How are cops supposed to know if their attacker is armed or not?

[emilynghiem]

No,the lack of proper upbringing made that prevalent.
His father was a gang member,is it any wonder he turned out like he did?
If the cycle isnt broken this shit will continue to happen.
Nothing pisses me off more than to hear the dead criminals parents/parent blame the police when they are the ones to blame.
And if I hear "he was such a nice boy"one more time I'm gonna puke.

I already told you I think he was probably a punk. I didn't trust the investigation done by local police because they showed a callous disregard for the rights of the peaceful protestors, but I do trust the DOJ. Contrary to right wing rhetoric, they didn't have a vested interest in the results of the investigation. Bad parents are a terrible problem, and I don't have any more idea how to completely solve that problem than you do, but cops are hired to deal fairly with everybody. It's their job. They aren't allowed to abuse their power just because it is a hard job.

When you attack a cop you forfeit your rights to a trial.
Deal with it in the courtroom not on the street.

So now the cop is judge, jury, and executioner? I believe most cops are probably good, but I'm not naïve enough to think more than a few aren't. With the power given to them, they should be held to a higher standard than others.

No, Michael Brown served as his own judge when he disobeyed a lawful order AND attact the officer doing his job.

Would you allow your own death for a paycheck?

Whether or not he actually attacked the officer is a matter of debate. Some witnesses says no, some say yes. There's no video to prove one way or the other.

Hi Sonny Clark
1. Yes and I see your point you are trying to make, that this leaves too much room for abusing the benefit of the doubt, where nobody will know what happened.
The same is true when there is domestic violence, and you cannot tell what happened because the only witness is dead, like with Jodi Arias and Travis Alexander.
So unfortunately this can lead to getting off the hook if there is doubt.
The Victims' rights groups have long argued the Criminal Justice system protects the criminals
and doesn't defend the victims of crimes.
And you are adding to that the fact that police and govt have "more immunity" and can too easily abuse that power.

2. Again, when there is not proof one way or another,
that is where we can either argue in circles or focus on PREVENTION.
That is more likely where we can agree -- that all sides want to PREVENT confrontations where
both parties don't know each other and get defensive thinking the other is attacking them.

The best bet is not to go there at all, never let this happen. Take all precautions,
agree on training and steps so everyone knows what to expect and what to do
so it is clear both the citizens and police are following protocol and have no criminal or abusive intent.

3. On that note, there are as many videos out showing the
officers TRYING to follow protocol (like you said Sonny, to call for backup or use tasers and not force)
and they got attacked or shot and killed by a criminal TAKING ADVANTAGE.

You can be right, but you can be dead.
So the only way to stop the criminals from playing along just so they can kill the cop
is to screen the problems out in advance. Make sure cops and community members know
and respect each other so there is no guessing game going on with who is a problem or threat.

4. As for what you said about the cops "not incriminating themselves"
this goes for the rapists and murderers also who aren't required to incriminate themselves.

What I suggest is using a restorative justice system that REWARDS people for telling the truth
and cooperating with authorities to establish what happened, assess the damages and agree to meaningful restitution.

I'd even suggest to reserve the death penalty for those who refuse to cooperate at all but are found guilty
(while criminally ill should be required to undergo treatment within detention if they are not safe for society)
and if criminals want to serve their time in the US they must cooperate fully especially to get their defense paid for. And if they are caught lying or withholding information, they can lose their citizenship and be deported to work in a prison outside the border and trade places with immigrants on the waiting list, willing to work as guest residents, for the length of the sentence, either 10, 20 years etc. or for life.

So there could be incentive placed on admitting what happened and working transparently with authorities.
Where if it turns out information was withheld the person can lose their citizenship.

With govt officials we may have to make it where if parties abuse corporate conflicts of interest to cover up wrongs, the whole party can lose ability to run for that office and be grounded for an election cycle.
In proportion to the collective influence the group has, there could be collective punishment.
So if you want individual accountability, there can't be class immunity just because that person is
a cop or a Republican or a Democrat and expect to get a free ride from the group that benefits.

There is a whole issue of collective authority being abused, and the conflicts of interest.

Sonny that is a SEPARATE issue from the guilt or innocence of the individual that is not clear in this case without evidence.

