Prosecutor in Ferguson grand jury says he knew some witnesses were lying

[Kondor3]

Brown was worm-meat as soon as (1) he reached into the cop's squad-car window to try to wrestle the gun away from the cop, and (2) he failed to comply with the cop's command to surrender. Everything else is a mere matter of degree, and mere detail. Don't want to get shot? Don't try to take a cop's gun. And surrender when he tells you to.

Q.E.D.

You keep saying that. If it were PROVEN that he went for the gun, then the officer would have been in the right if he shot Brown dead BEFORE Brown turned and ran away.

It hasn't been proven. And he shot the man dead long after going for the gun was even possible.

Ties, and benefits-of-a-doubt, always go to the police officer.

And, technically speaking, you're right about the timing of the use of lethal force.

Unless, of course, the officer commanded the suspect to halt, and to surrender, and the suspect failed to comply.

Of if the suspect turned on his heel and proceeded to rush-charge the officer, which, when compounded with the early attempted gun-grab, constituted sufficient cause to use lethal force, yes?

Now, as to whether or not such things actually happened, I cannot say.

But, ties, and benefits-of-a-doubt, always go to the police officer.

Apparently, the grand jury saw it in similar terms.

Consequently, justice has been served.

It's over.

And, as the days and weeks go by, this has already slid off the front page, and is already sliding out of the collective Public Consciousness.

Yesterday's news... in a world of Short Attention-Span Theater... bore, bore, bore.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Brown was worm-meat as soon as (1) he reached into the cop's squad-car window to try to wrestle the gun away from the cop, and (2) he failed to comply with the cop's command to surrender. Everything else is a mere matter of degree, and mere detail. Don't want to get shot? Don't try to take a cop's gun. And surrender when he tells you to.

Q.E.D.

You keep saying that. If it were PROVEN that he went for the gun, then the officer would have been in the right if he shot Brown dead BEFORE Brown turned and ran away.

It hasn't been proven. And he shot the man dead long after going for the gun was even possible.

Ties, and benefits-of-a-doubt, always go to the police officer.

And, technically speaking, you're right about the timing of the use of lethal force.

Unless, of course, the officer commanded the suspect to halt, and to surrender, and the suspect failed to comply.

Of if the suspect turned on his heel and proceeded to rush-charge the officer, which, when compounded with the early attempted gun-grab, constituted sufficient cause to use lethal force, yes?

Now, as to whether or not such things actually happened, I cannot say.

But, ties, and benefits-of-a-doubt, always go to the police officer.

Apparently, the grand jury saw it in similar terms.

Consequently, justice has been served.

It's over.

And, as the days and weeks go by, this has already slid off the front page, and is already sliding out of the collective Public Consciousness.

Yesterday's news... in a world of Short Attention-Span Theater... bore, bore, bore.

That is now three times that you have ended a post on this subject with a dismissive.......saying it is old news and already forgotten. That is hardly the case. I'm not sure what motivates you to keep saying it.

 

[skookerasbil]

meh

Its almost Christmas.........nobody gives a rats ass about Ferguson anymore. What are the protests down to? Like 73 people/city and all of them far left anarchist mental case losers who don't even know Mike Browns cap ended up upside down!!!

Tell you what though..........tee's like this getting incredibly popular. Lets face facts here.......a huge majority of Americans concur with the statement of THE TEE!!!!!!

[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/superman-man-of-steel-shield-4.jpg.html][/URL]

 

[skookerasbil]

......because "WINNING" is the greatest feeling in the world..............

 

[SAYIT]

Brown was worm-meat as soon as (1) he reached into the cop's squad-car window to try to wrestle the gun away from the cop, and (2) he failed to comply with the cop's command to surrender. Everything else is a mere matter of degree, and mere detail. Don't want to get shot? Don't try to take a cop's gun. And surrender when he tells you to.

Q.E.D.

You keep saying that. If it were PROVEN that he went for the gun, then the officer would have been in the right if he shot Brown dead BEFORE Brown turned and ran away.

It hasn't been proven. And he shot the man dead long after going for the gun was even possible.

Ties, and benefits-of-a-doubt, always go to the police officer.

And, technically speaking, you're right about the timing of the use of lethal force.

Unless, of course, the officer commanded the suspect to halt, and to surrender, and the suspect failed to comply.

Of if the suspect turned on his heel and proceeded to rush-charge the officer, which, when compounded with the early attempted gun-grab, constituted sufficient cause to use lethal force, yes?

Now, as to whether or not such things actually happened, I cannot say.

Nor can I but what I find telling is the fact that Brown was hit numerous times and still fell FORWARD ... towards the cop.

 

[Pop23]

Witness 40 told the same story that the others told, therefore witness 40 wasnt one of the liars.

From the OP, moron:

McCulloch suggested he knew Witness 40 was being dishonest

One witness McCulloch believed was lying matches several news outlets' description of Witness 40, who told the grand jury that Brown charged at Wilson before the officer fired the final shots that killed him.

"[T]his lady clearly wasn't present when this occurred," McCulloch said. "She recounted a statement that was right out of the newspaper about Wilson's actions, and right down the line with Wilson's actions. Even though I'm sure she was nowhere near the place."​

Prosecutor in Ferguson grand jury says he knew some witnesses were lying

1. The prosecutor who led the grand jury investigation into the August 9 police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, said he was aware that some eyewitnesses were lying.
2. The admission could mean the prosecutor, St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch, knowingly violated ethical and legal requirements to not knowingly present false evidence.
3. Several news reports in the past week have uncovered false or contradictory statements from witnesses in the Ferguson grand jury, which on November 24 decided not to press criminal charges against Darren Wilson for the Brown shooting.

McCulloch repeatedly acknowledged some witnesses were lying

St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch told radio station KTRS that he let some witnesses testify "even though their statements were not accurate."

"I knew that no matter how I handled this, there would be criticism of it," McCulloch said. "So if I didn't put those witnesses on, then we'd be discussing now why I didn't put those witnesses on even though their statements were not accurate."

He later added, "I thought it was much more important to present anybody and everybody and some that, yes, clearly were not telling the truth. No question about it."

McCulloch said he won't charge the witnesses involved with perjury. But he acknowledged, "There were people who came in and, yes, absolutely lied under oath."
McCulloch suggested he knew Witness 40 was being dishonest

One witness McCulloch believed was lying matches several news outlets' description of Witness 40, who told the grand jury that Brown charged at Wilson before the officer fired the final shots that killed him.

"[T]his lady clearly wasn't present when this occurred," McCulloch said. "She recounted a statement that was right out of the newspaper about Wilson's actions, and right down the line with Wilson's actions. Even though I'm sure she was nowhere near the place."


*snip*


McCulloch's actions raise ethical and legal questions about the grand jury proceedings

McCulloch's admission could put him at odds with ethical and even legal requirements to not knowingly present false evidence.

"A lawyer should not present testimony that he believes to be false," Steven Lubet, a law professor at Northwestern University, told BuzzFeed. "That is especially true in a proceeding that lacks all of the usual safeguards, such as opposing counsel and a judge."

See that dead horse over yonder

Go beat it

 

[dannyboys]

Brown was worm-meat as soon as (1) he reached into the cop's squad-car window to try to wrestle the gun away from the cop, and (2) he failed to comply with the cop's command to surrender. Everything else is a mere matter of degree, and mere detail. Don't want to get shot? Don't try to take a cop's gun. And surrender when he tells you to.

Q.E.D.

You keep saying that. If it were PROVEN that he went for the gun, then the officer would have been in the right if he shot Brown dead BEFORE Brown turned and ran away.

It hasn't been proven. And he shot the man dead long after going for the gun was even possible.

Ties, and benefits-of-a-doubt, always go to the police officer.

And, technically speaking, you're right about the timing of the use of lethal force.

Unless, of course, the officer commanded the suspect to halt, and to surrender, and the suspect failed to comply.

Of if the suspect turned on his heel and proceeded to rush-charge the officer, which, when compounded with the early attempted gun-grab, constituted sufficient cause to use lethal force, yes?

