A claim that someone was shot in the back is made. An autopsy is performed noting that there are no wounds to the back caused by bullets.
There is a lack of evidence because there are no shots. Does that make the claim true or false?
Keep in mind, he's super smart, so he'll just call you an idiot and not answer the question.
Actually the autopsy wasn't conclusive as brown was shot in the arm which could have been while he was turned away from wilson. Or do you not remember that part?
The claim was made, that brown attacked wilson first, there is zero evidence based on physical evidence that proves this to be correct. Does that mean since there isn't any conclusive evidence that brown attacked wilson first that means wilson attacked brown? According to your logic it does!
Or Wilson could be firing special racist bullets with ability to traverse curved trajectories, allowing racist cops to shoot an innocent black man in the back and still have the bullets strike him from the front.Actually the autopsy wasn't conclusive as brown was shot in the arm which could have been while he was turned away from wilson. Or do you not remember that part?
The claim was made, that brown attacked wilson first, there is zero evidence based on physical evidence that proves this to be correct. Does that mean since there isn't any conclusive evidence that brown attacked wilson first that means wilson attacked brown? According to your logic it does!
Ah, so a lack of evidence means the opposite is true? I don't think I need to tell why your logic is flawed. No wonder you always talk about yourself, you aren't smart enough to discuss anything else
So he was shot in the back by being shot in the arm? A claim was made- "Wilson was shot in the back". No evidence of that was found. Was he shot in the back or not?
Or Wilson could be firing special racist bullets with ability to traverse curved trajectories, allowing racist cops to shoot an innocent black man in the back and still have the bullets strike him from the front.
Or hey, maybe the corrupt racist cops hired a Grand Wizard from the KKK to just transmogrify all the bullet holes from the back to the front.
tl/dr: Dumb ass.
A claim was made brown attacked wilson first, no physical evidence was found. Did brown attack first or not?
LMAO!!!!!! This is so hilarious coming from the person that actually bought the media darlings statements hook, line, and sinker.
None of their statements matched the physical evidence....NONE!!!!! For some who tries to act like they're so intelligent you're sure a sucker for lies. You've employed zero logic at all when it comes to this case.
Lol! Please continue to make claims about my position that I never made, it's the hallmark of a delusional idiot.
Lol! Do you even read your own posts? "My scenario" is based on an eye witness account, all you have is your gut feeling of the "most likely" scenario. Sorry totes, that's not good enough for the courts.
I enjoyed the laughs and the dismissing of multiple witnesses with zero evidence to back up any claims.
Robbery according to who? Who pressed charges? You are saying brown, during first contact with wilson, chose to ignore his command to get out of the street and kept walking as wilson drove off, then brown decided to, not run, but rather to lunge at an officer in a vehicle that just backed up? And this is based off of whose account?
Look I'm not saying that's not what happened, I'm saying that the facts and what we do know doesn't back up that story and the facts regarding my opinion, while there may not be 100% accurate either.
Dismissal of any scenario, especially when we have witnesses, is stupid.
I'm sorry. Was that my question?
The forensic evidence backs one the stories and not the other.
No throat trauma or shots to the back noted in three different autopsies.
LMAO!!!!! You stated over and over and over in this thread you were basing your opinion on the witness statements. Too bad your opinions were based on FUD!!! And your denial of the strong arm robbery is hilarious.
I rest my case.
Look I'm not saying that's not what happened, I'm saying that the facts and what we do know doesn't back up that story and the facts regarding my opinion, while there may not be 100% accurate either.
Dismissal of any scenario, especially when we have witnesses, is stupid.
A claim was made brown attacked wilson first, no physical evidence was found. Did brown attack first or not?
I figured you brought up something I never said and dodged my original question and claim, so I thought I'd remind you of what the fuck the conversation was about.
This message is hidden because ivwshane is on your ignore list.Does ivwshane always troll this much?
Seriously, his life is not over. He'll get paid leave and a severance package while this blows over, and then he'll get rehired by another department.
Perhaps I ought to remind you that right now Ferguson is burned by people who never questioned the veracity or took any interest in determining the facts before becoming violent. They had no interest in reality. They feign outrage that there wasn't a trial. Well they won't be placated if there was a trial unless it results in Wilson going to jail. People here went through all kinds of contortions to justify that mentality. How many "murderer cop" statements were made?
But what they relied on was not physical evidence but testimony already refuted. "You don't have proof that it went any other way so we'll choose what we want and terrorize." The press and non violent protestors largely tend to frame this as an automatic wrong. "Our system is broken". Why? Because in the light of day faced with verifiable evidence and testimony consistent with it did not bring someone who had no cause to be tried as a result to punishment. Yes, punishment for whatever anything they say. When there is no demonstrated and sufficient reason to pursue charges is supplanted by a court of popular opinion, like with Dreyfus to whom I mentioned before, then that is the real injustice. What does that have to do with anything? Everything. Brown attacked Wilson or he did not. There was credible evidence and consistent testimony which backs Wilson's version. Now you may say "you can't infallibly prove that is the case. No, and I can't prove with absolute 100% certainty that Hitler wasn't framed by some grand international conspiracy nor that the Sun will rise tomorrow, but at some point credulity becomes an issue, and trying to find arguments which are tantamount to dancing on the head of a pin as justification doesn't work with a rational person. Of course they were never meant to but the injustice, the real injustice persists. It's just not Brown who's the victim.
You say you aren't arguing that your statements do not mean Wilson was guilty? Good, but as I said either Wilson or Brown was the aggressor and you will make your own decision as to who that was.
Seriously, his life is not over. He'll get paid leave and a severance package while this blows over, and then he'll get rehired by another department.
Is your wall of text meant to distract? Because it has nothing to do with me or my opinion and I've already said I couldn't care less about what anyone else thinks or what's happening in ferguson so I'm not sure why you brought that up
What evidence backs Wilson's version of events? Since you've already dismissed witnesses, based on what I have no idea but I'm sure it's not the same standard you applied to Wilson's testimony, please stick to physical evidence to support that claim.
I didn't dismiss witnesses. The process of review and comparison to physical evidence and consistency of testimony did. As far as the rest I'm sorry if you don't understand but I don't think I can. Blame me if you like, but it's interesting that the physical evidence corroborates (and I provided you with specifics before) Wilson over others. Believe what you will, I do not care.
I missed this. He'll have the same chance of being hired as Jack the Ripper. Anyone who hires him will be attacked and perhaps literally. He's a Flying Dutchman and you are smart enough to know what that means.