Darren Wilson Breaks His Silence: I'm Sorry, And I Would Shoot Michael Brown Again

a reply to: Answer

I understand what you are trying to say, but what I don't understand is why wasn't non-lethal methods utilised? Why couldn't he just wait for back up in his patrol car from a safe distance? Even if he lost sight of Brown, surely LE could follow the blood trail?

I would be scared, yes, making bricks in my pants if some giant dude had a go at me and then tried to get my gun. But what good am I to the community dead or incapacitated if I go back after the dude I injured? One who is obviously aggro?

This is the issue with LE and some (I stress this word) trigger happy citizens. WHY do we need guns for protection? Once upon a time it was just a swift kick to the nads.

a reply to: deadeyedick

If you're sprinting towards someone your head is going to be down. Brown was not a foot taller. He was 2 inches taller. Actually I think they were the same height.

I don't really mind people that think the cop acted incorrectly, but let's use some common sense.

originally posted by: deadeyedick

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: deadeyedick

it is clear now that wilson was chasing brown and firing at his back.

No it's not. The evidence and the testimony doesn't indicate that, at all.



The only claims to that effect have come from untrustworthy eyewitnesses.

So now you are claiming what the prosecuter said was untrustworthy. At least we agree on something now. Are you saying that brown just stood there as 6 rounds were coming at him at first? No he did not he took off running and wilson caught up to him then killed him as he was getting on his knees other wise the last shot trajectory does not match because it entered at a downward angle into a man nearly a foot taller than the officer.

You are clearly misinterpreting the evidence.

Shots were not fired at Michael Brown's back and he was not "getting on his knees" when the head shot was fired. Also, the two men were both 6'4" so you have none of your facts correct.

The shot to the top of the head, which the experts only said "his head was at a downward angle", was most likely the last shot fired as Brown first started to fall. They did not say "the head shot was fired at a downward angle" which is a VERY important distinction. You're still repeating the same BS that's been pushed by the media and debunked by the actual evidence.

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: AnonyMason



Well, you are sitting there in your cruiser doing your job and this POS thug that weighs 300 lbs. and stands 6'4" reaches in and slaps at you and attempts to take your gun.



Yeah. He may be unarmed at that moment, but he doesn't intend to be for long. At that size and with his thug mentality, he WILL take your firearm and then YOU will be the one unarmed.



Some people absolutely cannot think beyond their noses, or they are men of the metrosexual persuasion and think talking sweetly to the "young" man will do the trick.

yes in that case he could justifibly kill him but he did not he decided to chase him after being injured and not wait for back up. brown ran and it should have ended there until help arrived.

originally posted by: auroraaus
a reply to: Answer

I understand what you are trying to say, but what I don't understand is why wasn't non-lethal methods utilised? Why couldn't he just wait for back up in his patrol car from a safe distance? Even if he lost sight of Brown, surely LE could follow the blood trail?

Watch a single episode of the TV show "Cops" and you'll understand why he pursued his attacker.

There's no such thing as "watching in his patrol car from a safe distance." Once people run in a populated area, it's VERY easy for them to disappear.

originally posted by: queenofswords

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: queenofswords

You're in favor of further empowering jack-booted government shock troops?

There's more than one level of government.

I didn't say that. But, I know what and who they deal with everyday....the dregs of society. We have had half a century to clean up the inner cities and have poured billions upon billions of dollars into programs, and what do we have? It's worse than it has ever been. And our law enforcement officers have to deal with the disrespect and lack of decency day in and day out and put up with all manner of abuse. I know this for an absolute fact.

So, all LEOs are paragons of justice and integrity? No bad apples? No humans who make bad choices and mistakes?

Okay.

I'm far more concerned about the abuses of power in the local Sheriff's offices and State and City Police forces than I am about some Federal suits 2000 miles away.

originally posted by: auroraaus
Even if he lost sight of Brown, surely LE could follow the blood trail?

.

bwuahahahahahaahah..

follow the blood trail.....
ok sherlock holmes



somebody here watches csi, csi miami, csi new york, and bones

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: auroraaus
a reply to: Answer

I understand what you are trying to say, but what I don't understand is why wasn't non-lethal methods utilised? Why couldn't he just wait for back up in his patrol car from a safe distance? Even if he lost sight of Brown, surely LE could follow the blood trail?

Watch a single episode of the TV show "Cops" and you'll understand why he pursued his attacker.

There's no such thing as "watching in his patrol car from a safe distance." Once people run in a populated area, it's VERY easy for them to disappear.

Your reference for credibility in this conversation is a made-for-tv exploitation show?

My goodness.

a reply to: Answer

if he was a mass murderer etc I would agree with you.

But, I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree buddy

I think maybe our argument is more of a clash of cultures thing, it's different in australia from usa.

originally posted by: Grovit

bwuahahahahahaahah..

follow the blood trail.....
ok sherlock holmes



somebody here watches csi, csi miami, csi new york, and bones

No actually I was going to say "follow the yellow drip road" quote from The Simpsons - episode stonecutters.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: auroraaus
a reply to: Answer

I understand what you are trying to say, but what I don't understand is why wasn't non-lethal methods utilised? Why couldn't he just wait for back up in his patrol car from a safe distance? Even if he lost sight of Brown, surely LE could follow the blood trail?

