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.
So the gun was not handled by anyone in the ensuing three months? I would think if it hadn't been checked immediately, the evidence of prints (or not) would be inadmissible.
I'm pretty sure it would be turned in initially no? As evidence?
There was a lot of information missing, like a description of what actually happened in the Police report, that leaves a lot to be questioned.
Ellemint or Orlandochuck? might be able to answer that. They've read the documents in their entirety I believe.
Maybe you SHOULD become an investigator, since you're so smart and know what happened better than the grand jury that heard the case. I'm sure there are some affirmative action programs that can help you get the job, even if you're not up to par with the other folks.
Because I love what I do.
And why would I need affirmative action when I hire people? I help others get money
Well if they're right next to each other at the cruiser door of course its going to be a close range shot.
What exactly was Brown doing when he was shot? Was he moving his hand in front of the gun as if to block the bullet? And why?
Was he actually trying to grab the gun? Was he trying to pull away from Wilson to resist arrest or assault?
Unless you can give me a definite answer, stop using that argument.
And to your last sentence. The fact that they did NOT check for prints, when that's in the officer's narrative, tells me that they wouldn't have found any anyways. With 3 months of time and someone's life in the balance that's something that you do.
They conveniently said there was DNA on the gun. But left out the fact that there were no prints.
Speculation? No. Intent. Are they professionals or no? That's one of the first things I would've done as an investigator.
The fact that you are still asking questions about what "could" have happened, and the GJ made their decision based on the physical evidence and eyewitness statements consistent with this evidence means you have proof of nothing tangible and are jumping to conclusion based on your need to propel "the movement". I understand your compassion for the injustice of police brutality. We know this brutality exists. This is just a lousy example of it. Just because it has drawn national attention, doesn't change the science of this case. If your movement wants to be taken seriously by the masses, your going to have to find a clearer case.
The fact that you are still asking questions about what "could" have happened, and the GJ made their decision based on the physical evidence and eyewitness statements consistent with this evidence means you have proof of nothing tangible and are jumping to conclusion based on your need to propel "the movement". I understand your compassion for the injustice of police brutality. We know this brutality exists. This is just a lousy example of it. Just because it has drawn national attention, doesn't change the science of this case. If your movement wants to be taken seriously by the masses, your going to have to find a clearer case.
It's not a lousy example. Police should not be shooting unarmed people.
I'm sticking to the facts of the case.
Can you tell me what Mike Brown was doing when he was shot first in the hand?
It's not a lousy example. Police should not be shooting unarmed people.
I'm sticking to the facts of the case.
Can you tell me what Mike Brown was doing when he was shot first in the hand?
You are not sticking to the facts... You are asking what could of and what might of, and how do we know this didn't happen. You are dismissing all of the knowns.
By the way..... Hands, fists and feet are one of the leading way people are murdered in America, second to guns. So sometimes shooting someone unarmed is justified.
Last edited by Orlandochuck1; 11-28-2014 at 02:10 PM..
It's not a lousy example. Police should not be shooting unarmed people.
I'm sticking to the facts of the case.
Can you tell me what Mike Brown was doing when he was shot first in the hand?
IF you stuck to the facts of the case you would know there was no evidence to convict the cop of anything. You're the one that is saying maybe, possibly. could have, etc. Those are not facts. Cases are not decided based on maybe's. They listened to countless witnesses and used the physical evidence that they had. They already proved that some of the witnesses lied and some of them changed their story when they got caught in a lie. The prosecutor was asked on Monday night if they were going to consider charging some of them with perjury. I can't believe how many have totally ignored all of the facts and evidence in this case. The protesters made fools of themselves and still are. If you asked them why they are doing what they are doing they probably couldn't tell you. They would probably just try and play the race card.
Can you tell me what Mike Brown was doing when he was shot first in the hand?
I was not there, and I won't speculate. Unlike some people. Only officer Wilson can answer that. Twelve people listened to his testimony and apparently they found him to be credible. If not, he would be waiting to go to trial.
I don't disagree the only thing you can derive from that is that there were many inconsistencies, that is why a cross examination is necessary, sorely lacking from this process. Still trying to make sense why Wilson was N/A on some of the responses.
There is no "cross-examination" in a GJ hearing. The prosecuting attorney is the only one that presents evidence.
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.
