The Importance of Context

Rick wrote: You and Home are doing a good job of deflecting from facts to feelings... again, NOT what this thread is about. If you were to HONESTLY tell the entire story of what happened with Brown and Wilson on that day, feelings and past injustices that have nothing to do with this specific incident. And if you were Wilson, you would hope and expect that a jury would only be given the FACTS of that day in full context, and not have to defend against the acts of others in the past that you never even met.

FACTS.

I beg to differ, Rick. Plentiful studies are embedded in the series of articles written by this gentleman. Your OP plays to emotions just as much as anything that's been shared thus far. You just refuse to see it and/or admit it.

ZHawke wrote:

Rick wrote: You and Home are doing a good job of deflecting from facts to feelings... again, NOT what this thread is about. If you were to HONESTLY tell the entire story of what happened with Brown and Wilson on that day, feelings and past injustices that have nothing to do with this specific incident. And if you were Wilson, you would hope and expect that a jury would only be given the FACTS of that day in full context, and not have to defend against the acts of others in the past that you never even met.

FACTS.

I beg to differ, Rick. Plentiful studies are embedded in the series of articles written by this gentleman. Your OP plays to emotions just as much as anything that's been shared thus far. You just refuse to see it and/or admit it.

Thanks Z, but I started this thread because the FULL story was not being talked about in the media. The full story is a series of facts from the time Brown decided to rob the convenience store until the time he was shot. You don't need to look at anything in the past that other people have done and you don't need to talk about how protestors feel. MY THREAD is about the facts... you either choose to discuss them or you can deflect into something else... which you both did.

Do you believe the robbery is irrelevant to Brown's demise?

Sorry Rick, this is a bit astray from your op but it is an illistration that facts do not matter to a lot of people.

One death, two memes.

www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/26/deandr...tests_n_6225380.html

theconservativetreehouse.com/2014/11/29/...andre-joshua-murder/

Rick wrote: Thanks Z, but I started this thread because the FULL story was not being talked about in the media. The full story is a series of facts from the time Brown decided to rob the convenience store until the time he was shot. You don't need to look at anything in the past that other people have done and you don't need to talk about how protestors feel. MY THREAD is about the facts... you either choose to discuss them or you can deflect into something else... which you both did.

Do you believe the robbery is irrelevant to Brown's demise?

Sorry, R. But the FACT is, your question demands a very subjective response thereby rendering it moot if I were to offer it because it is an opinion, not a FACT.

The problem, as I see it, with your staunch defense of FACTS is that FACTS can be very nebulous at times. They can be skewed to show one's preferences in believing them or not. As just one example, there are conflicting stories from the prosecution on whether Officer Wilson was on a response call to the robbery you allude to. One says no, Officer Wilson was not responding to that incident while in the area. The other, presented to the Grand Jury says yes, Officer Wilson was responding to the robbery you allude to. Which is correct? It would appear we must take the evidence presented to the Grand Jury as being correct if we were to go down the road you are dictating here.

FACT: legal experts are coming out of the woodwork and questioning the Prosecutor's methodology in not only presenting the evidence to the Grand Jury, but also on how that office "worked with" the Grand Jury during their investigation.

FACT: Michael Brown is dead.

FACT: Officer Wilson shot Michael Brown and killed him in doing so.

Those are indisputable FACTS. Beyond that, even the results of the investigation, the autopsy results, and the stories put out by the media, the information of which was provided either through official sources or through more surreptitious means, will always be subject to personal opinions, personal biases, and personal conjecture. That's simply a FACT.

Since splitting hairs for the pure enjoyment of arguing seems to be the purpose of some posts here, I will join in:

ZHawke wrote: As just one example, there are conflicting stories from the prosecution on whether Officer Wilson was on a response call to the robbery you allude to. One says no, Officer Wilson was not responding to that incident while in the area. The other, presented to the Grand Jury says yes, Officer Wilson was responding to the robbery you allude to. Which is correct?

From what I have seen, nothing presented to the Grand Jury said that Officer Wilson was responding to the robbery. What I have seen says that Officer Wilson asked if he was wanted for that response, and got no answer. I have seen nothing to indicate he then reported that he was responding anyway. Instead, from what I have seen, he then reacted to the information he had about the robbery by stopping to further engage with Brown.

Again, based upon the information I have seen, the FACT is that Officer Wilson was not responding to the robbery, he was reacting to the information he had regarding the robbery.

Back on topic with the OP, I don't think you are far off at all.

ZHawke wrote:

Rick wrote: Thanks Z, but I started this thread because the FULL story was not being talked about in the media. The full story is a series of facts from the time Brown decided to rob the convenience store until the time he was shot. You don't need to look at anything in the past that other people have done and you don't need to talk about how protestors feel. MY THREAD is about the facts... you either choose to discuss them or you can deflect into something else... which you both did.