As for the conflicts of interest with abusing authority and immunity,
we have to address the whole approach to the system and can't expect to fix that case by case.
You are looking at systemic issues, those are critical but can't be taken on by nitpicking cases apart.

I will try to find the video links to police getting attacked and killed because they followed protocol.
That may be the correct procedure, but it means they are dead when the criminal didn't agree to follow it too.

 

[emilynghiem]

No,the lack of proper upbringing made that prevalent.
His father was a gang member,is it any wonder he turned out like he did?
If the cycle isnt broken this shit will continue to happen.
Nothing pisses me off more than to hear the dead criminals parents/parent blame the police when they are the ones to blame.
And if I hear "he was such a nice boy"one more time I'm gonna puke.

I already told you I think he was probably a punk. I didn't trust the investigation done by local police because they showed a callous disregard for the rights of the peaceful protestors, but I do trust the DOJ. Contrary to right wing rhetoric, they didn't have a vested interest in the results of the investigation. Bad parents are a terrible problem, and I don't have any more idea how to completely solve that problem than you do, but cops are hired to deal fairly with everybody. It's their job. They aren't allowed to abuse their power just because it is a hard job.

When you attack a cop you forfeit your rights to a trial.
Deal with it in the courtroom not on the street.

Cops are trained to defend themselves. They carry pepper spray, tasers, batons, maze, MagLites ( heavy flashlights ), and they have radios to call for help.

I know what a maglight is,I have four or five of em. And I dont give a rats ass how much training you may have a 300 lb dude is most likely going to kick your ass unless you're a MMA fighter.

What about calling for back up? Pepper spray? Mace? Get back in patrol car and follow until back up arrived?

VIDEO POLICE OFFICER BEATEN TO A PULP... - Law Enforcement Today Facebook

 

[ScienceRocks]

The black community believes it should be able to do anything it damn well pleases. What they don't understand is the reality that they're the ones fucking themselves. Fucking themselves out of everything society otherwise would set in place for them.

Dumb.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Was it really that important for him to be dead right then? The town isn't that big. Cops would have easily rounded him up even if it took a day or two to do it.

So who's to say MB wouldnt go out and kill someone in the meantime?
MB is responsible for his own death.

His history didn't indicate he was more likely than anyone else to kill anyone

He attacked a cop.

But, the cop is the only one that gave his side of the story. The other person is dead and can't dispute what the cop said.

Of course only one side can.

Who was doing the shooting? Who was the one trying to do the killing?

Until the cop could search the perp, especially after the perp assaulted him, he would assume the perp, as the Attorney General concurred, was coming back to inflict either death, or at a minimum, serious bodily injury (which can result in long term impairment and/or death).

Why would you allow that for the pay of a small city paycheck?

So the cops says. Other eye witness accounts differ greatly.

We've heard hat over and over and over. Yet most of those that disagree also have stories that the physical evidence destroys.

Who examined the evidence? The law investigating the law? One law agency investigating another? Pleeeeease. They discounted the witnesses that didn't fit their defense of the cop. It was all made public for weeks. What about the two construction workers that responded immediately after the shots were fired? They didn't have their account included, and it was on video when they reacted to the shots.

What is amazing is that you seem to discount a governmental agency with experts that have studied forensics.

That agency has state of the art technology and science. All that backed up the evidence of several autopsies that all backed up wilsons account.

And the only argument is. You don't trust the man?

What science? What technology? What forensics? It was only gun shots and witnesses. No video of the actually shooting, no dispute as to who the victim was and who the shooters was. And, no, I do NOT trust any government agency. Even the FBI DNA lab has been wrong before.

 

[Sonny Clark]

I already told you I think he was probably a punk. I didn't trust the investigation done by local police because they showed a callous disregard for the rights of the peaceful protestors, but I do trust the DOJ. Contrary to right wing rhetoric, they didn't have a vested interest in the results of the investigation. Bad parents are a terrible problem, and I don't have any more idea how to completely solve that problem than you do, but cops are hired to deal fairly with everybody. It's their job. They aren't allowed to abuse their power just because it is a hard job.

When you attack a cop you forfeit your rights to a trial.
Deal with it in the courtroom not on the street.

Cops are trained to defend themselves. They carry pepper spray, tasers, batons, maze, MagLites ( heavy flashlights ), and they have radios to call for help.

I know what a maglight is,I have four or five of em. And I dont give a rats ass how much training you may have a 300 lb dude is most likely going to kick your ass unless you're a MMA fighter.

What about calling for back up? Pepper spray? Mace? Get back in patrol car and follow until back up arrived?

VIDEO POLICE OFFICER BEATEN TO A PULP... - Law Enforcement Today Facebook

Metro Atlanta police officer shoots kills naked unarmed man - CNN.com

 

[Sonny Clark]

I already told you I think he was probably a punk. I didn't trust the investigation done by local police because they showed a callous disregard for the rights of the peaceful protestors, but I do trust the DOJ. Contrary to right wing rhetoric, they didn't have a vested interest in the results of the investigation. Bad parents are a terrible problem, and I don't have any more idea how to completely solve that problem than you do, but cops are hired to deal fairly with everybody. It's their job. They aren't allowed to abuse their power just because it is a hard job.

When you attack a cop you forfeit your rights to a trial.
Deal with it in the courtroom not on the street.

Cops are trained to defend themselves. They carry pepper spray, tasers, batons, maze, MagLites ( heavy flashlights ), and they have radios to call for help.

I know what a maglight is,I have four or five of em. And I dont give a rats ass how much training you may have a 300 lb dude is most likely going to kick your ass unless you're a MMA fighter.

What about calling for back up? Pepper spray? Mace? Get back in patrol car and follow until back up arrived?

VIDEO POLICE OFFICER BEATEN TO A PULP... - Law Enforcement Today Facebook

What goes around, comes around. How many videos do you have where 6 or 7 cops are beating a person already handcuffed and on the ground? How many videos do you have showing cops ganging up on one individual and kicking, beating, and tasing them while they're already handcuffed and on the ground? Why not be fait here and show both sides? Go to my Facebook page ( Sonny Clark ) and scroll down the page and see how many videos you see of cop brutality, rape, child molestation, and other deeds. Be fair, show both sides of the issue. I just posted for you a link to last nights news here in Atlanta of another cop killing an unarmed man, which was a mentally disturbed man, naked.

 

[Pop23]

So who's to say MB wouldnt go out and kill someone in the meantime?
MB is responsible for his own death.

His history didn't indicate he was more likely than anyone else to kill anyone

He attacked a cop.

But, the cop is the only one that gave his side of the story. The other person is dead and can't dispute what the cop said.

Of course only one side can.

Until the cop could search the perp, especially after the perp assaulted him, he would assume the perp, as the Attorney General concurred, was coming back to inflict either death, or at a minimum, serious bodily injury (which can result in long term impairment and/or death).

Why would you allow that for the pay of a small city paycheck?

So the cops says. Other eye witness accounts differ greatly.

We've heard hat over and over and over. Yet most of those that disagree also have stories that the physical evidence destroys.

Who examined the evidence? The law investigating the law? One law agency investigating another? Pleeeeease. They discounted the witnesses that didn't fit their defense of the cop. It was all made public for weeks. What about the two construction workers that responded immediately after the shots were fired? They didn't have their account included, and it was on video when they reacted to the shots.

What is amazing is that you seem to discount a governmental agency with experts that have studied forensics.

That agency has state of the art technology and science. All that backed up the evidence of several autopsies that all backed up wilsons account.

And the only argument is. You don't trust the man?

What science? What technology? What forensics? It was only gun shots and witnesses. No video of the actually shooting, no dispute as to who the victim was and who the shooters was. And, no, I do NOT trust any government agency. Even the FBI DNA lab has been wrong before.

Good Lord

More than one autopsy was performed. What science? All in agreement and all backed up Wilsons story. None of them backing up the stories of those witnesses that you put you're faith in.

This administration put its nose somewhere that it didn't belong. It had every resource available to produce a finding that would back up their original opinion but could not.

The power and money of the United State Justice department found that the shooting was as reported by Wilson, and yet this is not good enough for the few.

 

[Sonny Clark]

His history didn't indicate he was more likely than anyone else to kill anyone

He attacked a cop.

But, the cop is the only one that gave his side of the story. The other person is dead and can't dispute what the cop said.

