Ferguson Shooting re:Audio tape

[mudwhistle]

Ferguson Shooting Audio Was CNN Pranked by Howard Stern Fan NewsBusters

CNN & AP confirmed audio as legitimate.

Total bull shit.
When the FBI has completed their exhaustive tests which will take weeks then we will know the truth.
That's right. CNN and AP have"confirmed the audio as legitimate".
Where is the link?

You are the one who is full of shit!

CNN: Glide Video Service Company says audio captured about time of Michael Brown shooting.

"A company whose video chat service allegedly captured audio of Michael Brown's shooting said Thursday the recording was created at about the time the Missouri teenager was killed this month. The revelation from the company, Glide, appears to bolster a man's claim that he inadvertently recorded audio of gunfire at the time a police officer shot and killed the 18-year-old Brown in the St. Louis suburb of Ferguson on August 9.

The video was created at 12:02:14 p.m. that day, Glide said. That's around the time that police say Ferguson police Officer Darren Wilson shot an unarmed Brown."

The correct term is "The Assailant Michael Brown" or "Fugitive Michael Brown".

If he was a Tea Party member that's exactly how he'd be described.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Ferguson Shooting Audio Was CNN Pranked by Howard Stern Fan NewsBusters

CNN & AP confirmed audio as legitimate.

Total bull shit.
When the FBI has completed their exhaustive tests which will take weeks then we will know the truth.
That's right. CNN and AP have"confirmed the audio as legitimate".
Where is the link?

You are the one who is full of shit!

CNN: Glide Video Service Company says audio captured about time of Michael Brown shooting.

"A company whose video chat service allegedly captured audio of Michael Brown's shooting said Thursday the recording was created at about the time the Missouri teenager was killed this month. The revelation from the company, Glide, appears to bolster a man's claim that he inadvertently recorded audio of gunfire at the time a police officer shot and killed the 18-year-old Brown in the St. Louis suburb of Ferguson on August 9.

The video was created at 12:02:14 p.m. that day, Glide said. That's around the time that police say Ferguson police Officer Darren Wilson shot an unarmed Brown."

The correct term is "The Assailant Michael Brown" or "Fugitive Michael Brown".

If he was a Tea Party member that's exactly how he'd be described.

A company whose video chat service allegedly captured audio of Michael Brown's shooting said Thursday the recording was created at about the time the Missouri teenager was killed this month.


about is a key word

the investigation that day got off to a late start

since there was other gunfire in the area

about that same time

 

[KissMy]

Ferguson Shooting Audio Was CNN Pranked by Howard Stern Fan NewsBusters

CNN & AP confirmed audio as legitimate.

Total bull shit.
When the FBI has completed their exhaustive tests which will take weeks then we will know the truth.
That's right. CNN and AP have"confirmed the audio as legitimate".
Where is the link?

You are the one who is full of shit!

CNN: Glide Video Service Company says audio captured about time of Michael Brown shooting.

"A company whose video chat service allegedly captured audio of Michael Brown's shooting said Thursday the recording was created at about the time the Missouri teenager was killed this month. The revelation from the company, Glide, appears to bolster a man's claim that he inadvertently recorded audio of gunfire at the time a police officer shot and killed the 18-year-old Brown in the St. Louis suburb of Ferguson on August 9.

The video was created at 12:02:14 p.m. that day, Glide said. That's around the time that police say Ferguson police Officer Darren Wilson shot an unarmed Brown."

As I said, let me know when the FBI confirms that the tape is legitimate. I don't give two hoots what CNN and AP say. Neither should you.

The FBI & Police are not going to leak facts like that, because it will alter witness testimony before possible trial. "ShotSpotter" has already analyzed & confirmed the recording.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Yesterday morning CNN wasn't playing the audio. I think they got a little rattled with the idea they may have been punked.
This morning however, they are back to playing it.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Assuming that the recording is validated by independent time stamps then it raises some questions.

The sound pattern is 6 shots, pause, then 4 shots.

Brown was hit by 6 shots that all came from the front.

Given that the gun probably held at least 10 rounds, possibly more, there was no need for a reload.

Doubtful that this will be played for the grand jury if it hasn't yet been authenticated.

CNN has a penchant for chasing false leads.

I wouldn't trust a thing they put out because they don't vet their sources before they broadcast whatever they have to say. CNN is so heavy into advocacy that their objectivity is gone. They spread so much false information that it's embarrassing.

when looking at the photos of the scene

the bullet that was dug out of the wall of a building

was not down range (from the officer past big MIke)

but rather from the squad car where the two had been fighting

Which means that the officer started shooting at Brown which explains why he ran away. Unarmed people usually flee when people are shooting at them. It would also indicate that Brown was no longer any threat to Wilson so continuing to shoot at him while he was fleeing now has to be demonstrated to be SOP under those circumstances.