Do you believe the robbery is irrelevant to Brown's demise?

Sorry, R. But the FACT is, your question demands a very subjective response thereby rendering it moot if I were to offer it because it is an opinion, not a FACT.

The problem, as I see it, with your staunch defense of FACTS is that FACTS can be very nebulous at times. They can be skewed to show one's preferences in believing them or not. As just one example, there are conflicting stories from the prosecution on whether Officer Wilson was on a response call to the robbery you allude to. One says no, Officer Wilson was not responding to that incident while in the area. The other, presented to the Grand Jury says yes, Officer Wilson was responding to the robbery you allude to. Which is correct? It would appear we must take the evidence presented to the Grand Jury as being correct if we were to go down the road you are dictating here.

FACT: legal experts are coming out of the woodwork and questioning the Prosecutor's methodology in not only presenting the evidence to the Grand Jury, but also on how that office "worked with" the Grand Jury during their investigation.

FACT: Michael Brown is dead.

FACT: Officer Wilson shot Michael Brown and killed him in doing so.

Those are indisputable FACTS. Beyond that, even the results of the investigation, the autopsy results, and the stories put out by the media, the information of which was provided either through official sources or through more surreptitious means, will always be subject to personal opinions, personal biases, and personal conjecture. That's simply a FACT.

I asked you one question... answer this and I'll leave you alone... but you can't dance around it.

Do you believe the robbery is irrelevant to Brown's demise?

Rick wrote: I asked you one question... answer this and I'll leave you alone... but you can't dance around it.

Do you believe the robbery is irrelevant to Brown's demise?

Yes, you did ask one question, and I answered. You just didn't like the answer I gave.

jf1acai wrote: Since splitting hairs for the pure enjoyment of arguing seems to be the purpose of some posts here, I will join in:

ZHawke wrote: As just one example, there are conflicting stories from the prosecution on whether Officer Wilson was on a response call to the robbery you allude to. One says no, Officer Wilson was not responding to that incident while in the area. The other, presented to the Grand Jury says yes, Officer Wilson was responding to the robbery you allude to. Which is correct?

From what I have seen, nothing presented to the Grand Jury said that Officer Wilson was responding to the robbery. What I have seen says that Officer Wilson asked if he was wanted for that response, and got no answer. I have seen nothing to indicate he then reported that he was responding anyway. Instead, from what I have seen, he then reacted to the information he had about the robbery by stopping to further engage with Brown.

Again, based upon the information I have seen, the FACT is that Officer Wilson was not responding to the robbery, he was reacting to the information he had regarding the robbery.

Back on topic with the OP, I don't think you are far off at all.

The DA alluded to it in his press conference (go to the 10:45 mark). You may be correct Officer Wilson wasn't officially part of the response, but he certainly wound up being a part of the response. Regardless, according to the DA, Officer Wilson was certainly "aware" of what went down:



Also, on the other side of this issue:

online.wsj.com/articles/police-name-darr...-shooting-1408108371

Chief Thomas Jackson also released documents and surveillance video, alleging that Mr. Brown was tied to a robbery at a convenience store shortly before he crossed paths with police. Hours later, Mr. Jackson held another news conference in which he said Mr. Wilson, who is white, wasn't aware of the robbery when he stopped Mr. Brown.

Seriously Z, you are trying to compare a statement made after an exhaustive examination of the facts and a public statement made within hours of the incident on an equal basis? Better still, you are comparing the statement made by the DA and a reporter's take on what they heard the Chief say? And you don't see an issue with trying to do that?

You know, this whole tragic incident could have been avoided in so many ways with the use of a little common sense (collectivists love that term, don't they?):

1. Brown and his buddy (who just robbed the Quickie Mart) could have walked on the sidewalk rather than down the middle of the street. The officer may not have even noticed them in that case.

2. When the officer asked them to move out of the middle of the street and walk on the sidewalk they could have done so rather than Brown telling the officer to 'F*** off'.

3. Officers seem to be more benign and friendly with folks who don't rush their car and reach in to punch them in the face and try to grab their gun. Just sayin'...

All of this is documented in the grand jury testimony. The kid was a budding little thug (how about that parenting - "Burn this b*** down!") and opted to remove himself from the gene pool a little early. It's unfortunate that a productive police officer was removed from service, not to mention that he'll most likely be in hiding the remainder of his life. It's also a sad commentary that may innocent people, business owners and employees are now out of work due to fellow thugs destroying the community in loving memory of their fallen homeboy.