Author Topic: "Poll: Should officer Darren Wilson, who shot Michael Brown, be arrested?"  (Read 69878 times)

The only valid point that Kimon has is that Wilson can be tried in Civil court for wrongful death but that has no legal repercussions
but you're still a friend
ah yes i bring up more completely valid points, but who cares im still a friend am i right???

uh i dont understand the question
What proof do you want? Is marks on the officer not satisfactory?

What proof do you want? Is marks on the officer not satisfactory?
no, actually. considering he was atraumatic that could be self-inflicted or even make-up for all we know

What proof do you want? Is marks on the officer not satisfactory?

If Brown had severed Wilson's foot with a chainsaw before being shot, he'd probably say that Wilson cut his own foot off to manufacture evidence.

i mean i wasnt aware that a little bruise was all of a sudden damning evidence

no, actually. considering he was atraumatic that could be self-inflicted or even make-up for all we know
You are so hellbent on making the officer seem like the devil, its sad. I don't like the police as much as the next guy but I'm not going to slander every move they make with some bullstuff.

If Brown had severed Wilson's foot with a chainsaw before being shot, he'd probably say that Wilson cut his own foot off to manufacture evidence.
You're probably right.

i mean i wasnt aware that a little bruise was all of a sudden damning evidence
It's not, in  most cases.

But that combined with other evidence is...

You are so hellbent on making the officer seem like the devil, its sad. I don't like the police as much as the next guy but I'm not going to slander every move they make with some bullstuff.
You're probably right.
is this your way of saying "the best proof i have is a small bruise on his face"
It's not, in  most cases.

But that combined with other evidence is...
what other evidence? there certainly isnt any other evidence supporting him being assaulted.

is this your way of saying "the best proof i have is a small bruise on his face"
Yes, whats your proof that he wasn't hit? The 'fake' bruise?

Yes, whats your proof that he wasn't hit? The 'fake' bruise?
all of my proof exists to leave only the small bruise as possible proof, and i have no clue why you think that's enough, all speculation aside.

all of my proof exists to leave only the small bruise as possible proof, and i have no clue why you think that's enough, all speculation aside.
Because a big hit can still leave a small bruise. I've let a guy bigger than Brown hit me in the arm, multiple times. It left no marks worse than what you see on Wilson.

I don't see why you think all hits have to leave you black, blue, and injured.

only the small bruise

The jury did not make their decision based on one bruise and a blank story.

Because a big hit can still leave a small bruise. I've let a guy bigger than Brown hit me in the arm, multiple times. It left no marks worse than what you see on Wilson.

I don't see why you think all hits have to leave you black, blue, and injured.
you keep ignoring that what i've been saying is a single bruise is not enough proof to say with certainty that mike brown attacked the officer. that clearly hasnt stopped you, though.
The jury did not make their decision based on one bruise and a blank story.
im not sure what you mean by a 'blank story' and im not entirely sure what you're trying to say overall
are you implying that clearly there is some undebunked evidence somewhere, unmentioned in this thread?

I still don't get why you're even bothering to argue this anymore.

What are you trying to accomplish?

I still don't get why you're even bothering to argue this anymore.

What are you trying to accomplish?

The whole purpose behind whatever anyone believes is that such an incident should not happen again and both sides should take precautions to prevent it.

I don't see what anyone has to argue about. What's done is done.