Darren Wilson's Side of the Story - Page 23

finnbow · #**221** 10-26-2014, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Convicted is totally up to the jury. But he should be tried in open court, so as not to anger the justly concerned citizens, who otherwise will be tempted toward mob action.

You write these people off as if they are all one thing: nothing but a criminal mob every day, and thus deserving of no consideration, and no justice.

I don't agree that he should necessarily be put on trial if the evidence shows that he reacted to the situation appropriately. If the evidence results in an indictment, he should go to trial. Simple as that. You don't put innocent people on trial to placate mobs.

donquixote99 · #**222** 10-26-2014, 10:10 PM

Justice must be done, and be seen to be done. Everyone agreed with that maxim, I thought. Now ask yourself why.

If you don't like mobs, that's your answer. Don't used the prejudicial label 'placate' for doing the right thing.

finnbow · #**223** 10-26-2014, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Justice must be done, and be seen to be done. Everyone agreed with that maxim, I thought. Now ask yourself why.

If you don't like mobs, that's your answer. Don't used the prejudicial label 'placate' for doing the right thing.

It's not yet clear to me that an indictment is the right thing. I'm not on that grand jury.

whell · #**224** 10-26-2014, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donquixote99

What forensic evidence do we have that speaks to the matter of Brown running, then stopping and turning around? I think you've made a mistake in your mind on this one.

Speaking of 'all over the map,' first you accuse me 'crawling inside Browns head,' then you do so and find he was 'very irrational.' Either drawing conclusions from behavior is OK, or it isn't. Can't have it both ways.

See post 70 in this thread, and this for good measure:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...a29_story.html

From the link in post 70:

A forensic pathologist from San Francisco, Dr. Judy Melinek, says based on a bullet wound to Brown’s arm, Brown’s palms could not have been facing Wilson in the standard surrender position – with hands up and palms out – when he was shot, and Brown was falling forward or lunging when he was hit by the fatal shot to the top of his head.

This would appear to synch with the officer's testimony that Brown had turned and was coming back toward Wilson when Wilson fired.

As to your second comment: lame and goofy. Are you suggesting that there can't be objective agreement that someone who allegedly attacks a cop just after robbing a store is not behaving rationally?

nailer · #**225** 10-26-2014, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Justice must be done, and be seen to be done. Everyone agreed with that maxim, I thought. Now ask yourself why.

If you don't like mobs, that's your answer. Don't used the prejudicial label 'placate' for doing the right thing.

You are essentially arguing with your own post (220). Placate means make less angry or hostile. Another definition is appease or pacify.

donquixote99 · #**226** 10-27-2014, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whell

See post 70 in this thread, and this for good measure:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...a29_story.html

From the link in post 70:

A forensic pathologist from San Francisco, Dr. Judy Melinek, says based on a bullet wound to Brown’s arm, Brown’s palms could not have been facing Wilson in the standard surrender position – with hands up and palms out – when he was shot, and Brown was falling forward or lunging when he was hit by the fatal shot to the top of his head.

This would appear to synch with the officer's testimony that Brown had turned and was coming back toward Wilson when Wilson fired.

As to your second comment: lame and goofy. Are you suggesting that there can't be objective agreement that someone who allegedly attacks a cop just after robbing a store is not behaving rationally?

WTF. I said everyone agreed he was running away, then he stopped and turned around. Your position is now 'no, everyone agrees he ran, then he stopped and turned around.'

You said before you had forensic evidence that called the above into question. Your evidence says that he didn't have his arms and palms turned-out, and somehow he presented the top of his head to Wilson's fire. Not on point.

My point is that there must be some explanation for him stopping and turning around, after he started running away. I suggest it was Wilson opening fire on him. Your suggestion is that it was because he was irrational.

And since neither of us actually can crawl inside Brown's head, we can neither speak with certainty here. Though I think a story that depends on a subject being 'irrational enough; is pretty lame. That's not most people most of the time. I'm not real impressed with a lot of Brown's decision-making that day, but that doesn't make him utterly random....