Michael Brown was 148 feet from Wilson as he was shot to death

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

When the first shot went off they were both in the car.

That was my point. He was first shot in the car so this 148' and no threat thing is bullshit.

Who said no threat. The point to the 150' thing was that the boy was trying to escape. It wasn't till the cop got out of the car and began chasing/shooting that Brown decided eff it if I'm gonna die I'm gonna die facing my killer. If he wanted to kill Wilson he would've done it while he was in the car not by "charging" him in some dumb as suicide by cop routine.

What a load of shit. He turned and charged the cop. Wilson's testimony says that. Credible eyewitness testimony says that, the EVIDENCE says that

He was TEN feet from Wilson when he died. TEN FEET , and had been hit MULTIPLE times. He was trying to escape alright, by killing the cop.

What part of he ran away before he turned and charged the cop that was chasing him is confusing you big guy? I'm reading from Wilson's testimony. Should I be reading from some other testimony?

Why was the cop shooting a fleeing suspect? It's not like the guy had killed anyone or was thought to be a danger to the community.

at that point he wasn't fleeing idiot he was charging Wilson

 

[Meathead]

FFS! Brown got himself killed. Whine away. That isn't going to change a God damned thing!

Forensics, witness testimony alone vindicate Wilson. Brown's thuggishness doesn't even have to be introduced.

You've got nothing but sore assholes!

 

[Ravi]

That was my point. He was first shot in the car so this 148' and no threat thing is bullshit.

Who said no threat. The point to the 150' thing was that the boy was trying to escape. It wasn't till the cop got out of the car and began chasing/shooting that Brown decided eff it if I'm gonna die I'm gonna die facing my killer. If he wanted to kill Wilson he would've done it while he was in the car not by "charging" him in some dumb as suicide by cop routine.

What a load of shit. He turned and charged the cop. Wilson's testimony says that. Credible eyewitness testimony says that, the EVIDENCE says that

He was TEN feet from Wilson when he died. TEN FEET , and had been hit MULTIPLE times. He was trying to escape alright, by killing the cop.

What part of he ran away before he turned and charged the cop that was chasing him is confusing you big guy? I'm reading from Wilson's testimony. Should I be reading from some other testimony?

Why was the cop shooting a fleeing suspect? It's not like the guy had killed anyone or was thought to be a danger to the community.

at that point he wasn't fleeing idiot he was charging Wilson

He started out fleeing and was shot at by the cop.

Please answer the question instead of deflecting.

 

[RKMBrown]

Who said no threat. The point to the 150' thing was that the boy was trying to escape. It wasn't till the cop got out of the car and began chasing/shooting that Brown decided eff it if I'm gonna die I'm gonna die facing my killer. If he wanted to kill Wilson he would've done it while he was in the car not by "charging" him in some dumb as suicide by cop routine.

What a load of shit. He turned and charged the cop. Wilson's testimony says that. Credible eyewitness testimony says that, the EVIDENCE says that

He was TEN feet from Wilson when he died. TEN FEET , and had been hit MULTIPLE times. He was trying to escape alright, by killing the cop.

What part of he ran away before he turned and charged the cop that was chasing him is confusing you big guy?

What part of a cop has a duty to chase a fleeing felon confuses you?

None. What part of my statements make you think I'm confused?

I don't think you're confused, I think youre simply being dishonest here Mike.

It's one thing to be a Luddly and just be stupid, but you're not stupid, you are WILLFULLY ignoring the facts here. As such, this will be my last response to you on the topic.

SmarterThanTheAverageBear, name one fact that I ignored. There are two stories at play here. One is that the kid was a POS that got what he deserved. The other is that we as a society have decided that gunning down POS kids in the street is an acceptable punishment.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

How did Brown get powder residue on him if he was 50 yards away?

When the first shot went off they were both in the car.

That was my point. He was first shot in the car so this 148' and no threat thing is bullshit.

Who said no threat. The point to the 150' thing was that the boy was trying to escape. It wasn't till the cop got out of the car and began chasing/shooting that Brown decided eff it if I'm gonna die I'm gonna die facing my killer. If he wanted to kill Wilson he would've done it while he was in the car not by "charging" him in some dumb as suicide by cop routine. Same with that clerk. If he wanted to hurt the clerk he wouldn't barely touch the guy. Nor would he back off after the clerk stumbled. Wilson barely had a scratch on him. Brown was shot EIGHT TIMES.