Of course only one side can.

So the cops says. Other eye witness accounts differ greatly.

We've heard hat over and over and over. Yet most of those that disagree also have stories that the physical evidence destroys.

Who examined the evidence? The law investigating the law? One law agency investigating another? Pleeeeease. They discounted the witnesses that didn't fit their defense of the cop. It was all made public for weeks. What about the two construction workers that responded immediately after the shots were fired? They didn't have their account included, and it was on video when they reacted to the shots.

What is amazing is that you seem to discount a governmental agency with experts that have studied forensics.

That agency has state of the art technology and science. All that backed up the evidence of several autopsies that all backed up wilsons account.

And the only argument is. You don't trust the man?

What science? What technology? What forensics? It was only gun shots and witnesses. No video of the actually shooting, no dispute as to who the victim was and who the shooters was. And, no, I do NOT trust any government agency. Even the FBI DNA lab has been wrong before.

Good Lord

More than one autopsy was performed. What science? All in agreement and all backed up Wilsons story. None of them backing up the stories of those witnesses that you put you're faith in.

This administration put its nose somewhere that it didn't belong. It had every resource available to produce a finding that would back up their original opinion but could not.

The power and money of the United State Justice department found that the shooting was as reported by Wilson, and yet this is not good enough for the few.

What was there to examine? What did they test for? There was never a doubt as to who the victim was and who the shooter was. What to examine? All they did was take the word of a cop over a silent dead man, and through out the witnesses that differed from the cops account of what happened. Where's the dead man's side to test and examine?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

He attacked a cop.

But, the cop is the only one that gave his side of the story. The other person is dead and can't dispute what the cop said.

Of course only one side can.

We've heard hat over and over and over. Yet most of those that disagree also have stories that the physical evidence destroys.

Who examined the evidence? The law investigating the law? One law agency investigating another? Pleeeeease. They discounted the witnesses that didn't fit their defense of the cop. It was all made public for weeks. What about the two construction workers that responded immediately after the shots were fired? They didn't have their account included, and it was on video when they reacted to the shots.

What is amazing is that you seem to discount a governmental agency with experts that have studied forensics.

That agency has state of the art technology and science. All that backed up the evidence of several autopsies that all backed up wilsons account.

And the only argument is. You don't trust the man?

What science? What technology? What forensics? It was only gun shots and witnesses. No video of the actually shooting, no dispute as to who the victim was and who the shooters was. And, no, I do NOT trust any government agency. Even the FBI DNA lab has been wrong before.

Good Lord

More than one autopsy was performed. What science? All in agreement and all backed up Wilsons story. None of them backing up the stories of those witnesses that you put you're faith in.

This administration put its nose somewhere that it didn't belong. It had every resource available to produce a finding that would back up their original opinion but could not.

The power and money of the United State Justice department found that the shooting was as reported by Wilson, and yet this is not good enough for the few.

What was there to examine? What did they test for? There was never a doubt as to who the victim was and who the shooter was. What to examine? All they did was take the word of a cop over a silent dead man, and through out the witnesses that differed from the cops account of what happened. Where's the dead man's side to test and examine?

It proved he was not shot in the back,as your so called witnesses claimed.
And it also proved he didnt have his hands up,which your so called witnesses claimed.
It also proved he was shot at extremely close range with one shot supporting officer Wilsons claim that MB was trying to take Wilsons pistol.

 

[Sonny Clark]

But, the cop is the only one that gave his side of the story. The other person is dead and can't dispute what the cop said.

Of course only one side can.

Who examined the evidence? The law investigating the law? One law agency investigating another? Pleeeeease. They discounted the witnesses that didn't fit their defense of the cop. It was all made public for weeks. What about the two construction workers that responded immediately after the shots were fired? They didn't have their account included, and it was on video when they reacted to the shots.

What is amazing is that you seem to discount a governmental agency with experts that have studied forensics.

That agency has state of the art technology and science. All that backed up the evidence of several autopsies that all backed up wilsons account.

And the only argument is. You don't trust the man?

What science? What technology? What forensics? It was only gun shots and witnesses. No video of the actually shooting, no dispute as to who the victim was and who the shooters was. And, no, I do NOT trust any government agency. Even the FBI DNA lab has been wrong before.

