Joshua Brown was one of the key witnesses in the Botham Jean Trial.

@Sicarium Well Amber's lawyers are expected to appeal any day now soooooo not really. Also there is a such thing as hate crime or revenge killing. I'm not suggesting that it was THE police themselves

@REMsleep No, you're just suggesting that there was a conspiracy to kill someone to prevent them from testifying...after they testified.

Like I said, horrible conspiracy.

@Sicarium My question was if it was possible that this man's death had anything to do with his connection to the Botham Jean trial. That's all I was asking. I have no theory at this point but my Aunt who is a lawyer just reminded me that they would have called him to testify at the appeal which I just read is expected to be filed soon.

@REMsleep You're not just asking if it's possible. You're framing it in a way that leads people to the thinking you want, while hiding behind, "I'm just asking a question." It's a prime example of begging the question.

Case in point.

[quote]Is it possible that coruption is that bad?[/quote]

You're assuming this is a case of corruption. Without already agreeing that this is a conspiracy, nobody can answer the last question. That last question is what you're really getting at.

I have no idea if you're doing it on purpose or not, but it is a manipulation tactic. It's exactly what conspiracy theorists do to dupe people. And if you were really being honest, you wouldn't need to manipulate people while "just asking a question." You could just ask. Then take the answers and formulate whatever opinion you had about the responses you got. But, be honest, you've already decided the answers to your own questions.

@Sicarium False. You are are assuming my motivation. I asked "is it possible that corruption is that bad?" Meaning could it be possible that corruption is responsible for the killing of this person. I'm still asking. You are somehow on a certain side of this topic and are not thinking in an impartial way. You are responding in a combative manner. I'm not given to conspiracy. I asked exactly what I wanted to know.

@REMsleep [quote]False. You are are assuming my motivation.[/quote]

No. I specifically said I didn't know whether it was intentional or not. Without intent, I can't even begin to guess motivation. I said you were using a manipulation tactic. And you were. And still are. See below.

[quote]I asked "is it possible that corruption is that bad?"[/quote]

Yes. Focus on the, "that bad" part. That is an assumption that at least some corruption is there. The basis is corruption. If I don't agree that there's corruption, I can't answer your question. That is an example of begging the question. Begging the question is a logical fallacy.

[quote]Meaning could it be possible that corruption is responsible for the killing of this person.[/quote]

You're making that assumption. It's baked in. Read up on begging the question if you don't know what I'm talking about.

[quote]You are somehow on a certain side of this topic and are not thinking in an impartial way.[/quote]

No. I'm just not thinking in the way you want me to think. Here's the manipulation. If I don't think the way you try to manipulate me into thinking, then I must have ulterior motives. Doesn't work that way.

Was he silenced to prevent him from testifying? Obviously not, because he testified. You keep throwing out the appeal. His original testimony won't be thrown out just because there's an appeal. Killing him now doesn't silence now. It doesn't prevent his testimony from being used in an appeal. So, again, if this is a conspiracy, it is a horrible, amateurish, ridiculously implemented conspiracy.

[quote]You are responding in a combative manner.[/quote]

No. I'm being blunt. I've said what I've observed and what I believe is true. Nothing less, nothing more. Now you're assuming my motivation.

[quote]I'm not given to conspiracy.[/quote]

Doesn't appear to be the case.

[quote]I asked exactly what I wanted to know.[/quote]

If I were wrong here, we wouldn't still be talking. You'd have no reason to argue. If you were simply asking, I gave you an answer. But that wasn't enough, because you're not just asking. You're leading. And you're arguing now because I'm not following.

@Sicarium it's not possible to have a conversation with you. You have misrepresented perhaps intentionally every single thing that I have said.

No entity that involves humans is without some corruption so I am not assuming that there is any particularly bad corruption in the Dallas PD. I do not know although the mother of victim stated that there was.

I never stated that I was "just asking a question " untill you began attacking my question and I wanted to personally let YOU know my motivation.

-I still do not see how asking if it is possible that corruption in the Dallas PD is bad enough to somehow result in the killing of a man means that I believe this to be true?????? Again I dont know, that's why I'm asking.

I did not indicate in my original question that he was silenced in order to prevent testimony. Only after you meantioned that this was a bad conspiracy did I meantion that it wasn't entirely impossible. This was not my initial line of thinking anyway.

You are arguing against points that I wasn't making.

The reason that I continue to respond is because I am hoping in good faith that you actually wanted to understand what I am thinking and asking.

@REMsleep [quote]it's not possible to have a conversation with you.[/quote]

Then we're done here. And your reply was a waste of time.

[quote]You are arguing against points that I wasn't making.[/quote]

I've been literally quoting you.

Turning off notifications now. Stop pushing conspiracies theories that push your agenda. And, yeah, since you're now doing exactly what you accused me of, I think it's safe to say that I know your intention.

@Sicarium get outta here quotes are misrepresented constantly. Ever hear of fake news. The source was telling you live what I mean and you were ignoring it. Good bye