Breaking: Two Police Officers Shot Outside Ferguson Police Department

[bucs90]

There were two. There always is, there always will be.

The claim Wilson shot Brown with his hands up was a side, the claim Wilson shot Brown in self defense was the other. This insistence that there be only one side to a tragedy like this is what causes more tragedy, including the shooting of those two cops.

Justice is impartial, justice is blind. It sees no skin color or ethnicity, religion or creed. It is JUSTICE.

Where is the side of the story that disputes the cops claim that Mr. Brown reached for the cops weapon while his arm was inside the cop's vehicle?

The forensics examination agrees with the cop's story. The Grand Jury did not indict the Officer Wilson because the evidence agreed with his version of events, including forensic evidence such as gun powder, blood, and trajectory of bullets. None of the evidence went against his version of events. It has nothing to do with corruption in this instance. The officer was within his right to defend himself against this person.

There was only one story, the cop's. A dead man can't talk and give his story.

Yes, here in America, we routinely use forensics data to determine the exact scenario, and when a person is guilty of murder and/or is lying, the forensic evidence will show that to be the case. When the suspects version of events aligns exactly with the physical evidence presented in the autopsy, then it is pretty much cut and dried . . . unless you are accusing the forensic pathologists of being corrupt too?

There was no suspects version of events. The suspect was dead and unable to give his side on the events. And, yes, anyone chosen by law enforcement that is directly tied to or associated with them, is very capable of being biased. It's not unheard of.

By THAT logic...if a woman shot a man dead who was trying to rape her...you'd have to charge her with murder since...well...the dead guy cant testify.

Right?

 

[Sonny Clark]

And who knows...some loner hermit who was videotaping the incident but has been scared to show it....may pop up in June with a video showing Darren Wilson execute Brown in cold blood while surrendering and no fight ever occurred.

And all.those people would be charged with falsification of evidence and lying to the FBI and DOJ. And many beaurocrats would lose careers.

Which...is why there was no cover up.

I doubt very seriously anyone is ever going to come forth with anything remotely close to what have described. I believe everything that could be put on the table has already been put on the table.

Would you bet your freedom and career on it? No modern beaurocrat is gonna cover up for a lowly street cop...and just hope some new video doesnt pop up. For a fellow politician or rich guy...maybe. But you dont realize just how little mayors and politicians give a shit about street level cops. Especially in the video era.

No, I wouldn't bet the farm on it, but I do think that it's very unlikely that anything new will pop up in the future. Just my personal opinion.

 

[bucs90]

If Ferguson cops can't see the people shooting at them or anyone else or if they see shooters but cannot shoot back without endangering innocents then they should LEAVE THE SCENE. Their presence is inflammatory and if they make more mistakes they run the risk of more people from the community taking up arms against them.

Flee? They're at their own police department. Should they turn it into a fortress?

 

[Sonny Clark]

Where is the side of the story that disputes the cops claim that Mr. Brown reached for the cops weapon while his arm was inside the cop's vehicle?

The forensics examination agrees with the cop's story. The Grand Jury did not indict the Officer Wilson because the evidence agreed with his version of events, including forensic evidence such as gun powder, blood, and trajectory of bullets. None of the evidence went against his version of events. It has nothing to do with corruption in this instance. The officer was within his right to defend himself against this person.

There was only one story, the cop's. A dead man can't talk and give his story.

Yes, here in America, we routinely use forensics data to determine the exact scenario, and when a person is guilty of murder and/or is lying, the forensic evidence will show that to be the case. When the suspects version of events aligns exactly with the physical evidence presented in the autopsy, then it is pretty much cut and dried . . . unless you are accusing the forensic pathologists of being corrupt too?

There was no suspects version of events. The suspect was dead and unable to give his side on the events. And, yes, anyone chosen by law enforcement that is directly tied to or associated with them, is very capable of being biased. It's not unheard of.

By THAT logic...if a woman shot a man dead who was trying to rape her...you'd have to charge her with murder since...well...the dead guy cant testify.

Right?

