Its likely Wilson exaggerated being struck to reinforce his story. He could've well been struck by Brown, albeit much less powerfully, but still more than sufficient to give Wilson legal ground to shoot him.
Whilst its true that Brown hitting Wilson, however hard, is certainly possible, don't you think it's a little worrying that the only evidence for that narrative is based on the testimony of a man who has demonstrably fabricated events to serve his own agenda?
Why? He walked straight to the cops and asked to be shot which means he was ready to die making the situation really danger for the officers, but I can tell you something I wouldn't stay behind the guy with the cops in front of him....
That was my earlier point. When cops feel a person is violent and a danger to those around him, they are allowed kill him.
It is problematic but can't be ruled out just because he's the only other person remaining to tell it. At that point, his story has to be corroborated by physical and forensic evidence and juxtaposed against other eyewitness accounts.
I can only assume he shot so early because the kid was so close to the car and coming towards them, but if so why on earth did they pull up so close knowing he might be armed?
Exactly.
No lights, no verbal warning, no time or distance given to assess the situation or have the suspect surrender. It was basically an execution.
Maybe that would have happened had it gone to trial (although personally I doubt it). As it is the evidence is by no means conclusive, and the fact that it wasn't deemed worthy of getting to trial is very dubious.
That's just the issue. The evidence is quite inconclusive, which is precisely why the grand jury allegedly decided there wasn't enough of it to proceed with a full prosecution.
I meant the evidence supporting Wilson isn't conclusive. As it stands, the decision not to prosecute seems to hinge on blind trust of Wilson's narrative, which can be proven to be unreliable at best.
But in an adversarial system you need to have a realistic chance of conviction, it's not a forum to explore the truth.
You've highlighted precisely why things aren't going forward. The evidence supporting Wilson doesn't need to be conclusive; it just needs be in conflict from any evidence there is to prosecute him. Ambiguity is not sufficient grounds to proceed with prosecuting someone. His only burden is to tell his side of things at which point the prosecutor and grand jury incorporate it into the physical and forensic evidence and the other eye witness accounts. If at the end of that, Wilson's account doesn't match the evidence, there may be sufficient grounds to go to trial. The fact that there wasn't in the eyes of the grand jury, suggests Wilson's story was backed up by the evidence that was gathered at the scene.
Can you find a legal document or something that backs up what you're saying? I'm struggling to believe that if I went to America and committed a crime in front of 7 witnesses I could get away with it without even going to trial on the basis that my account of events conflicted with that of the witnesses.
If every available witness saw you commit the crime and there was matching circumstantial and/or physical evidence available to corroborate their accounts, you would be prosecuted.
Stop making sense. This isnt the thread for that
It's not a 'change of pace' it's a middle-class black guy who apparently as no idea how working-class blacks experience America.
You need to be a working class black to know what their life is apparently like....yet everyone here knows what a police officers life is like....go figure.
Don't talk crap, I used to work for the Home Office and am under no illusions about police officers (the good and the bad).
What illusions are you not under? And what crap have I spoken?
Any. Plenty.
And here I was thinking it was possible to have somewhat of an intelligent conversation with you. Whoops.
Didnt say you lacked intelligence. Just observed a lack of conversation. As you were.
Not really if the kid had a real gun and the cops ask him to drop they may get shot, violent cities will have the cops shooting first and asking questions later and on this case was an unfortunate accident and the dispatcher should had said to them the gun may be fake.
I think that's brilliant. The Gil Scott Heron spirit is alive and kicking.
Nothing like some Bluesology to set the mood.
A nice change is always welcomed. However, when people push against trends and counter strong narratives, they tend not to take up a middle ground, but fly to the other end of the spectrum. He offers an interesting perspective, but it's a little, well, preachy, don't you think? America is better than Africa, stop complaining. I've had no bad experiences with cops, so stop complaining. It's a nice perspective to have, but he could do without the idealized veneer. He wants us to empathize with police, fine, that's good. He could use a little empathy himself
I agree that sometimes the pendulum can sometimes swing too far in the opposite direction, and don't think that this should be THE way to approach life, or culture. Just came across it and thought I'd throw it in here among all the negativity
A brilliant satire.
