Just saw the interview Wilson gave CNN. What I find interesting, and baffling about his account of what happened was, Brown allegedly fought for his weapon in the car, and he forced 2 shots inside the car. When Wilson stepped out of the car, and raised his weapon, he told him to stop. Instead of running away, according to Wilson he ran towards him even when he raised a gun that he already demonstrated in the car struggle that he is willing to use.
My questions is, would someone run towards instead of away from an individual who has a weapon raised toward them and in an encounter that's only seconds before had clearly demonstrated his willingness to use this weapon on you? I find that very strange. I'd say the natural human reaction is to run away from that individual because you already know he is willing to shoot you.
I find that portion of his account quite unbelievable, I just feel there's a missing piece in his account.
He grabs my gun, says, You are too much of a pussy to shoot me. The gun goes down into my hip and at that point I thought I was getting shot. I can feel his fingers try to get inside the trigger guard with my finger and I distinctly remember envisioning a bullet going into my leg. I thought that was the next step.When I grabbed him, the only way I can describe it is I felt like a 5-year-old holding onto Hulk Hogan. Thats just how big he felt and how small I felt just from grasping his arm.
Just saw the interview Wilson gave CNN. What I find interesting, and baffling about his account of what happened was, Brown allegedly fought for his weapon in the car, and he forced 2 shots inside the car. When Wilson stepped out of the car, and raised his weapon, he told him to stop. Instead of running away, according to Wilson he ran towards him even when he raised a gun that he already demonstrated in the car struggle that he is willing to use.
My questions is, would someone run towards instead of away from an individual who has a weapon raised toward them and in an encounter that's only seconds before had clearly demonstrated his willingness to use this weapon on you? I find that very strange. I'd say the natural human reaction is to run away from that individual because you already know he is willing to shoot you.
I find that portion of his account quite unbelievable, I just feel there's a missing piece in his account.
snip
The problem with this situation, and the culture that seems to take issue with it, is that they refuse to see what went wrong in this particular circumstance. Instead of being held accountable for their fuckups and continued ignorance, they are pitied and society lets them off the hook because they are made to feel guilty for even fighting against it.
Yes, I agree that public opinion should have no place in swaying court proceedings and GJ hearings, however, I'm a little less certain about whether it should affect a prosecutor's decision of whether they should flat out tell the public there isn't enough to indict or if they should have the GJ hearing and act as an arbiter instead of a prosecutor (which, from talking to my DA friends, is used, just rarer).
Like I said, if there was impropriety, then McCullough needs to be held accountable. If not, people need to start accepting that they most likely jumped to a conclusion that fit their internal narrative instead of weighing the facts of the case.
As a side note, the only people in this thread that have advocated for public opinion to sway court hearings and GJ proceedings have been bshole and DCal430.
How exactly would he be held accountable?
Anyone know what the prosecutors record is? How many indictments has he won against police officers and how many has he won when not prosecuting an officer?
Pay attention McShaneLike I said, if there was impropriety, then McCullough needs to be held accountable. If not, people need to start accepting that they most likely jumped to a conclusion that fit their internal narrative instead of weighing the facts of the case.
Just saw the interview Wilson gave CNN. What I find interesting, and baffling about his account of what happened was, Brown allegedly fought for his weapon in the car, and he forced 2 shots inside the car. When Wilson stepped out of the car, and raised his weapon, he told him to stop. Instead of running away, according to Wilson he ran towards him even when he raised a gun that he already demonstrated in the car struggle that he is willing to use.
My questions is, would someone run towards instead of away from an individual who has a weapon raised toward them and in an encounter that's only seconds before had clearly demonstrated his willingness to use this weapon on you? I find that very strange. I'd say the natural human reaction is to run away from that individual because you already know he is willing to shoot you.
I find that portion of his account quite unbelievable, I just feel there's a missing piece in his account.
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.
You could have done your own homework, but instead of looking you decided that page numbers were required.
q18- interior of Wilson's vehicle showing the majority of the DNA is Brown's
I'm not sure what the page number is if all documents are totaled.
