Maybe someone who is much better at math than you are will help you determine how long it takes a bullet to travel 10 to 25 feet when it has a muzzle velocity of 1000 feet, or more, per second. In your mind you believe the bullet was fired, the delinquent Brown did a Matrix type move and caused the bullet to hit him elsewhere? Awesome. Do you have a newsletter?
No, I think Hentor is suggesting that the cop fired at Brown’s back and missed, and then Brown turned and the subsequent shots hit him.
Oh, he’s making up facts. I guess I missed that part.
All I’m really learning in this thread is how much of a stupid fucking moron **Hentor **is.
Am I late to the party? Should I have known this already?
Fine. Even if you take out the statement, it’s still a Darwin Award winner. It was awfully considerate of Mr. Brown to continue to approach the officer, so the officer wouldn’t face the inconvenience of having to come over to him to arrest him. When you have to hypothesize the existence of false memories right after the incident, you’re probably losing the argument on it’s merits. I find the ‘pussy’ comment entirely congruent with the apparent attitude of the dude in the convenieence store video, myself.
Yes you are late to the party, but hey, better to learn late than be a retard and take what he says seriously.
“Fine. Even if you take out the statement, it’s still a Darwin Award winner. It was awfully considerate of Mr. Brown to continue to approach the officer, so the officer wouldn’t face the inconvenience of having to come over to him to arrest him.”
If you’d watched the Wilson interview (I’ve not covered all of his testimony to the GJ), you’d know that his (declared) intention when he was out of his vehicle and toward Brown was not to arrest. Hope that detail is relevant to you.
“When you have to hypothesize the existence of false memories right after the incident, you’re probably losing the argument on it’s [sic] merits.”
This tells me that you’re not clear on what false memory creation is, because it has nothing to do with proximity to the time of the incident. At any rate, I don’t “have to” do any such thing. I’m simply trying to figure out why he mentioned certain events no one else recalls.
“I find the ‘pussy’ comment entirely congruent with the apparent attitude of the dude in the convenieence store video, myself.”
That’s fine, but it’s also a comment that someone might make up or misrecall after the fact that isn’t necessarily true. This isn’t to say that I’m clear on the relevance.
There were two groups - 6 shots and then 4 shots. Brown was shot 6 times - all in front. Even if ALL shots from the second group (when he supposedly turned around) hit him, simple math shows that at least one of those six hits would have been in the back - IF the officer was shooting at his back.
Actually, I am very conversant with the work of Dr. Elizabeth Loftus and have been in several trainings with Dr. Yapko. I’m willing to bet I know a lot more about it than you do, but feel free to provide your bona fides.
And no, Wilson’s intent to arrest isn’t awfully relevent, it’s Brown’s intent that seems more so to me.
So the answer is “no.”
Does any physical evidence contradict any of the other witness’ testimony?
“Apparently, Wilson washed blood evidence from himself.” - Hentor
3 possibilities:
- blood is from Brown. Appears to support the officer’s version.
- blood is from Wilson. Supports the officer.
- blood is from neither. Might support a conspiracy or some other version I can’t conceive of, that would support Brown.
Which are you suggesting, or what other possibility have I missed? Or are you just asking questions?
Correct. Of the physical evidence they opted to collect, it does not appear to have conflicted with the testimony shaped by the particular, in some instances peculiar, grand jury questioning.
Now if only someone would teach the blacks about the justice system.
Hentor, let me add another question. What fingerprint evidence could have seriously undermined Wilson’s version of events? It seems beyond dispute that he was assaulted by Brown while in his patrol car and he admits he drew his gun.
Any witnesses? Yes, sure. For instance, there’s a witness who says Brown was charging at Wilson “football style” who is undeniably lying about even being there. And there are witnesses who said Brown was shot after he was lying on the ground. What’s your point, there are like 20 something witnesses. Some of them gave statements that are contradicted by the physical evidence. But there’s lots of witnesses who’s statements *are *consistent with the physical evidence. So now what?
How about the absence of any prints other that Wilson’s? Are you really arguing that it’s okay to forego the collection of evidence? Or that it’s okay if we can come up with a plausible hypothesis that would explain it if we actually had it?
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
As explained, the forensic procedures allow for either DNA collection or fingerprinting from that surface. They opted for DNA. If they opted for fingerprinting, I am sure you’d be complaining that they didn’t collect DNA.
How is that beyond doubt? We have the testimony of Wilson, what else?
Suppose he was mouthing off to the cop? Not smart, but not felonious. Whether that qualifies as “thug” is a matter of perception. And he sees Wilson drawing his weapon and thinks “Holy fuck, the cracker cop is going to shoot my ass!”.
Then his options are try to take the gun or at least stop him from using it, or seeing if he can outrun a 9mm slug.
Maybe I’m hopelessly muddled, but were we talking false memories or repressed (including faux “repressed”) memories (that’s only two categories out of any number to do with faulty memory)? Considered myself clear on which phenomenon when I mentioned the examples of (1) parents who left babies to die in hot cars (and being certain about events leading up to tragedy, and then discovering that their memory was false), and (2) rape victims who positively identified wrong person with 100% certainty.
The testimony that they fought over the pistol and that Brown had his hands on it.
However, that testimony is backed up by forensics which indicates a bullet traveled from the tip of his right thumb up towards his wrist. There are no powder burns (stippling), however that’s not unusual on point blank injuries. There was foreign particulate matter in the wound consistent with a firearm discharge.
He had to be close enough to the firearm to receive the foreign matter, so whether his fingerprints are on the gun is not as important. It does back up Wilson’s testimony that they were struggling over the pistol.
There may have been no clear fingerprints even if the gun was fingerprinted. Depending on how you grab the gun you might or might not touch it with the pads of your hands, especially during the struggle where (if you are trying to take the gun away) you are probably wrapping your hand around the upper part of the weapon (as the possessor probably has the lower part/grip in their hand).
Regards,
-Bouncer-
I think Bricker’s point is one carried from his previous post to that post. That is;
That there is no evidence that contradicts Wilson’s statement.
That there is evidence that contradicts many of the witness statements.