Was Michael Brown Really Unarmed? Nope.

[mudwhistle]

First of all, the title flat out lied. Secondly, it was reported that the officer received a serious headwound which could preclude a more thorough report. He may not be in any shape to fill out a detailed report until he clears the hospital or recovers. Third, the preliminary report is a report. I'm sure he'll do one if it becomes necessary or an issue.

The "title" didn't lie. The incident report was empty. In an incident report you describe the incident. And the officer has had several weeks to recover. The incident report was put out on the 19th of August. Had I put out an incident report like that about a serious event? I would no longer have a job.

And the police had no trouble what so ever putting out information that smeared the reputation of the kid that got killed. None.

But somehow? There's no hospital report on the officer. No Xrays. No pictures No physical evidence that he had a head wound.

Nothing.

So why did the police department of Ferguson disseminate information in that fashion?

Eh?

All of that wouldn't necessarily be on the same incident report. Besides, they can't release every detail. They're still conducting an investigation and once it's complete they 'll file another report.

Did it ever occur to you the cop was seriously wounded?

No of course not.

My understanding is most of what we've heard are unofficial leaks.

The title was a bold-faced lie. The report wasn't empty. It was incomplete.

 

[Sallow]

First of all, the title flat out lied. Secondly, it was reported that the officer received a serious headwound which could preclude a more thorough report. He may not be in any shape to fill out a detailed report until he clears the hospital or recovers. Third, the preliminary report is a report. I'm sure he'll do one if it becomes necessary or an issue.

The "title" didn't lie. The incident report was empty. In an incident report you describe the incident. And the officer has had several weeks to recover. The incident report was put out on the 19th of August. Had I put out an incident report like that about a serious event? I would no longer have a job.

And the police had no trouble what so ever putting out information that smeared the reputation of the kid that got killed. None.

But somehow? There's no hospital report on the officer. No Xrays. No pictures No physical evidence that he had a head wound.

Nothing.

So why did the police department of Ferguson disseminate information in that fashion?

Eh?

All of that wouldn't necessarily be on the same incident report. Besides, they can't release every detail. They're still conducting an investigation and once it's complete they 'll file another report.

Did it ever occur to you the cop was seriously wounded?

No of course not.

My understanding is most of what we've heard are unofficial leaks.

The title was a bold-faced lie. The report wasn't empty. It was incomplete.

Do hospitals generally send people who are "seriously wounded", home?

Or do they admit them and list them as in "serious condition".

And this incident report was not listed as a "partial" incident report. It was signed off on and released to the public.

Empty.

 

[mudwhistle]

First of all, the title flat out lied. Secondly, it was reported that the officer received a serious headwound which could preclude a more thorough report. He may not be in any shape to fill out a detailed report until he clears the hospital or recovers. Third, the preliminary report is a report. I'm sure he'll do one if it becomes necessary or an issue.

The "title" didn't lie. The incident report was empty. In an incident report you describe the incident. And the officer has had several weeks to recover. The incident report was put out on the 19th of August. Had I put out an incident report like that about a serious event? I would no longer have a job.

And the police had no trouble what so ever putting out information that smeared the reputation of the kid that got killed. None.

But somehow? There's no hospital report on the officer. No Xrays. No pictures No physical evidence that he had a head wound.

Nothing.

So why did the police department of Ferguson disseminate information in that fashion?

Eh?

All of that wouldn't necessarily be on the same incident report. Besides, they can't release every detail. They're still conducting an investigation and once it's complete they 'll file another report.

Did it ever occur to you the cop was seriously wounded?

No of course not.

My understanding is most of what we've heard are unofficial leaks.

The title was a bold-faced lie. The report wasn't empty. It was incomplete.

Do hospitals generally send people who are "seriously wounded", home?

Or do they admit them and list them as in "serious condition".

And this incident report was not listed as a "partial" incident report. It was signed off on and released to the public.

Empty.

Empty would mean all spaces are blank.

Quit lying.

 

[mudwhistle]

Btw, do you have any official report on his injuries?

No.

Do you know if he was admitted?

No.

Do you know if this report is the only report?

No.

 

[Sallow]

Btw, do you have any official report on his injuries?

No.

Do you know if he was admitted?

No.

Do you know if this report is the only report?

No.

Actually maybe things are different in Missouri.

In New York? When a major incident like this takes place, you know who goes to the hospital, and what condition they are in.

Missouri might be like Afghanistan.

 

[Sallow]

First of all, the title flat out lied. Secondly, it was reported that the officer received a serious headwound which could preclude a more thorough report. He may not be in any shape to fill out a detailed report until he clears the hospital or recovers. Third, the preliminary report is a report. I'm sure he'll do one if it becomes necessary or an issue.

The "title" didn't lie. The incident report was empty. In an incident report you describe the incident. And the officer has had several weeks to recover. The incident report was put out on the 19th of August. Had I put out an incident report like that about a serious event? I would no longer have a job.

And the police had no trouble what so ever putting out information that smeared the reputation of the kid that got killed. None.

But somehow? There's no hospital report on the officer. No Xrays. No pictures No physical evidence that he had a head wound.

Nothing.

So why did the police department of Ferguson disseminate information in that fashion?

Eh?

All of that wouldn't necessarily be on the same incident report. Besides, they can't release every detail. They're still conducting an investigation and once it's complete they 'll file another report.

Did it ever occur to you the cop was seriously wounded?

No of course not.

My understanding is most of what we've heard are unofficial leaks.

The title was a bold-faced lie. The report wasn't empty. It was incomplete.

Do hospitals generally send people who are "seriously wounded", home?

Or do they admit them and list them as in "serious condition".

And this incident report was not listed as a "partial" incident report. It was signed off on and released to the public.

Empty.

Empty would mean all spaces are blank.

Quit lying.

The part where the officer is suppose to describe the incident? Is blank.

Take your own advice.

 

[mudwhistle]

First of all, the title flat out lied. Secondly, it was reported that the officer received a serious headwound which could preclude a more thorough report. He may not be in any shape to fill out a detailed report until he clears the hospital or recovers. Third, the preliminary report is a report. I'm sure he'll do one if it becomes necessary or an issue.

The "title" didn't lie. The incident report was empty. In an incident report you describe the incident. And the officer has had several weeks to recover. The incident report was put out on the 19th of August. Had I put out an incident report like that about a serious event? I would no longer have a job.

And the police had no trouble what so ever putting out information that smeared the reputation of the kid that got killed. None.

But somehow? There's no hospital report on the officer. No Xrays. No pictures No physical evidence that he had a head wound.

Nothing.

So why did the police department of Ferguson disseminate information in that fashion?

Eh?

All of that wouldn't necessarily be on the same incident report. Besides, they can't release every detail. They're still conducting an investigation and once it's complete they 'll file another report.

Did it ever occur to you the cop was seriously wounded?

No of course not.

My understanding is most of what we've heard are unofficial leaks.

The title was a bold-faced lie. The report wasn't empty. It was incomplete.

Do hospitals generally send people who are "seriously wounded", home?

Or do they admit them and list them as in "serious condition".

And this incident report was not listed as a "partial" incident report. It was signed off on and released to the public.

Empty.

Empty would mean all spaces are blank.

Quit lying.

The part where the officer is suppose to describe the incident? Is blank.

Take your own advice.

Like I said, you don't know enough to judge why.

The only thing you believe is the word of the accomplice saying he was shot in the back.

 

[Sallow]

Like I said, you don't know enough to judge why.

The only thing you believe is the word of the accomplice saying he was shot in the back.

No one has said he was shot in the back. 2 witnesses said he stopped when the officer was firing at him while he was fleeing like he had just got shot. Lets get that straight. By the way? The officer firing at him while he was running away? Was probably illegal. Additionally the forensics may point to Brown being shot in the arm while running.