Now, as to whether or not such things actually happened, I cannot say.

But, ties, and benefits-of-a-doubt, always go to the police officer.

Apparently, the grand jury saw it in similar terms.

Consequently, justice has been served.

It's over.

And, as the days and weeks go by, this has already slid off the front page, and is already sliding out of the collective Public Consciousness.

Yesterday's news... in a world of Short Attention-Span Theater... bore, bore, bore.

That is now three times that you have ended a post on this subject with a dismissive.......saying it is old news and already forgotten. That is hardly the case. I'm not sure what motivates you to keep saying it.

Are you posting from a mental institute? The only people left who really believe in BM's innocence are mentally ill and can not except reality.
You continually deny the fact, that for instance, proven by the FBI's forensic scientists human tissue/DNA belonging to BM was found on the slide action of Wilson's hand gun.
In answer you post inane replies like "who cares?"

 

[dannyboys]

Brown was worm-meat as soon as (1) he reached into the cop's squad-car window to try to wrestle the gun away from the cop, and (2) he failed to comply with the cop's command to surrender. Everything else is a mere matter of degree, and mere detail. Don't want to get shot? Don't try to take a cop's gun. And surrender when he tells you to.

Q.E.D.

You keep saying that. If it were PROVEN that he went for the gun, then the officer would have been in the right if he shot Brown dead BEFORE Brown turned and ran away.

It hasn't been proven. And he shot the man dead long after going for the gun was even possible.

Ties, and benefits-of-a-doubt, always go to the police officer.

And, technically speaking, you're right about the timing of the use of lethal force.

Unless, of course, the officer commanded the suspect to halt, and to surrender, and the suspect failed to comply.

Of if the suspect turned on his heel and proceeded to rush-charge the officer, which, when compounded with the early attempted gun-grab, constituted sufficient cause to use lethal force, yes?

Now, as to whether or not such things actually happened, I cannot say.

Nor can I but I find confusing is the fact that Brown was hit numerous times and still fell FORWARD ... towards the cop.

It's what happens when, according to numerous witnesses many Black, BM was running towards Wilson. The shell casings found beside BM prove Wilson's story, corroborated by numerous witnesses that Willson was actually moving backwards attempting to maintain some safety distance from BM's attack.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Brown was worm-meat as soon as (1) he reached into the cop's squad-car window to try to wrestle the gun away from the cop, and (2) he failed to comply with the cop's command to surrender. Everything else is a mere matter of degree, and mere detail. Don't want to get shot? Don't try to take a cop's gun. And surrender when he tells you to.

Q.E.D.

You keep saying that. If it were PROVEN that he went for the gun, then the officer would have been in the right if he shot Brown dead BEFORE Brown turned and ran away.

It hasn't been proven. And he shot the man dead long after going for the gun was even possible.

Ties, and benefits-of-a-doubt, always go to the police officer.

And, technically speaking, you're right about the timing of the use of lethal force.

Unless, of course, the officer commanded the suspect to halt, and to surrender, and the suspect failed to comply.

Of if the suspect turned on his heel and proceeded to rush-charge the officer, which, when compounded with the early attempted gun-grab, constituted sufficient cause to use lethal force, yes?

Now, as to whether or not such things actually happened, I cannot say.

But, ties, and benefits-of-a-doubt, always go to the police officer.

Apparently, the grand jury saw it in similar terms.

Consequently, justice has been served.

It's over.

And, as the days and weeks go by, this has already slid off the front page, and is already sliding out of the collective Public Consciousness.

Yesterday's news... in a world of Short Attention-Span Theater... bore, bore, bore.

That is now three times that you have ended a post on this subject with a dismissive.......saying it is old news and already forgotten. That is hardly the case. I'm not sure what motivates you to keep saying it.

Are you posting from a mental institute? The only people left who really believe in BM's innocence are mentally ill and can not except reality.
You continually deny the fact, that for instance, proven by the FBI's forensic scientists human tissue/DNA belonging to BM was found on the slide action of Wilson's hand gun.
In answer you post inane replies like "who cares?"

Michael Brown's DNA was found on the gun. And you think that has only one explaination...that Brown was grabbing Wilson's gun so he could shoot him? Is that right?

Try for a minute, you fucking lunatic, to play the devils advocate. What other possible reason could there be for Brown's DNA to be found on that gun? There are definitely other possible reasons. Dickhead.

And.....there is no BM involved. Slow down a bit. You are rabid.

 

[dannyboys]

Brown was worm-meat as soon as (1) he reached into the cop's squad-car window to try to wrestle the gun away from the cop, and (2) he failed to comply with the cop's command to surrender. Everything else is a mere matter of degree, and mere detail. Don't want to get shot? Don't try to take a cop's gun. And surrender when he tells you to.

Q.E.D.

You keep saying that. If it were PROVEN that he went for the gun, then the officer would have been in the right if he shot Brown dead BEFORE Brown turned and ran away.

It hasn't been proven. And he shot the man dead long after going for the gun was even possible.

Ties, and benefits-of-a-doubt, always go to the police officer.

And, technically speaking, you're right about the timing of the use of lethal force.

Unless, of course, the officer commanded the suspect to halt, and to surrender, and the suspect failed to comply.

Of if the suspect turned on his heel and proceeded to rush-charge the officer, which, when compounded with the early attempted gun-grab, constituted sufficient cause to use lethal force, yes?

Now, as to whether or not such things actually happened, I cannot say.

But, ties, and benefits-of-a-doubt, always go to the police officer.

Apparently, the grand jury saw it in similar terms.

Consequently, justice has been served.

It's over.

And, as the days and weeks go by, this has already slid off the front page, and is already sliding out of the collective Public Consciousness.

Yesterday's news... in a world of Short Attention-Span Theater... bore, bore, bore.

That is now three times that you have ended a post on this subject with a dismissive.......saying it is old news and already forgotten. That is hardly the case. I'm not sure what motivates you to keep saying it.

Are you posting from a mental institute? The only people left who really believe in BM's innocence are mentally ill and can not except reality.
You continually deny the fact, that for instance, proven by the FBI's forensic scientists human tissue/DNA belonging to BM was found on the slide action of Wilson's hand gun.
In answer you post inane replies like "who cares?"

Michael Brown's DNA was found on the gun. And you think that has only one explaination...that Brown was grabbing Wilson's gun so he could shoot him? Is that right?

Try for a minute, you fucking lunatic, to play the devils advocate. What other possible reason could there be for Brown's DNA to be found on that gun? There are definitely other possible reasons. Dickhead.

And.....there is no BM involved. Slow down a bit. You are rabid.

And now you are going to offer some logical reasons why BM's tissue (he had a deep fresh cut on his hand) /DNA was found on Wilson's gun right?
Not a single eye witness testified that Wilson was anywhere near BM after Wilson got out of his SUV.
After Wilson gave the people of Ferguson an early Christmas present by getting rid of the town bully he never went near BM's lifeless dead useless body. Eye witnesses concur.
But I'm sure you can make up some fucking lunatic BS story only someone as fucking stupid as you will believe.
Waiting.

 

[Pop23]

Brown was worm-meat as soon as (1) he reached into the cop's squad-car window to try to wrestle the gun away from the cop, and (2) he failed to comply with the cop's command to surrender. Everything else is a mere matter of degree, and mere detail. Don't want to get shot? Don't try to take a cop's gun. And surrender when he tells you to.

Q.E.D.

You keep saying that. If it were PROVEN that he went for the gun, then the officer would have been in the right if he shot Brown dead BEFORE Brown turned and ran away.

It hasn't been proven. And he shot the man dead long after going for the gun was even possible.

Ties, and benefits-of-a-doubt, always go to the police officer.

And, technically speaking, you're right about the timing of the use of lethal force.

Unless, of course, the officer commanded the suspect to halt, and to surrender, and the suspect failed to comply.

Of if the suspect turned on his heel and proceeded to rush-charge the officer, which, when compounded with the early attempted gun-grab, constituted sufficient cause to use lethal force, yes?

Now, as to whether or not such things actually happened, I cannot say.

