• 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!

Attorney: New audio reveals pause in gunfire when Michael Brown was shot[W:72,732]

Re: Attorney: New audio reveals pause in gunfire when Michael Brown was shot

How many rounds did the officer fire?

In Brown? From the audio tape it sounded like 10-11.
 
Re: Attorney: New audio reveals pause in gunfire when Michael Brown was shot

the only way an indictment cannot happen is if they can absolutely show that the policeman acted appropriately
and there is nothing to indicate that
just as with the trayvon case, a trial is needed to show the community that justice resulted after the shooting

You do realize that the way you typed that shows us that you think the cop is guilty until proven innocent. We see the fiber of your fabric..

But yes, the Mob must have it's Circus I suppose...
 
Re: Attorney: New audio reveals pause in gunfire when Michael Brown was shot

You do realize that the way you typed that shows us that you think the cop is guilty until proven innocent.
We see the fiber of your fabric..

But yes, the Mob must have it's Circus I suppose...


Do you have a mouse in your pocket?
 
Re: Attorney: New audio reveals pause in gunfire when Michael Brown was shot

How many hits, with a busted eye?

Sounded like six. I did publish stats for the NYPD - probably one of the better trained departments in the country - that showed the average was between 18-30% depending on whether the suspect was shooting back or not.

As I've said I've never had to shoot at someone but as an outsider looking in that seems low to me and especially troublesome in a crowded city.
 
Re: Attorney: New audio reveals pause in gunfire when Michael Brown was shot

You do realize that the way you typed that shows us that you think the cop is guilty until proven innocent. We see the fiber of your fabric..

But yes, the Mob must have it's Circus I suppose...

An indictment isn't a conviction. The standard for an in indictment is much lower than that for a conviction.
 
Re: Attorney: New audio reveals pause in gunfire when Michael Brown was shot

Do you know how many of the first 130 persons exonerated by DNA were convicted because of eyewitness testimony in the first place? 80 percent. You can look it up on Google. 80 percent, and all of them convicted because of bad eyewitness testimony, and in most of those cases, testimony by multiple eyewitnesses.

great point. the people defending this guy are putting all their eggs into the "eyewitnesses say" basket. However if this had been a black person being shot in a white neighborhood his defenders would say "we can't believe a thing the eyewitnesses say", but in this situation they accept the eyewitness testimony as GOLD. funny, but also sad.
 
Re: Attorney: New audio reveals pause in gunfire when Michael Brown was shot

An indictment isn't a conviction. The standard for an in indictment is much lower than that for a conviction.

This has nothing to do with the assumption of guilt. The assumption is suppose to be innocent, until proven guilty. The poster to whom I addressed had that reversed.
 
Re: Attorney: New audio reveals pause in gunfire when Michael Brown was shot

This has nothing to do with the assumption of guilt. The assumption is suppose to be innocent, until proven guilty. The poster to whom I addressed had that reversed.

Agreed. Was only pointing out that they justbubba as a practical matter is probably right as far as an indictment goes. If there's any question at all as to his guilt he'll be indicted, especially given the political nature of the thing. Not saying that's right - it's just reality.
 
Re: Attorney: New audio reveals pause in gunfire when Michael Brown was shot

I honestly would love to believe that you're right about the spray and pray part. Though understand I'm not saying that any of this is willful. I was more thinking a scared guy resorting to overkill.

And I'm astounded that the hit rate is so low. Maybe it means they need more rounds. Maybe it means different training. I don't know.

It's difficult to produce realistic stress in training situations. So people should be aware....civilian shooters as well....that they are not going to be reacting the way they do on the range. Not even close. Motor skills, timing, visual perception....all are affected, often drastically.

There are many claims that some police depts do not require enough firearm training. It's probably hard...the public complains about deadly force, so the cops look for alternative methods....and then have even less $ or time to invest in firearm training.
 
Re: Attorney: New audio reveals pause in gunfire when Michael Brown was shot

You fire until the threat is down. Period.

So if you are in a fire fight and the opponent surrenders his weapon and waves a white flag and comes out with his hands up ...
You would still drop him?

