Michael Brown unarmed shooting in Ferguson, MO

The Truth · Oct 20, 2014

Redbaron007 said:
You may want to look at past 618...that's also the one I quoted when you made the statement about Innocent until proven guilty was BS.

Here's what I said:

The Truth said:
This is the most hypocritical BS statement you've made yet. Innocent until proven guilty...like Mike Brown, right? GTFOH

I apologize if you are misunderstanding what I was trying to say here, but nowhere in this statement am I saying that innocent until proven guilty is BS. I was pointing out that you believe the cop is innocent until proven guilty, but Mike Brown is dead so it doesn't really matter whether or not he is guilty or innocent, or what crime he would even be guilty or innocent of.

Please refer back to several posts earlier. I have stated several times, Wilson is innocent until proven guilty. There is no verifiable evidence, that hasn't been potentially tainted by the media outlets, that provide facts....they provide possible evidence, but it has to be filtered and taken with a grain of salt. All video/testimonies I've heard about are after the fact....not during. There have been reports that give credence to both sides....funny the videos are all after the incident.

You're still completely failing to acknowledge the video of the construction workers' reaction which was taken approximately right after Brown received the killshot to the dome. You're also arguing that statements made by these workers are "tainted by the media," or illegitimate. There is no basis for this claim of illegitimacy whatsoever, except maybe your own "tinfoil hat," as you so eloquently accused me of wearing.

Mike Brown is not being investigated by the prosecuting attorney......I have never said he was responsible for his death....although, that'll come out to a certain extent when Wilson is charged/convicted or no bill/acquitted.

What the GJ opines really doesn't matter to me. Unless we are unaware of a gun or something that Brown stopped fleeing to point at Wilson, there is no justification for his killing from many feet away after running. Therein lies the disconnect between legal and illegal shoot in my opinion.

And by all means, please accept my humble apology for for lumping in with WW. That was my mistake.

Apology accepted, haha.

wrightme · Oct 20, 2014

The Truth said:
It's a preliminary hearing, or "official proceeding." You know what I'm trying to say, unless you don't know how GJs work.

I read your posted words, not your mind. If the words posted are not accurately saying your meaning, you may want to double-check what you type.

Yes, I understand how grand juries work. They are not a trial where a defense is presented, as I stated. Do you disagree?

Redbaron007 · Oct 20, 2014

The Truth said:
Here's what I said:

I apologize if you are misunderstanding what I was trying to say here, but nowhere in this statement am I saying that innocent until proven guilty is BS. I was pointing out that you believe the cop is innocent until proven guilty, but Mike Brown is dead so it doesn't really matter whether or not he is guilty or innocent, or what crime he would even be guilty or innocent of.

Why is it so hard for you to believe he is innocent until proven guilty? Same goes for Mike Brown? Mike has a story to tell; but unfortunately he can't explain what happen, we have to rely on facts.......not stories from the media. Until the facts have been disseminated, we don't know who is or who is not innocent.

The Truth said:
You're still completely failing to acknowledge the video of the construction workers' reaction which was taken approximately right after Brown received the killshot to the dome. You're also arguing that statements made by these workers are "tainted by the media," or illegitimate. There is no basis for this claim of illegitimacy whatsoever, except maybe your own "tinfoil hat," as you so eloquently accused me of wearing.

Once again......it is after the shooting, it doesn't depict the shooting....it's after the incident. Do you think all the facts have been released? How do you make such a serious conclusion with very limited factual evidence.

The Truth said:
What the GJ opines really doesn't matter to me. Unless we are unaware of a gun or something that Brown stopped fleeing to point at Wilson, there is no justification for his killing from many feet away after running. Therein lies the disconnect between legal and illegal shoot in my opinion.

You are entitled to your opinion. At this time we have to agree to disagree.....you have drawn a conclusion based upon limited potentially highly tainted information. I choose to wait and pass judgement when more info comes to the public, that's my opinion.

