Originally posted by Mindset
Where are you getting this from?Are you just making stuff up?
So he didn't rob a store that day and assault the clerk, he was not walking down the middle of a road taunting traffic. He was simply smoking his honestly bought cigars on the sidewalk and a cop drove by and gunned him down. 😆
Back on topic...
The NYTimes is reporting stuff. More than a "...dozen witnesses have corroborated cop’s version of events in shooting..."
http://nypost.com/2014/08/19/witnesses-say-ferguson-teen-attacked-cop-before-shooting/
Since these witnesses do not support Johnson's (the friend that was with Brown when the shooting happened) version of the story, how does this bode for Johnson?
Can Johnson get charged with anything in the future? If he goes under oath and tells a different story that is demonstrably false, does he open himself up for perjury? What about lying about what happened to get someone in trouble?
I dunno...
Seems that Johnson has been caught in some very serious lies, at this point, since the autopsy. Now with the other witnesses contradicting him, is he in a load of shit?
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
So he didn't rob a store that day and assault the clerk, he was not walking down the middle of a road taunting traffic. He was simply smoking his honestly bought cigars on the sidewalk and a cop drove by and gunned him down. 😆
Was Wilson wearing a white-pointy hat during these events?
Originally posted by Time ImmemorialAll the first article states is that someone's police sources said they had a dozen witnesses. So we don't know who the witnesses are. How many there really are and how their stories play out.
Like the article just posted of eye witness accounts of him assaulting the cop?
You are correct though the article states the journalist's police source said the witnesses said Brown assaulted the officer in his vehicle.
Other than that the article only mentions two people one is a friend and roughly says the officer is a nice guy. The other person is just giving a second hand account from she said she heard from the cop.
So until the 'witnesses' are confirmed and their stories checkout nothing concrete has been confirmed by that article.
The only concrete testimonies the article gives are essentially the same as Johnson's and Brown's families saying their version of events and saying the their respective friend or family member is a nice guy.
The fact people suggest Brown was a upstanding citizen with his criminal record of assault and robbery in the past. Being high on weed in the present situation, having just robbed a store and was taunting traffic on a road, but then assume "hey he wasn't doing anything wrong, and the cop just shot him" is laughable. Might as well say crime is legal, do whatever you want, assault people, steal, assault a police officer and if you get shot, we will burn our own city down for you.
Originally posted by Time ImmemorialWhich is why I made the comparison.
The fact people suggest Brown was a upstanding citizen with his criminal record of assault and robbery in the past. Being high on weed in the present situation, having just robbed a store and was taunting traffic on a road, but then assume "hey he wasn't doing anything wrong, and the cop just shot him" is laughable. Might as well say crime is legal, do whatever you want, assault people, steal, assault a police officer and if you get shot, we will burn our own city down for you.
For one Brown maybe was a nice guy to the people that were interviewed. Maybe he didn't do any harm to them. He was still human and still capable of doing stupid and violent things.
Secondly the article doesn't prove anything. The only things it does is mention possible witnesses from a private non-disclosed source. Allowing friends of the officer to make personality claims about said officer, which as you pointed out mean nothing, and second hand accounts about the altercation.
I'm just tired of people posting things that essentially amount to nothing but fluff. It's this kind of stuff that has helped push Ferguson into this mess to begin with.
I'm still waiting for definitive evidence to come out before I jump to any conclusions which is what most people should be doing.
Ok, what about his background and priors? This makes you still think he is a good man?
Note that he also has a juvie criminal record that is sealed.
Description: Burglary – 1st Degree { Felony B RSMo: 569.160 }
Date: 11/02/2013 Code: 1401000
OCN: AJ006207 Arresting Agency: ST ANN PD
Description: Armed Criminal Action { Felony Unclassified RSMo: 571.015 }
Date: 11/02/2013 Code: 1301100
OCN: AJ006207 Arresting Agency: ST ANN PD
Description: Armed Criminal Action { Felony Unclassified RSMo: 571.015 }
Date: 11/02/2013 Code: 3101000
OCN: AJ006207 Arresting Agency: ST ANN PD
Source:
https[colon]//www[dot]courts[dot]mo[dot]gov/casenet/base/welcome[dot]do
Click on “Case Number Search” – Enter “13SL-CR12675-1” (without the quotes) in the “Case Number:” box. Click “Find”.
Originally posted by Time ImmemorialDid I say he was a good man.
Ok, what about his background and priors? This makes you still think he is a good man?Note that he also has a juvie criminal record that is sealed.
Description: Burglary – 1st Degree { Felony B RSMo: 569.160 }
Date: 11/02/2013 Code: 1401000
OCN: AJ006207 Arresting Agency: ST ANN PD
Description: Armed Criminal Action { Felony Unclassified RSMo: 571.015 }Date: 11/02/2013 Code: 1301100
OCN: AJ006207 Arresting Agency: ST ANN PD
Description: Armed Criminal Action { Felony Unclassified RSMo: 571.015 }Date: 11/02/2013 Code: 3101000
OCN: AJ006207 Arresting Agency: ST ANN PD
Source:https[colon]//www[dot]courts[dot]mo[dot]gov/casenet/base/welcome[dot]do
Click on “Case Number Search” – Enter “13SL-CR12675-1” (without the quotes) in the “Case Number:” box. Click “Find”.
I said he was human and humanity has tendency to be able to do both violent things and good things. Meaning the people interviewed by him may have only see the good side of him.
But it looks like you missed the main point completely. That being that the article doesn't really prove anything. Most of it is the same stuff that was getting applied to Brown to make him look better than he was.
Everyone reading the article that was just posted should look at it with a grain of salt. That was the point.
EDIT: also on closer review of those priors they all seem to be taking place on the same day so it looks like those all pertain to one case.
Originally posted by Newjak
Did I say he was a good man.I said he was human and humanity has tendency to be able to do both violent things and good things. Meaning the people interviewed by him may have only see the good side of him.
But it looks like you missed the main point completely. That being that the article doesn't really prove anything. Most of it is the same stuff that was getting applied to Brown to make him look better than he was.
Everyone reading the article that was just posted should look at it with a grain of salt. That was the point.
EDIT: also on closer review of those priors they all seem to be taking place on the same day so it looks like those all pertain to one case.
Prove? 😆
They could not even prove OJ was guilty bro, get real.
Originally posted by Time ImmemorialThis isn't the OJ trial.
Nothing then adds anything as its all hearsay, just as everything said in the OJ Simpson trial was conjecture, and look, he got off.
This is an investigation for possible police brutality that has escalated into rioting.
And that article hasn't added anything to the investigation except for people trying to use it as evidence when it does not provide anything other than heresay. Which is part of the reason things have escalated into a riot. People taking shaky incomplete evidence and forming incomplete and often wrong opinions around these articles.
As well as people pushing agendas.