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

[boedicca]

148 feet? If Brown were only walking 4 miles per hour, that would take 30 seconds to cross. As he was running, it's not unreasonable that the expected impact would be 10-15 seconds - not a whole lot of time when one's life is being threatened by someone who already attacked one.

 

[theHawk]

The whole premise of the OP is an outright lie. Brown was not 148 feet away from Wilson when he was shot.

Wilson and his squad car are not one and the same. I guess liberals have never seen a cop get out of his vehicle and pursue a suspect before.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Oh so when the cops and the chief give conflicting testimonies they arent on trial. But this witness is?

That makes sense...hey how are cops supposed to give consistent testimonies anyway? Obviously the case is about Browns friend being on trial

Wow, you obviously don't know how to stick to the merits. I wish you were a lawyer. You would get your ass eaten alive if you brought the Police Chief in to testify that Wilson did not know of the robbery when the RECORDED radio traffic demonstrates otherwise. That, my ignorant friend, is PROBABLE CAUSE in the form of description of the suspect.

The evidence (recorded radio traffic) shows Wilson knew of the robbery. That's the end of that.

Darren Wilson s radio calls show fatal encounter was brief stltoday.com

The link and the chief disagrees with you

You didn't read it did you?

"At 11:29 a.m. on Aug. 9, a dispatcher asked Wilson to help other officers search for a man who had reportedly threatened to kill a woman. At 11:47 a.m., Wilson said he would respond to a call for a 2-month-old with breathing problems. Wilson drove his police SUV from the west side of West Florissant Avenue to Glenark Drive, east of Canfield Drive and Copper Creek Court, where the fatal encounter would soon occur.

At 11:53 a.m., a dispatcher reported a “stealing in progress” at the Ferguson Market. The 911 operator was still talking to the caller in the background. In a second broadcast, 19 seconds later, the dispatcher says the suspect is a black male in a white T-shirt running toward QuikTrip, and had stolen a box of Swisher cigars.
About four minutes later, there’s more detail: the suspect is wearing a red Cardinals hat, a white T-shirt, yellow socks and khaki shorts, and is accompanied by another man.

At noon, Wilson reports that he’s back in service from the sick-baby call. He then asks the officers searching for the thieves – units 25 and 22 – if they need him. Seven seconds later, an unidentified officer broadcasts that the suspects had disappeared."

The Chief said that the video and the robbery had nothing to do with Wilson and the incident. Wilson knowing about it and the robbery having something to do with the incident are 2 different things.

*QUOTE* At the same time, the police released a packet of information on a crime in which they said Mike Brown was a suspect, a "strong-arm" robbery in the second degree. In a separate press conference later in the day, chief Jackson said that officer Wilson had no knowledge of Brown as a suspect when he shot Brown. *QUOTE*

But since everyone had their story straight 100 days later and there was no report taken on scene....obviously this is about Browns witness

The robbery did have nothing to do with Wilsons indictment. The question of the indictment was whether or not Wilson committed one of the 4 crimes indicated. With that said, the Police Chief is not a lawyer nor is he the person in question before the jury. Now, you and I both know that in an effort to successfully prosecute Wilson a prosecutor would likely need to prove that Wilson had no probable cause to profile Brown. The radio traffic proves that he did. Eat it!

Wait what? I'd like to see a link to anything that repeats this...Not even the prosecutor suggested crimes and thats why there was no indictment.

 

[Publius1787]

Wow, you obviously don't know how to stick to the merits. I wish you were a lawyer. You would get your ass eaten alive if you brought the Police Chief in to testify that Wilson did not know of the robbery when the RECORDED radio traffic demonstrates otherwise. That, my ignorant friend, is PROBABLE CAUSE in the form of description of the suspect.

The evidence (recorded radio traffic) shows Wilson knew of the robbery. That's the end of that.

Darren Wilson s radio calls show fatal encounter was brief stltoday.com

The link and the chief disagrees with you

You didn't read it did you?

