Message auto-removed

[Name removed]

[FiveGoodMen]

1. "Wilson had a reasonable fear for his safety when he fired the fatal shot"

I thought the final shots were in the back.

[FiveGoodMen]

3. At the very least, witnesses said Wilson fired AT Brown's back

That say anything about intent?

[cyberswede]

16. So it's ok if he only WANTED to shoot him in the back?

For fuck's sake.

[Travis_0004]

4. evidence shows that brown was heading towards wilson

There was blood evidence that shows brown was heading away from wilson, then turned around and was heading towards him. Brown was also never shot in the back.

[craiga86]

23. What am I missing?

Why does this keep getting drained out from the media? I am finding myself agreeing more with the Fox News types than not. This was the wrong case for the protestors to get behind. Unless there is something that I am clearly missing.

What about the instance in South Carolina where the cop was clearly out of line and it was on tape?

[louis-t]

5. They would have to believe Brown was the aggressor

even though 3 witnesses plus the kid that was with Brown have said, independently of each other, that Wilson had Brown by the shirt or arm and was pulling him into the vehicle and Brown had his hands on the outside of the vehicle. I have right wing idiots in my office that claim the graze wound to Brown's hand "proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Brown was grabbing the cop's gun."

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

10. There are other witnesses who support Wilson's version

And they are scared because at least one of them has been labeled "a snitch,? so, now, we know why no witnesses came forward to the media who may have perceived things differently.

Apparently, it's ok to mistakenly see Wilson shoot Brown several times in the back, but it's not ok, to see things that supported Wilson's claim.

I wonder if those witnesses would have come forward in a public trial? Or would they have to fear for their lives? And, if so, what does that say to you?

[louis-t]

14. If they're "scared to come forward", how do you

know about it? Where did you hear about this? Fox News?

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

18. I'm reading the transcripts

Read them. They are very enlightening.

Johnson comes off as a very likable guy, imo. And he was terrified of getting caught when "Big Mike" stole the cigarillos. The guy lifted himself out of some tough circumstances in the past, and did not want to get in trouble again, and it's why you can see him put the box back on the counter when Michael Brown hands it to him. He didn't want any part of stealing, and I believe him when he says he didn't know Brown was going to steal.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

19. The graze wound happened at close enough range

to leave gun powder residue, and there was evidence of two shots fired in the car.

[louis-t]

22. That still doesn't mean he was grabbing the gun.

[craiga86]

24. Look at the autopsy

All of the physical evidence supported Wilson's testimony, where as the others would have you believe Brown was running away from Wilson. The gunshot wounds discredit that theory based on where the shots entered. That's why these "witnesses" were disregarded.

[frazzled]

6. Officer Wilson was not being tried

This was a grand jury procedure, not a murder trial. The prosecutor was supposed to be presenting reasons that would show it might reasonable to try him, not reasons why he should not be tried.

Wilson should never have been allowed to testify on his own behalf in a grand jury proceeding. And that's the real law.

[jberryhill]

15. You are absolutely correct

At trial, perhaps an affirmative defense could be raised and shown, but the grand jury phase is simply not the place to consider affirmative defenses.

[azmom]

20. I think the prosecutor's plan was to

Confuse the grand jury and the public with his data dump. And to that end, he succeeded.

[samsingh]

7. that opens up the can of worms to anyone who is afraid and i guess

can do whatever they want - justified or not.

i see no evidence that wilson's life was in danger. it's like jumping in front of a moving train and then blowing it up with a rocket launcher and saying 'it was going to hit me'.

but the collective intellect of the 'stand your ground' laws continue to plummet into absurdity that is used to justify cold blooded murder.

in any civilized society, killing someone must meet some objective test. there was no imminent danger to anyone. If he thought the man looked like a demon 'wilson's absurd description', why didn't he wait for backup? What was Brown threatening that required immediate intervention?

[unblock]

8. officer wilson had a powerful case of horseshit, that's what he had --

if he was fearing for his life, to the point he needed to kill to survive, why did he ever leave his car??


if anything, there were two separate incidents. brown may have been the "first aggressor" when wilson was in the car.

but brown then walked or ran away. first incident over and done with.


wilson then got out and gave chase. at that point, this was a separate incident and wilson was the "first aggressor". he can't use any fear for life from the first incident, which was over, and use it to justify chasing and hunting down brown in the second incident.

he could have stayed in the car, called for backup, driven away, whatever. he was no longer in any danger.

[MFM008]

11. inbred asshole

Shot an unarmed kid 9 times, blew his head off. He now lives every day looking over his shoulder.

[craiga86]

25. Autopsy

That's the extent of the "evidence" for Brown. Unarmed and shot 9 times. Look at the autopsy. It is clear that Brown was not running away from Wilson.

[handmade34]

12. as long as there is no interest in considering other witnesses...

"unless there was significant evidence that Officer Wilson’s testimony was false"

...that would only come out in a trial (which wasn't allowed to happen)... and...


Brown was the “first aggressor”???

...in my book... "get the fuck on the sidewalk" starts the aggression

[1StrongBlackMan]

17. No ... No ... No ...

Brown was the “first aggressor”???

...in my book... "get the fuck on the sidewalk" starts the aggression

Officer Wilson testified, under oath, that he politely and gingerly asked the two young men, "What is wrong with the sidewalk", before gently and calmly requesting them to move out the street ... for their own safety.

[azmom]

21. And almost ran the two

Over, and slammed the car door on them.

[jberryhill]

13. Affirmative defenses are to be raised at trial

It is the responsibility of the defense to raise an affirmative defense.

It is not the responsibility of the prosecutor in a grand jury proceeding to do so, nor is it the responsibility of the grand jury to determine whether an affirmative defense is proven.