulysses G.]

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

That has become VERY obvious.

[Publicus]

<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

Try these for facts.

The Ferguson police chief and Wilson's shift sergeant in charge at the time of the whole incident said Wilson did not know of Michael Brown in the store prior to Wilson accosting Brown for the serious criminal activity of jaywalking. They later changed their story.

Wilson disappeared immediately after the shooting and after his well publicized and very brief visit to the hospital immediately afterward. The well publicized photo taken at the hospital of Wilson's cheek looks like Brown gave him a hickey!

Wilson secretly disappeared with the assistance of the Ferguson PD, which means Wilson fled not only the scene but the whole of the community. Other people who have to live by the laws call a person of such behaviors a fugitive, and the people who aid and assist them accomplices after the fact. Wilson's location and purposes, activities, were shielded from the public by the Ferguson Police Department, the Prosecutor, the investigators.

Black elected officials in Ferguson and in St Louis county were not advised of Wilson's location or of his purposes. The Feds on the scene had no direct jurisdiction in the matter so Wilson remained holed up. His secret location and purposes were protected by all of the authorities in Ferguson and in St. Louis county. .

Wilson had more than a week to make confidential contacts while he was underground, from getting attorneys to talking on the phone or personally with anyone who would listen and offer legal and other advice.

Wilson's FPD Incident Report was filed only well after the killing and a considerable time after Wilson surfaced from hiding. The Incident Section of the FPD incident Report was left blank. The Incident Report remains locked away and unavailable to the public.

I could go on.....

[JDGRUEN]

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.

On TVF -- if a person just doesn't want something to be the way it is in reality -- they often just go into total denial of any fact - set of facts or source that says otherwise. They complain about a biased source - then show them two other non biased sources saying the same thing -- they just go back to square one - stating what they believe. Circuitous Logic ... The Circle of Denial ...

Edited November 29, 2014 by JDGRUEN

[chuckd]

<>snip>

Try these for facts.

The Ferguson police chief and Wilson's shift sergeant in charge at the time of the whole incident said Wilson did not know of Michael Brown in the store prior to Wilson accosting Brown for the serious criminal activity of jaywalking. They later changed their story.

Wilson disappeared immediately after the shooting and after his well publicized and very brief visit to the hospital immediately afterward. The well publicized photo taken at the hospital of Wilson's cheek looks like Brown gave him a hickey!

Wilson secretly disappeared with the assistance of the Ferguson PD, which means Wilson fled not only the scene but the whole of the community. Other people who have to live by the laws call a person of such behaviors a fugitive, and the people who aid and assist them accomplices after the fact. Wilson's location and purposes, activities, were shielded from the public by the Ferguson Police Department, the Prosecutor, the investigators.

Black elected officials in Ferguson and in St Louis county were not advised of Wilson's location or of his purposes. The Feds on the scene had no direct jurisdiction in the matter so Wilson remained holed up. His secret location and purposes were protected by all of the authorities in Ferguson and in St. Louis county. .

Wilson had more than a week to make confidential contacts while he was underground, from getting attorneys to talking on the phone or personally with anyone who would listen and offer legal and other advice.

Wilson's FPD Incident Report was filed only well after the killing and a considerable time after Wilson surfaced from hiding. The Incident Section of the FPD incident Report was left blank. The Incident Report remains locked away and unavailable to the public.

I could go on.....

Perhaps that reward issued by the New Black Panther Party for Wilson's whereabouts and the many death threats he was receiving on social media might have influenced his desire to stay out of the public eye.

Would you have been dancing a jig on Ferguson city hall lawn at noon each Friday if you were under the same pressures?

My guess is the authorities of Ferguson knew exactly where he was at all times. That they chose not to inform you of his whereabouts can only be considered prudent on their part.

[CMNightRider]

Publicus, on 29 Nov 2014 - 18:45, said:

<>snip>

Try these for facts.

The Ferguson police chief and Wilson's shift sergeant in charge at the time of the whole incident said Wilson did not know of Michael Brown in the store prior to Wilson accosting Brown for the serious criminal activity of jaywalking. They later changed their story.

Wilson disappeared immediately after the shooting and after his well publicized and very brief visit to the hospital immediately afterward. The well publicized photo taken at the hospital of Wilson's cheek looks like Brown gave him a hickey!

Wilson secretly disappeared with the assistance of the Ferguson PD, which means Wilson fled not only the scene but the whole of the community. Other people who have to live by the laws call a person of such behaviors a fugitive, and the people who aid and assist them accomplices after the fact. Wilson's location and purposes, activities, were shielded from the public by the Ferguson Police Department, the Prosecutor, the investigators.

Black elected officials in Ferguson and in St Louis county were not advised of Wilson's location or of his purposes. The Feds on the scene had no direct jurisdiction in the matter so Wilson remained holed up. His secret location and purposes were protected by all of the authorities in Ferguson and in St. Louis county. .

