Fragile Bird Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 That's the classic accuse and distract angle. Nuff said. B-U-L-L-S-H-I-TBecause that's what happened! They had witnesses during the grand jury claiming he was shot in the back, then a different witness would say that didn't happen. Either way, the autopsy proves he wasn't.That's the people I called blatant liars because they are. How is that racist again? Bullshit again. Different witnesses have different viewpoints. They see what they see. That does not make them BLATANT LIARS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee baby Shamus Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 Don't you train your police in anything other than shooting people? British police manage to arrest people without having to shoot them on the spot. So do Australian police. Maybe they need training if they don't have it! Yes, they are trained to use escalating force. For example: 1.Verbal commands. 2. Pepper spray. 3. Tasers. 4. Firearms. Now my list isn't completely accurate but the gist is there. Apparently Wilson didn't have steps 2 and 3 and had to go straight from 1 to 4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprincethatwasntpromised Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 Yes. And it still would not warrant the immediate execution of an unarmed man..OK. Didn't ask about that last part though.Another question,Yes or no only...Do you believe a police officer should use deadly force? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 Yes, they are trained to use escalating force. For example: 1.Verbal commands. 2. Pepper spray. 3. Tasers. 4. Firearms. Now my list isn't completely accurate but the gist is there. Apparently Wilson didn't have steps 2 and 3 and had to go straight from 1 to 4. Yeah, right, he didn't carry pepper spray or a taser because he found them uncomfortable to wear on his belt, according to his interview today. So in a town that's 73.8% black, then method to deal with the population is a gun. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprincethatwasntpromised Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 Oh, and let's not forget this beauty from theprince from the last thread: Still no racist quote found I see Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprincethatwasntpromised Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T Bullshit again. Different witnesses have different viewpoints. They see what they see. That does not make them BLATANT LIARS.It does when compared to the physical evidence and when many other witnesses say that didn't happen.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gertrude Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 Yes, they are trained to use escalating force. For example: 1.Verbal commands. 2. Pepper spray. 3. Tasers. 4. Firearms. Now my list isn't completely accurate but the gist is there. Apparently Wilson didn't have steps 2 and 3 and had to go straight from 1 to 4. Actually, Wilson testified that he had mace with him as this was going down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 Still no racist quote found I see You wouldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee baby Shamus Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 no, it would in this case go to a grand jury, which indicated there was not enough evidence to indict. It did not declare there was a justified shooting ( and in fact that is still actually up in the air). It did not declare Wilson innocent.How do you keep getting this wrong? This wasn't a trial. He can't be declared innocent as no trial was done. It can't be a justified killing as no hearing for that was done. All that can be said is that he was not indicted in the wrongful death of Michael brown. That's it.Anything more than that is entirely your poor interpretation.If Wilson wasn't justified in using lethal or deadly force against Brown then the Grand Jury would have charge him with some form of homicide or murder. Since they didn't he was justified in his actions. Anything more than that is entirely your poor interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relic Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 Yeah, right, he didn't carry pepper spray or a taser because he found them uncomfortable to wear on his belt, according to his interview today. So in a town that's 73.8% black, then method to deal with the population is a gun. Period.Did he really say that?? It was an Inconvenience, trusly he didn't have them in his person? I mean... What the Fuck? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1918me Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 It does when compared to the physical evidence and when many other witnesses say that didn't happen.... So what, do you subscribe to the belief that memory is like a tape recorder or something? Because it's entirely possible for two different people to remember an event completely differently; none of the witnesses were necessarily lying here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stubby Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 OK. Didn't ask about that last part though.Another question,Yes or no only...Do you believe a police officer should use deadly force?No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprincethatwasntpromised Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 Yeah, right, he didn't carry pepper spray or a taser because he found them uncomfortable to wear on his belt, according to his interview today. So in a town that's 73.8% black, then method to deal with the population is a gun. Period.Hey guys, we have another who can admit Michael Brown may have handled himself wrong. It's all Wilson, or the prosecutor, or the jury. Imagine that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 Yes, they are trained to use escalating force. For example: 1.Verbal commands. 2. Pepper spray. 3. Tasers. 4. Firearms. Now my list isn't completely accurate but the gist is there. Apparently Wilson didn't have steps 2 and 3 and had to go straight from 1 to 4. He did have mace on him. He also had a baton and one of those big ass flashlights you can use as a bludgeon. And if he wasn't carrying anything but his gun that itself would be cause for serious concern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprincethatwasntpromised Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 No. That's all I needed to know. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee baby Shamus Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 So what, do you subscribe to the belief that memory is like a tape recorder or something? Because it's entirely possible for two different people to remember an event completely differently; none of the witnesses were necessarily lying here. Actually that has proven to be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 It does when compared to the physical evidence and when many other witnesses say that didn't happen.... Right. The physical evidence that no pictures were taken of at the time of the crime but were reconstructed later. And "many other witnesses"? There were many witnesses who all had different stories, 5 or 6, and McCulloch picked the 1 witness in each case that was most favourable to the Wilson and said THIS is the reliable witness. McCulloch, the "prosecutor" ie defence attorney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1918me Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 Actually that has proven to be true. It was proven that some of the witnesses were outright lying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprincethatwasntpromised Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 So what, do you subscribe to the belief that memory is like a tape recorder or something? Because it's entirely possible for two different people to remember an event completely differently; none of the witnesses were necessarily lying here.The witnesses that said Brown was standing above brown firing... Your going to entertain the notion that he wasn't full of shit or he just forgot... Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprincethatwasntpromised Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 It was proven that some of the witnesses were outright lying?Yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.