The Truth said:
Apology accepted, haha.

Thanks....I probably wouldn't have slept if you hadn't.

wrightme · Oct 20, 2014

The Truth said:
What the GJ opines really doesn't matter to me. Unless we are unaware of a gun or something that Brown stopped fleeing to point at Wilson, there is no justification for his killing from many feet away after running. Therein lies the disconnect between legal and illegal shoot in my opinion.

Really? That is the only thing that you think would justify lethal force at that point?

wrightme · Oct 20, 2014

The Truth said:
Redbaron007 said:

So considering a person innocent until proven guilty is a goal to protect LE? Come on....you can do better than that.

Click to expand...

This is the most hypocritical BS statement you've made yet. Innocent until proven guilty...like Mike Brown, right? GTFOH

What do you see as hypocritical about what he posted?

Do you not agree that Wilson IS innocent until proven guilty? How is RB being hypocritical for stating that? What does 'like Mike Brown' have to do with that?

The Truth · Oct 20, 2014

wrightme said:
I read your posted words, not your mind. If the words posted are not accurately saying your meaning, you may want to double-check what you type.

Yes, I understand how grand juries work. They are not a trial where a defense is presented, as I stated. Do you disagree?

I agree there is no defense presented...which is why they are fundamentally flawed.

What do you see as hypocritical about what he posted?

Do you not agree that Wilson IS innocent until proven guilty? How is RB being hypocritical for stating that? What does 'like Mike Brown' have to do with that?

Why are you two not able to comprehend what I am saying here? My point was that if one is innocent until proven guilty then so is the other. That is all. RB is the only one of you two even remotely arguing the neutral...you seem to be arguing the negative to the claim that the killing is not justified.

wrightme · Oct 20, 2014

The Truth said:
I agree there is no defense presented...which is why they are fundamentally flawed.

There is no defense presented, because it is not a trial.

The Truth said:
Why are you two not able to comprehend what I am saying here? My point was that if one is innocent until proven guilty then so is the other. That is all. RB is the only one of you two even remotely arguing the neutral...you seem to be arguing the negative to the claim that the killing is not justified.

I comprehended what you said quite well. I asked you why you felt it showed hypocrisy.

Yes, Brown is also innocent until proven guilty.

Whether his killing is justified or not is the incorrect question. The correct question is 'was deadly force justified.' When you put it as 'the killing is not justified,[/i] you are presuming that Wilson's intent was to kill Brown; thus failing to provide 'innocent until proven guilty' to Wilson.

Now, why do you try to say RB was presenting a hypocritical statement? Are you attempting to claim that he does not feel that Brown is also innocent until proven guilty?

The Truth · Oct 20, 2014

wrightme said:
There is no defense presented, because it is not a trial.

No need to repeat yourself. I think it's clear it's not a trial. I apparently have failed in making it clear that I disagree with the fundamentally one-sided nature of GJs.

I comprehended what you said quite well. I asked you why you felt it showed hypocrisy.

Now, why do you try to say RB was presenting a hypocritical statement? Are you attempting to claim that he does not feel that Brown is also innocent until proven guilty?

DING DING DING! Now, that is my opinion based on the statements he has made. I think he has since done at least a decent job at clarifying his mindset.

Whether his killing is justified or not is the incorrect question. The correct question is 'was deadly force justified.' When you put it as 'the killing is not justified,[/i]

Here you are interpreting what I said to mean something entirely different than my intention.

It has been proven via autopsy that the "killing" did not occur until after the altercation in the vehicle, or, after Brown fled and according to multiple witnesses "raised his hands in surrender." It has also been proven that there were two separate bursts of gunfire, meaning two separate situations. I can understand why Wilson would fear for his life in the first situation, MAYBE, but the second - in which the killshot was delivered - I have not heard a compelling enough argument or compelling enough evidence to warrant the final few shots that led to Brown's death.

you are presuming that Wilson's intent was to kill Brown; thus failing to provide 'innocent until proven guilty' to Wilson.

