or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by kloss

.
Okay, i've spent too much time on this and i have things to do. I disagree with you on moral grounds and you disagree with me because you say that a conviction is not legally plausible and therefore a trial is unnecessary. However, you completely ignore the fact that part of the reason there is insufficient evidence is due to police mishandling the case to protect Wilson. Why did he have 10 days to get his story together? Why did nobody call him out when he changed his...
 unknowns? how about what really happened? i've pointed it out many times. there is ambiguity because they haven't bothered to establish a credible timeline. they interviewed witnesses but somehow they are going with Wilson's story when it contradicts evidence. His story isn't credible (ie. that Brown was charging him ) given the evidence. Maybe even the jury didn't believe Wilson's story. But they decided not to indict because they knew they hadn't enough evidence.  Even...
 Fair enough, my personal bias is showing through. I understand that there may be legal reasons for not having a trial but it is difficult for me to resolve that morally given the unknown factors behind the killing. 
I repeatedly referred to it as a "possible" version of events. Why is a bad thing to look for alternative timelines when the defendant's story has glaring flaws? I'd much prefer a cross-examination to establish a credible timeline but that's not happening without a trial. You are putting words into my mouth. I didn't say this this was a murder, I said that people have gotten away with murder before due to lack of evidence. At most, I implied that this may be the case with...
 But why would they say it happened so fast? It would probably just feel implicit to them because it was known that the shooting took place in a small span of time. So of course everything that happened would have to happen quickly.  Or if we believe this witness who seemed to have more details: he only turned around part way at first. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/national/ferguson-witnesses/ If we believe this then:1. Wilson fired on Brown as he fled2....
 Yeah who cares what Wilson says when he is easily contradicted by the evidence. Ignore all of the witnesses but believe Wilson The autopsy reports only confirm that Brown took bullets from the front at an angle that indicates that he was moving toward the officer. There is no indication of what happened before the charging ie. did Wilson start shooting while the suspect was fleeing? Of course, in the absence of sufficient evidence the suspect is declared innocent. So...
 If true, then the back shot missed. I don't know about you, but if a cop was shooting at me I'd surrender pretty quickly. It doesn't take a second to turn around if you're already running and in a hurry not to get shot at. And he could have gotten part of the sentence out while the cop was shooting him. 
 I already conceded this point. And now I am saying that a trial was necessary so that there could be a formal cross-examination so that a timeline could be established. 
The main point of contention for me is when and why Wilson fired the initial shots.    If Brown did charge right at the start, then the shooting is justified in self-defence.   If Brown only charged because he was shot at many times while either fleeing or standing still (and realizing he was going to die anyway), then Wilson is at fault for firing on a fleeing suspect.    And other possible versions of events.   But how can you establish which happened without a...
New Posts  All Forums: