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

[hadit]

Many that said that were shown to be incorrect, while others admitted they didn't actually see the incident, but heard about it.

The 18 I listed all have where they were at the time after their testimony and all are listed as being within eye contact.

If any of THESE witnesses were proven wrong in cross-examination, you need to prove THAT with a link and not just your say so.

I think the Grand Jury, with the questions asked had to determine who was and was not credible. The witnesses you have never met or seen are not as credible as the witnesses that backed up Wilson's story.

The Grand Jury did not indict, no one has to prove anything.

Yet no one has said a word of how 18 witnesses who clearly saw and testified Brown was not charging can be ignored.

Witness testimony Michael Brown s last moments Reading Eagle - AP

They SAY they clearly saw the incident. Others have stated that there was witness intimidation and threats to those whose accounts agreed with the officer's. All of these things had to be taken into account by the grand jury. Tell us, which seat did you have when they were given the case?

There were those who claimed to be witnesses when pressed about it said they weren't there.

That's my point. Anyone can claim they were an eyewitness to something, but when their testimony conflicts with the physical evidence, you have to question their claims. Some claimed Brown was shot from behind. He wasn't. Some claimed he was kneeling when he was shot. He wasn't. Some are claiming he had his hands up in surrender. He didn't.

 

[Conservative65]

The 18 I listed all have where they were at the time after their testimony and all are listed as being within eye contact.

If any of THESE witnesses were proven wrong in cross-examination, you need to prove THAT with a link and not just your say so.

I think the Grand Jury, with the questions asked had to determine who was and was not credible. The witnesses you have never met or seen are not as credible as the witnesses that backed up Wilson's story.

The Grand Jury did not indict, no one has to prove anything.

Yet no one has said a word of how 18 witnesses who clearly saw and testified Brown was not charging can be ignored.

Witness testimony Michael Brown s last moments Reading Eagle - AP

They SAY they clearly saw the incident. Others have stated that there was witness intimidation and threats to those whose accounts agreed with the officer's. All of these things had to be taken into account by the grand jury. Tell us, which seat did you have when they were given the case?

There were those who claimed to be witnesses when pressed about it said they weren't there.

That's my point. Anyone can claim they were an eyewitness to something, but when their testimony conflicts with the physical evidence, you have to question their claims. Some claimed Brown was shot from behind. He wasn't. Some claimed he was kneeling when he was shot. He wasn't. Some are claiming he had his hands up in surrender. He didn't.

I agree with you. I guess those suppose eyewitnesses figured out they better tell the truth when they found out lying about it would get them in trouble. They stick together through thick and until the shit gets thick and that is when the glue gets thin.

Forensic experts all said the ame thing. Supposed witnesses said all sorts of things that contradicted other supposed witnesses. I'll take the experts any day.

 

[CarterMM1972]

For the umpteenth time retard, the PHYSICAL evidence says he did NOT have his hands up when he was shot.

The only physical evidence that could prove that is a photo or a video. Just because a bullet wound is on the other side of his arm does not mean it did not hit his arm when he dropped them from being hit with the first bullet.

Only proves that you know NOTHING about forensic science moron.
Educate yourself.

We had this discussion before and the "science" was suspect.

No it isn't moron.

Crime labs around the world use it to solve crimes. Colleges teach it.

You're simply an idiot.

"science doesn't say what I want it to? Science is wrong"

dumb shit.

You are stupid to assume I meant all forensic science. Of course, I meant the particular interpretation that supposedly proved he did not have his hands up when he was shot.

Once he punched the officer and tried to take his gone, this is a deadly force situation. Period. Or do you deny that as well?

 

[RKMBrown]

The only physical evidence that could prove that is a photo or a video. Just because a bullet wound is on the other side of his arm does not mean it did not hit his arm when he dropped them from being hit with the first bullet.

Only proves that you know NOTHING about forensic science moron.
Educate yourself.

We had this discussion before and the "science" was suspect.

No it isn't moron.

Crime labs around the world use it to solve crimes. Colleges teach it.

You're simply an idiot.

"science doesn't say what I want it to? Science is wrong"

dumb shit.

You are stupid to assume I meant all forensic science. Of course, I meant the particular interpretation that supposedly proved he did not have his hands up when he was shot.

Shut the fuck up with you're "you're too stupid bullshit" sonny. On THIS particular subject, I doubt many on this board are more qualified than a 20 + year veteran MP who has worked thousands of cases.

In EVERY case I ever worked eyewitness testimony was supplemental to evidence PERIOD.

As for the physical evidence, each piece much be compared to the rest to get a complete picture. When the ME says "he didn't have his hands up when shot" you can take that to the bank.

Yeah if the ME said that. But that's not what he said. You are taking the ME out of context. If you shoot me in the head while my "hands are up" how is the ME gonna prove from the head wounds that my hands were down? Just because the shots to his arm were not "while" his hands were up does not mean they were never up nor does it mean they were not up before he was shot, nor does it mean they were not up for the last four final shots to the chest and head.

 

[RKMBrown]

The 18 I listed all have where they were at the time after their testimony and all are listed as being within eye contact.

If any of THESE witnesses were proven wrong in cross-examination, you need to prove THAT with a link and not just your say so.

I think the Grand Jury, with the questions asked had to determine who was and was not credible. The witnesses you have never met or seen are not as credible as the witnesses that backed up Wilson's story.

The Grand Jury did not indict, no one has to prove anything.

Yet no one has said a word of how 18 witnesses who clearly saw and testified Brown was not charging can be ignored.

Witness testimony Michael Brown s last moments Reading Eagle - AP

They SAY they clearly saw the incident. Others have stated that there was witness intimidation and threats to those whose accounts agreed with the officer's. All of these things had to be taken into account by the grand jury. Tell us, which seat did you have when they were given the case?

There were those who claimed to be witnesses when pressed about it said they weren't there.

That's my point. Anyone can claim they were an eyewitness to something, but when their testimony conflicts with the physical evidence, you have to question their claims. Some claimed Brown was shot from behind. He wasn't. Some claimed he was kneeling when he was shot. He wasn't. Some are claiming he had his hands up in surrender. He didn't.

You say he wasn't kneeling when he was shot... how do you know that? The last four shots including two to the chest and two to the head. What you think he wasn't going down to his knees before that last shot? lol yeah he died standing straight up with two bullets in his head... Please ignore the scrapes on his knees on the concrete.

 

[Conservative65]

I think the Grand Jury, with the questions asked had to determine who was and was not credible. The witnesses you have never met or seen are not as credible as the witnesses that backed up Wilson's story.

The Grand Jury did not indict, no one has to prove anything.

Yet no one has said a word of how 18 witnesses who clearly saw and testified Brown was not charging can be ignored.

Witness testimony Michael Brown s last moments Reading Eagle - AP

They SAY they clearly saw the incident. Others have stated that there was witness intimidation and threats to those whose accounts agreed with the officer's. All of these things had to be taken into account by the grand jury. Tell us, which seat did you have when they were given the case?

There were those who claimed to be witnesses when pressed about it said they weren't there.

That's my point. Anyone can claim they were an eyewitness to something, but when their testimony conflicts with the physical evidence, you have to question their claims. Some claimed Brown was shot from behind. He wasn't. Some claimed he was kneeling when he was shot. He wasn't. Some are claiming he had his hands up in surrender. He didn't.

You say he wasn't kneeling when he was shot... how do you know that? The last four shots including two to the chest and two to the head. What you think he wasn't going down to his knees before that last shot? lol yeah he died standing straight up with two bullets in his head... Please ignore the scrapes on his knees on the concrete.

How do you know he was?

Please ignore the wound to Officer Wilson by claiming Brown never attacked him.