No, the first round was an AD (Accidental Discharge).

After Brown started to leave the scene Wilson got out and told him to freeze, Brown turned around and began taunting the officer and tried to run him over. He got shot for it.

Who has made the determination that it was an AD?

Who has alleged that Brown "began taunting the officer"?

Who has alleged that Brown "tried to run him [Wilson] over"?

I think the term is "Multiple Eye-Witnesses".

Thank you for admitting that you you have nothing to support your allegations.

 

[Theowl32]

Has CNN sought out the audio of Dillon Tyler? No?

Oh, in case some have forgotten (liberals all curiously ignore cause they are black patronizing racists) he was an unarmed white kid shot by a black cop in Utah.

Still no coverage (not even a mention of it) on CNN, ABC News, or MSNBC.

Nothing, nada, zilch, zero. Nothing.

 

[mudwhistle]

Assuming that the recording is validated by independent time stamps then it raises some questions.

The sound pattern is 6 shots, pause, then 4 shots.

Brown was hit by 6 shots that all came from the front.

Given that the gun probably held at least 10 rounds, possibly more, there was no need for a reload.

Doubtful that this will be played for the grand jury if it hasn't yet been authenticated.

CNN has a penchant for chasing false leads.

I wouldn't trust a thing they put out because they don't vet their sources before they broadcast whatever they have to say. CNN is so heavy into advocacy that their objectivity is gone. They spread so much false information that it's embarrassing.

when looking at the photos of the scene

the bullet that was dug out of the wall of a building

was not down range (from the officer past big MIke)

but rather from the squad car where the two had been fighting

Which means that the officer started shooting at Brown which explains why he ran away. Unarmed people usually flee when people are shooting at them. It would also indicate that Brown was no longer any threat to Wilson so continuing to shoot at him while he was fleeing now has to be demonstrated to be SOP under those circumstances.

No, the first round was an AD (Accidental Discharge).

After Brown started to leave the scene Wilson got out and told him to freeze, Brown turned around and began taunting the officer and tried to run him over. He got shot for it.

Who has made the determination that it was an AD?

Who has alleged that Brown "began taunting the officer"?

Who has alleged that Brown "tried to run him [Wilson] over"?

I think the term is "Multiple Eye-Witnesses".

Thank you for admitting that you you have nothing to support your allegations.

Dude, if it ever goes to court the best evidence is eye-witness accounts for fuck sakes.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Assuming that the recording is validated by independent time stamps then it raises some questions.

The sound pattern is 6 shots, pause, then 4 shots.

Brown was hit by 6 shots that all came from the front.

Given that the gun probably held at least 10 rounds, possibly more, there was no need for a reload.

Doubtful that this will be played for the grand jury if it hasn't yet been authenticated.

CNN has a penchant for chasing false leads.

I wouldn't trust a thing they put out because they don't vet their sources before they broadcast whatever they have to say. CNN is so heavy into advocacy that their objectivity is gone. They spread so much false information that it's embarrassing.

when looking at the photos of the scene

the bullet that was dug out of the wall of a building

was not down range (from the officer past big MIke)

but rather from the squad car where the two had been fighting

Which means that the officer started shooting at Brown which explains why he ran away. Unarmed people usually flee when people are shooting at them. It would also indicate that Brown was no longer any threat to Wilson so continuing to shoot at him while he was fleeing now has to be demonstrated to be SOP under those circumstances.

No, the first round was an AD (Accidental Discharge).

After Brown started to leave the scene Wilson got out and told him to freeze, Brown turned around and began taunting the officer and tried to run him over. He got shot for it.

Who has made the determination that it was an AD?

Who has alleged that Brown "began taunting the officer"?

Who has alleged that Brown "tried to run him [Wilson] over"?

I think the term is "Multiple Eye-Witnesses".

Thank you for admitting that you you have nothing to support your allegations.

Dude, if it ever goes to court the best evidence is eye-witness accounts for fuck sakes.

Seriously?

People have been convicted on "eye-witness accounts" only to have them overturned on DNA evidence. eye-witness accounts are notoriously unreliable. There are masses of articles about how what an eye-witness recalls is far from the "best evidence'.

So if that is all that you have then you don't have squat.