Good Lord

More than one autopsy was performed. What science? All in agreement and all backed up Wilsons story. None of them backing up the stories of those witnesses that you put you're faith in.

This administration put its nose somewhere that it didn't belong. It had every resource available to produce a finding that would back up their original opinion but could not.

The power and money of the United State Justice department found that the shooting was as reported by Wilson, and yet this is not good enough for the few.

What was there to examine? What did they test for? There was never a doubt as to who the victim was and who the shooter was. What to examine? All they did was take the word of a cop over a silent dead man, and through out the witnesses that differed from the cops account of what happened. Where's the dead man's side to test and examine?

It proved he was not shot in the back,as your so called witnesses claimed.
And it also proved he didnt have his hands up,which your so called witnesses claimed.
It also proved he was shot at extremely close range with one shot supporting officer Wilsons claim that MB was trying to take Wilsons pistol.

FYI - I did NOT have any witnesses. And, of course everything supported the cops side. His was the only side given. The other side was dead and couldn't give an account to examine. Yes, one law enforcement agency investigating another law enforcement agency will produce the truth every single time, you think?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Of course only one side can.
What is amazing is that you seem to discount a governmental agency with experts that have studied forensics.

That agency has state of the art technology and science. All that backed up the evidence of several autopsies that all backed up wilsons account.

And the only argument is. You don't trust the man?

What science? What technology? What forensics? It was only gun shots and witnesses. No video of the actually shooting, no dispute as to who the victim was and who the shooters was. And, no, I do NOT trust any government agency. Even the FBI DNA lab has been wrong before.

Good Lord

More than one autopsy was performed. What science? All in agreement and all backed up Wilsons story. None of them backing up the stories of those witnesses that you put you're faith in.

This administration put its nose somewhere that it didn't belong. It had every resource available to produce a finding that would back up their original opinion but could not.

The power and money of the United State Justice department found that the shooting was as reported by Wilson, and yet this is not good enough for the few.

What was there to examine? What did they test for? There was never a doubt as to who the victim was and who the shooter was. What to examine? All they did was take the word of a cop over a silent dead man, and through out the witnesses that differed from the cops account of what happened. Where's the dead man's side to test and examine?

It proved he was not shot in the back,as your so called witnesses claimed.
And it also proved he didnt have his hands up,which your so called witnesses claimed.
It also proved he was shot at extremely close range with one shot supporting officer Wilsons claim that MB was trying to take Wilsons pistol.

FYI - I did NOT have any witnesses. And, of course everything supported the cops side. His was the only side given. The other side was dead and couldn't give an account to examine. Yes, one law enforcement agency investigating another law enforcement agency will produce the truth every single time, you think?

So now you want to ignore the multiple autopsy results that back up Wilsons side?

 

[Pop23]

He attacked a cop.

But, the cop is the only one that gave his side of the story. The other person is dead and can't dispute what the cop said.

Of course only one side can.

We've heard hat over and over and over. Yet most of those that disagree also have stories that the physical evidence destroys.

Who examined the evidence? The law investigating the law? One law agency investigating another? Pleeeeease. They discounted the witnesses that didn't fit their defense of the cop. It was all made public for weeks. What about the two construction workers that responded immediately after the shots were fired? They didn't have their account included, and it was on video when they reacted to the shots.

What is amazing is that you seem to discount a governmental agency with experts that have studied forensics.

That agency has state of the art technology and science. All that backed up the evidence of several autopsies that all backed up wilsons account.

And the only argument is. You don't trust the man?

What science? What technology? What forensics? It was only gun shots and witnesses. No video of the actually shooting, no dispute as to who the victim was and who the shooters was. And, no, I do NOT trust any government agency. Even the FBI DNA lab has been wrong before.

Good Lord

More than one autopsy was performed. What science? All in agreement and all backed up Wilsons story. None of them backing up the stories of those witnesses that you put you're faith in.

This administration put its nose somewhere that it didn't belong. It had every resource available to produce a finding that would back up their original opinion but could not.

The power and money of the United State Justice department found that the shooting was as reported by Wilson, and yet this is not good enough for the few.

