Ferguson Riots

Started by MF DELPH74 pages

Ok.

So now that we've established that the cigars and purchase are irrelevant, let's discuss the relevant details.

You stated above that there are many flaws in Darren Wilson's account, which I'd like for you to point out, if you wouldn't mind. I've been going over the Grand Jury documentation which was provided by the County Prosecutor's office. In the documents it details the testimony of several witnesses, as well as physical evidence and expert witness testimony, which was gathered by local authorities, the State Attorney's office, and the FBI on behalf of the Justice Department, in a collaborative, and exhaustive, effort, which was not based solely on the testimony of Officer Wilson. There were several data points of forensic and ballistics evidence, coupled with the testimony of several other witnesses present, which was either corroborated or dismissed based on said forensic and ballistics evidence, which led to the lack of indictment based on a large body of evidence. Is it Officer Wilson's account specifically which you believe to be flawed, or the collective testimony and physical evidence that supports his story over the other witnesses (Dorian Johnson, for example) who also gave accounts, but of whom the testimony they provided did not map to the physical evidence present at the scene (for example, Dorian Johnson's claims that Officer Wilson shot Mike Brown in the back, or the witness that claimed that 4 officers and vehicles were on the scene at the time of the shooting but only one officer fired shots, or the witness testifying that Mike Brown was never inside of the Police vehicle at any point in time, which were all discredited via other witness testimony, forensic/dna evidence, and police dispatch records)?

Originally posted by MF DELPH
You stated above that there are many flaws in Darren Wilson's account, which I'd like for you to point out, if you wouldn't mind.

Yes, Bardock42, I would like for you to address this question, too. You skipped over my post.

I think I do have one mistake in my understanding and that is that Wilson did not "double-back" to Johnson and Brown. But I do not believe Wilson ever said he left and came back, did he?

Originally posted by Lestov16
LOL coming from a guy who uses sources from the "anti-state pro-market" lewrockwell.com. Stop being a damn hypocrite.

EDIT: Also, stop being a damn cheerleader. You'd have a point if you posted the link to the grand jury evidence but you're not. The only links/sources you post are unreliable agenda-fests which support whatever claim you're trying to make. You seem to be a constant perpetrator of confirmation bias, so again, stop cheerleading and stop being hypocritical.

Don't tell me what to do. Cry to mom about it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I agree that the alleged robbery has no real bearing on the shooting itself, nor did I claim such.

Really cause thats all to have been talking about, and trying to prove he didn't Rob the store.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Oh! How the mighty have fallen! 😉 jk

Thats his easy way out of losing his line of debate.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Don't tell me what to do. Cry to mom about it.

So instead of providing a counter-argument stating why I am wrong and you are in fact objective and post reliable sources (but then again, we all know that would be utter bullshit since you practice neither of these things), you instead say something a ten year old would and then make an ad hominem attack. Very telling of the trustworthiness and veracity of your viewpoint of the situation.

Originally posted by MF DELPH
Ok.

So now that we've established that the cigars and purchase are irrelevant, let's discuss the relevant details.

You stated above that there are many flaws in Darren Wilson's account, which I'd like for you to point out, if you wouldn't mind. I've been going over the Grand Jury documentation which was provided by the County Prosecutor's office. In the documents it details the testimony of several witnesses, as well as physical evidence and expert witness testimony, which was gathered by local authorities, the State Attorney's office, and the FBI on behalf of the Justice Department, in a collaborative, and exhaustive, effort, which was not based solely on the testimony of Officer Wilson. There were several data points of forensic and ballistics evidence, coupled with the testimony of several other witnesses present, which was either corroborated or dismissed based on said forensic and ballistics evidence, which led to the lack of indictment based on a large body of evidence. Is it Officer Wilson's account specifically which you believe to be flawed, or the collective testimony and physical evidence that supports his story over the other witnesses (Dorian Johnson, for example) who also gave accounts, but of whom the testimony they provided did not map to the physical evidence present at the scene (for example, Dorian Johnson's claims that Officer Wilson shot Mike Brown in the back, or the witness that claimed that 4 officers and vehicles were on the scene at the time of the shooting but only one officer fired shots, or the witness testifying that Mike Brown was never inside of the Police vehicle at any point in time, which were all discredited via other witness testimony, forensic/dna evidence, and police dispatch records)?

The robbery is not irrelevant altogether. Just irrelevant to the shooting. Although the pro Darren Wilson side has used it to justify the shooting.

Issues with Darren Wilson's account:

1) He says Mike Brown kept punching and hitting, having the strength of Hulk Hogan, being like a demon, yet Darren Wilson has virtually no injuries at all. The photographs released from him at the hospital show at most that there is a mild reddening on his cheek, but who knows where that comes from. Definitely not 2 full on, undefended, punches to the jaw by Hulk Hogan powered demon as Wilson alleges.

2) Stopping to exchange Cigarillos and a chat.
In that scuffle Mike Brown also apparently pauses, hands cigarillos to his friend, Darren Wilson takes that opportunity of pause to do...nothing.

3)
Wilson says that Brown collapsed about 10 feet from him, after which Wilson returned to his car didn't go near or touch Brown, however there is photographic evidence, that he stood much closer over Mike Brown.

4)
Wilson at different times says that Mike Brown had his hands raised (as one would do when an officer tells them to) but also says that Brown reached for something in his waistband (even though he had nothing there). Which I think other eye witnesses do not corroborate.

5)
Most eye witnesses as far as I know say that Mike Brown walked, with his hands raised towards Wilson. Wilson alleges he charged him like a bull.

There's more articles talking about issues with his testimony in a broader context, like why is someone allowed to just wash himself and clean his gun unsupervised after shooting someone?

I'm not saying all the other accounts are flawless, just that Wilson's has flaws, and seems somewhat manufactured (handed cigarillos tying him to the crime reported, grabbing inside of his waistband as if to reach for a gun, when he doesn't have a gun). And I'm saying that the American public has been deprived of finding out the truth.

My issue with this whole thing is my believe that there was no fair trial to be had, because white police officers get special treatment in particular when their victims are black. I think every incident where someone ends up dead should be brought to a trial, and that this has not is just another blemish in a long history of racism, injustice and bias of the American "justice" system.

Originally posted by Lestov16
So instead of providing a counter-argument stating why I am wrong and you are in fact objective and post reliable sources (but then again, we all know that would be utter bullshit since you practice neither of these things), you instead say something a ten year old would and then make an ad hominem attack. Very telling of the trustworthiness and veracity of your viewpoint of the situation.

Misdirection again on your part, and shady at that.

You didn't post anything that needed a counter, you just started bashing and acting like a child.

You are just upset to be upset that you have not added anything of substance to this debate other then a bunch of keyboard jimmies.

Originally posted by Bardock42

My issue with this whole thing is my believe that there was no fair trial to be had, because white police officers get special treatment in particular when their victims are black. I think every incident where someone ends up dead should be brought to a trial, and that this has not is just another blemish in a long history of racism, injustice and bias of the American "justice" system.

If you knew anything about a grand jury vs a trial you would know why there was no trial, also if you knew that its the prosecutor that leads the grand jury you would understand what is going on.

Since you live in Germany and have no clue about the America Justice system.

Go read a American Legal Book and come back when you have educated yourself.

And while you at it Bardock, why don't you stop bashing America all the time and out system. Was it not ur country that produced Adolf Hitler and tried to take over the world? Quit playing "We German, We Saints" and your "holy art thou" take on everything. You are not a saint here.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
If you knew anything about a grand jury vs a trial you would know why there was no trial, also if you knew that its the prosecutor that leads the grand jury you would understand what is going on.

Since you live in Germany and have no clue about the America Justice system.

Go read a American Legal Book and come back when you have educated yourself.


I have serious doubts that you've read an American legal book.

Edit: And thank you for bringing up Hitler in a debate with a German, really classy.

BTW, Hitler was Austrian.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I have serious doubts that you've read an American legal book.

Edit: And thank you for bringing up Hitler in a debate with a German, really classy.

BTW, Hitler was Austrian.

I took a law class. I know how the system worlds and the difference between a grand jury, trial and due process.

Barack Obama is African, does that mean he is not American?

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
I took a law class. I know how the system worlds and the difference between a grand jury, trial and due process.

Barack Obama is African, does that mean he is not American?


Barack Obama wasn't born in Africa, fool.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Barack Obama wasn't born in Africa, fool.

Doesn't matter, your point is moot.

Shall we break peace and start insulting?

I'm will destroy you in that matter.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Doesn't matter, your point is moot.

Shall we break peace and start insulting?

I'm will destroy you in that matter.


No it isn't moot. Calling it moot shows you don't understand what moot means.

You're questioning the right of someone to make ethical judgments based on what happened to his country several generations before he was born, specifically naming someone who didn't even grow up in that country and only emigrated later. Your attempt at deflection by making a ridiculous non-comparison (Obama being black and Hitler being Austrian) just further weakens your position.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
No it isn't moot. Calling it moot shows you don't understand what moot means.

You're questioning the right of someone to make ethical judgments based on what happened to his country several generations before he was born, specifically naming someone who didn't even grow up in that country and only emigrated later. Your attempt at deflection by making a ridiculous comparison of Obama being black with Hitler being Austrian just further weakens your position.

Oh wait so Hitler was not technically German ok, how about all of his followers, where they not German too now?

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Oh wait so Hitler was not technically German ok, how about all of his followers, where they not German too now. And don't play straw man. Austrian and German are basically same ethnicity.

I wasn't saying the Nazis weren't Germans, just that Hitler wasn't. He was already an adult by the time he moved to Bavaria from Austria.

In either case, is Bardock responsible for Hitler just because Bardock's German?

As Americans, aren't we then responsible for the atrocities against Native Americans, for slavery, and for the firebombing of Dresden, and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? What right do we have to make ANY moral/ethical judgments then?

Edit: I see Bardock is wisely riding out this Godwin-storm.

Oh wait, We attacked Japan first..right...LHM

You sound like a self hating American liberal.

No Bardock is not responsible but he acts like he lives in a ivory tower in German and him and his country are not at fault for anything, ever. But blames America for everything.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
And while you at it Bardock, why don't you stop bashing America all the time and out system. Was it not ur country that produced Adolf Hitler and tried to take over the world? Quit playing "We German, We Saints" and your "holy art thou" take on everything. You are not a saint here.

Germany's past has little to do with current issues in the United States. If you want, we can also talk about current issues that Germany faces, of which there are a few, but I feel like you might know even less about that than about US issues.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Germany's past has little to do with current issues in the United States. If you want, we can also talk about current issues that Germany faces, of which there are a few, but I feel like you might know even less about that than about US issues.

Germany's past makes American past look like a flower garden.

We had a cop shoot a kid acting a fool. Does that mean thats our SOP? He resigned.

Cry more about it.