Does Officer Wilson Have a Civil Case Against News Media

[Sonny Clark]

That's a matter of opinion. Obviously we see it differently.

oh, I see, you feel that as a reward, he ought lose his job, his home, his life when the facts backed him.

I have never said nor implied such. Those are your words, not mine. I stated my case and opinion in this thread, and directed you to it. I have stated my opinion in detail, and I stand by it. But, never did I ever say that Mr. Wilson should lose his job, his family, nor his home. The way I understand it, Mr. Wilson resigned, moved, and did so freely.

sure you did, you mouthed off all kinds of stuff you can't back up. Loser.

Well, please show exactly where I said those things, please. Can you? Will you? I can back up anything that I've said. What can't I back up? Please tell me. Thanks.

you said he got off easy did you not?

Yes, I did say that, and I stand by it. Why?

 

[Sonny Clark]

Yes, he got off very easy. The only one that could've disputed his claims is dead and can't give an opposing side of the story. The only witnesses that were considered as creditable, were those that backed Mr. Wilson's account of what happened. All other witnesses were considered to be liars. And, since there was no video, or actual eye witnesses that could see inside the patrol car, we really don't know for sure that Mr. Brown was trying to get the officer's weapon. Not all witness saw the same things. Not all witnesses told the same story. But, the witnesses that backed up Mr. Wilson's side of the story, were believed and quoted. Also, NO independent outside sources were used during the investigation. Every single one of them had tied to a law enforcement agency. And since there was no trial where a defense lawyer could cross examine so-called witnesses, and independent outside sources weren't allowed to examine any evidence, it leaves a degree of doubt, implying bias and injustice.

Also, calling me a biased dick is silly, childish, and totally uncalled for. Your age? Name calling and personal attacks do NOT give merit, nor credit, to what you have to say. There's absolutely no reason to do anything other than discuss this issue in a civil and adult manner.

Uh.....I will not debate this with someone who takes facts and spins them to support his narrative.

The only witnesses that were deemed as credible were those that backed Mr. Wilsons account of what happened...and the ones that did not support his account were deemed as not credible.

Well.....HELLO......only one side can be deemed credible.

So when you have conflicting sides, you look at other evidence...such as forensic evidence...and it was the forensic evidence that supported the accounts of those that agreed with the Officers account....it was the forensic evidence that helped the DoJ determine that the other accounts were not credible.

So, that being said, all you have is your opinion. You were not there. And your opinion is in contradiction of the fidnings of over 40 FBI agents.

I was not there....so my opinion is based on the forensic evidence and the findings of 40 FBI agents.

DO yourself a favor. Get off it. We don't hate you for your color. We hate you for your insisting on seeing racism only...even if racism is just one of many possibilities.

We don't give a fuck what color you are.

Very silly, childish, and totally uncalled for. Again, your age? No, I wasn't there, and neither were you. I gave my opinion as I saw what happened and what didn't happen. I was given the same information that you and everyone else got. I don't believe that justice was served, and I stand by what I have said and stand by my opinion. After all, an opinion is all you have also. Calling me names and acting immature doesn't give credit to your opinion, and makes you look foolish. What does my color have to do with anything? Why bring color into this conversation? Do you think it adds anything of value to the discussion? If so, what exactly? But, just so you'll know how silly your comment is, I'm white, not black. Does that surprise you? Does one have to be black to see injustice? Can't a white man see injustice also? Pleeeeeeease.

Excuse me....

I explained how I formed my opinion. I did not take a position on this until the facts were released. The facts released showed me, 40 FBI agents and countless other non biased officials that the account of Officer Wilson was supported and the accounts of those that saw otherwise were refuted.

You, on the other hand, refuse to accept those facts, and instead going STRICLTY by what you saw on the news and heard through the advocates. You opted to ignore forensic evidence and, instead, opted to go with emotion. And we all know that the media often reports based on emotion before the facts are uncovered and we know for sure that advocates work strictly with emotion.

I brought your color into it because you and I have had a few conversations on here and you always trend toward the excuse of "White Americans are racist by nature"...although you may have never used those exact words, but that is your position....and you are entitled to have it. But I am wise enough to know that when one has that opinion, much of what they support is based on that opinion.

So, in this case, I have no doubt that your refusal to accept the facts and insistence on claiming that the officer was wrong in his actions is based on the fact that you believe that any altercation between a white man and a black man is based on the racial tendencies of the white man.

As for my age....I am old enough to know when I am interacting with a stubborn, hateful racist. You are, by all means, one of them.

Point (1) - How do you know that any of them were non-biased? Do you know any of them personally? Do you know their backgrounds, their association with law enforcement? Exactly how do you know they were non-biased? Or, is that just your opinion?
Point (2) - 40 FBI agents? Oh, so we have an agency of law enforcement investigating another agency of law enforcement? Obviously no bias there, couldn't be, right?
Point (3) - Oh, so those that agreed with officer Wilson's story, supported his story? No bias there either, right?
Point (4) - I have NEVER implied race. I have ALWAYS been neutral on this forum, in my personal life, and live the way I was raised. Please show me where I have ever used race to take sides. I take any side that is right, period, regardless of race, religion, nationality, or any other divisive descriptor. I am NOT racist, prejudice towards any race, and I'm not a bigot. You sure assume an awful lot not to know me, nor know anything about me.