Oh ...period? ....
Got it...
 
iLOL


Worthless witnesses are worthless.
There has been no credible witness that said Brown was surrendering.
What we do know though from a spontaneous, unscripted, uncoached and unrehearsed witness is that Brown was running towards the Officer, while the Officer was shooting at him. He was surprised as he thought the Officer was missing.




No one said they were there to determine guilt, so why are you bringing up irrelevancy?
And you really shouldn't speak about things you know not.
A GJ is looking for sufficient evidence to indict. Not doubt.


:
The only burden is one of reasonable doubt in a Grand Jury.
...And they only need a simple majority to agree that there is.
 
Re: Attorney: New audio reveals pause in gunfire when Michael Brown was shot

Or just as likely that he was lying on the ground with blood seeping out of multiple bullet wounds, eh?

How can anyone really know if they weren't an eyewitness?

Because all the eyewitness accounts tell it didn't happen that way.
 
Re: Attorney: New audio reveals pause in gunfire when Michael Brown was shot

Do you know how many of the first 130 persons exonerated by DNA were convicted because of eyewitness testimony in the first place? 80 percent. You can look it up on Google. 80 percent, and all of them convicted because of bad eyewitness testimony, and in most of those cases, testimony by multiple eyewitnesses.

This has been a huge issue in the court system that has been studied, documented and analyzed for the last 20 year. Eyewitness testimony, for a number of reasons, doesn't hold up in court the way it once did - for or against the person accused. It's like trace evidence. It can be contaminated. Our memories fade over time. And it isn't scientific.
Those were almost all cases of mistaken identity by one person.
We know the identity of all the primary people in this case.
The case hinges on what witnesses saw happen ...not who.
Four agree on what that was and the hard evidence backs them up.

You should note that the testimony of someone accused of murder is far less reliable than witnesses.
 
Last edited:
Re: Attorney: New audio reveals pause in gunfire when Michael Brown was shot

This has nothing to do with the assumption of guilt. The assumption is suppose to be innocent, until proven guilty. The poster to whom I addressed had that reversed.

Think about what you just implied... If everyone had to presume the innocence of an accused defendant NO witness could ever testify that they thought they were guilty of anything.

The principle is that the accused must be; "presumed innocent in the eyes of the law until proven guilty". The law must presume innocence ...a poster on an internet site offering their opinion has no such legal constraint ... just like a witness .
 
Last edited:
Re: Attorney: New audio reveals pause in gunfire when Michael Brown was shot

How many hits, with a busted eye?
What evidence is there to show that he had a " busted eye"?
The hospital reported examining Wilson for a slight swelling on his face and releasing him almost immediately.
All talk of a "busted eye" is pure conjecture or debunked, made up lies.
 
Last edited:
Re: Attorney: New audio reveals pause in gunfire when Michael Brown was shot

Those were almost all cases of mistaken identity by one person.
We know the identity of all the primary people in this case.
The case hinges on what witnesses saw happen ...not who.
Four agree on what that was and the hard evidence backs them up.

You should note that the testimony of someone accused of murder is far less reliable than witnesses.

And once again, eyewitness testimony can be wrong and can be biased and is not scientific and it's a medical fact that our memories fade over time and we don't see what we think we saw 100% of the time.

You should also note that the accused is innocent until proven guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt. His testimony and the facts that can be verified are just as relevant. Eyewitness testimony has been proven unreliable which is why it's no longer the valuable evidence that it once was.

What witnesses saw is weighed no more heavily than who saw it. Keep in mind too that his friend had just participated in a robbery with Brown - at least according to what he & his lawyer said, which makes him an unreliable witness.
 
Re: Attorney: New audio reveals pause in gunfire when Michael Brown was shot

What evidence is there to show that he had a " busted eye"?
The hospital reported examining Wilson for a slight swelling on his face and releasing him almost immediately.
All talk of a "busted eye" is pure conjecture or debunked made up lies.

Where is the hospital report and statement on their examination of Brown? Link?
 
Re: Attorney: New audio reveals pause in gunfire when Michael Brown was shot

What evidence is there to show that he had a " busted eye"?
The hospital reported examining Wilson for a slight swelling on his face and releasing him almost immediately.
All talk of a "busted eye" is pure conjecture or debunked, made up lies.

I believe your correct about the injury to the officer's eye.

