Breaking: Two Police Officers Shot Outside Ferguson Police Department

[Sonny Clark]

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!

Mr. Wilson wasn't charged because his was the only side presented for investigation.

 

[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.

So when faced with the findings...you just resort to saying the falsified the evidence?

I have never said any evidence was falsified. I said that it's possible that evidence could've been tampered with, tainted, of that the test results could've been reported wrong. I have never said that anything was falsified.

 

[Sonny Clark]

51% is most. Stop trying to pretend that cop crime does not occur.

51%? Where do you come up with that number? Link? You can't just pull numbers out of your butt . . .

You are pulling them out of your butt. "MOST police officers do ot do these things", you say. Really? Link? And, yes, 51% does mean most.

Theres no link...to incidents that dont occur.

There are 900, 000 cops in America. Even if there were 9, 000 Mike Brown incidents per year...almost 200 per week...that'd only be 1% of cops. And we DO NOT have 200 Mike Browns per week. We have...like 1-2 at most.

The Free Thought Project

READ READ READ READ

This means nothing. This is nothing but a website dedicated to people who hate the police. Lol. Who is responsible for the creation of this website? There is no "about us" available on this website. Not to mention, it in no way is an indictment of ALL or even MOST police officers. Lol. Silly.

The stories are true, they happen every single day. If you can dispute the stories, then by all means do so. If can prove they are fabricated, lies, and imagination, then please do so. That sites has new stories about bad cops every single day, hundreds of them. Of course, cop lovers are going to dispute the stories without any proof, just saying they are not representative is good enough. Try reading it each day and see how many cops are bad. I dare you. And, of course some of them aren't indicted, nor convicted, because most of the time cops get a free pass. How many cops are in our prisons? How much money has been paid out to settle claims against abusive cops? Dismiss it if you want, but hiding from facts doesn't change anything.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Some are, some aren't. There have been many cases of tainted evidence, misread DNA tests, and other botched tests. And, again, who did the tests? Was it an independent outside source, or was it someone associated with or connect with the government?

So now, you are trying to say that the forensic experts are covering for the police? Good Lord. This belongs in the conspiracy theory section of the forum. Your conspiracy theories are worthless.

It's been know to have happened. Are you saying that bias never enters into police cases?

Sure it has and will in the future, but there is nothing to indicate that in this particular case besides some angry black people.

I agree, nothing so far has come out about the tests not being correct. And, it may never come out. The tests may have been done on the up and up, who knows. Also, the witnesses may have been questioned at length for both sides, but we'll never know for sure because some witnesses were dismissed as liars. It was handled by people that had a dog in the fight. No outside independent sources, some witnesses dismissed, no word on the two construction workers that witnessed the actual shooting, and was on video the second it happened. So, can any of us be sure that everything was handled correctly, fairly, and above board?

Yes, I believe the officer's story. It aligns with the forensics evidence and other eye witness accounts (which are always questionable anyways, which is why we rely more on forensic physical evidence). Unless you can prove that the forensics experts are also corrupt, then you've got nothing at all to argue about here.

Well, I can say that the evidence was compared to just one side of the story. I can say that an independent outside source wasn't called in to avoid a possible conflict of interest. I can say that some witnesses were dismissed. I can say that government investigating government leaves a lot to be desired.

 

[Sonny Clark]

It's been know to have happened. Are you saying that bias never enters into police cases?

Sure it has and will in the future, but there is nothing to indicate that in this particular case besides some angry black people.

I agree, nothing so far has come out about the tests not being correct. And, it may never come out. The tests may have been done on the up and up, who knows. Also, the witnesses may have been questioned at length for both sides, but we'll never know for sure because some witnesses were dismissed as liars. It was handled by people that had a dog in the fight. No outside independent sources, some witnesses dismissed, no word on the two construction workers that witnessed the actual shooting, and was on video the second it happened. So, can any of us be sure that everything was handled correctly, fairly, and above board?

Yes, I believe the officer's story. It aligns with the forensics evidence and other eye witness accounts (which are always questionable anyways, which is why we rely more on forensic physical evidence). Unless you can prove that the forensics experts are also corrupt, then you've got nothing at all to argue about here.

You're entitle to believe anything that you want to believe, that's your right, I respect that right.

Well, so are you, but what you are essentially doing is ignoring the very good physical evidence gleaned from several different autopsies to say that the police are corrupt. You have absolutely NO evidence to base your allegations on, except for the fact that you apparently have some disdain for police officers.

I haven't ignored anything, nothing. I have no evidence, and neither do you. Each of us has to form an opinion based on what we know for a fact.

 

[Sonny Clark]

The bottom line here is that the police have a job to do. If they come across a belligerant suspect who wants to fight, then they have to think of the safety of everyone and not just themselves. What would you suggest the police do? Just let black people go because they're black and might feel offended if a white police officer tries to arrest them or detain them after being called?