"At 11:29 a.m. on Aug. 9, a dispatcher asked Wilson to help other officers search for a man who had reportedly threatened to kill a woman. At 11:47 a.m., Wilson said he would respond to a call for a 2-month-old with breathing problems. Wilson drove his police SUV from the west side of West Florissant Avenue to Glenark Drive, east of Canfield Drive and Copper Creek Court, where the fatal encounter would soon occur.

At 11:53 a.m., a dispatcher reported a “stealing in progress” at the Ferguson Market. The 911 operator was still talking to the caller in the background. In a second broadcast, 19 seconds later, the dispatcher says the suspect is a black male in a white T-shirt running toward QuikTrip, and had stolen a box of Swisher cigars.
About four minutes later, there’s more detail: the suspect is wearing a red Cardinals hat, a white T-shirt, yellow socks and khaki shorts, and is accompanied by another man.

At noon, Wilson reports that he’s back in service from the sick-baby call. He then asks the officers searching for the thieves – units 25 and 22 – if they need him. Seven seconds later, an unidentified officer broadcasts that the suspects had disappeared."

The Chief said that the video and the robbery had nothing to do with Wilson and the incident. Wilson knowing about it and the robbery having something to do with the incident are 2 different things.

*QUOTE* At the same time, the police released a packet of information on a crime in which they said Mike Brown was a suspect, a "strong-arm" robbery in the second degree. In a separate press conference later in the day, chief Jackson said that officer Wilson had no knowledge of Brown as a suspect when he shot Brown. *QUOTE*

But since everyone had their story straight 100 days later and there was no report taken on scene....obviously this is about Browns witness

The robbery did have nothing to do with Wilsons indictment. The question of the indictment was whether or not Wilson committed one of the 4 crimes indicated. With that said, the Police Chief is not a lawyer nor is he the person in question before the jury. Now, you and I both know that in an effort to successfully prosecute Wilson a prosecutor would likely need to prove that Wilson had no probable cause to profile Brown. The radio traffic proves that he did. Eat it!

Wait what? I'd like to see a link to anything that repeats this...Not even the prosecutor suggested crimes and thats why there was no indictment.

The prosecutors job is not to indict, contrary to popular belief, but to seek justice. With the evidence presented, there shouldn't have been an indictment all. If this was normal case, without bands of ignorant blacks who don't know the facts screaming for a lynching of the Police Officer, it would have never made it as far as it did. The prosecutor, knowing that the evidence led nowhere, accounted for his professional bias and allowed the jury to chose from a list of 4 charges.

 

[Roadrunner]

How did Brown get powder residue on him if he was 50 yards away?

When the first shot went off they were both in the car.

Why was the Gentle Giant in the car?

Cause the officer tried to run him over then reached for his gun and said he was gonna shoot Brown.

Bullshit.

 

[MXdad]

The casings were strewn down the street. Wilson says he was backing up as the boy charged. But we also know Wilson pursued. So either the casings are strewn down the street as they approached each other or Wilson was shooting while backpedaling. Either way Wilson is not standing in one spot.

I have a Glock 17, Wilson had a Glock 19 - there is a minor difference in the weapons, but very minor.

At 25 FEET I can hit what I'm aiming at. At 50 feet, I can hit most of the time. At 100 feet, I occasionally hit the target. Statist claims that Wilson was in motion at 150 feet and making precision, deadly hits..

Wilson was charged by a bull, and was firing wildly in desperate attempt to survive the encounter.

Obama has utter and complete contempt for the rule of law, so I have little doubt that his goons in the criminal DOJ will trump up charges to "get Wilson." The Party will have it's lynching, one way or the other.

Liberals lack of knowledge of firearms bites em in the ass on a regular basis when they make their wild claims .
Just look at Rep. Diana DeGette from Colorado who claimed ...“I will tell you these are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those know they’re going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won’t be any more available.”

And here we have some clown claiming officer Wilson is making hits at 150 ft at a moving target with the adrenaline flowing?
Shits..

