- 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: Scarborough Is Mad As Hell And He's Not Going To Take It Anymore
Posted on 12/1/14 at 12:21 pm to Hawkeye95
Posted on 12/1/14 at 12:21 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
I think Wilson's testimony is suspect. And the whole thing depends on his testimony.
Seriously, Clark?
The whole thing does NOT depend on his testimony. The forensic evidence supports his testimony. This case depended upon the forensic evidence.
If autopsies had shown gunshot wounds to Brown's back, then we're talking about a rogue cop who needs to rot in jail. If the autopsies had shown that he had close range shots to his head to suggest an 'execution' (which early witnesses said happened), then, again, we're talking about a rogue cop who needs to rot in jail.
The evidence did not show those things. The evidence did, however, show that many witnesses were lying.
That is why Wilson was not indicted.
1
Posted on 12/1/14 at 12:22 pm to trackfan
quote:
though I'm sure most of the folks here won't appreciate his take on Martin-Zimmerman.
And rightfully so since he was so wrong there. Trayvon Martin wasn't hunted down simply because he was black. He matched the description of the person/people who had been doing break-ins in the neighborhood, was seen looking around at the houses late at night in the rain and was someone George Zimmerman didn't recognize as having lived in the community. Now that isn't to say that George Zimmerman isn't thuggish in his personal life to any degree (he sure seems to be), but it's a gross oversimplification to just say that George Zimmerman targeted Trayvon Martin because he was black.
Posted on 12/1/14 at 12:25 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
No, the truth should be sought after. But why question those witnesses and not wilson?
Because Wilson's testimony DIDNT CHANGE, and was supported by the forensics.
Jesus man.
quote:
I am as objective as most of the people here. Probably more so
good fricking god.
Delusional and stupid is no way to go through life.
Posted on 12/1/14 at 12:42 pm to mtntiger
quote:
The whole thing does NOT depend on his testimony.
no, it pretty much does. His testimony and the witnesses were contradictory. if you remove his testimony, I bet there would be an indictment.
quote:
Because Wilson's testimony DIDNT CHANGE, and was supported by the forensics.
So you have wilson's account prior the grand jury? Can you share that? From what I read wilson's supervisor made no notes from his initial conversation with wilson. So there is no record.
Posted on 12/1/14 at 12:44 pm to trackfan
quote:
Michael Brown-Darren Wilson
Good synopsis.
quote:
Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman
Over stated but I agree with his analogy, we should not be holding up George Zimmerman as the paragon of virtue.
Posted on 12/1/14 at 12:44 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
His testimony and the witnesses were contradictory. if you remove his testimony, I bet there would be an indictment.
and then there are FORENSICS.
FORENSICS which support his version, and not many of the witnesses.
jesus man.
Posted on 12/1/14 at 12:57 pm to Wolfhound45
quote:
we should not be holding up George Zimmerman as the paragon of virtue.
I agree.
In the Wilson/Brown encounter, I believe the analysis should have remained focused on Wilson's actions, and the reasonableness thereof, from the moment he arrived on scene until Michael Brown's death.
No one - least of all Darren Wilson - is happy or even satisfied with the outcome. However, through the prism of a law enforcement officer, responding to a crime, seeing a suspect attempting to detain and perhaps arrest criminals (there is no question about any of this ) - we have to judge every single shot and, the evidence I have seen makes it fairly clear that Brown started the engagement and, apparently, continued it past the point of using his own common sense. While I do not believe Wilson acted "perfectly" - that's not the question. Did he act reasonably? Just barely, but just barely is enough in this case.
Certainly Zimmerman and Martin seem far better (although flawed) human beings than Brown - but Wilson didn't ask to be there or in that specific situation, other than the fact he became a police officer.
The other three had several clear opportunities to avoid the negative outcome - Wilson had, perhaps a split second here or there, if that, and if so, they passed quickly.
This post was edited on 12/1/14 at 12:58 pm
Posted on 12/1/14 at 1:09 pm to CptBengal
What I've gotten out of this is that idiots want to away with the Grand Jury system and simply go straight into a trial.
Posted on 12/1/14 at 1:10 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
His testimony and the witnesses were contradictory
Not a dig at you but, you haven't read the witness statements have you?
Posted on 12/1/14 at 1:14 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
So you have wilson's account prior the grand jury? Can you share that? From what I read wilson's supervisor made no notes from his initial conversation with wilson. So there is no record.
Exactly! What we heard from Wilson was a well-rehearsed story of a man trying to stay out of prison and who was subjected to no cross-examination. I believe Wilson's initial encounter with Brown might have been accurately described since it pretty much meshes with Dorian Johnson's story, but what happened after Wilson got out of the car is still in question IMO.
Posted on 12/1/14 at 1:16 pm to Rickety Cricket
quote:
What I've gotten out of this is that idiots want to away with the Grand Jury system and simply go straight into a trial.
yep.
a bold strategy, probably wont work out for them.