 

[RKMBrown]

Yet no one has said a word of how 18 witnesses who clearly saw and testified Brown was not charging can be ignored.

Witness testimony Michael Brown s last moments Reading Eagle - AP

They SAY they clearly saw the incident. Others have stated that there was witness intimidation and threats to those whose accounts agreed with the officer's. All of these things had to be taken into account by the grand jury. Tell us, which seat did you have when they were given the case?

There were those who claimed to be witnesses when pressed about it said they weren't there.

That's my point. Anyone can claim they were an eyewitness to something, but when their testimony conflicts with the physical evidence, you have to question their claims. Some claimed Brown was shot from behind. He wasn't. Some claimed he was kneeling when he was shot. He wasn't. Some are claiming he had his hands up in surrender. He didn't.

You say he wasn't kneeling when he was shot... how do you know that? The last four shots including two to the chest and two to the head. What you think he wasn't going down to his knees before that last shot? lol yeah he died standing straight up with two bullets in his head... Please ignore the scrapes on his knees on the concrete.

How do you know he was?

Please ignore the wound to Officer Wilson by claiming Brown never attacked him.

WTF are you on? I've got a picture of Brown dead ON THE EFFING STREET, YA DUMB SHIT. How the EFF do you think he got there?

Who said Brown never attacked Wilson? WHAT THE EFF IS WRONG WITH YOU?

nvm you POS troll... you earned the ignore list.

 

[Oldstyle]

Statis, you do realize that the effective range of Officer Wilson's sidearm (Sig Sauer P239 in .40 cal) is far less than the 50 yards you believe Mike Brown to have been shot at, right? It would have been quite a feat to have hit him more than once or twice at that distance; especially if either one of them was moving. Therefore I see zero believability in your supposition.

Link?

I see nothing that says that a 239 cannot shoot 50 yards. In fact, most pistols can. Easily.

In fact, it would be a shitty pistol, or in this case, semi-automatic handgun, if you cannot fire a decent shot for at least 100 meters:

wikiHow to Become a Marksman Snipe With a Pistol

Or, it can also mean that Williams lied about his position when he fired the shots.

Your ignorance about shooting is showing, Stats! The chances of a marksman accurately hitting a target a 100 meters away after being involved in a strenuous physical confrontation is almost nil. If you'd taken the time to read the article you posted you'd know that Officer Martin didn't have ANY of the advantages referred to in that article to make someone more accurate.

One only has to look at Olympic Nordic shooting events to understand how difficult it is to be breathing hard from strenuous exercise and then calm your breathing enough to make a good shot. Highly trained elite Olympians struggle to perform like that despite countless hours of practice but you think Officer Martin would be able to pull it off in a life or death situation? It's an amusing notion but not based in reality.

 

[RKMBrown]

Statis, you do realize that the effective range of Officer Wilson's sidearm (Sig Sauer P239 in .40 cal) is far less than the 50 yards you believe Mike Brown to have been shot at, right? It would have been quite a feat to have hit him more than once or twice at that distance; especially if either one of them was moving. Therefore I see zero believability in your supposition.

Link?

I see nothing that says that a 239 cannot shoot 50 yards. In fact, most pistols can. Easily.

In fact, it would be a shitty pistol, or in this case, semi-automatic handgun, if you cannot fire a decent shot for at least 100 meters:

wikiHow to Become a Marksman Snipe With a Pistol

Or, it can also mean that Williams lied about his position when he fired the shots.

Your ignorance about shooting is showing, Stats! The chances of a marksman accurately hitting a target a 100 meters away after being involved in a strenuous physical confrontation is almost nil. If you'd taken the time to read the article you posted you'd know that Officer Martin didn't have ANY of the advantages referred to in that article to make someone more accurate.