However it is shown that the eye witnessess that stated Brown was shot in the back was false

Expert: Autopsy Reveals Eyewitness Accounts That Brown Was Shot In Back Are ‘False’ « CBS St. Louis
 
Re: Attorney: New audio reveals pause in gunfire when Michael Brown was shot

great point. the people defending this guy are putting all their eggs into the "eyewitnesses say" basket. However if this had been a black person being shot in a white neighborhood his defenders would say "we can't believe a thing the eyewitnesses say", but in this situation they accept the eyewitness testimony as GOLD. funny, but also sad.
To put all your eggs into the one basket of what the killer might say to keep himself free is far less reliable.
Your conjecture as to what others might say in different situations is a worthless guessing game.
Also a funny practice to adopt, and at least as sad.
 
Re: Attorney: New audio reveals pause in gunfire when Michael Brown was shot

I believe your correct about the injury to the officer's eye.

However it is shown that the eye witnessess that stated Brown was shot in the back was false

Expert: Autopsy Reveals Eyewitness Accounts That Brown Was Shot In Back Are ‘False’ « CBS St. Louis
That is the opinion of CBS-KMOX not the forensic surgeons.
Although there were no wounds to the victim's back, per se, they explained how at least one of the wounds on Browns forearm could have been received while he was moving away from Wilson.
They made it clear that this wound coming from behind could not be ruled out.
It doesn't make as good a headline when all the facts are explained, but that is the truth of the matter.
 
Re: Attorney: New audio reveals pause in gunfire when Michael Brown was shot

Those were almost all cases of mistaken identity by one person.
We know the identity of all the primary people in this case.
The case hinges on what witnesses saw happen ...not who.
Four agree on what that was and the hard evidence backs them up.

You should note that the testimony of someone accused of murder is far less reliable than witnesses.

There are many cases where the witnesses change their story after the fact.

Trial by Fire

The witnesses’ testimony also grew more damning after authorities had concluded, in the beginning of January, 1992, that Willingham was likely guilty of murder. In Diane Barbee’s initial statement to authorities, she had portrayed Willingham as “hysterical,” and described the front of the house exploding. But on January 4th, after arson investigators began suspecting Willingham of murder, Barbee suggested that he could have gone back inside to rescue his children, for at the outset she had seen only “smoke coming from out of the front of the house”—smoke that was not “real thick.”

An even starker shift occurred with Father Monaghan’s testimony. In his first statement, he had depicted Willingham as a devastated father who had to be repeatedly restrained from risking his life. Yet, as investigators were preparing to arrest Willingham, he concluded that Willingham had been too emotional (“He seemed to have the type of distress that a woman who had given birth would have upon seeing her children die”); and he expressed a “gut feeling” that Willingham had “something to do with the setting of the fire.”

Our memories are not set in stone, at all. They are fluid. They can change with what we believe. In fact, they can in fact just simply be formed from the start from what we expect to see instead of what actually happened.

False Memory - Psychology - About.com

False Memories: When Your Brain Makes Stuff Up | TIME.com
 
Re: Attorney: New audio reveals pause in gunfire when Michael Brown was shot

Think about what you just implied... If everyone had to presume the innocence of an accused defendant NO witness could ever testify that they thought they were guilty of anything.

The principle is that the accused must be; "presumed innocent in the eyes of the law until proven guilty". The law must presume innocence ...a poster on an internet site offering their opinion has no such legal constraint ... just like a witness .

Context is crucial
 
Re: Attorney: New audio reveals pause in gunfire when Michael Brown was shot

Those were almost all cases of mistaken identity by one person.
We know the identity of all the primary people in this case.
The case hinges on what witnesses saw happen ...not who.
Four agree on what that was and the hard evidence backs them up.

You should note that the testimony of someone accused of murder is far less reliable than witnesses.

Wilson'testimony is no less reliable than anyone else's, especially since the evidence is on his side.
 
Re: Attorney: New audio reveals pause in gunfire when Michael Brown was shot

Think about what you just implied... If everyone had to presume the innocence of an accused defendant NO witness could ever testify that they thought they were guilty of anything.

The principle is that the accused must be; "presumed innocent in the eyes of the law until proven guilty". The law must presume innocence ...a poster on an internet site offering their opinion has no such legal constraint ... just like a witness .

Nice double standard ya got there!
 
Back
Top Bottom