What?! Wasn't this poor over sized baby Huey wandering the neighborhood looking for hugs kneeling with his hands up saying don't shoot? You people are so out of your minds you can't even remember the previous lie you used. Everything you just said shoots down the entire theory of a poor innocent kid getting shot.

 

[mamooth]

Did stats even try to consider the statistical improbability of his pathetic claim?

There was no statistics involved in it. If you disagree, amuse us all by explaining precisely how "statistics" entered into estimating distance from a photograph.

I must say I am impressed by the right's creativity here, in regards all the new ways they've thought up to disregard the evidence. They're reaching new heights in reality-denial.

Brown was over 140 feet away frpm the car when shot. You can dispute the exact number, but it was way, way, way over 35 feet.

The police said he was 35 feet away, over and over.

Thus, the police lied, over and over.

That would be the point. The police lied, which casts major doubt on their credibility.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Who said no threat. The point to the 150' thing was that the boy was trying to escape. It wasn't till the cop got out of the car and began chasing/shooting that Brown decided eff it if I'm gonna die I'm gonna die facing my killer. If he wanted to kill Wilson he would've done it while he was in the car not by "charging" him in some dumb as suicide by cop routine.

What a load of shit. He turned and charged the cop. Wilson's testimony says that. Credible eyewitness testimony says that, the EVIDENCE says that

He was TEN feet from Wilson when he died. TEN FEET , and had been hit MULTIPLE times. He was trying to escape alright, by killing the cop.

What part of he ran away before he turned and charged the cop that was chasing him is confusing you big guy? I'm reading from Wilson's testimony. Should I be reading from some other testimony?

Why was the cop shooting a fleeing suspect? It's not like the guy had killed anyone or was thought to be a danger to the community.

at that point he wasn't fleeing idiot he was charging Wilson

He started out fleeing and was shot at by the cop.

Please answer the question instead of deflecting.

A) In this particular case Wilson did NOT shoot at him until after he stopped fleeing and had charged Wilson
B) In either case, Missouri law would allow a cop to shoot a fleeing felon in the back anyway

Why in the world do yall have to lie about these things? There is no point.

Have you read the GJ report? No, of course you haven't.

 

[RKMBrown]

When the first shot went off they were both in the car.

That was my point. He was first shot in the car so this 148' and no threat thing is bullshit.

Who said no threat. The point to the 150' thing was that the boy was trying to escape. It wasn't till the cop got out of the car and began chasing/shooting that Brown decided eff it if I'm gonna die I'm gonna die facing my killer. If he wanted to kill Wilson he would've done it while he was in the car not by "charging" him in some dumb as suicide by cop routine.

What a load of shit. He turned and charged the cop. Wilson's testimony says that. Credible eyewitness testimony says that, the EVIDENCE says that

He was TEN feet from Wilson when he died. TEN FEET , and had been hit MULTIPLE times. He was trying to escape alright, by killing the cop.

What part of he ran away before he turned and charged the cop that was chasing him is confusing you big guy? I'm reading from Wilson's testimony. Should I be reading from some other testimony?

Why was the cop shooting a fleeing suspect? It's not like the guy had killed anyone or was thought to be a danger to the community.

The why is obvious.. the kid had robbed someone, cursed at him, punched him fought over his gun, and was now fleeing. I don't blame him for shooting at the kid. But just as the lady asked the question.. why does that kid keep coming doesn't he know he's gonna get killed... One also has to ask the question ... why does the cop need to put the last two in the brain, this after putting two in the guys chest. Heat of the moment? The kid was unarmed and shot six times before the two to the head. I suppose that's the part I just don't get. The last two to the head.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Did stats even try to consider the statistical improbability of his pathetic claim?

There was no statistics involved in it. If you disagree, amuse us all by explaining precisely how "statistics" entered into estimating distance from a photograph.

I must say I am impressed by the right's creativity here, in regards all the new ways they've thought up to disregard the evidence. They're reaching new heights in reality-denial.

Brown was over 140 feet away frpm the car when shot. You can dispute the exact number, but it was way, way, way over 35 feet.

The police said he was 35 feet away, over and over.

Thus, the police lied, over and over.

That would be the point. The police lied, which casts major doubt on their credibility.

He was not 140 feet from WIlson when he was first shot you fucking fool, he was 140 , or so, feet from Wilson's SUV , but wilson himself was 80 or so feet from the SUV when Brown turned back and charged him, and THAT is when Wilson started shooting him.

WHY, WHY can't you people be honest?

 

[RKMBrown]

Did stats even try to consider the statistical improbability of his pathetic claim?

There was no statistics involved in it. If you disagree, amuse us all by explaining precisely how "statistics" entered into estimating distance from a photograph.

I must say I am impressed by the right's creativity here, in regards all the new ways they've thought up to disregard the evidence. They're reaching new heights in reality-denial.

Brown was over 140 feet away frpm the car when shot. You can dispute the exact number, but it was way, way, way over 35 feet.

The police said he was 35 feet away, over and over.

Thus, the police lied, over and over.

That would be the point. The police lied, which casts major doubt on their credibility.

You're confused. They are saying 140' from the car and 35' from the cop. IOW the COP was 105' from the car.

 

[RKMBrown]

Did stats even try to consider the statistical improbability of his pathetic claim?

There was no statistics involved in it. If you disagree, amuse us all by explaining precisely how "statistics" entered into estimating distance from a photograph.

I must say I am impressed by the right's creativity here, in regards all the new ways they've thought up to disregard the evidence. They're reaching new heights in reality-denial.

Brown was over 140 feet away frpm the car when shot. You can dispute the exact number, but it was way, way, way over 35 feet.

The police said he was 35 feet away, over and over.

Thus, the police lied, over and over.

That would be the point. The police lied, which casts major doubt on their credibility.

He was not 140 feet from WIlson when he was first shot you fucking fool, he was 140 , or so, feet from Wilson's SUV , but wilson himself was 80 or so feet from the SUV when Brown turned back and charged him, and THAT is when Wilson started shooting him.

WHY, WHY can't you people be honest?

I don't think it's dishonesty. I think it's confusion over the detailed story line. Pretty sure the cop backed up some 50' or so while Brown was charging back to him.
<suv>............................................<brown>
<suv>....<wilson>--> ............................<brown>
<suv>......................<wilson>--> .................<brown>150' and turns
<suv>......................<wilson>--> .................<brown>first blood splatter
<suv>............<wilson>--> ...................<brown>
<suv>........<wilson>--> ...........<brown>
<suv>......<wilson>--> ....<brown> hits the ground

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

What a load of shit. He turned and charged the cop. Wilson's testimony says that. Credible eyewitness testimony says that, the EVIDENCE says that

He was TEN feet from Wilson when he died. TEN FEET , and had been hit MULTIPLE times. He was trying to escape alright, by killing the cop.

What part of he ran away before he turned and charged the cop that was chasing him is confusing you big guy?

What part of a cop has a duty to chase a fleeing felon confuses you?

None. What part of my statements make you think I'm confused?

I don't think you're confused, I think youre simply being dishonest here Mike.

It's one thing to be a Luddly and just be stupid, but you're not stupid, you are WILLFULLY ignoring the facts here. As such, this will be my last response to you on the topic.

SmarterThanTheAverageBear, name one fact that I ignored. There are two stories at play here. One is that the kid was a POS that got what he deserved. The other is that we as a society have decided that gunning down POS kids in the street is an acceptable punishment.

This kid was not shot as punishment. He was shot to prevent a second assault on a police officer.

THAT is what you are being dishonest about. Wilson didn't shoot him for committing a crime, he didn't shoot him for being a thug he didn't eve shoot him to prevent his escape (read the testimony Wilson says his initial goal was just keep site of him for 30 seconds while back up arrives) and by the way legally he could have jumped out and shot the kid in the back. He was a fleeing felon, that is unquestioned. But he didn't , instead he ONLY fired when the kid who frankly had already kicked his ass, charged at him. And he was yelling get down the whole time , stopped firing once when it seemed Brown was complying and then only resumed firing when Brown charged again.

Damn right, he fired until the kid stopped charging. Brown could have chosen to stop charging at any time but didn't until he was dead.

His intent was to kill Wilson, that is clear.

 

[PredFan]

The forensic evidence supported Darren Wilson's version of the events. You disagree, forensics says your wrong. Why do you lefties hate science anyway? Is it because facts are unfeeling? Facts can't be coerced into changing due to skin color? Facts tell the truth?

the Forensics only proved he wasn't shot in the back.

they don't show if he had his hands up when the bullet went through his skull. there's no way to tell that, forensically.