Point (5) - Very silly, ridiculous and pathetic, to say the least. I have NOT refused to accept any facts what so ever. What facts have I refused to accept? I did NOT say the officer was wrong. I said that both sides were never told, and that a dead man can't give his side. I also said that law enforcement investigating law enforcement is not justice, it has the appearance of bias, and doesn't prove anything as far as guilt or innocence. Please show me where I have ever said that Mr. Wilson was absolutely guilty beyond a shadow of doubt. Please, show me where I have ever said such. If you're going to accuse me, then show your proof. I have NEVER ever said, nor implied, that white Americans are racist by nature, never. Where you got that from is beyond me. Care to show where I have ever said such a thing as that. That is NOT my position, and never has been. You don't know me well enough to accuse me of something like that.
Point (6) - Again, what facts have I refused to accept? Please tell me, please. I said that a just investigation was never done, and I stand by that. Yes, in my opinion, the officer could've handled the situation differently without killing an unarmed teen. Yes, I believe that Mr. Wilson used bad judgment and took the life of someone that he didn't have to kill. That is my opinion based on what I know from the different accounts that have been made public. And, I stand by my opinion.

Point (7) - Again, very silly and pathetic, to say the least. I have NEVER ever said nor implied that any altercation between the races is based on racial tendencies. Where are you getting this stuff from? Are you sure that you're replying to the right person? Please show where I have ever said that any altercation between the races is due to racial tendencies of the white man. That is the most ridiculous and pathetic thing that I have ever heard in my life. WOW !!! You're really pulling crap off the wall now, honestly you are. Why not show me all of these things that you're accusing me of saying? Does it give you some kind of warm feeling to accuse people of things that they've never said nor implied?
Point (8) - Oh, so I'm a stubborn hateful racist? WOW !!! You are really going off the deep end now, honestly. For your information, there's not a racist bone in my body, and never has been. You know nothing about me, and it's very obvious. Your name calling and personal attack speaks more about you than it does about me. Again, your age?

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.cough, cough, were you trying to make a point?

I was replying to a comment. Why do you ask?

 

[jc456]

oh, I see, you feel that as a reward, he ought lose his job, his home, his life when the facts backed him.

I have never said nor implied such. Those are your words, not mine. I stated my case and opinion in this thread, and directed you to it. I have stated my opinion in detail, and I stand by it. But, never did I ever say that Mr. Wilson should lose his job, his family, nor his home. The way I understand it, Mr. Wilson resigned, moved, and did so freely.

sure you did, you mouthed off all kinds of stuff you can't back up. Loser.

Well, please show exactly where I said those things, please. Can you? Will you? I can back up anything that I've said. What can't I back up? Please tell me. Thanks.

you said he got off easy did you not?

Yes, I did say that, and I stand by it. Why?

well there is your proof.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Well, please show exactly where I said those things, please. Can you? Will you? I can back up anything that I've said. What can't I back up? Please tell me. Thanks.

In your post number 3 you claimed he got off easy and should be happy with it.
A local investigation as well as a DoJ investigation that included 40 FBI agents and he was found to have acted appropriately.

Yet you claim he got off easy and he should keep his mouth shut.

That makes you pathetic and a racially biased dick.

Yes, he got off very easy. The only one that could've disputed his claims is dead and can't give an opposing side of the story. The only witnesses that were considered as creditable, were those that backed Mr. Wilson's account of what happened. All other witnesses were considered to be liars. And, since there was no video, or actual eye witnesses that could see inside the patrol car, we really don't know for sure that Mr. Brown was trying to get the officer's weapon. Not all witness saw the same things. Not all witnesses told the same story. But, the witnesses that backed up Mr. Wilson's side of the story, were believed and quoted. Also, NO independent outside sources were used during the investigation. Every single one of them had tied to a law enforcement agency. And since there was no trial where a defense lawyer could cross examine so-called witnesses, and independent outside sources weren't allowed to examine any evidence, it leaves a degree of doubt, implying bias and injustice.

Also, calling me a biased dick is silly, childish, and totally uncalled for. Your age? Name calling and personal attacks do NOT give merit, nor credit, to what you have to say. There's absolutely no reason to do anything other than discuss this issue in a civil and adult manner.

Uh.....I will not debate this with someone who takes facts and spins them to support his narrative.

The only witnesses that were deemed as credible were those that backed Mr. Wilsons account of what happened...and the ones that did not support his account were deemed as not credible.

Well.....HELLO......only one side can be deemed credible.

So when you have conflicting sides, you look at other evidence...such as forensic evidence...and it was the forensic evidence that supported the accounts of those that agreed with the Officers account....it was the forensic evidence that helped the DoJ determine that the other accounts were not credible.

So, that being said, all you have is your opinion. You were not there. And your opinion is in contradiction of the fidnings of over 40 FBI agents.

I was not there....so my opinion is based on the forensic evidence and the findings of 40 FBI agents.

DO yourself a favor. Get off it. We don't hate you for your color. We hate you for your insisting on seeing racism only...even if racism is just one of many possibilities.

We don't give a fuck what color you are.

Very silly, childish, and totally uncalled for. Again, your age? No, I wasn't there, and neither were you. I gave my opinion as I saw what happened and what didn't happen. I was given the same information that you and everyone else got. I don't believe that justice was served, and I stand by what I have said and stand by my opinion. After all, an opinion is all you have also. Calling me names and acting immature doesn't give credit to your opinion, and makes you look foolish. What does my color have to do with anything? Why bring color into this conversation? Do you think it adds anything of value to the discussion? If so, what exactly? But, just so you'll know how silly your comment is, I'm white, not black. Does that surprise you? Does one have to be black to see injustice? Can't a white man see injustice also? Pleeeeeeease.

I see injustice when loopholes get people off in court.
Claiming their Miranda rights were not read in their native language...even though they speak English as well.
Watching Durst get away with murder 30 years ago.
Watching Simpson get away with murder 20 years ago.

Ignoring facts and findings is not seeing injustice. It is allowing ones emotions to get in the way of logic.

I see injustice in our courts and judicial system all the time. O.J. Simpson was never proven to be guilty. After $millions spent, many witnesses called to testify, many specialists and so-called experts giving opinions, and months in court, the only thing that the prosecutors had was circumstantial evidence, and a gut feeling that he was guilty. I watched most of the case on TV, and I never saw anything that was hard rock solid undeniable undisputable evidence of guilt. They tried hard to convict him, very hard. But, in the end, all they had was a gut feeling and a suspicious of guilt. Nothing more.

Ignoring so called facts and findings happen when there's doubt as to whether those so called facts are actually facts, and those so called findings are truly undisputable findings of guilt. Many examples can be cited where so called facts and findings have put innocent people behind bars for many years before they're found to be innocent. We have many innocent people behind bars in this country ( The Innocence Project ), and some are released every year as a result of DNA testing and other findings such as witnesses that lied. Our judicial system is badly flawed, and our courts are corrupt. It's proven all the time.

 

[Sonny Clark]

I have never said nor implied such. Those are your words, not mine. I stated my case and opinion in this thread, and directed you to it. I have stated my opinion in detail, and I stand by it. But, never did I ever say that Mr. Wilson should lose his job, his family, nor his home. The way I understand it, Mr. Wilson resigned, moved, and did so freely.

sure you did, you mouthed off all kinds of stuff you can't back up. Loser.

Well, please show exactly where I said those things, please. Can you? Will you? I can back up anything that I've said. What can't I back up? Please tell me. Thanks.

you said he got off easy did you not?

Yes, I did say that, and I stand by it. Why?

well there is your proof.

Proof of what exactly? What does it prove? It proves that I stand by my opinion as what happened and what didn't happen. That's all that means or proves. What does it prove to you?

 

[Jarhead]

sure you did, you mouthed off all kinds of stuff you can't back up. Loser.

Well, please show exactly where I said those things, please. Can you? Will you? I can back up anything that I've said. What can't I back up? Please tell me. Thanks.

you said he got off easy did you not?

Yes, I did say that, and I stand by it. Why?

well there is your proof.

Proof of what exactly? What does it prove? It proves that I stand by my opinion as what happened and what didn't happen. That's all that means or proves. What does it prove to you?

But your opinion is based strictly on emotion and in no way is it supported by the forensic evidence. Do you not see how that is a very dangerous approach?

Sure, there are many times where we want to believe something...but in many cases, no matter how much we want to believe it, the physical evidence proves our wishes to be wrong.

In this case, you are convinced the officer was in the wrong strictly because you want him to be...not because the evidence proves him to be wrong.

And when the evidence proved him to actually be justified, you decide to claim the evidence has been either tampered with, or compromised to a point where it is not reliable.

Do you not see how you are letting your desire for something to be get in the way of your ability to discern fact from fiction?

 

[Roadrunner]

Does officer Wilson of Ferguson, Missouri have grounds for a civil case against the U.S. news media , in particularly extreme leftist networks like MSNBC or publications like the NY Times and Washington Post for libel and slander? The whole rush to judgement with "Hand's Up Don't Shoot" mantra that turned out to be a lie has totally destroyed officer Wilson's career.

I hope he has a case, and I hope all the business owners who were burned out have a case too.

 

[Roadrunner]

Well, please show exactly where I said those things, please. Can you? Will you? I can back up anything that I've said. What can't I back up? Please tell me. Thanks.

you said he got off easy did you not?

Yes, I did say that, and I stand by it. Why?

well there is your proof.

Proof of what exactly? What does it prove? It proves that I stand by my opinion as what happened and what didn't happen. That's all that means or proves. What does it prove to you?

But your opinion is based strictly on emotion and in no way is it supported by the forensic evidence. Do you not see how that is a very dangerous approach?

Sure, there are many times where we want to believe something...but in many cases, no matter how much we want to believe it, the physical evidence proves our wishes to be wrong.