Wilson had more than a week to make confidential contacts while he was underground, from getting attorneys to talking on the phone or personally with anyone who would listen and offer legal and other advice.

Wilson's FPD Incident Report was filed only well after the killing and a considerable time after Wilson surfaced from hiding. The Incident Section of the FPD incident Report was left blank. The Incident Report remains locked away and unavailable to the public.

I could go on.....

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?

[DM07]

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!

Edited November 29, 2014 by DM07

[thailiketoo]

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?

[DM07]

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!

[thailiketoo]

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?

Edited November 29, 2014 by thailiketoo

[chuckd]

I originally posted about a suit filed in federal court not federal charges. These two things are not the same.

What potential suit filed in federal court do you foresee?

Thanks.

From what I've read, Title 42 Section 1983 is a distinct possibility.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983

I presumed you were referring to a violation of Brown's civil rights filing by Holder's DOJ.

Should the DOJ decide to file a case in federal court against Wilson, there will be charges involved. This has a very high bar to prove guilt though so we will just have to wait and see.

I have said all along that if there is even a miniscule chance of finding a criminal act on the part of Wilson that Holder would stop at nothing to do so.

Either way would not surprise me.

And of course Brown's mother, step father and biological father will all be filing civil action to try and make Wilson and the city of Ferguson pay.

The Brown family's team of attorneys will chase this potential money grab to the end. Maybe even Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson will be in line to get some money out of it.

[DM07]

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!

[thailiketoo]

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.

Edited November 29, 2014 by thailiketoo

[NeverSure]

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.

[DM07]

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"?

[DM07]

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!

[thailiketoo]

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, <deleted>!

"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!

It's like a puzzle. It has all the information to make an informed decision about the actual events that took place. I would think the average 14 year old could figure it out. I know what it means and I imagine anyone who wants to take the time to read and study it can figure it out.

[Publicus]

<>snip>

Try these for facts.

The Ferguson police chief and Wilson's shift sergeant in charge at the time of the whole incident said Wilson did not know of Michael Brown in the store prior to Wilson accosting Brown for the serious criminal activity of jaywalking. They later changed their story.

Wilson disappeared immediately after the shooting and after his well publicized and very brief visit to the hospital immediately afterward. The well publicized photo taken at the hospital of Wilson's cheek looks like Brown gave him a hickey!

Wilson secretly disappeared with the assistance of the Ferguson PD, which means Wilson fled not only the scene but the whole of the community. Other people who have to live by the laws call a person of such behaviors a fugitive, and the people who aid and assist them accomplices after the fact. Wilson's location and purposes, activities, were shielded from the public by the Ferguson Police Department, the Prosecutor, the investigators.

Black elected officials in Ferguson and in St Louis county were not advised of Wilson's location or of his purposes. The Feds on the scene had no direct jurisdiction in the matter so Wilson remained holed up. His secret location and purposes were protected by all of the authorities in Ferguson and in St. Louis county. .

Wilson had more than a week to make confidential contacts while he was underground, from getting attorneys to talking on the phone or personally with anyone who would listen and offer legal and other advice.

Wilson's FPD Incident Report was filed only well after the killing and a considerable time after Wilson surfaced from hiding. The Incident Section of the FPD incident Report was left blank. The Incident Report remains locked away and unavailable to the public.

I could go on.....

Perhaps that reward issued by the New Black Panther Party for Wilson's whereabouts and the many death threats he was receiving on social media might have influenced his desire to stay out of the public eye.

Would you have been dancing a jig on Ferguson city hall lawn at noon each Friday if you were under the same pressures?

My guess is the authorities of Ferguson knew exactly where he was at all times. That they chose not to inform you of his whereabouts can only be considered prudent on their part.

The post completely circumvents the points I made.

The post has four sentences, each of which attempt to move away from each and all of the points I presented. The post is an attempt to deflect from the points I raised.

The post consumes broadband width and does nothing else.

As Richard Nixon learned during the Watergate investigations and hearings, perps can hide from the crimes they commit but it is the coverup that almost always seals their fate. The coverup in Ferguson was and continues to be large, comprehensive, thorough, but too many people are not fooled by it.

Robert McCulloch's press conference was the presentation of a defense attorney and the grand jury was directed by none other than MuCulloch. The grand jurors did as they were instructed to do. It's an axiom of American jurisprudence that a prosecutor points, the grand jury indicts. McCulloch never pointed except at Michael Brown. McCulloch refused the governor's request to recuse himself from the case due to of a conflict of interest, which is why we are here today.

Yes, the New Black Panther Party is indeed in Ferguson and we hear regularly about the fact. Many Black Panthers have been arrested,which is good. It is however a little reported or discussed fact that the kKK is in Ferguson to support Darren Wilson and that none of the KKK have been arrested. Needless to say I defend neither. At the same time however I don't ignore either.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/anonymous-launches-attack-ku-klux-klan-article-1.2013559

Edited November 29, 2014 by Publicus

[chuckd]

<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.