How simple minded you are.

Pointing out he obvious. Which "Forensic" test proved his hands weren't up when the last bullet entered his brain?

Oh, wait. YOu don't have one of those.

What you did have were 16 witnesses who said his hands were up.

Hey you simple minded fool, forensics isn't just about autopsies moron. But if you weren't an uneducated, science hating left wing idiot, you'd know that already.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Did stats even try to consider the statistical improbability of his pathetic claim?

There was no statistics involved in it. If you disagree, amuse us all by explaining precisely how "statistics" entered into estimating distance from a photograph.

I must say I am impressed by the right's creativity here, in regards all the new ways they've thought up to disregard the evidence. They're reaching new heights in reality-denial.

Brown was over 140 feet away frpm the car when shot. You can dispute the exact number, but it was way, way, way over 35 feet.

The police said he was 35 feet away, over and over.

Thus, the police lied, over and over.

That would be the point. The police lied, which casts major doubt on their credibility.

He was not 140 feet from WIlson when he was first shot you fucking fool, he was 140 , or so, feet from Wilson's SUV , but wilson himself was 80 or so feet from the SUV when Brown turned back and charged him, and THAT is when Wilson started shooting him.

WHY, WHY can't you people be honest?

I don't think it's dishonesty. I think it's confusion over the detailed story line. Pretty sure the cop backed up some 50' or so while Brown was charging back to him.
<suv>............................................<brown>
<suv>....<wilson>--> ............................<brown>
<suv>......................<wilson>--> .................<brown>150' and turns
<suv>......................<wilson>--> .................<brown>first blood splatter
<suv>............<wilson>--> ...................<brown>
<suv>........<wilson>--> ...........<brown>
<suv>......<wilson>--> ....<brown> hits the ground

Then they shouldn't be commenting Mike, all that does is make things worse. It's BEYOND clear that most of those screaming about this being murder have NOT studied the facts.Arguing a point without a basic knowledge of the facts IS dishonest.

 

[RKMBrown]

How did Brown get powder residue on him if he was 50 yards away?

When the first shot went off they were both in the car.

That was my point. He was first shot in the car so this 148' and no threat thing is bullshit.

Who said no threat. The point to the 150' thing was that the boy was trying to escape. It wasn't till the cop got out of the car and began chasing/shooting that Brown decided eff it if I'm gonna die I'm gonna die facing my killer. If he wanted to kill Wilson he would've done it while he was in the car not by "charging" him in some dumb as suicide by cop routine. Same with that clerk. If he wanted to hurt the clerk he wouldn't barely touch the guy. Nor would he back off after the clerk stumbled. Wilson barely had a scratch on him. Brown was shot EIGHT TIMES.

What?! Wasn't this poor over sized baby Huey wandering the neighborhood looking for hugs kneeling with his hands up saying don't shoot? You people are so out of your minds you can't even remember the previous lie you used. Everything you just said shoots down the entire theory of a poor innocent kid getting shot.

Who said he was a poor innocent kid? Not me.

 

[PredFan]

From the reams of grand jury testimony and police evidence, here are some key points that, if this case had gone to trial, could have been highlighted by prosecutors (not including the witnesses who appeared to contradict Wilson’s testimony):

1. Wilson washed away blood evidence.

In an interview with police investigators, Wilson admitted that after the shooting he returned to police headquarters and washed blood off his body -- physical evidence that could have helped to prove or disprove a critical piece of Wilson’s testimony regarding his struggle with Brown inside the police car. He told his interrogator that he had blood on both of his hands. “I think it was his blood,” Wilson said referring to Brown. He added that he was not cut anywhere.



A photo of Wilson's injuries taken at the hospital after his altercation with Brown, released by the St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney's Office.

2. The first officer to interview Wilson failed to take any notes.

The first supervising officer to the scene, who was also the first person to interview Wilson about the incident, didn’t take any notes about their conversation. In testimony more than a month after the incident, the officer offered his account from memory. He explained that he hadn’t been equipped with a recorder and hadn’t tried to take any written notes due to the chaotic nature of the situation. He also didn’t write up any notes soon after the fact. “I didn’t take notes because at that point in time I had multiple things going through my head besides what Darren was telling me,” the officer stated.

