- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Michael Brown's mother can't handle the truth
Posted on 11/29/14 at 9:36 am to StrongSafety
Posted on 11/29/14 at 9:36 am to StrongSafety
Accountability? They took him in front of a grand jury.
2
Posted on 11/29/14 at 9:38 am to DumbCollegeKid
And they did everything in their power to let him off
Posted on 11/29/14 at 9:38 am to TheSexecutioner
quote:
TheSexecutioner
I think the Asian store owner should have killed him.
Posted on 11/29/14 at 9:40 am to StrongSafety
The evidencd fits his description of the crime, but with the discrepancies in the case, you'd think that they would least take the case to trial to settle it our. He would have been found not guilty must likely
Posted on 11/29/14 at 9:42 am to TheSexecutioner
quote:
Mother isn't being rational obviously but she has every right to be mad. Her son wouldn't be dead if Darren Wilson wasn't either a)an idiot or b) didn't give a shite about the prospects of having to kill someone as long as they were a TPOS
He also would not be dead if she was anything that resembled a decent mother
Posted on 11/29/14 at 9:42 am to DumbCollegeKid
quote:
Accountability? They took him in front of a grand jury.
Yes. The Grand Jury obviously discussed it. But on this board, It seems people care more about trading well-worded expressions of how big a TPOS Michael Brown and his supporters are and less about the actual case against Wilson.
Also, grand jury is for criminal proceedings. Why does the conversation have to end there? He could have sucked at his job and not done anything illegal. Sucking at your job as a police officer can be a lot more costly than as a McDonalds worker.
Posted on 11/29/14 at 9:44 am to Walt OReilly
quote:
She lost her son
She lost him years ago.
quote:
show some compassio
No
Posted on 11/29/14 at 9:45 am to Strannix
quote:
I think the Asian store owner should have killed him.
It would have not made the news.
Posted on 11/29/14 at 9:45 am to StrongSafety
quote:
He would have been found not guilty must likely
Then WHAT are you debating? Let it go man, let it go.
Posted on 11/29/14 at 9:47 am to Tshiz
quote:
Then WHAT are you debating? Let it go man, let it go.
Um, that they should have got an indictment? You understand theres a massively different burden for an indictment and a conviction, right?
Posted on 11/29/14 at 9:51 am to TheSexecutioner
Have you looked at the evidence?
Posted on 11/29/14 at 9:54 am to StrongSafety
Both Autopsies discredit any interview discrepancies.
Keep fightin the fight, brother!
Keep fightin the fight, brother!
Posted on 11/29/14 at 9:54 am to StrongSafety
quote:
And they did everything in their power to let him off
Go on. They forced some of the witnesses to corroborate Wilson's story? If that's what you are thinking the DA should be investigated and jailed. Witness intimidation or tampering is a serious problem. I would support jailing the DA if he did that.
Posted on 11/29/14 at 9:55 am to TheSexecutioner
quote:
Um, that they should have got an indictment?
Based on what?
Brown tried to get his gun. Eyewitnesses say Brown rushed him outside the vehicle, after he tried to get his gun and shots fired.
I didn't see any evidence to support an indictment, other than the naked fact that Brown was unarmed. Everything else seems to go in the cop's favor.
quote:
You understand theres a massively different burden for an indictment and a conviction, right?
It's not massively different, but it is different. Preponderace versus beyond a reasonable doubt. There isn't preponderance (and certainly doesn't appear to have been presented to the GJ, anyway) in this case.
The city is going to settle the civil suit, but they would have a chance to win at trial. THAT'S how bad this is as criminal case - I would have serious reservations about winning a civil trial, if I were representing Brown's family in the case.
Posted on 11/29/14 at 9:57 am to StrongSafety
quote:
He would have been found not guilty must likely
Do you believe he is not guilty of a crime?
Regardless of whether you think his actions were appropriate as a police officer, do you believe that Wilson possessed the requisite intent to murder Brown? Or was he in reasonable fear for his life and acting in self-defense?
Posted on 11/29/14 at 9:58 am to Grassy1
quote:
Have you looked at the evidence?