Even if you assume that the first shot occurred in the vehicle and it was an AD you have to explain why Wilson drew his gun in the first place. Taunting a police office does not justify shooting and killing.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Wonder if the dude ("You're so pretty, you're so fine, I'm looking at your videos now") having the sexchat session still has a wife or girlfriend this morning ?

 

[mudwhistle]

Assuming that the recording is validated by independent time stamps then it raises some questions.

The sound pattern is 6 shots, pause, then 4 shots.

Brown was hit by 6 shots that all came from the front.

Given that the gun probably held at least 10 rounds, possibly more, there was no need for a reload.

Doubtful that this will be played for the grand jury if it hasn't yet been authenticated.

CNN has a penchant for chasing false leads.

I wouldn't trust a thing they put out because they don't vet their sources before they broadcast whatever they have to say. CNN is so heavy into advocacy that their objectivity is gone. They spread so much false information that it's embarrassing.

when looking at the photos of the scene

the bullet that was dug out of the wall of a building

was not down range (from the officer past big MIke)

but rather from the squad car where the two had been fighting

Which means that the officer started shooting at Brown which explains why he ran away. Unarmed people usually flee when people are shooting at them. It would also indicate that Brown was no longer any threat to Wilson so continuing to shoot at him while he was fleeing now has to be demonstrated to be SOP under those circumstances.

No, the first round was an AD (Accidental Discharge).

After Brown started to leave the scene Wilson got out and told him to freeze, Brown turned around and began taunting the officer and tried to run him over. He got shot for it.

Who has made the determination that it was an AD?

Who has alleged that Brown "began taunting the officer"?

Who has alleged that Brown "tried to run him [Wilson] over"?

I think the term is "Multiple Eye-Witnesses".

Thank you for admitting that you you have nothing to support your allegations.

Dude, if it ever goes to court the best evidence is eye-witness accounts for fuck sakes.

Seriously?

People have been convicted on "eye-witness accounts" only to have them overturned on DNA evidence. eye-witness accounts are notoriously unreliable. There are masses of articles about how what an eye-witness recalls is far from the "best evidence'.

So if that is all that you have then you don't have squat.

Even if you assume that the first shot occurred in the vehicle and it was an AD you have to explain why Wilson drew his gun in the first place. Taunting a police office does not justify shooting and killing.

Beating a police officer, trying to steal his gun and murder him, and then when that doesn't work, trying to beat him again, maybe kill him this time, well that does justify it.
But, when it comes to eye-witness accounts, when you have more than one, in this case several that corroborate the scenario related by the officer, I doubt that DNA evidence is going to dispute that. DNA evidence has been used to overturn convictions when you only have one witness or witnesses that didn't see what they thought they saw or lied. This happens quite often. It's still the best evidence there is. Ask any cop. Your problem is you're a liberal, and they spend most of their lives ignoring the truth.

 

[asaratis]

........

Seriously?

People have been convicted on "eye-witness accounts" only to have them overturned on DNA evidence. eye-witness accounts are notoriously unreliable. There are masses of articles about how what an eye-witness recalls is far from the "best evidence'.

So if that is all that you have then you don't have squat.

Even if you assume that the first shot occurred in the vehicle and it was an AD you have to explain why Wilson drew his gun in the first place. Taunting a police office does not justify shooting and killing.

I've heard that there's evidence that Michael touched the officer's gun. Perhaps he's the one that caused the discharge in the car.

Regarding the "eye-witnesses"...one has already recanted (Michael's partner in crime). Also, I have heard stories where one purported eye-witness sets the story and others agree even when they actually didn't see the details...just to back up their buddy.

Michael was NOT shot in the back as once proclaimed by an "eye-witness".

The most reliable eye-witness in this case is the officer.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[mudwhistle]

........

Seriously?

People have been convicted on "eye-witness accounts" only to have them overturned on DNA evidence. eye-witness accounts are notoriously unreliable. There are masses of articles about how what an eye-witness recalls is far from the "best evidence'.

So if that is all that you have then you don't have squat.

Even if you assume that the first shot occurred in the vehicle and it was an AD you have to explain why Wilson drew his gun in the first place. Taunting a police office does not justify shooting and killing.

I've heard that there's evidence that Michael touched the officer's gun. Perhaps he's the one that caused the discharge in the car.

Regarding the "eye-witnesses"...one has already recanted (Michael's partner in crime). Also, I have heard stories where one purported eye-witness sets the story and others agree even when they actually didn't see the details...just to back up their buddy.

Michael was NOT shot in the back as once proclaimed by an "eye-witness".

The most reliable eye-witness in this case is the officer.