What was there to examine? What did they test for? There was never a doubt as to who the victim was and who the shooter was. What to examine? All they did was take the word of a cop over a silent dead man, and through out the witnesses that differed from the cops account of what happened. Where's the dead man's side to test and examine?

There was a body. The body, entrance and exit wounds would tell you which witness stories to believe and which to not.

Where's the mans side of the story? Had he submitted to a lawful order, he could tell it himself.

 

[Sonny Clark]

What science? What technology? What forensics? It was only gun shots and witnesses. No video of the actually shooting, no dispute as to who the victim was and who the shooters was. And, no, I do NOT trust any government agency. Even the FBI DNA lab has been wrong before.

Good Lord

More than one autopsy was performed. What science? All in agreement and all backed up Wilsons story. None of them backing up the stories of those witnesses that you put you're faith in.

This administration put its nose somewhere that it didn't belong. It had every resource available to produce a finding that would back up their original opinion but could not.

The power and money of the United State Justice department found that the shooting was as reported by Wilson, and yet this is not good enough for the few.

What was there to examine? What did they test for? There was never a doubt as to who the victim was and who the shooter was. What to examine? All they did was take the word of a cop over a silent dead man, and through out the witnesses that differed from the cops account of what happened. Where's the dead man's side to test and examine?

It proved he was not shot in the back,as your so called witnesses claimed.
And it also proved he didnt have his hands up,which your so called witnesses claimed.
It also proved he was shot at extremely close range with one shot supporting officer Wilsons claim that MB was trying to take Wilsons pistol.

FYI - I did NOT have any witnesses. And, of course everything supported the cops side. His was the only side given. The other side was dead and couldn't give an account to examine. Yes, one law enforcement agency investigating another law enforcement agency will produce the truth every single time, you think?

So now you want to ignore the multiple autopsy results that back up Wilsons side?

There was nothing to back up. There was nothing to examine. There were no opposing sides to dispute. There was nothing to say that the only account given wasn't correct. They had nothing to look for other than cause of death and the number of injuries. What else do you believe they were looking for in the examines?

 

[WinterBorn]

Who says he has to be armed? A cop in Atlanta shot a naked man yesterday. Not much chance he was concealing a weapon.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Good Lord

More than one autopsy was performed. What science? All in agreement and all backed up Wilsons story. None of them backing up the stories of those witnesses that you put you're faith in.

This administration put its nose somewhere that it didn't belong. It had every resource available to produce a finding that would back up their original opinion but could not.

The power and money of the United State Justice department found that the shooting was as reported by Wilson, and yet this is not good enough for the few.

What was there to examine? What did they test for? There was never a doubt as to who the victim was and who the shooter was. What to examine? All they did was take the word of a cop over a silent dead man, and through out the witnesses that differed from the cops account of what happened. Where's the dead man's side to test and examine?

It proved he was not shot in the back,as your so called witnesses claimed.
And it also proved he didnt have his hands up,which your so called witnesses claimed.
It also proved he was shot at extremely close range with one shot supporting officer Wilsons claim that MB was trying to take Wilsons pistol.

FYI - I did NOT have any witnesses. And, of course everything supported the cops side. His was the only side given. The other side was dead and couldn't give an account to examine. Yes, one law enforcement agency investigating another law enforcement agency will produce the truth every single time, you think?

So now you want to ignore the multiple autopsy results that back up Wilsons side?

There was nothing to back up. There was nothing to examine. There were no opposing sides to dispute. There was nothing to say that the only account given wasn't correct. They had nothing to look for other than cause of death and the number of injuries. What else do you believe they were looking for in the examines?

What do you mean there was nothing to back up?
The autopsy results supported Wilsons testimony and shot down those so called witnesses who said MB had his hands up and that he was shot in the back.
They also showed MB was shot at very close range supporting Wilsons claim that MB went for his gun.
Your claim that this proves nothing pure idiocy.
Do you happen to be black by any chance?

 

[Sonny Clark]

But, the cop is the only one that gave his side of the story. The other person is dead and can't dispute what the cop said.

Of course only one side can.

Who examined the evidence? The law investigating the law? One law agency investigating another? Pleeeeease. They discounted the witnesses that didn't fit their defense of the cop. It was all made public for weeks. What about the two construction workers that responded immediately after the shots were fired? They didn't have their account included, and it was on video when they reacted to the shots.

