New Witness to Michael Brown Shooting

[Busybody]

Oh, they can charge him. As noted over the years a persistent DA can get a grand jury to indict a Ham sandwich. Getting a conviction is a whole different story, even concerning Civil Rights charges.

From a political standpoint I'm certain the administration feels that some sort of charges will be beneficial to their party in the upcoming mid-terms. I seriously doubt that. First of all any trial, and the results thereof, will not occur until after the mid-terms. Secondly, they way the districts are gerrymandered this will have little effect on the results in those 'safe' districts, who cares if they're energized? Thirdly, in those districts that are competitive the swing vote are the independents and the riots are not beneficial to the cause in those districts. And lastly if charges are filed that means the investigation is over and ALL of the statements made by the officer and witnesses will become public knowledge and indications are that those statements aren't fitting the narrative that's out there now.

This is turning out to be a political tar baby and I suspect that there are many parties that have their hands wrapped around it, don't want it, and are busting their brains trying to figure out how to make it go away.

Ishmael

You misunderstand

The OUTCOME of the charges mean NOTHING

Its all about the STIRRING THE POT!

 

[Busybody]

Lucky for poster BELOW AVERAGE

He has BUNNY SLIPPERS on IGGY and wont benefit from SLIPPERS wit and wisdom.....and will continue to be a BELOW AVERAGE poster

http://www.clker.com/cliparts/d/8/7/f/12154413712084113862lemmling_Wings_3.svg.hi.pnghttp://cartoon-animals.disneyandcartoons.com/_/rsrc/1362496173015/cartoon-elephants/cartoon-elephant-Baby-picture.png

here, are wings and an elephant, get to work


Occam’s Razor ~ The Simplest Explanations Are Usually The Best

February 18th, 2013




The great and wise Einstein is said to have said, “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” This got me thinking about simplicity. Thinking about simplicity is a dangerous thing to do, and sure enough I over thought it and cut myself on Occam’s Razor.

If you don’t know what Occam’s Razor is, think about this classic joke,

Sherlock Holmes and his sidekick Watson go on a camping trip. After sharing a few glasses of chardonnay, they retire for the night.

At about 3 AM, Holmes nudges Watson and says, “Watson, look up into the sky and tell me what you see?”

Watson said, “I see millions of stars.”

Holmes asks, “And, what does that tell you?”

Watson replies, “Astronomically, it tells me there are millions of galaxies and potentially billions of planets. Astrologically, it tells me that Saturn is in Leo. Theologically, it tells me that whatever made all of this is beyond human comprehension. Horologically, it tells me that it’s about 3 AM. Meteorologically, it tells me that we will have a beautiful day tomorrow. What does it tell you, Holmes?”

Holmes retorts, “Watson you idiot, someone stole our tent.”

You can think about BIG, cosmic questions and more personal, daily questions using Occam’s Razor. Genius detectives like Sherlock Holmes (and Columbo) use Occam’s Razor to solve crimes. Occam’s Razor, named after 13th century William of Occam but not used as a phrase until 500 years later, is nicely summarized by Agatha Christie, “the simplest explanation is always the most likely.” More specifically, if you have two theories, go for the simpler one.

If you’ve got a hole in your pocket, it’s more likely that money fell out than was stolen.

If there’s a broken window and your kids are holding rocks, you’ve likely found your explanation rather than the falling meteor your kids are trying to convince you it was.

If it’s a windy night and you hear noises, it’s more likely wind than ghosts.

Etc Etc, you get the idea.

Imagine the possibilities of applying Occam’s Razor to personal situations. Life is full of hurts and disappointments. There is no denying the pain of it. But it’s the extra layers of assumption and interpretation that double and triple the pain. Shave away some assumptions about why things are happening. Stop guessing the motives of other people, and adding drama to pain. The problem with taking things personally is that you add assumption to insult.

Occam’s Razor challenges us to stick as close to reality as possible; reality as it is, not as we wish it were, or fantasize it to be. There’s an interesting example of this in the movie, “She’s Just Not That Into You.”

The girl, Gigi, is talking to a male friend about why a boy didn’t call her back. He’s trying to give her some tough love but she’s in denial. She suggests that he didn’t get the message or lost the number or his grandma died or something. Alex says, “He didn’t call you because he doesn’t want to see you again.”

She says, “What if I’m the exception?”

Alex says, “You’re not. You’re the rule. And the rule is, if a guy doesn’t call you, he doesn’t want to call you.”

Sometimes the harsh truth of reality helps us to move on with our lives rather than pining for a fantasy. Occam’s Razor can cut deep at times.