The eye-witness who the left wants to believe is also an accomplice, which adds or subtracts weight to his statements on this case. Yet the left seems to want to believe somebody who may be convicted of several felonies over this homicide. He made false statements. That makes him an accessory.

........

Seriously?

People have been convicted on "eye-witness accounts" only to have them overturned on DNA evidence. eye-witness accounts are notoriously unreliable. There are masses of articles about how what an eye-witness recalls is far from the "best evidence'.

So if that is all that you have then you don't have squat.

Even if you assume that the first shot occurred in the vehicle and it was an AD you have to explain why Wilson drew his gun in the first place. Taunting a police office does not justify shooting and killing.

I've heard that there's evidence that Michael touched the officer's gun. Perhaps he's the one that caused the discharge in the car.

Regarding the "eye-witnesses"...one has already recanted (Michael's partner in crime). Also, I have heard stories where one purported eye-witness sets the story and others agree even when they actually didn't see the details...just to back up their buddy.

Michael was NOT shot in the back as once proclaimed by an "eye-witness".

The most reliable eye-witness in this case is the officer.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[dannyboys]

Ferguson Shooting Audio Was CNN Pranked by Howard Stern Fan NewsBusters

CNN & AP confirmed audio as legitimate.

Total bull shit.
When the FBI has completed their exhaustive tests which will take weeks then we will know the truth.
That's right. CNN and AP have"confirmed the audio as legitimate".
Where is the link?

You are the one who is full of shit!

CNN: Glide Video Service Company says audio captured about time of Michael Brown shooting.

"A company whose video chat service allegedly captured audio of Michael Brown's shooting said Thursday the recording was created at about the time the Missouri teenager was killed this month. The revelation from the company, Glide, appears to bolster a man's claim that he inadvertently recorded audio of gunfire at the time a police officer shot and killed the 18-year-old Brown in the St. Louis suburb of Ferguson on August 9.

The video was created at 12:02:14 p.m. that day, Glide said. That's around the time that police say Ferguson police Officer Darren Wilson shot an unarmed Brown."

"About the time". "Around the time"?
The cops know EXACTLY when Wilson fired the shots. Let's see if the audio tape PROVES the shots were fired at the PRECIOUS time. IF not? Well then the tape has zero bearing on the case. Any five year old can comprehend this FACT.
Funny thing: Not a single witness has come forward with the audio from a cell phone. And that's curious b/c there must have been at least one witness who was on their cell phone near by.
But in a majority Black shit hole like Ferguson 'SNITCHES GET STICHES'.
The dude jerking off is not a witness.

 

[dannyboys]

Some part of Wilson's gun cut BM's hand. That gun has already be tested for BM's DNA. If BM's DNA is proven to be on Wilson's gun then all you LIB fools can crawl back under your covers and wait until Rev. Al. finds another "injustice" to make him look stupid.
Pretty fucking lame to have a race whore like Sharpton 'leading' the Black community. But who honestly expects any different?

 

[jon_berzerk]

Assuming that the recording is validated by independent time stamps then it raises some questions.

The sound pattern is 6 shots, pause, then 4 shots.

Brown was hit by 6 shots that all came from the front.

Given that the gun probably held at least 10 rounds, possibly more, there was no need for a reload.

Doubtful that this will be played for the grand jury if it hasn't yet been authenticated.

CNN has a penchant for chasing false leads.

I wouldn't trust a thing they put out because they don't vet their sources before they broadcast whatever they have to say. CNN is so heavy into advocacy that their objectivity is gone. They spread so much false information that it's embarrassing.

when looking at the photos of the scene

the bullet that was dug out of the wall of a building

was not down range (from the officer past big MIke)

but rather from the squad car where the two had been fighting

Which means that the officer started shooting at Brown which explains why he ran away. Unarmed people usually flee when people are shooting at them. It would also indicate that Brown was no longer any threat to Wilson so continuing to shoot at him while he was fleeing now has to be demonstrated to be SOP under those circumstances.

No, the first round was an AD (Accidental Discharge).

After Brown started to leave the scene Wilson got out and told him to freeze, Brown turned around and began taunting the officer and tried to run him over. He got shot for it.

Who has made the determination that it was an AD?

Who has alleged that Brown "began taunting the officer"?

Who has alleged that Brown "tried to run him [Wilson] over"?

I think the term is "Multiple Eye-Witnesses".

Thank you for admitting that you you have nothing to support your allegations.

Dude, if it ever goes to court the best evidence is eye-witness accounts for fuck sakes.

Seriously?

