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.
They legally can't. Seriously, people need to stop with the conspiracy theories. If they could have, don't you think physical evidence that the cop had a busted eye would have been useful to release early on? Would have helped balance things out vs all the "Saint Michael" stories on the media?
What law suddenly says they can't say a cop was injured in an altercation? They release that info, and detailed info, to the media all the time.
If they had "physical evidence that the cop had a busted eye" they would have released it. They haven't so they don't. It's a fabrication to get public sympathy. The cop wasn't nursing a busted eye in the video.
The "unnamed" witness' account totally contradicts this account given by a woman who saw the thing and was interviewed right after everything took place. She was the first woman interviewed by the first news crew on the team. She hadn't seen the news because there was no news. She didn't know Brown or the officer. She's obviously emotional about what she just saw.
According to her, Brown had his hands up when he was shot. He had surrendered and did not charge the officer. She said the first shot(s) came from inside the vehicle and that then Brown began to run. She also said that "the boy didn't do anything to deserve that"
Why are all of the accounts making Brown out to be the aggressor from unnamed and unverified sources. Doctored images and questionable reporters?
This witness you rely on contradicts other witnesses you rely on. She says ---
1. Cop was in his car shooting the boy.
2. Boy put hands up, cop shot him, he fell, cop shot him some more.
She thinks the cop never left his car and claims cop shot Brown after Brown fell to the ground. ['some' or 'six' more times.]
You are right that everything from the cop's side is from sources or 2nd, third hand. I'm not trusting them..
What law suddenly says they can't say a cop was injured in an altercation? They release that info, and detailed info, to the media all the time.
Its part of an ongoing investigation. They had a police chief from St Louis on NBC yesterday describing the process and exactly why further information can't be released until the grand jury is convened and if I understood him correctly, they have decided whether to indict or not indict.
If the officer isn't indicted, anyone can do a FOIA request of sorts to get all the case files and information.
If the officer is indicted, then some reports will be available but others will remain out of public access for awhile longer.
This witness you rely on contradicts other witnesses you rely on. She says ---
1. Cop was in his car shooting the boy.
2. Boy put hands up, cop shot him, he fell, cop shot him some more.
She thinks the cop never left his car and claims cop shot Brown after Brown fell to the ground. ['some' or 'six' more times.]
This. She makes it quite clear that she saw the officer sitting in the car and shooting at Brown which simply isn't consistent even with other witness accounts or the forensics.
Its more than just a black eye. An orbital fracture requires a significant amount of force for it to occur. If there is truth to that, then it changes a lot.
This is true. I hope they just didn't use the wrong ICD-9 code, instead of just black eye/contusion.
To me, how much it changes depends on the order of events.
Because IF Wilson was hit in the eye while Brown was in the car, once Brown exited,
Wilson should have realized he had a situation
he could no longer handle and call for backup. And YES, stayed in his police car.
If he was THAT injured, he certainly could have injured an innocent bystander wailing a weapon,
with diminished vision. Once again, inexperience and wrong decision making skills at play here,
IF we are to believe your scenario.
This is true. I hope they just didn't use the wrong ICD-9 code, instead of just black eye/contusion.
To me, how much it changes depends on the order of events.
Because IF Wilson was hit in the eye while Brown was in the car, once Brown exited,
Wilson should have realized he had a situation
he could no longer handle and call for backup. And YES, stayed in his police car.
If he was THAT injured, he certainly could have injured an innocent bystander wailing a weapon,
with diminished vision. Once again, inexperience and wrong decision making skills at play here,
IF we are to believe your scenario.
If you punch a cop in his eye, they're not about to go run away, they'd do what the officer's alleged account claims and that is pull out their gun and order the individual who assaulted them to stop and get their hands up, attempting to keep them from leaving the scene, as they should.
If someone is nuts enough to punch a cop in the eye, what harm would they be willing to do to someone who couldn't fight back?
This is true. I hope they just didn't use the wrong ICD-9 code, instead of just black eye/contusion.
To me, how much it changes depends on the order of events.
Because IF Wilson was hit in the eye while Brown was in the car, once Brown exited,
Wilson should have realized he had a situation
he could no longer handle and call for backup. And YES, stayed in his police car.
If he was THAT injured, he certainly could have injured an innocent bystander wailing a weapon,
with diminished vision. Once again, inexperience and wrong decision making skills at play here,
IF we are to believe your scenario.
If someone assaulted an officer, that person has displayed a tremendous propensity towards violence and a disregard for the lives of others. At that point the officer had a responsibility to do every thing in his power to stop that person from escaping and putting others at risk. If the story is true that Brown both assaulted him and tried to take his firearm...good riddance. We already know of Brown's assault on the storekeeper-at least no one else was hurt by him. If the evidence proves otherwise, then there is something to be concerned about.
This is true. I hope they just didn't use the wrong ICD-9 code, instead of just black eye/contusion.
To me, how much it changes depends on the order of events.
Because IF Wilson was hit in the eye while Brown was in the car, once Brown exited,
Wilson should have realized he had a situation
he could no longer handle and call for backup. And YES, stayed in his police car.
If he was THAT injured, he certainly could have injured an innocent bystander wailing a weapon,
with diminished vision. Once again, inexperience and wrong decision making skills at play here,
IF we are to believe your scenario.
Or he could have taken his duty seriously, ordering Brown to freeze and submit for arrest. If Brown hit him, would it be better to have a possibly dangerous and combative person on the streets? I do not see why you can't understand it would be his duty to try and apprehend Brown if he was assaulted by him.
If he was THAT injured, he certainly could have injured an innocent bystander wailing a weapon,
with diminished vision. Once again, inexperience and wrong decision making skills at play here,
IF we are to believe your scenario.
Are you for real? Ever watched a boxing match by any chance? Or better yet, a UFC fight?
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.
Ever watched a boxing match by any chance? Or better yet, a UFC fight?