Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ebidence as Crump says, states otherwise. With his blood found on the gun and witnesses noting a struggle for the gun, I would say he intended to kill / harm the cop.
But you have no prints...
Do you know how close you'd have to be to see a struggle for the gun? Do you know which hand Brown would have had to use to reach the gun holstered on Wilson's right hip?
They did not test for fingerprints. That was a mistake. Whether they could find Brown's prints is another issue. Prints don't always transfer, nor are they always identifiable, but still... test for them.
I'm 100% sure Brown's prints on the gun wouldn't change the opinion of many people, but LE should know by now that what they don't do right can always be used against them.
Why would you not test for prints when your defendant (yes LEO was trying to work in his best interest) stated that the suspect grabbed your gun and pressed it to your hip?
Okay, I was even responding to you when we discussed this earlier in the thread: ***The Verdict #Ferguson***
Do you know how close you'd have to be to see a struggle for the gun? Do you know which hand Brown would have had to use to reach the gun holstered on Wilson's right hip?
Bravo!! Good post and you didn't even have to say a word. Thanks for the link.
Now listen, I am not for the black pride issue and against cops. That is not the point. I am not saying that OFC Wilson didn't have a right to protect himself with what he had to use. But what I am saying is that it could have all been prevented AT SOME POINT IN TIME during the altercation. As immortal stated, in past times, you needed a gun to be killed. Then you needed a knife to be killed (even though officers are trained to disarm a person with a knife). Now, you don't even need a weapon at all and it all comes down to the officer's reasonable fear of life.
I will cut this post short (as I have many to come) but I will say that it all comes down to proper training and understanding human behavior at the height of fear. Cops don't get emotional force training. You can't have the license to take freedom/life away but then think you don't have that much more responsibility in taking the appropriate measures to save life. This means from when you first enter the scene and not amp the situation. (generally speaking)
I seriously almost shed a tear watching that video
No, it wouldn't have. Wilson never lost control of the gun, so the presence of Brown's fingerprints on the gun would have been meaningless and neither corroborated nor uncorroborated the story. Correspondingly, no presence of fingerprints would have been just as meaningless. The presence of fingerprints would have only had meaning if Wilson had lost control of the gun.
Edit: The reason for this is that you generally cannot pick up fingerprints left on the barrel of a weapon after the weapon has been fired due to the heat of the barrel. So any fingerprints on the barrel would have supported nothing that happened in the car, and even implied that Wilson tried to frame Brown by putting the gun in his hands after the shooting. A lack of fingerprints would be consistent with either grabbing the barrel before the shots were fired or with not grabbing the barrel at all.
If Wilson had lost control of the gun, you would expect fingerprints on the grip or even trigger. But since he did not lose control of the gun, you would not expect such prints at all and if such prints were found, there would be no explanation from anyone's story for that to happen, as that would mean that Brown had control of the firearm at some point.
From the description that Wilson gave, his prints would be on more than just the barrel. They'd probably pick up somewhere. I'm not an expert on forensics, but wouldn't Brown's prints be easily identifiable?
Just to ease my longing for justice, I'm going to stop debating the details of it. Until there's an actual trial or some other new piece of evidence, I'm gonna focus on the bigger issues that can prevent this.
Police should not be killing unarmed men or women unless they are truly in fear of their life.
"Officials say Wilson kept a clean record without any disciplinary action."
"Wilson won a commendation this year after he subdued a man who was found to be involved in a drug transaction, and he was honored in a ceremony in the Town Council chambers."
"He seemed to be doing pretty well as a police officer..."
"...Lt. Jeff Fuesting in charge as commander, ... who overlapped for about four months with Wilson during a transitional period, described him as “an average officer.”
“My impression is he didn’t go above and beyond, and he didn’t get in any trouble,” Fuesting said."
Robert Orr, the former Jennings police chief who retired in 2010, said of Wilson: “He was a good officer with us. There was no disciplinary action.”
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