There would have to be more than her word. If that be the case, then anyone could shoot anyone and claim self defense, rape, fearing for their safety or life, or that someone intended to do harm to a family member. There has to be more than just the boy crying wolf.

 

[bucs90]

And who knows...some loner hermit who was videotaping the incident but has been scared to show it....may pop up in June with a video showing Darren Wilson execute Brown in cold blood while surrendering and no fight ever occurred.

And all.those people would be charged with falsification of evidence and lying to the FBI and DOJ. And many beaurocrats would lose careers.

Which...is why there was no cover up.

I doubt very seriously anyone is ever going to come forth with anything remotely close to what have described. I believe everything that could be put on the table has already been put on the table.

Would you bet your freedom and career on it? No modern beaurocrat is gonna cover up for a lowly street cop...and just hope some new video doesnt pop up. For a fellow politician or rich guy...maybe. But you dont realize just how little mayors and politicians give a shit about street level cops. Especially in the video era.

No, I wouldn't bet the farm on it, but I do think that it's very unlikely that anything new will pop up in the future. Just my personal opinion.

I agree. But they arent gonna risk it.

In fact...id be more willing to accept that Wilson simply overreacted and shot in panic vs. saying any evidence was tamperes with. I dont believe either. But high ranking officials tampering with evidence on an event that happened in broad daylight in the camera era....no way. Especially not just to protect a low level street cop.

 

[bucs90]

The forensics examination agrees with the cop's story. The Grand Jury did not indict the Officer Wilson because the evidence agreed with his version of events, including forensic evidence such as gun powder, blood, and trajectory of bullets. None of the evidence went against his version of events. It has nothing to do with corruption in this instance. The officer was within his right to defend himself against this person.

There was only one story, the cop's. A dead man can't talk and give his story.

Yes, here in America, we routinely use forensics data to determine the exact scenario, and when a person is guilty of murder and/or is lying, the forensic evidence will show that to be the case. When the suspects version of events aligns exactly with the physical evidence presented in the autopsy, then it is pretty much cut and dried . . . unless you are accusing the forensic pathologists of being corrupt too?

There was no suspects version of events. The suspect was dead and unable to give his side on the events. And, yes, anyone chosen by law enforcement that is directly tied to or associated with them, is very capable of being biased. It's not unheard of.

By THAT logic...if a woman shot a man dead who was trying to rape her...you'd have to charge her with murder since...well...the dead guy cant testify.

Right?

There would have to be more than her word. If that be the case, then anyone could shoot anyone and claim self defense, rape, fearing for their safety or life, or that someone intended to do harm to a family member. There has to be more than just the boy crying wolf.

So you'd arrest a woman who shot a man trying to rape her....just because the dead guy cant talk? Wow.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If Ferguson cops can't see the people shooting at them or anyone else or if they see shooters but cannot shoot back without endangering innocents then they should LEAVE THE SCENE. Their presence is inflammatory and if they make more mistakes they run the risk of more people from the community taking up arms against them.

And this is perhaps the most ignorant post I've ever seen. Cops aren't omnipotent. They can't be in two places at once. Cops are authorized to use deadly force to defend themselves or the lives of innocent bystanders. If cops don't do their jobs, people will start taking up arms against each other in great numbers.

People want law and order in this country, but despise cops who enforce it. A colossal irony.

 

[Sonny Clark]

And who knows...some loner hermit who was videotaping the incident but has been scared to show it....may pop up in June with a video showing Darren Wilson execute Brown in cold blood while surrendering and no fight ever occurred.

And all.those people would be charged with falsification of evidence and lying to the FBI and DOJ. And many beaurocrats would lose careers.

Which...is why there was no cover up.

I doubt very seriously anyone is ever going to come forth with anything remotely close to what have described. I believe everything that could be put on the table has already been put on the table.

Would you bet your freedom and career on it? No modern beaurocrat is gonna cover up for a lowly street cop...and just hope some new video doesnt pop up. For a fellow politician or rich guy...maybe. But you dont realize just how little mayors and politicians give a shit about street level cops. Especially in the video era.