No, I am not. You are misinterpreting my use of the term "killing" based on the assumption that the first few shots were mortal, which they were not. This was proven via autopsy. I have also already stated that I believe the first few shots could have been acceptable use of lethal force.

I tend to disagree anyway. When someone shoots in self-defense, the intent is to kill, especially when 7 shots are taken. It's quite difficult to argue the negative in that regard, especially since Wilson used the statement, "I felt my life was in danger." That's the go-to defense when you kill someone in self defense and intended to do so. It'd be laughable to claim that Wilson "didn't mean to kill" Brown.

Firearms Iinstuctor · Oct 20, 2014

The Truth said:
I tend to disagree anyway. When someone shoots in self-defense, the intent is to kill, especially when 7 shots are taken. .

The intent is to stop doesn't matter if it takes one or one hundred as long as the threat is valid one keeps shooting.

wrightme · Oct 20, 2014

The Truth said:
No need to repeat yourself. I think it's clear it's not a trial. I apparently have failed in making it clear that I disagree with the fundamentally one-sided nature of GJs.

Yes, you have made that quite clear, though I do not understand the rationale of using 'there is no defense' in a hearing where there have been no charges presented to defend against.

The Truth said:
DING DING DING! Now, that is my opinion based on the statements he has made. I think he has since done at least a decent job at clarifying his mindset.

I see you have not pointed out what statements he made that led you to believe that he did not think that Brown was 'innocent until proven guilty.' I have not seen any of his statements that even hint at that. Can you show what statement of his leads you to think that? Or is what you posted about 'clarifying his mindset' giving you a different 'read' on it now? Your statements above do NOT clearly convey whether you feel he still thinks Brown is not 'innocent until proven guilty' or not.

The Truth said:
Here you are interpreting what I said to mean something entirely different than my intention.

It has been proven via autopsy that the "killing" did not occur until after the altercation in the vehicle, or, after Brown fled and according to multiple witnesses "raised his hands in surrender." It has also been proven that there were two separate bursts of gunfire, meaning two separate situations. I can understand why Wilson would fear for his life in the first situation, MAYBE, but the second - in which the killshot was delivered - I have not heard a compelling enough argument or compelling enough evidence to warrant the final few shots that led to Brown's death.

Where has it been shown that the 'kill shot' was delivered in the second burst? But, without any indication either way, you seem to have decided that there is no way to justify a second burst anyway. This is where you appear to be refusing to allow 'innocent until proven guilty' for Wilson. Absent evidence that he acted unlawfully, the presumption IS that he did act lawfully.

The Truth said:
No, I am not. You are misinterpreting my use of the term "killing" based on the assumption that the first few shots were mortal, which they were not. This was proven via autopsy. I have also already stated that I believe the first few shots could have been acceptable use of lethal force.

How am I misinterpreting it? You are claiming there is no justification for the killing, as opposed to speaking about whether there is or is not justification for the use of deadly force.

The Truth said:
I tend to disagree anyway. When someone shoots in self-defense, the intent is to kill, especially when 7 shots are taken. It's quite difficult to argue the negative in that regard, especially since Wilson used the statement, "I felt my life was in danger." That's the go-to defense when you kill someone in self defense and intended to do so. It'd be laughable to claim that Wilson "didn't mean to kill" Brown.

False. When someone shoots in self-defense, the intent is to 'stop the threat.' If it takes one shot, good. If it takes more, hope the magazine is full enough. There is not some magic number, 'especially when 7 shots are taken,' where it is no longer self-defense. It is still valid to shoot if there is still an apparent threat. If, as you declare, 'the intent is to kill,' you are no longer speaking of defense.

wrightme · Oct 20, 2014

Firearms Iinstuctor said:
The intent is to stop doesn't matter if it takes one or one hundred as long as the threat is valid one keeps shooting.

Correct. Anyone who posts that their intent in self-defense is to 'shoot to kill,' better hope that they never have to shoot in self-defense and someone has quoted that post. I have no doubt that such statement WILL be taken into consideration if such event occurs.

To The Truth, by stating that you believe that 'When someone shoots in self-defense, the intent is to kill,' you have basically agreed with Wilson's actions as you believe they happened, and that Brown WAS NOT 'innocent until proven guilty,' but that the act of causing someone else to defend HAS INDEED made their own life forfeit. Yet at the same time, believing that Wilson was justified in defending himself yet, Wilson had as yet not killed Brown.

Firearms Iinstuctor · Oct 20, 2014

wrightme said:
Correct. Anyone who posts that their intent in self-defense is to 'shoot to kill,' better hope that they never have to shoot in self-defense and someone has quoted that post. I have no doubt that such statement WILL be taken into consideration if such event occurs.

To The Truth, by stating that you believe that 'When someone shoots in self-defense, the intent is to kill,' you have basically agreed with Wilson's actions as you believe they happened, and that Brown WAS NOT 'innocent until proven guilty,' but that the act of causing someone else to defend HAS INDEED made their own life forfeit.

Only if he fires more then one shot.

Same for the ones who say I'll shoot anybody that comes into my house uninvited no matter the reason.

The Truth · Oct 20, 2014

So if you shoot someone in the head your intent is not to kill? HAHA. Yeah right!

@wrightme I'm growing tired of the same chat about this. I've maintained the same if not identical opinion on this throughout, and outside of some super secret unknown evidence my opinion will not change.

No offense, but your arguments in the past have been painful and laborious to read (with WalkingWolf and others) and this thread is really no different. It's too tedious to have to explain the intent of every single word to someone who really can't argue anything but semantics. My opinion is very simple. Take it or leave it. If I didn't explicitly state something as my opinion, it is not my opinion no matter how hard you attempt to attribute certain meanings to my thoughts on these matters.

wrightme · Oct 20, 2014

The Truth said:
So if you shoot someone in the head your intent is not to kill? HAHA. Yeah right! [removed at TT request].

No, the only way to stop them isn't to kill them. That IS one way to get them to stop, it isn't the only way.
If a person's stated intent is 'to kill' an attacker, that is not an intent to defend yourself, it is an intent to be judge, jury, and executioner; exactly what you seem to feel Wilson was.

The Truth said:
Sorry, but I'm not buying the "my intent is not to kill, it's to stop the threat." What are you doing then, shooting for the legs and hoping the criminal has a change of heart? Even police are taught to shoot center mass. That's where the vitals are. I've even seen LE make fun of others on forums where people suggest non-mortal shot placement.

What? You swing it there in the same post where you state 'If I didn't explicitly state something as my opinion, it is not my opinion?' What have I posted that leads you to that opinion?
Center mass, shoot to stop. I never claimed what you present.
You go ahead and 'shoot to kill,' I will shoot to stop the threat. The outcome may well be the same, the intent is quite different. If the assailant is incapacitated without killing him, the need of self-defense is over.

The Truth said:
@wrightme I'm growing tired of the same chat about this. I've maintained the same if not identical opinion on this throughout, and outside of some super secret unknown evidence my opinion will not change.

No offense, but your arguments in the past have been painful and laborious to read (with WalkingWolf and others) and this thread is really no different. It's too tedious to have to explain the intent of every single word to someone who really can't argue anything but semantics. My opinion is very simple. Take it or leave it. If I didn't explicitly state something as my opinion, it is not my opinion no matter how hard you attempt to attribute certain meanings to my thoughts on these matters.

That is quite obvious. What is odd about that, is when questioned as to your reasons, you get upset instead of informative.

I see you still failed to show ANY statement of RB's that supports your 'hypocrisy' comment. Is it really that difficult to share what he said that led you to have that opinion?