The same officer admitted during his grand jury testimony that Wilson had called him personally after they both had been interviewed by investigators. Wilson then went over his account again with the officer. The officer told the grand jury that there were no discrepancies between Wilson’s first account in person and his second account on the phone. But the call raises questions about whether Wilson may have influenced witness testimony.

3. Investigators failed to measure the likely distance between Brown and Wilson.

An unnamed medical legal examiner who responded to the shooting testified before the grand jury that he or she had not taken any distance measurements at the scene, because they appeared “self-explanatory.”

“Somebody shot somebody. There was no question as to any distances or anything of that nature at the time I was there,” the examiner told the jury.

The examiner also noted that he or she hadn’t been able to take pictures at the scene -- as is standard -- because the camera's batteries were dead. The examiner later testified that he or she accompanied investigators from the St. Louis County Police Department as they photographed Brown’s body.



A photo of the Aug. 9 crime scene in Ferguson, released by the St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney's Office.

4. Investigators did not test Wilson’s gun for fingerprints.

Talking with police investigators and before the grand jury, Wilson claimed that Brown had grabbed at Wilson's gun during the initial incident in the police car and that Brown's hand was on the firearm when it misfired at least once. Wilson also told police that he thought Brown would overpower him and shoot him with his own gun. “I was not in control of the gun,” Wilson said. Eventually he regained control of the weapon and fired from within the car.

Investigators could have helped to prove or disprove Wilson’s testimony by testing his service weapon for Brown’s fingerprints. But the gun was not tested for fingerprints. An investigator argued before the grand jury that the decision was made not to test the weapon because Wilson “never lost control of his gun.”

5. Wilson did not immediately turn his weapon over to investigators after killing Brown.

A detective with the St. Louis County Police Department, who conducted the first official interview of Wilson, testified to the grand jury that Wilson had packaged his own service weapon into an evidence envelope following his arrival at the police station in the wake of the shooting. The detective said the practice was not usual for his department, though he was unclear on the protocol of the Ferguson Police Department. He said he didn’t explore that aspect further at the time.

According to the detective’s testimony, standard practice for the St. Louis County Police Department would be for an officer involved in a shooting to keep his or her weapon holstered until it can be turned over to a supervisor and a crime scene unit detective. While that clearly didn’t take place in Wilson’s case, the detective also testified that he believed the firearm was handled in a way that preserved the chain of custody.



A photo of Wilson's service weapon, released by the St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney's Office.

6. An initial interview with investigators was delayed while Wilson traveled to the hospital with his superiors.

The same St. Louis County Police Department detective also testified that while he had intended to conduct his initial interview with Wilson at the Ferguson police station, a lieutenant colonel with the Ferguson Police Department decided that Wilson first needed to go to the hospital for medical treatment. The detective said that while it is common practice to defer to any medical decision of this nature, Wilson appeared to be in good health and didn’t have any notable injuries that would have prevented an interview from being conducted at the station. Wilson would also testify that he didn’t believe he needed to go to the hospital.

But that day, Wilson got into a vehicle with the lieutenant colonel and another Ferguson police official and went to the hospital, while the St. Louis County detective traveled in another vehicle.

7. Wilson’s initial interview with the detective conflicts with information given in later testimony.

In his first interview with the detective, just hours after Brown’s death, Wilson didn’t claim to have any knowledge that Brown was suspected of stealing cigarillos from a nearby convenience store. The only mention of cigarillos he made to the detective was a recollection of the call about the theft that had come across his radio and that provided a description of the suspect.

Wilson also told the detective that Brown had passed something off to his friend before punching Wilson in the face. At the time, the detective said, Wilson didn’t know what the item was, referring to it only as “something.” In subsequent interviews and testimony, however, Wilson claimed that he knew Brown’s hands were full of cigarillos and that fact eventually led him to believe Brown may have been a suspect in the theft.

Lol, the breadth and depth of your ignorance is astounding! You actually think, actually believe, that you found something that the prosecutors didn't? Your stupidity is a never ending source of amazement.

How about addressing the points he brings up.

You guys claim up and down the "Forensics" back Wilson, and then ignore the fact that the investigation and evidence gathering was sloppy.

Why the fuck should I? I'm not an forensic scientist, I didn't get to hear forensic scientists testify, I didn't get to see the doctor's reports on the cop's injuries, the Grand Jury did and they came to the conclusion that there was no case. Idiots like you and Luddley here actually are stupid enough to believe that you have discovered something that they didn't. Rarely is such idiocy on display. Sucks to be you two.

 

[PredFan]

From the reams of grand jury testimony and police evidence, here are some key points that, if this case had gone to trial, could have been highlighted by prosecutors (not including the witnesses who appeared to contradict Wilson’s testimony):

1. Wilson washed away blood evidence.

In an interview with police investigators, Wilson admitted that after the shooting he returned to police headquarters and washed blood off his body -- physical evidence that could have helped to prove or disprove a critical piece of Wilson’s testimony regarding his struggle with Brown inside the police car. He told his interrogator that he had blood on both of his hands. “I think it was his blood,” Wilson said referring to Brown. He added that he was not cut anywhere.



A photo of Wilson's injuries taken at the hospital after his altercation with Brown, released by the St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney's Office.

2. The first officer to interview Wilson failed to take any notes.

The first supervising officer to the scene, who was also the first person to interview Wilson about the incident, didn’t take any notes about their conversation. In testimony more than a month after the incident, the officer offered his account from memory. He explained that he hadn’t been equipped with a recorder and hadn’t tried to take any written notes due to the chaotic nature of the situation. He also didn’t write up any notes soon after the fact. “I didn’t take notes because at that point in time I had multiple things going through my head besides what Darren was telling me,” the officer stated.

The same officer admitted during his grand jury testimony that Wilson had called him personally after they both had been interviewed by investigators. Wilson then went over his account again with the officer. The officer told the grand jury that there were no discrepancies between Wilson’s first account in person and his second account on the phone. But the call raises questions about whether Wilson may have influenced witness testimony.

3. Investigators failed to measure the likely distance between Brown and Wilson.

An unnamed medical legal examiner who responded to the shooting testified before the grand jury that he or she had not taken any distance measurements at the scene, because they appeared “self-explanatory.”

“Somebody shot somebody. There was no question as to any distances or anything of that nature at the time I was there,” the examiner told the jury.

The examiner also noted that he or she hadn’t been able to take pictures at the scene -- as is standard -- because the camera's batteries were dead. The examiner later testified that he or she accompanied investigators from the St. Louis County Police Department as they photographed Brown’s body.



A photo of the Aug. 9 crime scene in Ferguson, released by the St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney's Office.

4. Investigators did not test Wilson’s gun for fingerprints.

Talking with police investigators and before the grand jury, Wilson claimed that Brown had grabbed at Wilson's gun during the initial incident in the police car and that Brown's hand was on the firearm when it misfired at least once. Wilson also told police that he thought Brown would overpower him and shoot him with his own gun. “I was not in control of the gun,” Wilson said. Eventually he regained control of the weapon and fired from within the car.

Investigators could have helped to prove or disprove Wilson’s testimony by testing his service weapon for Brown’s fingerprints. But the gun was not tested for fingerprints. An investigator argued before the grand jury that the decision was made not to test the weapon because Wilson “never lost control of his gun.”

5. Wilson did not immediately turn his weapon over to investigators after killing Brown.

A detective with the St. Louis County Police Department, who conducted the first official interview of Wilson, testified to the grand jury that Wilson had packaged his own service weapon into an evidence envelope following his arrival at the police station in the wake of the shooting. The detective said the practice was not usual for his department, though he was unclear on the protocol of the Ferguson Police Department. He said he didn’t explore that aspect further at the time.

According to the detective’s testimony, standard practice for the St. Louis County Police Department would be for an officer involved in a shooting to keep his or her weapon holstered until it can be turned over to a supervisor and a crime scene unit detective. While that clearly didn’t take place in Wilson’s case, the detective also testified that he believed the firearm was handled in a way that preserved the chain of custody.



A photo of Wilson's service weapon, released by the St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney's Office.

6. An initial interview with investigators was delayed while Wilson traveled to the hospital with his superiors.

The same St. Louis County Police Department detective also testified that while he had intended to conduct his initial interview with Wilson at the Ferguson police station, a lieutenant colonel with the Ferguson Police Department decided that Wilson first needed to go to the hospital for medical treatment. The detective said that while it is common practice to defer to any medical decision of this nature, Wilson appeared to be in good health and didn’t have any notable injuries that would have prevented an interview from being conducted at the station. Wilson would also testify that he didn’t believe he needed to go to the hospital.

But that day, Wilson got into a vehicle with the lieutenant colonel and another Ferguson police official and went to the hospital, while the St. Louis County detective traveled in another vehicle.

