Michael Brown was 148 feet from Wilson as he was shot to death

[Statistikhengst]

It's really simple to measure the distance, and quite accurately:




Those who measured started at the fire-hydrant that was near the police car from which officer Wilson fired the deadly shots:

Distance from the driver's side door (when officer Wilson claims he fired the shots) to the fire hydrant: 17 feet.

Distance from the fire hydrant to the spot where Michael Brown was standing when he was shot: 131 feet.

131 +17 = 148.

Now, there is an angle involved between the cop car and the hydrant, which means that actual distance of 17 feet, calculated as a straight line, will be somewhat less, maybe one third less. So, the true distance may be 140 to 141 feet. The angle represented by the yellow line looks to be about 35 degrees to the plain, if you consider the straight path of the sidewalk next to the hydrant to be the plain.

The police report says 35 feet. And a police officer said TWICE in a press conference that the distance was 35 feet:



(1:13 and 6:01)

35 feet and 148 are nowhere close to each other in terms of distance. 148 feet = 49 yards, or just about one-half of a football field.

The film clearly documents the start and end points, and they can be confirmed by police photos and photos shot by witnesses on that day.

35 feet could be an argument for immediate danger for a police officer. But 148 feet? No way.

Why did the Ferguson police lie about this detail?

And if the Ferguson police have lied about this, then we must ask what else they have lied about?

You know, sometimes it's all about simple math. The Ferguson police can lie for a while, but they cannot change geography and they cannot undo so many photos and videos.



Discuss.

Does a suspected perpetrator who is 148 feet away from an officer represent a danger to that officer's life?

 

[Ravi]

No, it is fishy.

As is the fact that Wilson's captain said Wilson didn't know about the robbery and then Wilson testified that he did.

 

[Judicial review]

If he has a fat ass yes.

 

[Politico]

Michael Brown was 148 feet from Wilson as he was shot to death

No he wasn't.

 

[Anathema]

He was a criminal. Not that I believe your distances at all but he could have been 148 MILES away and he would still have deserved to die.

 

[Judicial review]

He was a criminal. Not that I believe your distances at all but he could have been 148 MILES away and he would still have deserved to die.

This actually got me thinking. . For 2 sec then I was saying, really?

 

[Statistikhengst]

He was a criminal. Not that I believe your distances at all but he could have been 148 MILES away and he would still have deserved to die.

Maybe he deserved to be arrested and should have gotten a fair trial and a judgement. That's what the law says.

Do you not believe in the rule of law.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Michael Brown was 148 feet from Wilson as he was shot to death

No he wasn't.

Simple math proves you wrong. And it is documented. You can even see the flowers still being put on the sidewalk directly across from the spot where Michael Brown was shot down in cold blood, 148 feet away from an officer who was in no way in danger.

 

[PredFan]

It's really simple to measure the distance, and quite accurately:




Those who measured started at the fire-hydrant that was near the police car from which officer Wilson fired the deadly shots:

Distance from the driver's side door (when officer Wilson claims he fired the shots) to the fire hydrant: 17 feet.

Distance from the fire hydrant to the spot where Michael Brown was standing when he was shot: 131 feet.

131 +17 = 148.

The police report says 35 feet. And a police officer said TWICE in a press conference that the distance was 35 feet:



(1:13 and 6:01)

35 feet and 148 are nowhere close to each other in terms of distance. 148 feet = 49 yards, or just about one-half of a football field.

The film clearly documents the start and end points, and they can be confirmed by police photos and photos shot by witnesses on that day.

35 feet could be an argument for immediate danger for a police officer. But 148 feet? No way.

Why did the Ferguson police lie about this detail?

And if the Ferguson police have lied about this, then we must ask what else they have lied about?

You know, sometimes it's all about simple math. The Ferguson police can lie for a while, but they cannot change geography and they cannot undo so many photos and videos.



Discuss.

Does a suspected perpetrator who is 148 feet away from an officer represent a danger to that officer's life?

It doesn't matter if he was 20 miles away. Why are you doing this? Do you think that you can find out some evidence that the Grand Jury didn't? They hear the actual testimony from the experts and the witnesses, you did not and will not. YOU will accept anything gleaned off the internet unvetted in any way, as long as it promotes your narrative.

 

[Statistikhengst]

No, it is fishy.

As is the fact that Wilson's captain said Wilson didn't know about the robbery and then Wilson testified that he did.

Yes, more and more details are going to come out that will not line up with the facts, because the FPD lied at the onset. Really, physical distance from point A to point B is not hard to measure. It's one of the first things that criminal labs do in the case of shootings, to determine trajectory and a number of other factors. The only plausible reason the FPD would have had to lie and say only 17 feet (which would be only twice the distance from that police car to the fire-hydrant marked in the photo) would be to claim immediate danger to the life of officer Wilson. Also, at 148 feet, there is no way that an officer can claim that a perpetrator (and Michael Brown WAS a perpetrator, make no mistake about it, he was no angel) turned around to rush an officer.