In this case, you are convinced the officer was in the wrong strictly because you want him to be...not because the evidence proves him to be wrong.

And when the evidence proved him to actually be justified, you decide to claim the evidence has been either tampered with, or compromised to a point where it is not reliable.

Do you not see how you are letting your desire for something to be get in the way of your ability to discern fact from fiction?

Wilson guilty murderer, Bergdahl innocent victim.

See how it works in Looney Lib Land.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Well, please show exactly where I said those things, please. Can you? Will you? I can back up anything that I've said. What can't I back up? Please tell me. Thanks.

you said he got off easy did you not?

Yes, I did say that, and I stand by it. Why?

well there is your proof.

Proof of what exactly? What does it prove? It proves that I stand by my opinion as what happened and what didn't happen. That's all that means or proves. What does it prove to you?

But your opinion is based strictly on emotion and in no way is it supported by the forensic evidence. Do you not see how that is a very dangerous approach?

Sure, there are many times where we want to believe something...but in many cases, no matter how much we want to believe it, the physical evidence proves our wishes to be wrong.

In this case, you are convinced the officer was in the wrong strictly because you want him to be...not because the evidence proves him to be wrong.

And when the evidence proved him to actually be justified, you decide to claim the evidence has been either tampered with, or compromised to a point where it is not reliable.

Do you not see how you are letting your desire for something to be get in the way of your ability to discern fact from fiction?

My opinion is NOT based on emotions, not in the least. Once again, the forensic evidence tells very little of what actually happened. Can the forensic evidence show the words spoken between Mr. Brown and Mr. Wilson? Can the forensic evidence determine whether or not Mr. Brown was trying to take Mr. Wilson's weapon? There were no witnesses to what was said or done inside the patrol car. Forensic evidence can only tell so much, and since there isn't anyone alive to dispute claims made by Mr. Wilson, of course the evidence can be read as supporting the non-contested claims of Mr. Wilson. The evidence wasn't challenged in court by a defense attorney, nor were witnesses crossed examined in a courtroom. The whole case was based on favorable witnesses and the word of Mr. Wilson.

No, I do NOT see a dangerous approach to anything. FYI - It is NOT wishful thinking on my part. I do NOT wish for anything in this matter. FYI - I am NOT convinced the officer was wrong, and I have never said that the officer was wrong in anything except he could have used better judgment instead of killing an unarmed teen. The evidence did NOT prove that the officer was right, the evidence proved that there was nothing to counter the evidence with. There was never an opposing side to weigh against what was given. You can't prove anything when only one side is presented. If I do something wrong, and there are no witnesses and no opposing argument, then, yes, I'm found to be innocent.

I have NEVER ever said any evidence was tampered with, NEVER. I have NEVER ever said that any evidence was compromised, NEVER. Please show me where I have ever said those things, please. Please show me where I have said all of the things that you are claiming that I have said. Can you show me? Will you show me? Or, are you just going to accuse me of something without backing it up?

FYI - What desire do you believe that I have? Please explain exactly what desire you believe that I have. I have NO desire concerning this matter. I have merely expressed my opinion on the matter, and have never had any desires associated with the matter. You sure assume an awful lot. Also, you repeatedly accuse me of saying things that I have never said nor implied. Why? Why do you do it? What exactly do you hope to accomplish by accusing me of things that I have never said nor implied? And, why do you say such silly things as "my desire"? I don't desire for anything concerning Mr. Wilson, nor Mr. Brown.

 

[Redfish]

Yes, and against obama and sharpton as well.

 

[Roadrunner]

Does officer Wilson of Ferguson, Missouri have grounds for a civil case against the U.S. news media , in particularly extreme leftist networks like MSNBC or publications like the NY Times and Washington Post for libel and slander? The whole rush to judgement with "Hand's Up Don't Shoot" mantra that turned out to be a lie has totally destroyed officer Wilson's career.

He'd be wise to keep his mouth shut and leave well enough alone. He got off easy, and should be thankful that an independent outside agency didn't conduct the investigation.

The Justice Department isn't an independent outside agency?

Who would you have suggested investigate, the New Black Panther Party?

 

[jc456]

you said he got off easy did you not?

Yes, I did say that, and I stand by it. Why?

well there is your proof.

Proof of what exactly? What does it prove? It proves that I stand by my opinion as what happened and what didn't happen. That's all that means or proves. What does it prove to you?

But your opinion is based strictly on emotion and in no way is it supported by the forensic evidence. Do you not see how that is a very dangerous approach?

Sure, there are many times where we want to believe something...but in many cases, no matter how much we want to believe it, the physical evidence proves our wishes to be wrong.

In this case, you are convinced the officer was in the wrong strictly because you want him to be...not because the evidence proves him to be wrong.

And when the evidence proved him to actually be justified, you decide to claim the evidence has been either tampered with, or compromised to a point where it is not reliable.

Do you not see how you are letting your desire for something to be get in the way of your ability to discern fact from fiction?

