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: deadeyedick
a reply to: Shamrock6
Now what kind of corruption would it be if it could be proven by me?
however i dare you to jump on my last post to phage and fully understand my comments there and if you do understand then then you will have one small piece that starts to paint the picture off corruption in the gj. at the lesst look at it and show me where you think the figures are wrong.
If you assume he was moving at a steady speed the entire time.
if brown was doing anything other than walking toward wilson then the distance he could have covered would be greater than 36'
He turns, and when he looked at me, he made like a grunting, like aggravated sound and he starts, he turns and he's coming back towards me. His first step is coming towards me, he kind of does like a stutter step to start running. When he does that his left hand goes in a fist and goes to his side, his right one goes under his shirt in his waistband and he starts running at me.
It is not a prosecutors job to indict. It is a prosecutors job (before trial) to present evidence to a judge or jury to decide if a crime has been committed.
A prosecutor who wanted to actually indict him would have bothered to mention this.
originally posted by: Phage
Based on Wilson's testimony he started firing after Brown had been approaching him and he gave orders for him to get on the ground. Based on Wilson's testimony there is no way to determine how far Brown had moved when Wilson opened fire so there is no way that the audio could be used to determine the rate of Brown's advance when Wilson started firing.
sham rock 6
originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Shamrock6
Now what kind of corruption would it be if it could be proven by me?
however i dare you to jump on my last post to phage and fully understand my comments there and if you do understand then then you will have one small piece that starts to paint the picture off corruption in the gj. at the lesst look at it and show me where you think the figures are wrong.
Yes. If he were moving faster than walking the whole time.
if he was moving faster than walking then it shows that he would have
it is impossible for everything wilsn said to be true
originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: nenothtu
No kidding? And what does a grand jury do? Determines whether there is probable cause to believe a person committed a crime.
"The investigatory functions of the grand jury include obtaining and reviewing documents and other evidence and hearing the sworn testimony of witnesses that appear before it. The grand jury's accusatory function is to determine whether or not there is probable cause to believe that one or more persons committed a certain offense within the venue of the district court."
Thanks
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: deadeyedick
I have no idea where you got that 9 seconds from but we have no way of determining from Wilson's testimony how far away Brown was when Wilson first opened fire. There is no way to use the audio to determine how fast Brown was advancing.
So now we have the distance and at least 9 seconds passed as brown was covering it if wilsons statments are true.
originally posted by: deadeyedick
we have by wilsons statments brown in motion the whole time until the kill shot. we have six+ seconds of shots then we have the time it takes to say "get on the ground" at least two times. that would take about at least 3 seconds to be said and even one or two more seconds to be processed by brown. an estimation of at least 9 seconds of interaction from wilsons statments can be extrapulated here. we can then compare that to the blood trail from brown and then add the claim from wilson that brown was charging and never stopped.
now an average person would cover at the least 30' walking in that time so how did brown if in motion the whole time and traveling in a threatening manner that would likely be a charge meaning not walking how would he only cover 25'
this gives much merit to the witnesses that said brown was on his knees with his hands up
originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: nenothtu
Preponderance of evidence is the burden of proof in civil cases. Example: if you were to sue me saying I owe you money, it's up to you to prove that I do, not up to me to prove I don't. You would do so using testimony and whatever evidence you have to show that I more likely than not do actually owe you money.
It is a fairly low threshold for evidence. Lower than anything required for a criminal case, anyway.