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.

 

KU Journalism Major Shreds “Case” Against Mike Brown

page: 10
12
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

They discussed this on the news, as well as him being able to change clothes, put his own gun in the evidence bag...you know things that you see on TV, where the case gets blown open, but again, that trial will never happen and we have to only go with what a grand jury thought....and I am not one to say that Mike Brown was a saint, the store robbery was enough that if you had a father that cared, you would be in such fear that he might actually kill you, or if you did have a good enough father or mother you'd never consider it...but don't read into that too much, I really believe that the mishandling and chain of custody of evidence were enough to have raised some eyebrows about these amateur mistakes surrounding a police involved homicide, regardless of his story.




posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 06:38 PM
link   
a reply to: phinubian
All good points. I have wondered if a cell phone video, or some other piece of external evidence will come to light later on. This is one of the dangers of making a definitive judgement either way on a case like this too early on. We've seen this before, over and over. Months or years later, key evidence comes out clearing or convicting one side or the other.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 09:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: ScientificRailgun


DNA evidence is impartial.DNA evidence does not take sides. DNA evidence is simply what it is.

Who's DNA it is is irrelevant to how it got there. This does not prove Brown assaulted Wilson nor exonerate Wilson.

It "indicates" or "points to" exactly nothing.

You never let Wilson testify in that regard and consider it evidentiary and matching the "forensics". Because of the complex nature of conflicting testimony and blood spatter that should be the crux that sends the case to trial.

Let that air out in court.



Who's DNA is very relevant. You think they orchestrated a cover up within a few hours and a story that has stood since it happened? The pics were taken while Brown's body was still in the street. The DNA evidence is from the scene of the crime. Wilson left when his Sargeant showed up, so is your postulation that his Sargeant orchestrated a master plan between the time of the shooting and when he showed up to the scene and had it all planted prior to the pics being taken and the body removed?

That would be some serious forward thinking without knowing any of the story or talking to the one person that was on scene for the entire incident....Wilson....he sent him to the station almost immediately after he arrived on scene.

You're giving way too much credit to a police officer for a mastermind type of coverup. If it is as you imply, it would also imply that the coverup plan was made between the time of the shooting and the Sargeant arriving on scene without any knowledge of what happened or questioning of Wilson....are you suggesting clairvoyance?



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 09:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: phinubian
a reply to: intrptr

They discussed this on the news, as well as him being able to change clothes, put his own gun in the evidence bag...you know things that you see on TV, where the case gets blown open, but again, that trial will never happen and we have to only go with what a grand jury thought....and I am not one to say that Mike Brown was a saint, the store robbery was enough that if you had a father that cared, you would be in such fear that he might actually kill you, or if you did have a good enough father or mother you'd never consider it...but don't read into that too much, I really believe that the mishandling and chain of custody of evidence were enough to have raised some eyebrows about these amateur mistakes surrounding a police involved homicide, regardless of his story.


He may have bagged his own gun, but from the report, it did not leave the scene until after the investigain wrapped. He specifically stated he put his gun in the car and never said he retrieved it before he left the scene in the Sargeants vehicle.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe


…are you suggesting clairvoyance?


Done had my say here. See ya on the boards…



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 09:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe




He may have bagged his own gun, but from the report, it did not leave the scene until after the investigain wrapped. He specifically stated he put his gun in the car and never said he retrieved it before he left the scene in the Sargeants vehicle.


Did he put the gun in the car before or after he "immediately left and washed his hands", according the FBI agent who testified?



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 10:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Vasa Croe




He may have bagged his own gun, but from the report, it did not leave the scene until after the investigain wrapped. He specifically stated he put his gun in the car and never said he retrieved it before he left the scene in the Sargeants vehicle.


Did he put the gun in the car before or after he "immediately left and washed his hands", according the FBI agent who testified?





