Police shooting of unarmed teen leads to protests and Riot

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I don't know how you can come to that conclusion based on this audio recording.

It's entirely possible (note: I'm not saying conclusively that this is actually what happened) that the officer fired six shots at Brown's back (most of which missed), Brown turned around after taking a hit or two and was then shot four additional times while raising his hands above his head.

I'm talking about one of the eye witnesses who said he was shot once in the back before turning around that came out after the autopsy revealed he didn't appear to have multiple bullet wounds from the back. A cluster of six shots isn't easily mistaken for one.

There's still a lot of situations that could have happened based on the evidence, just that as more comes out the less likely any eye witness account of the story is completely "true." (Not necessarily saying everyone is lying, just that eye witnesses are notoriously inaccurate). Right now you have a dozen or so it seem eye witnesses or retellings that are contradictory to one another or the evidence. Which is why officer Wilson's attorney is making sure he doesn't say anything contradictory to the evidence and are able to paint him in the best light. Right now a lot of the key witnesses have already said things that will leave a lot of reasonable doubt.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

I'm talking about one of the eye witnesses who said he was shot once in the back before turning around that came out after the autopsy revealed he didn't appear to have multiple bullet wounds from the back. A cluster of six shots isn't easily mistaken for one.

There's still a lot of situations that could have happened based on the evidence, just that as more comes out the less likely any eye witness account of the story is completely "true." (Not necessarily saying everyone is lying, just that eye witnesses are notoriously inaccurate). Right now you have a dozen or so it seem eye witnesses or retellings that are contradictory to one another or the evidence. Which is why officer Wilson's attorney is making sure he doesn't say anything contradictory to the evidence and are able to paint him in the best light. Right now a lot of the key witnesses have already said things that will leave a lot of reasonable doubt.

The autopsy I saw on CNN said one shot was in the back of the arm, which could have been from an arm hanging down, or from an arm held up in front of him "hands up" style. He still *could* have been shot while facing away from the officer.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Knalus

The autopsy I saw on CNN said one shot was in the back of the arm, which could have been from an arm hanging down, or from an arm held up in front of him "hands up" style. He still *could* have been shot while facing away from the officer.

I didn't dispute that.

Dorian Johnson says one shot was fired from the vehicle and they fled. He the says that Brown was shot once in the back before turning around and pleading for the officer not to shoot him. The officer, according to Johnson, then shot multiple times.

That story seems contradictory to the six then four (or more) shooting cluster possible evidence.

[Canuck-Hater]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Long is not once mentioned in the article. Stop distorting facts, the media on both sides will do that for us.

But once again, more possible evidence that aligns with 0 of the witnesses or stories. If true, Brown was not shot once near the vehicle and then again later nor was he shot once in the back before turning around.

Well it wasn't a short pause... Why are you trying so dam hard to defend this officer? I don't understand.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Canuck-Hater

Well it wasn't a short pause... Why are you trying so dam hard to defend this officer? I don't understand.

I believe in innocent until proven guilty and basing my opinions on facts, not feelings.

You made your decision on the first page when there was exactly 0 evidence. Why were you so quick to condemn a person?

And people are having selective memories here. When BigBrodieFan was saying the officer had his face smashed in and was beaten nearly unconscious I was the first person to ask for evidence disputing it as fact.

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

I would like to see some evidence of this. Right now, I believe, the only websites reporting it are also using x-ray images from 2008 and are hardly credible.

As far as I can tell, the only facts are the officer went to the hospital for swelling of the face that was reported long ago. The extent of his injuries are unknown.

Like I said, facts. Goes both ways.

[Canuck-Hater]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

I believe in innocent until proven guilty and basing my opinions on facts, not feelings.

You made your decision on the first page when there was exactly 0 evidence. Why were you so quick to condemn a person?

And people are having selective memories here. When BigBrodieFan was saying the officer had his face smashed in I was the first person to ask for evidence disputing it as fact.



Like I said, facts. Goes both ways.

We have 3 witnesses, an audio recording, an autopsy, what fact are you waiting for exactly?

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

I didn't dispute that.

Dorian Johnson says one shot was fired from the vehicle and they fled. He the says that Brown was shot once in the back before turning around and pleading for the officer not to shoot him. The officer, according to Johnson, then shot multiple times.

That story seems contradictory to the six then four (or more) shooting cluster possible evidence.

Shot, or hit? I remember that interview, too, and he says that he saw him get hit, I don't remember him saying how many times the officer fired to get that hit.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Canuck-Hater

We have 3 witnesses, an audio recording, an autopsy, what fact are you waiting for exactly?

