MO - Grief & protests follow shooting of teen Michael Brown #13

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Because it wasn't. They said there were not broken bones.

So if it was not broken, then he was not seriously injured? I am trying to understand how that has anything to do with the outcome of the case. IF MB PUNCHED HIM AND BROKE something, that would matter somehow, but if nothing is broken, then it doesn't matter? I don't understand that reasoning.

To Me, the issue is whether MB did or did not assault the officer. it does not matter if anything was fractured or not. jmo :cow:
 
Im just not so sure. I know that is what the chief said but again that is a second hand accounting from an officer who killed someone. I need more evidence.

So the facial swelling ...what do you make of that?
Bee sting?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Was DJ not in the QuikTrip video? I recall him stating he met up with MB after the cigar incident.

Yeah...he's the least reliable witness they have. IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
On Thursday, CNN anchor Don Lemon says a source within the Ferguson officer who gunned down Brown did not, in fact, suffer from a fractured eye socket.
“According to a source close to the investigation, the officer, Darren Wilson, did go to the hospital after the altercation and the shooting death of Michael Brown. He did have X-rays done, he had a swollen face, but the X-rays for a broken or torn eye socket came back negative,” Lemon said. “That source says it is not true at all, he did not have a torn eye socket. Unequivocally. He unequivocally denies that.”

http://newpittsburghcourieronline.c...er-darren-wilson-did-not-fracture-eye-socket/

OK< so his face was swollen and the doctors decided to take x-rays. And you are saying that you do not know if he was injured or not? :waitasec:
 
Because it wasn't. They said there were not broken bones.

Why is the "they" you are referring to more credible?
What is it about this mysterious "they" that you are willing to consider that statement as fact???

Yet do not consider a named law enforcement source credible???




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
OK, if MB did NOT assault the officer and struggle over the gun, resulting in the initial shot, then what happened?

What is the alternative? The only alternative that has been offered is that this officer rolled up on the 'kids', was angry they were in the road, so he tried to pull the big huge muscular one into the car window by the neck,with his left hand, while grabbing his gun with the other hand, then told MB he was going to shoot him. And began shooting, in broad daylight, in front of a few stopped cars who were all watching him.

It is pretty much a choice between these 2 versions of events. And you can not figure out which one seems more probable, given what we know happened 10 minutes prior?

:goodpost:

Thanks button wasn't enough.
 
Im just not so sure. I know that is what the chief said but again that is a second hand accounting from an officer who killed someone. I need more evidence.

What the chief says isn't good enough to prove anything to you that you question, yet you quote "CNN anchor Don Lemon says a source within the Ferguson officer who gunned . . . " ?

Doesn't appear very even-handed about deciding which "facts" to believe, does it?
 
On Thursday, CNN anchor Don Lemon says a source within the Ferguson officer who gunned down Brown did not, in fact, suffer from a fractured eye socket.
&#8220;According to a source close to the investigation, the officer, Darren Wilson, did go to the hospital after the altercation and the shooting death of Michael Brown. He did have X-rays done, he had a swollen face, but the X-rays for a broken or torn eye socket came back negative,&#8221; Lemon said. &#8220;That source says it is not true at all, he did not have a torn eye socket. Unequivocally. He unequivocally denies that.&#8221;

http://newpittsburghcourieronline.c...er-darren-wilson-did-not-fracture-eye-socket/

I have to laugh, in that article "Fox news eagerly reported"... and first line: Ferguson PD lied when they told Fox...

I guess one of the sources was wrong- how do we know which one, Fox's source or CNN's? For me, it's still an unknown.
 
It does. And in broad daylight with plenty of potential witnesses.

IMO

It seems really odd to me for a few reasons...

- No really solid witnesses, among all the people who claim to have "seen it happen", (theory: People who know what happened have given their statements and see no reason to take it public, possibly they are afraid of retribution within their community. (Note, the QuikTrip that had given the cops the video was burnt to the ground)

- People refused to give the A clean Police Officer the benefit of the doubt, I find it odd people are demanding the FBI be brought in, Lots of people are shot by the police after committing a crime. (assault of a police officer) as I understand it he was within the law in what he did, even though it makes me uncomfortable to admit that fact.