Not only making hits at 50 yards but head shots LOL, just reading this OP makes you realize how little some folks know about handguns

 

[MXdad]

Wilson wasn't shooting a Thompson Center Olympic target pistol, but his service weapon.

Doesn't matter what he was shooting, forensics don't lie. The evidence would have indicated Brown had been shot at approximately 150 feet if that were the truth. We know for a fact that it wasn't the truth and forensics indicated no such thing. So why is anyone giving this ass clown the time of day?

Because its so much fun to destroy the theory of folks that have little to no experience when they come in armed with their Wiki firearm knowledge LOL

 

[Kondor3]

Brown signed his death warrant when he reached into the squad car for Wilson's gun.

Everything beyond that point is merely prelude to the summary execution for that offense.

 

[ClosedCaption]

The link and the chief disagrees with you

You didn't read it did you?

"At 11:29 a.m. on Aug. 9, a dispatcher asked Wilson to help other officers search for a man who had reportedly threatened to kill a woman. At 11:47 a.m., Wilson said he would respond to a call for a 2-month-old with breathing problems. Wilson drove his police SUV from the west side of West Florissant Avenue to Glenark Drive, east of Canfield Drive and Copper Creek Court, where the fatal encounter would soon occur.

At 11:53 a.m., a dispatcher reported a “stealing in progress” at the Ferguson Market. The 911 operator was still talking to the caller in the background. In a second broadcast, 19 seconds later, the dispatcher says the suspect is a black male in a white T-shirt running toward QuikTrip, and had stolen a box of Swisher cigars.
About four minutes later, there’s more detail: the suspect is wearing a red Cardinals hat, a white T-shirt, yellow socks and khaki shorts, and is accompanied by another man.

At noon, Wilson reports that he’s back in service from the sick-baby call. He then asks the officers searching for the thieves – units 25 and 22 – if they need him. Seven seconds later, an unidentified officer broadcasts that the suspects had disappeared."

The Chief said that the video and the robbery had nothing to do with Wilson and the incident. Wilson knowing about it and the robbery having something to do with the incident are 2 different things.

*QUOTE* At the same time, the police released a packet of information on a crime in which they said Mike Brown was a suspect, a "strong-arm" robbery in the second degree. In a separate press conference later in the day, chief Jackson said that officer Wilson had no knowledge of Brown as a suspect when he shot Brown. *QUOTE*

But since everyone had their story straight 100 days later and there was no report taken on scene....obviously this is about Browns witness

The robbery did have nothing to do with Wilsons indictment. The question of the indictment was whether or not Wilson committed one of the 4 crimes indicated. With that said, the Police Chief is not a lawyer nor is he the person in question before the jury. Now, you and I both know that in an effort to successfully prosecute Wilson a prosecutor would likely need to prove that Wilson had no probable cause to profile Brown. The radio traffic proves that he did. Eat it!

Wait what? I'd like to see a link to anything that repeats this...Not even the prosecutor suggested crimes and thats why there was no indictment.

The prosecutors job is not to indict, contrary to popular belief, but to seek justice. With the evidence presented, there shouldn't have been an indictment all. If this was normal case, without bands of ignorant blacks who don't know the facts screaming for a lynching of the Police Officer, it would have never made it as far as it did. The prosecutor, knowing that the evidence led nowhere, accounted for his professional bias and allowed the jury to chose from a list of 4 charges.

Where'd you get the 4 crimes indicated line you just threw out there?

And yes a prosecutors job is to suggest charges to a GJ...this one was different tho...He didnt.

But maybe he did and you know more than the Prosector himself....So where'd you get that "4 crimes" thing from?

 

[Publius1787]

You didn't read it did you?

"At 11:29 a.m. on Aug. 9, a dispatcher asked Wilson to help other officers search for a man who had reportedly threatened to kill a woman. At 11:47 a.m., Wilson said he would respond to a call for a 2-month-old with breathing problems. Wilson drove his police SUV from the west side of West Florissant Avenue to Glenark Drive, east of Canfield Drive and Copper Creek Court, where the fatal encounter would soon occur.

