Looting in Missouri after cops shoot 18 year old (3 Viewers)

[TobiasFunke]

I keep hearing that any time a prosecutor wants an indictment he gets one. Is it possible that the prosecutor didn't actually feel one was warranted and didn't actually want one?. Sure sounds like there was zero evidence that Wilson did anything wrong. I would like to think that prosecutors have a shred of decency and don't just go after anybody involved in a shooting. Maybe there was a grand jury simply to be able to say that there was an objective look at this thing.

If a prosecutor who brings a charge in front of a grand jury makes it sound like there's zero evidence that a potential defendant did anything wrong, there's a massive problem.

And McCulloch has a history of improperly helping accused cops in front of grand juries after they kill unarmed black men....

You can't make this #### up.

Wait, so they are using a case in which a drug dealer and his buddy were surrounded by cops, knew they were surrounded by cops, chose to use their car as a weapon and were subsequently shot as evidence that this guy sides with police? WTF ever.

The car in that incident never moved. link (halfway down, paragraph that begins "A subsequent federal investigation ..."

So, yeah. Pretty strong evidence that the guy sides with police.

 

[SIDA!]

I was really pissed off at the looters last night (still am) and used words like scum and animals to describe them. What really bothered me was not just the fact that they were ruining things for the vast majority of peaceful protestors, but that this was not spontaneous: these ####ers knew what was going to happen and were eager to take advantage of it. That's why so many wore masks.

But some of the rhetoric here is way over the top. We need to keep a little perspective. It would be more accurate to say that the looters were normal people who chose to act like thugs, scum, animals, etc. If caught they should be prosecuted for their crimes. But they don't deserve to die.

They are not normal people. And not all human life is sacred or equal to other human life. Not sure why so many of you pretend or want to convince us and others that we are all the same and nothing really distinguishes us from each other except that a "few" upset individuals threw a temper tantrum.

This Ferguson crowd was filled with Marxist/Communist agitators as well. Did anyone look up RevCom.us, the url that was posted on many of the signs that were being waved around?

I'm actually starting to see a parallel here between you and these "not normal" people as you call them. You both want to resort to violence when faced with a situation where you feel you are being wronged by a segment of the population with whom you cannot relate.

That is a brilliant parallel. Very astute observation equating an individual seeking to protect his business and livelihood (being wronged) from those who are attempting to wrong him. Absolute brilliance. Please continue sharing your profound observations.

:takingnotes:

 

[Sabertooth]

Michael Brown's Stepfather Urged Protesters To "Burn This ##### Down" After Grand Jury Announcement

Comments(134)

Share

Michael Browns stepfather last night repeatedly urged protesters to Burn this ##### down after a prosecutor announced that no criminal charges would be filed against the Ferguson, Missouri police officer who killed the unarmed teenager.

Louis Head, an ex-con who is married to Browns mother, Lesley McSpadden, was with McSpadden outside the Ferguson Police Department headquarters Monday evening as prosecutor Robert McCulloch disclosed that a grand jury declined to vote an indictment against Officer Darren Wilson in the August 9 shooting.

After consoling a weeping McSpadden, the 38-year-old Head--who was standing atop a platform in the middle of the agitated crowd of several hundred protesters--began screaming Burn this ##### down!" He did this at least ten times, and at one point yelled for a microphone so that he could broadcast his message beyond the range of his unamplified voice.

While trying to incite the crowd, Head (pictured above) was wearing a commemorative t-shirt with the words I Am Mike Brown and a beanie, both of which bore a silkscreened photo of Brown in his high school cap and gown.

In the days preceding the grand jury announcement, McSpadden and Michael Brown, Sr. issued statements calling for peaceful protests in the wake of the panel's decision. Head, however, counseled arson. After a night of chaos and rioting in Ferguson, at least 10 businesses and two police cars were destroyed or damaged by fire, and 61 individuals were arrested.

Head is an ex-convict whose rap sheet includes two felony narcotics convictions, according to state records. He pleaded guilty in 1997 to a marijuana distribution charge and was put in a shock incarceration program and placed on probation for five years. After violating probation, Heads release was revoked and he was remanded to state prison.

In mid-2003, Head was charged with narcotics trafficking, a felony count to which he later pleaded guilty. The St. Louis native was sentenced to seven years in prison. He was released in June 2008 after serving about five years in custody.

Along with McSpadden, Head is at the center of an ongoing Feguson Police Department investigation of an incident last month during which three vendors selling commemorative Michael Brown merchandise were assaulted. One of the victims, Michael Brown, Sr.'s mother-in-law, identified McSpadden and Head as among the attackers who ransacked her stands and stole $400 in cash and merchandise valued at $1500.

According to USA Today, McSpadden and Head were married earlier this year, before Brown's killing.

Hope he goes to jail. That's dangerously close to terrorism.

No it's not; he's a grieving, angry father.

So? Lots of terrorists have lost loved ones.

So in this country a man has a right to call for vengeance for his son's death. We don't bomb people in Afghanistan because they call out for vengeance on the US just because his child was killed in an air strike, terrorism is a whole other thing. You're just talking charging him for plain incitement, and even that I don't agree with. This is a free country with free speech. I'm sure there are others who maybe we could discuss maybe getting over the line, but the father, no way, let it go.

So I can order a hit on somebody and just claim "free speech?"

No, then you are a conspirator and a principal. - But as long as you're not King Henry talking about Thomas Becket you can say 'I wish someone would put a hit out on this guy, he deserves to die!'

I get what you are saying. The stepdad is a ####### idiot though.

 

[SIDA!]

Michael Brown's Stepfather Urged Protesters To "Burn This ##### Down" After Grand Jury Announcement

Comments(134)

Share

Michael Browns stepfather last night repeatedly urged protesters to Burn this ##### down after a prosecutor announced that no criminal charges would be filed against the Ferguson, Missouri police officer who killed the unarmed teenager.

Louis Head, an ex-con who is married to Browns mother, Lesley McSpadden, was with McSpadden outside the Ferguson Police Department headquarters Monday evening as prosecutor Robert McCulloch disclosed that a grand jury declined to vote an indictment against Officer Darren Wilson in the August 9 shooting.

After consoling a weeping McSpadden, the 38-year-old Head--who was standing atop a platform in the middle of the agitated crowd of several hundred protesters--began screaming Burn this ##### down!" He did this at least ten times, and at one point yelled for a microphone so that he could broadcast his message beyond the range of his unamplified voice.

While trying to incite the crowd, Head (pictured above) was wearing a commemorative t-shirt with the words I Am Mike Brown and a beanie, both of which bore a silkscreened photo of Brown in his high school cap and gown.

In the days preceding the grand jury announcement, McSpadden and Michael Brown, Sr. issued statements calling for peaceful protests in the wake of the panel's decision. Head, however, counseled arson. After a night of chaos and rioting in Ferguson, at least 10 businesses and two police cars were destroyed or damaged by fire, and 61 individuals were arrested.

Head is an ex-convict whose rap sheet includes two felony narcotics convictions, according to state records. He pleaded guilty in 1997 to a marijuana distribution charge and was put in a shock incarceration program and placed on probation for five years. After violating probation, Heads release was revoked and he was remanded to state prison.

In mid-2003, Head was charged with narcotics trafficking, a felony count to which he later pleaded guilty. The St. Louis native was sentenced to seven years in prison. He was released in June 2008 after serving about five years in custody.

Along with McSpadden, Head is at the center of an ongoing Feguson Police Department investigation of an incident last month during which three vendors selling commemorative Michael Brown merchandise were assaulted. One of the victims, Michael Brown, Sr.'s mother-in-law, identified McSpadden and Head as among the attackers who ransacked her stands and stole $400 in cash and merchandise valued at $1500.

According to USA Today, McSpadden and Head were married earlier this year, before Brown's killing.

Hope he goes to jail. That's dangerously close to terrorism.

No it's not; he's a grieving, angry father.

You mean....the step dad who just married the mom?

 

[Bucky86]

Michael Brown's Stepfather Urged Protesters To "Burn This ##### Down" After Grand Jury Announcement

Comments(134)

Share

Michael Browns stepfather last night repeatedly urged protesters to Burn this ##### down after a prosecutor announced that no criminal charges would be filed against the Ferguson, Missouri police officer who killed the unarmed teenager.

Louis Head, an ex-con who is married to Browns mother, Lesley McSpadden, was with McSpadden outside the Ferguson Police Department headquarters Monday evening as prosecutor Robert McCulloch disclosed that a grand jury declined to vote an indictment against Officer Darren Wilson in the August 9 shooting.

After consoling a weeping McSpadden, the 38-year-old Head--who was standing atop a platform in the middle of the agitated crowd of several hundred protesters--began screaming Burn this ##### down!" He did this at least ten times, and at one point yelled for a microphone so that he could broadcast his message beyond the range of his unamplified voice.

While trying to incite the crowd, Head (pictured above) was wearing a commemorative t-shirt with the words I Am Mike Brown and a beanie, both of which bore a silkscreened photo of Brown in his high school cap and gown.

In the days preceding the grand jury announcement, McSpadden and Michael Brown, Sr. issued statements calling for peaceful protests in the wake of the panel's decision. Head, however, counseled arson. After a night of chaos and rioting in Ferguson, at least 10 businesses and two police cars were destroyed or damaged by fire, and 61 individuals were arrested.

Head is an ex-convict whose rap sheet includes two felony narcotics convictions, according to state records. He pleaded guilty in 1997 to a marijuana distribution charge and was put in a shock incarceration program and placed on probation for five years. After violating probation, Heads release was revoked and he was remanded to state prison.

In mid-2003, Head was charged with narcotics trafficking, a felony count to which he later pleaded guilty. The St. Louis native was sentenced to seven years in prison. He was released in June 2008 after serving about five years in custody.

Along with McSpadden, Head is at the center of an ongoing Feguson Police Department investigation of an incident last month during which three vendors selling commemorative Michael Brown merchandise were assaulted. One of the victims, Michael Brown, Sr.'s mother-in-law, identified McSpadden and Head as among the attackers who ransacked her stands and stole $400 in cash and merchandise valued at $1500.

According to USA Today, McSpadden and Head were married earlier this year, before Brown's killing.

Hope he goes to jail. That's dangerously close to terrorism.

No it's not; he's a grieving, angry father.

You mean....the step dad who just married the mom?

So you need to be blood related to grieve?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This is a silly argument. I think we can all agree that Brown weighed a lot more than Wilson but that Wilson also wouldn't be a helpless weakling in a scuffle with Brown.

You might want to do some reading into "Escalation of Force" training for law enforcement officers before making silly statements like the bolded. Once a criminal makes the decision to assault an officer, they essentially defer to the officer's judgement as to what is a reasonable use of counter-force. The criminal actively chose to engage the officer, thereby accepting the fact that that the officer can and will use any force necessary to ensure he minimizes risk of harm to himself and citizens around him.

And you should probably read Tennessee v. Garner.

Or just read my post. I didn't make any statement about whether the use of force was justified or not. I was just noting that the "helpless weakling" narrative presented by Wilson in his testimony (the "Hulk Hogan" line, the general narrative of him being at the mercy of Brown during the altercation by the car) doesn't really hold water.

Straw man. As soon as an individual strikes an officer and engages in a struggle for his weapon, the officer immediately is justified in using leathal force. Period.

For how long? Like, if the guy escapes and gets home, gets a good night's sleep, wakes up the next morning, brews his coffee, and then hears a knock at the door, when he opens the door can the officer shoot him?

Haven't the lines been drawn by now?

I've been out of this thread for a while but it appears things are exactly as I left them.

Did Brown turn and charge the office from just feet away or did the officer have a delay and act out of cruelty and overuse of force? Each in this thread either believes the Brown side or they believe the Wilson side. Or maybe we can admit we don't know.

We know this: a grand jury (of what, 23-24 people?) have heard evidence we have not heard and requiring far less than what is needed at trial have concluded that the policeman is telling the truth.

Twelve. And what evidence do they have that we don't? As far as I know everything was released.

Didn't they hear live testimony? Do we have video of that? I would think not. Credibility determinations are a big part of things.

They did, and we do not. One of the issues some people have is what witnesses were called live and what witnesses were not.

I don't know what the standard is for a grand juror, but my theory on these things is: if there is a fact determination that could go either way to a jury then the jury should hear it.

That is the only way a jury should not hear it is if someone could absolutely say that there is no way they could reach a finding for the prosecution. We know there is a lot of contention here so perhaps I would have been personally hard pressed to make the same call. But, again, credibility of live testimony is a big deal here.

 

[Bucky86]

Does this McCulloch guy do all the questioning of the witnesses?

 

[Cyclones]

I keep hearing that any time a prosecutor wants an indictment he gets one. Is it possible that the prosecutor didn't actually feel one was warranted and didn't actually want one?. Sure sounds like there was zero evidence that Wilson did anything wrong. I would like to think that prosecutors have a shred of decency and don't just go after anybody involved in a shooting. Maybe there was a grand jury simply to be able to say that there was an objective look at this thing.

If a prosecutor who brings a charge in front of a grand jury makes it sound like there's zero evidence that a potential defendant did anything wrong, there's a massive problem.

And McCulloch has a history of improperly helping accused cops in front of grand juries after they kill unarmed black men....

You can't make this #### up.

Wait, so they are using a case in which a drug dealer and his buddy were surrounded by cops, knew they were surrounded by cops, chose to use their car as a weapon and were subsequently shot as evidence that this guy sides with police? WTF ever.

The car in that incident never moved. link (halfway down, paragraph that begins "A subsequent federal investigation ..."

So, yeah. Pretty strong evidence that the guy sides with police.

I'll reiterate what I said earlier about Brown who knew he was caught and chose instead to try and engage Wilson. These guys were busted cold. Put your hands on your head and follow instructions, don't slam the SUV in reverse - what is their intention at that point? If I'm a cop in the vicinity I am assuming they will drive that car as carelessly as possible to try and escape and I open fire.

And read your own link, guy. Some witnesses said the car never moved FORWARD. I don't care what direction a car being driven by a criminal trying to evade capture is going, if I am within range I am emptying a gun into it.

 

[HellToupee]

Its ok he was just grieving.

This thread has turned into a 2004 Mac Vs Windows thread

 

[HellToupee]

Does this McCulloch guy do all the questioning of the witnesses?

 

[Todd Andrews]

I keep hearing that any time a prosecutor wants an indictment he gets one. Is it possible that the prosecutor didn't actually feel one was warranted and didn't actually want one?. Sure sounds like there was zero evidence that Wilson did anything wrong. I would like to think that prosecutors have a shred of decency and don't just go after anybody involved in a shooting. Maybe there was a grand jury simply to be able to say that there was an objective look at this thing.

If a prosecutor who brings a charge in front of a grand jury makes it sound like there's zero evidence that a potential defendant did anything wrong, there's a massive problem.

And McCulloch has a history of improperly helping accused cops in front of grand juries after they kill unarmed black men....

You can't make this #### up.

Wait, so they are using a case in which a drug dealer and his buddy were surrounded by cops, knew they were surrounded by cops, chose to use their car as a weapon and were subsequently shot as evidence that this guy sides with police? WTF ever.

The car in that incident never moved. link (halfway down, paragraph that begins "A subsequent federal investigation ..."

So, yeah. Pretty strong evidence that the guy sides with police.

I'll reiterate what I said earlier about Brown who knew he was caught and chose instead to try and engage Wilson. These guys were busted cold. Put your hands on your head and follow instructions, don't slam the SUV in reverse - what is their intention at that point? If I'm a cop in the vicinity I am assuming they will drive that car as carelessly as possible to try and escape and I open fire.

And read your own link, guy. Some witnesses said the car never moved FORWARD. I don't care what direction a car being driven by a criminal trying to evade capture is going, if I am within range I am emptying a gun into it.

Well, if you are cop standing in front of the car and it goes backwards and you empty your gun into it, you better hope you have a prosecutor like McCulloch covering for you.

 

[skol asylum]

http://pic.twitter.com/hHhxMXWzhn

 

[Bucky86]

Does this McCulloch guy do all the questioning of the witnesses?

?

 

[Cyclones]

I keep hearing that any time a prosecutor wants an indictment he gets one. Is it possible that the prosecutor didn't actually feel one was warranted and didn't actually want one?. Sure sounds like there was zero evidence that Wilson did anything wrong. I would like to think that prosecutors have a shred of decency and don't just go after anybody involved in a shooting. Maybe there was a grand jury simply to be able to say that there was an objective look at this thing.

If a prosecutor who brings a charge in front of a grand jury makes it sound like there's zero evidence that a potential defendant did anything wrong, there's a massive problem.

And McCulloch has a history of improperly helping accused cops in front of grand juries after they kill unarmed black men....

You can't make this #### up.

Wait, so they are using a case in which a drug dealer and his buddy were surrounded by cops, knew they were surrounded by cops, chose to use their car as a weapon and were subsequently shot as evidence that this guy sides with police? WTF ever.

The car in that incident never moved. link (halfway down, paragraph that begins "A subsequent federal investigation ..."

So, yeah. Pretty strong evidence that the guy sides with police.

I'll reiterate what I said earlier about Brown who knew he was caught and chose instead to try and engage Wilson. These guys were busted cold. Put your hands on your head and follow instructions, don't slam the SUV in reverse - what is their intention at that point? If I'm a cop in the vicinity I am assuming they will drive that car as carelessly as possible to try and escape and I open fire.

And read your own link, guy. Some witnesses said the car never moved FORWARD. I don't care what direction a car being driven by a criminal trying to evade capture is going, if I am within range I am emptying a gun into it.

Well, if you are cop standing in front of the car and it goes backwards and you empty your gun into it, you better hope you have a prosecutor like McCulloch covering for you.

The story said the cops had the car surrounded. I'm not a dictionary but I assume that means there were cops in front of, behind, and on each side of the car.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

This is a silly argument. I think we can all agree that Brown weighed a lot more than Wilson but that Wilson also wouldn't be a helpless weakling in a scuffle with Brown.

You might want to do some reading into "Escalation of Force" training for law enforcement officers before making silly statements like the bolded. Once a criminal makes the decision to assault an officer, they essentially defer to the officer's judgement as to what is a reasonable use of counter-force. The criminal actively chose to engage the officer, thereby accepting the fact that that the officer can and will use any force necessary to ensure he minimizes risk of harm to himself and citizens around him.

And you should probably read Tennessee v. Garner.

Or just read my post. I didn't make any statement about whether the use of force was justified or not. I was just noting that the "helpless weakling" narrative presented by Wilson in his testimony (the "Hulk Hogan" line, the general narrative of him being at the mercy of Brown during the altercation by the car) doesn't really hold water.

Straw man. As soon as an individual strikes an officer and engages in a struggle for his weapon, the officer immediately is justified in using leathal force. Period.

For how long? Like, if the guy escapes and gets home, gets a good night's sleep, wakes up the next morning, brews his coffee, and then hears a knock at the door, when he opens the door can the officer shoot him?

Haven't the lines been drawn by now?

I've been out of this thread for a while but it appears things are exactly as I left them.

Did Brown turn and charge the office from just feet away or did the officer have a delay and act out of cruelty and overuse of force? Each in this thread either believes the Brown side or they believe the Wilson side. Or maybe we can admit we don't know.

We know this: a grand jury (of what, 23-24 people?) have heard evidence we have not heard and requiring far less than what is needed at trial have concluded that the policeman is telling the truth.

We don't know. That's kind of the point. I'm reading Dorian Johnson's grand jury testimony right now. According to him, Brown never charged Wilson. Never reached in the car. Wilson initiated the confrontation. Now, I certainly understand why a jury might choose to disregard Johnson's testimony in a criminal trial. A jury is entitled to find Darren Wilson more credible than Dorian Johnson or vice versa. But at this stage, such weighing of credibility is really not the grand jury's role. Nor would an eyewitness like Johnson typically be cross-examined in the way that he appears to have been in this transcript (they continually come back to the convenience store robbery, which isn't really relevant). Maybe more grand jury proceedings should be that way. But if so, that should be a protection that isn't only enjoyed by law enforcement officers.

I mentioned this to Henry but live testimony is a whole other cat - the jurors make credibility determinations. Do you not think it possible that the jurors just did not believe Johnson?

It makes a huge difference in an actual criminal trial. But it really shouldn't in a probable cause hearing according to Supreme Court precedent. According to Illinois v. Gates, there need only be a "fair probability" that criminal activity occurred. When material facts are disputed, as they are here, that fair probability exists. Now grand juries are people. I'm comfortable enough with any situation where four people are just reluctant to find evidence that crime occurred.

But I'm not really comfortable with the idea that the prosecution picks and chooses which cases those grand juries receive an impartial even-handed presentation of the evidence and those cases (such as the cases relating to my clients) where grand juries receive the more typical one-sided presentation (in fact, as a general rule prosecutors are not required to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury).

 

[SIDA!]

Michael Brown's Stepfather Urged Protesters To "Burn This ##### Down" After Grand Jury Announcement

Comments(134)

Share

Michael Browns stepfather last night repeatedly urged protesters to Burn this ##### down after a prosecutor announced that no criminal charges would be filed against the Ferguson, Missouri police officer who killed the unarmed teenager.

Louis Head, an ex-con who is married to Browns mother, Lesley McSpadden, was with McSpadden outside the Ferguson Police Department headquarters Monday evening as prosecutor Robert McCulloch disclosed that a grand jury declined to vote an indictment against Officer Darren Wilson in the August 9 shooting.

After consoling a weeping McSpadden, the 38-year-old Head--who was standing atop a platform in the middle of the agitated crowd of several hundred protesters--began screaming Burn this ##### down!" He did this at least ten times, and at one point yelled for a microphone so that he could broadcast his message beyond the range of his unamplified voice.

While trying to incite the crowd, Head (pictured above) was wearing a commemorative t-shirt with the words I Am Mike Brown and a beanie, both of which bore a silkscreened photo of Brown in his high school cap and gown.

In the days preceding the grand jury announcement, McSpadden and Michael Brown, Sr. issued statements calling for peaceful protests in the wake of the panel's decision. Head, however, counseled arson. After a night of chaos and rioting in Ferguson, at least 10 businesses and two police cars were destroyed or damaged by fire, and 61 individuals were arrested.

Head is an ex-convict whose rap sheet includes two felony narcotics convictions, according to state records. He pleaded guilty in 1997 to a marijuana distribution charge and was put in a shock incarceration program and placed on probation for five years. After violating probation, Heads release was revoked and he was remanded to state prison.

In mid-2003, Head was charged with narcotics trafficking, a felony count to which he later pleaded guilty. The St. Louis native was sentenced to seven years in prison. He was released in June 2008 after serving about five years in custody.

Along with McSpadden, Head is at the center of an ongoing Feguson Police Department investigation of an incident last month during which three vendors selling commemorative Michael Brown merchandise were assaulted. One of the victims, Michael Brown, Sr.'s mother-in-law, identified McSpadden and Head as among the attackers who ransacked her stands and stole $400 in cash and merchandise valued at $1500.

According to USA Today, McSpadden and Head were married earlier this year, before Brown's killing.

Hope he goes to jail. That's dangerously close to terrorism.

No it's not; he's a grieving, angry father.

You mean....the step dad who just married the mom?

So you need to be blood related to grieve?

Do you know how to ####### read? He said the dude was a "grieving, angry father". He is not the father.

Maybe I am wrong and Michael Brown had two dads. Just think, blessed with two fathers when so many young black men grow up with none and he still turned out to be a thug. Just sad.

 

[Todd Andrews]

I keep hearing that any time a prosecutor wants an indictment he gets one. Is it possible that the prosecutor didn't actually feel one was warranted and didn't actually want one?. Sure sounds like there was zero evidence that Wilson did anything wrong. I would like to think that prosecutors have a shred of decency and don't just go after anybody involved in a shooting. Maybe there was a grand jury simply to be able to say that there was an objective look at this thing.

If a prosecutor who brings a charge in front of a grand jury makes it sound like there's zero evidence that a potential defendant did anything wrong, there's a massive problem.

And McCulloch has a history of improperly helping accused cops in front of grand juries after they kill unarmed black men....

You can't make this #### up.

Wait, so they are using a case in which a drug dealer and his buddy were surrounded by cops, knew they were surrounded by cops, chose to use their car as a weapon and were subsequently shot as evidence that this guy sides with police? WTF ever.

The car in that incident never moved. link (halfway down, paragraph that begins "A subsequent federal investigation ..."

So, yeah. Pretty strong evidence that the guy sides with police.

