Just read Wilson's testimony to the grand jury....WOW!

[Geaux4it]

Without a cross examination the testimony is biased. The GJ were not lawyers. They were not forensic experts. They were given one side of the story only. There are way too many questions that would have been answered in a genuine trial.

Um, dumb questions perhaps

-Geaux

 

[ricechickie]

Grand Jury Volume 5

Beginning on page 195. He was in a battle with Brown!

That's what he says. And we all know cops don't lie.

Why is the dead punk automatically given the benefit of a doubt while the cop is flogged and put to the rack? There's something very wrong with the priorities here.

Maybe because the cop has a lot to gain to tell the story in a way that reflects best on him.

And if the way he told the story was the way it actually happened?

Then he committed suicide by cop. Brown, that is. And I accept that he might have, because that is the only way that Wilson's story makes sense.

 

[Geaux4it]

Grand Jury Volume 5

Beginning on page 195. He was in a battle with Brown!

That's what he says. And we all know cops don't lie.

Why is the dead punk automatically given the benefit of a doubt while the cop is flogged and put to the rack? There's something very wrong with the priorities here.

Maybe because the cop has a lot to gain to tell the story in a way that reflects best on him.

And if the way he told the story was the way it actually happened?

Then he committed suicide by cop. Brown, that is. And I accept that he might have, because that is the only way that Wilson's story makes sense.

Actually, many of LEO kills on thugs are essentially, suicide by cop. I mean, the outcome was predictable

-Geaux

 

[Pop23]

Guess this requires a link to where I have lied.

Provide or apologies.

I actually doubt you provide either

Didn't say you lied, I said that you have a dubious reputation when it comes to the truth.

But let's just put your reputation to the test since you appear to have some doubts.

Which of the following statements are true?

1. Michael Brown was walking in the middle of the street
2. Michael Brown was carrying the cigarellos
3. Michael Brown robbed the convenience store
4. Michael Brown was shot and killed by Officer Wilson

1 true
2 I heard a different brand, but OK
3 actually a shoplifting I believe. My opinion, done in strong arm fashion
4 Sure

Next:

How much wood could a woodchuck chuck.........,

Thank you for proving my point about your dubious reputation when it comes to the truth.

San Francisco Bay View Mike Brown appears to have paid for those cigars

Video evidence proving that MB paid for the cigarillos in that link. The altercation was not a "strong arm shoplifting" and the shopkeeper did not call the cops.

You were gullible enough to believe only what you wanted to believe about MB. That is why you have a dubious reputation when it comes to the truth.

Have a nice day.

You poor dear:

We have no idea why some people think this video shows Mike Brown PAYING for his cigarrillos The Right Scoop -

And what was the testimony of Browns partner in crime? It's in the link, check it out fer yourself.

Things that make you say hmmmmmmm

Even your link, states "appears"

Now, answer the woodchuck question dammit!

Gotta love it when you your own hole on your dubious reputation with the truth even deeper.

Here is the quote from your link;

“He did indeed take some cigarillos, some mini cigarettes, but that it wasn’t a strong-arm robbery, he just stole the cigarillos.”

Read more: We have no idea why some people think this video shows Mike Brown PAYING for his cigarrillos The Right Scoop -

Here is your "answer" to the question;

3 actually a shoplifting I believe. My opinion, done in strong arm fashion

Are you even capable of comprehending why that exposes your dubious reputation with the truth?

Doubtful! Because you didn't see it when you provided that link, did you? Which of you are lying about the "strong arm" aspect? If it isn't you then how can he be credible about the first part of his statement if he is lying in the 2nd part? Now apply the same rules to your statements. It is all about credibility when it comes to the truth and your dubious reputation means that yours is suspect.

But no point in wasting any further time on this since this is probably a congenital condition of yours.

Have a nice Thanksgiving.

Nice deflection tool

You said he paid, the eyewitness says he stole AND you obviously missed the part where I wrote IN MY OPINION.

The delusions are strong in you skywalker.

 

[Pop23]

Grand Jury Volume 5

Beginning on page 195. He was in a battle with Brown!

That's what he says. And we all know cops don't lie.

