I agree. If somebody is murdered, the simplest explanation is that he was murdered by somebody who had a motive for murdering him. And if you have one suspect that has a motive, the simplest explanation is that they committed the murder - not that there is a second unknown suspect who has a separate motive.
So right now, Occam’s razor is telling us the Dallas PD killed Joshua Brown - he was murdered and they’re the only people who are known to have a reason to murder him. That may not turn out to be the correct answer but it is the most obvious answer.
Nonsense. Brown was killed. That means somebody killed him. It’s not a conspiracy theory to say a murder victim was murdered.
As for who committed the crime, the mainstream theory is that the obvious suspect did it. If you want to argue that it wasn’t the obvious suspect, that’s the conspiracy theory.
Re: Little Nemo - What you seem to be missing is that you don’t have to actually argue for any theory of the crime. You could just admit that you don’t have sufficient reason to settle on anyone, that it certainly is concerning that DPD may have a motive, and that we should see how the investigation plays out.
As I said in 599, this is not the time to whip out the Razor.
No, the time to kill him to send a message is after the trial. If you do it during the trial, it looks like you’re deathly afraid of him, and you are much more likely to get outside investigation. If you do it after the trial, if she was cleared it sends the message ‘do this and not only will you die, the cop won’t even get convicted’ while if (as happened) she wasn’t cleared it says ‘do this and you may get the cop a slap on the wrist, but you will suffer much worse for it’.
The history of the ‘blue wall’ in cases of police misconduct provides a huge basis for believing that police often conspire to subvert justice for one of their own. Trying to clumisly invoke logical tools like Occam’s razor doesn’t make the facts disappear.
Judging from the immediate knee-jerk reactions of the anti-police faction around here, it doesn’t appear that they’re getting any less scrutiny now.
In what universe is 10 years in prison “a slap on the wrist”?
And where is this history of the police gunning down witnesses to intimidate them? Lots of people have testified against police officers in many of the cases described in this thread and almost none of them have been shot dead.
There are no “facts” to disappear here. A man has been shot dead and there is no current suspect. Your anti-cop biases are the only “evidence” on your side.
“no he wasn’t”
“yes he was”
“we have no idea who it was, so. . . no he wasn’t”
“that’s right, no idea, so. . .yea he prolly was”
“no he wasn’t”
“yes he was”
The term “conspiracy theory” in no way applies here. This is merely a hypothesis. If every hypothesis could be labeled a conspiracy theory it’d be strange world. Esp. for Science. One wouldn’t call the WIMP hypothesis for dark matter a conspiracy theory.
Note that CT types have this interesting property. You point out that A is a problem with their CT. They work out how to get around it. Then you point out that this makes B an issue. They come up with something new to explain that. Then C becomes a problem. They think a while and come up with a way around that. For some of these folks you can get to Z and they’re still oblivious to all the twisting and turning they’re doing.
From the limited information available (shot multiple times in the parking lot of his own apartment; sedan speeding away afterwards) it sounds like he was targeted, not some random act or robbery gone bad. It could have been a long standing personal vendetta, or it could be a couple of cops out to send a message. Or other things.
The kinds of conspiracy theories that have given conspiracies a bad reputation are those pulled of by large government organizations that would require hundreds of people to maintain secrecy. Theorizing that two rogue cops might have killed someone who put their colleague in prison, possibly putting a chilling effect on the ability of all other cops to be able to exercise what they consider reasonable force under threat, is not evidence-based but not so far-fetched.
That’s what I was going to post; he’s not a stranger to the sort of activities that get people shot.
It’s a lot more likely IMO that someone/something from his past caught up with him, potentially with help from the media exposure due to the trial, than it is that DPD is somehow putting out hits on this guy for testifying. It’s not like his testimony, while important, was the thing that cracked the case open or anything.
Indeed it is. I am not sure what this has to do with the point I was making.
Well, no one said it was. You’re kind of trying to obfuscate the point I was making - which is that in Canada, you can kill someone on purpose and be charged and convicted of manslaughter. If you would like specific examples, I’ll provide them. The law does not say manslaughter must be an unintentional homicide. However, it DOES say that in Texas, and that is why the only logical verdict in the Guyger case was murder, and a manslaughter conviction would have been weird and in contravention of the law. That’s the entire point I was making, none other.
I’m sure he received a subpoena. One might get away with blowing off a subpoena in a relatively minor case but I’m not so sure that the sheriff won’t come looking for you in a murder trial, especially one making national headlines. Once you [del]make the mistake[/del] do the right thing & talk to the cops on scene you have to show if they want you.
When I said ‘scrutiny’, I meant from the judicial system, oversight agencies, state police agencies, and federal agencies.‘People complaining on a message board’ is not remotely the kind of scrutiny that I’m talking about. Also it’s interesting that you shorten ‘anti-police-committing crimes’ to ‘anti-police’ - certainly no bias there!
In the universe where someone killing a police dog gets someone 40 years in prison, and selling marijuana gets life in prison. 10 years for murdering an innocent man in his own home is a fucking joke, without even considering that the scum who did it was a law enforcement officer attempting (badly) to abuse her official position to get away with it. If Botham Jean had decided to break into Amber Guyer’s house and kill her, do you think 10 years would be appropriate or what he would have gotten at trial if he was lucky enough not to be ‘shot while resisting’ during the arrest?
I did some Googling, but I can’t find anything much about Joshua Brown. Did he have a criminal history? Why was he shot the last time? All I can find is that he was shot outside a strip club, and that the guy he was with died, and the family of the guy he was with blame Brown for the death somehow.
It seems to me to be at least a good working hypothesis that the earlier shooting, and the one which killed him, are connected somehow.
Apparently, but what kind of activities was he involved in?
I am not saying he deserved it, but people generally don’t shoot each other without (what they think is) a good reason.
I am willing to skip the third part and go straight to “enemy action”. The question being, why?
Note that no one in this thread has said ‘the Dallas police definitely did it and there are no other suspects’. What people have pointed out is that there are very strong motives for someone in Dallas PD to have been the one killed him (or to have enabled it) and that having DPD do the investigation alone without any oversight leads to suspicion. And to object to the line of argument ‘there is no way anyone at DPD could possibly be involved, you’re an anti-police conspiracy theorist if you don’t think that the police department must be completely and utterly innocent in this case’.
