It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ferguson Grand Jury: No Indictment for Darren Wilson in Michael Brown Shooting

page: 107
138
<< 104  105  106    108  109  110 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick


wilson stated he began firing when brown turned around and charged.
No. He did not state that.

As he is coming towards me, I tell, keep telling him to get on the ground, he doesn't. I shoot a series of shots.


edit on 11/30/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

Two part response: I have no idea how many grand juries you've been a part of but your statement that "most" will indict if even one witness has conflicting testimony is utter crap. One single witness with conflicting testimony isn't probable cause. It seems you still can't get what probable cause is, as opposed to what you want it to be.

Part two: you're putting words in my mouth and trying to spin things. I haven't taken "extreme grievance" to anything anybody has said, at any point. I think name calling is childish. If my saying that offended you, there's not much I can do about it. And I have never in my life had somebody I don't know call me a racist and then found it funny. Why you thought that was necessary is beyond me.
edit on 30-11-2014 by Shamrock6 because: Typos



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

so you want to turn this into a debate over alleged name calling. i have not called you a racist. go back to the post and reread it. you ar a self labeled shill master. that should not offend you.

the first part of your post is wrong also and you have yet to answer the question of what wilson could have done to get indicted.

it is a fact that having contridicting testimony from witnesses in a case where one witness testimony is indicating a crime by testimony is and has always been enough probable cause to indict.

it is a fact that having contridicting testimony from witnesses in a case where one witness testimony is indicating a crime by testimony is and has always been enough probable cause to indict.



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 01:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: deadeyedick




wilson stated he began firing when brown turned around and charged.
No. He did not state that.


As he is coming towards me, I tell, keep telling him to get on the ground, he doesn't. I shoot a series of shots.




ok i see the disconnect because he gives a different account in the tv interview to a reporter named george and also a different account on scene. you will have to get your own links for that i run low on bandwith here.

either way you do have the skills to put it all together.

i can not wait for wilsons book to come out labeled "if i did do it"
edit on 30-11-2014 by deadeyedick because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick



ok i see the disconnect because he gives a different account in the tv interview to a reporter named george and also a different account on scene.

You mean this one? No. He doesn't.
abcnews.go.com...
The disconnect seems to be in what you think you heard as opposed to what was actually said.




either way you do have the skills to put it all together.
You haven't explained what "doesn't add up." Help me out.



edit on 11/30/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)

edit on 11/30/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

Saying "it is a fact" doesn't make it more true. Especially when it's not. What IS a fact is that the grand jury looks at the evidence as a whole and uses it to determine whether there's probable cause. The grand jury does NOT say "well the physical evidence says this, 11 witnesses say the same thing, but this one person says something else so we have to indict." That is completely false and not at all how grand juries function.

It's shill supreme, not shill master. And it's a tongue in cheek comment about people like you who can't handle a different viewpoint and opinion without getting upset and calling somebody a shill. But you are correct, you did not specifically call me a racist. You said that I'm either medicated, a shill, or racist. That's so much better


What could Wilson done to have merited an indictment? Stopped his vehicle and shot Brown when Brown first got to his window, then exited his vehicle and dumped 3 magazines worth of ammo into him, then gotten on the radio and said "I just killed me a black guy." It's an absurd question, because there are dozens of things he could've done to merit an indictment, so you get an absurd answer.



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

that is it.

brown never stopped at any point when coming toward wilson until he was killed.
the blood trail was 25ft or so long. we have 6 seconds of shots and now wilson claims to have said the words get on the ground at least twice. that can be timed. so now we have the distance and at least 9 seconds passed as brown was covering it if wilsons statments are true. it still is not adding up to the claim of him charging at him. if anything it points to something else.

at that rate brown would have went 36 ft if he was just walking but the claim is that he was charging in a threating manner.
edit on 30-11-2014 by deadeyedick because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

So now we have the distance and at least 9 seconds passed as brown was covering it if wilsons statments are true.
I have no idea where you got that 9 seconds from but we have no way of determining from Wilson's testimony how far away Brown was when Wilson first opened fire. There is no way to use the audio to determine how fast Brown was advancing.




edit on 11/30/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

it was also tounge in cheek when i first typed it along with other statments but you did not seem to want to see it that way.

thanks for answering the other question we now have a point of reference where your version of guilt lies.



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: deadeyedick


So now we have the distance and at least 9 seconds passed as brown was covering it if wilsons statments are true.
I have no idea where you got that 9 seconds from but we have no way of determining from Wilson's testimony how far away Brown was when Wilson first opened fire. There is no way to use the audio to determine how fast Brown was advancing.







that you do not know would only add more time to the equation not take any away. it does not matter where wilson was.

we have by wilsons statments brown in motion the whole time until the kill shot. we have six+ seconds of shots then we have the time it takes to say "get on the ground" at least two times. that would take about at least 3 seconds to be said and even one or two more seconds to be processed by brown. an estimation of at least 9 seconds of interaction from wilsons statments can be extrapulated here. we can then compare that to the blood trail from brown and then add the claim from wilson that brown was charging and never stopped.

now do you see that it does not add up?


now an average person would cover at the least 30' walking in that time so how did brown if in motion the whole time and traveling in a threatening manner that would likely be a charge meaning not walking how would he only cover 25'

this gives much merit to the witnesses that said brown was on his knees with his hands up
edit on 30-11-2014 by deadeyedick because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

You're welcome. But bear in mind that I said you got an absurd answer for an absurd question. And also said there's dozens of things he could've done to have merited an indictment. You asked me to name something he could've done to get an indictment, not list out every possible thing I thought would merit an indictment.

Stop twisting my words to try and suit your own agenda. Stop cherry picking my words and ignoring the rest of my comments. K thanks



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick



now do you see that it does not add up?
I don't see how it conflicts with Wilson's testimony. Nor do I see how you have determined how far away Brown was from Wilson when he opened fire. Only by knowing that could the audio be of any possible use in determining how fast Brown was moving during those 6.5 seconds.

We don't know how far Brown moved while under fire so we cannot determine how fast he was moving while under fire. You need two things to determine speed; time and distance. We have the time over which bullets were fired. We have no way to determine the distance that Brown moved during that time.


edit on 11/30/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

The same witnesses who recanted their testimony altogether? Or the witnesses who changed their story between the time of the shooting?



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 03:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: deadeyedick






now do you see that it does not add up?

I don't see how it conflicts with Wilson's testimony. Nor do I see how you have determined how far away Brown was from Wilson when he opened fire. Only by knowing that could the audio be of any possible use in determining how fast Brown was moving during those 6.5 seconds.



We don't know how far Brown moved while under fire so we cannot determine how fast he was moving while under fire. You need two things to determine speed; time and distance. We have the time over which bullets were fired. We have no way to determine the distance that Brown moved during that time.





the distance of brown to wilson is irrelevant here. the distance brown traveled under fire is too.

follow me if you can

brown traveled a total of appox 25 ft

6 sec. of shots were recorded and accepted by gj

wilson stated he said the words get on the ground multiple times

wilson stated brown never stopped coming at him

wilson stated brown was charging in a threatening manner that warrented shooting brown

that eaquals to est of 9 seconds of travel by brown covering 25'

the average person walks about 3 to 4 ft per sec. multiple that by the 9 sec. and you get 36' of travel by an average person when walking. if brown was doing anything other than walking toward wilson then the distance he could have covered would be greater than 36'



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: deadeyedick



The same witnesses who recanted their testimony altogether? Or the witnesses who changed their story between the time of the shooting?


The witness that were threatened with death if they did not recant their words.



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

Prove it. Show something other than your own personal comments that shows witnesses were threatened with death if they didn't change their story.



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Now what kind of corruption would it be if it could be proven by me?

however i dare you to jump on my last post to phage and fully understand my comments there and if you do understand then then you will have one small piece that starts to paint the picture off corruption in the gj. at the lesst look at it and show me where you think the figures are wrong.



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

So you're making wild accusations without one single shred of proof. But acting as if it's fact. Cool.



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 03:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: deadeyedick



So you're making wild accusations without one single shred of proof. But acting as if it's fact. Cool.


So you are ignoring my words. i pointed you to some proof in the post i refered you too. every bit comes from evidense accepted by the gj.

It was all there when you read my post so why accuse me of having no evidense when i submitted some to you in the same post you responded too.

It shows clearly that wilsons statments are false in some form and points to the witnesses that stated brown was on the ground were telling the truth and then later lied for some reason.



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

Nope nope nope. Stick to the statement. You said witnesses were threatened. I said prove it. You said you can't. At no point did I bring in to question anything else you've said. Stick to issue. Don't start talking about how you didn't check the mail yesterday.



new topics

top topics



 
138
<< 104  105  106    108  109  110 >>

log in

join