• 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!

Police Officer in Ferguson Is Said to Recount a Struggle

Excon said:
:confused:
What you quoted from me, is the account from one witness. Which has nothing to do with what you ask, of which, was proved elsewhere.
Click to expand...

So Brown must have been shot in the car you'd think... right?
 
Middleground said:
So Brown must have been shot in the car you'd think... right?
Click to expand...
It was reported that Wilson fired two shots from within the vehicle, one striking Brown in the arm.


From the article in the OP.


The police officer who fatally shot Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., two months ago has told investigators that he was pinned in his vehicle and in fear for his life as he struggled over his gun with Mr. Brown, according to government officials briefed on the federal civil rights investigation into the matter.

The officer, Darren Wilson, has told the authorities that during the scuffle, Mr. Brown reached for the gun. It was fired twice in the car, according to forensics tests performed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The first bullet struck Mr. Brown in the arm; the second bullet missed.

The forensics tests showed Mr. Brown’s blood on the gun, as well as on the interior door panel and on Officer Wilson’s uniform. Officer Wilson told the authorities that Mr. Brown had punched and scratched him repeatedly, leaving swelling on his face and cuts on his neck.​
 
Last edited:
Excon said:
It was reported that Wilson fired two shots from within the vehicle, one striking Brown in the arm.


From the article in the OP.


The police officer who fatally shot Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., two months ago has told investigators that he was pinned in his vehicle and in fear for his life as he struggled over his gun with Mr. Brown, according to government officials briefed on the federal civil rights investigation into the matter.

The officer, Darren Wilson, has told the authorities that during the scuffle, Mr. Brown reached for the gun. It was fired twice in the car, according to forensics tests performed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The first bullet struck Mr. Brown in the arm; the second bullet missed.

The forensics tests showed Mr. Brown’s blood on the gun, as well as on the interior door panel and on Officer Wilson’s uniform. Officer Wilson told the authorities that Mr. Brown had punched and scratched him repeatedly, leaving swelling on his face and cuts on his neck.​
Click to expand...


So where was the officer's blood?
 
Excon said:
Oy vey. Yes that is as reported.
Maybe you just do not understand the term. :shrug:


And a link to it, and credit given, was in the report I provided. As reported.
Long before you provided anything. My providing it again, before you provided yours, was just a repeat. So the information was already known.
Click to expand...

Wow. I honestly don't know what to say to someone who can't recognize the difference between the media source that breaks the story and third hand retellings by fringe outlets.

Never mind. Shame on me.
 
JC_CT said:
Wow. I honestly don't know what to say to someone who can't recognize the difference between the media source that breaks the story and third hand retellings by fringe outlets.

Never mind. Shame on me.
Click to expand...
This is nothing more than dishonesty and deflection from you.
All to avoid addressing how you were wrong.

What the hell do you call it when a person states that the source is what was cited and credit given to it in the report?

And again, Legal Insurrection is neither a hack, or as you now put it, a fringe source. Your assertions are ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
Excon said:
This is nothing more than dishonesty and deflection from you.
All to avoid addressing how you were wrong.

What the hell do you call it when a person states that the source is what was cited and credit given to it in the report?

And again, Legal Insurrection is neither a hack, or as you now put it, a fringe source. Your assertions are ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Yet I already provided specific examples of how your source differs from the original source, in the very next post after the one where you posted your source.

Insert emoticons here.
 
The former chief just did an interview, in which he believes the leaks are part of a strategy to get the information out to the public and prepare them for lack of an indictment. He states the physical evidence supports the cop and charges are unlikely. We'll see, but it sure makes sense why these GJ leaks are occurring.
 
buck said:
The former chief just did an interview, in which he believes the leaks are part of a strategy to get the information out to the public and prepare them for lack of an indictment. He states the physical evidence supports the cop and charges are unlikely. We'll see, but it sure makes sense why these GJ leaks are occurring.
Click to expand...

Potentially. Regardless, while my sympathies were with Brown, I am more interested in law and order. As soon as a decision is made, law and order must prevail. If Wilson does not receive an indictment, then the protesters need to remain peaceful. Violence on the part of the protesters needs to be met with a swift take down from police, and I will have zero sympathy.
 
JC_CT said:
Yet I already provided specific examples of how your source differs from the original source, in the very next post after the one where you posted your source.
Click to expand...
You have shown nothing different that mattered. Nothing was changed. Nor have you pointed out any flaws in what was provided as you claimed, nor could you as there were none, as it is the same damn information as he referenced.

And as also pointed out to you, the witnesses interpretation of the event is not evidence of what happened and matters not.


JC_CT said:
It is a BLOG.
Click to expand...
:doh
It is far more than just a blog.
It isn't fringe nor is it hackery.

About the author.

Andrew Branca

Andrew F. Branca is in his third decade of practicing law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. He wrote the first edition of the “Law of Self Defense” in 1997, and is currently in the process of completing the fully revised and updated second edition, which you can preorder now at lawofselfdefense.com. [...]​
​


And your going on about this is very telling, as nothing that was said there was wrong, or even objectionable.
Not a damn thing.

So all you are doing is continuing your deflection from being wrong.
Try focusing on something that matters.
 
buck said:
The former chief just did an interview, in which he believes the leaks are part of a strategy to get the information out to the public and prepare them for lack of an indictment. He states the physical evidence supports the cop and charges are unlikely. We'll see, but it sure makes sense why these GJ leaks are occurring.
Click to expand...
Link?
 
Fiddytree said:
Potentially. Regardless, while my sympathies were with Brown, I am more interested in law and order. As soon as a decision is made, law and order must prevail. If Wilson does not receive an indictment, then the protesters need to remain peaceful. Violence on the part of the protesters needs to be met with a swift take down from police, and I will have zero sympathy.
Click to expand...

I read an article a while ago, that there were plans being drawn up for protests across the nation when/if no indictment comes down... So... I doubt peaceful is likely to occur.
 
JC_CT said:
OK. You made it seem like it just happened. As in, "the former police chief just did an interview."

It's not breaking news that the leaks were intentional.
Click to expand...

Yes, the former chief just did an interview.. And he believes...

Shrug.. No idea what you are saying.
 
JC_CT said:
OK. You made it seem like it just happened. As in, "the former police chief just did an interview."

It's not breaking news that the leaks were intentional.
Click to expand...
Must have been that pesky word "just."
 
buck said:
Yes, the former chief just did an interview.. And he believes...

Shrug.. No idea what you are saying.
Click to expand...
I am saying you didn't have to be a jerk about the google search. The first thing I did was go to stltoday, and there was nothing about it on the home page.
 
JC_CT said:
Yesterday.
Click to expand...
And? Did you hear about the interview before he posted it?

Within the rules of the forum he could start it's own topic in the Breaking news section.
Because yesterday still qualifies as breaking.
 
Excon said:
And? Did you hear about the interview before he posted it?
Click to expand...
He didn't post it, he gave a second hand summary of it. It wasn't a breaking news story on the usual local media sites when he posted. That's why I asked for a link.

Are we all done now?
 
JC_CT said:
He didn't post it, he gave a second hand summary of it. It wasn't a breaking news story on the usual local media sites when he posted. That's why I asked for a link.

Are we all done now?
Click to expand...
Holy ****. You are deflecting again.
Yeah he did post it.
And you hadn't heard of it prior to that.
And the information provided is considered breaking.
 
Last edited:
Paleocon said:
Doesn't the fact that Brown's hands were up indicate that it was manslaughter, as opposed to justifiable?
Click to expand...
Hell no. If still has his hands up, he's still a threat.

The angle of the bullet wounds indicate that he was charging.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom