Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Looting in Missouri after cops shoot 18 year old (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Otis
- Start date
timschochet
Footballguy
Did they really do that? What possible reason- wow, if true that's horrible.
GrandpaRox
Footballguy
Cliff Notes version: After days and days of testimony and reading over documents, there was not even enough EVIDENCE to pass the very low bar of sending this on to trial. I assume this is what you got out of it? Or are you still trying to make up enough stuff to make yourself feel the rage and hatred that you NEED to believe in?BustedKnuckles said:THIS IS LONG BUT VERY REVEALING......FERGUSON, Mo. — In the end, it seems, it all came down to Officer Darren Wilson himself.Henry Ford said:
In four hours of vivid testimony before the St. Louis County grand jury in September describing his shooting of Michael Brown, the officer said Mr. Brown, 18, had looked “like a demon” when he first approached him.
The officer described himself as utterly terrified when, he said, Mr. Brown reached into his police vehicle and fought him for his gun. Mr. Brown was so physically overpowering that the officer, who is 6-foot-4, similar to Mr. Brown, said he “felt like a 5-year-old holding on to Hulk Hogan.”
The officer’s testimony, along with thousands of pages of grand jury documents, including contradictory witness accounts, appeared to have helped convince some of the jurors that the officer had committed no crime when he killed Mr. Brown.
The St. Louis County prosecutor, Robert P. McCulloch, said he had released the documents to show people how thorough the grand jury inquiry had been and to convince the public that justice had been done.
But the failure to bring any charges against a white officer who shot an unarmed black teenager in murky circumstances has set off a new storm of protests and questions about the objectivity of the grand jury process.
In an unusual step, Mr. McCulloch had said he would present all known witnesses and evidence and instead of recommending an indictment, as is usually the case, let the jurors decide for themselves what if any charges to bring.
The officer’s testimony, delivered without the cross-examination of a trial in the earliest phase of the three-month inquiry, was the only direct account of the fatal encounter. It appeared to form the spine of a narrative that unfolded before the jurors over three months, buttressed, the prosecutors said, by the most credible witnesses, forensic evidence and three autopsies.
But the gentle questioning of Officer Wilson revealed in the transcripts, and the sharp challenges prosecutors made to witnesses whose accounts seemed to contradict his narrative, have led some to question whether the process was as objective as Mr. McCulloch claims.
Lawyers for Mr. Brown’s family, who maintained all along that Officer Wilson should be charged with a crime so he could be tried in public, said that Monday’s decision and the voluminous transcripts only reinforced their suspicions.
“This grand jury decision we feel is a direct reflection of the sentiments of those who presented the evidence,” Anthony Gray, a lawyer for the relatives, said at a news conference Tuesday morning. “If you present evidence to indict, you get an indictment. If you present evidence not to indict, you don’t get an indictment.”
Photo
Some of the images presented as evidence to the St. Louis County grand jury, including Officer Darren Wilson's gun, broken glass from his official vehicle and Michael Brown's hat.CreditPhotographs via St. Louis County Prosecutor's Office
Officer Wilson, in his testimony, described the encounter in terms that dovetailed with a state law authorizing an officer’s use of deadly force: He sought to show that he had reason to believe that Mr. Brown posed a serious danger to himself or to others. He described Mr. Brown as crazed and himself as fearing for his life, first in the police vehicle and moments later in the street after, he said, he ordered the fleeing Mr. Brown to halt. Officer Wilson then shot him repeatedly, according to his account, after Mr. Brown charged at him.
Continue reading the main story
In some cases the questions seemed designed to help Officer Wilson meet the conditions for self-defense, with a prosecutor telling him at one point: “You felt like your life was in jeopardy” followed by the question, “And use of deadly force was justified at that point in your opinion?”
But when no one asked him why he had chased Mr. Brown, Officer Wilson brought it up himself, saying that after experiencing Mr. Brown’s aggression in the vehicle, he felt “he still posed a threat, not only to me, but to anybody else that confronted him.”
Unusual Process
Most grand jury proceedings are swift and simple: A few witnesses are called, the prosecutor makes the case for an indictment and the jurors vote.
But the grand jury in the Brown case met for an extraordinarily long session, hearing what the prosecutor said was “absolutely everything” that could be considered testimony or evidence in the case. While what happens in the grand jury room is almost always kept secret, Mr. McCulloch insisted on releasing the transcripts of the proceedings immediately after the session ended.
Continue reading the main story
Documents Released in the Ferguson Case
The jurors met in a St. Louis County courthouse on 25 separate days. They heard 70 hours of testimony from about 60 witnesses. And they confronted a jumble of forensics reports, police radio logs, medical documents and tapes of F.B.I. interviews with bystanders. Nine of the 12 jurors would have had to agree in order to bring a criminal indictment; the actual vote is secret.
After three months of hearing evidence, the grand jury began its deliberations about 3 p.m. on Friday. The jurors met again on Monday, and by midday they were finished.
Though the encounter between Officer Wilson and Mr. Brown lasted only a matter of minutes, witness testimony revealed an array of variations, some subtle and some flatly contradictory. Witness after witness took the stand to describe the brief encounter and usually agreed on the broadest strokes: how it began with the struggle at the window of Officer Wilson’s police S.U.V., leading to the first shots, and ended with Dorian Johnson, who had been walking with Mr. Brown, shouting, “They killed him,” and crowds descending on the scene.
Many witnesses said they first began to pay attention while the two were wrestling at the S.U.V. window, though they usually said they could not see enough to know what was going on. But even when the confrontation broke out into the open — when Officer Wilson chased the teenager, ordered him to halt and then fired two volleys of five shots — the accounts diverged.
“I see the officer running behind shooting,” one witness said.
“He did not take off running after Michael,” another said to the prosecutors.
Continue reading the main story
Graphic: Q. and A.: What Happened in Ferguson?
Some witnesses, whom Mr. McCulloch described as the most credible and consistent, hewed more closely to Officer Wilson’s account.
“I could say for sure he never put his hands up,” said a man who was working in the area and did not live there, and whose testimony strongly bolstered Officer Wilson’s case. “He ran to the officer full charge.”
Continue reading the main story
Others spoke just as confidently that events unfolded in a completely different way.
“Yes, I personally saw him on his knees with his hands in the air,” one witness said in a recorded interview with federal officials that was played for the grand jury before he testified. The prosecutor questioning that witness did not hide her skepticism, highlighting the contradictions in his various accounts.
“Basically just about everything that you said on Aug. 13, and much of what you said today, isn’t consistent with the physical evidence that we have in this case, O.K.?” she said to him.
Witnesses Challenged
Photo
Michael Brown
Prosecutors did not seem to shy from pointing out the discrepancies between multiple interviews of a single witness, or at some points exploring the criminal history of some witnesses, including Mr. Johnson, Mr. Brown’s friend.
Though the prosecutors did not press Officer Wilson and other law enforcement officials about some contradictions in their testimony, they did challenge other witnesses about why their accounts had varied.
Several were asked if they felt any pressure to conform to a certain story line, or if they felt fearful about their recollections differing from the popular narrative in the streets. Some did acknowledge such fears, while others were shown to have delivered wholly unreliable accounts.
An older man in a nearby housing complex dismissed the notion that Mr. Brown had raised his hands to the sky, as some claimed, in a gesture that became a symbol for the protest movement in Ferguson. But the man was adamant that Mr. Brown had never charged at Officer Wilson, only staggered toward him, wounded, his arms outstretched in a gesture of surrender.
“He had his hands up, palm facing the officer like, ‘O.K., you got me,’ ” the man recalled, adding at a later point that he had once been shot himself so he knew what it felt like. The prosecutor pointed out that the distance Mr. Brown covered after turning was farther than the witness remembered, and a juror questioned the witness as to whether he could really judge how menacing Mr. Brown had appeared to Officer Wilson.
Still this man’s testimony was like that of several others, in that it neither matched up perfectly with Officer Wilson’s account nor with the accounts of those most sympathetic to Mr. Brown. Many witnesses expressed uncertainty about the moment when Mr. Brown stopped and turned and what led Officer Wilson to start shooting. “That is something I wrestle with to this day,” said a witness whose account lined up particularly with Officer Wilson’s, though even it diverged on a couple of crucial points, like whether the officer shouted commands for Mr. Brown to stop fleeing.
Continue reading the main story
Timeline: Tracking the Events in the Wake of Michael Brown’s Shooting
Wealth of Evidence
As the weeks went by, the grand jury studied the brief encounter between Officer Wilson and Mr. Brown from seemingly every possible angle, hearing forensic testimony one day, going as a group to examine a police vehicle similar to Officer Wilson’s on another. On Nov. 11, the prosecutors questioned a former superior of Officer Wilson’s from another police force, asking about his relationship with the African-American community as well as standard police practices governing the use of deadly force. (The witness had nothing but positive things to say about Officer Wilson.)
Continue reading the main storyContinue reading the main story
Continue reading the main story
The prosecutor said that forensic evidence, along with public and private autopsy reports, supported the assertion that Officer Wilson and Mr. Brown had struggled inside the police vehicle.
A crime scene investigator described swabbing Officer Wilson’s gun; the subsequent DNA report found Mr. Brown’s genetic material on Officer Wilson’s Sig Sauer pistol. Similarly, DNA from Mr. Brown was also found on the officer’s uniform pants and shirt.
In his testimony, Officer Wilson told jurors that Mr. Brown had grabbed his gun while the two scuffled at the vehicle. Feeling threatened, Officer Wilson said, he fired the gun twice, once striking Mr. Brown in the hand and leaving blood splattered inside the vehicle. Asked why he did not use a Taser stun gun, the officer said he found them unwieldy and did not have one.
The medical examiner who performed the initial autopsy showed the grand jury close to 100 gruesome photos of the gunshot wounds from every angle, giving exhaustive descriptions and lessons in the physics of such wounds.
Continue reading the main storyVideo
He described the soot, or unburned gunpowder, on a graze wound on Mr. Brown’s hand, proof that it was shot at a range of six to nine inches.
Over the months, the jurors seemed to focus intently on the final movement that Mr. Brown may have made toward Officer Wilson, after a brief chase. The prosecutor asked witness after witness if it seemed as if Mr. Brown were reaching for a weapon, though few said they saw anything like that. Mr. Brown was found to be unarmed.
Jurors asked whether Mr. Brown, when he was said to be moving toward Officer Wilson, seemed to have “any kind of expression, a blank look, aggressive look or anything.” They also had seemingly come to memorize the distances and challenged witnesses on their memories of the geography of the confrontation.
Forensic evidence was also presented that supported Officer Wilson’s statement that Mr. Brown was moving toward him after the first volley of bullets.
The distance from the front wheel of the officer’s S.U.V. to Mr. Brown’s body was 153 feet, 9 inches, an investigator said. Farther away from the car, the investigator showed with photographs, were two blood-spatter patterns — evidence that Mr. Brown was moving toward the officer, and the car, when he was killed in the second flurry of shots.
The medical examiner described the succession of bullet wounds to the chest and face that, in his view, would not have immediately incapacitated Mr. Brown. The prosecutors repeatedly questioned the doctor about this, driving home that Mr. Brown could have still been mobile (and dangerous) after the initial gunshot wounds.
They seemed intent on emphasizing this point, which supports Officer Wilson’s description of Mr. Brown lunging toward him despite serious wounds.
A final shot through the top of Mr. Brown’s head, the medical experts all agreed, felled him almost instantly.
After the shooting, Officer Wilson was taken to a hospital, where a doctor found that he had a “facial contusion,” the medical term for a bruise, apparently from the struggle in the vehicle. He was given a prescription for an anti-inflammatory drug.
On Friday afternoon, the jurors indicated that they were ready to begin deliberating. The two assistant St. Louis County prosecutors who had presented the case gave them information on the charges that they could possibly bring against Officer Wilson: murder, voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter.
“We were trying to give you a balanced presentation of the evidence,” Sheila Whirley, one of the prosecutors, told the jurors in summary. “And I think you are going to make the right decision.”
BustedKnuckles
Footballguy
Some witnesses, whom Mr. McCulloch described as the most credible and consistent, hewed more closely to Officer Wilson’s account.
“I could say for sure he never put his hands up,” said a man who was working in the area and did not live there, and whose testimony strongly bolstered Officer Wilson’s case. “He ran to the officer full charge.”
Continue reading the main story
Others spoke just as confidently that events unfolded in a completely different way.
“Yes, I personally saw him on his knees with his hands in the air,” one witness said in a recorded interview with federal officials that was played for the grand jury before he testified. The prosecutor questioning that witness did not hide her skepticism, highlighting the contradictions in his various accounts.
“Basically just about everything that you said on Aug. 13, and much of what you said today, isn’t consistent with the physical evidence that we have in this case, O.K.?” she said to him.
Witnesses Challenged
Prosecutors did not seem to shy from pointing out the discrepancies between multiple interviews of a single witness, or at some points exploring the criminal history of some witnesses, including Mr. Johnson, Mr. Brown’s friend.
Though the prosecutors did not press Officer Wilson and other law enforcement officials about some contradictions in their testimony, they did challenge other witnesses about why their accounts had varied.
Several were asked if they felt any pressure to conform to a certain story line, or if they felt fearful about their recollections differing from the popular narrative in the streets. Some did acknowledge such fears, while others were shown to have delivered wholly unreliable accounts.
An older man in a nearby housing complex dismissed the notion that Mr. Brown had raised his hands to the sky, as some claimed, in a gesture that became a symbol for the protest movement in Ferguson. But the man was adamant that Mr. Brown had never charged at Officer Wilson, only staggered toward him, wounded, his arms outstretched in a gesture of surrender.
“He had his hands up, palm facing the officer like, ‘O.K., you got me,’ ” the man recalled, adding at a later point that he had once been shot himself so he knew what it felt like. The prosecutor pointed out that the distance Mr. Brown covered after turning was farther than the witness remembered, and a juror questioned the witness as to whether he could really judge how menacing Mr. Brown had appeared to Officer Wilson.
Still this man’s testimony was like that of several others, in that it neither matched up perfectly with Officer Wilson’s account nor with the accounts of those most sympathetic to Mr. Brown. Many witnesses expressed uncertainty about the moment when Mr. Brown stopped and turned and what led Officer Wilson to start shooting. “That is something I wrestle with to this day,” said a witness whose account lined up particularly with Officer Wilson’s, though even it diverged on a couple of crucial points, like whether the officer shouted commands for Mr. Brown to stop fleeing.
rockaction
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Can someone confirm what GoBirds just wrote? I have trouble believing it. Surely no respectable newspaper would ever do such a thing?
mcintyre1
Footballguy
Just finished reading the police interview with and grand jury testimony of Witness 48, who appears to be a key corroborator of Wilson's version of events.
She indicates that she was seated in the 2nd row of a minivan facing toward Wilson's SUV from the driver's side while Brown stood in front of the driver's window. She was about "two car lengths" away. She indicated she saw Brown with his arms "in front of him" but that she couldn't see that he was doing anything with his hands. She indicates she did not see any significant movement of Brown or the SUV at this time, and describes him as "standing there". She turns to talk to her sister and hears two gunshots, looks back at to see Brown running away. From there, she largely confirms Wilson's version of the shooting (that Brown stopped, turned, and "charged" at Wilson).
However, there are a couple of points that differ significantly from Wilson's story. 1) she says that Wilson did not have his gun drawn until after Brown charged at him, at which point he drew his weapon and fired the fatal series of shots. She is asked to be sure of this point several times and confirms that she is adamant that Wilson did not have his gun drawn when he left the vehicle. This conflicts with Wilson's testimony and that of other witnesses. She is not asked to clarify this discrepancy during her GJ testimony. 2) She says that as Brown turns and charges Wilson, that he raised both of his arms to shoulder height (as if he was "thinking of putting his hands up", in her words) before charging at Wilson as if performing a football tackle. She is asked explicitly is Brown ever reached his hands down toward his waist, to which she explicitly answers "no" and if she is sure of that point, which she is. This also conflicts with Wilson's testimony and at least one other witness account. Again, she is not asked to clarify this discrepancy. 3) After she says that Brown was "running" toward Wilson, she is asked how far Brown traveled while running before being shot. She responds "2 or 3 feet". This confuses the prosecutors, as she also claimed that it looked like Brown was trying to (and by her testimony, she believed it was possible) tackle Wilson "into the car". We know from crime scene evidence that Brown's body came to a rest a full 50 yards away from the vehicle. That's a long ### tackle. The prosecutors get her to estimate the total distance Brown traveled toward Wilson from start of run to death and she indicates 15 feet. At the very least, she's terrible about estimating distances (they ask her if she feels she is good at estimating distance, to which she responds "yeah, I'm pretty good").
Additionally, she mentions that she thinks Brown got what he deserved for "robbing from a store and fighting with a cop." This appears to take the prosecutors by surprise, as they immediately ask her to clarify that statement. She then admits that she did not see Brown fight with the officer.
Seems to me that a prosecutor seeking an indictment would grill her deeper on those inconsistencies.
She indicates that she was seated in the 2nd row of a minivan facing toward Wilson's SUV from the driver's side while Brown stood in front of the driver's window. She was about "two car lengths" away. She indicated she saw Brown with his arms "in front of him" but that she couldn't see that he was doing anything with his hands. She indicates she did not see any significant movement of Brown or the SUV at this time, and describes him as "standing there". She turns to talk to her sister and hears two gunshots, looks back at to see Brown running away. From there, she largely confirms Wilson's version of the shooting (that Brown stopped, turned, and "charged" at Wilson).
However, there are a couple of points that differ significantly from Wilson's story. 1) she says that Wilson did not have his gun drawn until after Brown charged at him, at which point he drew his weapon and fired the fatal series of shots. She is asked to be sure of this point several times and confirms that she is adamant that Wilson did not have his gun drawn when he left the vehicle. This conflicts with Wilson's testimony and that of other witnesses. She is not asked to clarify this discrepancy during her GJ testimony. 2) She says that as Brown turns and charges Wilson, that he raised both of his arms to shoulder height (as if he was "thinking of putting his hands up", in her words) before charging at Wilson as if performing a football tackle. She is asked explicitly is Brown ever reached his hands down toward his waist, to which she explicitly answers "no" and if she is sure of that point, which she is. This also conflicts with Wilson's testimony and at least one other witness account. Again, she is not asked to clarify this discrepancy. 3) After she says that Brown was "running" toward Wilson, she is asked how far Brown traveled while running before being shot. She responds "2 or 3 feet". This confuses the prosecutors, as she also claimed that it looked like Brown was trying to (and by her testimony, she believed it was possible) tackle Wilson "into the car". We know from crime scene evidence that Brown's body came to a rest a full 50 yards away from the vehicle. That's a long ### tackle. The prosecutors get her to estimate the total distance Brown traveled toward Wilson from start of run to death and she indicates 15 feet. At the very least, she's terrible about estimating distances (they ask her if she feels she is good at estimating distance, to which she responds "yeah, I'm pretty good").
Additionally, she mentions that she thinks Brown got what he deserved for "robbing from a store and fighting with a cop." This appears to take the prosecutors by surprise, as they immediately ask her to clarify that statement. She then admits that she did not see Brown fight with the officer.
Seems to me that a prosecutor seeking an indictment would grill her deeper on those inconsistencies.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Complaining? If it's true it's hard for me to think of anything more irresponsible. Beyond the obvious danger to him and his family, think of what the neighbors will have to endure. That's unbelievable.
GrandpaRox
Footballguy
You are at least. Keep trying I am sure will will beat this dead horse until you find something to hold you over until the next perceived injustice.timschochet said:
timschochet
Footballguy
Personally, this would make it MORE likely, not less, that Brown charged, even if it does conflict with Wilson's story.
timschochet
Footballguy
You are at least as obsessed or more so than any of us. It seems to piss you off to no end that people bring race into this conversation. In fact, the fact that blacks tend to perceive this as a racial incident makes you defend the police officer all the more. You were defending him from the beginning, tooth and nail, without knowing hardly any of the facts. No doubt you would defend him no matter what the facts turned out to be. Because you are obsessed with denying that racism plays a part in these matters, which is every bit as much as an obsession as someone who insists that race is always a part.
rockaction
Footballguy
Yeah, complaining. I didn't use it in a loaded fashion. People are complaining about the IRS hard drives. People are complaining about Benghazi. People are complaining about Uncostitutional Amnesty.
com·plain
kəmˈplān/
verb
gerund or present participle: complaining
- express dissatisfaction or annoyance about a state of affairs or an event.
"local authorities complained that they lacked sufficient resources"
synonyms: protest, grumble, whine, bleat, carp, cavil, grouse, make a fuss; More
- state that one is suffering from (a pain or other symptom of illness).
"her husband began to complain of headaches"
- state a grievance.
"they complained to the French government"
- state that one is suffering from (a pain or other symptom of illness).
GrandpaRox
Footballguy
America knows that Holder and Obama will try to ensure that there is a trial and conviction. They have to get lucky at least once. Both Holder and Obama are very political and racist in their world views and beliefs. It will be so freaking nice when Holder is gone and Obama only two years later. Easily the most divisive administration of this century. As much as I dislike Clinton she will be a breath of fresh air.Henry Ford said:
squistion
Footballguy
Yes, they gave the town and street name, but claim that the information has been public for months:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/11/26/new-york-times-responds-to-criticism-about-darren-wilsons-address/?tid=pm_opinions_pop
New York Times responds to criticism about Darren Wilsons address
Howard Kurtz has accused the New York Times of a reckless move in identifying the street on which Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson resides. Journalism is full of close calls. This is not one of them. The Times should apologize, writes Kurtz.
On Monday, the Times published a scoop by Julie Bosman and Campbell Robertson reporting that Wilson had married fellow officer Barbara Spradling in a quiet wedding last month. It noted that the two own a home together and identified the town and the name of the street.
Breitbarts John Nolte writes, the New York Times had no qualms whatsoever about publishing almost all the information needed for Officer Darren Wilsons enemies to track him and his wife down at home. Other outlets, including the New York Post and Fox News, have highlighted the newspapers decision. If anything happens to that man, his family or that home, I hold them the culpability is with [the New York Times], said Fox Newss Sean Hannity.
Philip Corbett, the papers associate managing editor for standards, tells the Erik Wemple Blog via e-mail: The Times did not reveal anything here. The name of the street was widely reported as far back as August, including in the Washington Post.
The Post on Aug. 15 published an article on Wilson shortly after his name surfaced as the officer whod killed 18-year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo. It noted the presence of [d]ark blue unmarked police cars were parked outside his house and mentioned the street name. A number of other outlets also traded in information about Wilsons residence and it has been circulated on the Internet, of course.
mcintyre1
Footballguy
I guess I was more trying to point out that discrepancies in testimony that conflicted with Wilson's story were grilled on by the GJ, leading to some of the witnesses outing themselves as unreliable or questionable. There seems to be a pattern so far of no such grilling having been done for witnesses that helped Wilson's case.
BustedKnuckles
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
I have a real problem with that. I don't care that it was already revealed by the Post last August. Last August was before there was no indictment. Right now, by repeating that information now, with anger and protests going on, the Times is literally throwing explosives into a fire already lit. There is NO good reason to do so. As much as I detest Breitbart, I have to say their criticism in this instance is dead on.
Sorry, but this pisses me off as much as anything I've read or heard about this incident.
Sorry, but this pisses me off as much as anything I've read or heard about this incident.
Does this incident, or anything you've heard or read about it, really piss you off?
timschochet
Footballguy
And what a lame excuse too. You can write about this guy's marriage, if you want to, without naming the street he lives on. What kind of bullcrap is that? If this is an incident on that street, if neighbors or the house itself is assaulted, how will this editor face himself in the mirror?
Suppose you lived on that street? I don't know what I'd do. I certainly wouldn't feel safe.
Suppose you lived on that street? I don't know what I'd do. I certainly wouldn't feel safe.
The General
Footballguy
Who cares if the guy's address had been public, how does that even fit into the context of any article?
The officer accused of recklessly shooting an unarmed black youth, who by the way lives at 110 E Johnston St, is at the center of a race firestorm.
timschochet
Footballguy
You really think this is something worth mocking me about? You have a strange sense of humor dude. I find nothing funny about what the Times did here.
GoBirds
Footballguy
Sand
Footballguy
badmojo1006
Footballguy
I can't see this thread reaching the Zimmerman/Trayon Martin lengths (515 pages), but I can see 300 easily
GoBirds
Footballguy
I knew we would agree on something one day.
If he survives you have to think there is lawsuit potential there.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
It fits if he thought his first assault of the Officer had the Officer convinced to not follow him or unable to follow him. Maybe he thought he could flee and when it was apparent that the skinnier man with the gun was able to pursue that he had to come up with another plan. The situation may have been dynamic. In fact that is a fair bet as most crisis situations are fairly dynamic.timschochet said:
Again, I do not know what happened. I know that we have less than a consistent or perfect set of fact and information. Many here seem very troubled by this and seem to presume some nefarious reason therefor. Me, having dealt with far too many similar fact scenarios I just accept that witnesses are often weak, confused, internally and externally inconsistent and notoriously bad at sequencing facts and estimating distances. We pretend that witnesses playback brain video of the incident and relate it to us as they are watching it, but they are mostly relying verbal constructs they have created, imperfectly and to fit their own cognitive paradigms, and then their recall of those stories of the incident., Obviously I am not now speaking of anything that most educated people here in this discussion don't already know.
In the end I think you can come up with reasonable constructs to explain the scenario here. Your statement that you just can't make this fit together is one I do not believe. I think you are creative enough to do so easily. That you do not do so is not an indication that the proffered scenario is nonsensical, rather it reflects your belief system. I will not argue that your preconceived belief system here is completely out of whack. There is much in the recounting of this matter open to examination. That is not the same, of course, as suggesting that the telling is not true. Many, not you, go to far and conclude that because there is room for questioning that the room establishes the answers motivating the questions. Foolishness, but yet we have it constantly espoused in these matters.
rockaction
Footballguy
That's about how it was done.
http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2014/11/25/new-york-times-publishes-darren-wilsons-address/
Eh. Who said I was laughing or mocking you?. I just find it curious the things that you get worked up about, and the things that you don't. Your own government can kill U.S. citizens without as much as a hearing in advance of doing so, and you're fine with that. But here you're all up in arms. Just curious to me.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
Due to governmental immunity he is unlikely to be brought to civil trial for committing a wrongful death. His civil trial, were it to materialize, is more likely to be in federal court for violating Mr. Brown's civil rights. I will go no further down this road because my expertise is beginning to end her, and we have several excellent civil litigators here who can take this discussion responsibly and knowledgably in directions would be unqualified to lead.
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
Good thing McIntyre1 - Internet Detective is on the case. I'm sure you found something the Grand Jury missed. You're definitely on to something here. Have you forwarded your findings to Eric Holder?
Last edited by a moderator:
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
The prosecutor did decline to bring charges. Instead of doing so he sent it to the grand jury, but that action is a declination of doing so himself.
Bucky86
Footballguy
Thanks for those articles Gary Coal Man. VERY good reads regardless of which side of the debate you're on. It seems like they all make one thing clear. Police get to play by a different set of rules.
The new debate should be whether or not we think this is how it should be?
The new debate should be whether or not we think this is how it should be?
Last edited by a moderator:
GrandpaRox
Footballguy
It was obvious from the beginning, just like with Trayvon Martin (may be rest in peace) that the shootings were justified. And you are incorrect as usual, if the cop was guilty he should have been charged and convicted I would have been right there cheering his conviction. You need to hang your outrage on a young person that is truly innocent and worthy of outrage, I will be on your side if the facts show that. I do not insist there is no racism, I know there is, I am somewhat racist depending on the specifics involved. My granddaughter has gone out with "N" and black guys. If I don't like someone it is because of his personality/racism not his color.
Is that clear enough for you.
PS: Now Tim will ONLY focus on the two words "somewhat racist", nothing else written will even enter his thought process.
Wait, you're just now realizing that government plays by different rules?
That's a feature, not a bug.
Bucky86
Footballguy
GrandpaRox
Footballguy
GrandpaRox
Footballguy
There was a trial for that, this would easily surpass that if there was a trial. Imagine all the Tim posts we have lost.
Sand
Footballguy
So the NYT gives the whereabouts and Slate publishes a picture of the house. Now all a bad actor needs is Google Maps and 15 minutes and they can pinpoint him.
I'm sure CNN will slip with Wilson's SSN soon - they lean toward that particular brand of spite.
SIDA!
Footballguy
Absolutely sickening and reprehensible behavior. My gut reaction without thinking about it and I am not prepared to argue this point is that such an action should be illegal or at least subject to criminal prosecution and civil liabilities if anyone is injured or killed as a result of this despicable act.
timschochet
Footballguy
I want to wish everyone here a happy Thanksgiving. I've really enjoyed discussing and debating with you guys. In going to hug my family close and be grateful for all the blessings that I have.
mcintyre1
Footballguy
Also finally found GJ testimony of Witness 40. This is the "Dang if that boy didn't charge at the cop like a football player" person that lots of Pro-Wilson stories are quoting.
She says that she doesn't consider herself racist because in order to be racist you have to say it to a person's face. She admits to being bipolar (which she is not receiving treatment for) and that she has had memory issues ever since she was in a car accident. She also admits to saying to an FBI agent that she googled Michael Brown to "find out what the gold thing was that dropped" (a reference to her journal entry, which, again, was not produced to anyone until a good deal after the incident and after she'd been interviewed as a claimed witness). She also testified that she "didn't know" how she ended up at the apartment complex where the shooting happened (she "got a GPS the next day"). She volunteered herself as a witness, she was not tracked down by the police or FBI. Here's a quote from the testimony about how her statements to police and statement now don't line up entirely: "Q: Okay. So you were not telling the truth initially? A: Okay. I'm sorry. ... I guess not, no."
She says that she doesn't consider herself racist because in order to be racist you have to say it to a person's face. She admits to being bipolar (which she is not receiving treatment for) and that she has had memory issues ever since she was in a car accident. She also admits to saying to an FBI agent that she googled Michael Brown to "find out what the gold thing was that dropped" (a reference to her journal entry, which, again, was not produced to anyone until a good deal after the incident and after she'd been interviewed as a claimed witness). She also testified that she "didn't know" how she ended up at the apartment complex where the shooting happened (she "got a GPS the next day"). She volunteered herself as a witness, she was not tracked down by the police or FBI. Here's a quote from the testimony about how her statements to police and statement now don't line up entirely: "Q: Okay. So you were not telling the truth initially? A: Okay. I'm sorry. ... I guess not, no."
mcintyre1
Footballguy
BustedKnuckles
Footballguy
well i appreciate you taking the time to read the facts and relay them to us...ive read some of it myself....better than just throwing crap around and calling it a fact
Last edited by a moderator:
SproutDaddy
Footballguy
I know this is from August, but I thought those of you who are blind and completely judgmental should see this. If it's been posted before, sorry. Some should probably see it again.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/16/ferguson-protesters-guard-stores_n_5684042.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/16/ferguson-protesters-guard-stores_n_5684042.html
dickey moe
Fingerpicker
That's good that you're looking into things yourself, but what I don't understand is your apparent disregard for various other witnesses who indicated that Brown turned around and moved toward Wilson? Perhaps evaluating credibility of multiple witnesses and how that assists in painting a picture of what happened that day is a bit more complex than drawing from the single example you provided?
Courtjester
The Town Drunk
MC, I know you and I disagree on the outcome, but I applaud you taking the time and doing this. Too many people make decisions on emotion and what you are doing is what everyone should do and that is get facts before you jump to conclusions.
Similar threads
