Michael Brown Case
- Thread starter cvp12gh5
- Start date
I'd like to point out that you should only use quotes when quoting someone word for word. You're twisting what he wrote. But I expect that. He didn't criticize or attack anyone. You choose to read it that way.
Last edited:
But that doesn't mean officer Wilson was guilty! There has to be reason for him to beguilty if you think he should have been indicted! Not some conspiracy theory. it would be ridiculous to punish a single man because of the supposed actions of corporations.
to raise a point you once again missed....
But haven't you? You mentioned earlier that the officers partner could have caused the injuries later. Also that they spread the blood I'm the door. For an actual investigator to not see the difference from gun caused splatter and intentional planting would mean the ones gathering evidence would also be corrupt. Then you would need to include the defenders and/or prosequters. You'd also need a mastermind probably with money. Certainly the police chief would be involved with the reports. That's a group working covertly to subvert the truth to frame Brown as a bad guy and aggressor. By definition that is a conspiracy theory.
But those are NOT grounds on which to indict officer Wilson! And that is the point of this thread.
False association.
The kid could have altered the outcome before ever even meeting the officer. Simplybynut stealing in the first place. The killing itself was not planned to occur when the kid stole. The killing was a reaction to the kids final aggressive action. Charging the officer.
Prejudice! Stereotyping! Your posts reek of false conclusions many of which are demonstrated in this one comment! Most officers are very good people Muir. And by most I mean a huge majority most.
No Muir. If anything, it will seem to become more common as the media sensationalizes the topic.
no? No as in you don't look into the relative commonality of the events you are watching? You mean your not considering that just as you are seeing bad officers that there are also good officers and then questioning how common they are objectively. Forgive me, but that seems a necessary consideration wheninvesting objectively deciding if police brutality is increasing.
Oh yes, I remember you supposedly predicting riots. You said you where predicting food riots, but since that was avoided now this is what happened. Well you know whatI'll make a prediction. there will be more riots next year. You know how I know I'm right? BECAUSE THERE ARE RIOTS EVERY YEAR. People riot when their teams win the super bowl for goodness sakes. I also predict there will be a candle light vigil held next year for the death of a black male that will be attended by white people. You know how I predicted that one? Because it is not rare. You will be able to confirm any "prediction" Muir, but that does NOT make it relevant.
Last edited:
No i was quoting my words which is what i see as the subtext to the article
I saw it for what it is...the pied piper designed to lead you back to sleepy land
I've seen all their different attempts to discredit and silence the truth movement and this guy...his approach is just insidious but he is doing it too
Oh boo hoo. Well once again you are wrong. People like me call you out for being illogical. If that makes a person crazy then everyone is crazy sometimes. Hmm, actually I suppose that's reasonable. However even logic can be crazy, but being illogical is certainly crazy. If you posted contradictory information that had logical value which you have done in the past (admittedly in twisted and jumbled messes that it's hard to parse any sense out of it), then that would be better. But right now you certainly are not.
Speaking the truth per say is not shameful. What's shameful are delusions of grandure and superiority that you use to ignore anyone else's points. Articles like thatone attempt to explain how someone might possibly reach such incorrect conclusions in certain cases. You say it's the truth, but it's only your rendition. You need a class in subjective and objective logic. You act like everyone else is a cluless brainwashed idiot because they dissagree with you. That's what's shameful. Take responsibility for your own actions and don't try to place blame on people who attempt to write reasonable articles to explain psychological behaviour.
No
Like i said earlier in the thread to (i think it was) 'anywhere but here' this michael brown case is only the tip of the iceberg of a much bigger problem
You think people protested because of one shooting?
No...this is merely the straw that broke the camels back. Things have been building like a pressure cooker for a long time
I haven't said he should be indicted
Are you aware that a lot of the time you put words in my mouth?
I've said the police are hastling the public due to changes in police training, culture, outlook, policies and so on and if you listen to the cops in the clips i've posted above they will tell you the same
No it was you that has missed the whole point throughout
No i did not!