Just saw the interview Wilson gave CNN. What I find interesting, and baffling about his account of what happened was, Brown allegedly fought for his weapon in the car, and he forced 2 shots inside the car. When Wilson stepped out of the car, and raised his weapon, he told him to stop. Instead of running away, according to Wilson he ran towards him even when he raised a gun that he already demonstrated in the car struggle that he is willing to use.
My questions is, would someone run towards instead of away from an individual who has a weapon raised toward them and in an encounter that's only seconds before had clearly demonstrated his willingness to use this weapon on you? I find that very strange. I'd say the natural human reaction is to run away from that individual because you already know he is willing to shoot you.
I find that portion of his account quite unbelievable, I just feel there's a missing piece in his account.
Blood splatter in now indicates that brown attacked wilson.
Pay attention McShane
Exactly. What took you so long to realize that a rampaging criminal thug high on his own self confident ignorance would get himself killed by attacking a civil servant?
Political process if nothing he did was improper based on legal ethics (prosecutor is voted in) and ethics complaints if there was a violation.How exactly would he be held accountable?
Anyone know what the prosecutors record is? How many indictments has he won against police officers and how many has he won when not prosecuting an officer?
spoken like somebody who is ignorant of human behavior.
Just saw the interview Wilson gave CNN. What I find interesting, and baffling about his account of what happened was, Brown allegedly fought for his weapon in the car, and he forced 2 shots inside the car. When Wilson stepped out of the car, and raised his weapon, he told him to stop. Instead of running away, according to Wilson he ran towards him even when he raised a gun that he already demonstrated in the car struggle that he is willing to use.
My questions is, would someone run towards instead of away from an individual who has a weapon raised toward them and in an encounter that's only seconds before had clearly demonstrated his willingness to use this weapon on you? I find that very strange. I'd say the natural human reaction is to run away from that individual because you already know he is willing to shoot you.
I find that portion of his account quite unbelievable, I just feel there's a missing piece in his account.
Go troll somewhere else or should I report you like the other bitches on this forum for editing my quote?
lol! You are calling people out for lying? You have lied multiple times in this thread and you know it. Your theatrics, they amaze and confound!Go troll somewhere else or should I report you like the other bitches on this forum for editing my quote?
Newsflash: the prosecutor had enough evidence to conclude that Wilson shouldn't have been charged - the same conclusion a grand jury reached. He did pursue justice by presenting all of the evidence to the grand jury. You seem to stillllllll be operating from the perspective that justice means Wilson in jail. The ONLY evidence that Wilson's actions violated the law was in the form of eyewitness testimony that was refuted by the physical evidence. Other eyewitness testimony matched the physical evidence, and led to the conclusion that Wilson shouldn't be charged.Ah so the illusion of justice, got it. What principled people you are, in the face of a mob, appeasement is always the answer when seeking justice! /s
If a prosecutor doesn't have the principals to admit that there isn't enough evidence for an indictment then he doesn't belong in law where he has the duty to present the best case he can and to pursue justice. I certainly wouldn't want him fighting for me.
On behalf of the many level headed posters in here, fuck you. This isn't an anti-black thread. Most of the posters have wanted the truth to come out. You, apparently can't cope with the truth - that a young black man was shot directly as a result of HIS OWN BEHAVIOR. TThat's not anti-black, it's anti-false narrative perpetuated by the media.Lol! Fuck off Why don't you go post in another anti black thread and add one of your insightful comments about gangsta rap?
None of the coroners said any such thing. For someone so passionate about this case, your recollection of facts is pretty poor. The coroners examined the body, not blood spatters in the car. Of course, it's pretty apparent that in your head, you continue to alter facts until they fit your preconceived conclusions.Here are my original questions, the bolded being the most important.
Blood splatter in no way indicates that brown attacked wilson, I don't even know how you could come to that conclusion. One of the coroners even said as much. But really that's all besides the point. My point/question was that the prosecutor presented evidence that was intended to clear wilson, he called upon "witnesses", that basically retold Wilson's account of the incident. Based on what I've read, that is highly unusual, do you agree or disagree with that assessment? If you disagree that his tactics were unusual, what is your basis for that claim?
lol! You are calling people out for lying? You have lied multiple times in this thread and you know it. Your theatrics, they amaze and confound!
And he thinks he can get away with calling people bitches!! The nerve of that guy! :whiste: