• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Victims family releases graphic video of his death

what exactly is an investigation into the autopsy suppose to reveal that wouldn't have been covered by the grand jury?

guess youll find out when its done :shrug:
 
guess youll find out when its done :shrug:

the accusation was dependent on the idea that he purposely hit the guy, as opposed to it being an accident. I just fail to see how an investigation is going to impact the evidence viewed by the grand jury or how they saw the case
 
the accusation was dependent on the idea that he purposely hit the guy, as opposed to it being an accident. I just fail to see how an investigation is going to impact the evidence viewed by the grand jury or how they saw the case

well its a good thing your insight isnt need for the investigation or the case :shrug:
 
Justice was served. Dumbass Criminal Dead, no longer threat to public safety.

you are welcome to that meaningless opinion :shrug:
but the supervising officer, one of the corners and this special investigation team disagree with you
 
you are welcome to that meaningless opinion :shrug:
but the supervising officer, one of the corners and this special investigation team disagree with you

Then they should be fired. Any so called "person" who sympathizes with a criminal should never be allowed to work in criminal justice. In fact, they are probably liberals if they do. In which case, someone should run their asses over also.
 
1.)Then they should be fired. Any so called "person" who sympathizes with a criminal should never be allowed to work in criminal justice.
3.) In fact, they are probably liberals if they do. In which case, someone should run their asses over also.

1.) you are welcome to the opinion too
2.) did read anybody sympathizing with the criminal but please feel free to make other straw man up
3.) well since number 2 is made up your opinion in number 3 is also meaningless
your angry is funny

:shrug:
 
1.) you are welcome to the opinion too
2.) did read anybody sympathizing with the criminal but please feel free to make other straw man up
3.) well since number 2 is made up your opinion in number 3 is also meaningless
your angry is funny

:shrug:

Firing a cop and wanting charges brought against him for taking an dangerous animal off the streets is having sympathy for the criminals.
 
yeah the link is posted now and of course i cant be certain either because it could be one of those instances where the gas was hit on accident in a panic or he threw his car in neutral and hit the brake.


But the engine definitely revs hard.

From the article:


wife, said. “The video is important and speaks the truth.”

"An autopsy report showed no evidence that Brown was struck by the vehicle. And according to ClickOrlando, an expert used by the state attorney’s office says there is no evidence of the acceleration during the six seconds from the foot chase and that a rapid deceleration occurred four seconds before the car came to rest."


What was presented to the grand jury was a total lie. "No evidence that Brown was struck by the vehicle" ?!?!? Hell, you can hear his head hitting the front of the police cruiser and definitely hear the acceleration.

This was telling any lie to get ahead of a lawsuit. That is a real problem in there rise of police violence. The SINGULAR concern of many departments is to say, lie, destroy evidence, do ANYTHING to defend against a lawsuit for misconduct of an officer.

THAT needs to change - and the way to do it is a change in law that if a police officer doesn't anything criminally illegal, the police department (ie government/taxpayers) are NOT liable. Rather, the officer who did it is.
 
well its a good thing your insight isnt need for the investigation or the case :shrug:

talk about a post devoid of content: I outlined why and how the charges are being pursued and how the stated investigation will seem to have little impact on that. Of course the investigation isn't dependent on my say so, but the apparent issues I outlined would still exist
 
you are welcome to that meaningless opinion :shrug:
but the supervising officer, one of the corners and this special investigation team disagree with you

that isn't what your article states at all:
According to Latinsky, Harris drove onto the grass because he thought Brown ran into the woods that lined the field. Harris planned to park his car on the field and had no intention of hurting Brown, Latinsky said.

When the State Attorney's Office took the case to a grand jury on Sept. 10, the panel decided that Harris, who was fired three weeks after the crash, committed no crime.

"There is a distinction between doing something criminal and violating police protocol," said Lyle Mazin, an Orlando defense attorney.

As a new employee, Harris was on probation when the crash occurred. After watching the video, DeLand Police Chief William Ridgway fired Harris for acting carelessly during the short pursuit.

Mazin said Harris is unlikely to ever face charges unless the family's attorney, Benjamin Crump — who represented Trayvon Martin's family — can find additional evidence.

Short of that, "I don't see why the State Attorney's Office would ignore the grand jury and independently file (charges) against this police officer," Mazin said.


nothing in your posted articles indicates "the supervising officer, one of the corners and this special investigation team disagree" with the findings of the grand jury

Did you maybe post the wrong article?
 
Firing a cop and wanting charges brought against him for taking an dangerous animal off the streets is having sympathy for the criminals.

nope its simply not :shrug:
the firing was justified and investigating what happened is simply typical especially when corners come up with different things but like i said feel free to make more stuff up, its funny
 
1.)talk about a post devoid of content
2.) I outlined why and how the charges are being pursued and how the stated investigation will seem to have little impact on that.
3.) Of course the investigation isn't dependent on my say so, but the apparent issues I outlined would still exist

1.)just pointing out the facts and as usual facts bother you lol
2.) yes you gave me your opinion which is meaningless to facts and reality, i iddnt ask for, nobody cares about and will have zero impact on the case and facts.
3.) yes your concern will still excist but your concern is again meanignless

thanks
 
that isn't what your article states at all:




nothing in your posted articles indicates "the supervising officer, one of the corners and this special investigation team disagree" with the findings of the grand jury

Did you maybe post the wrong article?

weird i dint refer to any specific article, i love when you make stuff up and get exposed doing it. Can you point out where i quoted an article in that post?
Oh thats right, i didnt you made up another failed strawman in your head and got caught doing again lol

trey to stay on topic, i know you never do and its why all your posts fail but try, thanks for playing you made up posts lose to facts again
 
nope its simply not :shrug:
the firing was justified and investigating what happened is simply typical especially when corners come up with different things but like i said feel free to make more stuff up, its funny

If he hadn't run, he wouldn't of died. Period. He was a criminal and an animal, period. His death was a benefit to society, period.
 