The positive side of Occam’s Razor is to get to the heart of what’s essential for you. In the words of Impressionist Painter Hans Hofmann,

Eliminate the unnecessary so that the necessary may speak.

It’s true in art as in life. Remove unnecessary theories and baggage from your life so that your true self can shine. For some this will mean leaving behind religious beliefs. For some it will mean leaving behind self limiting beliefs about why things happened to you in the past. For some it will mean giving up expecting the world to do you any favors.

It’s natural to ask the question “Why?” a lot. Whys can make you wise. But they can also torture you with their unsolvable, unknowable roots. Whys that are directed backwards, looking for closure or certainty, are insatiable. They look for answers to questions that only lead to suffering- like why me? Why then? Why did he do that to me? These whys lead to anxiety. Occam’s Razor offers a tool to minimize the time spent on the whys and wherefores of life. Pick the simplest explanation with the least assumptions and move on.

This is so liberating. There’s more to be said about Occam’s Razor, but this is enough for now. In the next articles I will write about the difference between straightforward and simple, and complications and complexity. The reality is that we make life so much harder than it needs to be.

The basis for living simply is to simplify your mind, rein in your wild and fantastic thoughts and desires and let your essence speak clearly through your lifestyle, choices and actions.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

You misunderstand

The OUTCOME of the charges mean NOTHING

Its all about the STIRRING THE POT!

Got to keep the moving parts clean...

 

[Busybody]

Every single "person", no exception

That has BUNNY on IGGY

Misses out on sheer genius and is a LOSER!

Im lookin at YOU as well, Anquan OH! Fendy!

 

[Ishmael]

I didn't say, nor imply, it was justified or unjustified, and really you don't know either.

All I was saying is that it doesn't mean the witness mentioned in the OP was wrong or lying.
There is a scenario that would fit both both what the OP witness saw and a justified shoot.

There are as many stories about what was seen as there are witnesses. The stories NEVER match 100%. So I do not, and have never stated, that the witness was lying. She may be 100% convinced that she saw what she stated. There is a famous Japanese movie on the subject of eye witnesses, what they saw and how they saw it. It's amazing as to how small changes in camera/view angles can have profound differences as to what was seen and testified to as compared to what actually happened.

(Do you remember the name of that flick Bro?)

Ishmael

 

[Busybody]

The BLACK "community" plants the seeds of their own destruction

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BvWeDiXCYAAvn2w.jpg

Aided by our own government....regardless of party

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

stfu sore loser.


I HAD to prove a point and I did.



This people don't cackle with the racist anti-semite child-molester because we don't have you on ignore, they do it because they're just like him, but with proper restraint, only the restraint won't be proper until they slap the full mental jacket on.

But, hey, sigh is still on ignore for her support of the party.

She was the one who demanded I put you on.

In trade for man-boobs but then she


RE-NIGGED!

 

[Busybody]

The Ferguson protests will soon just be police throwing tear gas at the media & the media gleefully reporting that they've been tear gassed.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

There are as many stories about what was seen as there are witnesses. The stories NEVER match 100%. So I do not, and have never stated, that the witness was lying. She may be 100% convinced that she saw what she stated. There is a famous Japanese movie on the subject of eye witnesses, what they saw and how they saw it. It's amazing as to how small changes in camera/view angles can have profound differences as to what was seen and testified to as compared to what actually happened.

(Do you remember the name of that flick Bro?)

Ishmael

Kurosawa's Roshomon.

 

[Ishmael]

Kurosawa's Roshomon.

TY

Ishmael

 

[Busybody]

SIGH turned out to be another POS.....spewing shit and when AXED to justify said shit

Runz to IGGY land

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I've talked about some of the experiments performed and the confirmation bias of witnesses.

The brain interprets what it sees and it can easily be fooled and willingly fills in any missing gaps with an approximation based upon its stored memories, it's kind of the inverse of dreaming.

 

[Busybody]

stfu sore loser.




She was the one who demanded I put you on.



RE-NIGGED!

and like a http://www.nightstoneunlimited.com/NSU-DM-Arts/FraidyCat-01.jpg you did her bidding

KNOWING FULL WELL, EVERYTHING YOU KNOW

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

It was an experiment to see who was completely full of shit.


I call it, The busybody Experience...

 

[Busybody]

EVERYONE is on the LIB PROG DUMOH side

 

[toubab]

I have no doubts there are some police officers who are prone to violence. But I seriously doubt that in broad daylight an American police officer is going to execute an unarmed man in the process of surrendering to him, as witness Tiffany Mitchell claims in her numerous media interviews.

