zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Where did he say that. And remember, a news site. Not a blog or citing a radio link.
Ferguson....
- Thread starter goldfly
- Start date
Where did he say that. And remember, a news site. Not a blog or citing a radio link.
Its pretty obvious. Zito will just discount any clear cut evidence that goes against what he wants to happen.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
What do they tell? Aside from someone was murdered.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
How is it obvious? Unless you want to just take one side's tale as the word of god, ignoring several witnesses.
Evidence is being held under wraps at this point for the grand jury. You think this story was made up out of thin air? We will find out everything that has happened soon enough.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Right. So all the evidence happens to support you is hidden lmao.
No, just that piece which is a pretty damning piece. I'm comfortable with the injuries that the officer had to his eye in addition to the autopsy results.
What evidence supports your take of the story? Eyewitness testimony which has yielded different results of what happened? Good luck with that.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Actually what supports my case is that the cop by seemingly all reports and physical evidence we have fired at Brown, someone who's unarmed, from behind. Whether he hit him or not, that is not a time you use deadly force. No one's life is in danger.
You really can't be that ****ing stupid and disagree with the forensics of this case? That's like you saying 'the world is still flat, I don't care what science tells me'
God damn there's no physical evidence Brown was shot from behind. Not one piece of physical evidence.
You live in the year 2014, and this may surprise you but people can find bullets, shell casings, entrance holes and exit holes of where shots went, what they hit and where they ended up. If brown was shot from behind, where the bullet? What did it hit? The liberal media would have 'breaking news' if they had proof that brown was fired at from behind
You live in the year 2014, and this may surprise you but people can find bullets, shell casings, entrance holes and exit holes of where shots went, what they hit and where they ended up. If brown was shot from behind, where the bullet? What did it hit? The liberal media would have 'breaking news' if they had proof that brown was fired at from behind
AerchAngel
<B>Secretary of Statistics</B>
Actually there are three theories out there and none of us know what happened. Forensics on the outset were muddled, even the autopsy was screwed up and conflicting.
No one knows anything concrete at this time. Some people made their minds up on the board based on initial forensics. There is a reason they are keeping this quiet because it was incorrectly conveyed to the public on the outset and they want to make sure all bases are covered.
Justice will be served for all parties. Until then we need, no, you all need to quit thinking that this is an open and shut case.
No one knows anything concrete at this time. Some people made their minds up on the board based on initial forensics. There is a reason they are keeping this quiet because it was incorrectly conveyed to the public on the outset and they want to make sure all bases are covered.
Justice will be served for all parties. Until then we need, no, you all need to quit thinking that this is an open and shut case.
Well the recording of the shots being fired is coming out as 'fake'
I think forensics does tell us that Brown wasn't shot in the back, that there was a physical altercation between he and the cop. Brown did rush the cop. None of that is debatable. You can't argue any of that.
There hasn't been one piece of evidence that has come to light since this case broke, that says me or the others who agree with me are being incorrect with our judgement.
Funny, that one of the first people to shout all over this thread that the cop is a murderer and a racist doesn't seem to come around anymore. That's who rushed to judgement.
I think forensics does tell us that Brown wasn't shot in the back, that there was a physical altercation between he and the cop. Brown did rush the cop. None of that is debatable. You can't argue any of that.
There hasn't been one piece of evidence that has come to light since this case broke, that says me or the others who agree with me are being incorrect with our judgement.
Funny, that one of the first people to shout all over this thread that the cop is a murderer and a racist doesn't seem to come around anymore. That's who rushed to judgement.
They don't have to cook evidence. Brown wasn't shot in the back.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
There are more than one witness account that he fired on Brown from behind. Fired on and hitting are different. I figured you could make that simple reading.
The evidence you cite is a preliminary autopsy which doesn't prove without a doubt he wasn't shot in the back. Again raise your hand make a dramatic running motion it could have easily been a hit from behind first. Just cause it's less likely doesn't mean it's impossible.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
So that's the only thing the cop could have done wrong? You think firing on someone unarmed from behind who's 40+ feet away is cool?
Missouri Law will likely keep him out of jail on that alone, but he should lose his badge if he was under me.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Given the evidence of what we have, we don't know. IF things went the way the officer said happened then of course they did. If they went the way that Johnson said, then he didn't do too much wrong. Aside from probably mugging a store, and walking down a street.
An expert said he wasn't shot in the back. You are not an expert.
Who said he fired on someone 40 feet away?