I googled Ferguson looting pictures and I'm wondering why nobody has stolen a belt yet since all their pants are falling off. That fashion trend is the most nonsensical to me. Doesn't it make looting and running away even more difficult if your pants are falling off?
I'm not trying to contribute to the debate. It was just an observation based on looking at images of what's going on down there. This trend is common to youth of different ethnicities and I think it's a nonsensical and impractical fashion choice either way, especially when you are looting. If I was looting, I'd pull my pants up so I could move better or get away. Looking at images of urban discord or chaos has always fascinated me whether it's Ferguson or Stanley Cup loss Vancouver.
I remember some gang banger wannabe told me before that they started wearing their clothes like that to give the impression that they may have so many guns hidden on themselves that it weighs their pants down.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
I'm not trying to contribute to the debate. It was just an observation based on looking at images of what's going on down there. This trend is common to youth of different ethnicities and I think it's a nonsensical and impractical fashion choice either way, especially when you are looting. If I was looting, I'd pull my pants up so I could move better or get away. Looking at images of urban discord or chaos has always fascinated me whether it's Ferguson or Stanley Cup loss Vancouver.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to WhiteTiger For This Useful Post:
I googled Ferguson looting pictures and I'm wondering why nobody has stolen a belt yet since all their pants are falling off. That fashion trend is the most nonsensical to me. Doesn't it make looting and running away even more difficult if your pants are falling off?
Well, a bunch of honky kids I went to school with in Huntington Hills with in the 90s used to wear their pants backwards to emulate Kris Kross.
In this case, however, the officer is given a good look at the evidence before giving his eyewitness, and has been trained for years to know what is believable and what is not in a court of law. The officer can make his eyewitness statement look the most credible of the bunch, and should be inadmissible as a matter of course.
Physical evidence may not lie, but lies can be made to fit nearly any set of physical evidence available.
Also, posters who have been repeating that the physical evidence corroborates the officer's account (based on the brief article posted earlier) are, I think, vastly overstating the corrobative value of the physical evidence. It only corroborates the collateral elements of the officer's account. I haven't seen any physical evidence that corroborates the most contested and most important elements of the officer's account: what was said and done by the officer and Michael Brown in the moments before the fatal shooting (in particular, whether Brown had his hands up or was approaching the officer).
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
Also, posters who have been repeating that the physical evidence corroborates the officer's account (based on the brief article posted earlier) are, I think, vastly overstating the corrobative value of the physical evidence. It only corroborates the collateral elements of the officer's account. I haven't seen any physical evidence that corroborates the most contested and most important elements of the officer's account: what was said and done by the officer and Michael Brown in the moments before the fatal shooting (in particular, whether Brown had his hands up or was approaching the officer).
I think you need to look at all the evidence as a whole not just a single element to draw your conclusion. Further, the corroborative evidence can also be used to discredit or at least bring up questions with eyewitness testimony.
I am not sure what you are looking for is available in a nice clear, concise one line conclusion. The ME gave a conclusion. Eye witnesses appeared to have made observations that substantiate that - that MB was not shot in the back and may have been running or charging.
Where does the information come from that Wilson was allowed to see the evidence before providing a statement? It's certainly not unusual for an accused to not provide a statement and upon receiving disclosure, concoct a story, but in the case, he wasn't charged yet.
Also, police aren't regular Joe Shmoes. There are sections in the Criminal Code dedicated to the use of force by Law Enforcement.
There also appears to be this myth of police protecting each other. I am sure, like other professions, there is nothing good cops hate more than another cop who tarnishes the images of those that work hard everyday.
If Darren Wilson was just joe schmo and shot an unarmed man, and he wasn't a police officer, the DA would've made sure this went to trial. Grand juries very rarely reach an agreement to not indict a defendant.
Well if you want to be honest, you have no clue whether or not that would have happened. You're just making an assumption.
Quote:
This grand jury trial was grossly mishandled, just as pretty much every single thing since the shooting has been grossly mishandled by the Ferguson PD/StL PD/Governor of Missouri, etc. Top down, this whole situation has been marred with incompetence at best and corruption at worst.
Which of course still doesn't make the officer in question guilty.
I think you need to look at all the evidence as a whole not just a single element to draw your conclusion. Further, the corroborative evidence can also be used to discredit or at least bring up questions with eyewitness testimony.
I am not sure what you are looking for is available in a nice clear, concise one line conclusion. The ME gave a conclusion. Eye witnesses appeared to have made observations that substantiate that - that MB was not shot in the back and may have been running or charging.
Where does the information come from that Wilson was allowed to see the evidence before providing a statement? It's certainly not unusual for an accused to not provide a statement and upon receiving disclosure, concoct a story, but in the case, he wasn't charged yet.
Also, police aren't regular Joe Shmoes. There are sections in the Criminal Code dedicated to the use of force by Law Enforcement.
There also appears to be this myth of police protecting each other. I am sure, like other professions, there is nothing good cops hate more than another cop who tarnishes the images of those that work hard everyday.
You can thank Hollywood and the media for taking that viewpoint and blowing it out of proportion. Pretty sad that when something happens, people instantly jump to the conclusion that the cop is either dirty, or someone is covering for him.
I think you need to look at all the evidence as a whole not just a single element to draw your conclusion. Further, the corroborative evidence can also be used to discredit or at least bring up questions with eyewitness testimony.
