(08-21-2014 11:01 AM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  All you have to do is listen to both stories. One of them actually makes sense and can be easily repeated because of its consistency (the officer's). The other story is inconsistent and unable to be repeated with accuracy (Mr. Brown's friend and accomplice). The forensic evidence does not match up with it and the story makes no sense once you think it through.

To me, you have to ask two very important questions:
1. Does the officer have a record of abusing his authority against the people he polices (have there been any complaints against him, including in his personal capacity)? No. Because if such things existed, the DoJ, Governor, and media would have released this and talked about it endlessly.
2. Does Mr. Brown have a record of intimidating or assaulting others and/or showing a disregard for authority? Yes. He just committed strong arm robbery and assault and then, according to his friend, disobeyed a lawful order to get out of the street.

Does this prove 100% what happened? no. But, what it does show is that the narrative of Mr. Brown's supporters does not match the history of the officer in question. Whereas, the officer's account (as relayed by others) is consistent with the prior conduct of Mr. Brown.

I don't think any lawyer worth $1 would allow their past to be a part of the evidence or influence of a jury.

(08-21-2014 11:43 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 11:01 AM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  All you have to do is listen to both stories. One of them actually makes sense and can be easily repeated because of its consistency (the officer's). The other story is inconsistent and unable to be repeated with accuracy (Mr. Brown's friend and accomplice). The forensic evidence does not match up with it and the story makes no sense once you think it through.

To me, you have to ask two very important questions:
1. Does the officer have a record of abusing his authority against the people he polices (have there been any complaints against him, including in his personal capacity)? No. Because if such things existed, the DoJ, Governor, and media would have released this and talked about it endlessly.
2. Does Mr. Brown have a record of intimidating or assaulting others and/or showing a disregard for authority? Yes. He just committed strong arm robbery and assault and then, according to his friend, disobeyed a lawful order to get out of the street.

Does this prove 100% what happened? no. But, what it does show is that the narrative of Mr. Brown's supporters does not match the history of the officer in question. Whereas, the officer's account (as relayed by others) is consistent with the prior conduct of Mr. Brown.

I don't think any lawyer worth $1 would allow their past to be a part of the evidence or influence of a jury.

You're right, they would want that thrown out, but the video prior to the shooting should be allowed as evidence.

(08-21-2014 10:49 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 10:46 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 10:40 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 07:03 AM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 12:22 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Can you answer the question? Or have you already made your decision? Is it possible.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Not according to the the witnesses that state. MB was taunting Wilson and then Charged at him.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

True but according to other witnesses, it is.

Whose version does the physical evidence support?

I think both. Regardless of what happened before he was shot, the physical evidence shows that he was shot at a distance.

Actually the reports I've seen state that until forensic evidence from the clothing is done, distance can't be determined, and even then, unless there is residue on the clothing, distance can't be easily determined. Meaning, it could have been 5 feet or 50 feet.

(08-21-2014 11:47 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 11:43 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 11:01 AM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  All you have to do is listen to both stories. One of them actually makes sense and can be easily repeated because of its consistency (the officer's). The other story is inconsistent and unable to be repeated with accuracy (Mr. Brown's friend and accomplice). The forensic evidence does not match up with it and the story makes no sense once you think it through.

To me, you have to ask two very important questions:
1. Does the officer have a record of abusing his authority against the people he polices (have there been any complaints against him, including in his personal capacity)? No. Because if such things existed, the DoJ, Governor, and media would have released this and talked about it endlessly.
2. Does Mr. Brown have a record of intimidating or assaulting others and/or showing a disregard for authority? Yes. He just committed strong arm robbery and assault and then, according to his friend, disobeyed a lawful order to get out of the street.

Does this prove 100% what happened? no. But, what it does show is that the narrative of Mr. Brown's supporters does not match the history of the officer in question. Whereas, the officer's account (as relayed by others) is consistent with the prior conduct of Mr. Brown.

I don't think any lawyer worth $1 would allow their past to be a part of the evidence or influence of a jury.

You're right, they would want that thrown out, but the video prior to the shooting should be allowed as evidence.

Why? That would influence the jury and give them a negative image of Mike Brown.

The case should be about whether or not the police officer acted in self defense.

Mike Brown is not on trial here.

They also want the judge in this case to be removed because when he was a kid, his dad (a policeman) was gunned down and killed by a black man and they're saying he'll rule in favor of the cop for emotional reasons. The crock of sh*t by these people just keeps getting bigger. It's pathetic. They might as well let Holder oversee the trial and be the judge, or let Al Shiton do it.

Why not let an independent investigation happen to limit the amount of tension? Allowing the locals to run the show is only going to give the appearance of a cover up.

(08-21-2014 11:58 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Why not let an independent investigation happen to limit the amount of tension? Allowing the locals to run the show is only going to give the appearance of a cover up.

Isn't that why the Feds are there?

