Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I've dealt with you before, ravi, and I'm not a bit surprised that you don't understand what's going on.I didn't see where the tweeter said Brown was shot in the back....
The tweeter didn't say that, though. Whoever wrote the story was incorrect.I've dealt with you before, ravi, and I'm not a bit surprised that you don't understand what's going on.
Here..the first sentence after the link he provided....
A Ferguson, MO man live-tweeted the shooting death of Michael Brown last Saturday with a raw account that contradicts what police reported to the media — Brown was shot twice in the back and five times in the front, according to the witness’ tweets.
Go back and read the story again.
I've dealt with you before, ravi, and I'm not a bit surprised that you don't understand what's going on.
Here..the first sentence after the link he provided....
A Ferguson, MO man live-tweeted the shooting death of Michael Brown last Saturday with a raw account that contradicts what police reported to the media — Brown was shot twice in the back and five times in the front, according to the witness’ tweets.
Go back and read the story again.
Brown was shot twice in the back and five times in the front, according to the witness’ tweets.The tweeter didn't say that, though. Whoever wrote the story was incorrect.
The tweeter said he was shot while running away, or something similar. Which is consistent with the autopsy report that found that the grazed arm shot could have been from behind.
Not sure who you are but you are none too bright.
So you are more concerned with an article writer's false interpretation of these tweets than you are the actual tweets?
Are you stupid?
Yet the witnesses tweets don't say that. Like I said, whoever wrote the article was wrong.Brown was shot twice in the back and five times in the front, according to the witness’ tweets.
The guy was tweeting live as it happened. .
So you are more concerned with an article writer's false interpretation
The guy was tweeting live as it happened.
the op evidently isn't concerned he's SPREADING a lie though.
It hasn't been concluded it was a Murder
Cops only have one option for dealing with an unarmed person? Don't they have batons, tear gas on their belts, tasers on their belts. Don't they have any training at all?
Short of all that, is a lethal shot the only way to take down someone?
He is going to bitterly cling to the author's false interpretation because it's all he's got.Yet the witnesses tweets don't say that. Like I said, whoever wrote the article was wrong.
No, but it was made by someone impartial before all hell broke loose.That doesn't automatically make it accurate or factual. Eye witness testimony is frequently unreliable.
Were you there?
Exactly, nothing has been concluded, so why are you accusing the OP of spreading a lie?
I didn't call it murder. Although it may be. It certainly rises to manslaughter and unlawful death.
It certainly isn't self-defense, and Dr. Baden confirmed that by stating there were no signs of residue on Brown from the gun, meaning it was fired from more than 3 feet away from Brown. Which confirms the eyewitness stories.
Yeah you did. Why lie? Your op said murder, the link says shooting.I didn't call it murder. Although it may be. It certainly rises to manslaughter and unlawful death.
It certainly isn't self-defense, and Dr. Baden confirmed that by stating there were no signs of residue on Brown from the gun, meaning it was fired from more than 3 feet away from Brown. Which confirms the eyewitness stories.
Yeah he was running, but he was running at the cop not away from.What is with the Big Lebowski references? 'Dude' was not shot in the back. He was not running.