Not to toot my own horn, but I have a basic understanding of how to argue in favour if or against inferences that might be drawn from evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bent Wookie
I am not sure what you are looking for is available in a nice clear, concise one line conclusion.
I haven't asked for a clear, concise one line conclusion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bent Wookie
The ME gave a conclusion.
Well, sort of. The Medical Examiner issued a report. I'm not sure that it was conclusive of much of anything however. For example:
Quote:
The gunshot wound to the top of Brown's head was consistent with Brown either falling forward or being in a lunging position; the shot was instantly fatal
The location of the fatal head gunshot wound therefore appears to be equally consistent with the officer's account as it is with the following eyewitness accounts:
Quote:
James McKnight
James McKnight said he witnessed the shooting and that Brown held his hands in the air just after he turned to face Wilson. He stumbled toward the officer, but didn't rush him, and "the officer was about six or seven feet away" from Brown.[42] Phillip Walker
Phillip Walker, a 40-year-old resident of a nearby apartment complex, said he saw Brown walking "at a steady pace" toward Wilson with his hands up and that he "did not rush the officer", adding that Wilson's final shot was from a distance of about four feet.[97] Emanuel Freeman
Emanuel Freeman, a 19-year-old resident of a nearby apartment complex, on witnessing the shooting, began tweeting about the incident two minutes after it began. Freeman stated that Wilson fired twice at Brown while he was running away, and five more times after he turned around to face Wilson.[100][101]
Grand jury witnesses
On October 16, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch published an interview with a black Canfield resident who testified before the grand jury. The man, who did not want his name released, said he saw the entire event. Wilson drove past Johnson and Brown and then backed up again. A scuffle ensued in the police vehicle and Wilson's hat flew off. There was a gunshot from the vehicle, and then Brown ran down the street followed by Wilson. Wilson aimed his gun at Brown and repeatedly yelled "Stop", but did not fire until Brown turned around and stepped toward Wilson. At that point Wilson fired three shots. Brown staggered toward Wilson from 20 feet away with his hands out to his sides, when Wilson fired again. The witness said that Brown was already falling as the last shots were fired and that, in his opinion, the final shots were murder.[49]
According to several people close to the grand jury investigation, seven or eight witnesses have given testimony consistent with Wilson's account. Details of the testimony were not reported. Speaking on condition of anonymity to The Washington Post, the sources said that the witnesses are all African American, and that they have not spoken publicly out of fear for their safety.[102]
Eye witnesses appeared to have made observations that substantiate that - that MB was not shot in the back and may have been running or charging.
See above witness accounts.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
Not to toot my own horn, but I have a basic understanding of how to argue in favour if or against inferences that might be drawn from evidence.
I haven't asked for a clear, concise one line conclusion.
Well, sort of. The Medical Examiner issued a report. I'm not sure that it was conclusive of much of anything however. For example:
The location of the fatal head gunshot wound therefore appears to be equally consistent with the officer's account as it is with the following eyewitness accounts:
You guys have been arguing like this was a trial. This was not a trial. They did not even have to shoe a reasonable doubt.
Usually in a grand Jury hearing the accused NEVER gets to testify. The DA didn't want to be a part of it so he passed it off to someone else. In post secondary institutions they preach a ham sandwich could be charged if the DA wanted too.
Should of gone to trial anyways. Then if a not guilty vote came in then you would be able to get at least a better indicator. As It stands This officer is not Innocent or guilty as no trial took place.
The fact a trial didn't even happen is why people are ####ing pissed.
Edit: I also said this earlier but only 4 of 12 jurors had to say no charges should be pressed. That means it could have been 8-4 results. Should be majority rules but its not. It could have been one person who made the difference.
My girlfriend made a good point about how could they pick an impartial jury. It was already almost a full month after the "media trial" before the DA had decided the hand off.
Last edited by combustiblefuel; 12-02-2014 at 10:33 PM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to combustiblefuel For This Useful Post:
You can thank Hollywood and the media for taking that viewpoint and blowing it out of proportion. Pretty sad that when something happens, people instantly jump to the conclusion that the cop is either dirty, or someone is covering for him.
Simply a way to avoid blaming officers ( not saying the officers are at fault) . It is a serious problem throughout the USA . blaming hollywood for the portrayal of police is short sighted.
Here in Canada we charge AND convict police of wrong doing a lot more frequently than our American counter parts with only 1/4 of there population. I follow America in politics and news very very closely. In America the justice system is very flawed and the unions are in a much better position to draw a non- indictment situation. This is not like a one off situation. This is happening 2-3 times a week throughout the states .
Last edited by combustiblefuel; 12-02-2014 at 10:42 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to combustiblefuel For This Useful Post:
Jon Stewart and Larry Wilmore on how the black-on-black crime argument is merely to distract from the issues raised by the Ferguson protestors.
__________________
The great CP is in dire need of prunes!
"That's because the productive part of society is adverse to giving up all their wealth so you libs can conduct your social experiments. Experience tells us your a bunch of snake oil salesman...Sucks to be you." ~Calgaryborn 12/06/09 keeping it really stupid!
The Following User Says Thank You to fatso For This Useful Post:
I was only trying to have a discussion. I thought that was the point of these forums?
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
I was only trying to have a discussion. I thought that was the point of these forums?