(08-21-2014 11:59 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 11:58 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Why not let an independent investigation happen to limit the amount of tension? Allowing the locals to run the show is only going to give the appearance of a cover up.

Isn't that why the Feds are there?

Yes. And they should be. It's a high profile case.

(08-21-2014 12:01 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 11:59 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 11:58 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Why not let an independent investigation happen to limit the amount of tension? Allowing the locals to run the show is only going to give the appearance of a cover up.

Isn't that why the Feds are there?

Yes. And they should be. It's a high profile case.

I agree, that's why I didn't get your comment above. It seemed you were asking for something that was already occuring. Maybe I just readi it wrong.

(08-21-2014 11:53 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  They also want the judge in this case to be removed because when he was a kid, his dad (a policeman) was gunned down and killed by a black man and they're saying he'll rule in favor of the cop for emotional reasons. The crock of sh*t by these people just keeps getting bigger. It's pathetic. They might as well let Holder oversee the trial and be the judge, or let Al Shiton do it.

That's the prosecutor. He basically said that if they want me to be removed they need to do it now. I'm not stepping aside.

In previous cases of officers, he's had a track record of being as tough on them as any other defendant.

(08-21-2014 11:49 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 11:47 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 11:43 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 11:01 AM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  All you have to do is listen to both stories. One of them actually makes sense and can be easily repeated because of its consistency (the officer's). The other story is inconsistent and unable to be repeated with accuracy (Mr. Brown's friend and accomplice). The forensic evidence does not match up with it and the story makes no sense once you think it through.

To me, you have to ask two very important questions:
1. Does the officer have a record of abusing his authority against the people he polices (have there been any complaints against him, including in his personal capacity)? No. Because if such things existed, the DoJ, Governor, and media would have released this and talked about it endlessly.
2. Does Mr. Brown have a record of intimidating or assaulting others and/or showing a disregard for authority? Yes. He just committed strong arm robbery and assault and then, according to his friend, disobeyed a lawful order to get out of the street.

Does this prove 100% what happened? no. But, what it does show is that the narrative of Mr. Brown's supporters does not match the history of the officer in question. Whereas, the officer's account (as relayed by others) is consistent with the prior conduct of Mr. Brown.

I don't think any lawyer worth $1 would allow their past to be a part of the evidence or influence of a jury.

You're right, they would want that thrown out, but the video prior to the shooting should be allowed as evidence.

Why? That would influence the jury and give them a negative image of Mike Brown.

The case should be about whether or not the police officer acted in self defense.

Mike Brown is not on trial here.

You are obviously not very good at law. Cases that go trial include a lot of evidence you don't like as an attorney. For instance, if you are going to put Mr. Brown's best buddy on the stand as a witness, then his involvement in the robbery is admissible...it goes to credibility. His contradictory statements made about that robbery go to credibility.

The officer's past is very much admissible. His record will be gone through. My guess is that it is spotless and only the defense would bring it up.

Additionally, the prosecutor will need to paint a picture that assaulting people is out of character for the gentle giant....if they go there, the video will come in. There are literally 10-20 ways that video gets in.

As to your other nonsense, I merely provided the reason why one story makes sense and is credible and why the other is not. I didn't say "in a court".

(08-21-2014 12:01 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 11:59 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 11:58 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Why not let an independent investigation happen to limit the amount of tension? Allowing the locals to run the show is only going to give the appearance of a cover up.

Isn't that why the Feds are there?

Yes. And they should be. It's a high profile case.

Unless you have evidence of impropriety, you don't get to pick the investigators or prosecutors. If you don't like it, TOUGH!

(08-21-2014 12:03 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 11:53 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  They also want the judge in this case to be removed because when he was a kid, his dad (a policeman) was gunned down and killed by a black man and they're saying he'll rule in favor of the cop for emotional reasons. The crock of sh*t by these people just keeps getting bigger. It's pathetic. They might as well let Holder oversee the trial and be the judge, or let Al Shiton do it.

That's the prosecutor. He basically said that if they want me to be removed they need to do it now. I'm not stepping aside.

In previous cases of officers, he's had a track record of being as tough on them as any other defendant.

Those ignorant bottom feeders don't care about facts, they know he's not a pushover and the Brown was a threat to the officer so they just don't want him to be the prosecutor.

(08-21-2014 11:49 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 11:47 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 11:43 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 11:01 AM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  All you have to do is listen to both stories. One of them actually makes sense and can be easily repeated because of its consistency (the officer's). The other story is inconsistent and unable to be repeated with accuracy (Mr. Brown's friend and accomplice). The forensic evidence does not match up with it and the story makes no sense once you think it through.

To me, you have to ask two very important questions:
1. Does the officer have a record of abusing his authority against the people he polices (have there been any complaints against him, including in his personal capacity)? No. Because if such things existed, the DoJ, Governor, and media would have released this and talked about it endlessly.
2. Does Mr. Brown have a record of intimidating or assaulting others and/or showing a disregard for authority? Yes. He just committed strong arm robbery and assault and then, according to his friend, disobeyed a lawful order to get out of the street.