Nor can I but what I find telling is the fact that Brown was hit numerous times and still fell FORWARD ... towards the cop.

Do you understand the concepts of inertia and mass?

Think about the mass of Michael brown vs the mass of the bullet, then add in inertia and your mind will be calmed.

 

[dannyboys]

Brown was worm-meat as soon as (1) he reached into the cop's squad-car window to try to wrestle the gun away from the cop, and (2) he failed to comply with the cop's command to surrender. Everything else is a mere matter of degree, and mere detail. Don't want to get shot? Don't try to take a cop's gun. And surrender when he tells you to.

Q.E.D.

You keep saying that. If it were PROVEN that he went for the gun, then the officer would have been in the right if he shot Brown dead BEFORE Brown turned and ran away.

It hasn't been proven. And he shot the man dead long after going for the gun was even possible.

Ties, and benefits-of-a-doubt, always go to the police officer.

And, technically speaking, you're right about the timing of the use of lethal force.

Unless, of course, the officer commanded the suspect to halt, and to surrender, and the suspect failed to comply.

Of if the suspect turned on his heel and proceeded to rush-charge the officer, which, when compounded with the early attempted gun-grab, constituted sufficient cause to use lethal force, yes?

Now, as to whether or not such things actually happened, I cannot say.

Nor can I but what I find telling is the fact that Brown was hit numerous times and still fell FORWARD ... towards the cop.

Do you understand the concepts of inertia and mass?

Think about the mass of Michael brown vs the mass of the bullet, then add in inertia and your mind will be calmed.

What these stupid LIB pyjama-boys can't comprehend is BM was struck by a number of bullets that basically only grazed him.
Trying to use a 'big' word' like inertia is completely lost on them.

 

[Theowl32]

LOL, liberals still trying to sell this thing about his arms were up and he was a gentle giant, and he was just a perfectly innocent kid just minding his own business, until....until.....until a WHITE COP JUST SHOT HIM IN THE BACK!!!

Not surprised the liberal losers try to perpetuate a lie. They are nothing but pawns as I incessantly point out.

Consider how stupid they are.

They are still pushing man made global warming as fact. Do we have an appreciation of how utterly ridiculously moronic liberals are?

You really need to stand in awe.

You think any of you are going to get anywhere by presenting the actual facts? Tell me this. When has that ever worked with these wastes of shit?

 

[SAYIT]

Brown was worm-meat as soon as (1) he reached into the cop's squad-car window to try to wrestle the gun away from the cop, and (2) he failed to comply with the cop's command to surrender. Everything else is a mere matter of degree, and mere detail. Don't want to get shot? Don't try to take a cop's gun. And surrender when he tells you to.

Q.E.D.

You keep saying that. If it were PROVEN that he went for the gun, then the officer would have been in the right if he shot Brown dead BEFORE Brown turned and ran away.

It hasn't been proven. And he shot the man dead long after going for the gun was even possible.

Ties, and benefits-of-a-doubt, always go to the police officer.

And, technically speaking, you're right about the timing of the use of lethal force.

Unless, of course, the officer commanded the suspect to halt, and to surrender, and the suspect failed to comply.

Of if the suspect turned on his heel and proceeded to rush-charge the officer, which, when compounded with the early attempted gun-grab, constituted sufficient cause to use lethal force, yes?

Now, as to whether or not such things actually happened, I cannot say.

Nor can I but what I find telling is the fact that Brown was hit numerous times and still fell FORWARD ... towards the cop.

Do you understand the concepts of inertia and mass?

Think about the mass of Michael brown vs the mass of the bullet, then add in inertia and your mind will be calmed.

My mind is calm, Pops. What possible reason could there be for Brown to have been shot multiple times and still fall toward the cop? Momentum, perhaps?

 

[dannyboys]

Brown was worm-meat as soon as (1) he reached into the cop's squad-car window to try to wrestle the gun away from the cop, and (2) he failed to comply with the cop's command to surrender. Everything else is a mere matter of degree, and mere detail. Don't want to get shot? Don't try to take a cop's gun. And surrender when he tells you to.