One only has to look at Olympic Nordic shooting events to understand how difficult it is to be breathing hard from strenuous exercise and then calm your breathing enough to make a good shot. Highly trained elite Olympians struggle to perform like that despite countless hours of practice but you think Officer Martin would be able to pull it off in a life or death situation? It's an amusing notion but not based in reality.

He knows. He's just trolling.

 

[jc456]

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.

I believe in Law and Order. Criminals do not deserve to be treated with any level of decency or respect. The American legal system is a farce In my mind. It has no value at all.

You are absolutely entitled to your beliefs. But that is NOT what the law says. And police officers are supposed to be there to uphold the law.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[jc456]

Only proves that you know NOTHING about forensic science moron.
Educate yourself.

We had this discussion before and the "science" was suspect.

No it isn't moron.

Crime labs around the world use it to solve crimes. Colleges teach it.

You're simply an idiot.

"science doesn't say what I want it to? Science is wrong"

dumb shit.

You are stupid to assume I meant all forensic science. Of course, I meant the particular interpretation that supposedly proved he did not have his hands up when he was shot.

Shut the fuck up with you're "you're too stupid bullshit" sonny. On THIS particular subject, I doubt many on this board are more qualified than a 20 + year veteran MP who has worked thousands of cases.

In EVERY case I ever worked eyewitness testimony was supplemental to evidence PERIOD.

As for the physical evidence, each piece much be compared to the rest to get a complete picture. When the ME says "he didn't have his hands up when shot" you can take that to the bank.

Yeah if the ME said that. But that's not what he said. You are taking the ME out of context. If you shoot me in the head while my "hands are up" how is the ME gonna prove from the head wounds that my hands were down? Just because the shots to his arm were not "while" his hands were up does not mean they were never up nor does it mean they were not up before he was shot, nor does it mean they were not up for the last four final shots to the chest and head.

Curious, were his hands above his head as he laid in the street?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If Brown was shot at 49 yards, then Wilson is a world class shot with a handgun. Like seriously. Most people beyond 7 yards aren't going to hit crap, especially in a dynamic, stressful situation.

not to mention the head thump he claims he suffered.

still haven't bothered to watch the officer's interview, huh..?

No, and I'll tell you why. His chief of police said he didn't know about the robbery at the convenience store but he testified that he did.

Why would I trust him to tell the truth?

Retard alert we have tape recorded police radio that proves not only did Wilson know of the robbery but ask if he was needed to help with it.

Link?

Already provided. Find it yourself because all you are admitting with this is you are to stupid to keep up with the facts.

 

[jc456]

I think the Grand Jury, with the questions asked had to determine who was and was not credible. The witnesses you have never met or seen are not as credible as the witnesses that backed up Wilson's story.

The Grand Jury did not indict, no one has to prove anything.

Yet no one has said a word of how 18 witnesses who clearly saw and testified Brown was not charging can be ignored.

Witness testimony Michael Brown s last moments Reading Eagle - AP

They SAY they clearly saw the incident. Others have stated that there was witness intimidation and threats to those whose accounts agreed with the officer's. All of these things had to be taken into account by the grand jury. Tell us, which seat did you have when they were given the case?

There were those who claimed to be witnesses when pressed about it said they weren't there.

That's my point. Anyone can claim they were an eyewitness to something, but when their testimony conflicts with the physical evidence, you have to question their claims. Some claimed Brown was shot from behind. He wasn't. Some claimed he was kneeling when he was shot. He wasn't. Some are claiming he had his hands up in surrender. He didn't.

You say he wasn't kneeling when he was shot... how do you know that? The last four shots including two to the chest and two to the head. What you think he wasn't going down to his knees before that last shot? lol yeah he died standing straight up with two bullets in his head... Please ignore the scrapes on his knees on the concrete.

Well that description validates he wasn't on his knees. Guess why?

 

[RKMBrown]

We had this discussion before and the "science" was suspect.

No it isn't moron.

Crime labs around the world use it to solve crimes. Colleges teach it.