People have been convicted on "eye-witness accounts" only to have them overturned on DNA evidence. eye-witness accounts are notoriously unreliable. There are masses of articles about how what an eye-witness recalls is far from the "best evidence'.

So if that is all that you have then you don't have squat.

Even if you assume that the first shot occurred in the vehicle and it was an AD you have to explain why Wilson drew his gun in the first place. Taunting a police office does not justify shooting and killing.

Beating a police officer, trying to steal his gun and murder him, and then when that doesn't work, trying to beat him again, maybe kill him this time, well that does justify it.
But, when it comes to eye-witness accounts, when you have more than one, in this case several that corroborate the scenario related by the officer, I doubt that DNA evidence is going to dispute that. DNA evidence has been used to overturn convictions when you only have one witness or witnesses that didn't see what they thought they saw or lied. This happens quite often. It's still the best evidence there is. Ask any cop. Your problem is you're a liberal, and they spend most of their lives ignoring the truth.

when reviewing the footage by the news coverage

the "witnesses" can be seen together discussing

before interviews with the police

 

[Derideo_Te]

Beating a police officer, trying to steal his gun and murder him, and then when that doesn't work, trying to beat him again, maybe kill him this time, well that does justify it.
But, when it comes to eye-witness accounts, when you have more than one, in this case several that corroborate the scenario related by the officer, I doubt that DNA evidence is going to dispute that. DNA evidence has been used to overturn convictions when you only have one witness or witnesses that didn't see what they thought they saw or lied. This happens quite often. It's still the best evidence there is. Ask any cop. Your problem is you're a liberal, and they spend most of their lives ignoring the truth.

More allegations without substance. No evidence of an attempt to "steal his gun". No evidence of any beating was found in the autopsy either. Then you descend into name calling because the facts are not on Wilson's side here.

FYI I do volunteer work with cops so I know their side of how these things go down. I have even used their shooting simulators so I probably have an even better idea of what was happening to Wilson than you do.

What we do know for certain is that Brown was unarmed and Wilson killed him. The investigation by the FBI won't only be relying on eye-witness testimony because they will be able to put together the forensics and come up with a finding that accounts for all of the facts.

Not every shooting by a cop is justifiable. This might be one of those instances. The questions that have arisen so far and the lack of answers from the FPD all point to having something to hide.

 

[Derideo_Te]

........

Seriously?

People have been convicted on "eye-witness accounts" only to have them overturned on DNA evidence. eye-witness accounts are notoriously unreliable. There are masses of articles about how what an eye-witness recalls is far from the "best evidence'.

So if that is all that you have then you don't have squat.

Even if you assume that the first shot occurred in the vehicle and it was an AD you have to explain why Wilson drew his gun in the first place. Taunting a police office does not justify shooting and killing.

I've heard that there's evidence that Michael touched the officer's gun. Perhaps he's the one that caused the discharge in the car.

Regarding the "eye-witnesses"...one has already recanted (Michael's partner in crime). Also, I have heard stories where one purported eye-witness sets the story and others agree even when they actually didn't see the details...just to back up their buddy.

Michael was NOT shot in the back as once proclaimed by an "eye-witness".

The most reliable eye-witness in this case is the officer.

Why did the officer draw his gun in the vehicle?

 

[mudwhistle]

Beating a police officer, trying to steal his gun and murder him, and then when that doesn't work, trying to beat him again, maybe kill him this time, well that does justify it.
But, when it comes to eye-witness accounts, when you have more than one, in this case several that corroborate the scenario related by the officer, I doubt that DNA evidence is going to dispute that. DNA evidence has been used to overturn convictions when you only have one witness or witnesses that didn't see what they thought they saw or lied. This happens quite often. It's still the best evidence there is. Ask any cop. Your problem is you're a liberal, and they spend most of their lives ignoring the truth.

More allegations without substance. No evidence of an attempt to "steal his gun". No evidence of any beating was found in the autopsy either. Then you descend into name calling because the facts are not on Wilson's side here.

FYI I do volunteer work with cops so I know their side of how these things go down. I have even used their shooting simulators so I probably have an even better idea of what was happening to Wilson than you do.

What we do know for certain is that Brown was unarmed and Wilson killed him. The investigation by the FBI won't only be relying on eye-witness testimony because they will be able to put together the forensics and come up with a finding that accounts for all of the facts.

Not every shooting by a cop is justifiable. This might be one of those instances. The questions that have arisen so far and the lack of answers from the FPD all point to having something to hide.

My brother was a cop. BTW.

You're only concerned with a few issues. The kid was unarmed and black and he's dead.

Everything else is pure speculation and thus totally discounted in your mind