Q.E.D.

You keep saying that. If it were PROVEN that he went for the gun, then the officer would have been in the right if he shot Brown dead BEFORE Brown turned and ran away.

It hasn't been proven. And he shot the man dead long after going for the gun was even possible.

Ties, and benefits-of-a-doubt, always go to the police officer.

And, technically speaking, you're right about the timing of the use of lethal force.

Unless, of course, the officer commanded the suspect to halt, and to surrender, and the suspect failed to comply.

Of if the suspect turned on his heel and proceeded to rush-charge the officer, which, when compounded with the early attempted gun-grab, constituted sufficient cause to use lethal force, yes?

Now, as to whether or not such things actually happened, I cannot say.

Nor can I but what I find telling is the fact that Brown was hit numerous times and still fell FORWARD ... towards the cop.

Do you understand the concepts of inertia and mass?

Think about the mass of Michael brown vs the mass of the bullet, then add in inertia and your mind will be calmed.

My mind is calm, Pops. What possible reason could there be for Brown to have been shot multiple times and still fall toward the cop? Momentum, perhaps?

The piece of shit Tree Dweller was fucking HUGE!
The shots that initially hit him were on his arm/hand. He was striding towards Wilson. You get that size of hippo moving forward and a couple of rounds to his arm aren't going to stop him.

 

[SAYIT]

You keep saying that. If it were PROVEN that he went for the gun, then the officer would have been in the right if he shot Brown dead BEFORE Brown turned and ran away.

It hasn't been proven. And he shot the man dead long after going for the gun was even possible.

Ties, and benefits-of-a-doubt, always go to the police officer.

And, technically speaking, you're right about the timing of the use of lethal force.

Unless, of course, the officer commanded the suspect to halt, and to surrender, and the suspect failed to comply.

Of if the suspect turned on his heel and proceeded to rush-charge the officer, which, when compounded with the early attempted gun-grab, constituted sufficient cause to use lethal force, yes?

Now, as to whether or not such things actually happened, I cannot say.

Nor can I but what I find telling is the fact that Brown was hit numerous times and still fell FORWARD ... towards the cop.

Do you understand the concepts of inertia and mass?

Think about the mass of Michael brown vs the mass of the bullet, then add in inertia and your mind will be calmed.

My mind is calm, Pops. What possible reason could there be for Brown to have been shot multiple times and still fall toward the cop? Momentum, perhaps?

The piece of shit Tree Dweller was fucking HUGE!
The shots that initially hit him were on his arm/hand. He was striding towards Wilson. You get that size of hippo moving forward and a couple of rounds to his arm aren't going to stop him.

Tree Dweller? WTF is that?

 

[Pop23]

Brown was worm-meat as soon as (1) he reached into the cop's squad-car window to try to wrestle the gun away from the cop, and (2) he failed to comply with the cop's command to surrender. Everything else is a mere matter of degree, and mere detail. Don't want to get shot? Don't try to take a cop's gun. And surrender when he tells you to.

Q.E.D.

You keep saying that. If it were PROVEN that he went for the gun, then the officer would have been in the right if he shot Brown dead BEFORE Brown turned and ran away.

It hasn't been proven. And he shot the man dead long after going for the gun was even possible.

Ties, and benefits-of-a-doubt, always go to the police officer.

And, technically speaking, you're right about the timing of the use of lethal force.

Unless, of course, the officer commanded the suspect to halt, and to surrender, and the suspect failed to comply.

Of if the suspect turned on his heel and proceeded to rush-charge the officer, which, when compounded with the early attempted gun-grab, constituted sufficient cause to use lethal force, yes?

Now, as to whether or not such things actually happened, I cannot say.

Nor can I but what I find telling is the fact that Brown was hit numerous times and still fell FORWARD ... towards the cop.

Do you understand the concepts of inertia and mass?

Think about the mass of Michael brown vs the mass of the bullet, then add in inertia and your mind will be calmed.

My mind is calm, Pops. What possible reason could there be for Brown to have been shot multiple times and still fall toward the cop? Momentum, perhaps?