3 witnesses? We have more, so I'm not entirely sure which ones you are talking about.

I assume you mean Dorian Johnson, the person who said he was shot once in the vehicle, then was shot once in the back after they fled and then said Michael Brown pleaded for his life before being shot multiples times. He was also a reluctant accomplish of Michael Brown in the robbery and has been arrested before where he lied to police. Forgetting about character, this appears to contradict the audio recording of the 6 and 4 shots.

Piaget Crenshaw was another early 'star' witness who said that Michael Brown was shot multiple times in the back. The autopsy appears to dispute the multiple times.

There's other witnesses, like the bystander caught on video saying he saw Michael Brown kept running towards the cop. So I'm not sure who exactly your third one is.

But you don't really care about the evidence, you made up your mind before any of it came out so you don't care that it appears contradictory.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Knalus

Shot, or hit? I remember that interview, too, and he says that he saw him get hit, I don't remember him saying how many times the officer fired to get that hit.

Shot, not hit.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/11/us/mis...now/index.html

I saw the officer proceeding after my friend Big Mike with his gun drawn, and he fired a second shot and that struck my friend Big Mike," Johnson told CNN's Wolf Blitzer. "And at that time, he turned around with his hands up, beginning to tell the officer that he was unarmed and to tell him to stop shooting. But at that time, the officer firing several more shots into my friend, and he hit the ground and died."

[terminator]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

I believe in innocent until proven guilty and basing my opinions on facts, not feelings.

You made your decision on the first page when there was exactly 0 evidence. Why were you so quick to condemn a person?

And people are having selective memories here. When BigBrodieFan was saying the officer had his face smashed in and was beaten nearly unconscious I was the first person to ask for evidence disputing it as fact.



Like I said, facts. Goes both ways.

Where do you stand on OJ Simpson?

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by terminator

Where do you stand on OJ Simpson?

Morally or legally?

I believe in innocent until proven guilty both morally and legally. Legally, he got off on a strong defense and technicalities, and I'm honestly fine with that. Better to give everyone a fair trial that sometimes results in 'bad' people getting off then putting away innocent people.

Morally, I believe he did it.

Here's the thing with this case, we haven't even reached the trial. The officer hasn't been given a trial yet to present his side of the story, people condemned him before really any evidence was given. That's not what I believe this society (and I know it's south of the border) was built on.

Let's get to trial, let's see the evidence presented in a fair trial. Then let's make decisions (both on the case and on the people).

[Canuck-Hater]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

3 witnesses? We have more, so I'm not entirely sure which ones you are talking about.

I assume you mean Dorian Johnson, the person who said he was shot once in the vehicle, then was shot once in the back after they fled and then said Michael Brown pleaded for his life before being shot multiples times. He was also a reluctant accomplish of Michael Brown in the robbery and has been arrested before where he lied to police. Forgetting about character, this appears to contradict the audio recording of the 6 and 4 shots.

Piaget Crenshaw was another early 'star' witness who said that Michael Brown was shot multiple times in the back. The autopsy appears to dispute the multiple times.

There's other witnesses, like the bystander caught on video saying he saw Michael Brown kept running towards the cop. So I'm not sure who exactly your third one is.

But you don't really care about the evidence, you made up your mind before any of it came out so you don't care that it appears contradictory.

And it looks like you've already decided the shooting of an unarmed teen was justified and that the officer involved is innocent... It goes both ways.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Canuck-Hater

And it looks like you've already decided the shooting of an unarmed teen was justified and that the officer involved is innocent... It goes both ways.

No, no I haven't. You're terribly confused. I want to see the evidence presented in court, I want to see the defense and prosecutors present that evidence, create a narrative of what happened and support it based on facts.

Then once all the evidence is heard I believe that's when we should be making up our minds.

That's why we have a court.

[terminator]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Morally or legally?

I believe in innocent until proven guilty both morally and legally. Legally, he got off on a strong defense and technicalities, and I'm honestly fine with that. Better to give everyone a fair trial that sometimes results in 'bad' people getting off then putting away innocent people.

Morally, I believe he did it.

Here's the thing with this case, we haven't even reached the trial. The officer hasn't been given a trial yet to present his side of the story, people condemned him before really any evidence was given. That's not what I believe this society (and I know it's south of the border) was built on.

Let's get to trial, let's see the evidence presented in a fair trial. Then let's make decisions (both on the case and on the people).

By deduction of logic, you believe "legally" that the Cop is innoccent, but "morally" guilty?

