Ferguson Grand Jury: No Indictment for Darren Wilson in Michael Brown Shooting

Not surprising really. There was a photo making the rounds claiming to be him with a handgun(as if that is somehow bad), but it was really some other dude.

a reply to: TKDRL

That guy was a murderer. The photo started because some officer put it up and his post made it seem like it was Brown, he took the photo down as soon as people started sharing it, but it was too late. I believe he was also suspended recently because of it.

However, I have a photo with a handgun pointing at the camera (unloaded, safety on), a shotgun over my shoulder, a stack of cash in my mouth and a huge fake $$ necklace around my neck from about 8 years ago...

The photo is hilarious. I would hope it doesn't make it to the news if I ever end up in legal trouble. My main point, you can't judge a person from a photo.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
For what it's worth, I don't think he was attacking you Greven. But I don't think you're blind to other alternatives either. I think you have a slant to your view, but I think your slant is that it all just doesn't add up for you. You're by far the most informed and rational person I've debated on here, even going so far as to take a step back and incorporate some of the things I had to say into your own hypotheses. I devoutly hope this doesn't mean you've checked out

Thank you, but he has, repeatedly:

originally posted by: raymundoko
I gather that you are basing most of your "fact finding" with the presupposition that this was murder of a black youth by a white officer. You are seeing what you want to see.
...You want to think it was a leisurely stroll the entire way because that supports your presupposition that this black youth was killed by a cold blooded murder pig cop.

This is all attack. Oh, and this is pure conjecture based on nothing, so far as I can discern:

Several witnesses stated that Brown was "taunting" the officer as he moved, and even Wilson's testimony lines up with this. You don't know if Brown charged, then stopped, then walked, then stopped, then charged...

It takes a lot more time to track down the truth than it does to make up crap.

Here's more:

originally posted by: raymundoko
Everything you just bolded supports what I said. You are the one who is unreasonable and your predetermined bias shows through.

This is also pure conjecture, based on absolutely nothing but his own ideas of what happened:

He was stopping, stutter stepping, feign running etc. You have no idea when or if he charged during that period of time. Ultimately at some point he decided to do a full charge.

Oh, and he actually does use one bit of witness testimony to backup his claim - that of the infamous Witness 40, the discredited habitual liar who prosecutors during the grand jury trial suggested was making the whole thing up. That's his evidence to back up his rationalization of actual hard evidence.
"Witness 40": Exposing A Fraud In Ferguson

More attacks:

originally posted by: raymundoko
I thought you read the witness testimony, there were both verbal and handwritten witnesses who described a charge...I linked one of them above. Again, you entered this subjectively and that is never a good thing in a case like this.

Oh and more basing his belief on what happened on a discredited witness.

I think he's lashing out because I called him out as wrong earlier - well, more than once. He refused to admit that, too. Humans are bad at admitting wrong - look at someone changing the definition of what unanimous means to weasel out of having to admit they were wrong. Likewise, with good old raymundoko here:

originally posted by: raymundoko
The news said it was unanimous, can you link that it wasn't? And how does that show I am not familiar with a GJ? I have been under the impression the GJ voted unanimously and I believe I got that from CNN. That doesn't indicate an ignorance of how GJ's work...

Edit: Upon researching it, Anderson Cooper said he didn't know if it was unanimous, but we don't know the final tally. So I simply misunderstood what he said.

As usual though you miss the mark. You're assuming that I assumed it was unanimous, when that isn't the case. You however have assumed that it is only 9/12, which you do not know either.

Blah, blah, blah, could have just said "oops, heard wrong" but no - can't admit any smidgen of a mistake. Too damaging for pride, I guess. Repeatedly explaining didn't really seem help his grasp, and he kept claiming more bizarre things. You can read the whole insane discussion on page 103 if you'd like. It was mind-boggling, even now. All of this to cling to being right about his earlier post. Quite frankly, I'm still not sure if he understands how the grand jury works.

But he's sure here to berate me - er, well - everyone who he disagrees with:

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: intrptr

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a Grand Jury does...

Again, you're just making yourself look foolish and digging your hole deeper.