That's cute, very good. I have never ever said that police single out black people, never. Police abuse their power and authority with anyone they feel like it, regardless of skin color, nationality religion, or anything else. They do whatever they feel like doing to anyone that pleases them. In case you're curious or wondering, it's well documented. A couple of days ago on another thread on this forum, I listed a couple of dozen links to prove what I say about low-life social zero cops. You can love them and respect them all you want, it's your right, but don't expect those of us that know what they do to follow suit. We read the daily news and pay attention to what's going on in this country, especially on Main Street America. All of this didn't just start yesterday, it's been going on for many years now. They stories would fill a good size book. Do some research and then tell me how wonderful and great cops are. Tell me just how much they earn our respect.

Go read about the old men and old ladies they abuse and brutalize, go read about the children they molest and rape, go read about the stealing they do, the bribes they take, the false testimony they give in court, and the other wonderful things they do each and every day somewhere in this country.

Sorry, but you would be wrong. MOST police officers do not do these things.

Do you know that for a fact, or are you just assuming because you're pro-cop? How many do those things? How many don't do those things?

YOU are the one throwing about accusations. The burden of proof lies on you, not me. I am skeptical of your claims, as they are ridiculous . . . so how many do these things?

Your feelings are not evidence. The reports etc are evidence. You have to rebut. No one else has to do anything except point that out to you until you do.

The reports are subject to debate. What evidence was allowed? What witnesses were accepted? There was only one side of the story given, no one was alive to dispute it. The government's people did the testing and interviews. There were no videos, or witnesses to what took place inside the officer's vehicle.

 

[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.

So when faced with the findings...you just resort to saying the falsified the evidence?

I have never ever said anything was falsified, never. Please show where I have ever said that. Thanks.

 

[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.

So when faced with the findings...you just resort to saying the falsified the evidence?

Ridiculous, to say the least.

 

[bucs90]

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!

Mr. Wilson wasn't charged because his was the only side presented for investigation.

But in the woman rape scenario I gave you...you said you wouldnt charge her...even though only her side can be told.

So which is it? Should a person always be presumed somewhat guilty when they kill someone in alleged self defense...since only their side of the story can be told?

 

[Sonny Clark]

It's been know to have happened. Are you saying that bias never enters into police cases?

Sure it has and will in the future, but there is nothing to indicate that in this particular case besides some angry black people.

I agree, nothing so far has come out about the tests not being correct. And, it may never come out. The tests may have been done on the up and up, who knows. Also, the witnesses may have been questioned at length for both sides, but we'll never know for sure because some witnesses were dismissed as liars. It was handled by people that had a dog in the fight. No outside independent sources, some witnesses dismissed, no word on the two construction workers that witnessed the actual shooting, and was on video the second it happened. So, can any of us be sure that everything was handled correctly, fairly, and above board?

Yes, I believe the officer's story. It aligns with the forensics evidence and other eye witness accounts (which are always questionable anyways, which is why we rely more on forensic physical evidence). Unless you can prove that the forensics experts are also corrupt, then you've got nothing at all to argue about here.

You're entitle to believe anything that you want to believe, that's your right, I respect that right.

Well, so are you, but what you are essentially doing is ignoring the very good physical evidence gleaned from several different autopsies to say that the police are corrupt. You have absolutely NO evidence to base your allegations on, except for the fact that you apparently have some disdain for police officers.

Unvalidated or Improper Forensic Science The Innocence Project

 

[bucs90]

51%? Where do you come up with that number? Link? You can't just pull numbers out of your butt . . .

You are pulling them out of your butt. "MOST police officers do ot do these things", you say. Really? Link? And, yes, 51% does mean most.

Theres no link...to incidents that dont occur.

There are 900, 000 cops in America. Even if there were 9, 000 Mike Brown incidents per year...almost 200 per week...that'd only be 1% of cops. And we DO NOT have 200 Mike Browns per week. We have...like 1-2 at most.

The Free Thought Project

READ READ READ READ

This means nothing. This is nothing but a website dedicated to people who hate the police. Lol. Who is responsible for the creation of this website? There is no "about us" available on this website. Not to mention, it in no way is an indictment of ALL or even MOST police officers. Lol. Silly.

The stories are true, they happen every single day. If you can dispute the stories, then by all means do so. If can prove they are fabricated, lies, and imagination, then please do so. That sites has new stories about bad cops every single day, hundreds of them. Of course, cop lovers are going to dispute the stories without any proof, just saying they are not representative is good enough. Try reading it each day and see how many cops are bad. I dare you. And, of course some of them aren't indicted, nor convicted, because most of the time cops get a free pass. How many cops are in our prisons? How much money has been paid out to settle claims against abusive cops? Dismiss it if you want, but hiding from facts doesn't change anything.

Hundreds per day? At 100 per day...that'd be 36, 500 in a year. Far too many.

But still less than 5% of all cops.

The math for cop hate...just doesnt add up.

As a group cops are among the least criminal and corrupt in our society.

 

[Sonny Clark]

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!