Firearms Iinstuctor · Oct 20, 2014

You are very right words do have meaning using them properly can be to ones benefit.

Using them improperly can lead one into trouble that they could have avoided by being more careful with one words.

Many people have been sent to prison by what they have said or how they have said it.

We know that life is not perfect and isn't fair so being careful can be very important

The Truth · Oct 20, 2014

In my strawman where a man with a gun tells me he is going to kill me, deadly force may be used in my home state.

https://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-60

wrightme · Oct 20, 2014

The Truth said:
[removed at TT request]
In my strawman where a man with a gun tells me he is going to kill me, [removed at TT request], deadly force may be used in my home state.

https://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-60

Your edited version is reasonable.

The Truth · Oct 20, 2014

wrightme said:
Do you have a point to present beyond some definitions of force?

Stop asking me stupid questions. I am presenting my reasoning for my claim of the deadly force non-sequitur you and FI chose to address and in doing so I'm refuting your claim that it matters what words I say now in the case of a future justifiable use of deadly force.

Can you cite the statute you are claiming justifies the use of deadly force in your home state?

One case law is McGhee v. Commonwealth. There are others. I'm currently searching for statutory law. I've found it quoted in many places but finding the statute itself is proving to be a sumbitch. It's somewhere in 18.2.

https://vcdl.org/sites/default/files/Virginia-self-defense-cases.pdf

wrightme · Oct 20, 2014

The Truth said:
Stop asking me stupid questions. I am presenting my reasoning for my claim of the deadly force non-sequitur you and FI chose to address and in doing so I'm refuting your claim that it matters what words I say now in the case of a future justifiable use of deadly force.

Requesting you to cite statute supporting your claim concerning the use of deadly force is not a stupid question.

The use of deadly force isn't the question you are avoiding, it is your intent should you need to use deadly force.

The Truth said:
One case law is McGhee v. Commonwealth. There are others. I'm currently searching for statutory law. I've found it quoted in many places but finding the statute itself is proving to be a sumbitch. It's somewhere in 18.2.

https://vcdl.org/sites/default/files/Virginia-self-defense-cases.pdf

I do not disagree with your edited version of VA deadly force.

The Truth · Oct 20, 2014

wrightme said:
Requesting you to cite statute supporting your claim concerning the use of deadly force is not a stupid question.

"Do you have a point to present beyond some definitions of force?" is not a request for cite of statute.

The use of deadly force isn't the question you are avoiding, it is your intent should you need to use deadly force.

This doesn't even make sense. I'm not avoiding any question. What are you talking about? Please cite VA Law regarding intent when using justifiable deadly force if you feel you know something I don't. Maybe you should read the case law presented.

What operation of law do you claim of that case? Do you hold to your claim that "since that is a felony, deadly force may be used in my home state."

"Justifiable homicide in self-defense occurs [when] a person, without any fault on his part in provoking or bringing on the difficulty, kills another under reasonable apprehension of death or great bodily harm to himself." Smith, 17 Va. App. at 71, 435 S.E.2d at 416

"one 'may use only such force as appears to him reasonably necessary to repel the attack'); Foote, 11 Va. App. at 69, 396 S.E.2d at 856

a defendant "must wait till some overt act is done[,] . . . till the danger becomes imminent." Vlastaris, 164 Va. at 652, 178 S.E. at 777. In the context of a self-defense plea, "imminent danger" is defined as "[a]n immediate, real threat to one's safety . . . ." Black's Law Dictionary 399 (7th ed. 1999). "There must be . . . some act menacing present peril . . . [and] [t]he act . . . must be of such a character as to afford a reasonable ground for believing there is a design . . . to do some serious bodily harm, and imminent danger of carrying such design into immediate execution." Byrd v. Commonwealth, 89 Va. 536, 539, 16 S.E. 727, 729 (1893).

I'd say that's pretty clearly an affirmative defense.

Michael Brown unarmed shooting in Ferguson, MO

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member