Why is the dead punk automatically given the benefit of a doubt while the cop is flogged and put to the rack? There's something very wrong with the priorities here.

Maybe because the cop has a lot to gain to tell the story in a way that reflects best on him.

And if the way he told the story was the way it actually happened?

Wilson's story is hearsay only.

There is no one else to corroborate what was actually said or the sequence of events.

In an actual trial the defense would have exposed all of the holes in it.

Nice try at deflection dumbass

Your question was

3. Michael Brown robbed the convenience store

I said he committed shoplifting, (the crime) strong arm style in my OPINION, YOU said he paid.

His accomplice backed up ME

God you're thick

But go ahead and have a delusional thanksgiving.

 

[Kondor3]

Grand Jury Volume 5

Beginning on page 195. He was in a battle with Brown!

That's what he says. And we all know cops don't lie.

Why is the dead punk automatically given the benefit of a doubt while the cop is flogged and put to the rack? There's something very wrong with the priorities here.

Maybe because the cop has a lot to gain to tell the story in a way that reflects best on him.

And if the way he told the story was the way it actually happened?

Then he committed suicide by cop. Brown, that is. And I accept that he might have, because that is the only way that Wilson's story makes sense.

You omitted the distinct possibility of Suicide-by-Stupidity (on Brown's part).

 

[JoeMoma]

I do wonder what Brown had been smoking in those cigars?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Didn't say you lied, I said that you have a dubious reputation when it comes to the truth.

But let's just put your reputation to the test since you appear to have some doubts.

Which of the following statements are true?

1. Michael Brown was walking in the middle of the street
2. Michael Brown was carrying the cigarellos
3. Michael Brown robbed the convenience store
4. Michael Brown was shot and killed by Officer Wilson

1 true
2 I heard a different brand, but OK
3 actually a shoplifting I believe. My opinion, done in strong arm fashion
4 Sure

Next:

How much wood could a woodchuck chuck.........,

Thank you for proving my point about your dubious reputation when it comes to the truth.

San Francisco Bay View Mike Brown appears to have paid for those cigars

Video evidence proving that MB paid for the cigarillos in that link. The altercation was not a "strong arm shoplifting" and the shopkeeper did not call the cops.

You were gullible enough to believe only what you wanted to believe about MB. That is why you have a dubious reputation when it comes to the truth.

Have a nice day.

You poor dear:

We have no idea why some people think this video shows Mike Brown PAYING for his cigarrillos The Right Scoop -

And what was the testimony of Browns partner in crime? It's in the link, check it out fer yourself.

Things that make you say hmmmmmmm

Even your link, states "appears"

Now, answer the woodchuck question dammit!

Gotta love it when you your own hole on your dubious reputation with the truth even deeper.

Here is the quote from your link;

“He did indeed take some cigarillos, some mini cigarettes, but that it wasn’t a strong-arm robbery, he just stole the cigarillos.”

Read more: We have no idea why some people think this video shows Mike Brown PAYING for his cigarrillos The Right Scoop -

Here is your "answer" to the question;

3 actually a shoplifting I believe. My opinion, done in strong arm fashion

Are you even capable of comprehending why that exposes your dubious reputation with the truth?

Doubtful! Because you didn't see it when you provided that link, did you? Which of you are lying about the "strong arm" aspect? If it isn't you then how can he be credible about the first part of his statement if he is lying in the 2nd part? Now apply the same rules to your statements. It is all about credibility when it comes to the truth and your dubious reputation means that yours is suspect.

But no point in wasting any further time on this since this is probably a congenital condition of yours.

Have a nice Thanksgiving.

Nice deflection tool

You said he paid, the eyewitness says he stole AND you obviously missed the part where I wrote IN MY OPINION.

The delusions are strong in you skywalker.

Once again you prove me right about your dubious reputation when it comes to the truth.

 

[Pop23]

1 true
2 I heard a different brand, but OK
3 actually a shoplifting I believe. My opinion, done in strong arm fashion
4 Sure

Next:

How much wood could a woodchuck chuck.........,

Thank you for proving my point about your dubious reputation when it comes to the truth.