I said to you that those things were possibilities and that you didn't know what had happened
I haven't said that though
My main point throughout this has been about the increasingly in your face militarisation of the police and the implications of that for the public
The significance of the michael brown case is that it has a massive backdrop of protests otherwise you would not be discussing it
Not really.....if the guy did indeed steal some cigarellos then the police men should come in with the aim of investigating that
You don't know how he went about investigating that
You don't know any of that
The lower down they are the more likely they are to be decent i'd say. I think the higher they go the more involved they become in the corrupt hierarchy but there are also bent cops at the bottom
The problem is that some good cops are leaving because they don't want to meet stupid quotas that make them harrass the public and also they will be discouraged by an increasingly militarised culture; also the hierarchy are selectively recruiting for sociopathic people so that they can make the force increasingly into their attack dog to use against the public; for this reason we will see increasingly insane behaviour from even regular cops (see 'are cops out of control' thread)
You're dead wrong...you're county is tunring more and more into a police state in order to pacify and control the public
I'm not interested in good cops
I'm looking at how the police are being moulded into a weapon to be used against the public
I've made many predictions on this forum that have come true
These riots are not just any old riots...they are an indicator of a wider problem in your country that is going to spread
Last edited:
temper temper!
You are doing what you naysayers always do...you lose the debate then you have a little tantrum and start attacking the person you are debating with instead of the information they are posting
Except it is the truth so the pathological psychology belongs to those that are unable or unwilling to see the truth
You've not been on the forum very long so you haven't seen how i have basically written the script for events before they happen but my arguments have been proven sound whereas yours are nothing but rude, loud mouthed opinion
You have nothing
Basically a group of globalists from Europe and the US have been plotting for generations to take over the economy and political system of your government and they have acheieved that
Their long term aim is to create a one world government which they will control
This government will be a surveillance police state and they are orchestrating 'terrorist' events to justify the building of a surveillance police state in your country
Part of this process involves militarising your police, changing laws to make your homesoil a battleground and trying to disarm the public so that they can prepare for a big event that is coming....a crisis which they will use to try and transition your current system to a new system on the road to their 'new world order'
The crisis is likely to be the next global economic crash but there are also steps being taken that could very easily lead to a new world war
Out of the crisis the globalists are planning to take total control and as they are control freaks they want total control over every aspect of your life
The police are an instrument of the globalists and are being used to brutalise any public protest against the new world order in its various manifestations
Nearer home i have been debating with a long string of NTJ's for nearly half a decade on this forum who have all been denying that this process is occuring
In this thread i am talking with two of the latest in that line of NTJ's. All the previous ones went quiet when they saw various predictions i made come true
Last edited:
I understand you're trying to come at it from my point of view, and I appreciate the effort, but the way you've phrased it comes across as condescending. Just as I think you and your opinions deserve my respect, I should hope my person and my opinions deserve yours.
Yes, I know and believe me, I did take all that into consideration. But you must understand that my issue is not that Officer Wilson did not have the right to protect himself or even that he drew his gun. My issue is that he did not give himself any other option because he had no other option. I elaborate on it below.
I'm glad you think all of that. I do as well.
Actually, there was no trial. There was only a grand jury. That is not the same thing as a trial. A grand jury is a lot less formal than even a preliminary hearing; it has no judge, no lawyers. There is only a prosecutor and the jury that is selected by a judge. All a grand jury does is decide whether or not there is enough probable evidence to issue an indictment. It's considered a strategy for prosecutors to shoo in a case to court for two reasons: a. it is held in private, unlike a preliminary hearing wherein they have to publicly prove to a judge that they have enough evidence to secure a conviction and thus also give the opposition a preview of their case while at it, and b. it is considered stupidly easy to secure an indictment because people who lack legal training usually don't know what to do with the evidence and simply follow the prosecutor’s lead. This is where the old joke comes from: 'a grand jury could indict a sandwich.'