At 11:53 a.m., a dispatcher reported a “stealing in progress” at the Ferguson Market. The 911 operator was still talking to the caller in the background. In a second broadcast, 19 seconds later, the dispatcher says the suspect is a black male in a white T-shirt running toward QuikTrip, and had stolen a box of Swisher cigars.
About four minutes later, there’s more detail: the suspect is wearing a red Cardinals hat, a white T-shirt, yellow socks and khaki shorts, and is accompanied by another man.

At noon, Wilson reports that he’s back in service from the sick-baby call. He then asks the officers searching for the thieves – units 25 and 22 – if they need him. Seven seconds later, an unidentified officer broadcasts that the suspects had disappeared."

The Chief said that the video and the robbery had nothing to do with Wilson and the incident. Wilson knowing about it and the robbery having something to do with the incident are 2 different things.

*QUOTE* At the same time, the police released a packet of information on a crime in which they said Mike Brown was a suspect, a "strong-arm" robbery in the second degree. In a separate press conference later in the day, chief Jackson said that officer Wilson had no knowledge of Brown as a suspect when he shot Brown. *QUOTE*

But since everyone had their story straight 100 days later and there was no report taken on scene....obviously this is about Browns witness

The robbery did have nothing to do with Wilsons indictment. The question of the indictment was whether or not Wilson committed one of the 4 crimes indicated. With that said, the Police Chief is not a lawyer nor is he the person in question before the jury. Now, you and I both know that in an effort to successfully prosecute Wilson a prosecutor would likely need to prove that Wilson had no probable cause to profile Brown. The radio traffic proves that he did. Eat it!

Wait what? I'd like to see a link to anything that repeats this...Not even the prosecutor suggested crimes and thats why there was no indictment.

The prosecutors job is not to indict, contrary to popular belief, but to seek justice. With the evidence presented, there shouldn't have been an indictment all. If this was normal case, without bands of ignorant blacks who don't know the facts screaming for a lynching of the Police Officer, it would have never made it as far as it did. The prosecutor, knowing that the evidence led nowhere, accounted for his professional bias and allowed the jury to chose from a list of 4 charges.

Where'd you get the 4 crimes indicated line you just threw out there?

And yes a prosecutors job is to suggest charges to a GJ...this one was different tho...He didnt.

But maybe he did and you know more than the Prosector himself....So where'd you get that "4 crimes" thing from?

No it is not the prosecutors job to suggest charges. Its the prosecutors job to determine whether to prosecute or not. He can do this in a number of ways. He can suggest charges, the can allow the jury to suggest charges, or he could allow the jury to pick from a list of charges. In fact, he could have skipped the whole grand jury altogether and went straight to trial if he wanted to (They did that to Zimmerman). It is not his job to do one way over the other in accordance with your wishes. His only true job is to see that justice was served. He did that.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Hey look, 35 feet or 135 feet doesnt matter. No matter the length Brown could've closed the distance instantly because he was strong as Hulk Hogan and faster than Usain Bolt oh...and had the look of a black demon. Any shot is a good shot...just say you were scared from 100 feet away.

Just curious. Have you ever fired a hand gun? I'm a damned good shot and 100' would be a stretch.

40' is more along the lines of an acceptable distance to try to hit anything with a handgun.

I'm sorry but the body was where it was...are you saying Browns body was moved further away or something?

I'm saying that you are claiming that the distance from the SUV is the distance Wilson shot him at that, that sir is a lie.

Read page 226 of the GJ testimony

Grand Jury Volume 5

And Wlson CLEARLY states that he chased Brown before Brown turned and he ended u shooting him. He did NOT jump out of the car and shoot Brown from 148 feet away you ******* idiot.

 

[Yarddog]

How can you fight when you have both sides of the story.....oh wait...nope we only have Wilsons side. Yeah lets just go with that because thats fair

Maybe when the autopsy came out we stopped believing that he was shot in the back with his hands up..

I think when Brown was running Wilson shot but didnt hit him. 12 shots and how many landed?

