I wouldn't cite The Daily Mail as a purveyor of unimpeachable truth. If The Daily Mail gets something correct, it's usually entirely coincidental.
I think we all know who is the one with racist tendencies here since you've been banned for it before...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...hospital-swollen-face-deadly-altercation.html
But his statement (of the parts he did see) matches the other witnesses (except for the background off-camera guy). He also stated that Wilson fired as Brown was running away as the others have said. You still are clinging on to the "charge", that no one has claimed, not even the guy off-camera said Brown "charged". There is a difference between running and charging.
1. To rush forward in or as if in a violent attack:
I wouldn't cite The Daily Mail as a purveyor of unimpeachable truth. If The Daily Mail gets something correct, it's usually entirely coincidental.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/charging
And that difference is one implies violent intent on behalf of the person running.
Now do you think Brown was running toward the officer to give him a big hug?
Only one (not very credible, off-camera) witness has stated that Brown ran towards the officer. Why do you only believe that one witness vs the multiple ones that didn't see that?
There are four seperate sources including in the prosecutors office that say otherwise. It absolutely has not been proven false, in fact quite the opposite. Try to keep up with the facts of this case and stop spreading your racist lies.
Link to proof?You are not well informed, that has been proven not to be true.
Because they don't make boomerang bullets?^_^
Link to proof?
I agree, both sides need to calm down. There's no proof of anything at this point.I've got as much "proof" as the ones claiming he does have a broken orbital socket.
I agree, both sides need to calm down. There's no proof of anything at this point.
I've got as much "proof" as the ones claiming he does have a broken orbital socket.
Welcome to reality. Please stay a while.Everything at this point is hearsay.
I wouldn't cite The Daily Mail as a purveyor of unimpeachable truth. If The Daily Mail gets something correct, it's usually entirely coincidental.
There are four seperate sources including in the prosecutors office that say otherwise. It absolutely has not been proven false, in fact quite the opposite. Try to keep up with the facts of this case and stop spreading your racist lies.
https://i0.wp.com/www.gannett-cdn.c...8/13/1407949474018-Still0809-00005---Copy.jpg
Better look at the item.
Bold (pun intended) statement from the poster who has been banned several times for the exact behavior he's accusing others of. In the summer, do you ditch the robe entirely or just go with a hood and your jorts?
You are not well informed, that has been proven not to be true.
It has 'not' been proven.
https://i0.wp.com/www.gannett-cdn.c...8/13/1407949474018-Still0809-00005---Copy.jpg
Better look at the item.
https://i0.wp.com/www.gannett-cdn.c...8/13/1407949474018-Still0809-00005---Copy.jpg
Better look at the item.
Two points. First and most important, DAYAMN those are some nice legs. Second, Brown was shot in the eye socket, with the bullet exiting his chin and entering his chest to break his collarbone. In her position - the normal position for a sprint or bum rush - a level shot striking the eye should continue back into the brain as stabilized low velocity slugs simply don't readily radically change vectors. Brown's head would need to be practically horizontal, facing the ground, for that injury path. Either he was charging without being able to see Wilson, or he was collapsing to the ground or otherwise ducking his head. I don't think we can make an educated guess either way without first making the determination of whether he was charging, which makes this useless for determining whether he was charging.I'll just leave this here...
Well said, sir.The thing is eye witnesses can be inaccurate. Not out of malice but it is entirely possible for different witnesses to see entirely different things or not notice details simply because of their state of mind.
http://www.theinvisiblegorilla.com/gorilla_experiment.html
It's we need more evidence that may have not been completely processed yet or for some other reason have been made public and for the witnesses who saw Michael Brown charging need to give statements to authorities even if they are unwilling to identify themselves.
Because, apparently unless some information that has come out after I last paid attention to the shooting, the very fact that they're not identified raises questions about people phoning in false tips.
Personally I think that it's still too early to say "This happened police brutality!" Or "That happened thug felon got what he deserved!"
.....
I'm not necessarily saying they are lying about having nearly a dozen witnesses that backup every angle of the cop's story, but their motivation would be simple. By establishing this face, they prejudice the public into believing their story. Then, when the witnesses do not appear, another rumor of witnesses refusing to testify out of fear for their own safety can be floated.Why would the PD lie about having nearly a dozen witnesses that backup every angle of the cop's story?
Angry black man tried to maul the cop. /thread
Exactly!! I have also noticed that in the smaller towns that the police will purposely start out with mild harassment and then if you appear to be meek and not going to fall for the harassment and escalate it...they will generally back down........in some of the bigger cities though I find that even if you treat them with respect they will still try to escalate the harassment.......which is why I never answer questions when a policeman asks. That way they have nothing to use to escalate the harassment .....even if they ask why are you not answering my questions -- my response is always -- Officer I do not wish to answer any questions! The write the ticket or give me a warning and I go on my way...simple! Never antagonize a policeman!!The point is, just because the Police do something doesn't make it legal, morally right, or ethical. And they are NOT to be trusted to protect and serve. Some departments will be worse than others. My small town, cops are generally ok, but they've harassed me before for no reason. It didn't escalate because I'm a courteous citizen who respects others, including cops.