Does this prove 100% what happened? no. But, what it does show is that the narrative of Mr. Brown's supporters does not match the history of the officer in question. Whereas, the officer's account (as relayed by others) is consistent with the prior conduct of Mr. Brown.

I don't think any lawyer worth $1 would allow their past to be a part of the evidence or influence of a jury.

You're right, they would want that thrown out, but the video prior to the shooting should be allowed as evidence.

Why? That would influence the jury and give them a negative image of Mike Brown.

The case should be about whether or not the police officer acted in self defense.

Mike Brown is not on trial here.

If the video was from a year ago, yeah, I'd agree. But it was minutes before the shooting. It shows that while everyone has claimed that Mike Brown was not aggressive, video evidence prior to the event proves otherwise. You claim Wilson has to prove self defense, I present evidence that Michael Brown was very capable of attacking anyone.

You're right Brown is not on trial, but any actions he exhibited that would cause an officer to act in self defense are.

Also read this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volok...nal-trial/

(08-21-2014 12:16 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 12:01 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 11:59 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 11:58 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Why not let an independent investigation happen to limit the amount of tension? Allowing the locals to run the show is only going to give the appearance of a cover up.

Isn't that why the Feds are there?

Yes. And they should be. It's a high profile case.

Unless you have evidence of impropriety, you don't get to pick the investigators or prosecutors. If you don't like it, TOUGH!

That's how I feel too. Brown defamed his own character with the choices he made that day, and it's on camera. The people can say it's not him all they want, but they better come up with a 6'4" 300 pound black man that looks exactly like him if they're going to try to disprove his involvement.

(08-21-2014 12:23 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 12:16 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 12:01 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 11:59 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 11:58 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Why not let an independent investigation happen to limit the amount of tension? Allowing the locals to run the show is only going to give the appearance of a cover up.

Isn't that why the Feds are there?

Yes. And they should be. It's a high profile case.

Unless you have evidence of impropriety, you don't get to pick the investigators or prosecutors. If you don't like it, TOUGH!

That's how I feel too. Brown defamed his own character with the choices he made that day, and it's on camera. The people can say it's not him all they want, but they better come up with a 6'4" 300 pound black man that looks exactly like him if they're going to try to disprove his involvement.

Not to mention his clothes and the fact he was with his buddy and miraculously had the cigars on him. But then again...it could be someone else...maybe his twin....he does have twin, right?

(08-21-2014 11:49 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Why? That would influence the jury and give them a negative image of Mike Brown.

The case should be about whether or not the police officer acted in self defense.

Mike Brown is not on trial here.

You went straight to the Trayvon Martin trial playbook for that one didn't ya. Nobody was allowed to see his flashy pictures of his weapons, or his videos of he and his friends beating elderly people up, or his school records of why he was on his third suspension of the year and this time for stealing jewelry. No, because that would tarnish the image of him being a small innocent child incapable of trying to harm Zman.

Mike Brown isn't on trial, but everything he did is very useable for this case.

(08-21-2014 12:25 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 12:23 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 12:16 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 12:01 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 11:59 AM)VA49er Wrote:  Isn't that why the Feds are there?

Yes. And they should be. It's a high profile case.

Unless you have evidence of impropriety, you don't get to pick the investigators or prosecutors. If you don't like it, TOUGH!

That's how I feel too. Brown defamed his own character with the choices he made that day, and it's on camera. The people can say it's not him all they want, but they better come up with a 6'4" 300 pound black man that looks exactly like him if they're going to try to disprove his involvement.

Not to mention his clothes and the fact he was with his buddy and miraculously had the cigars on him. But then again...it could be someone else...maybe his twin....he does have twin, right?

He's got to... Probably the one that must have gotten scared and left the country and will never be seen or heard from again.

(08-21-2014 12:28 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 12:25 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 12:23 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 12:16 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 12:01 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Yes. And they should be. It's a high profile case.

Unless you have evidence of impropriety, you don't get to pick the investigators or prosecutors. If you don't like it, TOUGH!

That's how I feel too. Brown defamed his own character with the choices he made that day, and it's on camera. The people can say it's not him all they want, but they better come up with a 6'4" 300 pound black man that looks exactly like him if they're going to try to disprove his involvement.

Not to mention his clothes and the fact he was with his buddy and miraculously had the cigars on him. But then again...it could be someone else...maybe his twin....he does have twin, right?

He's got to... Probably the one that must have gotten scared and left the country and will never be seen or heard from again.

Maybe he's hiding at Fit's house.

Quote:Why? That would influence the jury and give them a negative image of Mike Brown.

I keep going back to this comment.

So I gotta ask Fit, tell us about Mike Brown and why he's such an innocent soul in all this.