My opinion is NOT based on emotions, not in the least. Once again, the forensic evidence tells very little of what actually happened. Can the forensic evidence show the words spoken between Mr. Brown and Mr. Wilson? Can the forensic evidence determine whether or not Mr. Brown was trying to take Mr. Wilson's weapon? There were no witnesses to what was said or done inside the patrol car. Forensic evidence can only tell so much, and since there isn't anyone alive to dispute claims made by Mr. Wilson, of course the evidence can be read as supporting the non-contested claims of Mr. Wilson. The evidence wasn't challenged in court by a defense attorney, nor were witnesses crossed examined in a courtroom. The whole case was based on favorable witnesses and the word of Mr. Wilson.

No, I do NOT see a dangerous approach to anything. FYI - It is NOT wishful thinking on my part. I do NOT wish for anything in this matter. FYI - I am NOT convinced the officer was wrong, and I have never said that the officer was wrong in anything except he could have used better judgment instead of killing an unarmed teen. The evidence did NOT prove that the officer was right, the evidence proved that there was nothing to counter the evidence with. There was never an opposing side to weigh against what was given. You can't prove anything when only one side is presented. If I do something wrong, and there are no witnesses and no opposing argument, then, yes, I'm found to be innocent.

I have NEVER ever said any evidence was tampered with, NEVER. I have NEVER ever said that any evidence was compromised, NEVER. Please show me where I have ever said those things, please. Please show me where I have said all of the things that you are claiming that I have said. Can you show me? Will you show me? Or, are you just going to accuse me of something without backing it up?

FYI - What desire do you believe that I have? Please explain exactly what desire you believe that I have. I have NO desire concerning this matter. I have merely expressed my opinion on the matter, and have never had any desires associated with the matter. You sure assume an awful lot. Also, you repeatedly accuse me of saying things that I have never said nor implied. Why? Why do you do it? What exactly do you hope to accomplish by accusing me of things that I have never said nor implied? And, why do you say such silly things as "my desire"? I don't desire for anything concerning Mr. Wilson, nor Mr. Brown.

and a duck is a fish.

 

[jc456]

Does officer Wilson of Ferguson, Missouri have grounds for a civil case against the U.S. news media , in particularly extreme leftist networks like MSNBC or publications like the NY Times and Washington Post for libel and slander? The whole rush to judgement with "Hand's Up Don't Shoot" mantra that turned out to be a lie has totally destroyed officer Wilson's career.

He'd be wise to keep his mouth shut and leave well enough alone. He got off easy, and should be thankful that an independent outside agency didn't conduct the investigation.

The Justice Department isn't an independent outside agency?

Who would you have suggested investigate, the New Black Panther Party?

I say let them, and then they can explain to us all what the evidence says.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Does officer Wilson of Ferguson, Missouri have grounds for a civil case against the U.S. news media , in particularly extreme leftist networks like MSNBC or publications like the NY Times and Washington Post for libel and slander? The whole rush to judgement with "Hand's Up Don't Shoot" mantra that turned out to be a lie has totally destroyed officer Wilson's career.

He'd be wise to keep his mouth shut and leave well enough alone. He got off easy, and should be thankful that an independent outside agency didn't conduct the investigation.

The Justice Department isn't an independent outside agency?

Who would you have suggested investigate, the New Black Panther Party?

Exactly my point. No, the Department of Justice is NOT an outside agency, not by a long shot. I would suggest that an independent agency or company, that has no ties or connection to any law enforcement agency, do the investigation. Law enforcement agencies investigating law enforcement agencies hints at possible bias and favorable results. And, your comment about the Black Panthers is pathetic and silly.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Yes, I did say that, and I stand by it. Why?

well there is your proof.

Proof of what exactly? What does it prove? It proves that I stand by my opinion as what happened and what didn't happen. That's all that means or proves. What does it prove to you?

But your opinion is based strictly on emotion and in no way is it supported by the forensic evidence. Do you not see how that is a very dangerous approach?

Sure, there are many times where we want to believe something...but in many cases, no matter how much we want to believe it, the physical evidence proves our wishes to be wrong.

In this case, you are convinced the officer was in the wrong strictly because you want him to be...not because the evidence proves him to be wrong.

And when the evidence proved him to actually be justified, you decide to claim the evidence has been either tampered with, or compromised to a point where it is not reliable.

Do you not see how you are letting your desire for something to be get in the way of your ability to discern fact from fiction?

My opinion is NOT based on emotions, not in the least. Once again, the forensic evidence tells very little of what actually happened. Can the forensic evidence show the words spoken between Mr. Brown and Mr. Wilson? Can the forensic evidence determine whether or not Mr. Brown was trying to take Mr. Wilson's weapon? There were no witnesses to what was said or done inside the patrol car. Forensic evidence can only tell so much, and since there isn't anyone alive to dispute claims made by Mr. Wilson, of course the evidence can be read as supporting the non-contested claims of Mr. Wilson. The evidence wasn't challenged in court by a defense attorney, nor were witnesses crossed examined in a courtroom. The whole case was based on favorable witnesses and the word of Mr. Wilson.