How can you fight when you have both sides of the story.....oh wait...nope we only have Wilsons side. Yeah lets just go with that because thats fair

This is incorrect as well. We have Wilson's testimony, the numerous eye-witnesses testimony and the forensic evidence. All of it tells the story, and the Grand Jury reviewed all of it. Now, in OUR system of justice, that's how this is done and we live with their findings. That's what WE as a CIVIL SOCIETY have determined is "fair" and how we do things.

Thank you, he could understand that if he went back on his meds. Maybe

 

[mamooth]

Please provide the autopsy evidence where any expert said Brown was shot from the rear. But, of course, you cannot. Why? Because all three experts testified otherwise.

That's never a problem for those of us in the reality-based community. Bypassing the media spin, I'll go right to the autopsy.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documen...1215/michael-brown-private-autopsy-report.txt
---
An entrance perforation through the back of the right forearm about seven
inches from the elbow that proceeds horizontally through the ulna bone and
exits through the front of the forearm;
---

Yes, I understand you never looked at the actual autopsy report. It's that conservative thing, relying on media spin instead of hard data.

You said: "And if you're going to deny the hard physical evidence ... go away, cultist." Nice, now provide the evidence.

So why do you think most the media and the "experts" misrepresented the autopsy?

Anyways, you've been shown the hard evidence. What you do with it now will demonstrate what you're made of. If the normal conservative reality-denial pattern holds, you'll instantly handwave it away simply because it doesn't agree with your predetermined conclusion.

 

[Theowl32]

Did stats even try to consider the statistical improbability of his pathetic claim?

Oh the irony.

Stats completely and thoroughly crushed in his own thread.

what is with his homosexual avatar?

 

[Meathead]

Did stats even try to consider the statistical improbability of his pathetic claim?

Oh the irony.

Stats completely and thoroughly crushed in his own thread.

what is with his homosexual avatar?

Stats is functionally innumerate, but I suspect it has little to do with his being gay.

 

[Roadrunner]

The link and the chief disagrees with you

You didn't read it did you?

"At 11:29 a.m. on Aug. 9, a dispatcher asked Wilson to help other officers search for a man who had reportedly threatened to kill a woman. At 11:47 a.m., Wilson said he would respond to a call for a 2-month-old with breathing problems. Wilson drove his police SUV from the west side of West Florissant Avenue to Glenark Drive, east of Canfield Drive and Copper Creek Court, where the fatal encounter would soon occur.

At 11:53 a.m., a dispatcher reported a “stealing in progress” at the Ferguson Market. The 911 operator was still talking to the caller in the background. In a second broadcast, 19 seconds later, the dispatcher says the suspect is a black male in a white T-shirt running toward QuikTrip, and had stolen a box of Swisher cigars.
About four minutes later, there’s more detail: the suspect is wearing a red Cardinals hat, a white T-shirt, yellow socks and khaki shorts, and is accompanied by another man.

At noon, Wilson reports that he’s back in service from the sick-baby call. He then asks the officers searching for the thieves – units 25 and 22 – if they need him. Seven seconds later, an unidentified officer broadcasts that the suspects had disappeared."

The Chief said that the video and the robbery had nothing to do with Wilson and the incident. Wilson knowing about it and the robbery having something to do with the incident are 2 different things.

*QUOTE* At the same time, the police released a packet of information on a crime in which they said Mike Brown was a suspect, a "strong-arm" robbery in the second degree. In a separate press conference later in the day, chief Jackson said that officer Wilson had no knowledge of Brown as a suspect when he shot Brown. *QUOTE*

But since everyone had their story straight 100 days later and there was no report taken on scene....obviously this is about Browns witness

The robbery did have nothing to do with Wilsons indictment. The question of the indictment was whether or not Wilson committed one of the 4 crimes indicated. With that said, the Police Chief is not a lawyer nor is he the person in question before the jury. Now, you and I both know that in an effort to successfully prosecute Wilson a prosecutor would likely need to prove that Wilson had no probable cause to profile Brown. The radio traffic proves that he did. Eat it!