 

[Statistikhengst]

It's really simple to measure the distance, and quite accurately:




Those who measured started at the fire-hydrant that was near the police car from which officer Wilson fired the deadly shots:

Distance from the driver's side door (when officer Wilson claims he fired the shots) to the fire hydrant: 17 feet.

Distance from the fire hydrant to the spot where Michael Brown was standing when he was shot: 131 feet.

131 +17 = 148.

The police report says 35 feet. And a police officer said TWICE in a press conference that the distance was 35 feet:



(1:13 and 6:01)

35 feet and 148 are nowhere close to each other in terms of distance. 148 feet = 49 yards, or just about one-half of a football field.

The film clearly documents the start and end points, and they can be confirmed by police photos and photos shot by witnesses on that day.

35 feet could be an argument for immediate danger for a police officer. But 148 feet? No way.

Why did the Ferguson police lie about this detail?

And if the Ferguson police have lied about this, then we must ask what else they have lied about?

You know, sometimes it's all about simple math. The Ferguson police can lie for a while, but they cannot change geography and they cannot undo so many photos and videos.



Discuss.

Does a suspected perpetrator who is 148 feet away from an officer represent a danger to that officer's life?

It doesn't matter if he was 20 miles away.

Yes, it does. According to the law, it very much does. Are you not for the rule of law?

 

[PredFan]

No, it is fishy.

As is the fact that Wilson's captain said Wilson didn't know about the robbery and then Wilson testified that he did.

Yes, more and more details are going to come out that will not line up with the facts, because the FPD lied at the onset. Really, physical distance from point A to point B is not hard to measure. It's one of the first things that criminal labs do in the case of shootings, to determine trajectory and a number of other factors. The only plausible reason the FPD would have had to lie and say only 17 feet (which would be only twice the distance from that police car to the fire-hydrant marked in the photo) would be to claim immediate danger to the life of officer Wilson. Also, at 148 feet, there is no way that an officer can claim that a perpetrator (and Michael Brown WAS a perpetrator, make no mistake about it, he was no angel) turned around to rush an officer.

The trial is over moron. You won't find anything that the PROFESSIONALS didn't.

 

[TooTall]

He was a criminal. Not that I believe your distances at all but he could have been 148 MILES away and he would still have deserved to die.

Maybe he deserved to be arrested and should have gotten a fair trial and a judgement. That's what the law says.

Do you not believe in the rule of law.

Policemen are not arrested for performing their duty.

 

[Statistikhengst]

No, it is fishy.

As is the fact that Wilson's captain said Wilson didn't know about the robbery and then Wilson testified that he did.

Yes, more and more details are going to come out that will not line up with the facts, because the FPD lied at the onset. Really, physical distance from point A to point B is not hard to measure. It's one of the first things that criminal labs do in the case of shootings, to determine trajectory and a number of other factors. The only plausible reason the FPD would have had to lie and say only 17 feet (which would be only twice the distance from that police car to the fire-hydrant marked in the photo) would be to claim immediate danger to the life of officer Wilson. Also, at 148 feet, there is no way that an officer can claim that a perpetrator (and Michael Brown WAS a perpetrator, make no mistake about it, he was no angel) turned around to rush an officer.

The trial is over moron. You won't find anything that the PROFESSIONALS didn't.

It was not a trial. It was a grand jury hearing, nothing more and nothing less. And a civil case against officer Wilson is still a real possibility.

 

[PredFan]

It's really simple to measure the distance, and quite accurately:




Those who measured started at the fire-hydrant that was near the police car from which officer Wilson fired the deadly shots:

Distance from the driver's side door (when officer Wilson claims he fired the shots) to the fire hydrant: 17 feet.

Distance from the fire hydrant to the spot where Michael Brown was standing when he was shot: 131 feet.

131 +17 = 148.

The police report says 35 feet. And a police officer said TWICE in a press conference that the distance was 35 feet:



(1:13 and 6:01)

35 feet and 148 are nowhere close to each other in terms of distance. 148 feet = 49 yards, or just about one-half of a football field.

The film clearly documents the start and end points, and they can be confirmed by police photos and photos shot by witnesses on that day.

35 feet could be an argument for immediate danger for a police officer. But 148 feet? No way.

Why did the Ferguson police lie about this detail?

And if the Ferguson police have lied about this, then we must ask what else they have lied about?

You know, sometimes it's all about simple math. The Ferguson police can lie for a while, but they cannot change geography and they cannot undo so many photos and videos.



Discuss.

Does a suspected perpetrator who is 148 feet away from an officer represent a danger to that officer's life?

It doesn't matter if he was 20 miles away.

Yes, it does. According to the law, it very much does. Are you not for the rule of law?

No idiot, it doesn't. He assaulted the cop, he came at the cop with intent to assault him again, the distance doesn't matter at all.

