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.
There's definitely been a lot of "releasing" of information by the media. I can understand what's been released as far as witnesses go, they're free to speak on the matter. But the supposed 'robbery' video. The orbital eye fracture. The account given by Wilson's "friend" who called in.
This case definitely deserves a trial IMO. There's nothing to suggest that all of the witnesses are lying. And so far there's been no witnesses saying that Wilson was not the aggressor.
There's definitely been a lot of "releasing" of information by the media. I can understand what's been released as far as witnesses go, they're free to speak on the matter. But the supposed 'robbery' video. The orbital eye fracture. The account given by Wilson's "friend" who called in.
This case definitely deserves a trial IMO. There's nothing to suggest that all of the witnesses are lying. And so far there's been no witnesses saying that Wilson was not the aggressor.
Because they spoke to the media....testimony will be challenged.....word for word.
Many of the "witness" made me wonder how they would stand up under cross-examination.
Testifying is not just telling your story......and it is not easy.
That's what we're talking about --- if a state changes law to be more open during an investigation, will it prevent the released info from being used in a trial, if there is a trial ? I'm saying as FL. proves, released info can be used in a trial.
In this case we see an autopsy done for the family, with a televised press conference. It makes no sense to keep the official autopsy secret. Witnesses with their lawyers give tv interviews. Why shouldn't redacted versions of their sworn testimony be public. The police chief told the public that Wilson knew about the cigar robbery; the public should be able to see transcript of the radio transmissions. Etc.
One reason the DOJ supposedly got involved was to ensure an open and transparent process. Balderdash.
The people wanting the evidence to be released prior to the trial are only looking to poke holes in said evidence & use it to further indict the officer in the court of public opinion. No good reason to release the evidence at this point. If the officer is indicted, then everyone will get to see what they're holding.
Because they spoke to the media....testimony will be challenged.....word for word.
Many of the "witness" made me wonder how they would stand up under cross-examination.
Testifying is not just telling your story......and it is not easy.
And your basing your version of the story on what??
Not even witnesses. Not even evidence. Not even verified testimony. But you've been here day in and day out championing your position that Brown attacked the officer.
There's definitely been a lot of "releasing" of information by the media. I can understand what's been released as far as witnesses go, they're free to speak on the matter. But the supposed 'robbery' video. The orbital eye fracture. The account given by Wilson's "friend" who called in.
This case definitely deserves a trial IMO. There's nothing to suggest that all of the witnesses are lying. And so far there's been no witnesses saying that Wilson was not the aggressor.
I really don't understand how you, or anyone else for that matter, can say that there "deserves" to be a trial when you don't have access to all the evidence.
It's very possible that all the so-called "evidence" that is now public is only 1% off all the evidence available.
It's also possible that the bulk of the evidence that is available to the grand jury proves that Wilson acted appropriately.
And it's also possible that the evidence points to Wilson using excessive force.
We just don't know.
But to say that this case "deserves" a trial is a mistake.
And your basing your version of the story on what??
Not even witnesses. Not even evidence. Not even verified testimony. But you've been here day in and day out championing your position that Brown attacked the officer.
Your basing your opinion on what Driller?
Where the witnesses lived....it is not really a high rent area.
The way a few of them spoke......they did not sound very smart.
The chance they have had a negative encounter with the police.....or, know someone that has is very high.
Where the witnesses lived....it is not really a high rent area.
The way a few of them spoke......they did not sound very smart.
The chance they have had a negative encounter with the police.....or, know someone that has is very high.
They will be asked about their past.
Time will tell.
And we're supposed to believe you or be swayed by anything a poster like yourself says??
And you live in rural Michigan, have claimed you clutch your gun anytime you see a black man (but have no issues with flirting with men of other races), never have to deal with crime in your community and have never had a negative run in with LEO.
And you even suggesting that your area shouldn't have Police. t should be street justice.
A poster child.
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.