No, I wouldn't bet the farm on it, but I do think that it's very unlikely that anything new will pop up in the future. Just my personal opinion.

I agree. But they arent gonna risk it.

In fact...id be more willing to accept that Wilson simply overreacted and shot in panic vs. saying any evidence was tamperes with. I dont believe either. But high ranking officials tampering with evidence on an event that happened in broad daylight in the camera era....no way. Especially not just to protect a low level street cop.

There were no videos taken of the events. And, there are many ways to have evidence tampered with. The one directing the show could have down-line puppets do the contacting and communicating. The mafia bosses have others doing their dirty work and it can't be traced back to the boss.

 

[Sonny Clark]

If Ferguson cops can't see the people shooting at them or anyone else or if they see shooters but cannot shoot back without endangering innocents then they should LEAVE THE SCENE. Their presence is inflammatory and if they make more mistakes they run the risk of more people from the community taking up arms against them.

And this is perhaps the most ignorant post I've ever seen. Cops aren't omnipotent. They can't be in two places at once. Cops are authorized to use deadly force to defend themselves or the lives of innocent bystanders. If cops don't do their jobs, people will start taking up arms against each other in great numbers.

People want law and order in this country, but despise cops who enforce it. A colossal irony.

Cops are a necessity. Cops are very much needed. Cops are vital to society. Cops are important pieces of the civil and orderly puzzle. We need cops.

 

[bucs90]

If Ferguson cops can't see the people shooting at them or anyone else or if they see shooters but cannot shoot back without endangering innocents then they should LEAVE THE SCENE. Their presence is inflammatory and if they make more mistakes they run the risk of more people from the community taking up arms against them.

And this is perhaps the most ignorant post I've ever seen. Cops aren't omnipotent. They can't be in two places at once. Cops are authorized to use deadly force to defend themselves or the lives of innocent bystanders. If cops don't do their jobs, people will start taking up arms against each other in great numbers.

People want law and order in this country, but despise cops who enforce it. A colossal irony.

Its very interesting. It takes us back to the origins of policing. In England. The military red coats were the police and people hated them. So they invented constables. Called "cops" due to the copper badges they wore. Cops wore blue to contrast the red coats image.

But in the end...any force who is tasked with making people who break rules follow rules...will eventually use force and its gonna be ugly.

Its why in America the military is beloved and cops often arent. But if the Army took over policing. ..like in Old England....the people would hate the military.

 

[Sonny Clark]

There was only one story, the cop's. A dead man can't talk and give his story.

Yes, here in America, we routinely use forensics data to determine the exact scenario, and when a person is guilty of murder and/or is lying, the forensic evidence will show that to be the case. When the suspects version of events aligns exactly with the physical evidence presented in the autopsy, then it is pretty much cut and dried . . . unless you are accusing the forensic pathologists of being corrupt too?

There was no suspects version of events. The suspect was dead and unable to give his side on the events. And, yes, anyone chosen by law enforcement that is directly tied to or associated with them, is very capable of being biased. It's not unheard of.

By THAT logic...if a woman shot a man dead who was trying to rape her...you'd have to charge her with murder since...well...the dead guy cant testify.

Right?

There would have to be more than her word. If that be the case, then anyone could shoot anyone and claim self defense, rape, fearing for their safety or life, or that someone intended to do harm to a family member. There has to be more than just the boy crying wolf.

So you'd arrest a woman who shot a man trying to rape her....just because the dead guy cant talk? Wow.

Nope, sure wouldn't arrest her. I would have to first examine the scene, dig into their back ground. Check to see if they had a sexual relationship prior to the incident. Talk to friends, neighbors, and check cell phone and computer records to see if they had been arguing. I'd do a complete and thorough investigation first before I did anything. I'd have to be absolutely positive of guilt before I arrested her. I'd do my homework first class, no stones unturned. Taking someone's freedom is a serious matter. You don't do that unless you're 110% positive that you're right. Circumstantial evidence and cases should never make it inside a courtroom.

 

[bucs90]

And who knows...some loner hermit who was videotaping the incident but has been scared to show it....may pop up in June with a video showing Darren Wilson execute Brown in cold blood while surrendering and no fight ever occurred.

And all.those people would be charged with falsification of evidence and lying to the FBI and DOJ. And many beaurocrats would lose careers.

Which...is why there was no cover up.

I doubt very seriously anyone is ever going to come forth with anything remotely close to what have described. I believe everything that could be put on the table has already been put on the table.

Would you bet your freedom and career on it? No modern beaurocrat is gonna cover up for a lowly street cop...and just hope some new video doesnt pop up. For a fellow politician or rich guy...maybe. But you dont realize just how little mayors and politicians give a shit about street level cops. Especially in the video era.

No, I wouldn't bet the farm on it, but I do think that it's very unlikely that anything new will pop up in the future. Just my personal opinion.

I agree. But they arent gonna risk it.

In fact...id be more willing to accept that Wilson simply overreacted and shot in panic vs. saying any evidence was tamperes with. I dont believe either. But high ranking officials tampering with evidence on an event that happened in broad daylight in the camera era....no way. Especially not just to protect a low level street cop.

There were no videos taken of the events. And, there are many ways to have evidence tampered with. The one directing the show could have down-line puppets do the contacting and communicating. The mafia bosses have others doing their dirty work and it can't be traced back to the boss.

I see your theory...its just so improbable. Government is every man for himself. No beaurocrat is taking a chance to cover for a street cop. Its why cops have unions and FOPs. They get thrown under the bus all the time.

Look at the chaos this caused. For the Missouri governor and sheriffs and chiefs and all the higher up politicians. ...it would've been SO MUCH easier if evidence showed the cop committed a crime and just charged him.

Look up Charlotte police. They charged a cop with murder the SAME NIGHT he shot a guy. And...in that case...the cop was absolutely wrong.

In this era...no one higher up is covering for a street cop. If the evidence isnt there though...they wont charge him.

 

[bucs90]

Yes, here in America, we routinely use forensics data to determine the exact scenario, and when a person is guilty of murder and/or is lying, the forensic evidence will show that to be the case. When the suspects version of events aligns exactly with the physical evidence presented in the autopsy, then it is pretty much cut and dried . . . unless you are accusing the forensic pathologists of being corrupt too?

There was no suspects version of events. The suspect was dead and unable to give his side on the events. And, yes, anyone chosen by law enforcement that is directly tied to or associated with them, is very capable of being biased. It's not unheard of.

By THAT logic...if a woman shot a man dead who was trying to rape her...you'd have to charge her with murder since...well...the dead guy cant testify.

Right?

There would have to be more than her word. If that be the case, then anyone could shoot anyone and claim self defense, rape, fearing for their safety or life, or that someone intended to do harm to a family member. There has to be more than just the boy crying wolf.

So you'd arrest a woman who shot a man trying to rape her....just because the dead guy cant talk? Wow.

Nope, sure wouldn't arrest her. I would have to first examine the scene, dig into their back ground. Check to see if they had a sexual relationship prior to the incident. Talk to friends, neighbors, and check cell phone and computer records to see if they had been arguing. I'd do a complete and thorough investigation first before I did anything. I'd have to be absolutely positive of guilt before I arrested her. I'd do my homework first class, no stones unturned. Taking someone's freedom is a serious matter. You don't do that unless you're 110% positive that you're right. Circumstantial evidence and cases should never make it inside a courtroom.

You're exactly right. And thats why Wilson wasnt charged. See? That was easy!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Which does not change that Wilson was right and the FPD may need to be changed out.

 

[Asclepias]

There was only one story, the cop's. A dead man can't talk and give his story.

Yes, here in America, we routinely use forensics data to determine the exact scenario, and when a person is guilty of murder and/or is lying, the forensic evidence will show that to be the case. When the suspects version of events aligns exactly with the physical evidence presented in the autopsy, then it is pretty much cut and dried . . . unless you are accusing the forensic pathologists of being corrupt too?