He stated prior to his Sargeant showing up that he put his gun away in his vehicle. Read the report.
edit on 12/2/14 by Vasa Croe because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 10:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

The FBI agent stated that he washed up immediately after the shooting. So, were his hands still bloody when he opened the car door and put his gun away? Or, did he take his gun with him while he washed up?



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 01:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: fieldyznutz
Weight difference is around 75 pounds, however. I would consider someone who is 75 pounds heavier than me as being bigger than me. Also, I believe I have read eyewitness statements from a few people who witnessed the whole event.

You can't attack a police officer and not expect something to happen to you.



Don't forget manhandle people in a store just a little while earlier, and rob them. That kind of behaviour in a while tends to lead to bad places...



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 02:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Klassified

Right, and why should I take some journalists opinion that she believes as a fact over that of a grand jury? Have we forgotten that the media is the ones responsible in whipping up this fervor in the first place? How do I know she just doesn't want to generate some ad revenue?

I'm sure if I started writing nonsense about the criminal Michael Brown I too could garnish a few dollars through AdSense.



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 09:29 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

Do what you want, but if you've lost that much faith in the legal system, then that's your burden, not mine. All I can do is try to discuss what I know. If you choose to disregard, that's up to you. It's no skin off my back, regardless.

BTW, you haven't proven that the "Official Version" doesn't hold up to scrutiny. In fact, after looking at all of the evidence objectively, it does--in fact, it's a stretch to come up with another conclusion. But you seem to be basing your opinion on stretching the facts and information--does it bother you that your version doesn't hold up to scrutiny, or that your just a person making claims on the internet that you know better?

You absolutely should ignore all the media reports, but don't replace that with random internet people who claim to know better, replace it with the actual evidence presented to the GJ, then make a determination. It appears you are not doing that.



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey




BTW, you haven't proven that the "Official Version" doesn't hold up to scrutiny. In fact, after looking at all of the evidence objectively, it does--in fact, it's a stretch to come up with another conclusion.


I disagree. I see plenty of fuel to support "reasonable doubt" that Wilson was acting in self defense.



You absolutely should ignore all the media reports, but don't replace that with random internet people who claim to know better, replace it with the actual evidence presented to the GJ, then make a determination. It appears you are not doing that.


So, you're saying that we should just have faith in the legal system, ignore the "Forth Estate" and always accept the government's" official Story" and Grand Jury decisions without challenge or cross examination.

Got it!





posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

As an aside, I genuinely curious to know your personal thoughts on the matter. I'll share mine with you in the interest of quid-pro-quo.

My personal thoughts? What happened didn't have to happen. Putting aside Brown's previous robbery I'll focus only on the altercation itself. Wilson should have had a tazer on him. An increasing number of LEOs no longer carry tasers because their short effective range and relative unreliability in stopping a perp is well known. However, electrical stun devices still should have a place in an LEOs arsenal of LTL weapons.

Wilson should have turned on the DashCam on his vehicle as soon as he began interacting with a civilian. If only for the ensuing audio.

Brown should have complied with Wilson's order to get out of the street. Refusing to comply with a lawfully given LEO request is asking for trouble. Yes, Jaywalking IS a crime. A very minor one, and had Brown gotten off the street as requested, this whole mess could have been avoided. Brown shouldn't have started a physical altercation with Wilson. Brown REALLY shouldn't have gone for Wilson's weapon.

While I do believe that Wilson acted in self defense, I think this whole tragedy could have been avoided if cooler heads had prevailed on both sides of the conflict.



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Okay.

The whole case turns on it's head for me when Darren Wilson claims that Brown turns and charges him, thus he had to put two bullets in his head.

Nope. Brown had been shot 4 times already. 16 witness claimed he had his hands up and was surrendering.

I don't believe Wilson's claim in his interview with George Stephanopoulos, that he was polite and the boys were aggressive. I don't believe that he called for back-up before engaging Brown. There's a lot of Wilson's testimony that makes no sense to me, but I could let it all go, save for the two bullets to Browns head, after his hands were up.