You're simply an idiot.

"science doesn't say what I want it to? Science is wrong"

dumb shit.

You are stupid to assume I meant all forensic science. Of course, I meant the particular interpretation that supposedly proved he did not have his hands up when he was shot.

Shut the fuck up with you're "you're too stupid bullshit" sonny. On THIS particular subject, I doubt many on this board are more qualified than a 20 + year veteran MP who has worked thousands of cases.

In EVERY case I ever worked eyewitness testimony was supplemental to evidence PERIOD.

As for the physical evidence, each piece much be compared to the rest to get a complete picture. When the ME says "he didn't have his hands up when shot" you can take that to the bank.

Yeah if the ME said that. But that's not what he said. You are taking the ME out of context. If you shoot me in the head while my "hands are up" how is the ME gonna prove from the head wounds that my hands were down? Just because the shots to his arm were not "while" his hands were up does not mean they were never up nor does it mean they were not up before he was shot, nor does it mean they were not up for the last four final shots to the chest and head.

Curious, were his hands above his head as he laid in the street?

Nope looks like he's holding his pants up.

 

[RKMBrown]

Yet no one has said a word of how 18 witnesses who clearly saw and testified Brown was not charging can be ignored.

Witness testimony Michael Brown s last moments Reading Eagle - AP

They SAY they clearly saw the incident. Others have stated that there was witness intimidation and threats to those whose accounts agreed with the officer's. All of these things had to be taken into account by the grand jury. Tell us, which seat did you have when they were given the case?

There were those who claimed to be witnesses when pressed about it said they weren't there.

That's my point. Anyone can claim they were an eyewitness to something, but when their testimony conflicts with the physical evidence, you have to question their claims. Some claimed Brown was shot from behind. He wasn't. Some claimed he was kneeling when he was shot. He wasn't. Some are claiming he had his hands up in surrender. He didn't.

You say he wasn't kneeling when he was shot... how do you know that? The last four shots including two to the chest and two to the head. What you think he wasn't going down to his knees before that last shot? lol yeah he died standing straight up with two bullets in his head... Please ignore the scrapes on his knees on the concrete.

Well that description validates he wasn't on his knees. Guess why?

Cause you think the scrapes occurred after he was shot 8times?

 

[hadit]

I think the Grand Jury, with the questions asked had to determine who was and was not credible. The witnesses you have never met or seen are not as credible as the witnesses that backed up Wilson's story.

The Grand Jury did not indict, no one has to prove anything.

Yet no one has said a word of how 18 witnesses who clearly saw and testified Brown was not charging can be ignored.

Witness testimony Michael Brown s last moments Reading Eagle - AP

They SAY they clearly saw the incident. Others have stated that there was witness intimidation and threats to those whose accounts agreed with the officer's. All of these things had to be taken into account by the grand jury. Tell us, which seat did you have when they were given the case?

There were those who claimed to be witnesses when pressed about it said they weren't there.

That's my point. Anyone can claim they were an eyewitness to something, but when their testimony conflicts with the physical evidence, you have to question their claims. Some claimed Brown was shot from behind. He wasn't. Some claimed he was kneeling when he was shot. He wasn't. Some are claiming he had his hands up in surrender. He didn't.

You say he wasn't kneeling when he was shot... how do you know that? The last four shots including two to the chest and two to the head. What you think he wasn't going down to his knees before that last shot? lol yeah he died standing straight up with two bullets in his head... Please ignore the scrapes on his knees on the concrete.

If he was kneeling when he was shot and the forensic evidence showed that, there is no way the GJ would not have indicted. And no, he wasn't standing straight up, he was leaning forward, running toward the bullet.

 

[jc456]

They SAY they clearly saw the incident. Others have stated that there was witness intimidation and threats to those whose accounts agreed with the officer's. All of these things had to be taken into account by the grand jury. Tell us, which seat did you have when they were given the case?