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by terminator

By deduction of logic, you believe "legally" that the Cop is innoccent, but "morally" guilty?

No. Not at all. Way missing the point.

Let's get to the actual case and let the officer defend himself(and the prosecutor present his case against) before we make up our minds.

[terminator]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

No. Not at all. Way missing the point.

Let's get to the actual case and let the officer defend himself(and the prosecutor present his case against) before we make up our minds.

I don't see the logic; OJ succesfully defended himself yet he's still "morally" guilty in your eyes. You can pass judgement, different of OJ's peers, yet call others out for calling this cop guilty?

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by terminator

I don't see the logic; OJ succesfully defended himself yet he's still "morally" guilty in your eyes. You can pass judgement, different of OJ's peers, yet call others out for calling this cop guilty?

OJ had a chance to defend himself, and while legally he did, I still believe he is guilty based on the evidence.

Right now there is contradictory evidence saying a cop did something that resulted in the death of a teen that may or may not have been charging at the officer after maybe a violent struggle. Maybe. That's the point we don't really know and we have not heard from the officer or had a prosecutor present the evidence against him. We've heard accounts from media, who have been known to manipulate the evidence to get ratings, on eye witnesses and other evidence that seems contradictory often at first glance.

Do you not agree with innocent until proven guilty, at all? What evidence did it require you to say this officer was a violent homicidal maniac? The early testimony of Dorian Johnson, a man who was a reluctant accomplish in a robbery, who's current recount of the story seems contradictory to other possible evidence? That's what most people, like Canuck-Hater, were basing their 'feelings' on as nothing else had really be known.

I'm just having a very hard time grasping the fact that people don't seem to understand why I want to give this officer a chance of defending himself in court, or at least let the FBI investigation come out, before I make up my mind. That's what our court system, and I would argue entire country is based on. If there was video of him hunting down Michael Brown I would be all on board, right now though there's still a lot of room to claim self-defence (and conversely murder). It's not black and white, at all.

But I guess because OJ may have killed his wife, officer Wilson is a deranged racist murder. Makes sense.

[V]

All I see is there were 10 shots. 10. At an unarmed man. That's freaking insane. I can't think of one possible scenario where 10 shots at an unarmed man could be remotely acceptable. If that doesn't tell you that the officer was out of control, I don't know what will.

[terminator]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

OJ had a chance to defend himself, and while legally he did, I still believe he is guilty based on the evidence.

Right now there is contradictory evidence saying a cop did something that resulted in the death of a teen that may or may not have been charging at the officer after maybe a violent struggle. Maybe. That's the point we don't really know and we have not heard from the officer or had a prosecutor present the evidence against him. We've heard accounts from media, who have been known to manipulate the evidence to get ratings, on eye witnesses and other evidence that seems contradictory often at first glance.

Do you not agree with innocent until proven guilty, at all? What evidence did it require you to say this officer was a violent homicidal maniac? The early testimony of Dorian Johnson, a man who was a reluctant accomplish in a robbery, who's current recount of the story seems contradictory to other possible evidence? That's what most people, like Canuck-Hater, were basing their 'feelings' on as nothing else had really be known.

I'm just having a very hard time grasping the fact that people don't seem to understand why I want to give this officer a chance of defending himself in court, or at least let the FBI investigation come out, before I make up my mind. That's what our court system, and I would argue entire country is based on. If there was video of him hunting down Michael Brown I would be all on board, right now though there's still a lot of room to claim self-defence (and conversely murder). It's not black and white, at all.

But I guess because OJ may have killed his wife, officer Wilson is a deranged racist murder. Makes sense.

OJ convicted by a jury of his peers, still not innocent.

But this piglet is innocent? wake up and smell the coffee guy.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by terminator

OJ convicted by a jury of his peers, still not innocent.

But this piglet is innocent? wake up and smell the coffee guy.

Just realized, like Canuck-Hater, you posted this a day after it made national news:

Originally Posted by terminator

Sounds like cut and dry murder.

This was with very limited information, most of what is now controversial at best at this point. You simply don't believe in innocent until proven guilty - despite what you may argue. Luckily for officer Wilson he lives in a society that offers him that right.

Here's the simply question for people who already made up your mind, if nothing will change it, then how can you claim to believe in any sort of innocent until proven guilty? And then why would you want to live in a society based on that one very basic concept?

I have no problem making up my mind (or changing it if you really believe I have made up mine...) if the prosecutor does a good enough job presenting the case. But for some reason I wont condemn a guy based on a single news article with limited information like you did.