 

[TooTall]

It's really simple to measure the distance, and quite accurately:




Those who measured started at the fire-hydrant that was near the police car from which officer Wilson fired the deadly shots:

Distance from the driver's side door (when officer Wilson claims he fired the shots) to the fire hydrant: 17 feet.

Distance from the fire hydrant to the spot where Michael Brown was standing when he was shot: 131 feet.

131 +17 = 148.

The police report says 35 feet. And a police officer said TWICE in a press conference that the distance was 35 feet:



(1:13 and 6:01)

35 feet and 148 are nowhere close to each other in terms of distance. 148 feet = 49 yards, or just about one-half of a football field.

The film clearly documents the start and end points, and they can be confirmed by police photos and photos shot by witnesses on that day.

35 feet could be an argument for immediate danger for a police officer. But 148 feet? No way.

Why did the Ferguson police lie about this detail?

And if the Ferguson police have lied about this, then we must ask what else they have lied about?

You know, sometimes it's all about simple math. The Ferguson police can lie for a while, but they cannot change geography and they cannot undo so many photos and videos.



Discuss.

Does a suspected perpetrator who is 148 feet away from an officer represent a danger to that officer's life?

That is BS.

 

[Meathead]

Simple math proves you wrong. And it is documented. You can even see the flowers still being put on the sidewalk directly across from the spot where Michael Brown was shot down in cold blood, 148 feet away from an officer who was in no way in danger.

Stats is doing math again. This'll be fun!

 

[Statistikhengst]

He was a criminal. Not that I believe your distances at all but he could have been 148 MILES away and he would still have deserved to die.

Maybe he deserved to be arrested and should have gotten a fair trial and a judgement. That's what the law says.

Do you not believe in the rule of law.

Policemen are not arrested for performing their duty.

The question is: did he do his duty or did he overstep the bounds of legality, which makes the kill unjustified. This is a strictly legal issue.

 

[Anathema]

Maybe he deserved to be arrested and should have gotten a fair trial and a judgement. That's what the law says.

Do you not believe in the rule of law.

I believe in Law and Order. Criminals do not deserve to be treated with any level of decency or respect. The American legal system is a farce In my mind. It has no value at all.

 

[Statistikhengst]

It's really simple to measure the distance, and quite accurately:




Those who measured started at the fire-hydrant that was near the police car from which officer Wilson fired the deadly shots:

Distance from the driver's side door (when officer Wilson claims he fired the shots) to the fire hydrant: 17 feet.

Distance from the fire hydrant to the spot where Michael Brown was standing when he was shot: 131 feet.

131 +17 = 148.

The police report says 35 feet. And a police officer said TWICE in a press conference that the distance was 35 feet:



(1:13 and 6:01)

35 feet and 148 are nowhere close to each other in terms of distance. 148 feet = 49 yards, or just about one-half of a football field.

The film clearly documents the start and end points, and they can be confirmed by police photos and photos shot by witnesses on that day.

35 feet could be an argument for immediate danger for a police officer. But 148 feet? No way.

Why did the Ferguson police lie about this detail?

And if the Ferguson police have lied about this, then we must ask what else they have lied about?

You know, sometimes it's all about simple math. The Ferguson police can lie for a while, but they cannot change geography and they cannot undo so many photos and videos.



Discuss.

Does a suspected perpetrator who is 148 feet away from an officer represent a danger to that officer's life?

That is BS.

Simple math proves you to be quite wrong on this.

 

[PredFan]

No, it is fishy.

As is the fact that Wilson's captain said Wilson didn't know about the robbery and then Wilson testified that he did.

Yes, more and more details are going to come out that will not line up with the facts, because the FPD lied at the onset. Really, physical distance from point A to point B is not hard to measure. It's one of the first things that criminal labs do in the case of shootings, to determine trajectory and a number of other factors. The only plausible reason the FPD would have had to lie and say only 17 feet (which would be only twice the distance from that police car to the fire-hydrant marked in the photo) would be to claim immediate danger to the life of officer Wilson. Also, at 148 feet, there is no way that an officer can claim that a perpetrator (and Michael Brown WAS a perpetrator, make no mistake about it, he was no angel) turned around to rush an officer.

The trial is over moron. You won't find anything that the PROFESSIONALS didn't.

It was not a trial. It was a grand jury hearing, nothing more and nothing less. And a civil case against officer Wilson is still a real possibility.

Please please PLEASE hold your breath until that happens. Should be any second now. Right after the civil trial of George Zimmerman that you left wing looneys assured us was going to happen.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Maybe he deserved to be arrested and should have gotten a fair trial and a judgement. That's what the law says.

Do you not believe in the rule of law.

I believe in Law and Order. Criminals do not deserve to be treated with any level of decency or respect. The American legal system is a farce In my mind. It has no value at all.

You are absolutely entitled to your beliefs. But that is NOT what the law says. And police officers are supposed to be there to uphold the law.