An inconvenient truth

In Martin Luther Kings speech, I have a dream, he saw a day when all men will be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. The democratic party, which has been the historical party of slavery, separation/division, segregation, KKK, etc, undermined Dr Kings dream, with laws like quotas and other social engineering.

Quotas judge people by the color of skin and not the content of character. It is not about individual accountability like character, but herd stereo-types. This is anti-King and denies the wisdom of his vision. If we judged all people by their character (personal to them) then all the people of character, both black and white, would be on the same team; high level of behavior. While all those without character, both black and white would be on the same team. The social divide would change from black and white to having character and not having character. But since this common sense approach would not help segregate the black and whites, the democrats perverted his vision with a giveaway program. They prefer that thieves mingle in both races, so people of character can be exploited.

The problem with quotas is it creates emotional tensions, because it is unjust. If all men/women are equal, then quotas mean one side is cheating by law. If all are equal then nobody need a handicap. Nobody likes cheaters, including cheaters being cheated. This will create a sense of resentment, as we continue to preach all are equal yet have cheating going on. This is illogically consistent with justice and is therefore a scam.

On the other hand, if the quota is there to make things equal, this logically implies one race is less than the other and that race needs this handicap. This is not good either because it can create insecurity in black communities, as people begin to doubt themselves as equal. The result is racial tension due to the appearance of continued differences, resentment and lack of trust; democratic party 1.0.

The men of character vision works better because building character is about the path of wisdom that is common to all; human nature, which we all share. Dr King only wanted a level playing field for blacks and not a position higher on a hill, so blacks ru downwards and begin to stumble.

Character takes works and work builds character. The blacks needs to leave the democratic plantation because their masters are keeping you down with misguided compassion, that lacks the common sense wisdom that Dr King spoke of. The Republican teach self reliance which is the path of character since character is a private road each must walk.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So I was wasting my time. Kind of figured that.

So present your alternative "why" for that standard racist pattern of action.

Nothing he says tells us anything for sure - especially if his actions belie it.

He has said some stuff - especially in the first few hours after the event, but also in his prepared self-exonerating testimony - that does not belie his actions.

And you asked why it was investigated, as if you could think of no good reason.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Non-responsive. As I expected. You don't really have any evidence of racism, you just see racism where you want to see it.

Standard racist pattern? Alternatives? You really don't get it: when you accuse someone of a crime, you need actual evidence that they committed it, not just a list of actions that could be based on racism. Some of what you listed there is the standard police pattern: Confrontational? Virtually every normal police action is by definition confrontational. Others, such as "lost his temper", even if we accept that that's true, don't necessarily have anything to do with racism. You do recognize that people sometimes lose their tempers when dealing with people of the same race, don't you? You're simply judging actions that a racist might do as definitely evidence of racism even if they aren't unique to racists. Here's a way to test: Make Brown white and see if any of Wilson's actions or statements must change because they no longer make any sense.

I'll do my best to make it easy for you again: please provide ONE piece of evidence of smething Wilson did/said that could be nothing but racism.

Because there was no good reason -- which is also why you were unable to present one. The investigation uncovered nothing because there was nothing to uncover. It was a political farce from the beginning, from a White House that is eager to re-fight the 1960s.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I wonder !?what the 'race.. as in continued haste and hasteing concerning the realism of our police force which is a standard valorous U.S government occupational representation. The COPS .tv shows from the early 1990's, were actually directed "filmed' ?!recordings by United States representatives in the ?media ?industry ?right; is it that the aggression and what may be accidents are director related, and or intent from ?!elsewhere. there are certain things in media and occupational networking that should not be tolerated.

 

As Lester Cowens reputedly said: "Well, you only left me a nigger, but at least I shot me a nigger!"

We are glad for your happiness.

Iceaura is correct.

Why you celebrate this outcome, Joe, is beyond any of us.

Your preference for law over justice actually has a number of us baffled. We get that this is how the law works. But for some reason, you're happy about it.

I don't think you quite realize just how much you've denigrated yourself, Lester. I mean, Joe.

 

That's not how affirmative action works. And the current Republican party is actually the "historical party of slavery, separation, segregation, KKK, etc.", in spite of the name change.

By the way, Dr. King supported affirmative action explicitly:

Haley then asks: "Do you feel it's fair to request a multibillion-dollar program of preferential treatment for the Negro, or for any other minority group?"

King: "I do indeed. Can any fair-minded citizen deny that the Negro has been deprived? Few people reflect that for two centuries the Negro was enslaved, and robbed of any wages--potential accrued wealth which would have been the legacy of his descendants. All of America's wealth today could not adequately compensate its Negroes for his centuries of exploitation and humiliation. It is an economic fact that a program such as I propose would certainly cost far less than any computation of two centuries of unpaid wages plus accumulated interest. In any case, I do not intend that this program of economic aid should apply only to the Negro; it should benefit the disadvantaged of all races."

Haley asks him about possible resentment from white people, and he says that the poor white man ought to be "made to realize that he is in the very same boat with the Negro....Together, they could form a grand alliance."

http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2014/04/martin_luther_king_jr_explicit.html
​

Basically, everything you just said was wrong and backwards. As usual.

 

Don’t mistake my cynicism for joy. There are a number of tragedies in Ferguson. It is tragic a young man chose to commit aggravated robbery and was killed in a confrontation with a policeman after going for the policeman’s gun. It is tragic Ferguson residents did not express their dissatisfaction with their police department at the ballot box rather than robbing and burning down the businesses which serve their community. It is tragic some members of the community chose to lie about the events of that day. It’s tragic Brown’s step father helped to incite a riot with his shout of "Burn this bitch down!" to the crowds. It’s tragic right wing racists have rallied around the cause. It’s tragic Ferguson has become a boon to right wing entertainment and become an example of the kind of irrational left wing excesses of the 70’s which gave birth to the Reagan Revolution and right wing entertainment, the repercussions of which are still being felt decades later and continue to vex the nation.

The plain and simple fact here Tiassa, is that you and your fellow liberals are clearly wrong and have resorted to all the same tactics we see our right wing friends use to justify and support their ideological beliefs. Justice isn’t a lynch mob. And what we saw in the streets of Ferguson was a lynch mob. Even before the evidence had been collected and the investigation completed, mobs had formed in Ferguson who had already pronounced judgment on Officer Wilson and would settle for nothing less than flesh to satisfy their blood lust. Thank God, justice did prevail.

If you want legitimate examples of police abuse, you don’t have to look far to find them. The Garner case in New York for example, there is no good reason why police did what they did to Garner. While Garner’s death may not have been intentional, the case was clearly mishandled. If you want to complain about the American system of justice, the Zimmerman case is a very good example. Because clearly justice wasn’t served in the Zimmerman case, an innocent young black man was slaughtered and his murder walked free.

So call me names if it makes you feel better. But your ad hominem in support of the liberal meme diminishes liberalism my friend. Liberals normally don’t have to resort to illogical arguments to support their causes and beliefs. Usually liberals are on the right side of the facts, logic and reason. But the Ferguson incident is clearly the exception. The facts in Ferguson just don’t support the conclusions you and others are pushing. There is no evidence of a conspiracy. There is no credible evidence Brown was treated unjustly or illegally. It is a tragedy Brown acted the way he did. Why did he commit aggravated robbery? Why did he go for Officer Wilson’s gun and resist arrest? If we want to improve our society and prevent another death and keep crime down, we need to ask the questions that matter, the questions which could prevent another robbery, assault and prevent another police shooting. Name calling and fiction won’t make things better in Ferguson or anywhere else for that matter.

 

Oh, quit with that ignorance, Joe. You're damn well smart enough to know that statutory adherence does not always equal justice. But, you know, a white cop just shot a black guy, lied about it, and got away with it. I won't mistake your pretense of cynicism for anything other than the political joy it really is.

Don't go comparing a bunch of racists screaming about birth certificates to the loss of a human life and statutory adherence in lieu of justice. What makes it even worse is that we already know you're smarter than that.

 

Wow. That's offensive, Tiassa.

I won't speak for Joe here, but I'm happy that justice has won-out over mob rule.

As am I. In this case, I am glad that an innocent man wasn't run through a farce of a trial over a crime he clearly didn't commit. That's justice to me.

That's nonsense, Tiassa. A fantasy at best, willful ignorance/lie at worst*.

*By now, the facts have been laid plain enough that the "hands-up, don't shoot" thing can no longer be waved-off as just a misunderstanding or ignorance. It's a lie, pure and simple.

 

I did present one. Right there. Read.

Why "must"? I just go with the standard, obvious, overwhelmingly likely inference from all that evidence. Of course Wilson might be a cop who would pull his gun on a couple of white teenagers he has accosted for jaywalking, chase them down the street with his gun drawn when they flee after going for (and getting shot by) the gun he threatened them with at close range, and shoot up the white neighborhood in an apparent panic when they stop running - putting bullets into the sides of nearby houses, emptying his clip and missing with half his shots, putting the last shot into the top of the head of a big, tall, kid who has been "charging" him for seven full seconds without getting close enough to shoot accurately until the last second.

He might be a cop who would patrol a small white community for months without knowing who the bad kids are, or who lives in the places he drives by, or who he can ask for info on a violent teenage thug who has just run away down the street in broad daylight.

But that's not the way to bet, is it? That's a rare, and not long employed, type of policeman. A racially bigoted young white male cop from a sundown community patrolling a black neighborhood he and his fellow policemen despise, with poor encounter skills and a tendency to pull his gun on young black men with little provocation, is not rare at all. More of a norm, in some places. Definitely a better bet, on the evidence.

It's multiple eyewitness testimony that fully agrees with all the forensic evidence - unlike Wilson's account. But of course it might be a lie. Which way do you want to bet, since we don't have a resolution of all these conflicting claims - with the evidence, or against it?

 

Aside from his being shot dead without a weapon on him, by a police officer who had no reason to think he was armed, and had chased him down the street with a drawn weapon after accosting him for jaywalking, you mean.

There is no solid evidence that Wilson's actions had anything to do with the robbery. Brown was not killed while going for the gun. When exactly did Brown resist arrest - before he faced a drawn gun, when his crime was jaywalking; or immediately afterwards, when his actions are interpretable as self defense; or after he had been shot the first time, when his resistance consisted of fleeing the scene; or while Wilson was emptying the rest of his clip at him, when he had stopped fleeing and was either approaching Wilson to surrender, launching the slowest "charge" ever seen outside of instant replay in the NFL, or reacting in desperation to being shot repeatedly while standing and facing an arresting officer?

 

Other than listing the races of those involved as a fact, there is nothing in your description that has anything to do with race. So does that mean you are claiming that all whites must be racists if they use physical force on a black person?

Because you aren't entitled to just assume the thing that you want to be true is true. You have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt (or just show it is "likely" to even justify starting a criminal investigation). So when a perfectly plausible alternate explanation exists, you can't just assume the opposite because you feel like it.

The feds made their decision after the grand jury declined to press charges, which is obvious: if there isn't even a crime then there can't be a crime caused by a civil rights violation. Two giant steps below what is needed to even formally accuse Wilson of racial bias.

Nonsense. There is nothing in what you said that even implies racism and I'm pretty sure you know it otherwise you'd provide something. You're basically just saying that when a white person uses force against a black person, the white person must be racist. Tell me: Given that Brown initiated the physical violence by attacking Wilson, do you consider Brown a racist too, or only Wilson?

I see: so this is all just based on your assumption that white cops tend to be racists. Glad we're clear on that. But again, in the American justice system we're not allowed to just assume a person is guilty because we think they are the type of person who often is. That would be...racist.

Lol, c'mon. You know that isn't true. We just had a long discussion where we discussed the issue that most of the pro-prosecution witnesses were lying. The "hands-up, don't shoot" thing is the key lie: the forensic evidence showed that Brown didn't have his hands up (and wasn't running away as some witnesses claimed as well). The forensic evidence is the key evidence that proves Wilson innocent.

Yes, that's correct. Nothing in that is necessarily unjust treatment, particularly given the parts you left out.

 

And that is not enough?

Of course not. Why would you generalize from a specific and given type of incident to all whites and physical force in general?

Reasoning likelihood from a preponderance of evidence is not assumption.

And that was of course done, as shown. A simple description of the event sufficed.

No assumptions involved. I noted that this white cop on this white force involved in this event behaved in a manner normally and frequently the result of racism both personal and institutional. You were invited to present an alternative explanation for the event so overwhelmingly likely that it would supplant the normal and obvious inference - you have not attempted that, and that is not surprising.

We rejected that claim by you, because it had no support and consistent contradiction in the physical evidence. We established, in that discussion, that you were unable to come up with an honest witness whose testimony fully agreed with Wilson's, and that the witnesses who disagreed with Wilson's account agreed better with the forensic evidence.

No, it didn't.

The forensic evidence is very difficult to align with Wilson's account: the inconsistencies and improbabilities have never been explained. There are a half dozen of them, and they agree better with the testimony of the witnesses who contradicted Wilson. We have, as you note but apparently do not remember well, discussed this at some length.

How does such evidence of Wilson's inaccuracy in account prove him innocent?

 

And the autopsy report and the eyewitness testimony, all of which are consistent with Officer Wilson’s account, yeah, except for the physical evidence and credible eyewitness testimony. Wilson wasn’t accosted for jay walking. He was stopped because he matched the description of the robbery suspect and there is no credible evidence to support you notion Officer Wilson chased Brown down the street with gun drawn. http://www.ibtimes.com/michael-brown-shooting-black-witnesses-testimony-largely-supports-darren-wilsons-account-1710931

We have been through all this many times. You have clearly and repeatedly demonstrated, you don’t care about the facts or the evidence. You are going to believe what you want to believe, facts and evidence be damned, just as our so called conservative friends believe what they want to believe facts, evidence and reason be damned.

Except for the video tape and the store owner testimony and the police dispatch tapes, yeah, there is ample evidence Brown was stopped in response to the store robbery. As for not killed while going for the gun, how do you know? According to Officer, immediately preceding the fatal shots, Officer Wilson and Brown were struggling with Officer Wilson’s gun. Officer Wilson said Brown charged him after a struggle for his gun. And the corners report, indeed all the physical evidence, is consistent in all respects with Officer Wilson’s account. So I think you are being a little disingenuous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Michael_Brown#Darren_Wilson.27s_interview_and_testimony

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...38c7b4-5964-11e4-bd61-346aee66ba29_story.html



Unfortunately Ice, this isn't a matter of evidence and reason for you. It is a matter of belief, facts don't matter to you because you believe. So be it.

 

Yeah; "The white cop is racist because he's white and white cops tend to be racists" (paraphrase) is not enough. In fact, it is racist of you to claim it.

The rest all sounds like a drug-induced fantasy, so I'm not going to go back over it. The above is plenty disgusting on its own and is really the main point here anyway. If you're being serious here and not trolling, though, it is pretty shocking how quickly you can lose track of realities that you acknowledged just days ago and be so far off in a fantasy-land.

 

No, they aren't. Why do you keep repeating that?

I have posted for you specific inconsistencies and improbabilities, physically specific mismatches between Wilson's testimony and the forensic evidence. They include the photos of the shell casing distribution, the photos of the bruises on Wilson's head, and the audio tape of the gunshots, all physically incontrovertible and found in your links. You refuse to acknowledge them. You deny their existence.

They aren't going to go away because you refuse to deal with them. Neither is the testimony of the several eyewitnesses who in various ways contradict Wilson and align better with the forensics - briefly, again, some samples: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30189966

Or you could read in your own Wikipedia link.

Not even Wilson says that - Wilson says he didn't think of the robbery until he saw the cigars in Brown's hand, after accosting him for walking in the street, after backing up and starting the altercation.

That testimony, btw, is our only evidence that Wilson recognized Brown as a robbery suspect at all, and it was part of his rehearsed grand jury testimony rather than his initial account - which was problematic in multiple ways as noted.

There is everyone's testimony including Wilson's, and the timing of the shooting, and other common sense matters (he didn't have much time to reholster and unholster the gun, nobody says he did, a couple of people say he didn't, and why would he? He's already been firing the thing) Does that count as credible evidence?

Once again you post preliminary reports from before the actual testimony was examined - you don't want to read what Wilson actually said, or what the forensic evidence actually was, do you? If you read your link there, you will notice several items that were corrected by subsequent reporting - including in the Wiki link you posted immediately afterwards, which you should read more carefully than you seem to have.

What 's with the stupid and dishonest paraphrasing? It's not that complicated - I'm writing in declarative sentences, without complex grammatical structures or subtle implications.

Here's the deal: When a white cop on a white force policing a black US community (a situation normally rooted in racism, to begin with) in a region famous for centuries of racial bigotry (in its law enforcement as well as every other aspect of civil society) empties his clip at an unarmed teenage black kid, puts six bullets into him over a seven second span and kills him, on the public street of this black community, in broad daylight, with good visibility and plenty of time to think,

after accosting him for jaywalking, getting into fight with him with (for some reason) a drawn weapon, and chasing him down the street with that drawn weapon as he fled the scene,

and offers as a justification that he feared for his life, that the unarmed black male teenage jaywalker attempting to flee was so frightening when he stopped running away that the cop felt he had no choice but to put a sixth bullet into the kid's head in self defense,

the matter of racism has to be investigated by every responsible civil authority. It's an obvious, blatantly obvious, possible factor, and failure to investigate it would be a dereliction of duty - irresponsible and incompetent.

And being mystified by this - actually wondering in print why the responsible civil authorities investigated this incident for possible racism - is just mindboggling. You guys even live in the US?

 

I keep repeating it because “they are”. The forensic science and scientists support Officer Wilson’s testimony. Did you not read the links in my previous post or any of the ones that preceded it? Where is there even a single credible forensic scientist that that claims the physical evidence is inconsistent with Officer Wilson’s account?

You have posted nonsense and speculation based on nonsense. Find one credible forensic scientist who has examined the evidence and backs up your assertions…just one. The holes in your beliefs have been repeatedly pointed out to you (e.g. shell casings). As I said before, you are way beyond facts. You are into the realm of beliefs and beliefs only. You don’t need or want facts and that is why you are unable or unwilling to acknowledge fact and reason related to this incident.

You mean like Johnson’s testimony, who testified that Officer Wilson shot Brown in the back when the forensic evidence clearly shows that was not the case. And like your refusal to acknowledge the seven black witnesses who corroborate Officer Wilson’s testimony or to acknowledge the testimony and opinion of the forensic scientists. Instead Ice, you prefer to rely wholly on the testimony of a few “witnesses” who have made statements which are inconsistent not only with the physical evidence but with their own previous statements.

Perhaps you should read the Wikipedia link. But I doubt it would do you any good. You are impervious to the evidence. Your biases and beliefs are clearly overriding your ability to be objective. The facts, don’t say what you claim they say. I’ll repeat my challenge to you, show me a credible forensic scientist you backs you your version of events.

And do you really think that matters even if your assertion were true? This is what happened (from my previous Wiki Link).

“At 11:53, a police dispatcher reported a "stealing in progress" at the Ferguson Market and described the suspect as a black male wearing a white T-shirt running toward QuikTrip. The suspect was reported as having stolen a box of Swisher cigars.[29] At 11:57, the dispatch described the suspect as wearing a red Cardinals hat, a white T-shirt, yellow socks, and khaki shorts, and that he was accompanied by another male.[29] At 12:00 p.m., Wilson reported that he was back in service and radioed units 25 and 22 to ask if they need his assistance in searching for the suspects.[29] Seven seconds later, an unidentified officer said the suspects had disappeared.[29] Wilson called for backup at 12:02, saying "[Unit] 21. Put me on Canfield with two. And send me another car."

The cigars were a giveaway as to the suspect’s guilt. But that doesn’t mean Wilson didn’t suspect these two of the crime. Further it isn’t relevant to the shooting. This is an example of the irrelevant trivia you like to wallow in in order to avoid dealing with the gapping wholes in your beliefs. Like I said before, this discussion could be over real fast if you could find one credible forensic scientist to back your version of events.

It isn’t relevant. This is so typical of you Ice. Wither Brown was suspected of being a robbery suspect isn’t relevant. The issue is Brown’s physical assault on a police officer, Officer Wilson. You are trying to bury the vacuous nature of your argument in irrelevant minutia. And Officer Wilson had the right to tell Brown and Johnson to get off the street.

You are mystified why few others see things the way you do. Perhaps the problem doesn’t lie with others but within you. Fact and reason are just not consistent with your beliefs. Where we live is just as irrelevant as most of the other stuff you have brought up. But I have lived in the United States for 60 years, if that makes you feel better.

 

The forensic scientists do not evaluate Wilson's testimony - not their job. They present findings of physical fact, answer specific questions, and you can look at their findings for yourself.

The audio analysis, for example, from two independent recognized experts, specifies that all ten of the shots recorded were fired from within a one meter circle. You can read that in your Wikipedia link above, or one of my links earlier, or any number of sources from the NYT to Slate magazine, or the grand jury hearing records as released in 23 volumes by the Ferguson DA. That conflicts with Wilson's testimony, in which he clearly states that he was backpedaling rapidly while firing at a charging Brown. Analysis shows that his account requires him to have fired one or more of the shots from a position at least six meters from the first of them. You can read Wilson's testimony in various places, and the analysis in various places, some of them linked by you already.

There are several of these inconsistencies. I mentioned three or four. You simply deny their existence. They are right in front of you, written down in your own links. What is your problem?

Yes. His error in thinking that Wilson hit Brown with one of the shots is easily explained - he couldn't see whether the shots hit Brown or not. Even Wilson was not sure how many of his shots had hit Brown. Otherwise, his testimony agrees with the forensic evidence better than Wilson's - he has Wilson shooting at a fleeing Brown initially, for example, which agrees with the miss rate and the audio analysis and the shell casing distribution and so forth, and in particular explains the three second gap between the two rounds of firing. His account of the altercation at the car also matches the bruise pattern on Wilson's head, and explains how Brown got his hands on the gun, both circumstances difficult to explain from Wilson's account. And so forth.

You attempt to use one easily explained eyewitness error by Johnson to dismiss an entire body of apparently sound testimony that agrees with the forensics, while accepting vague and improbable self-justifications from Wilson that conflict with the forensic evidence.

That's a damn lie, and you know it. You have been corrected on that ugly and dishonest claim multiple times now, there's no excuse for it any more. No, I don't.. Every single one of my posts here has relied on the physical evidence, not the testimony of any witness. I have not relied on eyewitness testimony for anything. My only dealing with witness testimony has been to point to its consistency or inconsistency with reason and evidence, and the preferential treatment of it by the prosecutor.

If it doesn't matter, why do you make such a big deal out of trying to deny it? It is true, and you have repeatedly gone out of your way to deny it and make false assertions otherwise. Why?

Then quit talking about it, agree with what everybody says and all the evidence supports, and move on.

He wasn't killed then - regardless of whose version you go with, or who started the fight. He was chased down the street by a cop with a gun, and shot six times after he quit trying to run away.

I count quite a few. And they seem to be good company. Have you taken a look at who is seeing things the way you do? Notice any common themes?

 

Thanks for making my point; your beliefs rely heavily on discredited witnesses. You cannot find one credible forensic scientist to support your assertions. The forensic scientists who have looked at the physical evidence have found it consistent with Officer Wilson’s account and the account of 7 black witnesses who corroborate Officer Wilson’s account and have not changed their testimony. Your beliefs rely not on physical evidence, but on the testimony of a few witnesses who made statements which are clearly contradicted by the physical evidence (e.g. Brown was shot in the back) and have been contradicted by the forensic science but by their own accounts (e.g. Johnson).

And how is that relevant? It isn’t. The forensic evidence is pretty clear. Brown was shot from the front and at close range, facts which are consistent with Officer Wilson’s account and that of 7 other black witnesses. You don’t have to be a forensic expert to be able to determine and entrance and an exit wound.

No, what you have done is attempt to avoid unpleasant fact by spewing irrelevant material and acting like it is some big revelation of a grand conspiracy. It isn’t. There is nothing inconsistent in any of your “inconsistencies”.

Well he was wrong not only about how many shots hit Brown but also where they hit him. He was wrong about Brown being shot while his hands were in the air and he was wrong that Brown was shot while he was on the ground, and he was wrong about the struggle in the police car. So yeah, if you ignore all the things Johnson was wrong about, where Johnson’s testimony was inconsistent with the forensic science, then Johnson testimony was consistent with the forensics. But that isn’t honest.

Oh if it were that simple, as previously explained, there are many inconsistencies with Johnson’s testimony and Johnson’s testimony has changed over time. Johnson’s statements have contradicted not only the evidence but his previous statements. Johnson claimed Officer Wilson grabbed Brown by the throat and that there was no scuffle for Officer Wilson’s gun while Officer Wilson was inside his patrol car. That too is inconsistent with the forensics.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/02/why-michael-browns-best-friends-story-is-incredible/
The truth is what it is; the truth doesn’t need to be fudged to be true. And Officer Wilson or the 7 black witnesses who support Officer Wilson’s account has not changed and wasn’t inconsistent with the forensics from day one.

You wish it were a lie, but it isn’t. It’s a fact. What you have done is cherry pick through the data to find irrelevant data you think supports your beliefs and you ignore inconvenient facts. And your cherry picked data points you think corroborates your point of view doesn't (e.g. shell casings). Your argument boils down the testimony of dubious witnesses whose testimony has been inconsistent with the forensics and with itself because you have allowed your beliefs to trump rational thought.
http://www.businessinsider.com/thes...wns-shooting-were-wildly-inconsistent-2014-11
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/22/michael-brown-shooting_n_6030220.html

Not surprisingly, you are conflating two very different issues. Brown’s involvement in an aggravated robbery just minutes before confronting Officer Wilson goes to Brown’s state of mind and proclivity towards violence. Officer Wilson confronted Brown because he was walking down the middle of the road and immediately recognized Brown as the aggravated robbery suspect. You think Officer Wilson’s reason for confronting Wilson makes a difference….seriously? And what is it I have gone out of my way to deny, and why is it relevant?

LOL, except that isn’t what the forensics says, and you are cherry picking again. The forensics say there was a scuffle at Officer Wilson’s police car involving his service weapon and Brown. Officer Wilson’s weapon was discharged. A short chase ensued and there is nothing wrong with that. Brown turned and charged Officer Wilson at which time Officer Wilson discharged his weapon again killing Brown. All of which is consistent with Officer Wilson’s testimony and the testimony of 7 black witnesses.

Yeah I have taken a look at who is seeing things the way I do, President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, and The State of Missouri. Yeah, I am happy with that crowd. All of them are familiar with the case. All of them hold positions of power and have the ability to do something if they think there was something untoward about the Brown shooting and they are not doing so. Do you think for a minute President Obama would allow the injustice you think occurred to stand unaddressed? I don’t. If President Obama thought there was some injustice in Ferguson, he would be talking about it and he isn’t.

 

The accuracy of Wilson's account of critical matters is not relevant?

He was not inconsistent with the forensic evidence in what he said he saw - only the inferences he made, about what he could not actually see.

That testimony is consistent with the forensic evidence. Why do you think it's wrong?

He said kneeling or going to his knees - again, consistent with the forensics

Again, consistent with the forensics, including the shell casing locations that tend to suggest Wilson may have had some memory problems.

So have Wilson's. With a trial we could have cleared this stuff up.

Btw: if there are all these other problems with Johnson's testimony, why did you choose to post a non-problem, above?

And why do you keep posting these links that undermine your contentions? That Washington Post link, for example, shows Johnson quite closely consistent with the forensic evidence - Johnson thinks Brown was shot in the chest in the car fight because he saw the blood spatter, for example, and the forensics say Brown was shot in the hand while trying to grab the gun; which would spatter blood on his chest just as Johnson says he saw. And so forth. Are you simply taking the verdict of the "journalist" in these links, and ignoring the physical evidence?

Yep. [quote='joe"] Brown turned and charged Officer Wilson at which time Officer Wilson discharged his weapon again killing Brown. [/quote] That is in dispute, and not consistent with the forensic evidence of the audio recording. It also conflicts with your claim that Brown was shot at close range - you (and Wilson) have him charging for seven full seconds at least, taking bullets the whole time, so he cannot have been all that close to begin with. You also have Wilson begin shooting immediately, as soon as Brown turned and charged - remember when you asserted I had no evidence Wilson was chasing Brown with his gun drawn?

I don't rely on the witnesses like you do - your contention that they support all of Wilson's account is in error, but the aspect I've been drawing to your attention is the difficulty we have squaring Wilson's account with the physical evidence. You just omitted, for example, Wilson's claim to have been backpedaling rapidly as he fired those shots.

Dodge. The single issue addressed was your repeated insistence that Wilson accosted Brown because he recognized him as a robber suspect. That was and is false. Wilson himself says he didn't recognize him as the robber until Brown handed his booty to Johnson - that was after he had backed up and blocked their path and launched the altercation.

No, it isn't. Point to the inconsistency. I have pointed to the oddity of Wilson's claim that the gun was inside the car when Brown tried to grab it and was shot, given the rest position of the two shell casings well outside the car - the gun ejects up and to the right, remember? - and the apparent inconsistency of Wilson's bruises with his claim of being punched very hard in the face twice: now it's your turn to point to some evidence.

That is not what you claimed when you lied. You claimed I relied wholly on eyewitness testimony. You have claimed that before, several times. Like this:

I have never accepted the testimony of any witness, or argued from it. Not once. And I know you know that.

The only party seeing things as you do in that list is the State of Missouri - and that's not exactly bragging material, here.