Wait what? I'd like to see a link to anything that repeats this...Not even the prosecutor suggested crimes and thats why there was no indictment.

The prosecutors job is not to indict, contrary to popular belief, but to seek justice. With the evidence presented, there shouldn't have been an indictment all. If this was normal case, without bands of ignorant blacks who don't know the facts screaming for a lynching of the Police Officer, it would have never made it as far as it did. The prosecutor, knowing that the evidence led nowhere, accounted for his professional bias and allowed the jury to chose from a list of 4 charges.

The link and the chief disagrees with you

You didn't read it did you?

"At 11:29 a.m. on Aug. 9, a dispatcher asked Wilson to help other officers search for a man who had reportedly threatened to kill a woman. At 11:47 a.m., Wilson said he would respond to a call for a 2-month-old with breathing problems. Wilson drove his police SUV from the west side of West Florissant Avenue to Glenark Drive, east of Canfield Drive and Copper Creek Court, where the fatal encounter would soon occur.

At 11:53 a.m., a dispatcher reported a “stealing in progress” at the Ferguson Market. The 911 operator was still talking to the caller in the background. In a second broadcast, 19 seconds later, the dispatcher says the suspect is a black male in a white T-shirt running toward QuikTrip, and had stolen a box of Swisher cigars.
About four minutes later, there’s more detail: the suspect is wearing a red Cardinals hat, a white T-shirt, yellow socks and khaki shorts, and is accompanied by another man.

At noon, Wilson reports that he’s back in service from the sick-baby call. He then asks the officers searching for the thieves – units 25 and 22 – if they need him. Seven seconds later, an unidentified officer broadcasts that the suspects had disappeared."

The Chief said that the video and the robbery had nothing to do with Wilson and the incident. Wilson knowing about it and the robbery having something to do with the incident are 2 different things.

*QUOTE* At the same time, the police released a packet of information on a crime in which they said Mike Brown was a suspect, a "strong-arm" robbery in the second degree. In a separate press conference later in the day, chief Jackson said that officer Wilson had no knowledge of Brown as a suspect when he shot Brown. *QUOTE*

But since everyone had their story straight 100 days later and there was no report taken on scene....obviously this is about Browns witness

The robbery did have nothing to do with Wilsons indictment. The question of the indictment was whether or not Wilson committed one of the 4 crimes indicated. With that said, the Police Chief is not a lawyer nor is he the person in question before the jury. Now, you and I both know that in an effort to successfully prosecute Wilson a prosecutor would likely need to prove that Wilson had no probable cause to profile Brown. The radio traffic proves that he did. Eat it!

Wait what? I'd like to see a link to anything that repeats this...Not even the prosecutor suggested crimes and thats why there was no indictment.

The prosecutors job is not to indict, contrary to popular belief, but to seek justice. With the evidence presented, there shouldn't have been an indictment all. If this was normal case, without bands of ignorant blacks who don't know the facts screaming for a lynching of the Police Officer, it would have never made it as far as it did. The prosecutor, knowing that the evidence led nowhere, accounted for his professional bias and allowed the jury to chose from a list of 4 charges.

Some idiot lawyer one time said something to the effect that a prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich.

Today's public school grads think that is in the Constitution.

 

[ClosedCaption]

The Chief said that the video and the robbery had nothing to do with Wilson and the incident. Wilson knowing about it and the robbery having something to do with the incident are 2 different things.

*QUOTE* At the same time, the police released a packet of information on a crime in which they said Mike Brown was a suspect, a "strong-arm" robbery in the second degree. In a separate press conference later in the day, chief Jackson said that officer Wilson had no knowledge of Brown as a suspect when he shot Brown. *QUOTE*

But since everyone had their story straight 100 days later and there was no report taken on scene....obviously this is about Browns witness

The robbery did have nothing to do with Wilsons indictment. The question of the indictment was whether or not Wilson committed one of the 4 crimes indicated. With that said, the Police Chief is not a lawyer nor is he the person in question before the jury. Now, you and I both know that in an effort to successfully prosecute Wilson a prosecutor would likely need to prove that Wilson had no probable cause to profile Brown. The radio traffic proves that he did. Eat it!

Wait what? I'd like to see a link to anything that repeats this...Not even the prosecutor suggested crimes and thats why there was no indictment.

The prosecutors job is not to indict, contrary to popular belief, but to seek justice. With the evidence presented, there shouldn't have been an indictment all. If this was normal case, without bands of ignorant blacks who don't know the facts screaming for a lynching of the Police Officer, it would have never made it as far as it did. The prosecutor, knowing that the evidence led nowhere, accounted for his professional bias and allowed the jury to chose from a list of 4 charges.

Where'd you get the 4 crimes indicated line you just threw out there?

And yes a prosecutors job is to suggest charges to a GJ...this one was different tho...He didnt.

But maybe he did and you know more than the Prosector himself....So where'd you get that "4 crimes" thing from?

No it is not the prosecutors job to suggest charges. Its the prosecutors job to determine whether to prosecute or not. He can do this in a number of ways. He can suggest charges, the can allow the jury to suggest charges, or he could allow the jury to pick from a list of charges. In fact, he could have skipped the whole grand jury altogether and went straight to trial if he wanted to (They did that to Zimmerman). It is not his job to do one way over the other in accordance with your wishes. His only true job is to see that justice was served. He did that.

So again did you just make up the 4 crimes thing or what? I'll address this only after I know whether or not I'm talking to someone willing to bold face lie.

Thanks

 

[Publius1787]

You didn't read it did you?

"At 11:29 a.m. on Aug. 9, a dispatcher asked Wilson to help other officers search for a man who had reportedly threatened to kill a woman. At 11:47 a.m., Wilson said he would respond to a call for a 2-month-old with breathing problems. Wilson drove his police SUV from the west side of West Florissant Avenue to Glenark Drive, east of Canfield Drive and Copper Creek Court, where the fatal encounter would soon occur.

At 11:53 a.m., a dispatcher reported a “stealing in progress” at the Ferguson Market. The 911 operator was still talking to the caller in the background. In a second broadcast, 19 seconds later, the dispatcher says the suspect is a black male in a white T-shirt running toward QuikTrip, and had stolen a box of Swisher cigars.
About four minutes later, there’s more detail: the suspect is wearing a red Cardinals hat, a white T-shirt, yellow socks and khaki shorts, and is accompanied by another man.

At noon, Wilson reports that he’s back in service from the sick-baby call. He then asks the officers searching for the thieves – units 25 and 22 – if they need him. Seven seconds later, an unidentified officer broadcasts that the suspects had disappeared."

The Chief said that the video and the robbery had nothing to do with Wilson and the incident. Wilson knowing about it and the robbery having something to do with the incident are 2 different things.

*QUOTE* At the same time, the police released a packet of information on a crime in which they said Mike Brown was a suspect, a "strong-arm" robbery in the second degree. In a separate press conference later in the day, chief Jackson said that officer Wilson had no knowledge of Brown as a suspect when he shot Brown. *QUOTE*

But since everyone had their story straight 100 days later and there was no report taken on scene....obviously this is about Browns witness

The robbery did have nothing to do with Wilsons indictment. The question of the indictment was whether or not Wilson committed one of the 4 crimes indicated. With that said, the Police Chief is not a lawyer nor is he the person in question before the jury. Now, you and I both know that in an effort to successfully prosecute Wilson a prosecutor would likely need to prove that Wilson had no probable cause to profile Brown. The radio traffic proves that he did. Eat it!

Wait what? I'd like to see a link to anything that repeats this...Not even the prosecutor suggested crimes and thats why there was no indictment.

The prosecutors job is not to indict, contrary to popular belief, but to seek justice. With the evidence presented, there shouldn't have been an indictment all. If this was normal case, without bands of ignorant blacks who don't know the facts screaming for a lynching of the Police Officer, it would have never made it as far as it did. The prosecutor, knowing that the evidence led nowhere, accounted for his professional bias and allowed the jury to chose from a list of 4 charges.

Where'd you get the 4 crimes indicated line you just threw out there?

And yes a prosecutors job is to suggest charges to a GJ...this one was different tho...He didnt.

But maybe he did and you know more than the Prosector himself....So where'd you get that "4 crimes" thing from?

The Jury voted on these charges.

The for main charges are first-degree murder, second-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, or involuntary manslaughter. The Jury voted on each and ended up with a "no true" bill on each. To suggest that the jury didn't know what the charges were is false. They voted on each. There are only 5 possible indictments on Wilson. (The 5th one is likely aggravated assault in starting a fight that eventually ended up in a justifiable homicide)

 

[Publius1787]

The robbery did have nothing to do with Wilsons indictment. The question of the indictment was whether or not Wilson committed one of the 4 crimes indicated. With that said, the Police Chief is not a lawyer nor is he the person in question before the jury. Now, you and I both know that in an effort to successfully prosecute Wilson a prosecutor would likely need to prove that Wilson had no probable cause to profile Brown. The radio traffic proves that he did. Eat it!

Wait what? I'd like to see a link to anything that repeats this...Not even the prosecutor suggested crimes and thats why there was no indictment.

The prosecutors job is not to indict, contrary to popular belief, but to seek justice. With the evidence presented, there shouldn't have been an indictment all. If this was normal case, without bands of ignorant blacks who don't know the facts screaming for a lynching of the Police Officer, it would have never made it as far as it did. The prosecutor, knowing that the evidence led nowhere, accounted for his professional bias and allowed the jury to chose from a list of 4 charges.

Where'd you get the 4 crimes indicated line you just threw out there?

And yes a prosecutors job is to suggest charges to a GJ...this one was different tho...He didnt.

But maybe he did and you know more than the Prosector himself....So where'd you get that "4 crimes" thing from?

No it is not the prosecutors job to suggest charges. Its the prosecutors job to determine whether to prosecute or not. He can do this in a number of ways. He can suggest charges, the can allow the jury to suggest charges, or he could allow the jury to pick from a list of charges. In fact, he could have skipped the whole grand jury altogether and went straight to trial if he wanted to (They did that to Zimmerman). It is not his job to do one way over the other in accordance with your wishes. His only true job is to see that justice was served. He did that.

So again did you just make up the 4 crimes thing or what? I'll address this only after I know whether or not I'm talking to someone willing to bold face lie.

Thanks

There is only 4 things you can charge a man with for murder. Do you know any others?

first-degree murder, second-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, or involuntary manslaughter

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Please provide the autopsy evidence where any expert said Brown was shot from the rear. But, of course, you cannot. Why? Because all three experts testified otherwise.

That's never a problem for those of us in the reality-based community. Bypassing the media spin, I'll go right to the autopsy.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documen...1215/michael-brown-private-autopsy-report.txt
---
An entrance perforation through the back of the right forearm about seven
inches from the elbow that proceeds horizontally through the ulna bone and
exits through the front of the forearm;
---

Yes, I understand you never looked at the actual autopsy report. It's that conservative thing, relying on media spin instead of hard data.

You said: "And if you're going to deny the hard physical evidence ... go away, cultist." Nice, now provide the evidence.

So why do you think most the media and the "experts" misrepresented the autopsy?

Anyways, you've been shown the hard evidence. What you do with it now will demonstrate what you're made of. If the normal conservative reality-denial pattern holds, you'll instantly handwave it away simply because it doesn't agree with your predetermined conclusion.

Given that the person who conducted the private autopsy has been shown to be a fraud , no one cares what he ruled. The OFFICIAL autopsy coupled with CREDIBLE eyewitness accounts proves Brown was not shot from behind.


But , here is a little something for your stupid ass to think about, in Missouri a police officer can LEGALLY shoot a fleeing felon in the back anyway.

Dumb ****