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.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
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. You know good and well that's not what I did. I stated that "Cops" shows many examples of suspects running away from officers and not being found. You're being intellectually dishonest.
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. The evidence is freely available that shows the locations of the wounds and the documents released do not support the claim that Wilson fired at Brown as he was running away.
Nothing that is the equivalent of material from the National Enquirer, or Reno 911 or stuff of that nature. Cute... how about you come up with a logical argument that disproves what I said instead of resorting to smartass remarks?
originally posted by: Domo1
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.
originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: DerekJR321
sounds closer to the truth but over 300 ft was covered and wilso was far from his suv. it took about 90 sec. for the last 10 rnds to fire. and brown fell no where near the suv. wilson gave chase for a long time.
originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: DerekJR321
sounds closer to the truth but over 300 ft was covered and wilso was far from his suv. it took about 90 sec. for the last 10 rnds to fire. and brown fell no where near the suv. wilson gave chase for a long time.
originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Answer
nice but one rnd in the arm was an exit from the front view and you still have 6 rnds that are unaccounted for. if he was not shot from behind then the exit wound in the front of the arm was done possibly with hands raised or covering the face. the autopsy does not rule out the account that he was on the ground only witness statments do but we have missing witnesses.
originally posted by: tinner07
a reply to: Domo1
That is a damn good answer.
I have read most every response to the OP and nowhere have I heard mention of the Personal Responsibility of Brown.
Forget for just a minute that he just robbed a store for a cigar... A Fin cigar... He was walking down the middle of the street as opposed to using the sidewalk.
I see that when I go into the city, black kids walking in the street looking around for cars that are going to have to stop for them.
The cop interacts with him and tells him to get out of the street. He chooses to disobey.
If he had just walked down the sidewalk he might still be alive to rob other people.
What if the guy he robbed had shot him? would the community riot over that?
What if the group of store owners in that community had rioted over being robbed by a black man, would you give them the same attention?
I am sure stores get robbed by blacks way more often than blacks get shot by whites but that is just deemed as natural?
Not until a white has the audacity to stand up to a black does the rioting begin.
Where is the justice for the store owners?
I think the Africans just set themselves back a few hundred years.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Answer
Intellectually dishonest eh? You quoted the TV show "Cops" to "explain" the actions of law enforcement to another member.
Correct or incorrect? You may apologize. I quoted the TV show "Cops" to explain to someone who doesn't live in the US how often suspects run from the police and are not found. Period.
RE: Available evidence. Yes, material is readily available, so why not, instead of merely telling these other members that they're wrong or lying, why not point out the evidence that proves your contention? Is that so hard to understand? Already done but don't let that stop you.
Unless you're merely wanting to pontificate in grand gestures toward "evidence" without actually citing any. A 5-second Google search provides all the evidence needed to back up everything I've said but I've humored you by posting said evidence on the previous page for the especially lazy posters.
You very clearly and obviously used an infotainment TV show as a reference for some point you were trying to make about the REALITIES OF LAW ENFORCEMENT. No one made you make that choice. When your "evidence" presented is therefore compared with tabloids and sit-coms, and your only comeback you make to me is that I should provide evidence that counters your claims? What credibility do you have here? Except that everything I have posted is backed by the evidence of the case and you have done nothing but take a single statement of mine out of context and attempt to use that to discredit me... for a reason I have yet to figure out. You made the decision to take a benign statement of mine and blow it out of proportion for no other purpose than to derail the thread, apparently.
Okay, here's the evidence: gestures to the actual real world as opposed to "something you saw on TV." Again, my reference to "Cops" was to describe to an Australian how regularly suspects evade the police in a foot-chase. You've taken that reference out of context and it's plain for everyone to see that you're being intellectually dishonest.
QED.
Not to mention, you digress to the use of profanity in an attempt to insult a person who is pointing out your faulty reasoning? Referring to your statement as a "smartass remark" is hardly "digressing to the use of profanity to insult a person." You're attempting to look morally superior in this discussion but you're not fooling anybody. It's not as though I cursed at you so don't play victim and try to claim the moral high ground.
I'm not sure a continued conversation with you is worth anyone's time here. Good day. Good. You weren't very convincing anyway.
originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
originally posted by: onequestion
Someone sway my opinion please.
He has to say that. Otherwise, he'd be admitting to making a mistake and murdering an innocent citizen. Who cares what he thinks or says? He's a racist murderer, IMO.
originally posted by: deadeyedick
it is clear now that wilson was chasing brown and firing at his back. after 5 or six rounds while in pursuit brown stopped then six more rounds are fired. one key witness is currently missing and unable to testify. other witnesses claim that brown was going down when the last bullets were fired. others say he was charging the officer. the only life threating round was fired and killed him instantly but entered brown at a downward angle into his forehead. the height difference in the two does not allow for that angle of entry unless brown is on his knees. givin all that it would have been correct to indict wilson.
the media hid the fact that there was a 90 second or so pursuit and led the public to believe that it all happened near the officers vehicle. it is not police procedure to chase a suspect alone when backup is on the way and you have sustained injuries. clearly this was an adrinaline fueled revenge shooting that if following procedures the suspect could have been caught later with back up. the witnesses that say brown was charging did not come foward until days later when others went missing.
originally posted by: AnonyMason
Everyone pulling out the race cards is detracting from the very core of the issue here.
Unarmed man, shot and killed.
Supposedly Darren Wilson was punched? Have you seen the pictures of his injuries? Looks like no fist-to-face injury i have ever seen or experienced. Fists leave bruises and broken bones, not little rosy cheeks.
Cops need to know when is and when it isn't apporopriate to use a firearm. That should always be the last resort. Why cary a tazer or pepper spray if your going to reach for the gun? Why not use a less lethal means first?
Wilson's story doesn't hold water. Sounds pretty shady considering he killed an unarmed man. Now he comes out after the GJ secision and says he would do it again? Totally inflamatory, and in no way going to help ease tensions back in ferguson.
FTP and especially Wilson.
originally posted by: deadeyedick
it was just murder to chase him down and gun him down without backup that was on the way.