- The facts for a shooting with some many witnesses seem to be very difficult to determine, again even though there were so many witnesses.

Its very odd
 
Well we know nothing was broken and he was released. So nothing serious. Now that does not mean that an officer should even been assaulted, But I think that in this case, I need to see some kind of real injury to say he was injured. I keep hearing it but I don't see it.

What evidence do you have that nothing was broken?
 
I don't know nothing was broken. Link please? We know there were undisclosed facial injuries. My husband shattered his ankle during a dirtbike accident and due to extreme swelling he was sent home from the hospital after receiving basic trauma treatment and hard core pain meds and instructed to consult with an ortho surgeon later in the week. The surgeon still was unable to act on the injury but eventually placed plates and pins in the ankle during surgery. That surgery had to wait for ten days for the swelling to go down enough before it could occur.

MOO We have no idea of the extent or extremity either way of OW's injuries based on his release from hospital. To assume there was no serious injury is just as wrong and impossible as assuming there was one. We simply do not know unless his medical records have been released or his treating physicians have commented publicly unbeknownst to me.

OH YES. You just triggered my memory bank, and that's hard to do sometimes. lol

My son's broken nose---in the ER they did not do any x-rays because they said the swelling would camoflauge it and it didnt matter at his point what an xray would say. And it was not until a week later that he went to the ear/nose/throat guy that he was told it was broken.

So does it matter what happened in the ER with OW the first night?
 
I'm sitting watching the Dawgs; an 18 yr old from one of the worst neighborhoods in GA just had his first play in NCAA division 1 football on national television. No excuses....imo
 
In fairness, could he have bounced around due to address changes? I dunno.
But it's my understanding he didn't live with either parent and may have bounced from one to the other landing at the grandmothers?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What happens here, especially with someone like MB with a lot of family in the area, is the student who wants to stay at a school just claims to be living with a relative in the school's district, while continuing to live at home. A lot of problem kids and kids from inferior schools give false addresses to stay in a school or get into a new one. Why MB and his parents thought Normandy HS was the best choice for MB is very puzzling imo, unless they had no choice in the matter as his school discipline record might have prevented him being accepted anywhere else, except the alternative school.
 
IMO

It seems really odd to me for a few reasons...

- No really solid witnesses, among all the people who claim to have "seen it happen", (theory: People who know what happened have given their statements and see no reason to take it public, possibly they are afraid of retribution within their community. (Note, the QuikTrip that had given the cops the video was burnt to the ground)

- People refused to give the A clean Police Officer the benefit of the doubt, I find it odd people are demanding the FBI be brought in, Lots of people are shot by the police after committing a crime. (assault of a police officer) as I understand it he was within the law in what he did, even though it makes me uncomfortable to admit that fact.

- The facts for a shooting with some many witnesses seem to be very difficult to determine, again even though there were so many witnesses.

Its very odd

Agree. Those witnesses may never talk, imo
Just wanted to point out, it wasn't the Quiktrip that the cigarellos were stolen from, it was the Ferguson Market (down the street from the QT). The QT did get burned down though, senseless. I hope QT keeps their doors closed in Ferguson.
 
Do you have a link or is this just a guess? SOP around us, if there is even a possibility of a serious injury, a medic will come up and do an assessment to see if you need to be transported to a hospital. And head injuries are treated as potentially serious. They would naver force a person to wait for treatment. Where did you get this info?

Are you saying you know that Wilson made a statement to someone at the scene? That's news to me. Links please!

http://fox2now.com/2014/08/15/who-i...ing-about-the-officer-who-shot-michael-brown/
 
Since he was not shot near the car I think that is evidentiary. Witnesses say he ran away at some point, Even the police chief said that he ran away .

Here is what I'd like to know, why was MB running from a police officer that he just got in a scuffle with? Why didn't he surrender AFTER the first shot was fired?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
105
Guests online
203
Total visitors
308

Forum statistics

Threads
608,718
Messages
18,244,548
Members
234,435
Latest member
ProfKim
Back
Top