New Witness to Michael Brown Shooting

If the cop suffered serious injuries, this will fall apart. As to Holder and civ rts charges, that may be rhetoric to get him and Obama past the summer.

You have a person who, by all accounts, was a good cop. You have an NFL lineman-size kid who robbed a store and reportedly broke the cop's eye socket.

I'm sorry the kid paid such a price for stupidity, but kids just his age stormed Omaha Beach, so we can't pretend he was a helpless naif.
 
I'm pretty sure the Rev. Al and his organization owe the IRS several million dollars.
 
If the cop suffered serious injuries, this will fall apart...<derp snip>

Given the history of mendacity in the Ferguson police dept, I have to believe that if Officer Perpkiller was "injured", the good folks in the Ferguson police command structure would be on Fox News immediately lamenting this.

They aren't, so I suspect he's just fine. Probably getting his eyes examined, since it took him six shots to take down an unarmed man.

#ButButOrbitalBlowoutFracture!
 
If the cop made a mountain of a harmless touch the grand jury would likely roll its eyes (recall ANGER MANAGEMENT). If the ER treated a mouse or black eye that's serious.
 

Too friggin' funny
...

I've changed my mind about the degree of legal difficulty the cop is faced with, based on additional information that has come to light, much of it belatedly, and inexplicably so. I see nothing funny about that.
 
It will be interesting to see what the 12 witnesses' statements actually are.
Assuming for the sake of argument that Brown did assault Wilson in the car, where Wilson's freedom hinges is on if Brown was surrendering as Mitchell says, or was charging, as the hearsay so far made public claims.
If the former, then the shooting wasn't legal and Wilson's only hope is claiming that he was dazed and blinded by the beating and thought Brown was charging him.

I'm still wondering if it's true that twelve witnesses now back the cop's version of events. It's possible, of course, but seems like a lot. If it's true, the cop is home free, obviously.
 
If the cop made a mountain of a harmless touch the grand jury would likely roll its eyes (recall ANGER MANAGEMENT). If the ER treated a mouse or black eye that's serious.

Out of curiosity, if you were hit hard enough to give you an orbital blowout fracture, would it affect your decision-making capabilities? Would it make your brain rattle around enough inside the brain-bucket to affect performance?
 
You are still operating on a basic fallacy, that it was "stupidity or incompetence" and I am telling you it was a purposeful attempt to write an untruthful story to advance a very important political agenda.

Did you see KO's thread? The Liberals have come out and basically said there are ten things that you cannot do when discussing this story and one of the main ones is to withhold judgement until you have all of the facts; this is supposed to be an emotional story because the Left never wanted a fair trial, they wanted a Social Justice lynch mob and they are never, ever going to stop until they have managed to criminalize conservatism.

No, the stupidity or incompetence to which I referred is that of the party or parties who were representing the cop and the Ferguson Police Department. There was no reason to withhold a lot of the information that was withheld, such as the orbital blowout, etc.
 
But the knowledge of the cop's severe injury had to be suppressed long enough for Castle Canard to take hold of the ignorant mob.

It wasn't being suppressed by the press. That's what's so stupid and incompetent about the way this has been handled by those representing the cop and the police department. They didn't rush to get that information out to the public, inexplicably.
 
I'm still wondering if it's true that twelve witnesses now back the cop's version of events. It's possible, of course, but seems like a lot. If it's true, the cop is home free, obviously.

Prosecutors routinely indict ham sandwiches, and detectives lie their asses off. All the grand jury knows is what the prosecutor presents to them, and the prosecutor isn't limited to the facts; opinions, nifty ideas, suspicions, gossip, dreams, are all fair game for a grand jury.

The state once made me take parents to court who were accused of running their 17 year old daughter over with a Cadillac. The girl had no marks or injuries on her body. Nothing. The real issue was the teens lesbian affair with a teacher. Mom shut it down and the local lesbian organization made a criminal complaint to the sheriff. The sheriff hopped aboard tho sex with a minor was illegal as hell. The lesbians argued for termination of parental rights and placement with the teacher. The school was ok with it, too. And the state! So when I recited the complaint to the judge I added HOW IS PLACEMENT WITH THE ADULT LOVER LEGAL? The judge dismissed the case.
 
Back
Top