What is amazing is that you seem to discount a governmental agency with experts that have studied forensics.

That agency has state of the art technology and science. All that backed up the evidence of several autopsies that all backed up wilsons account.

And the only argument is. You don't trust the man?

What science? What technology? What forensics? It was only gun shots and witnesses. No video of the actually shooting, no dispute as to who the victim was and who the shooters was. And, no, I do NOT trust any government agency. Even the FBI DNA lab has been wrong before.

Good Lord

More than one autopsy was performed. What science? All in agreement and all backed up Wilsons story. None of them backing up the stories of those witnesses that you put you're faith in.

This administration put its nose somewhere that it didn't belong. It had every resource available to produce a finding that would back up their original opinion but could not.

The power and money of the United State Justice department found that the shooting was as reported by Wilson, and yet this is not good enough for the few.

What was there to examine? What did they test for? There was never a doubt as to who the victim was and who the shooter was. What to examine? All they did was take the word of a cop over a silent dead man, and through out the witnesses that differed from the cops account of what happened. Where's the dead man's side to test and examine?

There was a body. The body, entrance and exit wounds would tell you which witness stories to believe and which to not.

Where's the mans side of the story? Had he submitted to a lawful order, he could tell it himself.

Entry and exist wounds do NOT tell the story of what happened. They only tell what happened during the actual firing of the weapon, nothing more. Those wounds tell what happened as the cop was shooting, nothing more. It doesn't tell the circumstances, the words spoken, the attitude of either party, the situation that caused it to occur, nor the actual threat, if there was one. Or, can you provide evidence to dispute that also?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Of course only one side can.
What is amazing is that you seem to discount a governmental agency with experts that have studied forensics.

That agency has state of the art technology and science. All that backed up the evidence of several autopsies that all backed up wilsons account.

And the only argument is. You don't trust the man?

What science? What technology? What forensics? It was only gun shots and witnesses. No video of the actually shooting, no dispute as to who the victim was and who the shooters was. And, no, I do NOT trust any government agency. Even the FBI DNA lab has been wrong before.

Good Lord

More than one autopsy was performed. What science? All in agreement and all backed up Wilsons story. None of them backing up the stories of those witnesses that you put you're faith in.

This administration put its nose somewhere that it didn't belong. It had every resource available to produce a finding that would back up their original opinion but could not.

The power and money of the United State Justice department found that the shooting was as reported by Wilson, and yet this is not good enough for the few.

What was there to examine? What did they test for? There was never a doubt as to who the victim was and who the shooter was. What to examine? All they did was take the word of a cop over a silent dead man, and through out the witnesses that differed from the cops account of what happened. Where's the dead man's side to test and examine?

There was a body. The body, entrance and exit wounds would tell you which witness stories to believe and which to not.

Where's the mans side of the story? Had he submitted to a lawful order, he could tell it himself.

Entry and exist wounds do NOT tell the story of what happened. They only tell what happened during the actual firing of the weapon, nothing more. Those wounds tell what happened as the cop was shooting, nothing more. It doesn't tell the circumstances, the words spoken, the attitude of either party, the situation that caused it to occur, nor the actual threat, if there was one. Or, can you provide evidence to dispute that also?

Do you understand why MB received a GSW to the top of his head?

 

[Sonny Clark]

What was there to examine? What did they test for? There was never a doubt as to who the victim was and who the shooter was. What to examine? All they did was take the word of a cop over a silent dead man, and through out the witnesses that differed from the cops account of what happened. Where's the dead man's side to test and examine?

It proved he was not shot in the back,as your so called witnesses claimed.
And it also proved he didnt have his hands up,which your so called witnesses claimed.
It also proved he was shot at extremely close range with one shot supporting officer Wilsons claim that MB was trying to take Wilsons pistol.

FYI - I did NOT have any witnesses. And, of course everything supported the cops side. His was the only side given. The other side was dead and couldn't give an account to examine. Yes, one law enforcement agency investigating another law enforcement agency will produce the truth every single time, you think?

So now you want to ignore the multiple autopsy results that back up Wilsons side?

There was nothing to back up. There was nothing to examine. There were no opposing sides to dispute. There was nothing to say that the only account given wasn't correct. They had nothing to look for other than cause of death and the number of injuries. What else do you believe they were looking for in the examines?

