3287
3288

Ferguson Decision Megathread.Breaking News (self.AskReddit)

roastedbagel[M] が 投稿 - stickied post

並べ替え:
ベスト
ベスト
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]Timbiat 1538 ポイント1539 ポイント  (20子コメント)

October 16th was full of witness cringe.

"So, although you told the investigators this is what you saw even though you only heard it from someone, you don't feel you lied?"

"Nope."

"And what did you actually see."

"I saw Michael Brown on his knees begging for his life as the office stood over him from behind and put a bullet in his head from point blank range."

"And, given that the forensic evidence tells us otherwise, there's nothing about that testimony you would like to change?"

"Nope. Maybe the forensic evidence just saw it from a different perspective than I did."

EDIT: Because people are complaining, this is clearly me paraphrasing things in about 150 pages of ridiculous testimony. If you've even seen one page, you know that no dialogue in these interviews moves this fast. October 16th testimony, read it for yourself to ultimately decide if you think I was unfair with this.

[–]bdpdude 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (19子コメント)

Where is that in the document, please?

[–]Timbiat -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I've posted this and clarified this several times below, but this is me paraphrasing several exchanges from pages 80-200 something of October 16th. https://www.scribd.com/doc/248129888/Grand-Jury-Transcript-October-16-2014

[–]Timbiat -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (17子コメント)

Not a fake document, it's just not feasible to share lines of comments on here given that the first two lines of my paraphrasing alone took almost three pages in the interview.

[–]bdpdude 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (16子コメント)

Um, I'm sorry, but you "paraphrased" some very inflammatory statements that don't appear in the document, so far as I can tell. The account of the witness on page 80 doesn't contain anything like what you said, so far as what I'm seeing. Is there some hacker who has substituted the document you're looking for from the one I'm reading, because it's just not there.

It's not that you paraphrased - you lied. Prove me wrong with the passages matching your inflammatory claims. Why did you leave out the part about the witness looking out the window? Why did you say the witness said Brows was shot execution style in the head? Is that actually somewhere in his testimony, or are we somehow getting two different versions of the same document? Those aren't paraphrases - they're massive alterations that mislead.

Face it, you're just here to inflame.

it's just not feasible

Of course it's feasible, in fact you can find the lines. Do multiple comments. You have 10,000 characters per reply, don't you? Or is it not feasible because you made it up?

[–]Timbiat 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Don't blame me because you can't read a few pages of the documents. If you want to participate in the discussion then do so. If you had even read one page you'd know that I was paraphrasing given how slowly the interviews move and how pieced up the actual answers are.

A direct quote of a line of conversation in the interview would be something like:

Q: Okay. So, again today, let me just check, because I don't remember you telling us in today's statement that Michael was pleading for his life. Because in your past statement you said you heard Michael pleading for his life. Please don't shoot, please don't shot, but you couldn't hear the police.

A: It is just like what I told her earlier, she told me not stuff I heard and I admitted the first interview was most speculation and stuff that I Heard either from Dorian, neighbors, it was just a whole lot of talk.

Q: And that's why I'm asking you because we don't know, there is three different things that you said and I'm going to ask this as well, it is a hard question for me to ask, but the first on you have admitted is not really what happened.

A: Yes

Q: And the second one, which is a little less intricate, yeah, it happened, but not so much. How are we, in the first statement even told somebody to look into your soul and to look into your eyes, that you would never ever lie, how do we know that today's statement is the truth?

A: It is not a lie if the person was there, told me exactly what happened. So I didn't feel like it was a lie. I didn't feel like it was a lie at all. And the way that Dorian came to me, the look he gave me in his eyes, he wouldn't lie to me about something knowing was my best friend.

Q: So you don't feel what you said on the first interview was a lie because somebody you trusted told you the truth?

A: I don't think it was a lie, no.

Q You don't believe you lied?

A: No, I don't.

Q: Thank you.

Q: Just to clarify then. After that question, you didn't Michael pleading for his life?

A: No, that's what I was told.

[–]bdpdude -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

No, I've read all that - you haven't. I'm blaming you for the skewed account of the testimony, and the inflammatory way you presented it. You yourself say you skimmed. You're taking even what the prosecutor said and twisting it well beyond its original meaning and scope. Go look at the interview, which you plainly haven't read. You're just here to inflame, that's all.

Why did you leave out the part about the witness looking out the window and describing it from his vantage point?

[–]Timbiat -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (11子コメント)

Or: Q: Back when you talked to the FBI previously, that was on August 13th, okay, just a few days after this happened. You told them that after the office shot Brown in the head, he shot him eight more times.

A: Yeah

Q: And you said that you saw him fire four more shots into Mike Brown's body as Mike Brown's laying there on the ground?

A: Yeah

Q: Do you remember that?

A: Yeah

Q: Today you are telling me you didn't see those shots; is that right?

A: More importantly I heard.

Q: That's what I'm just trying to determine. Did you see those shots or did you hear them?

A: I didn't se them, but I heard them on my way running downstairs.

[–]bdpdude -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (10子コメント)

You're not helping - that doesn't answer the challenge, and doesn't even match your "paraphrase."

Does the word execute or execution occur in your version of the document? Mine doesn't. Maybe we have different versions and don't know it. Or maybe reddit is barfing, I dunno.

You're just here to inflame. Your conduct proves it.

[–]Timbiat -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (9子コメント)

No, You conduct proves you have the answers you want and refuse to read actual evidence to get educated. It's because people like you, who want the entire crux of an interview summed up in a couple sentences that I even paraphrased like I did. I gave you the source material. The witnesses on page 80 through 200. Not my fault you can't tolerate to read that much and instead whine "Ugh, the first page you pointed out in a hundred some page interview didn't give me the answer I seek!"

[–]bdpdude -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (8子コメント)

No the problem is I read all that, as well as the original interview, and because I did, and you only skimmed, I know for certain your statements mislead both as an act of commission and an act of omission.

I'm not seeking an answer - since I'd already read the document, it was immediately apparent to me that your "paraphrase" was inaccurate. I'm simply calling you out for making claims not backed up by the original material, and leaving out critical elements that are in the original material. You're doing this to inflame.

I totally agree with respondents who say eyewitness testimony is often fucked. Sometimes people lie, sometimes they misremember and are convinced they're telling the truth. You took it one direction because you are out to inflame passions.

[–]Timbiat -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (7子コメント)

No, sorry. You didn't read it. Both witnesses demanded they saw the victim on his knees pleading for his life with his hands in the air or his hands out and his palms towards the sky. Both demanded their version of events occurred even after being led to the fact that the evidence didn't support it. Witness 2 in the part I sourced demanded he didn't lie even after admitting he told investigators something he heard as something he witnessed. And there is a pretty clear line of text I just quoted to someone else about the witness demanding that forensic evidence didn't matter because it couldn't see things from their perspective.

I didn't have to omit anything to paint them negatively. All I omitted was a hundred some pages of two people stammering through their lies and going in circles with testimony they know wasn't true, that flies in the face of all the forensic evidence, and what other witnesses have claimed.

I don't care either way what people think. It's just simply an elementary summary of the cringe interviews these two morons lied their way through.

[–]bdpdude 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (6子コメント)

Oh, but I did read it before I saw your post. You left out major parts of the story and included parts that weren't there. That's why it was so instantly recognizable. I gave you a chance, and you blew it. You haven't explained why you left out that the witness said he saw out of the window. You didn't read the interview. You twisted both what the prosecutor and the witness said. You did omit, and it changes the inference entirely. You also don't realize how easy it is for experienced prosecutors to trip people up, and you attribute it whole cloth to racially biased deception. That's an incredibly biased and dishonest act on your part. You also fail to check the prosecutor's version against the evidence.

You do care what people think. Your contention is toward the "they lied" theory, which shows your bias. It's a completely different theory from the psychological theories people cite in the thread. Your implicit message is it's out of racial animus. Of course you care. Your claims that they lied are interesting given your acts of commission and omission. You don't care what people think? "Stammering through their lies?" "that flies in the face of all the forensic evidence" (that isn't even in the document?). Please. You didn't paraphrase - you lied.