That, in my opinion is the crux of the question. Did Wilson need to shoot an unarmed Brown, 2 times in the head when he did, in self defense? I don't think so.



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

Understood, while I don't agree with your version of events, I certainly won't belittle you for it. I was only curious.

I do believe Brown came toward Wilson after turning around. I do not believe his hands were up. I do not believe Wilson INTENTIONALLY shot Brown in the head. The guy basically magdumped and only landed six shots (five if you don't count the hand wound in the car) so I know he's no trickshot.



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Forgetting the mistakes she makes, unsurprising really, I switched off when I saw


Shelby Lawson is a student at the University of Kansas, majoring in Journalism and Women, Gender and Sexuality Studies


The latter part (though not necessarily in her case) usually translating into 'Social Justice Warrior moron' that gets GTA V banned in Target, gets a whole bunch of consensual sex acts banned in porno films, picks on scientists cartoon shirts while they're landing on a comet, probably claims to receive death threats on Twitter but when you actually check you might find ONE 'threat' saying something like 'jump off a cliff please', blocks you online if you say anything even politely that she disagrees with and fantasises about a genderless, drab future like in 'The Giver', 1984, Equilibrium, etc.

Not saying she is specifically like that or responsible for any of those things, but I've noticed a pattern between those types of 'studies' and the types of people that do them and the muck online swaying the minds of the sheep. It all seems to be part of a plan that could be as benign as creating hysteria to get hits, or something more serious like creating division and hatred.

Anyway, journalism now seems to just be 'I write opinionated hysterical tosh and get more than 10,000 views on my blog' rather than actually mean anything worthwhile. So whoopy doo, I have more respect for people I can't stand on here that just want to discuss something they believe in (even if I think it's nonsense) than people like that who just want some sort of fame or money.



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 10:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
I disagree. I see plenty of fuel to support "reasonable doubt" that Wilson was acting in self defense.


Well, your opinion isn't the one that matters, but the majority opinion of the grand jury, and I trust them over you in this instance (because I have plenty of training in examining evidence in regards to trials, and I know what I've seen doesn't match up with your overwhelming skepticism).


So, you're saying that we should just have faith in the legal system, ignore the "Forth Estate" and always accept the government's" official Story" and Grand Jury decisions without challenge or cross examination.

Got it!



No, you don't "got it!" You are implying I said to have blind faith in the legal system, when what I said was to ignore media reports and to replace that with the evidence. You are not doing that, and it's apparent in your responses to me, and your most recent one above this one to ScientificRailgun.

You can keep arguing your conspiracy theory, but responding to your replies has become a waste of time.

Best regards, but I'm out. All I ask is that you stop pretending that you know more about the case than the people who sat in on the grand jury.



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 10:29 AM
link   
a reply to: AgentSmith

Totally off topic post warning:

The Scientist getting blasted for his shirt really irked me. My own gender aside, this dude is the stereotypical disheveled scientist on the brink of doing something groundbreaking. That was probably his lucky shirt. He wore it that day because he wanted everything to go well. But the Social Justice movement turned the whole thing into "This guy is a misogynist and needs to be vilified because he wore a tacky shirt! YOU'RE WHAT'S WRONG WITH SCIENCE."

And they basically made the dude burst into tears for the whole world to see and claimed a "victory for the oppressed" for themselves after destroying a completely normal, well-intentioned scientist.

Shameful.



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

I know, shouldn't reply. I so agree with you.

I love the whacky, colorful scientist. Some people are stupidly uptight.



posted on Dec, 3 2014 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

YOU are evidence bias, just like the prosecutors were.

There is plenty of room for "Reasonable Doubt" that Darren Wilson needed to shoot Brown in the head, in self defense, twice, after 16 witnesses claimed his HANDS WERE UP and he was surrendering.



You can keep arguing your conspiracy theory, but responding to your replies has become a waste of time.


What were you expecting? Welcome to ATS!





edit on 3-12-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join