Explain This....

I was just thinking, if the murderer of mike brown was sitting in his vehicle with his weapon holstered, and he is obviously right handed so his weapon is on the right side of his body. Regardless of mike brown being six foot the police was sitting in a suv, how could he had possibly reached for his weapon. Making the claim that it was a struggle for the weapon doesn't logically make sense. I would like someone to explain at what part was there a struggle for a weapon...

a reply to: MX61000

How do you know which side his firearm was holstered on? How is is "obvious" that it was on his right side?

Because I have seen a photo

Of course someone can barrel in your window and grapple with you for your weapon. Not saying it happened, just that your premise is weak.

You should really read the info that was just released.

The officer pulled up next to Brown

He attempted to exit his police SUV

Brown forced the SUV door shut and punched the officer in the face

Officer pulls sidearm

Brown attempts to grab said sidearm and is shot in the hand

Brown retreats temporarily

Officer exits SUV to pursue Brown

Brown turns and charges at officer

Brown goes down

The evidence is pretty clear.

It's also pretty clear that Brown's companion lied his little ass off.

a reply to: The GUT

Well I say if you're sitting in a Tahoe and you really think someone could take a weapon out a holster, actually reach around the person and have the angle to upholster the weapon, that's something a little kid would think and believe.

Really? This is an actual question?

If someone punches you through the window in your car, you would turn to fight them/push them out of the car.

That turn would be more than enough to give the person who's halfway through your window access to the holstered firearm even if it WASN'T already drawn... which I'm fairly certain it would have been. If someone started to attack me in my vehicle, I would definitely draw my sidearm to stop them.

There's far less mystery to this scenario than you're implying and you're letting your bias cloud logic and facts.

The officer was punched in the face. At that moment he reached for his sidearm. I know I would have. Now the criminal doesn't have to reach around him to go for the weapon, its in his hand. And that is probably how the criminal was shot in the hand - when reaching for the gun.

a reply to: MX61000

So how do you explain Browns blood inside the SUV, and on the gun?

If it went down as the protesters claim his blood shouldn't be anywhere near the SUV, let alone inside it.

That is not evidence, that's he said she said.. The evidence is the man was shot, excessive force if any thing, multiple times in the head.
The reason why the rider of the black horse has a pair of balances in his hand is because he was robbed of justice. a reply to: Hmmmmmmm

That makes sense, but that doesn't clarify there being a struggle over the weapon. He just pulled out the weapon an shot him. a reply to: Vroomfondel

I'm not saying he wasn't shot in the vehicle, or that he didn't attack him, I didn't see it. I'm saying according to the definition of struggle, it doesn't fit. Now if they had said he was killed for attacking him rather than "it was a struggle over the weapon" then that would change alot of things, he could have already possibly be charged with something, at least manslaughter. . a reply to: Hmmmmmmm

a reply to: MX61000

There is more evidence out now. He had gunpowder residue in the wound in his hand. That means it was at very close range. If there is muzzle flash damage to the wound - that's the clincher on the deal.

I already know it's a high probability they won't indict him, I knew that from day One. It's just that the frog in the kettle is just about dead an ready to be ate up, so they need something...

originally posted by: MX61000

The evidence is the man was shot, excessive force if any thing, multiple times in the head.

Actually, evidence is evidence. What you've said is nothing but a BS story perpetuated by racists, cop haters, and the media that has not been backed up by the evidence.

originally posted by: MX61000
I already know it's a high probability they won't indict him, I knew that from day One. It's just that the frog in the kettle is just about dead an ready to be ate up, so they need something...

So no matter what the facts of the case are and what the evidence indicates, your mind is made up based on... what, exactly?

You just KNOW what happened? How?

Why is your mind made up? Because cops are always wrong and violent people don't exist?

No, because I'm familiar with how st. Louis operates. Police have a history for killing people, lying and planting evidence.. a reply to: Answer

I find the entire ferguson thing sad because it was the wrong shooting to protest. There are plenty of shooting instances that should have been protested such as the Walmart shooting. If too many protests happen for the wrong cases then people will lose interest same as no one listens to birthers anymore.

Choose your battles admit when your wrong that way people will listen when you are right.

originally posted by: MX61000
No, because I'm familiar with how st. Louis operates. Police have a history for killing people, lying and planting evidence.. a reply to: Answer

Sure they do... sure they do. Your opinion does not a reality make.

a reply to: MX61000

Tahoes are not that big, and a lot of them have those side steps for entering a vehicle