Why does any of that matter? No, I have not seen every piece. Even if I believe every little bit of Officer Wilson's story and it happened EXACTLY like he said, I still think he messed up big time.
Why do you keep asking me that? Why don't you respond to my question instead. Why didn't the officer pull up further away? Would that not have been much smarter?
Posted on 11/29/14 at 10:01 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
Based on what?
Brown tried to get his gun. Eyewitnesses say Brown rushed him outside the vehicle, after he tried to get his gun and shots fired.
I didn't see any evidence to support an indictment, other than the naked fact that Brown was unarmed. Everything else seems to go in the cop's favor.
eh, I don't know. Personally I think they should have gotten an indictment but its not the biggest travesty ever. I was just responding to some guy who was inexplicably confused that someone can think they probably wouldn't get a conviction but should still go to court.
He asked why Strong was upset about GJ not giving an indictment. It was a really stupid question.
Posted on 11/29/14 at 10:01 am to roadGator
The assistant DA right before Wilsons testimony presented the jury with OUTDATED AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL Missouri law on the permissible shootings by cops. It was outlawed in the 1970s and state that cops could
Gun down fleeing victims.
ThIs was one of the many blunders. So the jurors heard his testimony already under the impression that the law said he Had the right of shooting a fleeing suspect.
Weeks later, the assistant DA apologizes to TE jury to showing them the wrong law, and gives them a new copy of the law, that says it is illegal to shoot a fleeing suspect.
When she was asked what the discrepancies were between the ourdated law and the new law, she tells them to not worry because it js not a law class, and that those minute difference don't pertain to this case.
Ill link a video with a more detailed explanation
Gun down fleeing victims.
ThIs was one of the many blunders. So the jurors heard his testimony already under the impression that the law said he Had the right of shooting a fleeing suspect.
Weeks later, the assistant DA apologizes to TE jury to showing them the wrong law, and gives them a new copy of the law, that says it is illegal to shoot a fleeing suspect.
When she was asked what the discrepancies were between the ourdated law and the new law, she tells them to not worry because it js not a law class, and that those minute difference don't pertain to this case.
Ill link a video with a more detailed explanation
Posted on 11/29/14 at 10:01 am to roadGator
The assistant DA right before Wilsons testimony presented the jury with OUTDATED AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL Missouri law on the permissible shootings by cops. It was outlawed in the 1970s and state that cops could
Gun down fleeing victims.
ThIs was one of the many blunders. So the jurors heard his testimony already under the impression that the law said he Had the right of shooting a fleeing suspect.
Weeks later, the assistant DA apologizes to TE jury to showing them the wrong law, and gives them a new copy of the law, that says it is illegal to shoot a fleeing suspect.
When she was asked what the discrepancies were between the ourdated law and the new law, she tells them to not worry because it js not a law class, and that those minute difference don't pertain to this case.
Ill link a video with a more detailed explanation
Gun down fleeing victims.
ThIs was one of the many blunders. So the jurors heard his testimony already under the impression that the law said he Had the right of shooting a fleeing suspect.
Weeks later, the assistant DA apologizes to TE jury to showing them the wrong law, and gives them a new copy of the law, that says it is illegal to shoot a fleeing suspect.
When she was asked what the discrepancies were between the ourdated law and the new law, she tells them to not worry because it js not a law class, and that those minute difference don't pertain to this case.
Ill link a video with a more detailed explanation
Posted on 11/29/14 at 10:02 am to TheSexecutioner
quote:
Even if I believe every little bit of Officer Wilson's story and it happened EXACTLY like he said, I still think he messed up big time.
How so? His story was he got jumped. Guy went for his gun. Charged him. He fired until threat was neutralized (actually, I think he fired the weapon dry, but I'm not 100% on that).
I'm not saying it happened exactly that way, but if it did, Wilson was completely justified - and at least some of the witnesses supported this version. The objective evidence certainly did. Even an unarmed suspect is a threat if he has shown the willingness and ability to arm himself.
The decedent made 2 mistakes - he attempted to disarm the officer and he failed.
Page 9 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News