Posted on 12/1/14 at 1:17 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
His testimony and the witnesses were contradictory. if you remove his testimony, I bet there would be an indictment.
Thank you for helping prove my point. The forensics decided this, not the cop's testimony. The forensic evidence SUPPORTED his testimony. If it had supported witnesses who said it was an execution, then we'd have a trial for sure.
Now, if you remove his testimony, you still have the forensic evidence, which supports the testimony of many eye-witnesses who came forward to the grand jury. The grand jury didn't side with the cop simply because he's a cop. They sided with him, because his version of events lines up with the forensic evidence.
Posted on 12/1/14 at 1:31 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
I agree.
In the Wilson/Brown encounter, I believe the analysis should have remained focused on Wilson's actions, and the reasonableness thereof, from the moment he arrived on scene until Michael Brown's death.
No one - least of all Darren Wilson - is happy or even satisfied with the outcome. However, through the prism of a law enforcement officer, responding to a crime, seeing a suspect attempting to detain and perhaps arrest criminals (there is no question about any of this ) - we have to judge every single shot and, the evidence I have seen makes it fairly clear that Brown started the engagement and, apparently, continued it past the point of using his own common sense. While I do not believe Wilson acted "perfectly" - that's not the question. Did he act reasonably? Just barely, but just barely is enough in this case.
Certainly Zimmerman and Martin seem far better (although flawed) human beings than Brown - but Wilson didn't ask to be there or in that specific situation, other than the fact he became a police officer.
The other three had several clear opportunities to avoid the negative outcome - Wilson had, perhaps a split second here or there, if that, and if so, they passed quickly.
I agree with 99% of this exactly as you have descriobed it, but I must also add a couple of things in Martin's defense:
1) Like Wilson, Martin didn't ask to be put in the situation he was in. He didn't want to be followed, he was walking home minding his own business when Zimmerman wrongly profiled him as a criminal and decided to stalk him.
2) Unlike Brown, whose convenience store behavior speaks for itself, there was nothing in Martin's background out of the norm for a typical modern-day teenager, much less anything that would indicate that's he's an unredeemable thug. Most fairminded folks would write off his minor misdeeds (eg. marijuana use) as youthful indiscretions.
Posted on 12/1/14 at 1:35 pm to trackfan
Usually I don't watch Al Sharpton's show, but I'm going to make a point to watch today since I don't think his ego will allow him to let Scarborough's rant go unchallenged.
Posted on 12/1/14 at 1:35 pm to trackfan
quote:
Unlike Brown, whose convenience store behavior speaks for itself, there was nothing in Martin's background out of the norm for a typical modern-day teenager, much less anything that would indicate that's he's an unredeemable thug. Most fairminded folks would write off his minor misdeeds (eg. marijuana use) as youthful indiscretions.
There was nothing in the immediate past of Trayvon like there was with Michael. That's about as far as you can go.
He appeared to be dealing drugs from his Twitter, was videotaping fights and had contraband in his locker from a home robbery. None of that is necessarily relevant to the incident between him and Zimmerman. But it's a far cry from "minor misdeeds" and the youthful indiscretions of "boys will be boys."
Posted on 12/1/14 at 1:39 pm to mtntiger
quote:
The grand jury didn't side with the cop simply because he's a cop. They sided with him, because his version of events lines up with the forensic evidence.
cops get the benefit of the doubt, and a bit of that is justified.
But key to the choice not to indict was whether his hands were up and whether he was charging wilson. While the forensic evidence supports the fact he was moving to wilson, it doesn't say how fast nor does it comment on whether his arms were up.
Considering the majority of witnesses said his hands were up, I think its valid to ask wilson that in the testimony. But it wasn't. Why was that? Mccullough didn't want an indictment, end of story.
Posted on 12/1/14 at 1:46 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
Considering the majority of witnesses said his hands were up, I think its valid to ask wilson that in the testimony. But it wasn't. Why was that? Mccullough didn't want an indictment, end of story.
The "majority" of witness that stated his hands were up, also invalidated their testimony when they stated he was shot in the back.
I've read there are 7 witnesses that corroborated Wilson's testimony.
This post was edited on 12/1/14 at 1:47 pm
Posted on 12/1/14 at 1:47 pm to Rickety Cricket
quote:
What I've gotten out of this is that idiots want to away with the Grand Jury system and simply go straight into a trial.
And lose. Badly.
Posted on 12/1/14 at 1:48 pm to Oenophile Brah
quote:
I've read there are 7 witnesses that corroborated Wilson's testimony.
One of which (allegedly) was killed during the riots, er, protests in Ferguson.
Posted on 12/1/14 at 1:49 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
Mccullough didn't want an indictment, end of story.
Mccullough wanted to win if he took it to trial. And he knew he would not. It is that simple.
Page 3 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News