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.
Wilson also made the claim that Brown continued to attack him AFTER being shot. Which means that the hand wound (the 1st shot) would have already occurred.
Where is the blood on Wilson's uniform? We saw him right after the incident and he didn't have a bloody uniform. No blood on his face.
Nobody has STILL been able to dispute this point.
Page 8 of the interview.
If Wilson had already shot Brown in the hand, and there was a struggle ("swinging widly") there would have been blood all over Wilson's uniform.
And YES, you can see Wilson after the incident. People had their cell phones out and somebody captured the officer after the event. May still have his Twitter handle.
People keep making it out like there was some unanimous backing of Wilson's story. That was NOT the case. A majority of witnesses disputed many key claims of Wilson's.
For example, that Brown was running away when Wilson was shooting, and that Brown had his hands up when he was executed.
You should check out the witness cheat sheet. It breaks down which witness said what. A majority did NOT back up Wilson's narrative.
You're right, many witnesses either conflicted with or could not confirm Wilson's version. However, most witnesses did not agree with each other. Many did not even agree with themselves, Johnson for example.
Johnson went from Brown was shot in the back to [paraphrasing] --- 'well, uh, Big Mike kinda stumbled, like, uh, he was hit, but, ummm, I didn't see no hole in him, so, uh, I don't know.'
A little Johnson lie. He went from he didn't change clothes after Brown was shot to [paraphrasing] --- 'oh yea, I forgot, yea, I went home and vomited, and yea, I was really shooken by what happened, and ummmm, yea, I took a shower and changed clothes.'
Why lie about changing clothes ? imo, he realized they had video of him from the store and after the shooting.
I think you should stick with the witnesses who said there were two cops in Wilson's car and Brown was shot 8 times within 5 feet of the car.
He stated that after shooting Brown (and yes he claimed he hit him because he claimed he saw blood), that Brown begin to swing and him wildly. Which would mean that there would be blood on his uniform, side of the car, etc.
Until you can dispute that point, Wilson is a liar or embellished that part of his story.
He stated that after shooting Brown (and yes he claimed he hit him because he claimed he saw blood), that Brown begin to swing and him wildly. Which would mean that there would be blood on his uniform, side of the car, etc.
Until you can dispute that point, Wilson is a liar or embellished that part of his story.
Listen, there was blood found on Wilson's uniform.
It's been so well documented in the evidence and media that I refuse to even find you a link.
Listen, there was blood found on Wilson's uniform.
It's been so well documented in the evidence and media that I refuse to even find you a link.
I don't think you understand what I'm saying.
Read Wilson's testimony. Page 8. AFTER the 1st shot was fired and he claimed he saw blood.
Now if your bleeding from your hand, AND swinging wildly, there's going to be blood on your attacker. A good amount. Especially if your hitting him in the face which he said.
We've all seen pictures of Wilson after the incident.
And no, blood splatter from the initial gunshot wouldn't suffice. His uniform would be very bloody. Look at the pictures for yourself.
Read Wilson's testimony. Page 8. AFTER the 1st shot was fired and he claimed he saw blood.
Now if your bleeding from your hand, AND swinging wildly, there's going to be blood on your attacker. A good amount. Especially if your hitting him in the face which he said.
We've all seen pictures of Wilson after the incident.
And no, blood splatter from the initial gunshot wouldn't suffice. His uniform would be very bloody. Look at the pictures for yourself.
Are those conclusions based on a degree from the Matchbook Cover Drawing & Forensics University ?
Read Wilson's testimony. Page 8. AFTER the 1st shot was fired and he claimed he saw blood.
Now if your bleeding from your hand, AND swinging wildly, there's going to be blood on your attacker. A good amount. Especially if your hitting him in the face which he said.
We've all seen pictures of Wilson after the incident.
And no, blood splatter from the initial gunshot wouldn't suffice. His uniform would be very bloody. Look at the pictures for yourself.
So Wilson was punched. But not punched enough.
So there's blood on Wilson's uniform. But there's not enough blood.
And on and on and on with you. Over and over and over again.
Listen, you really need to come to terms with the fact that a grand jury looked at all the evidence, heard witnesses first hand, spent MONTHS going over this case ... and didn't find enough cause to indict Darren Wilson.
Thems the breaks. You need to get over it already.
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.