And I don't need to judge why. The law in Missouri requires police transparency.

 

[mudwhistle]

Like I said, you don't know enough to judge why.

The only thing you believe is the word of the accomplice saying he was shot in the back.

No one has said he was shot in the back. 2 witnesses said he stopped when the officer was firing at him while he was fleeing like he had just got shot. Lets get that straight. By the way? The officer firing at him while he was running away? Was probably illegal. Additionally the forensics may point to Brown being shot in the arm while running.

And I don't need to judge why. The law in Missouri requires police transparency.

Site the code.

 

[Meathead]

Like I said, you don't know enough to judge why.

The only thing you believe is the word of the accomplice saying he was shot in the back.

No one has said he was shot in the back. 2 witnesses said he stopped when the officer was firing at him while he was fleeing like he had just got shot. Lets get that straight. By the way? The officer firing at him while he was running away? Was probably illegal. Additionally the forensics may point to Brown being shot in the arm while running.

And I don't need to judge why. The law in Missouri requires police transparency.

Site the code.

Better yet, cite it. Swallow's a ditz.

 

[mudwhistle]

First you link to a story that says there was no report, then you claim the report that didn't exist was Empty, now it's just the incident description is blank.

Make up your mind.

Like I said, you don't know enough to judge why.

The only thing you believe is the word of the accomplice saying he was shot in the back.

No one has said he was shot in the back. 2 witnesses said he stopped when the officer was firing at him while he was fleeing like he had just got shot. Lets get that straight. By the way? The officer firing at him while he was running away? Was probably illegal. Additionally the forensics may point to Brown being shot in the arm while running.

And I don't need to judge why. The law in Missouri requires police transparency.

Site the code.

Better yet, cite it. Swallow's a ditz.

Yup.

Somebody had to say he was shot on the back. Otherwise they wouldn't be repeating it.

 

[Esmeralda]

So now with this article proclaiming that being armed means having hands, we're all fucked....we can be killed by cops now at anytime and for anything....

Actually, you guys on the left can't seem to use common-sense, so it has to be brought to your attention.

You're literally supporting criminals when they attack our police officers.

Your problem is you've been watching too much television and you think it's reality. In the real world most cops are respectable members of the community and you all think they're crooked.

It is not even confirmed that Wilson was attacked. That is his story. He could have banged his head on the steering wheel or the window for all we know.

 

[mudwhistle]

So now with this article proclaiming that being armed means having hands, we're all fucked....we can be killed by cops now at anytime and for anything....

Actually, you guys on the left can't seem to use common-sense, so it has to be brought to your attention.

You're literally supporting criminals when they attack our police officers.

Your problem is you've been watching too much television and you think it's reality. In the real world most cops are respectable members of the community and you all think they're crooked.

It is not even confirmed that Wilson was attacked. That is his story. He could have banged his head on the steering wheel or the window for all we know.

The point is we don't know anything for sure.

These liberals claimed an unarmed man is no threat and the point of the OP is they can be, especially if they're as big as Michael Brown.

 

[Esmeralda]

So now with this article proclaiming that being armed means having hands, we're all fucked....we can be killed by cops now at anytime and for anything....

Actually, you guys on the left can't seem to use common-sense, so it has to be brought to your attention.

You're literally supporting criminals when they attack our police officers.

Your problem is you've been watching too much television and you think it's reality. In the real world most cops are respectable members of the community and you all think they're crooked.

It is not even confirmed that Wilson was attacked. That is his story. He could have banged his head on the steering wheel or the window for all we know.

The point is we don't know anything for sure.

These liberals claimed an unarmed man is no threat and the point of the OP is they can be, especially if they're as big as Michael Brown.

LMAO You guys are hilarious. You post a thread that assumes a whole hell of a lot and makes all kinds of claims about what happened, then when you get to a point you can't reasonably defend your claims, you say 'no one knows what happened for sure.' Exactly. We don't know, yet you are making all kinds of claims as if you do.