San Francisco Bay View Mike Brown appears to have paid for those cigars

Video evidence proving that MB paid for the cigarillos in that link. The altercation was not a "strong arm shoplifting" and the shopkeeper did not call the cops.

You were gullible enough to believe only what you wanted to believe about MB. That is why you have a dubious reputation when it comes to the truth.

Have a nice day.

You poor dear:

We have no idea why some people think this video shows Mike Brown PAYING for his cigarrillos The Right Scoop -

And what was the testimony of Browns partner in crime? It's in the link, check it out fer yourself.

Things that make you say hmmmmmmm

Even your link, states "appears"

Now, answer the woodchuck question dammit!

Gotta love it when you your own hole on your dubious reputation with the truth even deeper.

Here is the quote from your link;

“He did indeed take some cigarillos, some mini cigarettes, but that it wasn’t a strong-arm robbery, he just stole the cigarillos.”

Read more: We have no idea why some people think this video shows Mike Brown PAYING for his cigarrillos The Right Scoop -

Here is your "answer" to the question;

3 actually a shoplifting I believe. My opinion, done in strong arm fashion

Are you even capable of comprehending why that exposes your dubious reputation with the truth?

Doubtful! Because you didn't see it when you provided that link, did you? Which of you are lying about the "strong arm" aspect? If it isn't you then how can he be credible about the first part of his statement if he is lying in the 2nd part? Now apply the same rules to your statements. It is all about credibility when it comes to the truth and your dubious reputation means that yours is suspect.

But no point in wasting any further time on this since this is probably a congenital condition of yours.

Have a nice Thanksgiving.

Nice deflection tool

You said he paid, the eyewitness says he stole AND you obviously missed the part where I wrote IN MY OPINION.

The delusions are strong in you skywalker.

Once again you prove me right about your dubious reputation when it comes to the truth.

You wouldn't know the truth if it bit you on the ass

But, then again, your a foolish toll doing what tools do

 

[Derideo_Te]

That's what he says. And we all know cops don't lie.

Why is the dead punk automatically given the benefit of a doubt while the cop is flogged and put to the rack? There's something very wrong with the priorities here.

Maybe because the cop has a lot to gain to tell the story in a way that reflects best on him.

And if the way he told the story was the way it actually happened?

Wilson's story is hearsay only.

There is no one else to corroborate what was actually said or the sequence of events.

In an actual trial the defense would have exposed all of the holes in it.

Nice try at deflection dumbass

Your question was

3. Michael Brown robbed the convenience store

I said he committed shoplifting, (the crime) strong arm style in my OPINION, YOU said he paid.

His accomplice backed up ME

God you're thick

But go ahead and have a delusional thanksgiving.

Only delusion here is you believing that you are anywhere near the truth.

For starters I asked you which statement was true. They weren't questions.

You alleged a shoplifting but the video (which doesn't lie) shows him paying. You allege a "strong arm style" but the altercation might have been over a fake id for the cigarillos instead. You believe half of what your link says but not the other half. That is called cherry picking.

Once again you prove me right about your dubious relationship with the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

 

[Pop23]

Why is the dead punk automatically given the benefit of a doubt while the cop is flogged and put to the rack? There's something very wrong with the priorities here.

Maybe because the cop has a lot to gain to tell the story in a way that reflects best on him.

And if the way he told the story was the way it actually happened?

Wilson's story is hearsay only.

There is no one else to corroborate what was actually said or the sequence of events.

In an actual trial the defense would have exposed all of the holes in it.

Nice try at deflection dumbass

Your question was

3. Michael Brown robbed the convenience store

I said he committed shoplifting, (the crime) strong arm style in my OPINION, YOU said he paid.

His accomplice backed up ME

God you're thick

But go ahead and have a delusional thanksgiving.

Only delusion here is you believing that you are anywhere near the truth.

For starters I asked you which statement was true. They weren't questions.

You alleged a shoplifting but the video (which doesn't lie) shows him paying. You allege a "strong arm style" but the altercation might have been over a fake id for the cigarillos instead. You believe half of what your link says but not the other half. That is called cherry picking.