Now, the reason why this whole thing is so controversial is that it is incredibly rare for a grand jury to decline an indictment, but not so rare for a jury to decline to indict a law enforcement official. The other thing that is making people twitch is the fact the prosecutor deviated from the norm in putting the defense on the stand and allowed him to speak without questioning his credibility for over four hours. This, coupled with the fact that this case has become something of a poster child for people's mistrust for the law enforcement and the belief that the system protects them, couldn't have made the no-indictment verdict any more unfortunate.
Many people see the way that this whole thing played out as unquestionable evidence that the system does indeed favour law enforcement officials. Many others look at the ratio of black to white jurors and the divide between black and white opinions in social media and see this whole scenario as proof that institutionalized racism exists. Because its seen as representing these issues, the no-indictment verdict feels like a slap in the face. That Michael Brown didn't even deserve the dignity of a proper trial. That they, by extension, don't deserve the dignity of a trial when going up against a white officer. No matter what, the white officer always wins.
But really, this whole case was handled terribly from the very beginning. There's a lot conflicting information spreading through social media like wild fire that has been further propagated by the efforts of mainstream media, lack of proper police procedure and the irregular 'leaks' of information that have all gotten lost in a mass vortex of social issues and personal feelings. It has very much become about race because people have made it about race and it continues to be sensationalized.
As far as my opinion goes on the subject and the people involved, I don’t think Michael Brown was innocent. I think that a lot of the responsibility for what happened does rest on his shoulders. Robbing a store. Talking back to a cop. Assaulting a cop in his car. Angrily turning back around to charge a cop. However, his guilt in those matters does not mean that we cannot look at what Darren Wilson could have done differently as a trained officer of the law. There is human life involved here. It does appall me that people dismiss it as ‘kid was a punk, attacked an officer, officer has gun and he must use it. The end.’ I think the case could be treated with a bit more respect and scrutiny (ie. a trial), even if a thorough investigation only proves that Darren Wilson did everything he could.
I know you and a lot of people will disagree with me, and that's fine, but I still maintain that police officers have the advantage of formal training and should at least have options available to them that will allow them to diffuse a tense situation, if need be, rather than immediately resorting to lethal force. Officer Darren Wilson stated that he has been trained to use a taser, but does not carry one on his person because they are ‘uncomfortable.’ The only means of self defense, then, is the gun in his holster. In my opinion, that immediately raises the stakes in any confrontation he might have when he goes out into the field. There is no non-lethal option because he’s taken it out of the equation altogether. He knows all he’s got is the gun.
The other thing that personally gets me is that I’ve compared Darren Wilson’s account of what happened with the photographs of the injuries he’s sustained and I cannot help but observe that these things don’t line up and seem vastly exaggerated. Furthermore, his comments about how Brown taunted him, called him ‘too pussy to shoot,’ and the way he recounted the whole scenario also sends my whiskers twitching. We don’t know what caused Brown to turn around and charge Wilson after walking away, but the circumstances and the violence of this situation gives me the impression that desperation to save his own life isn’t the only possible scenario here. The other possibility is that Darren Wilson might have called something out to provoke Brown. That perhaps what guided Wilson’s hand in this situation was not just pure desperation to save his own life, but anger and injured pride.
Obviously, no one is an expert here and there are likely things that you or I are not considering because we might not even know to look for them. However, this forensic pathologist’s opinion on the autopsy report on the gunshot wounds suggests that there are other possibilities, other ways to look at this. Indeed, the reactions across the country further underscore that this case isn’t as obviously open-and-shut as a lot of people in this thread are making it out to be.
All we have right now is Darren Wilson’s testimony of what has happened. But it is just a testimony. No one has cross-examined him or any of the witnesses in court and Michael Brown is, of course, dead.
If there is one thing that I hope most people will agree is that this case needs to go to trial.
