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: 9
12
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun




Tell me something, Witness accounts have said that Wilson drew his weapon and pointed it at Brown while he was inside the car.


I'm not aware of any witness who claimed to have seen inside the car at the time. What I do recall is Wilson claiming that the shot was fired from inside the car, in fact, several misfires and two shots were his first claim.




posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe


Every single piece of this story points to it happening exactly how Wilson said it happened.

"Points to" and "exactly" are two different things.


edit on 2-12-2014 by intrptr because: bb code



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 04:31 PM
link   
What a bunch of arm chair quarterbacks!

I wonder how many of you have ever been in a fight with a larger individual? I wonder how many of you have ever had someone attempt to take your gun? I wonder how many of you have ever been forced to take another life in self defense?

It's easy away from the moment to pass judgement on another but the reality is when you are face to face with fear and possible death how you would react?

MB was a thug, bully, and he chested up for no reason and he paid the price!

I have been threatened and beat up by blacks for nothing but my skin color. I have seen friends who experienced the same.

He got what he deserved and the facts he is being looked at as a martyr is a joke!

This entire thing is political and even though I do think police do over step. This occurrence is simply a black thug who had and attitude, broke the law, and got what he deserved in lieu of his actions!



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun


You can't cross-examine DNA evidence.

I agree, it wasn't impartial. Just one sided, like your statement.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Arguing whether evidence is evidence is pointless without a trial.

The back and forth here only bears out the ongoing conflict whether this or that is true.

Because there is conflicting evidence / testimony it should be allowed to go to trial.

We all saw it take a 100 days to decide, we all saw Ferguson burn.

What conflict? Theres no conflict.

Suuure…



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Fergurson didn't burn because of the death of a man it was all about the FREE STUFF!!!! Browns just people waiting to cash in now $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$




posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 04:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: jimmyx

Why put into place a lengthy, expensive trial and extend the media circus even further when the evidence makes it clear there is no legal avenue pursue?


because that's what the 5th, 6th, and 7th constitutional amendments are all about....



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 04:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: ScientificRailgun


Browns blood inside the police vehicle indicates a struggle took place in the vehicle.

You said "indicates". An indication isn't proof.

Another reason to go to trial.

And the engine was running.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: mikell

The State Hero was already given his kill trophy of over a half-million dollars by his union and their supporters along with his coworkers providing a mock prosecution aligned to create enough space in time to obscure any reality that may not favor his behavior that day.

edit on 12/2/14 by verylowfrequency because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 04:58 PM
link   
look, there are 2 sides here...the first believes that the cops version is 100% true and needs no trial...the second says there might be some lying going on, and would like to see a trial.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Sorry for the delay in my postings. Train ride home and all.


I agree, it wasn't impartial. Just one sided, like your statement.

DNA evidence is impartial. DNA evidence does not take sides. DNA evidence is simply what it is.
Just like GSR tests are impartial.
Just like the clear pictures of the angle and placement of the bullet hole in the vehicle is impartial.

I look at the impartial evidence and I have to say "Hmm, seems like Wilson may have been telling some truths."

If you want to cry cover up, please do. If you provide evidence of a cover up, I'll hop on the "This thing was rigged" train right along with you. I wanna blow the whistle, though.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 05:00 PM
link   
And that is a very good thing. That shows what people have unions for. Unions made this country great now we have fewer union members and look at the shape we are in.


a reply to: verylowfrequency






posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 05:33 PM
link   
I have to give credit to the OP for the way it has been presented. There were two links, one that required a modicum of attention, another the police officer's statement which required my eyeballs to fall to ground zero, and I have only finished the reading of it.

Yet it took all of five minutes for the first reply to come in..about the body difference, being All wrong which is not the case! the use of superlatives sounds more correct.
Then another post ten feet long that used the Cigarillos observation as grounded in fact, (and that is in wilson's statement for more than one reason) when the Ferguson police chief has stated that Wilson did not know about the robbery.
I think some guys need to go and read Wilson's statement in depth.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 05:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: jimmyx

If my kid robbed a store, got stopped by a cop went for the policeman's gun, punched him, and then charged at him even after being shot... Well, I'd have to say I made some terrible choices as parent to let a kid go that far down into thuggery.


Oh, hell yeah. I'd be delivering my kid to the police station personally.

My 6 year old grandson is learning right now his behavior is his responsibility --- not his teachers --- not mine --- and definitely not the police. Yesterday he lost his electronics and I made him write a whole page of: I will not disrupt class".


edit on 2-12-2014 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
Arguing whether evidence is evidence is pointless without a trial.

The back and forth here only bears out the ongoing conflict whether this or that is true.

Because there is conflicting evidence / testimony it should be allowed to go to trial.

We all saw it take a 100 days to decide, we all saw Ferguson burn.

What conflict? Theres no conflict.

Suuure…


I get that no bother, and frankly you are one of the most intelligent people in this whole forum, I wish there were more people with your insight. That there is a conflict of evidence is without question, and it came directly from what from is supposed to be the horses mouth, not from a goddam reporter.
edit on 2-12-2014 by smurfy because: text.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 06:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: ScientificRailgun




Tell me something, Witness accounts have said that Wilson drew his weapon and pointed it at Brown while he was inside the car.


I'm not aware of any witness who claimed to have seen inside the car at the time. What I do recall is Wilson claiming that the shot was fired from inside the car, in fact, several misfires and two shots were his first claim.



That is correct, in fact Wilson was of the opinion that one of the shots injured Brown, one reason for his washing himself at the police station, after reaching the police station alone, driving his supervisors car that was given to him to get away from the scene, no one accompianied Wilson, who had injuries, in that car. Incredible that, and the medics came to Wilson after he arrived back at the police station.
edit on 2-12-2014 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 06:12 PM
link   
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.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Klassified

Someone from law school said that you could present a ham sandwich to a grand jury and depending how you want to present said ham sandwich you can easily find enough evidence to bring indictment or not.

It is clear that 16 out of 18 witnesses did say Michael Brown had his hands up, but the problem is, a grand jury will only get surface facts, and unlike a jury trial, they are not going to get tons of granular evidence and CSI style points brought to bear, blood spatters, directions etc, but we all know that the negligence of the photographs not being taken, the mishap with a police radio being put on the wrong channel, either purposely or not so purposely as presented, it is easy to paint over facts and paint them in a enough of a slightly different light, to make your point and once you have enough people that saw slices or the incident from different perspectives, a professional liar, I mean lawyer can easily make what one person saw easily discredit the other.

It all depends on lots of factors, the main point is that had this not been high profile, it would have gone under the radar, but since the amount of focus was on the aftermath, it would have only been right to have had all of the evidence vetted before a jury to even find Mr. Wilson completely innocent,this was denied.

No charges, does not always fully translate into being completely innocent, that is why from this point, the story has to remain the same, in this day and time with all of the phones, I just find it hard to believe no one managed within 90 seconds of this whole exchange to have caught even 1 or two seconds on video that could help account for this, standing somewhere watching police in the middle of the street for 90 seconds lead up to this, makes one wonder, is there a smoking gun out there somewhere ?
edit on 2-12-2014 by phinubian because: added more info



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: smurfy


in fact Wilson was of the opinion that one of the shots injured Brown, one reason for his washing himself at the police station, after reaching the police station alone, driving his supervisors car that was given to him to get away from the scene, no one accompianied Wilson, who had injuries, in that car. Incredible that, and the medics came to Wilson after he arrived back at the police station.

Thanks for that bit of information.

Any other suspect would be cuffed and waiting for forensics to show up. Wilson got to leave unaccompanied and he washed up? Cops would never allow any suspect with blood and or injuries to leave. Chain of evidentiary custody compromised.

Thats not suspicious at all.

If you can link that I'd be grateful.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: phinubian


It is clear that 16 out of 18 witnesses did say Michael Brown had his hands up,

Really? 16 out of 18?

Do we know how far "most of them" say he was at the time?




top topics



 
12
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join