Once again you prove me right about your dubious relationship with the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

So De, if the video shows he paid. How did he pay? Cash, card?

Grab a screen cap of his payment method and prove me AND his friend who witnessed the THEFT wrong.

You must do so to prove your not a gullible tool.

Thanks in advance

 

[Derideo_Te]

Maybe because the cop has a lot to gain to tell the story in a way that reflects best on him.

And if the way he told the story was the way it actually happened?

Wilson's story is hearsay only.

There is no one else to corroborate what was actually said or the sequence of events.

In an actual trial the defense would have exposed all of the holes in it.

Nice try at deflection dumbass

Your question was

3. Michael Brown robbed the convenience store

I said he committed shoplifting, (the crime) strong arm style in my OPINION, YOU said he paid.

His accomplice backed up ME

God you're thick

But go ahead and have a delusional thanksgiving.

Only delusion here is you believing that you are anywhere near the truth.

For starters I asked you which statement was true. They weren't questions.

You alleged a shoplifting but the video (which doesn't lie) shows him paying. You allege a "strong arm style" but the altercation might have been over a fake id for the cigarillos instead. You believe half of what your link says but not the other half. That is called cherry picking.

Once again you prove me right about your dubious relationship with the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

So De, if the video shows he paid. How did he pay? Cash, card?

Grab a screen cap of his payment method and prove me AND his friend who witnessed the THEFT wrong.

You must do so to prove your not a gullible tool.

Thanks in advance

Once again you have a dubious relationship with the truth. No one from the store called the cops to report a robbery. Why not?

Attorney For Ferguson Market NO ONE From His Store Called 911 To Report Cigar Theft

The cops withheld the video of him paying and instead leaked the video of the alleged "strong arming". Why did they do that?

Why were the "robbery suspects" walking down the middle of the street in broad daylight with the "evidence" in plain sight?

Why wouldn't they be running from the cops and hiding the "evidence" if they had done something wrong?

A first year law school kid could drive an 18 wheeler through the holes in the GJ testimony.

 

[Pop23]

And if the way he told the story was the way it actually happened?

Wilson's story is hearsay only.

There is no one else to corroborate what was actually said or the sequence of events.

In an actual trial the defense would have exposed all of the holes in it.

Nice try at deflection dumbass

Your question was

3. Michael Brown robbed the convenience store

I said he committed shoplifting, (the crime) strong arm style in my OPINION, YOU said he paid.

His accomplice backed up ME

God you're thick

But go ahead and have a delusional thanksgiving.

Only delusion here is you believing that you are anywhere near the truth.

For starters I asked you which statement was true. They weren't questions.

You alleged a shoplifting but the video (which doesn't lie) shows him paying. You allege a "strong arm style" but the altercation might have been over a fake id for the cigarillos instead. You believe half of what your link says but not the other half. That is called cherry picking.

Once again you prove me right about your dubious relationship with the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

So De, if the video shows he paid. How did he pay? Cash, card?

Grab a screen cap of his payment method and prove me AND his friend who witnessed the THEFT wrong.

You must do so to prove your not a gullible tool.

Thanks in advance

Once again you have a dubious relationship with the truth. No one from the store called the cops to report a robbery. Why not?

Attorney For Ferguson Market NO ONE From His Store Called 911 To Report Cigar Theft

The cops withheld the video of him paying and instead leaked the video of the alleged "strong arming". Why did they do that?

Why were the "robbery suspects" walking down the middle of the street in broad daylight with the "evidence" in plain sight?

Why wouldn't they be running from the cops and hiding the "evidence" if they had done something wrong?

A first year law school kid could drive an 18 wheeler through the holes in the GJ testimony.

None of the above addresses the what D. Johnson said when interviewed. That being that Brown stole the smokes.

Delusional De believes he knows more about what happened in that store than the criminals friend who was there and assisting.

Oh, De, if you know sooooooo much, how come you can't supply the method of payment and a screen cap to back it up. You've been......



