It is that cut and dried. You just don't want to see it. If Wilson reasonably claims that he that he feared for his life and acted in self-defense, no reasonable jury will convict him, assuming that the political pressure results in charges being filed.

 

A black eye and swollen face, with or without fractured bones, the size of the assailant and the presence of a second man who was at the scene of a robbery a few minutes earlier will make a compelling argument for self-defense.

 

This is not a complicated case. You are over thinking it.

 

That plus the witness at the scene that didn't help him rob the store saying that Brown came back and was charging. That witness should be far more credible than the guy that robbed the store with Brown that said he shot him in the back as he was running away when all the bullets came from the front.

It is that cut and dried. You just don't want to see it. If Wilson reasonably claims that he that he feared for his life and acted in self-defense, no reasonable jury will convict him, assuming that the political pressure results in charges being filed.

 

A black eye and swollen face, with or without fractured bones, the size of the assailant and the presence of a second man who was at the scene of a robbery a few minutes earlier will make a compelling argument for self-defense.

 

This is not a complicated case. You are over thinking it.

 

 

Saying you feared for your life in and of itself, even if you got punched, does not get you a free pass. You have to show that your life was threatened. Getting punched alone does not show that. It's not a hall pass to shoot someone.

 

It, along with other facts, are parts of the equation.

If he started 35 feet away and got to 20 feet he certainly shouldn't. If he was 20 feet away and charging he almost certainly shouldn't be charged. If he was 20 feet away with his hands up and backing up saying don't shoot me he most certainly should be charged.

 

We agree. Lots of IFs. Can't just say "too bad for you since you punched a cop."

It is that cut and dried. You just don't want to see it. If Wilson reasonably claims that he that he feared for his life and acted in self-defense, no reasonable jury will convict him, assuming that the political pressure results in charges being filed.

 

A black eye and swollen face, with or without fractured bones, the size of the assailant and the presence of a second man who was at the scene of a robbery a few minutes earlier will make a compelling argument for self-defense.

 

This is not a complicated case. You are over thinking it.

 

So you believe that if the suspect punched the cop in the face, regardless of how far away the suspect was from the cop when he was shot six times, the shooting was justified?

 

And I don't think the additional shots mattered in that case. It appeared that he had already taken 5-6 shots to the chest. Those last 2 seemed like they came when he was rolling down the hill--well after he ceased to be a threat.

 

Did you Google what I told you about?

Saying you feared for your life in and of itself, even if you got punched, does not get you a free pass. You have to show that your life was threatened. Getting punched alone does not show that. It's not a hall pass to shoot someone.

 

It, along with other facts, are parts of the equation.

Do you always mischaracterize posts with which you disagree, or just mine?

 

You do not have to prove that your life was threatened to justify acting in self defense. What you have to show is that you had a reasonable fear that your life was threatened and the difference is more than a case of semantics.

 

If you don't think the apparent fact that Brown attacked an armed policeman and punched him in the face has anything to do with whether the shooting was justified, then you just don't understand the law. Don't forget the incidental recording of a witness claiming that Brown doubled back on Wilson.

 

If there is conflicting, credible evidence as to whether Wilson reasonably feared for his life, then there is reasonable doubt. That should be the determining factor as to whether charges are filed against Wilson, but having the state governor, the U.S. president and his corrupt Attorney General interfering in the justice system means that it is as likely as not that charges will be filed.

Do you always mischaracterize posts with which you disagree, or just mine?

 

You do not have to prove that your life was threatened to justify acting in self defense. What you have to show is that you had a reasonable fear that your life was threatened and the difference is more than a case of semantics.

 

I.

 

No mischaracterization. Your words:

 

Whether Brown fractured any bones in Wilson's face or not, if there are photos and/or videos showing a swollen, bruised face, then there is no way that charges should be brought against Wilson. .

So you believe that if the suspect punched the cop in the face, regardless of how far away the suspect was from the cop when he was shot six times, the shooting was justified?

If the suspect punched and injured an armed policeman, in uniform and on duty, and then doubled back, as the recording states, then yes, Wilson was justified in shooting Brown as many times as it took to remove him as a threat. Had Brown been 500 feet away and Wilson looking at him through the scope of a sniper rifle, then of course, he should not have shot him - but it does not take long for an athletic 18-year old to cover 10 yards.

No mischaracterization. Your words:

Maybe you can convince yourself, but I am not buying it. You are the king of knocking out straw men. :lol2:

Maybe you can convince yourself, but I am not buying it. You are the king of knocking out straw men. :lol2:

 

Your words, I assume, express your belief. You typed them. I pointed out the flawed logic. If that's knocking out straw men then guilty as charged.

 

I see you've since added on more qualifiers. You've obviously seen the err in your thinking.

I know most will ignore this but I thought it was worth posting.

 

http://fox2now.com/2014/08/21/highway-patrol-troopers-fix-basketball-goal-for-ferguson-children/

Your words, I assume, express your belief. You typed them. I pointed out the flawed logic. If that's knocking out straw men then guilty as charged.

 

I see you've since added on more qualifiers. You've obviously seen the err in your thinking.

I never stated anything that could remotely be characterized as giving somebody a "hall pass" to kill for simply claiming that they acted in self-defense...and you know it. Everybody recognizes the pattern.

I know most will ignore this but I thought it was worth posting.

 

Highway Patrol troopers fix basketball goal for Ferguson children | FOX2now.com

 

Awesome.

I never stated anything that could remotely be characterized as giving somebody a "hall pass" to kill for simply claiming that they acted in self-defense...and you know it. Everybody recognizes the pattern.

 

Again, words matter. You said it. If it's proven he got punched then he can't be charged. Hard to read that and not think "hall pass." Maybe you do not like the phrase but your simple statement , way too simple actually, says that.

 

Do I believe that you really believe that? No. Not at all. I just think you're hung up on the reported wrong down by Brown and can't see past it.

Again, words matter. You said it. If it's proven he got punched then he can't be charged. Hard to read that and not think "hall pass." Maybe you do not like the phrase but your simple statement , way too simple actually, says that.

 

Do I believe that you really believe that? No. Not at all. I just think you're hung up on the reported wrong down by Brown and can't see past it.

Yes, words do matter, and when you resort to quoting parts of somebody's posts because the rest of the posts contradict your mischaracterization, then that fits the definition of a straw man argument perfectly.

 

It is not a pretty sight to see somebody employ such shady tactics in an effort to win an argument. There are no easy shortcuts to winning debates when the facts undermine your position. You earn no points for winning strawman arguments because you are actually arguing with yourself. You win but you also lose.