Last edited:
This is not a debate. I see now we are taking about completely different things. I'm talking about officer Wilson's indictment, you know, the point of this thread? Your talking about militarization of the police. Previously I thought you where using the militarization as reason for why Wilson should be indicted. I now see you are saying the Michael Brown incident is evidence for the militarization and police brutality. I must apologize, I assumed you'd be keeping to the point of this thread meaning if Wilson should be indicted. I should have realized that when debating with you, you tend to twist the point in some way so you can use it to " prove" your conspiracy theories. Therefore I will try to bring you back onto topic. Do you have a stance on Wilson's indictment?
On a different note, you have no room to talk about attacking the person. I saw your post after our "incident" over the vaccines debate and your thread about genomic something I think. It's obvious you where referring to me even if a name wasn't mentioned.
To be honest I've never seen someone so sure that they were right that they hold onto the notion the way you have. The proper sentence structure you should use is that IF it is the truth then the pathological psychology....but that's the interesting point. Your literally incapable of considering that particular if.
I'm saying that the militarisation of the police and the deteriorating relationship between the police and the public is the only reason you have even heard of michael brown
that's because you don't listen
No i'm saying the reason the michael brown case is so big is because it is the tip of a larger iceberg
Stop putting words in my mouth and try listening instead
Accepted
I share the same view as The Daring Hatrick (see her post above)
You attack me all the time and you are still doing it in this thread
lol
This is something i see you NTJ's do a lot
I point out to you that you are attacking me not the information but do you then stop? No you just keep on attacking me
I'd say that is highly unreasonable and born out of fear
Then calm down, stop spitting insults and instead learn to watch and listen
I'll show you over time through global events and through the statements of whistleblowers how the things i'm saying are right
I know they are right because i have already done the watching and listening for years and have been able to match the information with the events
[video=youtube;-6Z7JmMiFaU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6Z7JmMiFaU[/video]
Hmm. In light of Muir's answer, I'd like to say that the point of this thread is the indictment of Wilson. Here is the recent development that restated this http://gawker.com/ferguson-prosecutors-idiot-speech-blames-everyone-but-d-1662970833
Only place I could find the video. Here they explain the conclusions.
lol wow. Your being prejudiced against NTJ types. And you imply that I am one. You couldn't be more wrong. Just because I argue using philosophy does not mean I'm an NTJ. I'm most certainly an INFJ.My underlying manor of thinking isemotional, but that has burned me in the past. Many times, so I control it as best I can. I listen to my leaps by intuition but I challenge them as harshly as I can with logic. Anyone who knows me personally would and has said I'm one of the more compassionate and empathetic people they know. Just because your illogical and I try to tackle that with logic does not mean that's all that I am. I expect the same is true for you. I doubt you act this illogical around the people you know personally..
Last edited:
I'm just sharing my observations having debated and discussed with LOTS of INTJ's
Oh i wasn't looking at your profile i just went on the way you sound and behave like all the INTJ's i've discussed with
Are you done derailing the thread now?
Try and remmeber this is about the michael brown case not about you and your theories
Last edited:
Can you gentlemen please refrain from hurling insults and accusations at one another?
Muir, I know that you strongly believe in the never ending depth of the rabbit hole and feel it is vital to point it out every thread, but it makes it very difficult to discuss the topics at hand when you stack other issues on top of it that are very much open to debate.
Muir, I know that you strongly believe in the never ending depth of the rabbit hole and feel it is vital to point it out every thread, but it makes it very difficult to discuss the topics at hand when you stack other issues on top of it that are very much open to debate.
They're not open to debate if you have enough information; there are insiders explaining whats going on with most of this stuff (all you have to do is listen to them...which some people really seem to struggle with)
Also the reason this michael brown case is being discussed is because it has caused simmering tensions to boil over
Those simmering tensions are related to the deterioration of the relationship between police and the public and that is happening because, as the police in the clips i posted above say, the role of the police is being changed
The death of Michael was a tragedy but folks are getting gunned down by the police all the time and yet no one's talking about them....so i'm talking about why this case is special
Last edited:
