Technically that is not an inconsistency, that is lying under oath. Wilson should be brought on perjury charges immediately according to our resident expert xBiff.....
You've brought that up before. There's nothing to say how truly prevalent or minimal this practice actually is. And your claim that they are the most susceptible witness to lying under oath also goes without merit as well.
- Merg
Dont just google something, and pull links without reading them.
"In fact, while being a police officer has been getting less dangerous, killings committed by police have been rising despite the drop in police who are killed."
Then in the never next paragraph...
"The numbers are eye opening. The Justice Department, which keeps all kinds of statistics on violent crime, does not tally up individuals killed annually by police"
The author did not cite any study that shows it rising, because there are no numbers to study. That to me is a problem, but you cant use that source to say its rising.
The USA Today article says it has gone up 25%, but does not cite any source.
So why did you post what you did? Did you even read the articles at all?
Apparently the only witnesses that lied were the ones paid by the media in this case. It worked well as many were gut hooked by the false narrative put forth by the media yet again.
And once an inaccuracy becomes part of a person’s recollection, it’s almost impossible to dislodge. Even when that person, Tversky [researcher on the fallibility of memory] wrote, is challenged with direct information that refutes his or her own memory. “Once witnesses state facts in a particular way or identify a particular person as the perpetrator, they are unwilling or even unable — due to the reconstruction of their memory — to reconsider their initial understanding.”
This appears to be what occurred in the Darren Wilson investigation. Even when authorities challenged witnesses with forensic evidence — which McCulloch [St. Louis County Prosecutor] said “does not change because of public pressure or personal agenda” — they didn’t back down. He gave as an example witnesses who said they saw Wilson pump bullets into Brown’s back, sticking with their story even after autopsies demonstrated that no bullets entered Brown’s back.
They “stood by original statements even through their statements were completely discredited by the physical evidence,” McCulloch said.
And you missed the part where testimony was weighed against physical evidence. The result was that no grounds were found to pursue this further. Brown went after Wilson and there's no trial because no crime could be attributed to the officer. There wasn't one. So the people who don't care about that "burn the bitch down" and their fans ignore all that.
Hey Ferguson Protestors: Justice Has Been Done, But You Never Wanted Justice....This decision is not what you wanted, I realize, but that’s only because you never wanted justice at all. You wanted a certain outcome, and you have demanded that outcome from the very beginning, before listening to the other side, before looking at the evidence, before hearing from all of the witnesses, before giving the dust a chance to settle.
That was to counter the now debunked testimony's of other witnesses. He stated his strategy was to put EVERYTHING on the table so that they couldn't be accused of covering up evidence.
You can email the author yourself and ask him what his sources are. Neither of us are experts in the field. We can only get a sense of trends based on what is reported.
As for proof of a rise in shootings, you are right in that its very murky because not all police departments report it and there is no clear national database.There is clear documentation of risings in shootings with some of the larger PDs (albuquerque and new orleans comes to mind).
At the very least, there is a more reporting of shootings, brutality and corruption and its generally accepted that all these things are grossly under-reported and even more rarely investigated. If that increased reporting leads to social change so be it.
Well in general I don't like cops. I have been personally lied to by cops on two very memorable occasions. The merit in my claim is my own personal experience AND I read it somewhere on the internet. Any more than that I am not willing to do for you. So show me your evidence that they DON'T lie under oath every time they testify.
No, and you're never going to see it. It's against the law in Missouri to disclose that type of information regarding a grand jury. It's also a misdemeanor for those who participated to admit it.
I think you miss the point. At the end of the day, this trial is about police power going unchecked. There has been a dramatic rise in police related shooting, despite crime and on the job police injuries/deaths falling (The number of police officers who died on the job in 2012 was 33, and that number continues to decline [for reference there is somewhere between 600,000 to 750,000 police officers in this country at any given time. For all the perception and freedoms associated with being a police officer that come from this potential risk of death on the job, there are a lot of jobs out there that are WAY more risky. It is far more dangerous actually to be a commercial pilot than it is to be a police officer on a year in year out basis).
This affects us all. You here about cases of mistaken identity (there was a case a while back about an innocent white man who's home was invaded without warning by police leading to his death. The reason for the death: a false tip from a meth abuser who had stolen the victim's car) and cases of bystander injury (there was a baby burned by a stun grenade thrown into a home) and etc. There are innumerable stories about people being arrested for small things like public intoxication and being absolutely assaulted and hospitalized by police for saying a few clever words whilst drunk. Even routine traffic stops have been an issue (I remember reading about a white family driving through texas late at night who were pulled over illegally and the situation simply escalated out of control. There was also quite a bit of video taped proof of bullying, intimidation, and flat out lying by both police and prosecutors in that case. There's also the case of that gentleman in SC who was gunned down by a police officer for presenting a wallet as asked by that police officer). Furthermore, in all these cases there are expensive trials and settlements which come out of all our pockets as tax paying citizens.
At the end of the day, it comes down to the populace trying to reel in an increasingly militarized out of control police force. There is never a wrong day to do the right thing, and this maybe the right time to really question whose side the police force is on.
And thats not even touching the very relevant racial undertones that are present in this case. '
All we heard was it was a 9 to 3.
Since it was also 9 white members and 3 black members, I kinda have to wonder......
FBI says 76 law enforcement officers died in the line of duty in 2013 = http://news.yahoo.com/fbi-says-76-law-enforcement-officers-died-in-line-of-duty-in-2013-195926706.html
There's another Obama speech on tv right now and it really does piss me off. He's going on and on about the anger over the perception that law enforcement enforces the law differently for some groups than others.
But here is the big fucking deal - the situation in Ferguson was about someone (Brown) who felt the laws of the land did not apply to him as they apply to everyone else as he freely stole from a convenience store, walked down the middle of the street, then decided to engage in a physical fight with a police officer.
FBI says 76 law enforcement officers died in the line of duty in 2013 = http://news.yahoo.com/fbi-says-76-law-enforcement-officers-died-in-line-of-duty-in-2013-195926706.html
Wonder what? The jury was formed back in May before the shooting even happened. They jury is a very good representative sample of the county. There isn't even a good conspiracy theory to be had.
It really doesn't matter how individuals sided. The jury as a whole decided.
I'd like to know when perjury charges are going to be filled against some of these so called witnesses.
You people realize that Wilson's not completely in the clear yet, right?
So you are saying physical evidence was given by the prosecutor that helped wilson? Again, is that normal?
Also, you don't know if brown went after wilson, there simply wasn't enough evidence that said he didn't. A lack of absence doesn't mean the opposite is a fact.
However if you are telling me the prosecutor provided evidence that wilson attacked I'd like to see where you read that, do you have a page number? I've only read to page 105 so I currently don't have all the detail the jury has.