Unvalidated or Improper Forensic Science The Innocence Project

 

[JakeStarkey]

That's cute, very good. I have never ever said that police single out black people, never. Police abuse their power and authority with anyone they feel like it, regardless of skin color, nationality religion, or anything else. They do whatever they feel like doing to anyone that pleases them. In case you're curious or wondering, it's well documented. A couple of days ago on another thread on this forum, I listed a couple of dozen links to prove what I say about low-life social zero cops. You can love them and respect them all you want, it's your right, but don't expect those of us that know what they do to follow suit. We read the daily news and pay attention to what's going on in this country, especially on Main Street America. All of this didn't just start yesterday, it's been going on for many years now. They stories would fill a good size book. Do some research and then tell me how wonderful and great cops are. Tell me just how much they earn our respect.

Go read about the old men and old ladies they abuse and brutalize, go read about the children they molest and rape, go read about the stealing they do, the bribes they take, the false testimony they give in court, and the other wonderful things they do each and every day somewhere in this country.

Sorry, but you would be wrong. MOST police officers do not do these things.

Do you know that for a fact, or are you just assuming because you're pro-cop? How many do those things? How many don't do those things?

YOU are the one throwing about accusations. The burden of proof lies on you, not me. I am skeptical of your claims, as they are ridiculous . . . so how many do these things?

Your feelings are not evidence. The reports etc are evidence. You have to rebut. No one else has to do anything except point that out to you until you do.

The reports are subject to debate. What evidence was allowed? What witnesses were accepted? There was only one side of the story given, no one was alive to dispute it. The government's people did the testing and interviews. There were no videos, or witnesses to what took place inside the officer's vehicle.

So what, Sonny? What do you have in rebuttal. You need far more than questions.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Some are, some aren't. There have been many cases of tainted evidence, misread DNA tests, and other botched tests. And, again, who did the tests? Was it an independent outside source, or was it someone associated with or connect with the government?

So now, you are trying to say that the forensic experts are covering for the police? Good Lord. This belongs in the conspiracy theory section of the forum. Your conspiracy theories are worthless.

It's been know to have happened. Are you saying that bias never enters into police cases?

Sure it has and will in the future, but there is nothing to indicate that in this particular case besides some angry black people.

I agree, nothing so far has come out about the tests not being correct. And, it may never come out. The tests may have been done on the up and up, who knows. Also, the witnesses may have been questioned at length for both sides, but we'll never know for sure because some witnesses were dismissed as liars. It was handled by people that had a dog in the fight. No outside independent sources, some witnesses dismissed, no word on the two construction workers that witnessed the actual shooting, and was on video the second it happened. So, can any of us be sure that everything was handled correctly, fairly, and above board?

Yes, I believe the officer's story. It aligns with the forensics evidence and other eye witness accounts (which are always questionable anyways, which is why we rely more on forensic physical evidence). Unless you can prove that the forensics experts are also corrupt, then you've got nothing at all to argue about here.

Unvalidated or Improper Forensic Science The Innocence Project

 

[Sonny Clark]

Sorry, but you would be wrong. MOST police officers do not do these things.

Do you know that for a fact, or are you just assuming because you're pro-cop? How many do those things? How many don't do those things?

YOU are the one throwing about accusations. The burden of proof lies on you, not me. I am skeptical of your claims, as they are ridiculous . . . so how many do these things?

Your feelings are not evidence. The reports etc are evidence. You have to rebut. No one else has to do anything except point that out to you until you do.

The reports are subject to debate. What evidence was allowed? What witnesses were accepted? There was only one side of the story given, no one was alive to dispute it. The government's people did the testing and interviews. There were no videos, or witnesses to what took place inside the officer's vehicle.

So what, Sonny? What do you have in rebuttal. You need far more than questions.

Unvalidated or Improper Forensic Science The Innocence Project

 

[bucs90]

The DOJ really wanted to charge Wilson. Badly.

The evidence just doesnt exist...because he committed NO CRIME.

 

[Sonny Clark]

There was only one side of the story to investigate and prove

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.

The forensics evidence tells the story of what actually happened. Everything aligned with the officer's versions of events, including trajectory, blood spatter, gun powder burns, etc. There is absolutely no evidence of any corruption involved.

Unvalidated or Improper Forensic Science The Innocence Project

 

[Sonny Clark]

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!

Mr. Wilson wasn't charged because his was the only side presented for investigation.

But in the woman rape scenario I gave you...you said you wouldnt charge her...even though only her side can be told.

So which is it? Should a person always be presumed somewhat guilty when they kill someone in alleged self defense...since only their side of the story can be told?

It takes proof. You don't send someone to prison on "could've been", "might have been", "my gut feelings tell s me", "it's possible", "kinda believable", or anything other than hard rock solid undeniable, undisputable concrete evidence.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Wilson was blameless: that is the only vialbe conclusion to all of the evidence.

 

[bucs90]

Sonny...reposting the same link over and over is childish.

If your argument is that forensic science isnt perfect...well obviously. No science is. I fully support continued efforts to improve forensics and crime scene analysis. Always room to improve.

Doesnt make Darren Wilson guilty.