Michael Brown Shooting: This is intresting

Ii occurs to me that the officer had not one but two young men to worry about while his face was smashed, bones broken and the attempt to take his gun from him. So while he was firing at Brown, there was another suspect nearby. And either or both could have disarmed him and murdered him with his own gun. It is not easy being a Police Officer with a badge and a gun when you are dealing with dangerous or potentially dangerous individuals.

 

But But But Wilson was older so he had not right to use his weapon to defend himself. He could only use it against someone older than himself and he should be required to verify that before he pulls his weapon.........

 

Because he was undergoing a second trial, and breaking into hotel rooms and stealing things.

 

204 now, and I'm still looking for it.


The only thing interesting in this thread, was the video that came out before the thread... where the guy candidly said he saw Brown moving toward the cop, as he was being shot.

 

How does that become the "most likely" scenario? I think it pretty damned unlikely myself, and only believable because it could not be refuted, either by forensic evidence that the police neglected to obtain or by other eyewitness testimony. IMO, Martins's family were unwise not to pursue a wrongful death suit, as the preponderance of evidence was clearly in their favor, though not beyond the reasonable shadow of doubt.

The writer Jack London was 6 foot 4 and weighed 240lbs at the age of 17. He became a storekeeper in the Klondike Gold Rush and this was not a position usually given to those who couldn't protect valuables from other strong men. Martin, however, was 160 to Zimmerman's 205. However, it has been clearly established (IMO) that Zimmerman was an armed passive-aggressive bully of the type that has become far too common nowadays, Given that many conservatives are the same, it is little wonder he has become such a darling of theirs.



This is my problem above.

Unless they are on your property you are on very shaky legal ground if you do. If you're armed the litigational terrain becomes positively treacherous. Like most conservatives you seem to vastly overestimate what are your actual rights in regard to "pursuing" other people, "suspicious" or not.

 

Because, as even you pointed out, Martin was about 45 pounds lighter. If Zimmerman was really "hunting" Martin in order to shoot himself a "(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)" as many Lefties attest, then why didn't Zimmerman shoot Martin on sight? Why would Zimmerman let himself be attacked first and have to actually draw his weapon instead of having it out already?

Also, since Zimmerman lost Martin in the darkness, the only logical conclusion for them to meet up was for Martin to return after Zimmerman lost him. Obviously Martin was aware Zimmerman was watching him due to Martin's cell phone call. When Martin ran and Zimmerman gave chase, the odds are that Martin was aware he was being followed and also aware that Zimmerman ran in the wrong direction after the T-intersection on side walk.

What a fascinating statement. It says so much about you, your thoughts and your attitude toward conservatives.

 

The forensic evidence and statements of the witnesses.

It couldn't be refuted because the overwhelming evidence is that is how it happened.

They were wise not to because it didn't stand a chance.

What evidence was clearly in their favor that Zimmerman was not acting in self-defense?

Who had Zimmerman on the ground on his back with arms pinned giving him the overwhelming advantage having already cold-cocked him fracturing his nose.

No it was not and even if true did not give Martin license to assault him and threaten him with serious bodily harm or death.

No you aren't. If I am sitting on my front poarch and a suspicious person walks by, and as has been requested by the police, I take note of him and walk to the street to see which way they go as I call the police to report them I am on solid legal ground to do so and it certainly does not give the person license to come back and assault me.

Zimmerman was not pursuing Martin, pursuing involves an attempt to capture in which Zimmerman gave no indication he was attempting. He was doing as the NEN dispatcher requested, keeping an eye on the suspicious person and letting him know which way he ran.

 

Hah! Clearly an absurd and pathetically desperate argument.

 

What do they call a person that commits a STRONG arm robbery where you live ? The video of this huge man pushing a much smaller man that wants to stop him from leaving the store WITHOUT paying make him a THUG as far as I'm concerned . And if that makes me racist so be it ! Liberals have made racism the NEW McCarthyism on steroids the boogeyman to the weak ! That what you do label , pathetic !!!!

" It is dangerous to be sincere unless you are also stupid. "

 

It only took you 3 weeks to think up that answer? Wow, I'm impressed!

Anyone who commits a crime should be prosecuted for it. Had he lived, Brown would have had his day in court and, not prejudging here, but probably convicted.

Your own emotional reactions, name-calling and racism make conservatives look like Dale Robertson.

NSFW: http://oi59.tinypic.com/2vwhjli.jpg

- - - Updated - - -

Robertson was booted from the Tea Party because his racist attitude was bad for the party.

 

I see something completely different from this video. A couple of things needs to be factored in. First, the video shows two construction workers that have been working on a job near the shooting site. One is leaning against the truck, and the other is talking on the phone. The one talking on the phone holds his hands up, and then goes back to the phone. Second, is the time. Right about lunch time. The third is that the individuals are not seen making a live statement. Their supposed statements are always relayed by a third party,

Now, if a person is talking to someone on a phone, pantomime gestures are useless. A statement like, " He had his hands up like this", would be completely idiotic over a phone. It looks more to me like a gesture of frustration at not being able to go to lunch.

Btw, the CNN article is not the first report of statements made by these two witnesses. St. Louis Fox2 reported their statements four days before the CNN article. The Fox article shows the problem with eyewitness reports. Two individuals with similar vantage points give completely different descriptions of the event. One claims Officer Wilson was backing away from Brown as he fired, and that Brown was moving towards Officer Wilson. The other claimed that Officer Wilson walked to within 8 to 10 feet of Brown, and emptied his gun into him.

Another interesting point is that both witnesses claim that there were more officers on scene during the shooting:

http://fox2now.com/2014/09/08/two-j...tion-workers-describe-michael-brown-shooting/