Sure, the battlefields were littered with the bodies of charging soldiers laying head first toward the enemies machine gun nests. If a machine gun didn't knock the soldier backwards what makes you think a small caliber handgun would?

I would add to that, many of these charges were made with the "nest" being on a hilltop, so the soldier would be running uphill and still the bodies fell forward.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

What is with liberals bringing up old news and trying the same lies that were debunked in the first round?
Shits like clock work...

 

[Theowl32]

Ties, and benefits-of-a-doubt, always go to the police officer.

And, technically speaking, you're right about the timing of the use of lethal force.

Unless, of course, the officer commanded the suspect to halt, and to surrender, and the suspect failed to comply.

Of if the suspect turned on his heel and proceeded to rush-charge the officer, which, when compounded with the early attempted gun-grab, constituted sufficient cause to use lethal force, yes?

Now, as to whether or not such things actually happened, I cannot say.

Nor can I but what I find telling is the fact that Brown was hit numerous times and still fell FORWARD ... towards the cop.

Do you understand the concepts of inertia and mass?

Think about the mass of Michael brown vs the mass of the bullet, then add in inertia and your mind will be calmed.

My mind is calm, Pops. What possible reason could there be for Brown to have been shot multiple times and still fall toward the cop? Momentum, perhaps?

The piece of shit Tree Dweller was fucking HUGE!
The shots that initially hit him were on his arm/hand. He was striding towards Wilson. You get that size of hippo moving forward and a couple of rounds to his arm aren't going to stop him.

Tree Dweller? WTF is that?

Here you go.

 

[LoneLaugher]

You keep saying that. If it were PROVEN that he went for the gun, then the officer would have been in the right if he shot Brown dead BEFORE Brown turned and ran away.

It hasn't been proven. And he shot the man dead long after going for the gun was even possible.

Ties, and benefits-of-a-doubt, always go to the police officer.

And, technically speaking, you're right about the timing of the use of lethal force.

Unless, of course, the officer commanded the suspect to halt, and to surrender, and the suspect failed to comply.

Of if the suspect turned on his heel and proceeded to rush-charge the officer, which, when compounded with the early attempted gun-grab, constituted sufficient cause to use lethal force, yes?

Now, as to whether or not such things actually happened, I cannot say.

But, ties, and benefits-of-a-doubt, always go to the police officer.

Apparently, the grand jury saw it in similar terms.

Consequently, justice has been served.

It's over.

And, as the days and weeks go by, this has already slid off the front page, and is already sliding out of the collective Public Consciousness.

Yesterday's news... in a world of Short Attention-Span Theater... bore, bore, bore.

That is now three times that you have ended a post on this subject with a dismissive.......saying it is old news and already forgotten. That is hardly the case. I'm not sure what motivates you to keep saying it.

Are you posting from a mental institute? The only people left who really believe in BM's innocence are mentally ill and can not except reality.
You continually deny the fact, that for instance, proven by the FBI's forensic scientists human tissue/DNA belonging to BM was found on the slide action of Wilson's hand gun.
In answer you post inane replies like "who cares?"

Michael Brown's DNA was found on the gun. And you think that has only one explaination...that Brown was grabbing Wilson's gun so he could shoot him? Is that right?

Try for a minute, you fucking lunatic, to play the devils advocate. What other possible reason could there be for Brown's DNA to be found on that gun? There are definitely other possible reasons. Dickhead.

And.....there is no BM involved. Slow down a bit. You are rabid.

And now you are going to offer some logical reasons why BM's tissue (he had a deep fresh cut on his hand) /DNA was found on Wilson's gun right?
Not a single eye witness testified that Wilson was anywhere near BM after Wilson got out of his SUV.
After Wilson gave the people of Ferguson an early Christmas present by getting rid of the town bully he never went near BM's lifeless dead useless body. Eye witnesses concur.
But I'm sure you can make up some fucking lunatic BS story only someone as fucking stupid as you will believe.
Waiting.

I absolutely will. I was hopeful that you would give it a shot as well. Think on it for a spell. If you come up empty, I'll clue you in.