I'll reiterate what I said earlier about Brown who knew he was caught and chose instead to try and engage Wilson. These guys were busted cold. Put your hands on your head and follow instructions, don't slam the SUV in reverse - what is their intention at that point? If I'm a cop in the vicinity I am assuming they will drive that car as carelessly as possible to try and escape and I open fire.

And read your own link, guy. Some witnesses said the car never moved FORWARD. I don't care what direction a car being driven by a criminal trying to evade capture is going, if I am within range I am emptying a gun into it.

Well, if you are cop standing in front of the car and it goes backwards and you empty your gun into it, you better hope you have a prosecutor like McCulloch covering for you.

The story said the cops had the car surrounded. I'm not a dictionary but I assume that means there were cops in front of, behind, and on each side of the car.

The only two officers who shot were in front of the car, which didnt move forward towards them, even though they lied and said it did.

 

[Cyclones]

This is a silly argument. I think we can all agree that Brown weighed a lot more than Wilson but that Wilson also wouldn't be a helpless weakling in a scuffle with Brown.

You might want to do some reading into "Escalation of Force" training for law enforcement officers before making silly statements like the bolded. Once a criminal makes the decision to assault an officer, they essentially defer to the officer's judgement as to what is a reasonable use of counter-force. The criminal actively chose to engage the officer, thereby accepting the fact that that the officer can and will use any force necessary to ensure he minimizes risk of harm to himself and citizens around him.

And you should probably read Tennessee v. Garner.

Or just read my post. I didn't make any statement about whether the use of force was justified or not. I was just noting that the "helpless weakling" narrative presented by Wilson in his testimony (the "Hulk Hogan" line, the general narrative of him being at the mercy of Brown during the altercation by the car) doesn't really hold water.

Straw man. As soon as an individual strikes an officer and engages in a struggle for his weapon, the officer immediately is justified in using leathal force. Period.

For how long? Like, if the guy escapes and gets home, gets a good night's sleep, wakes up the next morning, brews his coffee, and then hears a knock at the door, when he opens the door can the officer shoot him?

Haven't the lines been drawn by now?

I've been out of this thread for a while but it appears things are exactly as I left them.

Did Brown turn and charge the office from just feet away or did the officer have a delay and act out of cruelty and overuse of force? Each in this thread either believes the Brown side or they believe the Wilson side. Or maybe we can admit we don't know.

We know this: a grand jury (of what, 23-24 people?) have heard evidence we have not heard and requiring far less than what is needed at trial have concluded that the policeman is telling the truth.

We don't know. That's kind of the point. I'm reading Dorian Johnson's grand jury testimony right now. According to him, Brown never charged Wilson. Never reached in the car. Wilson initiated the confrontation. Now, I certainly understand why a jury might choose to disregard Johnson's testimony in a criminal trial. A jury is entitled to find Darren Wilson more credible than Dorian Johnson or vice versa. But at this stage, such weighing of credibility is really not the grand jury's role. Nor would an eyewitness like Johnson typically be cross-examined in the way that he appears to have been in this transcript (they continually come back to the convenience store robbery, which isn't really relevant). Maybe more grand jury proceedings should be that way. But if so, that should be a protection that isn't only enjoyed by law enforcement officers.

I mentioned this to Henry but live testimony is a whole other cat - the jurors make credibility determinations. Do you not think it possible that the jurors just did not believe Johnson?

It makes a huge difference in an actual criminal trial. But it really shouldn't in a probable cause hearing according to Supreme Court precedent. According to Illinois v. Gates, there need only be a "fair probability" that criminal activity occurred. When material facts are disputed, as they are here, that fair probability exists. Now grand juries are people. I'm comfortable enough with any situation where four people are just reluctant to find evidence that crime occurred.

But I'm not really comfortable with the idea that the prosecution picks and chooses which cases those grand juries receive an impartial even-handed presentation of the evidence and those cases (such as the cases relating to my clients) where grand juries receive the more typical one-sided presentation (in fact, as a general rule prosecutors are not required to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury).

This doesn't make any sense to me. If a prosecutor is aware of exculpatory evidence, why would he even convene a grand jury when he knows said evidence would be introduced at trial? Seems contradictory to the way the system is set up and also like a massive waste of time.

 

[bryhamm]

Michael Brown's Stepfather Urged Protesters To "Burn This ##### Down" After Grand Jury Announcement

Comments(134)

Share

Michael Browns stepfather last night repeatedly urged protesters to Burn this ##### down after a prosecutor announced that no criminal charges would be filed against the Ferguson, Missouri police officer who killed the unarmed teenager.

Louis Head, an ex-con who is married to Browns mother, Lesley McSpadden, was with McSpadden outside the Ferguson Police Department headquarters Monday evening as prosecutor Robert McCulloch disclosed that a grand jury declined to vote an indictment against Officer Darren Wilson in the August 9 shooting.

After consoling a weeping McSpadden, the 38-year-old Head--who was standing atop a platform in the middle of the agitated crowd of several hundred protesters--began screaming Burn this ##### down!" He did this at least ten times, and at one point yelled for a microphone so that he could broadcast his message beyond the range of his unamplified voice.

While trying to incite the crowd, Head (pictured above) was wearing a commemorative t-shirt with the words I Am Mike Brown and a beanie, both of which bore a silkscreened photo of Brown in his high school cap and gown.

In the days preceding the grand jury announcement, McSpadden and Michael Brown, Sr. issued statements calling for peaceful protests in the wake of the panel's decision. Head, however, counseled arson. After a night of chaos and rioting in Ferguson, at least 10 businesses and two police cars were destroyed or damaged by fire, and 61 individuals were arrested.

Head is an ex-convict whose rap sheet includes two felony narcotics convictions, according to state records. He pleaded guilty in 1997 to a marijuana distribution charge and was put in a shock incarceration program and placed on probation for five years. After violating probation, Heads release was revoked and he was remanded to state prison.

In mid-2003, Head was charged with narcotics trafficking, a felony count to which he later pleaded guilty. The St. Louis native was sentenced to seven years in prison. He was released in June 2008 after serving about five years in custody.

Along with McSpadden, Head is at the center of an ongoing Feguson Police Department investigation of an incident last month during which three vendors selling commemorative Michael Brown merchandise were assaulted. One of the victims, Michael Brown, Sr.'s mother-in-law, identified McSpadden and Head as among the attackers who ransacked her stands and stole $400 in cash and merchandise valued at $1500.

According to USA Today, McSpadden and Head were married earlier this year, before Brown's killing.

Hope he goes to jail. That's dangerously close to terrorism.

No it's not; he's a grieving, angry father.

Except he's not the father.

 

[Billy Bats]

YES!!! MOAR QUOTES!!!!

 

[Cold Dead Hands]

if an armed mob is encroaching upon me, I'm guessing I have a right to defend myself.

This conversation is ridiculous. No business is worth a person's life, regardless of whether that life belongs to the owner or to the rioter.

He's talking about defending himself.

No, he wasn't. I deleted a number of nested quotes. This was in the context of putting himself in harms way to defend his business.

 

[Todd Andrews]

You might want to do some reading into "Escalation of Force" training for law enforcement officers before making silly statements like the bolded. Once a criminal makes the decision to assault an officer, they essentially defer to the officer's judgement as to what is a reasonable use of counter-force. The criminal actively chose to engage the officer, thereby accepting the fact that that the officer can and will use any force necessary to ensure he minimizes risk of harm to himself and citizens around him.

And you should probably read Tennessee v. Garner.

Or just read my post. I didn't make any statement about whether the use of force was justified or not. I was just noting that the "helpless weakling" narrative presented by Wilson in his testimony (the "Hulk Hogan" line, the general narrative of him being at the mercy of Brown during the altercation by the car) doesn't really hold water.

Straw man. As soon as an individual strikes an officer and engages in a struggle for his weapon, the officer immediately is justified in using leathal force. Period.

For how long? Like, if the guy escapes and gets home, gets a good night's sleep, wakes up the next morning, brews his coffee, and then hears a knock at the door, when he opens the door can the officer shoot him?

Haven't the lines been drawn by now?

I've been out of this thread for a while but it appears things are exactly as I left them.

Did Brown turn and charge the office from just feet away or did the officer have a delay and act out of cruelty and overuse of force? Each in this thread either believes the Brown side or they believe the Wilson side. Or maybe we can admit we don't know.

We know this: a grand jury (of what, 23-24 people?) have heard evidence we have not heard and requiring far less than what is needed at trial have concluded that the policeman is telling the truth.

We don't know. That's kind of the point. I'm reading Dorian Johnson's grand jury testimony right now. According to him, Brown never charged Wilson. Never reached in the car. Wilson initiated the confrontation. Now, I certainly understand why a jury might choose to disregard Johnson's testimony in a criminal trial. A jury is entitled to find Darren Wilson more credible than Dorian Johnson or vice versa. But at this stage, such weighing of credibility is really not the grand jury's role. Nor would an eyewitness like Johnson typically be cross-examined in the way that he appears to have been in this transcript (they continually come back to the convenience store robbery, which isn't really relevant). Maybe more grand jury proceedings should be that way. But if so, that should be a protection that isn't only enjoyed by law enforcement officers.

I mentioned this to Henry but live testimony is a whole other cat - the jurors make credibility determinations. Do you not think it possible that the jurors just did not believe Johnson?

It makes a huge difference in an actual criminal trial. But it really shouldn't in a probable cause hearing according to Supreme Court precedent. According to Illinois v. Gates, there need only be a "fair probability" that criminal activity occurred. When material facts are disputed, as they are here, that fair probability exists. Now grand juries are people. I'm comfortable enough with any situation where four people are just reluctant to find evidence that crime occurred.

But I'm not really comfortable with the idea that the prosecution picks and chooses which cases those grand juries receive an impartial even-handed presentation of the evidence and those cases (such as the cases relating to my clients) where grand juries receive the more typical one-sided presentation (in fact, as a general rule prosecutors are not required to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury).

This doesn't make any sense to me. If a prosecutor is aware of exculpatory evidence, why would he even convene a grand jury when he knows said evidence would be introduced at trial? Seems contradictory to the way the system is set up and also like a massive waste of time.

Prosecutors have discretion to just charge someone without a grand jury, or convene one. The argument is that when it comes to cop shootings, McCuloch uses grand juries to avoid charges, presents what he wants, and then there are no indictments. If he wanted to, he could have just charged Wilson and let a criminal trial sort things out. People are arguing he did this for political cover.

 

[timschochet]

I mentioned this last night but it may have gotten lost in this very long thread: back during the Rodney King riots, I heard rumors of landlords I knew who paid cash to some guys already looting to burn down their shopping centers in north Long Beach- if you know the city at all, this happened on Atlantic Avenue, near Artesia, which was in the thick of the riots. Never been able to confirm this story but at least one of those landlords made out like a bandit. His crumbling, crappy old building burned to the ground, and he replaced it with a brand new shopping center, all paid for by insurance. That new center, 22 years later, still looks good and is filled with tenants.

 

[Cyclones]

I'm at a loss here. We are talking about CRIMINALS choosing to engage cops in phsyical altercations, whether it be with fists (Brown) or the drug dealers from the 2001 story that was posted.

There are plenty of valid race issues in this country. Why people choose to go to battle over whether criminals who put public servants' lives in danger with their bad choices and end up getting shot is beyond me. If you don't want to get shot, stop putting yourself in a position where getting shot is a fairly likely outcome.

 

[kentric]

Don't get caught with a dime bag then. Simple.


Want me to be more sympathetic to the idea blacks are unequally targeted by cops? Start showing me examples of blacks who are doing nothing wrong yet still getting busted/harassed. In almost all of these cases we hear about, these individuals were in the process of breaking the law and/or had warrants out for previous crimes. Don't be a troublemaker and then try to cry about people are looking at you as a troublemaker.

Seriously? There's anecdotal evidence of that everywhere. You are familiar with the term "driving while black"?

No question racial profiling goes on. But don't use this case as an example.

Please don't. The fact the black community is hanging there hat on a case like this shows a complete lack of any intelligence and common sense. This kid did things that led to his untimely demise.

HE PHYSICALLY ASSAULTED A POLICE OFFICER. It will never end well when you try to do that. Especially when you are far larger than said officer.

Officer Wilson is 6'4 210 lbs, the same height as Brown, and was an armed police officer who presumably had some training in fighting/subduing suspects without the use of a weapon. Brown was just fatter than him- that's literally the only "advantage" he would have had in a fight. The narrative that Wilson was some sort of tiny helpless weakling that Brown could easily pummel is just one of many piles of that people are lapping up without bothering to check the facts.

Also, maybe don't run around calling other people "dumb" and "so freaking ignorant" until you sort out the difference between "there" and "their."

They may have been the same height, but the initial conflict appears to have been Brown leaning into the car with Wilson seated or at least constrained. There is a huge difference in the leverage one can get punching down at someone while standing up versus seated.

 

[Hilts]

Do you know how to ####### read? He said the dude was a "grieving, angry father". He is not the father.

Yes he was. Biological father? No.

 

[Todd Andrews]

I'm at a loss here. We are talking about CRIMINALS choosing to engage cops in phsyical altercations, whether it be with fists (Brown) or the drug dealers from the 2001 story that was posted.

There are plenty of valid race issues in this country. Why people choose to go to battle over whether criminals who put public servants' lives in danger with their bad choices and end up getting shot is beyond me. If you don't want to get shot, stop putting yourself in a position where getting shot is a fairly likely outcome.

Well, some people dont always believe the police when they claim they were threatened after they kill someone.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Michael Brown's Stepfather Urged Protesters To "Burn This ##### Down" After Grand Jury Announcement

Comments(134)

Share

Michael Browns stepfather last night repeatedly urged protesters to Burn this ##### down after a prosecutor announced that no criminal charges would be filed against the Ferguson, Missouri police officer who killed the unarmed teenager.

Louis Head, an ex-con who is married to Browns mother, Lesley McSpadden, was with McSpadden outside the Ferguson Police Department headquarters Monday evening as prosecutor Robert McCulloch disclosed that a grand jury declined to vote an indictment against Officer Darren Wilson in the August 9 shooting.

After consoling a weeping McSpadden, the 38-year-old Head--who was standing atop a platform in the middle of the agitated crowd of several hundred protesters--began screaming Burn this ##### down!" He did this at least ten times, and at one point yelled for a microphone so that he could broadcast his message beyond the range of his unamplified voice.

While trying to incite the crowd, Head (pictured above) was wearing a commemorative t-shirt with the words I Am Mike Brown and a beanie, both of which bore a silkscreened photo of Brown in his high school cap and gown.

In the days preceding the grand jury announcement, McSpadden and Michael Brown, Sr. issued statements calling for peaceful protests in the wake of the panel's decision. Head, however, counseled arson. After a night of chaos and rioting in Ferguson, at least 10 businesses and two police cars were destroyed or damaged by fire, and 61 individuals were arrested.

Head is an ex-convict whose rap sheet includes two felony narcotics convictions, according to state records. He pleaded guilty in 1997 to a marijuana distribution charge and was put in a shock incarceration program and placed on probation for five years. After violating probation, Heads release was revoked and he was remanded to state prison.

In mid-2003, Head was charged with narcotics trafficking, a felony count to which he later pleaded guilty. The St. Louis native was sentenced to seven years in prison. He was released in June 2008 after serving about five years in custody.

Along with McSpadden, Head is at the center of an ongoing Feguson Police Department investigation of an incident last month during which three vendors selling commemorative Michael Brown merchandise were assaulted. One of the victims, Michael Brown, Sr.'s mother-in-law, identified McSpadden and Head as among the attackers who ransacked her stands and stole $400 in cash and merchandise valued at $1500.

According to USA Today, McSpadden and Head were married earlier this year, before Brown's killing.

Hope he goes to jail. That's dangerously close to terrorism.

No it's not; he's a grieving, angry father.

You mean....the step dad who just married the mom?

So you need to be blood related to grieve?

Is the mom the woman with the extremely red hair?

 

[CGRdrJoe]

So seeing how this is a fantasy football site... Now is the perfect time for the NFL to reinstate AP and anyone else, half the media is at the water fountain washing out their eyes and half the Country is busy watching CNN/Foxnews.

 

[SIDA!]

if an armed mob is encroaching upon me, I'm guessing I have a right to defend myself.

This conversation is ridiculous. No business is worth a person's life, regardless of whether that life belongs to the owner or to the rioter.

He's talking about defending himself.

No, he wasn't. I deleted a number of nested quotes. This was in the context of putting himself in harms way to defend his business.

Yes. With the person inside the business. Are you of the opinion that a business owner should be banned from defending his business in a time of civil unrest and that should he choose to occupy his business that he should be banned from defending himself from being attacked?

 

[Eminence]

I'm at a loss here. We are talking about CRIMINALS choosing to engage cops in phsyical altercations, whether it be with fists (Brown) or the drug dealers from the 2001 story that was posted.

There are plenty of valid race issues in this country. Why people choose to go to battle over whether criminals who put public servants' lives in danger with their bad choices and end up getting shot is beyond me. If you don't want to get shot, stop putting yourself in a position where getting shot is a fairly likely outcome.

Well, some people dont always believe the police when they claim they were threatened after they kill someone.

Which totally you know, justifies burning down your own community.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Don't have time to catch up on all the posts from last night. So, can someone summarize:

1) Are the resident liberals in here still clamoring for their "civil rights moment" so they can tell everyone in 10 years that they were alive "when that thing happened" and that they "fought the good fight" so they can feel good about themselves?

2) How many times has Tim changed his position?

3) Is Todd Andrews still claiming he's an "independent"?

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Don't have time to catch up on all the posts from last night. So, can someone summarize:

1) Are the resident liberals in here still clamoring for their "civil rights moment" so they can tell everyone in 10 years that they were alive "when that thing happened" and that they "fought the good fight" so they can feel good about themselves?

2) How many times has Tim changed his position?

3) Is Todd Andrews still claiming he's an "independent"?

1. yes

2. at least once

3. not that I know of.

 

[Todd Andrews]

I'm at a loss here. We are talking about CRIMINALS choosing to engage cops in phsyical altercations, whether it be with fists (Brown) or the drug dealers from the 2001 story that was posted.

There are plenty of valid race issues in this country. Why people choose to go to battle over whether criminals who put public servants' lives in danger with their bad choices and end up getting shot is beyond me. If you don't want to get shot, stop putting yourself in a position where getting shot is a fairly likely outcome.

Well, some people dont always believe the police when they claim they were threatened after they kill someone.

Which totally you know, justifies burning down your own community.

shoo...

The grownups are talking.

 

[Cyclones]

Don't have time to catch up on all the posts from last night. So, can someone summarize:

1) Are the resident liberals in here still clamoring for their "civil rights moment" so they can tell everyone in 10 years that they were alive "when that thing happened" and that they "fought the good fight" so they can feel good about themselves?

2) How many times has Tim changed his position?

3) Is Todd Andrews still claiming he's an "independent"?

1) Not really

2) 5

3) Todd seems to be pretty fair in this thread even though I disagree with him.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Don't have time to catch up on all the posts from last night. So, can someone summarize:

1) Are the resident liberals in here still clamoring for their "civil rights moment" so they can tell everyone in 10 years that they were alive "when that thing happened" and that they "fought the good fight" so they can feel good about themselves?

2) How many times has Tim changed his position?

3) Is Todd Andrews still claiming he's an "independent"?

I am a lifelong independent.

 

[Cyclones]

I'm at a loss here. We are talking about CRIMINALS choosing to engage cops in phsyical altercations, whether it be with fists (Brown) or the drug dealers from the 2001 story that was posted.

There are plenty of valid race issues in this country. Why people choose to go to battle over whether criminals who put public servants' lives in danger with their bad choices and end up getting shot is beyond me. If you don't want to get shot, stop putting yourself in a position where getting shot is a fairly likely outcome.

Well, some people dont always believe the police when they claim they were threatened after they kill someone.

Which totally you know, justifies burning down your own community.

shoo...

The grownups are talking.

I was about to do a 180 on my position simply based on the fact that Eminence seems to be on my side of things.

 

[SIDA!]

Here are the thoughts of Michael Brown's step-father from two days ago:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/11/mike-browns-step-dad-releases-statement-acting-like-an-animal-will-not-solve-problems/

Fast forward two days...

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Don't have time to catch up on all the posts from last night. So, can someone summarize:

1) Are the resident liberals in here still clamoring for their "civil rights moment" so they can tell everyone in 10 years that they were alive "when that thing happened" and that they "fought the good fight" so they can feel good about themselves?

2) How many times has Tim changed his position?

3) Is Todd Andrews still claiming he's an "independent"?

1. yes

2. at least once

3. not that I know of. yes just now

 

[Eminence]

I'm at a loss here. We are talking about CRIMINALS choosing to engage cops in phsyical altercations, whether it be with fists (Brown) or the drug dealers from the 2001 story that was posted.

There are plenty of valid race issues in this country. Why people choose to go to battle over whether criminals who put public servants' lives in danger with their bad choices and end up getting shot is beyond me. If you don't want to get shot, stop putting yourself in a position where getting shot is a fairly likely outcome.

Well, some people dont always believe the police when they claim they were threatened after they kill someone.

Which totally you know, justifies burning down your own community.

shoo...

The grownups are talking.

I'm also closer in age to the victim and the people who are actually causing the looting.There's nothing to debate. A race wants to commit crime in high numbers and then play some race card to justify their actions.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Don't have time to catch up on all the posts from last night. So, can someone summarize:

1) Are the resident liberals in here still clamoring for their "civil rights moment" so they can tell everyone in 10 years that they were alive "when that thing happened" and that they "fought the good fight" so they can feel good about themselves?

2) How many times has Tim changed his position?

3) Is Todd Andrews still claiming he's an "independent"?

1) Not really

2) 5

3) Todd seems to be pretty fair in this thread even though I disagree with him.

Thank you. I am not saying I think Wilson should be convicted of anything, but I am definitely more skeptical than most when it comes to the claims of law enforcement.

 

[Cyclones]

Here are the thoughts of Michael Brown's step-father from two days ago:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/11/mike-browns-step-dad-releases-statement-acting-like-an-animal-will-not-solve-problems/

Fast forward two days...

Based on Head's history, I put the over/under percentage that he actually wrote that at .5%, and I am HAMMERING the under.

 

[bryhamm]

Here are the thoughts of Michael Brown's step-father from two days ago:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/11/mike-browns-step-dad-releases-statement-acting-like-an-animal-will-not-solve-problems/

Fast forward two days...

And add to this that he (step father) knew there was going to be no indictment about 45 minutes prior. He went down to the mob and waited until it was announced before he decided to incite the mob.

 

[Todd Andrews]

I'm at a loss here. We are talking about CRIMINALS choosing to engage cops in phsyical altercations, whether it be with fists (Brown) or the drug dealers from the 2001 story that was posted.

There are plenty of valid race issues in this country. Why people choose to go to battle over whether criminals who put public servants' lives in danger with their bad choices and end up getting shot is beyond me. If you don't want to get shot, stop putting yourself in a position where getting shot is a fairly likely outcome.

Well, some people dont always believe the police when they claim they were threatened after they kill someone.

Which totally you know, justifies burning down your own community.

shoo...

The grownups are talking.

I was about to do a 180 on my position simply based on the fact that Eminence seems to be on my side of things.

Very troubling. lol

 

[Eminence]

Even if Darren Wilson did shoot Michael Brown in cold blood, nothing justifies burning down your own neighborhood.

Especially when you consider how much more black on white violence there is than white on black.

We gave a bunch of thugs an opportunity to act out and they took it. I hope the nation wises up and tries to educate these pockets of lower class citizens in our nation.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

2) How many times has Tim changed his position?

Might as well ask how many licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop. Nobody knows the exact number, but we know it's pretty large.

 

[HellToupee]

Don't have time to catch up on all the posts from last night. So, can someone summarize:

1) Are the resident liberals in here still clamoring for their "civil rights moment" so they can tell everyone in 10 years that they were alive "when that thing happened" and that they "fought the good fight" so they can feel good about themselves?

2) How many times has Tim changed his position?

3) Is Todd Andrews still claiming he's an "independent"?

I am a lifelong independent.

Same here

 

[Bucky86]

This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by Eminence. View it anyway?

Is it still speaking?

 

[avoiding injuries]

http://vine.co/v/O1HrTmhEdiP

Rock hitting reporter

 

[Eminence]

This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by Eminence. View it anyway?

Is it still speaking?

Bucky, I'm quite certain nobody here likes you. I never see anybody even respond back to anything you say.

I am probably much more well spoken and likable than you in real life.