No, I do NOT see a dangerous approach to anything. FYI - It is NOT wishful thinking on my part. I do NOT wish for anything in this matter. FYI - I am NOT convinced the officer was wrong, and I have never said that the officer was wrong in anything except he could have used better judgment instead of killing an unarmed teen. The evidence did NOT prove that the officer was right, the evidence proved that there was nothing to counter the evidence with. There was never an opposing side to weigh against what was given. You can't prove anything when only one side is presented. If I do something wrong, and there are no witnesses and no opposing argument, then, yes, I'm found to be innocent.

I have NEVER ever said any evidence was tampered with, NEVER. I have NEVER ever said that any evidence was compromised, NEVER. Please show me where I have ever said those things, please. Please show me where I have said all of the things that you are claiming that I have said. Can you show me? Will you show me? Or, are you just going to accuse me of something without backing it up?

FYI - What desire do you believe that I have? Please explain exactly what desire you believe that I have. I have NO desire concerning this matter. I have merely expressed my opinion on the matter, and have never had any desires associated with the matter. You sure assume an awful lot. Also, you repeatedly accuse me of saying things that I have never said nor implied. Why? Why do you do it? What exactly do you hope to accomplish by accusing me of things that I have never said nor implied? And, why do you say such silly things as "my desire"? I don't desire for anything concerning Mr. Wilson, nor Mr. Brown.

and a duck is a fish.

Very funny, also very silly. I'm not impressed at all.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Yes, and against obama and sharpton as well.

What?

 

[jc456]

well there is your proof.

Proof of what exactly? What does it prove? It proves that I stand by my opinion as what happened and what didn't happen. That's all that means or proves. What does it prove to you?

But your opinion is based strictly on emotion and in no way is it supported by the forensic evidence. Do you not see how that is a very dangerous approach?

Sure, there are many times where we want to believe something...but in many cases, no matter how much we want to believe it, the physical evidence proves our wishes to be wrong.

In this case, you are convinced the officer was in the wrong strictly because you want him to be...not because the evidence proves him to be wrong.

And when the evidence proved him to actually be justified, you decide to claim the evidence has been either tampered with, or compromised to a point where it is not reliable.

Do you not see how you are letting your desire for something to be get in the way of your ability to discern fact from fiction?

My opinion is NOT based on emotions, not in the least. Once again, the forensic evidence tells very little of what actually happened. Can the forensic evidence show the words spoken between Mr. Brown and Mr. Wilson? Can the forensic evidence determine whether or not Mr. Brown was trying to take Mr. Wilson's weapon? There were no witnesses to what was said or done inside the patrol car. Forensic evidence can only tell so much, and since there isn't anyone alive to dispute claims made by Mr. Wilson, of course the evidence can be read as supporting the non-contested claims of Mr. Wilson. The evidence wasn't challenged in court by a defense attorney, nor were witnesses crossed examined in a courtroom. The whole case was based on favorable witnesses and the word of Mr. Wilson.

No, I do NOT see a dangerous approach to anything. FYI - It is NOT wishful thinking on my part. I do NOT wish for anything in this matter. FYI - I am NOT convinced the officer was wrong, and I have never said that the officer was wrong in anything except he could have used better judgment instead of killing an unarmed teen. The evidence did NOT prove that the officer was right, the evidence proved that there was nothing to counter the evidence with. There was never an opposing side to weigh against what was given. You can't prove anything when only one side is presented. If I do something wrong, and there are no witnesses and no opposing argument, then, yes, I'm found to be innocent.

I have NEVER ever said any evidence was tampered with, NEVER. I have NEVER ever said that any evidence was compromised, NEVER. Please show me where I have ever said those things, please. Please show me where I have said all of the things that you are claiming that I have said. Can you show me? Will you show me? Or, are you just going to accuse me of something without backing it up?

FYI - What desire do you believe that I have? Please explain exactly what desire you believe that I have. I have NO desire concerning this matter. I have merely expressed my opinion on the matter, and have never had any desires associated with the matter. You sure assume an awful lot. Also, you repeatedly accuse me of saying things that I have never said nor implied. Why? Why do you do it? What exactly do you hope to accomplish by accusing me of things that I have never said nor implied? And, why do you say such silly things as "my desire"? I don't desire for anything concerning Mr. Wilson, nor Mr. Brown.

and a duck is a fish.

Very funny, also very silly. I'm not impressed at all.

it was spot on!

 

[Sonny Clark]

Proof of what exactly? What does it prove? It proves that I stand by my opinion as what happened and what didn't happen. That's all that means or proves. What does it prove to you?

But your opinion is based strictly on emotion and in no way is it supported by the forensic evidence. Do you not see how that is a very dangerous approach?

Sure, there are many times where we want to believe something...but in many cases, no matter how much we want to believe it, the physical evidence proves our wishes to be wrong.

In this case, you are convinced the officer was in the wrong strictly because you want him to be...not because the evidence proves him to be wrong.

And when the evidence proved him to actually be justified, you decide to claim the evidence has been either tampered with, or compromised to a point where it is not reliable.

Do you not see how you are letting your desire for something to be get in the way of your ability to discern fact from fiction?