I doubt the officer will be arrested and prosecuted, however if he is I can't wait to watch a seasoned criminal trial lawyer tear her account of the shooting to pieces.

I feel confident if Ms. Mitchell is faced with tough questions, her ghetto persona is going to come shining through, delighting all who paid for her public education, as well as those of us who take pleasure in watching a liar get taken down.

Tiffany Mitchell doesn't strike me as someone who is lying, or someone who has or is likely to show a "ghetto persona" under cross-examination. She may not have seen things accurately, or may not recall what she saw accurately, but I see no reason to call her a liar or to insult her the way you have. As witnesses go, I find her credible. Finding her credible, by the way, does not mean I find her 100% convincing. I realize virtually all eyewitnesses to a traumatic event such as this one will be wrong about parts of the event, or wrong in their recollection of what they saw, to one degree or another. Eyewitness evidence is far from perfect evidence.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

What I find every bit as credible is the guy who was filming and picking up voices in the background talking about how the innocent UTE bull-rushed the cop...



It's like there's a credible witness for every eventuality.

But not the cop! Oh hell to the no!

Cold-blooded Executioner.

 

[toubab]

Then you need to make yourself aware of some more witnesses, you know, like the ones on the tape, the ones the press refuses to put on air in interviews because they do not fit the story.

Name one. I haven't heard a single person, at any time, say the fatal shot or shots were to the back.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

 

[Busybody]

Tiffany Mitchell doesn't strike me as someone who is lying, or someone who has or is likely to show a "ghetto persona" under cross-examination. She may not have seen things accurately, or may not recall what she saw accurately, but I see no reason to call her a liar or to insult her the way you have. As witnesses go, I find her credible. Finding her credible, by the way, does not mean I find her 100% convincing. I realize virtually all eyewitnesses to a traumatic event such as this one will be wrong about parts of the event, or wrong in their recollection of what they saw, to one degree or another. Eyewitness evidence is far from perfect evidence.

so she says stuff that are UNTRUE...often, and in varied locations? SHE IS GUITY OF INCITMENT

but that's NOT lying

 

[RobDownSouth]

200+ posts about when and where the victim was shot.

As a nation, we watch way too much CSI.
:nods:

 

[toubab]

touab, you need to take the fucking mirror challenge as I just outlined to crackerjack.

Those "entry" wounds as indicated by the forensic expert COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED IF HIS HANDS WERE RAISED IN A SURRENDER POSITION. It is physiologically impossible unless he was running away.

I see nothing in the autopsy report that tells me anything about whether Brown's hands were raised at some point. Nothing.

 

[toubab]

Unless, as several witnesses say, that 6'4" and 300lbs were charging and the first four shots clearly were being puled to the left and ineffective in getting a message through to the innocent UTEs pot-soaked brain...

Which several witnesses say that? I heard one unidentified witness say that, without knowing he was being recorded, I might add.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Witness accounts, which came first and helped shape the narrative of Michael Brown's shooting, accounts that offered different, opposite points of view.

The first witnesses said Wilson shot Brown as he was running away after the two scuffled. Protests, riots and looting followed in the St. Louis suburb.

http://ktar.com/106/1759458/New-facts-in-Ferguson-shooting-may-do-little-to-change-minds

Here's why quick judgments based on eyewitness accounts can be dangerous. From the New York Times:

Memory does not operate like a video camera. It captures only a selective part of the events we encounter. People cannot prevent new information and suggestions from altering their memory, and time erodes memory, making retrieval difficult.
Also from the New York Times:

"Memory is weak in eyewitness situations because it's overloaded," said Barbara Tversky, a psychology professor at Columbia University's Teachers College in New York. "An event happens so fast, and when the police question you, you probably weren't concentrating on the details they're asking about."

Despite these facts, witness accounts are what so many (including this author and the justice system) rely on to reach their conclusions. In the case of Michael Brown, witnesses were often emotional and sensational. They created debate, even if they are later proven to be incorrect.

It's only been about a week. How the hell much have you purposely edited out of your memory? It was all over in the first two days, innocent UTE shot in back, shot surrendering, shot on his knees...



THEN, you found your Madonna.

 

[toubab]

It is clear now that which witnesses are given credibility are falling along political lines and who believes the press's story and those who have seen the press manipulate the story too many times in the past to inflame racial tensions in order to keep advancing a political story-line of an America where injustice and prejudice don't just occasionally occur, but are fucking normative!

We are in basic agreement on that.