There was no suspects version of events. The suspect was dead and unable to give his side on the events. And, yes, anyone chosen by law enforcement that is directly tied to or associated with them, is very capable of being biased. It's not unheard of.

By THAT logic...if a woman shot a man dead who was trying to rape her...you'd have to charge her with murder since...well...the dead guy cant testify.

Right?

There would have to be more than her word. If that be the case, then anyone could shoot anyone and claim self defense, rape, fearing for their safety or life, or that someone intended to do harm to a family member. There has to be more than just the boy crying wolf.

So you'd arrest a woman who shot a man trying to rape her....just because the dead guy cant talk? Wow.

Who said the man was trying to rape her?

 

[Sonny Clark]

If Ferguson cops can't see the people shooting at them or anyone else or if they see shooters but cannot shoot back without endangering innocents then they should LEAVE THE SCENE. Their presence is inflammatory and if they make more mistakes they run the risk of more people from the community taking up arms against them.

And this is perhaps the most ignorant post I've ever seen. Cops aren't omnipotent. They can't be in two places at once. Cops are authorized to use deadly force to defend themselves or the lives of innocent bystanders. If cops don't do their jobs, people will start taking up arms against each other in great numbers.

People want law and order in this country, but despise cops who enforce it. A colossal irony.

Its very interesting. It takes us back to the origins of policing. In England. The military red coats were the police and people hated them. So they invented constables. Called "cops" due to the copper badges they wore. Cops wore blue to contrast the red coats image.

But in the end...any force who is tasked with making people who break rules follow rules...will eventually use force and its gonna be ugly.

Its why in America the military is beloved and cops often arent. But if the Army took over policing. ..like in Old England....the people would hate the military.

People would only hate them if they did as cops do today. When cops show little or no respect for the people they are entrusted to protect and to serve, naturally they're going to be hated. If cops showed the same respect that they would want themselves, people would enjoy their presents, and want them around. Cops get what they deserve.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Yes, here in America, we routinely use forensics data to determine the exact scenario, and when a person is guilty of murder and/or is lying, the forensic evidence will show that to be the case. When the suspects version of events aligns exactly with the physical evidence presented in the autopsy, then it is pretty much cut and dried . . . unless you are accusing the forensic pathologists of being corrupt too?

There was no suspects version of events. The suspect was dead and unable to give his side on the events. And, yes, anyone chosen by law enforcement that is directly tied to or associated with them, is very capable of being biased. It's not unheard of.

By THAT logic...if a woman shot a man dead who was trying to rape her...you'd have to charge her with murder since...well...the dead guy cant testify.

Right?

There would have to be more than her word. If that be the case, then anyone could shoot anyone and claim self defense, rape, fearing for their safety or life, or that someone intended to do harm to a family member. There has to be more than just the boy crying wolf.

So you'd arrest a woman who shot a man trying to rape her....just because the dead guy cant talk? Wow.

Who said the man was trying to rape her?

It's always about proof positive. Nothing else is justice.

 

[Asclepias]

If Ferguson cops can't see the people shooting at them or anyone else or if they see shooters but cannot shoot back without endangering innocents then they should LEAVE THE SCENE. Their presence is inflammatory and if they make more mistakes they run the risk of more people from the community taking up arms against them.

And this is perhaps the most ignorant post I've ever seen. Cops aren't omnipotent. They can't be in two places at once. Cops are authorized to use deadly force to defend themselves or the lives of innocent bystanders. If cops don't do their jobs, people will start taking up arms against each other in great numbers.

People want law and order in this country, but despise cops who enforce it. A colossal irony.

Its very interesting. It takes us back to the origins of policing. In England. The military red coats were the police and people hated them. So they invented constables. Called "cops" due to the copper badges they wore. Cops wore blue to contrast the red coats image.

But in the end...any force who is tasked with making people who break rules follow rules...will eventually use force and its gonna be ugly.

Its why in America the military is beloved and cops often arent. But if the Army took over policing. ..like in Old England....the people would hate the military.