My opinion is NOT based on emotions, not in the least. Once again, the forensic evidence tells very little of what actually happened. Can the forensic evidence show the words spoken between Mr. Brown and Mr. Wilson? Can the forensic evidence determine whether or not Mr. Brown was trying to take Mr. Wilson's weapon? There were no witnesses to what was said or done inside the patrol car. Forensic evidence can only tell so much, and since there isn't anyone alive to dispute claims made by Mr. Wilson, of course the evidence can be read as supporting the non-contested claims of Mr. Wilson. The evidence wasn't challenged in court by a defense attorney, nor were witnesses crossed examined in a courtroom. The whole case was based on favorable witnesses and the word of Mr. Wilson.

No, I do NOT see a dangerous approach to anything. FYI - It is NOT wishful thinking on my part. I do NOT wish for anything in this matter. FYI - I am NOT convinced the officer was wrong, and I have never said that the officer was wrong in anything except he could have used better judgment instead of killing an unarmed teen. The evidence did NOT prove that the officer was right, the evidence proved that there was nothing to counter the evidence with. There was never an opposing side to weigh against what was given. You can't prove anything when only one side is presented. If I do something wrong, and there are no witnesses and no opposing argument, then, yes, I'm found to be innocent.

I have NEVER ever said any evidence was tampered with, NEVER. I have NEVER ever said that any evidence was compromised, NEVER. Please show me where I have ever said those things, please. Please show me where I have said all of the things that you are claiming that I have said. Can you show me? Will you show me? Or, are you just going to accuse me of something without backing it up?

FYI - What desire do you believe that I have? Please explain exactly what desire you believe that I have. I have NO desire concerning this matter. I have merely expressed my opinion on the matter, and have never had any desires associated with the matter. You sure assume an awful lot. Also, you repeatedly accuse me of saying things that I have never said nor implied. Why? Why do you do it? What exactly do you hope to accomplish by accusing me of things that I have never said nor implied? And, why do you say such silly things as "my desire"? I don't desire for anything concerning Mr. Wilson, nor Mr. Brown.

and a duck is a fish.

Very funny, also very silly. I'm not impressed at all.

it was spot on!

I'm sure, especially to you.

 

[Jarhead]

you said he got off easy did you not?

Yes, I did say that, and I stand by it. Why?

well there is your proof.

Proof of what exactly? What does it prove? It proves that I stand by my opinion as what happened and what didn't happen. That's all that means or proves. What does it prove to you?

But your opinion is based strictly on emotion and in no way is it supported by the forensic evidence. Do you not see how that is a very dangerous approach?

Sure, there are many times where we want to believe something...but in many cases, no matter how much we want to believe it, the physical evidence proves our wishes to be wrong.

In this case, you are convinced the officer was in the wrong strictly because you want him to be...not because the evidence proves him to be wrong.

And when the evidence proved him to actually be justified, you decide to claim the evidence has been either tampered with, or compromised to a point where it is not reliable.

Do you not see how you are letting your desire for something to be get in the way of your ability to discern fact from fiction?

My opinion is NOT based on emotions, not in the least. Once again, the forensic evidence tells very little of what actually happened. Can the forensic evidence show the words spoken between Mr. Brown and Mr. Wilson? Can the forensic evidence determine whether or not Mr. Brown was trying to take Mr. Wilson's weapon? There were no witnesses to what was said or done inside the patrol car. Forensic evidence can only tell so much, and since there isn't anyone alive to dispute claims made by Mr. Wilson, of course the evidence can be read as supporting the non-contested claims of Mr. Wilson. The evidence wasn't challenged in court by a defense attorney, nor were witnesses crossed examined in a courtroom. The whole case was based on favorable witnesses and the word of Mr. Wilson.

No, I do NOT see a dangerous approach to anything. FYI - It is NOT wishful thinking on my part. I do NOT wish for anything in this matter. FYI - I am NOT convinced the officer was wrong, and I have never said that the officer was wrong in anything except he could have used better judgment instead of killing an unarmed teen. The evidence did NOT prove that the officer was right, the evidence proved that there was nothing to counter the evidence with. There was never an opposing side to weigh against what was given. You can't prove anything when only one side is presented. If I do something wrong, and there are no witnesses and no opposing argument, then, yes, I'm found to be innocent.

I have NEVER ever said any evidence was tampered with, NEVER. I have NEVER ever said that any evidence was compromised, NEVER. Please show me where I have ever said those things, please. Please show me where I have said all of the things that you are claiming that I have said. Can you show me? Will you show me? Or, are you just going to accuse me of something without backing it up?

FYI - What desire do you believe that I have? Please explain exactly what desire you believe that I have. I have NO desire concerning this matter. I have merely expressed my opinion on the matter, and have never had any desires associated with the matter. You sure assume an awful lot. Also, you repeatedly accuse me of saying things that I have never said nor implied. Why? Why do you do it? What exactly do you hope to accomplish by accusing me of things that I have never said nor implied? And, why do you say such silly things as "my desire"? I don't desire for anything concerning Mr. Wilson, nor Mr. Brown.

So I am curious...

What is your solution? If you believe forensic evidence does not prove anything; If you believe eyewitness accounts that support the forensic evidence doesn't prove anything; if you believe that forensic evidence that contradicts other eyewitness accounts doesn't prove anything...