There were those who claimed to be witnesses when pressed about it said they weren't there.

That's my point. Anyone can claim they were an eyewitness to something, but when their testimony conflicts with the physical evidence, you have to question their claims. Some claimed Brown was shot from behind. He wasn't. Some claimed he was kneeling when he was shot. He wasn't. Some are claiming he had his hands up in surrender. He didn't.

You say he wasn't kneeling when he was shot... how do you know that? The last four shots including two to the chest and two to the head. What you think he wasn't going down to his knees before that last shot? lol yeah he died standing straight up with two bullets in his head... Please ignore the scrapes on his knees on the concrete.

Well that description validates he wasn't on his knees. Guess why?

Cause you think the scrapes occurred after he was shot 8times?

Nope, it means he fell on them. And since the witness accounts don't say he got back up, then that would mean he fell as he was being shot and not because he obliged the officer and got on his knees. And because his hands were holding up his pants, then his hands were not up either. So you are 0 for 2.

 

[jc456]

Yet no one has said a word of how 18 witnesses who clearly saw and testified Brown was not charging can be ignored.

Witness testimony Michael Brown s last moments Reading Eagle - AP

They SAY they clearly saw the incident. Others have stated that there was witness intimidation and threats to those whose accounts agreed with the officer's. All of these things had to be taken into account by the grand jury. Tell us, which seat did you have when they were given the case?

There were those who claimed to be witnesses when pressed about it said they weren't there.

That's my point. Anyone can claim they were an eyewitness to something, but when their testimony conflicts with the physical evidence, you have to question their claims. Some claimed Brown was shot from behind. He wasn't. Some claimed he was kneeling when he was shot. He wasn't. Some are claiming he had his hands up in surrender. He didn't.

You say he wasn't kneeling when he was shot... how do you know that? The last four shots including two to the chest and two to the head. What you think he wasn't going down to his knees before that last shot? lol yeah he died standing straight up with two bullets in his head... Please ignore the scrapes on his knees on the concrete.

If he was kneeling when he was shot and the forensic evidence showed that, there is no way the GJ would not have indicted. And no, he wasn't standing straight up, he was leaning forward, running toward the bullet.

falling on his knees, scrapping them and because his hands were down validates they were not up as he was facing the officer. So much stupid from these scapegoat nutjobs. they just keep getting hit wth stupid, ask RKMBrown. He's friggn king of getting swatted with the stupid.

 

[SAYIT]

Does a suspected perpetrator who is 148 feet away from an officer represent a danger to that officer's life?

Brown was hit with multiple shoots and still fell forward.

 

[RKMBrown]

Yet no one has said a word of how 18 witnesses who clearly saw and testified Brown was not charging can be ignored.

Witness testimony Michael Brown s last moments Reading Eagle - AP

They SAY they clearly saw the incident. Others have stated that there was witness intimidation and threats to those whose accounts agreed with the officer's. All of these things had to be taken into account by the grand jury. Tell us, which seat did you have when they were given the case?

There were those who claimed to be witnesses when pressed about it said they weren't there.

That's my point. Anyone can claim they were an eyewitness to something, but when their testimony conflicts with the physical evidence, you have to question their claims. Some claimed Brown was shot from behind. He wasn't. Some claimed he was kneeling when he was shot. He wasn't. Some are claiming he had his hands up in surrender. He didn't.

You say he wasn't kneeling when he was shot... how do you know that? The last four shots including two to the chest and two to the head. What you think he wasn't going down to his knees before that last shot? lol yeah he died standing straight up with two bullets in his head... Please ignore the scrapes on his knees on the concrete.

If he was kneeling when he was shot and the forensic evidence showed that, there is no way the GJ would not have indicted. And no, he wasn't standing straight up, he was leaning forward, running toward the bullet.

Leaning forward... you mean like someone would be if they were kneeling down falling to the ground? Face it, the last two shots to his head was an Execution.