Cops Lie About Shooting in St. Louis

"Witnesses" can't have an agenda? Anyone with any knowledge of witness statements (and I'm referring to witnesses in general) will tell you they often are not sure of what they are seeing.

I suppose you believe the robbery associate of Brown too?

Not that he would have an agenda......

But whatever you do don't wait for the facts to come out in the grand jury hearing.

Regardless of the outcome I doubt you will care about those facts anyway.

nochain wrote:

"Witnesses" can't have an agenda? Anyone with any knowledge of witness statements (and I'm referring to witnesses in general) will tell you they often are not sure of what they are seeing.

I suppose you believe the robbery associate of Brown too?

Not that he would have an agenda......

But whatever you do don't wait for the facts to come out in the grand jury hearing.

Regardless of the outcome I doubt you will care about those facts anyway.

Suspect had a knife...Suspect refused commands to drop knife...Suspect made a move toward officer(s) with knife...Suspect shot.... What's the agenda?....Notice there's been no 'outrage' over this incident...The agenda seems to be on the side of race baiters and those that want to blame elsewhere for the actions of an individual that made a very unfortunate choice...But of course the drive-by poster chooses to ignore facts...

I was a witness to a gunfight once.  One guy was killed and one guy was paralyzed as a result.  I wasn't looking directly at the confrontation at first, turned around and saw a bunch of shit happening and high-tailed it out of there in a truck that I was warming up.

What I THOUGHT I saw was not actually what happened.  I made my statements to the police and the TV station.  I was called by the police over the phone on a follow-up.  I told the cop that what I thought I saw wasn't accurate (after talking to other witnesses who got a better look at things) and that I would be a poor witness. I repeated what I thought I saw and would testify to that, but admitted that it might not be a true account of what happened.

They thanked me for my honesty and never called me back.

Moral of the story... what you think you see ain't always what really happened.

salinsky wrote:

All five witnesses have an agenda??

What is that agenda, pray tell?

Yes, best to discount their accounts and rely instead on the claims of an anonymous "friend" on the radio.

Brilliant!

Having difficulty understanding "wait until the facts come out with the grand jury"?

Apparently.

Eric wrote:

I was a witness to a gunfight once.  One guy was killed and one guy was paralyzed as a result.  I wasn't looking directly at the confrontation at first, turned around and saw a bunch of shit happening and high-tailed it out of there in a truck that I was warming up.

What I THOUGHT I saw was not actually what happened.  I made my statements to the police and the TV station.  I was called by the police over the phone on a follow-up.  I told the cop that what I thought I saw wasn't accurate (after talking to other witnesses who got a better look at things) and that I would be a poor witness.  I repeated what I thought I saw and would testify to that, but admitted that it might not be a true account of what happened.

They thanked me for my honesty and never called me back.

Moral of the story... what you think you see ain't always what really happened.

We've all played that little game about passing along a statement from one person to another...by the time it gets to the end there's a difference...Question witnesses...they aren't attempting to be untruthful [some may] but as Eric points out..it's based on their observations which may have either started or concluded at different points of the incident...

Smartest...most honest comment..."saw a bunch of shit happening and high-tailed it out of there"!...

nochain wrote:

salinsky wrote:

All five witnesses have an agenda??

What is that agenda, pray tell?

Yes, best to discount their accounts and rely instead on the claims of an anonymous "friend" on the radio.

Brilliant!

Having difficulty understanding "wait until the facts come out with the grand jury"?

Apparently.

You do remember the drive by from another site?....Expect facts to get in the way of a story or agenda laden post(s)...

salinsky wrote:

mediawatcher wrote:

You do remember the drive by from another site?

What does that even mean?

It appears that it's an attempt to be insulting or demeaning in someway, but I don't even get it.

I ain't gonna be baited into using my "mod" card. Besides, this doesn't look like an insult to me.

salinsky wrote:

nochain wrote:

salinsky wrote:

All five witnesses have an agenda??

What is that agenda, pray tell?

Yes, best to discount their accounts and rely instead on the claims of an anonymous "friend" on the radio.

Brilliant!

Having difficulty understanding "wait until the facts come out with the grand jury"?

Apparently.

What's the five witnesses' agendas?

I'll make this easy for you, I asked if witnesses could have an agenda. Not even close to saying they did. Got it now?

salinsky wrote:

mediawatcher wrote:

You do remember the drive by from another site?

What does that even mean?

It appears that it's an attempt to be insulting or demeaning in someway, but I don't even get it.

Regretfully and against my better judgment I'll respond....It's not in any way meant to be insulting and/or demeaning whatsoever...You cannot convince me [more than likely others] that "you don't get it"....It's how you have and continue to respond to posts in a style that usually doesn't contribute to the topic and/or attempt to guide it into a racial topic like you did earlier and were called out for doing so.. that's when problems begin and that's exactly what you were attempting to do.... You did this on the other site [along with others] and it became a regular pattern...between the personal attacks [not aimed at you] and the drive by...smartass posts it lead to the site going into the toilet...

Don't speak for anyone other than myself when I say that was the reason I left the other site and came here was to get away from such nonsense. There are disagreements here [heated at times] but no where near the crap that happened elsewhere...This is the last time I'll mention this because feel it's disrespectful to those that have made this a decent forum and place to express opinions in an adult fashion to keep mentioning other sites.... and hope that it doesn't turn into the mess that was allowed elsewhere...A lot of that I know won't happen because there is a moderator(s) here that pays attention and because the posters...

Good post, MW.

I would hate to see a good poster like MW leave because of troublemakers.

salinsky wrote:

Ummm .... okay?

That was an awfully long complete lack of explanation.

When I read "drive by", I think of criminals who shoot guns out of cars and then speed away from the scene.

How, specifically, does that relate to me?

I'm genuinely perplexed.

It's seems you are harboring a resentment.

Resentment?....Certainly not.....Point was made and explained up to you to comprehend...agree/disagree but again can't convince me that you are not capable of understanding...

salinsky wrote:

[font=Arial Black][color=#0033ff]I'm asking specifically about the term "drive by".

Really???

Like a "drive by" shooter who shoots into a crowd of people with the intent of disrupting the crowd and causing damage, a "drive by" poster jumps into a thread with snide barbs with the intent of disruption of the thread and causing trouble.

Some challenges to posts here open up topics for consideration of alternate views.  Constant challenges become an irritation.

Eric wrote:

Like a "drive by" shooter who shoots into a crowd of people with the intent of disrupting the crowd and causing damage, a "drive by" poster jumps into a thread with snide barbs with the intent of disruption of the thread and causing trouble.

Some challenges to posts here open up topics for consideration of alternate views.  Constant challenges become an irritation.

Exactly. Another term in use is "flamebaiting". Apparently some people lead very dull lives and entertain themselves by drifting around stirring the pot.

salinsky wrote:

Well, we certainly can't tolerate dissenting viewpoints.

It must be resentments.

I've been on my best behavior since I've been here.

Well, I did use the f-word once, but I couldn't resist given the thread topic.

I fixed the f-word problem.  All f-words will now be deleted and replaced with "profanity deleted".

And for the record, it was twice.

Dissenting viewpoints will be tolerated if they are done in a civil manner.

Your snide statement "Well, we certainly can't tolerate dissenting viewpoints" is exactly why you are being "picked upon." If you present your posts with respect and not like a troll, you will be treated differently.