1.)If he hadn't run, he wouldn't of died. Period.
2.) He was a criminal
3.) and an animal, period.
4.) His death was a benefit to society, period.

1.) another opinion you are free to have but thats all it is
2.) meaningless
3.) more meaningless opinion
4.) more meaningless opinion

:shrug: its cute you think your opinion matters
 
1.) another opinion you are free to have but thats all it is
2.) meaningless
3.) more meaningless opinion
4.) more meaningless opinion

:shrug: its cute you think your opinion matters

Not opinion. Fact, if he had not chose to run, there would of been no further incident. That is absolute fact. Since he chose to run, he instigated the incident and bears responsibility for it. Again, not opinion, absolute unyielding fact.
 
what exactly is an investigation into the autopsy suppose to reveal that wouldn't have been covered by the grand jury?

That the death was caused by being hit by the cruiser. The prosecution's witness (obviously really the "defense's witness" to call it correctly) stated the autopsy showed on evidence of being impacted by the car. Yet you see it and even hear his head hitting the front of the car. The relevancy is it was claimed by the DA-defense and defense "expert" that the impact by the car not only didn't kill him, but that it never even happened.

A legit autopsy would obviously show otherwise.

Not for this case, but if the coroner's office is THAT much lying in terms of investigations and causes of death, it is a HUGE problem in general. How many other cases and for how many other deaths of any kind has the coroner lied about what the autopsy showed?
 
Not opinion. Fact, if he had not chose to run, there would of been no further incident. That is absolute fact. Since he chose to run, he instigated the incident and bears responsibility for it. Again, not opinion, absolute unyielding fact.

That's absurd. The police can not just run over people with their cruisers because a person is running - just like they can't just shoot the person in the back - no difference - and particularly when the allegation/perp's offense leading to this was the lowest possible misdemeanor - no seatbelt.

I suppose you also think if some officer shouts at kids on skateboards on sidewalk where shakeboarding is prohibited by ordinance, "HEY, YOU KIDS ON SKATEBOARDS, GET OVER HERE!" - and instead the kids run - then the officer should shoot all of them as they flee because "as absolute fact they choose to run."
 
1.)Not opinion. Fact, if he had not chose to run, there would of been no further incident. That is absolute fact. Since he chose to run, he instigated the incident and bears responsibility for it. Again, not opinion, absolute unyielding fact.

LMAO thank you for proving you dont know what that word is, nope just an opinion. The chief had the opinion the officer acted irresponsible so the OPINION could also be said if he doesnt this doesnt happen.

nope just an opinion, one you are free to have and one that is meaningless hence whats going on, its cute you think its a fact though VERY funny too.
 
That's absurd. The police can not just run over people with their cruisers because a person is running - just like they can't just shoot the person in the back - no difference - and particularly when the allegation/perp's offense leading to this was the lowest possible misdemeanor - no seatbelt.

I suppose you also think if some officer shouts at kids on skateboards on sidewalk where shakeboarding is prohibited by ordinance, "HEY, YOU KIDS ON SKATEBOARDS, GET OVER HERE!" - and instead the kids run - then the officer should shoot all of them as they flee because "as absolute fact they choose to run."

Nope, as far as I know a skate board cannot be used very effectively as a weapon by misuse. A vehicle can. the seatbelt charge is irrelevant. The felony was when he endangered bystanders/public by initiating a high speed pursuit. Once a criminal decides to become a felon in a manor endangering innocents, then any and all means necessary to end the threat can and should be used. All responsibility for what happens after the criminal chooses to act is upon the criminal.

If someone does not do or support any and all means necessary to fight and end evil, then they condone and share responsibility for the evil done that they refused to allow to be stopped. Up to and including the death of any animal doing evil.
Anyone who would punish or hinder someone fighting evil, is inherently a sponsor of that evil.
 
LMAO thank you for proving you dont know what that word is, nope just an opinion. The chief had the opinion the officer acted irresponsible so the OPINION could also be said if he doesnt this doesnt happen.

nope just an opinion, one you are free to have and one that is meaningless hence whats going on, its cute you think its a fact though VERY funny too.

So, had he stopped and not ran, the cop still would of run him down and killed him anyway? Now that is funny.
 
That the death was caused by being hit by the cruiser. The prosecution's witness (obviously really the "defense's witness" to call it correctly) stated the autopsy showed on evidence of being impacted by the car. Yet you see it and even hear his head hitting the front of the car. The relevancy is it was claimed by the DA-defense and defense "expert" that the impact by the car not only didn't kill him, but that it never even happened.

A legit autopsy would obviously show otherwise.

Not for this case, but if the coroner's office is THAT much lying in terms of investigations and causes of death, it is a HUGE problem in general. How many other cases and for how many other deaths of any kind has the coroner lied about what the autopsy showed?

Actually from the article posted, I think the autopsy argued that he fell before being run over, not that he was hit then run over. Which nothing in the video really contradicts
 
Back
Top Bottom