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.
of course, not even close. But there are substantially more criminals as a percentage of the black population than of the white population in the United States. That's not a subjective comment, it's factual and statistically relevant when explaining the higher number of police interactions with blacks
you think:
If the black population would:
graduate school, I mean 100%
excel in colleges degrees
zero crime
zero out of wedlock birth
quit hanging out at night
quit drinking, drugs
attended church weekly
took care of their family
kept employment
became the beacon of society
you think in twenty years, they would not be profiled
If you watch the helicopter video, he falls down and to his left. His right side/back is towards the police. The only way he could have entrance wounds on the left side of his legs and torso is if those hit him while he was still standing. (Shot 7 & 8 in the image above)
Let us simply quote the Dr who did the autopsy...
"The proposition that has been presented that he was assailing the officers, meaning he was facing the officers, is inconsistent with the prevailing forensic evidence," Omalu said at a news conference with family attorney Benjamin Crump.
"The proposition that has been presented that he was assailing the officers, meaning he was facing the officers, is inconsistent with the prevailing forensic evidence," Omalu said at a news conference with family attorney Benjamin Crump.
Either the doctor did not see the helicopter video or he is outright lying. The video shows Clark walking past the picnic table towards the officers, take a step forward, then fall to the left onto his knees. How do you dispute the video evidence?
Either the doctor did not see the helicopter video or he is outright lying. The video shows Clark walking past the picnic table towards the officers, take a step forward, then fall to the left onto his knees. How do you dispute the video evidence?
Seems like the examiner's political leanings may be coming into play here
This was a private doctor hired by the family to perform the autopsy. The official autopsy report has not been released.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlakeJones
Gotcha, so basically it's just another ambulance chaser putting their spin on this for maximum monetary compensation
The guy is a nationally renowned pathologist. Likely outpoints anyone in Sacramento. You get the best available and object because you got the wrong answer.
This is not difficult stuff. You look at the holes in the person and determine in what direction the bullet was going. Simple.
But too much for those who know the truth whether it is true or not.
The guy is a nationally renowned pathologist. Likely outpoints anyone in Sacramento. You get the best available and object because you got the wrong answer.
Except that he put a spin on the findings:
"The proposition that has been presented that he was assailing the officers, meaning he was facing the officers, is inconsistent with the prevailing forensic evidence,"
He may not have been facing the cops when shot, but it's leap to say he wasn't facing them or didn't move towards them before turning away
"The proposition that has been presented that he was assailing the officers, meaning he was facing the officers, is inconsistent with the prevailing forensic evidence,"
He may not have been facing the cops when shot, but it's leap to say he wasn't facing them or didn't move towards them before turning away
He presented the facts. The guy was shot in the back. You don't like the facts so you impute malice to his presentation. That is what the right does. If you don't like the facts impute bad things to the presenter.
The victim is in his backyard being pursued by unknown people who did not identify themselves anywhere in the affair. He is unarmed and trying to avoid the interlopers. Actually if he had been armed and killed them both he would have a pretty good self defense.
According to the autopsy, he was shot mostly in the back. It took him 10 minutes to die. He didn't have a gun, he wasn't facing the officers when they opened fire. Not a righteous shoot in any sense of the word.
I would like to know how "righteous" his activities were that night and on other occasions.
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.
