Austin Manning said:
Therumancer said:
The witnesses did not perjure themselves. Perjury is the crime of lying while under oath in a court of law. Giving an account to the police or news outlet, even if said account is mistaken, is not perjury. Furthermore, the autopsy actually found found no evidence that he had struggled with the officer prior to being shot along with other evidence that actually supported the witnesses' testimony.
If you would like sources:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/18/us/missouri-teen-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
and this one, already posted by Ratty earlier:
https://tv.yahoo.com/news/michael-brown-shooting-witness-releases-video-knew-not-143600436.html
Perhaps the wrong term, but the bottom line is that witnesses were claiming he was shot in the back, which is why it's specified the shots are coming from the front. The point being that the witnesses have pretty much just proved themselves unreliable.
... and yes, I've commented myself on how a lot of the story is changing now. However one of the things those same witnesses all did agree on was that Brown reached into the police car and attempted to grab the officer's sidearm, which is when he was shot the first time. *IF* there is no evidence that he had struggled with the officer, that actually means there has been tampering with the evidence, which is sort of what I've been talking about given how the reports have changed, and how many media organizations and politicians have a stake in this, having taken a side before
anything was completed.
As I said, give it a while and I'll be the only one at all who is still on the officer's side or doubting things.
As time goes on, it seems like they are trying to turn the case into something else entirely, and by the time it's done I won't be surprised if the "truth" that is constructed by the media and politicians isn't close to what anyone said or was reporting, even the witnesses. The original situation was one where the only question was whether the cop shot the guy when he surrendered upon exiting the cop car, and if that was in any way warranted. The initial shooting wasn't even being questioned since all the witnesses even confirmed the gun-grab was made, the whole part where you get different stories and questions are raised is about whether the cop executed him. Originally it was presented as the guy having gotten to his knees, his back to the cop, and raised his hands above his head, where he was then shot in the back of
the head. A story that was debunked when it was found the shots came from the front. Some of the witnesses claim that he surrendered in that form, but then got up and started to run at the last second as the cop approached, and the cop shot him in the back.
Right now the case they *seem* to be trying to construct is one where the cop confronted a thug for jaywalking, got some lip, and stepped out of the cruiser and started spraying bullets with inept marksmanship skills, which is why the bullets are all over the place.
Of course understand this is after two autopsies (since they didn't like the first one) and a third one being suggested, and of course politicians increasingly pushing to have different people they approve of brought in to handle the case. Up to and including the desire for a special prosecutor. It's pretty much just like one of those old cases you hear about with black people decades ago where they tampered with things until they got the results they wanted and which fit the narrative they wanted to construct. That was wrong then, and it's wrong now, even if some people might feel there is some kind of belated "justice" in punishing someone that way.
As I said, this is something you probably don't want to discuss with me given my attitudes about it right now. As far as I'm concerned when The President calls the family of a dude who got himself gunned down after a strong arm robbery attempt, any pretensions of justice, and this not being entirely political are gone. Being a robber didn't give the cop the right to shoot him that way, and if he did surrender and the cop had control of the situation it should have been over, but the guy was a waste of oxygen, even if the cop didn't know about the robbery. Not someone worthy of a call from the President under any circumstances. What's more there hasn't been a trial yet, nor have we even heard from the cop or the defense team he'll presumably assemble if he has to go to trial, so we don't even know if this guy was innocent or not for anyone to be saying "sorry". If the narrative wasn't going to be controlled (or a strong attempt made) I doubt someone like Obama who is already under fire would have made a call like that and ensured the media knew he did it, since if the cop wins in court, that would mean Obama just basically endorsed a guy who tried to steal a cop's gun. Basically, I don't think we'll ever know what happened now, too many powerful people reacted for attention and have too much riding on it, and your seeing every effort made to remove the authorities who are supposed to handle it removed from the equasion so people sent by those with a vested political interest in the matter can handle it.
When this is over I won't be surprised if see pictures "leaked" of this cop hanging out with a Grand Wizard of the KKK or something, diaries about him plotting to shoot some black kid for lulz found in his house, and of course at least one mention of his unhealthy obsession with video games. Maybe taking a queue from one of Yahtzee's jokes they will say "... and investigators found he was a huge fan of the "Uncharted" games, a well known series about a white protagonist on a quest to slaughter those of color" mistaking Yahtzee's snarky humor for an actual analysis of the game (which is about a treasure hunter). I mean I'm shocked with all the politicians looking at this that they haven't found some way to work the evils of violent video games into it yet.
