[dewilson58]

BREAKING: Officer Darren Wilson Suffered “Orbital Blowout Fracture to Eye Socket” During Mike Brown Attack
Posted on August 19, 2014

BREAKING: Officer Darren Wilson Suffered

[Tennisnut]

I looked on the Huffington Post for information on this and there wasn't anything. However, lots of info on Free Republic. Curious?

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by Tennisnut

I looked on the Huffington Post for information on this and there wasn't anything. However, lots of info on Free Republic. Curious?

Here is a link to CNN that says that Wilson was briefly taken to the hospital with facial injuries. It WAAAAAAY down, so keep reading....near the bottom.

Michael Brown investigations continue -- as do tensions - CNN.com

[Rags123]

Originally Posted by Tennisnut

I looked on the Huffington Post for information on this and there wasn't anything. However, lots of info on Free Republic. Curious?

Actually, I have seen very little about the policeman, but YOUR source Huffington post did in fact report that he was treated for injuries..

"He also said Wilson was treated for injuries after the incident. "

Darren Wilson Identified As Officer Who Fatally Shot Michael Brown

Means nothing much except the insinuation about the media is unfounded as the media is and has been pretty much a one way street.

That is not meant as a condemnation of anyone or defense of anyone. It is just factually true that all we are hearing is from one side and it is probably less solid that the information reported on Huffington days ago.

[njbchbum]

Saw that reported on Drudge a couple of days ago...how do you think that would impact his firing his gun?

[Tennisnut]

Thanks, I feel much better, so he was justified in shooting him six times. Justice does prevail! Now we won't have to have a long trial.

[Rags123]

Originally Posted by Tennisnut

Thanks, I feel much better, so he was justified in shooting him six times. Justice does prevail! Now we won't have to have a long trial.

Sarcasm aside, neither you nor I nor anyone, especially on this forum have on single clue as to what actually happened....NOT A SINGLE IDEA.

All you and I know or anyone is what the media has potrayed to us. Most from outside folks and not a word officially from any authorities.

So, using sarcasm means you have made up your mind based on just the news reports which they admit have no facts. That is not how I make my decisions and surely hope those many many many folks investigating this from every possible level of government do not either.

[sunnyatlast]

Does anybody out there see how dangerous it is when so many groups just sit there and swallow the pre-digested soundbites the media and politicians strategically feed them, abandoning our justice system's bedrock principle that a person is "innocent until proven guilty"??

[KayakerNC]

Originally Posted by sunnyatlast

Does anybody out there see how dangerous it is when so many groups just sit there and swallow the pre-digested soundbites the media and politicians strategically feed them, abandoning our justice system's bedrock principle that a person is "innocent until proven guilty"??

Really? This bedrock principle didn't seem do Mike Brown much good.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Originally Posted by KayakerNC

Really? This bedrock principle didn't seem do Mike Brown much good.

This also appears to be a statement based on the opinion that this shooting was completely unjustified. When people do bad things and are caught in the act sometimes bad things happen to them.

As Rags123 stated, none of us know what actually transpired here. Many have made up their minds based on media reports which mostly seem to be one sided. The people in St Louis who are using this as an excuse to riot and loot do not know what happened. They are taking this action assuming that this officer is guilty.

Why is no one assuming that Michael Brown got exactly what he deserved? I'm not saying that is the case because I don't know. I am saying that it is a possibility. And it seems to be more and more a possibility as we learn the extent of the officer's injuries.

The police have guns so that they can shoot people who pose a danger to the general public and to protect themselves. The principle of innocent until proven guilty has nothing to do with that.

If Michael Brown was completely innocent and the officer is guilty of unjustifiable homicide then he will be punished. But at this point we don't know all of the facts so the only alternative we have is to assume that both Michael Brown and Officer Wilson are innocent. An investigation and trial will determine which was innocent and which was guilty.

[Rags123]

Originally Posted by KayakerNC

Really? This bedrock principle didn't seem do Mike Brown much good.

If you are suggesting that a police officer should not use his gun in any way, unless shots have been fired at him.....or a police officer who has a fear for his life dare not use his gun, I vote against that idea.

The many hearings and investigations that follow an officer shooting someone far exceed any you can imagine.

Who in their right mind would ever want to be a police officer, or have a loved one be a policeman based on that criteria.

The one things BOTH sides seem to agree on, is that Mr. Brown was the aggressor and in fact wrestled for the gun (which was holstered). I have seen no denials of that as a fact is the only reason I present that......but if a man the size of Mr Brown leaned in, punched me and wrestled for my weapon, I would fear for my life


If that turns out to be false, I apologize but even his friends are not denying that right now.

We want police protection, but don't use you gun ? Already there are more weapons looking to kill in civilian hands that any police force.

Not defending anyone except it is insane to ask them to protect YOU , but make sure those fellows trying to do whatever do not get hurt.

[Tennisnut]

Originally Posted by Rags123

If you are suggesting that a police officer should not use his gun in any way, unless shots have been fired at him.....or a police officer who has a fear for his life dare not use his gun, I vote against that idea.

The many hearings and investigations that follow an officer shooting someone far exceed any you can imagine.

Who in their right mind would ever want to be a police officer, or have a loved one be a policeman based on that criteria.

The one things BOTH sides seem to agree on, is that Mr. Brown was the aggressor and in fact wrestled for the gun (which was holstered). I have seen no denials of that as a fact is the only reason I present that......but if a man the size of Mr Brown leaned in, punched me and wrestled for my weapon, I would fear for my life


If that turns out to be false, I apologize but even his friends are not denying that right now.

We want police protection, but don't use you gun ? Already there are more weapons looking to kill in civilian hands that any police force.

Not defending anyone except it is insane to ask them to protect YOU , but make sure those fellows trying to do whatever do not get hurt.

Lets hope for Mr Wilson's sake that if there was wrestling for the gun, that there is gun powder on Mr Brown during the altercation. With four to body and two to the head, it raises some questions whether this went beyond self and public protection.

[dewilson58]

Originally Posted by Tennisnut

Lets hope for Mr Wilson's sake that if there was wrestling for the gun, that there is gun powder on Mr Brown during the altercation. With four to body and two to the head, it raises some questions whether this went beyond self and public protection.

A minor point..............It's very easy, and happens very quickly, to fire four, six, eight times with today's guns. Officer Wilson is not going to take one shot, wait and see the effects and decide if he will shoot again. I would be shooting until the attacker was flat on the ground.

[Tennisnut]

Originally Posted by dewilson58

A minor point..............It's very easy, and happens very quickly, to fire four, six, eight times with today's guns. Officer Wilson is not going to take one shot, wait and see the effects and decide if he will shoot again. I would be shooting until the attacker was flat on the ground.

I find it to be a major point if he standing some distance away not posing an immediate threat to the officer or the public.

[graciegirl]

People are going to believe what they want to believe because of their past experiences. We are not allowed to summarize about groups because it is politically incorrect to do so. But most of us still have common sense.

And instinct. When a rabbit sees a lion, he doesn't think it is a mouse.