Ferguson Riots

What I find ironic is that a key argument is that physical evidence overcomes witnesses yet most of the narrative of what happened had to come from witnesses and is stated as as fact of what happened.

I get it but it just sounds odd to state the sequence of events as fact as opposed to what our best guess was.


It very much reminds me of how we write appellate briefs. Matter of fact. The good and the bad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Assaulting an officer inside his vehicle and trying to take his weapon?

Are you ****ing serious? You want a thug like Brown walking around with a weapon?

I didn't know he tried to take his weapon. That's a long reach, trying to grab a holstered gun while he is sitting in the car.
 
It very much reminds me of how we write appellate briefs. Matter of fact. The good and the bad.

I get it - just reacting to how a sequence of events is stated as fact even though it was all based on witnesses but an argument was made about witness reliability.
 
I get it - just reacting to how a sequence of events is stated as fact even though it was all based on witnesses but an argument was made about witness reliability.


No, he simply repeated some of the variance in the stories. The only time he flatly said the physical evidence contradicted testimony was placement of wounds, that kind of thing. I didn't hear it as saying people, as much as some perceptions, were discounted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Sounded like more than one claimed that.

Kinda makes the whole "hands up, don't shoot" theme of the protest a myth

You believe anything when you're supporting a cause. The "Hands up, don't shoot" is more indicative of the greater race issue still at play, than it is of the Michael Brown shooting.
 
Advertisement





Back
Top