Watch a single episode of the TV show "Cops" and you'll understand why he pursued his attacker.

There's no such thing as "watching in his patrol car from a safe distance." Once people run in a populated area, it's VERY easy for them to disappear.

Your reference for credibility in this conversation is a made-for-tv exploitation show?

My goodness.

Yeah, go ahead and interpret it that way.

The poster I was replying to is from Australia where the culture is much different. That show has many instances of cops pursuing a suspect who vanishes into a neighborhood. It's an easy reference for most people to get.

Don't be so dense.

a reply to: Domo1

ok i had read he was much shorter. we still have the officer shooting at a man 5 or six rounds then chasing him and shooting 5 or six more times when the suspect was trying to get away. that is forcing the shooting when if he was interested in simply catching brown and wilson was really hurt he would have waited for help. we still have one of the bullets that could have entered from behind into the arm. the take away is that one will be chased down and shot. the distance between them allowed for verbal commands such as freeze but i have heard of none.

that is a very eye opening sigunature you have

a reply to: auroraaus

I think many people from other countries tend to downplay the kind of thuggery that goes on in the US. Cops actually have to worry about getting shot here, and there are many that would be happy to do the shooting.

Look how many guns are found on criminals daily in the US. It's not as much of a concern in other countries. The people from the UK bragging that their police don't need guns are especially delusional. I would love to see those cops come here and deal with our criminal element unarmed.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Domo1

ok i had read he was much shorter. we still have the officer shooting at a man 5 or six rounds then chasing him and shooting 5 or six more times when the suspect was trying to get away. that is forcing the shooting when if he was interested in simply catching brown and wilson was really hurt he would have waited for help. we still have one of the bullets that could have entered from behind into the arm. the take away is that one will be chased down and shot. the distance between them allowed for verbal commands such as freeze but i have heard of none.

You are still misrepresenting the evidence. You're repeating information that has been debunked.

You're either ignorant or dishonest... I really hope it's the former.

a reply to: deadeyedick

My understanding is that there initially two shots fired. Then Brown ran. Then Brown turned around and charged Wilson, Wilson then fired ten more rounds as Brown was approaching.

a reply to: Domo1

*star*

I guess what we should look at is why it has gotten to that point in the USA, that's what I was trying to say. Why are so many of our children turning to gang life, to the criminal class? What can we do to stop it?

In a perfect world, we wouldn't need guns. The LE who are there to protect and serve all should be safe. They should not be made to be judge, jury and executioner in one crazy moment.

I make no excuses for Brown's behaviour. But did he deserve to die like that?

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: auroraaus
a reply to: Answer

I understand what you are trying to say, but what I don't understand is why wasn't non-lethal methods utilised? Why couldn't he just wait for back up in his patrol car from a safe distance? Even if he lost sight of Brown, surely LE could follow the blood trail?

Watch a single episode of the TV show "Cops" and you'll understand why he pursued his attacker.

There's no such thing as "watching in his patrol car from a safe distance." Once people run in a populated area, it's VERY easy for them to disappear.

Your reference for credibility in this conversation is a made-for-tv exploitation show?

My goodness.

Yeah, go ahead and interpret it that way.

The poster I was replying to is from Australia where the culture is much different. That show has many instances of cops pursuing a suspect who vanishes into a neighborhood. It's an easy reference for most people to get.

Don't be so dense.

Thanks for the advice, friend, but I don't think I'll listen to someone who quotes "Cops" as an authority on the realities of law-enforcement.

Also, if you're looking for any real credibility, you may want to desist from merely telling every poster that they're wrong, lying etc. and actually quote and link some evidence, actual evidence, you know.

Nothing that is the equivalent of material from the National Enquirer, or Reno 911 or stuff of that nature.

a reply to: auroraaus

I guess what we should look at is why it has gotten to that point in the USA, that's what I was trying to say. Why are so many of our children turning to gang life, to the criminal class? What can we do to stop it?

Honestly? Not many will like my answer. Throw money at the problem. Get better schools and education in place. Give people something to hope for and strive for so they don't become complacent and join gangs. Interview the crap out of all the parents raising kids in crappy neighborhoods who seem able to motivate their children to make the right choices.

I would really prefer it if guns were just something fun to take to the range on the weekend.

I don't like that Brown was killed. I think it's a tragedy. I also think he was a punk, and frankly that he made the choices he did and the blame rests squarely on him.

a reply to: Domo1

2 rounds at the car then brown ran wilson chased and that was wrong. then we have two sets of about six rounds in over one minute time. one witness that first came foward saying seen the 12 round being fired went missing then days later one or two more witness come foward with the charge claim. to my knowledge they were not interviewed until days later. it is all really too much not to hear in open court on the lesser charges at least.

would wilson have took off after him if he had a gun.no
then we have all the claims of size difference that we just debunked. they were fairly matched but all we hear is how brown was so big and dangerous. if that is the case then he would have waited for back up.

this should be done in proper open court and not just on ats.

no matter what the missing witnesses takes the cakee and leaves the investigation incomplete.


your post highlights what i thought when i was saying wilson was justified and that is what the media led us to believe that brown charged the car and left out a 90 sec. foot pursuit by an officer that had rosey cheeks but never a bruise.

now wilson says i would shoot him again
and again and again and again and again and agian and again and again and again and again and again and again and again