7. Wilson’s initial interview with the detective conflicts with information given in later testimony.

In his first interview with the detective, just hours after Brown’s death, Wilson didn’t claim to have any knowledge that Brown was suspected of stealing cigarillos from a nearby convenience store. The only mention of cigarillos he made to the detective was a recollection of the call about the theft that had come across his radio and that provided a description of the suspect.

Wilson also told the detective that Brown had passed something off to his friend before punching Wilson in the face. At the time, the detective said, Wilson didn’t know what the item was, referring to it only as “something.” In subsequent interviews and testimony, however, Wilson claimed that he knew Brown’s hands were full of cigarillos and that fact eventually led him to believe Brown may have been a suspect in the theft.

Lol, the breadth and depth of your ignorance is astounding! You actually think, actually believe, that you found something that the prosecutors didn't? Your stupidity is a never ending source of amazement.

How about addressing the points he brings up.

You guys claim up and down the "Forensics" back Wilson, and then ignore the fact that the investigation and evidence gathering was sloppy.

Its always the same.

RWs can't address actual facts so they hide behind childish name calling.

Its all they've got.

The facts have already been addressed idiot. The Grand Jury addressed them. The reason I call you names is because you are in fact too stupid to know that. I wouyld be a lot more sympathetic if you were simnply ignorant, but you are stubbornly and wantonly ignorant. For that you deserve as much ridicule as we can give you.

Dumbass.

 

[PredFan]

He was a criminal. Not that I believe your distances at all but he could have been 148 MILES away and he would still have deserved to die.

Maybe he deserved to be arrested and should have gotten a fair trial and a judgement. That's what the law says.

Do you not believe in the rule of law.

Policemen are not arrested for performing their duty.

The question is: did he do his duty or did he overstep the bounds of legality, which makes the kill unjustified. This is a strictly legal issue.

And the Grand Jury answered that question.

No. The jury made a decision, not a value judgement.

Lol, idiot. In making the decision they did, they answered the question.

 

[PredFan]

Panorama photo: cop car is on the left, Mike Brown's body is on the right.

The two sides of the apartment complex line up perfectly. There is no way in the world that that is even close to 35 feet. It is indeed well over 100 feet. 145-148 is more likely. The only way to get points A and B into the picture is with a panoramic photo. That alone tells you something about the distance.

Not that it matters because the distance is irrelevant, but even a 4 year old can see that that photo is touched up.

No. Wrong. Two photos have been laid over each other to make a panoramic view, but the fact that the two sides of the large apartment house in the middle of the picture match each other in dimension absolutely perfectly mean that the proportions are correct. Try again.

Perspective you stupid fuck. Do you have any idea what that does? There are two different points of perspective creatively arranged to make the distance look as far as possible. Any 4 year old can see that.

 

[MXdad]

That was my point. He was first shot in the car so this 148' and no threat thing is bullshit.

Who said no threat. The point to the 150' thing was that the boy was trying to escape. It wasn't till the cop got out of the car and began chasing/shooting that Brown decided eff it if I'm gonna die I'm gonna die facing my killer. If he wanted to kill Wilson he would've done it while he was in the car not by "charging" him in some dumb as suicide by cop routine.

What a load of shit. He turned and charged the cop. Wilson's testimony says that. Credible eyewitness testimony says that, the EVIDENCE says that

He was TEN feet from Wilson when he died. TEN FEET , and had been hit MULTIPLE times. He was trying to escape alright, by killing the cop.

What part of he ran away before he turned and charged the cop that was chasing him is confusing you big guy? I'm reading from Wilson's testimony. Should I be reading from some other testimony?

Why was the cop shooting a fleeing suspect? It's not like the guy had killed anyone or was thought to be a danger to the community.

The why is obvious.. the kid had robbed someone, cursed at him, punched him fought over his gun, and was now fleeing. I don't blame him for shooting at the kid. But just as the lady asked the question.. why does that kid keep coming doesn't he know he's gonna get killed... One also has to ask the question ... why does the cop need to put the last two in the brain, this after putting two in the guys chest. Heat of the moment? The kid was unarmed and shot six times before the two to the head. I suppose that's the part I just don't get. The last two to the head.

Maybe I missed it but in the autopsy report and the pics/drawings I have seen show nothing to lead me to believe he was hit twice in the chest. Can you point out that info to me