What would a 3rd party independent investigative team work with?

I don't know if you see where you are going with this.....but you are making it clear that you would not be satisfied until evidence proves your theory to be correct.

And the ironic thing is.......yours is a theory that has been proven to be incorrect....but what proved that, in your eyes, does not count.

And by the way...a lot of what you said in the lengthy post of your is factually incorrect.

Forensic evidence is used to match up with eyewitness accounts. The forensic evidence, contrary to your claim, told a lot of what happened...and it directly backed up the claims of several eye witnesses as well as the officer himself. It contradicted the eyewitness accounts that claimed he had his hands up and begging for his life...making those witnesses less credible.

It is how it works.

How would you handle it?

Oh, and by the way. You can not fool an intelligent human being. You DO what the officer to be guilty. You DO want Michael Brown to have been a victim and you DO want the parents of Michael Brown to have had their son shot down in cold blood for no apparent reason.

One who ignores the obvious to support a theory is one who wants to be right.

 

[jc456]

Yes, I did say that, and I stand by it. Why?

well there is your proof.

Proof of what exactly? What does it prove? It proves that I stand by my opinion as what happened and what didn't happen. That's all that means or proves. What does it prove to you?

But your opinion is based strictly on emotion and in no way is it supported by the forensic evidence. Do you not see how that is a very dangerous approach?

Sure, there are many times where we want to believe something...but in many cases, no matter how much we want to believe it, the physical evidence proves our wishes to be wrong.

In this case, you are convinced the officer was in the wrong strictly because you want him to be...not because the evidence proves him to be wrong.

And when the evidence proved him to actually be justified, you decide to claim the evidence has been either tampered with, or compromised to a point where it is not reliable.

Do you not see how you are letting your desire for something to be get in the way of your ability to discern fact from fiction?

My opinion is NOT based on emotions, not in the least. Once again, the forensic evidence tells very little of what actually happened. Can the forensic evidence show the words spoken between Mr. Brown and Mr. Wilson? Can the forensic evidence determine whether or not Mr. Brown was trying to take Mr. Wilson's weapon? There were no witnesses to what was said or done inside the patrol car. Forensic evidence can only tell so much, and since there isn't anyone alive to dispute claims made by Mr. Wilson, of course the evidence can be read as supporting the non-contested claims of Mr. Wilson. The evidence wasn't challenged in court by a defense attorney, nor were witnesses crossed examined in a courtroom. The whole case was based on favorable witnesses and the word of Mr. Wilson.

No, I do NOT see a dangerous approach to anything. FYI - It is NOT wishful thinking on my part. I do NOT wish for anything in this matter. FYI - I am NOT convinced the officer was wrong, and I have never said that the officer was wrong in anything except he could have used better judgment instead of killing an unarmed teen. The evidence did NOT prove that the officer was right, the evidence proved that there was nothing to counter the evidence with. There was never an opposing side to weigh against what was given. You can't prove anything when only one side is presented. If I do something wrong, and there are no witnesses and no opposing argument, then, yes, I'm found to be innocent.

I have NEVER ever said any evidence was tampered with, NEVER. I have NEVER ever said that any evidence was compromised, NEVER. Please show me where I have ever said those things, please. Please show me where I have said all of the things that you are claiming that I have said. Can you show me? Will you show me? Or, are you just going to accuse me of something without backing it up?

FYI - What desire do you believe that I have? Please explain exactly what desire you believe that I have. I have NO desire concerning this matter. I have merely expressed my opinion on the matter, and have never had any desires associated with the matter. You sure assume an awful lot. Also, you repeatedly accuse me of saying things that I have never said nor implied. Why? Why do you do it? What exactly do you hope to accomplish by accusing me of things that I have never said nor implied? And, why do you say such silly things as "my desire"? I don't desire for anything concerning Mr. Wilson, nor Mr. Brown.

So I am curious...

What is your solution? If you believe forensic evidence does not prove anything; If you believe eyewitness accounts that support the forensic evidence doesn't prove anything; if you believe that forensic evidence that contradicts other eyewitness accounts doesn't prove anything...

What would a 3rd party independent investigative team work with?

I don't know if you see where you are going with this.....but you are making it clear that you would not be satisfied until evidence proves your theory to be correct.

And the ironic thing is.......yours is a theory that has been proven to be incorrect....but what proved that, in your eyes, does not count.

And by the way...a lot of what you said in the lengthy post of your is factually incorrect.

Forensic evidence is used to match up with eyewitness accounts. The forensic evidence, contrary to your claim, told a lot of what happened...and it directly backed up the claims of several eye witnesses as well as the officer himself. It contradicted the eyewitness accounts that claimed he had his hands up and begging for his life...making those witnesses less credible.

It is how it works.

How would you handle it?

Oh, and by the way. You can not fool an intelligent human being. You DO what the officer to be guilty. You DO want Michael Brown to have been a victim and you DO want the parents of Michael Brown to have had their son shot down in cold blood for no apparent reason.

One who ignores the obvious to support a theory is one who wants to be right.

this................