What do you mean there was nothing to back up?
The autopsy results supported Wilsons testimony and shot down those so called witnesses who said MB had his hands up and that he was shot in the back.
They also showed MB was shot at very close range supporting Wilsons claim that MB went for his gun.
Your claim that this proves nothing pure idiocy.
Do you happen to be black by any chance?

No, I'm NOT black. The reports show the results of the shooting, nothing more. The reports show distance, entry and exit wounds, and possible angle and position of both parties. The reports do not show cause, circumstance, words spoken, whether an attack was threatened, whether an actual "charge" was in progress, nor if any other means could've been used to control the situation. Witnesses were cherry picked. Some witnesses lied. Some witnesses were ignored. There was no video. The cop's word is the only actual account to be examined.

 

[Sonny Clark]

What science? What technology? What forensics? It was only gun shots and witnesses. No video of the actually shooting, no dispute as to who the victim was and who the shooters was. And, no, I do NOT trust any government agency. Even the FBI DNA lab has been wrong before.

Good Lord

More than one autopsy was performed. What science? All in agreement and all backed up Wilsons story. None of them backing up the stories of those witnesses that you put you're faith in.

This administration put its nose somewhere that it didn't belong. It had every resource available to produce a finding that would back up their original opinion but could not.

The power and money of the United State Justice department found that the shooting was as reported by Wilson, and yet this is not good enough for the few.

What was there to examine? What did they test for? There was never a doubt as to who the victim was and who the shooter was. What to examine? All they did was take the word of a cop over a silent dead man, and through out the witnesses that differed from the cops account of what happened. Where's the dead man's side to test and examine?

There was a body. The body, entrance and exit wounds would tell you which witness stories to believe and which to not.

Where's the mans side of the story? Had he submitted to a lawful order, he could tell it himself.

Entry and exist wounds do NOT tell the story of what happened. They only tell what happened during the actual firing of the weapon, nothing more. Those wounds tell what happened as the cop was shooting, nothing more. It doesn't tell the circumstances, the words spoken, the attitude of either party, the situation that caused it to occur, nor the actual threat, if there was one. Or, can you provide evidence to dispute that also?

Do you understand why MB received a GSW to the top of his head?

Why? Do tell your version. Could it be because he was bent over, on his way down to the pavement after receiving other gun shots? Could it be the results od extreme pain caused by previous gun shots? You tell me what you know for a fact, to be fact and not opinion.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

It proved he was not shot in the back,as your so called witnesses claimed.
And it also proved he didnt have his hands up,which your so called witnesses claimed.
It also proved he was shot at extremely close range with one shot supporting officer Wilsons claim that MB was trying to take Wilsons pistol.

FYI - I did NOT have any witnesses. And, of course everything supported the cops side. His was the only side given. The other side was dead and couldn't give an account to examine. Yes, one law enforcement agency investigating another law enforcement agency will produce the truth every single time, you think?

So now you want to ignore the multiple autopsy results that back up Wilsons side?

There was nothing to back up. There was nothing to examine. There were no opposing sides to dispute. There was nothing to say that the only account given wasn't correct. They had nothing to look for other than cause of death and the number of injuries. What else do you believe they were looking for in the examines?

What do you mean there was nothing to back up?
The autopsy results supported Wilsons testimony and shot down those so called witnesses who said MB had his hands up and that he was shot in the back.
They also showed MB was shot at very close range supporting Wilsons claim that MB went for his gun.
Your claim that this proves nothing pure idiocy.
Do you happen to be black by any chance?

No, I'm NOT black. The reports show the results of the shooting, nothing more. The reports show distance, entry and exit wounds, and possible angle and position of both parties. The reports do not show cause, circumstance, words spoken, whether an attack was threatened, whether an actual "charge" was in progress, nor if any other means could've been used to control the situation. Witnesses were cherry picked. Some witnesses lied. Some witnesses were ignored. There was no video. The cop's word is the only actual account to be examined.

So why was MBs blood found inside of Wilsons Patrol vehicle?
You keep trying to claim the autopsy results dont tell us anything which is complete bullshit when you combine it with the rest of forensic evidence.