People would only hate them if they did as cops do today. When cops show little or no respect for the people they are entrusted to protect and to serve, naturally they're going to be hated. If cops showed the same respect that they would want themselves, people would enjoy their presents, and want them around. Cops get what they deserve.

You see this behavior when cops actually show respect. I have 2 in my family that have zero trouble in the toughest of neighborhoods. People trust them.

 

[Sonny Clark]

If Ferguson cops can't see the people shooting at them or anyone else or if they see shooters but cannot shoot back without endangering innocents then they should LEAVE THE SCENE. Their presence is inflammatory and if they make more mistakes they run the risk of more people from the community taking up arms against them.

And this is perhaps the most ignorant post I've ever seen. Cops aren't omnipotent. They can't be in two places at once. Cops are authorized to use deadly force to defend themselves or the lives of innocent bystanders. If cops don't do their jobs, people will start taking up arms against each other in great numbers.

People want law and order in this country, but despise cops who enforce it. A colossal irony.

Its very interesting. It takes us back to the origins of policing. In England. The military red coats were the police and people hated them. So they invented constables. Called "cops" due to the copper badges they wore. Cops wore blue to contrast the red coats image.

But in the end...any force who is tasked with making people who break rules follow rules...will eventually use force and its gonna be ugly.

Its why in America the military is beloved and cops often arent. But if the Army took over policing. ..like in Old England....the people would hate the military.

People would only hate them if they did as cops do today. When cops show little or no respect for the people they are entrusted to protect and to serve, naturally they're going to be hated. If cops showed the same respect that they would want themselves, people would enjoy their presents, and want them around. Cops get what they deserve.

You see this behavior when cops actually show respect. I have 2 in my family that have zero trouble in the toughest of neighborhoods. People trust them.

That's all it takes. What goes around, comes around. Give respect, and respect will be given back in return. Respect other people, and people will respect you. It's the same principle we all should live by, cops included.

 

[Sonny Clark]

I doubt very seriously anyone is ever going to come forth with anything remotely close to what have described. I believe everything that could be put on the table has already been put on the table.

Would you bet your freedom and career on it? No modern beaurocrat is gonna cover up for a lowly street cop...and just hope some new video doesnt pop up. For a fellow politician or rich guy...maybe. But you dont realize just how little mayors and politicians give a shit about street level cops. Especially in the video era.

No, I wouldn't bet the farm on it, but I do think that it's very unlikely that anything new will pop up in the future. Just my personal opinion.

I agree. But they arent gonna risk it.

In fact...id be more willing to accept that Wilson simply overreacted and shot in panic vs. saying any evidence was tamperes with. I dont believe either. But high ranking officials tampering with evidence on an event that happened in broad daylight in the camera era....no way. Especially not just to protect a low level street cop.

There were no videos taken of the events. And, there are many ways to have evidence tampered with. The one directing the show could have down-line puppets do the contacting and communicating. The mafia bosses have others doing their dirty work and it can't be traced back to the boss.

I see your theory...its just so improbable. Government is every man for himself. No beaurocrat is taking a chance to cover for a street cop. Its why cops have unions and FOPs. They get thrown under the bus all the time.

Look at the chaos this caused. For the Missouri governor and sheriffs and chiefs and all the higher up politicians. ...it would've been SO MUCH easier if evidence showed the cop committed a crime and just charged him.

Look up Charlotte police. They charged a cop with murder the SAME NIGHT he shot a guy. And...in that case...the cop was absolutely wrong.

In this era...no one higher up is covering for a street cop. If the evidence isnt there though...they wont charge him.

The way it should've been handled is for authorities to come out and say that, "as far as they could tell by what little evidence they had, considering the fact Mr. Brown was not able to dispute the events, and since there were no videos and eye witnesses that could be believed, ( many were dismissed ), Mr. Wilson will not be charged at this time." That would have settled it without either side judged guilty of a crime. Mr. Brown, had he lived, would have served time for robbery and possibly resisting arrest. Mr. Wilson would have returned to duty and watched for awhile since he did kill a man, and that killing remained disputed.