 

[Meathead]

It is not even confirmed that Wilson was attacked. That is his story. He could have banged his head on the steering wheel or the window for all we know.

Sure, and Zimmerman banged his head against the sidewalk for some reason before he assaulted Martin. Whowouldathunk?!

 

[mudwhistle]

So now with this article proclaiming that being armed means having hands, we're all fucked....we can be killed by cops now at anytime and for anything....

Actually, you guys on the left can't seem to use common-sense, so it has to be brought to your attention.

You're literally supporting criminals when they attack our police officers.

Your problem is you've been watching too much television and you think it's reality. In the real world most cops are respectable members of the community and you all think they're crooked.

It is not even confirmed that Wilson was attacked. That is his story. He could have banged his head on the steering wheel or the window for all we know.

The point is we don't know anything for sure.

These liberals claimed an unarmed man is no threat and the point of the OP is they can be, especially if they're as big as Michael Brown.

LMAO You guys are hilarious. You post a thread that assumes a whole hell of a lot and makes all kinds of claims about what happened, then when you get to a point you can't reasonably defend your claims, you say 'no one knows what happened for sure.' Exactly. We don't know, yet you are making all kinds of claims as if you do.

Yet you can't prove anything either and commence to neg everything I posted.

Fact is I believe what I see with my eyes the most. I saw a vid of Brown committing robbery right before he was killed. Try figuring out why he was killed. And most likely wasn't because he was helping Grandmas across the street or Jaywalking.

 

[haissem123]

did you see the other shooting? with the two cops and the guy with the knife? do you think our officers should have to empty their guns into an individual or could they just shoot empty their clips into his legs and hope they only hit bone? I know what your are all gonna say. just asking. I've shot a guns and think I could have shot t his guy in the hip area a couple of times and taking shelter behind the car before I had to do so too. I have heard all the tales of pcp hundred shot guys killilng cops etc.. and if it's your life or his make sure he's dead... but... cops are and should be much better shots from ten or twenty feet. maybe if they shot at 20 feet two painful debilitating shots could save a lot of lives? not worth saving these lives? maybe.

 

[Sallow]

Like I said, you don't know enough to judge why.

The only thing you believe is the word of the accomplice saying he was shot in the back.

No one has said he was shot in the back. 2 witnesses said he stopped when the officer was firing at him while he was fleeing like he had just got shot. Lets get that straight. By the way? The officer firing at him while he was running away? Was probably illegal. Additionally the forensics may point to Brown being shot in the arm while running.

And I don't need to judge why. The law in Missouri requires police transparency.

Site the code.

This is the "site".

http://extension.missouri.edu/extcouncil/documents/sunshine_law_summary.pdf
Here's another "site"
Missouri Freedom of Information Act Missouri Open Records Law NFOIC

Let me know if you want me to help you fix your google.

I can talk you through an install.

 

[mudwhistle]

Like I said, you don't know enough to judge why.

The only thing you believe is the word of the accomplice saying he was shot in the back.

No one has said he was shot in the back. 2 witnesses said he stopped when the officer was firing at him while he was fleeing like he had just got shot. Lets get that straight. By the way? The officer firing at him while he was running away? Was probably illegal. Additionally the forensics may point to Brown being shot in the arm while running.

And I don't need to judge why. The law in Missouri requires police transparency.

Site the code.

This is the "site".

http://extension.missouri.edu/extcouncil/documents/sunshine_law_summary.pdf
Here's another "site"
Missouri Freedom of Information Act Missouri Open Records Law NFOIC

Let me know if you want me to help you fix your google.

I can talk you through an install.

No need.

Where does it say anything about criminal investigations?

Doesn't the Sunshine law deal with government? City Council meetings and acts of Congress?

 

[mudwhistle]

Oh, the cops must have lost all of their emails and accidentally destroyed their hard drives. It happens.