If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
I Was Right Again
On Thursday, October 23, 2014 4:49:54 PM UTC-6, Alan Baker wrote:
Nope. The evidence presented equally supports the contention that he was defending himself from the officer. Inside the officers car? Wow! That's a good one. No. That's the point. No? The "sharptons" of the world were there on the ground when it happened and caught on video tape saying that Brown had his hands up? http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/10/us/ferguson-michael-brown-shooting-witnesses/ The ones with anti police sentiments? The ones who's descriptions don't add up to the forensic evidence? You're suggesting that this was a "sharpton"? Those were the people on the ground. Apparently there are 8 black witnesses testifying that the officers version is what happened. They don't want to be identified, fearing for their safety. |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
I Was Right Again
On 2014-10-24 01:05:09 +0000, pigo said:
On Thursday, October 23, 2014 4:49:54 PM UTC-6, Alan Baker wrote: Nope. The evidence presented equally supports the contention that he was defending himself from the officer. Inside the officers car? Wow! That's a good one. You have to examine both accounts of the incident. The one by Michael Brown's friend has the officer grabbing Brown by the neck, and so, yes: Brown could have been defending himself. Strangely enough... ...well, perhaps to you... ...an officer of the law is not allowed to just grab you. No. That's the point. No? The "sharptons" of the world were there on the ground when it happened and caught on video tape saying that Brown had his hands up? http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/10/us/ferguson-michael-brown-shooting-witnesses/ The ones with anti police sentiments? The ones who's descriptions don't add up to the forensic evidence? In what way don't they "add up"? You're suggesting that this was a "sharpton"? Those were the people on the ground. Apparently there are 8 black witnesses testifying that the officers version is what happened. They don't want to be identified, fearing for their safety. Riiiiiiiight. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
I Was Right Again
On Thursday, October 23, 2014 7:15:44 PM UTC-6, Alan Baker wrote:
You have to examine both accounts of the incident. The one by Michael Brown's friend has the officer grabbing Brown by the neck, and so, yes: Brown could have been defending himself. Strangely enough... ...well, perhaps to you... ...an officer of the law is not allowed to just grab you. I'm going with the cops version. The one more supported by the forensics being reported. I'm not buying the one by the convicted felon (yep, another one) who is in jeopardy of being charged in the death as anyone commiting a crime in conjunction with a death of this kind is when it happens. Did you see/hear the guy???? In what way don't they "add up"? He was not shot in the back for starters. Nor do the shot while surrendering. Riiiiiiiight. I believe it's the Washington Post that's reporting that. Don't like it? |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
I Was Right Again
On Thursday, October 23, 2014 7:15:44 PM UTC-6, Alan Baker wrote:
Riiiiiiiight. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...a29_story.html I know you don't care much for reports that don't fit your agenda. But here it is. Why is it that you can't stomach this? It's just what happens. It's how it is. Are you arguing so hard for the muslims that attacked in Canada this week? Why not? |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
I Was Right Again
On 2014-10-24 01:35:48 +0000, pigo said:
On Thursday, October 23, 2014 7:15:44 PM UTC-6, Alan Baker wrote: You have to examine both accounts of the incident. The one by Michael Brown's friend has the officer grabbing Brown by the neck, and so, yes: Brown could have been defending himself. Strangely enough... ...well, perhaps to you... ...an officer of the law is not allowed to just grab you. I'm going with the cops version. The one more supported by the forensics being reported. I'm not buying the one by the convicted felon (yep, another one) who is in jeopardy of being charged in the death as anyone commiting a crime in conjunction with a death of this kind is when it happens. Did you see/hear the guy???? Again: the forensics don't contradict his story... ...but they don't prove it's true, either. And the guys standing by the truck when it was actually happening... ....the ones in the video I showed you... ....were they convicted felons? In what way don't they "add up"? He was not shot in the back for starters. Nor do the shot while surrendering. He could have been hit in the arm while facing away from the officer. There were shots to his front as well, but that doesn't mean he wasn't surrendering. Riiiiiiiight. I believe it's the Washington Post that's reporting that. Don't like it? I'm fully aware of what they're reporting... ....and it's not actually very much that is substantive. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
I Was Right Again
On 2014-10-24 01:40:05 +0000, pigo said:
On Thursday, October 23, 2014 7:15:44 PM UTC-6, Alan Baker wrote: Riiiiiiiight. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...a29_story.html I know you don't care much for reports that don't fit your agenda. But here it is. Why is it that you can't stomach this? It's just what happens. It's how it is. Are you arguing so hard for the muslims that attacked in Canada this week? Why not? I can stomach it just fine. Facts are facts. But conclusions drawn from those facts are far less sure. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
I Was Right Again
I'm going with the cops version.
Of course you will, the cop was white. You scumbag racist. The fact is that you were not there, you did not see what happened. Any speculation on your part is just you being the raging asshole that you are so STFU. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
I Was Right Again
On Friday, October 24, 2014 6:29:31 AM UTC-6, wrote:
I'm going with the cops version. Of course you will, the cop was white. You scumbag racist. That statement makes YOU the racist. But then the free use of that word as a weapon has made it meaningless. Even when used accurately as I have. The fact is that you were not there, you did not see what happened. Any speculation on your part is just you being the raging asshole that you are so STFU. And neither were the rioters or those demanding trial and conviction (why the trial?). And what I am talking about is the information coming out now, much of which I had wind of at the time, that many here won't hear. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
I Was Right Again
On Thursday, October 23, 2014 8:32:06 PM UTC-6, Alan Baker wrote:
I can stomach it just fine. Facts are facts. But conclusions drawn from those facts are far less sure. Here's the facts. Brown was NOT a gentile giant. His youth criminal record has leaked out too. He had just robbed a store. It's been reported enough that the officer was assaulted. Not out officially yet AFAIK, but I'm going with that. There is much evidence now that contradicts the gang style execution that some "eyewitnesses" reported. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
I Was Right Again
On 2014-10-24 14:07:37 +0000, pigo said:
On Thursday, October 23, 2014 8:32:06 PM UTC-6, Alan Baker wrote: I can stomach it just fine. Facts are facts. But conclusions drawn from those facts are far less sure. Here's the facts. Brown was NOT a gentile giant. His youth criminal record has leaked out too. He had just robbed a store. It's been reported enough that the officer was assaulted. Not out officially yet AFAIK, but I'm going with that. There is much evidence now that contradicts the gang style execution that some "eyewitnesses" reported. And none of that matters (assuming it is all actually true) if Wilson shot him with his hands raised in air from a distance. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|