Obama will go down as an exceptional president

[HankAZ]

And you don't think Wilson could have lied? There were what 40 witnesses or so, was everyone lying.

Three independent autopsies corroborated Officer Wilson's account of the events. And the witnesses that "saw" Wilson shoot an unarmed man begging for his life either recanted their accounts or simply disappeared. So, yeah, the 40 witnesses or so were lying.

You cannot argue with the facts.

 

[the_tech_eater]

That is the story Wilson gave, not the conclusive story that actually happened. And besides, just because someone is big, that excuses shooting them multiple times? I see this multiple times people trying to say "Brown was big etc.". That shouldn't factor into how someone (a cop) handles a situation.

And the story that all Brown's thug, liar, criminal friends gave was proven to be contradictory, false, and made up. So you tell me, since you say that Wilsons story is "not the conclusive story of what happened" what happened?

And yes size is a valid reason to shoot someone multiple times when they've went for your gun and are clearly trying to kill you. This is a prime example of your lack of gun knowledge. When shooting at a big living thing, you have to hit in very specific places to kill it(in this case stop him). I've seen police footage of a man attacking a police officer, and the officer shot him several times and he kept coming. A small caliber pistol does not have much stoping power what so ever.

Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk

 

[BreakingKayfabe]

O

And the story that all Brown's thug, liar, criminal friends gave was proven to be contradictory, false, and made up. So you tell me, since you say that Wilsons story is "not the conclusive story of what happened" what happened?


Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk

His answer will be about race and not really answer your question at that.

 

[the_tech_eater]

O

His answer will be about race and not really answer your question at that.

Yeah sadly. He can't face up to the facts.


Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk

 

[anon(4698833)]

So, by this model Brown was going to kill Wilson, so Wilson shot him 6 times for self defense?

Not at all...by that model, the officer felt that the suspect presented a legitimate THREAT of severe bodily harm or death, and stopped the suspect from achieving such. Michael Brown was reported as having gone for Officer Wilson's fire arm, which would have presented an immediate deadly force scenario, having moved through all other use of force levels at once.

 

[the_tech_eater]

Not at all...by that model, the officer felt that the suspect presented a legitimate THREAT of severe bodily harm or death, and stopped the suspect from achieving such. Michael Brown was reported as having gone for Officer Wilson's fire arm, which would have presented an immediate deadly force scenario, having moved through all other use of force levels at once.

Bull. He killed him because he was black. End of story.


/s


Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk

 

[anon(4698833)]

That is the story Wilson gave, not the conclusive story that actually happened. And besides, just because someone is big, that excuses shooting them multiple times? I see this multiple times people trying to say "Brown was big etc.". That shouldn't factor into how someone (a cop) handles a situation.

People even tried to justify Eric Garner by saying they had to choke him because he was big, like that makes any sense.

You have no clue what actually happened...the only thing you can go on is what people "said".

And size ABSOLUTELY factors into the way use of force is executed. A female officer of 125lbs who is confronted by a suspect who is 300lbs will have to use different types of force to stop an incident vs. another officer who more closely matches the threat's physique. This is law enforcement 101 my friend...nothing surprising or secret about it...if you have a big individual and you're not big, you can't just attempt to physically restrain that person in the same way an officer could if they were closer in size. This is why officers are given several different tools to restrain an individual...everything from plastic zip ties to the fire arm.

Eric Garner was asked several times to place his hands behind his back, and he refused...he was given several opportunities to comply with the arresting officers, and he still refused. When the officers attempted to physically detain him, he resisted and fought against them. This lead to his death...not by the arm bar placed on him by one of the officers (which, depending on application, is frowned upon by not the illegal "choke hold" people want to assign to what they saw).

Eric Garner died of asphyxiation because of pre-existing health issues and the physical stress his body endured while the officers were restraining him...the officers did not kill him with the restraints they exerted on him...and this is why no charges were brought against the officers, because it was considered justifiable homicide under the regulations set forth for officers in the line of duty.

The only piece of the situation that I felt warranted further investigation (and I believe actually IS receiving extra investigation) is the fact that no one administered CPR to Garner after he was restrained. They explained that they felt because they THOUGHT he was breathing, that CPR was not appropriate. The problem I have there is that there was an EMS unit there as well as officers who are at the very least trained in basic first aid and CPR, and it is not very hard to verify if someone is in fact breathing...or at least breathing enough to maintain heart and brain function.

 

[HankAZ]

The bottom line in both the Eric Garner case and the Michael Brown case is this: when a law enforcement officer tell you to do something, do it. You will live. You may feel that your rights are violated, but you will be alive to have your day in court. If, on the other hand, you resist or attack the officers, bad things are going to happen.

 

[pappy53]

That is the story Wilson gave, not the conclusive story that actually happened. And besides, just because someone is big, that excuses shooting them multiple times? I see this multiple times people trying to say "Brown was big etc.". That shouldn't factor into how someone (a cop) handles a situation.

People even tried to justify Eric Garner by saying they had to choke him because he was big, like that makes any sense.

Several eyewitnesses and the evidence verify Wilson's story. It just doesn't fit your "down with the black man" spewing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[anon(4698833)]

The bottom line in both the Eric Garner case and the Michael Brown case is this: when a law enforcement officer tell you to do something, do it. You will live. You may feel that your rights are violated, but you will be alive to have your day in court. If, on the other hand, you resist or attack the officers, bad things are going to happen.

This is the real world advice that so many people refuse to accept. I can't stand most officers, and I WAS one for over a decade through the spectrum of local traffic beat police all the way up to federal law enforcement and diplomat security detail. I think a scary amount of low end officers have no business with the power or tools police officers are given...but I also know that if I swallow my pride in certain scenarios, I'll live to see justice served 9 times out of 10 down the road.

You may not be like me...you may decide that standing up for your rights is a noble cause and should be executed at ANY and EVERY possible moment. This is a choice you make, and if it leads to your death, your actions that lead up to it will clear define you as either a legitimate martyr or someone who was an ***** and died because of it.

 

[A895]

They are not the same incident. Brown wrestled for the gun, and later came at the officer. Clear threat.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Again, only one version of the story told.

 

[A895]

And the story that all Brown's thug, liar, criminal friends gave was proven to be contradictory, false, and made up. So you tell me, since you say that Wilsons story is "not the conclusive story of what happened" what happened?

And yes size is a valid reason to shoot someone multiple times when they've went for your gun and are clearly trying to kill you. This is a prime example of your lack of gun knowledge. When shooting at a big living thing, you have to hit in very specific places to kill it(in this case stop him). I've seen police footage of a man attacking a police officer, and the officer shot him several times and he kept coming. A small caliber pistol does not have much stoping power what so ever.

Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk

Whatever, I see what everyone got their mind made up about.

 

[A895]

Bull. He killed him because he was black. End of story.


/s


Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk

That isn't what I have ever said. Don't push whatever you want into what I say.

 

[A895]

Know what, I am done arguing this stuff again. Because no one will ever change my mind and I can't change yours. Because it always devolves into a bunch of right wingers calling me a racist and assorted bunch of names. Don't have the patience for it anymore.

 

[anon(4698833)]

Again, only one version of the story told.

Actually...several different versions of the story were presented to the courts...and through legal process, they felt the need to exonerate Officer Wilson.

You're getting upset because you feel people have their "mind made up about" the incident. You're saying that you want to back away from the conversation because you feel people will "never change" your mind...but the same thing you're getting upset about is what you are actually DOING, just on the opposite end of the spectrum.

In the end, the only thing that realistically exists is that Officer Wilson was not indicted, regardless of what you THINK happened or what your personal OPINIONS are of the situation.

 

[BreakingKayfabe]

Again, only one version of the story told.

Do you only have one channel on your television?

 

[BreakingKayfabe]

In the end, the only thing that realistically exists is that Officer Wilson was not indicted, regardless of what you THINK happened or what your personal OPINIONS are of the situation.

People wanted to hold a trial not only on television but on social media. As much as we benefit from this day in age, it also gives people a false sense of entitlement. A lot of armchair lawyers and jurors. None of us were present and heard witness testimony yet people want to sum it up as "he shot him a bunch of times so he should be indicted."

From the little I know about criminal justice and law, there is what the courts consider a "prudent" person when either a witness or a defendant. I truly believe that from what I've seen and read, the witnesses whose testimonies kept differing from each other's just weren't prudent.

 

[BreakingKayfabe]

And since this thread has gone all over the place and I let it ride, it's time to let it die.