Face it dude, you lost

 

[Manonthestreet]

The dozens of glaring holes in Michael Brown witness stories: How bystanders changed their story to fit news reports or later admitted that they didn't see the shooting at all Witnesses in Michael Brown shooting case admitted changing their story Daily Mail Online

 

[dannyboys]

Someone in the store called 911 and reported that BM had just robbed the store. They described BM.
Why would anyone do that if it were not so?
The cops could look at the till tape and time stamp and amount of the 'purchase' immediately.
You fuckwitts believe a Korean store owner is going to accuse a 6' 6" 300 pound negro gang-banger of a crime and not be able to prove it?

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Someone in the store called 911 and reported that BM had just robbed the store. They described BM.
Why would anyone do that if it were not so?
The cops could look at the till tape and time stamp and amount of the 'purchase' immediately.
You fuckwitts believe a Korean store owner is going to accuse a 6' 6" 300 pound negro gang-banger of a crime and not be able to prove it?

I think the store owner was Indian but your point is valid.

 

[Pop23]

Wilson's story is hearsay only.

There is no one else to corroborate what was actually said or the sequence of events.

In an actual trial the defense would have exposed all of the holes in it.

Nice try at deflection dumbass

Your question was

3. Michael Brown robbed the convenience store

I said he committed shoplifting, (the crime) strong arm style in my OPINION, YOU said he paid.

His accomplice backed up ME

God you're thick

But go ahead and have a delusional thanksgiving.

Only delusion here is you believing that you are anywhere near the truth.

For starters I asked you which statement was true. They weren't questions.

You alleged a shoplifting but the video (which doesn't lie) shows him paying. You allege a "strong arm style" but the altercation might have been over a fake id for the cigarillos instead. You believe half of what your link says but not the other half. That is called cherry picking.

Once again you prove me right about your dubious relationship with the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

So De, if the video shows he paid. How did he pay? Cash, card?

Grab a screen cap of his payment method and prove me AND his friend who witnessed the THEFT wrong.

You must do so to prove your not a gullible tool.

Thanks in advance

Once again you have a dubious relationship with the truth. No one from the store called the cops to report a robbery. Why not?

Attorney For Ferguson Market NO ONE From His Store Called 911 To Report Cigar Theft

The cops withheld the video of him paying and instead leaked the video of the alleged "strong arming". Why did they do that?

Why were the "robbery suspects" walking down the middle of the street in broad daylight with the "evidence" in plain sight?

Why wouldn't they be running from the cops and hiding the "evidence" if they had done something wrong?

A first year law school kid could drive an 18 wheeler through the holes in the GJ testimony.

None of the above addresses the what D. Johnson said when interviewed. That being that Brown stole the smokes.

Delusional De believes he knows more about what happened in that store than the criminals friend who was there and assisting.

Oh, De, if you know sooooooo much, how come you can't supply the method of payment and a screen cap to back it up. You've been......



Face it dude, you lost

Edited to add: De's continuing deflections duly noted

 

[LordBrownTrout]

He would never have gotten away with that testimony in a regular trial.

The forensic evidence contradicts his testimony. According to Wilson he said that Brown was trying to hit him after the shot him in the hand. There should also have been a blood trail from the vehicle to the body. Wilson even said that Brown was holding his hand against his stomach (probably trying to stem the bleeding). Wilson made out that he thought that Brown was going for a gun.

The fact that there was no cross examination is criminal in my opinion.

Wilson was correct. I wouldnt have shown as much restraint as Wilson and unloaded on this felon earlier. Anyway, excellent jobs all the way around to the grand jury for reviewing the evidence and eyewitness accounts and making a sound decision.

 

[Katzndogz]

The video doesn't show him paying. It shows him throttling the clerk. If it is true that Brown paid the clerk would be in federal custody for violation of federal law selling tobacco to a minor. So all this paying crap stinks.

It was known early on that no one from the store reported the robbery. The clerk said he never reports robberies. Snitches get stitches. The crime was reported by some one in the store, another customer.

 

[Derideo_Te]

continuing deflections duly noted

Ironic given that you are deflecting from the hard truth.

The storekeeper never reported a "robbery". Why not?

Just try answering that question.

But you can't because then you would have to face the hard truth.