ClosedCaption
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2010
- 53,233
- 6,719
- 1,830
Who deserves to be shot for no reason? Anyone else?
He was shot for a good reason. Why do you defend stupid?
And what reason is that? The Police themselves havent even given a reason so any reason you give would be made up
If it's true that no reason was given, how can you say he was shot for no reason?
Because no reason was given you just assume that there is none?
When shit happens you file an incident report....The ofc didnt
When shit happens you give a statement...the ofc didnt
When shit happens the story comes out...nothing has.
You can pretend thats typical but its SOUNDS like he's being told to not say anything by his lawyer.
But he hasnt given any reason but YOU already determined theres a good reason. Funny aint it?
You liberals pukes make absolutely no sense. Do you even think before you post?
If I were the one being attacked, I would have shot his dumbass too.
Who was attacked tho? Again? Where is anything that says he was attacked?
So since you dont have anything that says he was you are making up excuses to shoot someone who was unarmed.
You are seriously stupid.
The officer did give a statement. Just not to you. An incident report was created. You weren't copied. The story has been coming out all over the media, albeit a lot of it's bullshit. Where have you been?
After the Grand Jury fails to indict, all the facts will be revealed.
Fact is the idiot that was with Brown and has since changed his story did say that Brown attacked Wilson.
REPORT: Key witness Dorian Johnson now admits that Michael Brown ATTACKED Officer Wilson
Of course and the ofc never gave any story which makes it hard to judge his story all together.
ACLU Michael Brown incident report lacks key details MSNBC
Like I said before...You can judge that guy with Brown because he gave a statement. Compared to the ofc and the dept who never did and only gave a incident report that has the time and date...NO details.
They're not going to release his statement until the Grand Jury makes it's decision. Be patient.
But for you to say he had no reason when you have no idea what he has to say is ignorant.
We know that an altercation occurred between Wilson and Brown. We don't know the extent of that altercation. We do know from the Police Chief or it may have been the Assistant Chief that Wilson did suffer injuries. We know from an eyewitness (Dorian Johnson) that Brown attacked Wilson. I'll concede that Johnson's credibility is in question. But given the little information we know it seems fair to assume that Wilson, according to Missouri law, had the right to use lethal force.
You know what happens when you assume? Or is that only when I assume?