See, this is how he operates, apparently. He attacks members - even when he really doesn't know what he's talking about. So far as I can tell, he's toeing the line trying to get people to actually insult him. I mean, seriously look at this crap:

originally posted by: raymundoko
As far as using the N word, you do realize that African Americans use this term to refer to each other quite often correct? However, I like that you've decided that if testimony doesn't agree with you it's either fabricated or racist...

Hint: this is witness 40 using that word - a mentally-ill white woman who is a habitual liar with a criminal background. From this statement alone you see how he does things. He really, really doesn't know what he's talking about and just makes up crap.

Here's another where he doesn't know what he's talking about:

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: nenothtu

That's what I was saying in my previous post. He is described as stutter stepping, bowing up, arms being used in a taunting manner etc, but never as running, just advancing.

Wrong:

Darren Wilson: His first step is coming towards me, he kind of does like a stutter step to start running. When he does that, his left hand goes in a fist and goes to his side, his right one goes under his shirt in his waistband and he starts running at me.

Here's some more attacks from his post:

you just don't do well at reading comprehension...your attempt to obfuscate...you are blinded by your own personal view of what happened

Perhaps you don't consider those attacks alone, but consider all the other crap he's said in this thread directed to members.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Greven

That's not a bizarre take, that's what happens...

It didn't work out the way you wanted, sorry about that.

He does this a lot too, speaking for other members. Literally making crap up and saying that's how other members think.

I also seem to recall him saying something about winning the argument in his reply to my last post, but it looks like he thought better of it and edited it out. Quite frankly, what's the point of continuing this discussion? It's not going to change anything, and I've got better stuff to do with my time, hence why I've not responded until this point.

a reply to: Greven

You quoted an attack that isn't an attack. You've become so angry it's comical.

Then you quoted me some more and really said a lot without really saying anything.

I really am finding you quite comical now. You left because you were looking bad and now you'd hoped everyone forgot about this thread.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Greven

You quoted an attack that isn't an attack. You've become so angry it's comical.

Then you quoted me some more and really said a lot without really saying anything.

I really am finding you quite comical now. You left because you were looking bad and now you'd hoped everyone forgot about this thread.

Ah, there it is. See now, folks?

a reply to: Greven

There what is? The thread speaks for itself.

Prosecute this prosecutor put that racist POS perjurer witness on trial she makes me

a reply to: Spider879

Who is referring to this person as a key witness? Do you know how many witnesses testified? She was exposed during the GJ trial, not after...

I think the only people who are referring to her as a key witness are those who wish the GJ had gone the other way.

What about the fact that Dorian Johnson lied about "Hands Up, Don't Shoot?"

Wouldn't he be considered a key witness? Wasn't he exposed as a fraud?

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Spider879

Who is referring to this person as a key witness? Do you know how many witnesses testified? She was exposed during the GJ trial, not after...

I think the only people who are referring to her as a key witness are those who wish the GJ had gone the other way.

What about the fact that Dorian Johnson lied about "Hands Up, Don't Shoot?"

Wouldn't he be considered a key witness? Wasn't he exposed as a fraud?

On Monday, The Smoking Gun published a lengthy report exposing “Witness 40,” a woman who testified before the St. Louis County grand jury who corroborated all of the main details of former Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson’s story regarding his encounter with unarmed teenager Michael Brown in August. TSG was able to identify “Witness 40″ as Sandra McElroy, a 45-year-old St. Louis resident who has a history of making false statements and previously interjected herself in a high-profile case in the St. Louis area. McElroy’s testimony has been used by a number of conservative pundits, most visibly Sean Hannity, to bolster their support of Wilson’s account.

Earlier this month, MSNBC’s Chris Hayes showed how often Hannity has pointed to “Witness 40’s” testimony as the absolute truth.

www.politicususa.com...

Yes people do lie but her testimony wasn't thrown out,and this is the prosecutor which have his own issues should have excused himself ,fact is the case was thrown and a killer walked.

a reply to: Spider879

So again, what about Dorian Johnson? He lied several times...

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Spider879

So again, what about Dorian Johnson? He lied several times...

Again the point is people will lie, the prosecutor's job was not to try the case in a grand jury but bring the case to trial, but he blotched it I think on purpose because of his own issue and ties with the LOE hence a miscarriage of justice and distrust in the system.

a reply to: Spider879

Or more than likely he was hoping for or expecting a federal grand jury after his in which case he has to submit all possible witnesses...