Looting in Missouri after cops shoot 18 year old (2 Viewers)

[lod01]

Too bad a bunch of so called 'witnesses' lied to the media who then fanned the flames and here we are. If no one would have lied, we would have come to the conclusion we have today without business burning down, without a bunch of idiots across the country walking around saying 'hands up, don't shoot' and a police officer wouldn't have lost his career. Oh.... and people would not be rallying around a thief.

 

[squistion]

Too bad a bunch of so called 'witnesses' lied to the media who then fanned the flames and here we are. If no one would have lied, we would have come to the conclusion we have today without business burning down, without a bunch of idiots across the country walking around saying 'hands up, don't shoot' and a police officer wouldn't have lost his career. Oh.... and people would not be rallying around a thief.

 

[Hilts]

Too bad a bunch of so called 'witnesses' lied to the media who then fanned the flames and here we are. If no one would have lied, we would have come to the conclusion we have today without business burning down, without a bunch of idiots across the country walking around saying 'hands up, don't shoot' and a police officer wouldn't have lost his career. Oh.... and people would not be rallying around a thief.

Witnesses are often unreliable. Not because they're deliberately lying, but because they often don't actually see what happened. Their mind/eyes/memory play tricks on them. They're being honest with what they think they saw/remember. They just didn't see/remember what went down.

What is imo inexcusable is how poorly the police department handled the 'investigation'. With a lot more openness/communication with the community, I think it's possible some of the effects could have been mitigated (no, I don't even remotely support vandalizing/looting in the name of 'boycotting' or 'protesting').

 

[Henry Ford]

I've heard that Officer Wilson appeared on TV this weekend and came out in support of cameras on policemen. I've been unsure of how I felt about it , but now I'm leaning in favor. Do you guys agree this is a good idea?

What is the argument against body cameras (other than maybe cost)?

The storage requirements for video are staggering. As such there will be protocols for storage durations before video is destroyed. Setting these retention policies will create potential time consuming due process arguments by defense Attorneys whose clients video was not retained. Also, there will inevitably be charges that the video is one-sided, after all it will be the Cops who decide where to point the cameras, when to turn them on, and when off. ( Most systems will automatically arm whenever an officer steps foot outside of their patrol car. Most units also have 30 seconds previous to arming automatically retained. Officers will have the ability to arm the system in their cars. Officers will also have the ability to disarm the system for privacy concerns -rape victims, juvenile victims- but that ability will always be suspect.) Finally, Plaintiff's attorneys will ceaselessly seek video hoping that incidents they are involved with may have been picked up by video wholly unrelated to their matter. Until the Courts come to some understanding on limiting wild fishing expeditions in civil matters having video will mean having crippling amounts of time and resources going to searching that video in response to Criminal Justice records Requests and Subpoenas Duces Tecum.Most large Departments are moving rapidly to implement body cameras. They will be standard within a year. The concerns, valid though they are, are not sufficient to deter most Departments from moving responsibly towards this protection now that technology has made it somewhat affordable. I note that the technology for this was developed by several companies, including Tazer International, not at the behest of citizen advocacy groups, but at the behest of Police departments.

I have seen proprietary studies of the use and effectiveness of these systems and it is remarkable how often good and true citizens will lie to Cops or about Cops when they are unaware they are being recorded. One would not be exaggerating to say that the majority of complaints most Departments received during these studies are fabricated by defendants trying to achieve leverage in their criminal suit, or for a possible civil suit. Now that said I do note that the Officers using the cameras for most evaluation periods tend to be the best officers a Department has, and they had the advantage of knowing they were on tape will the citizens did not. One is unlikely to act poorly when on tape. In the end it is that fact which is significant. Officers who might otherwise been abusive or untruthful will now have to comport themselves far better. In my experience these Officers are few and far between, somewhere less than 1% of the average police force. Unfortunately with the Officers who are problems they work 200 shifts or so each year, often contacting dozens of citizens on each shift, meaning that even one bad Officer can generate potentially thousands of bad interactions in a year.

I have no doubt that this is where the major sticking point is in a lot of discussions on police misconduct. Admittedly, my viewpoint is skewed by the facts that:1. I file lawsuits against police officers/departments who I believe have violated someone's civil rights on a semi-regular basis; and

2. I'm dealing with Louisiana police officers.

I think #2 may be a big issue for me. Louisiana, especially southeast Louisiana, has a pretty long and storied history with police corruption, and I don't think I could say that less than 1% of the officers around here are abusive or untruthful with a straight face.

There certainly are Departments, regions, and specific units that seem t defy the odds. Louisiana, particularly the parishes around N.O have some notorious problems, as have N.Y.P.D. Chicago P.D., L.A.P.D. (we all remember Darrell gates, no?) and Miami and Dade County agencies, particularly those involved in narcotics. We could probably have some interesting discussions. One of my favorite issues is that there are attorney's who will fight the firing of Cops for abuses, after all the Cops have rights, while other attorneys demand to know why specific cops are still on the force. A bit of a Catch 22 at times, but that is the nature of public service and any who do not like it out to get out of public service.

I'd love to hear your favorite story about Cops. Every litigator has one.

I can't really discuss my favorite stories about corrupt officers. The settlements usually include some kind of confidentiality provision.

Indeed, not in any great specificity, but sometimes issues well defined are plenty. that said I have limits to what I will write on this board as well. Prudence first.BTW, I edited my earlier post to distinguish between those officers who may resort to excessive force and those who will bend, break, or stomp on the truth.

"He slipped and hurt himself" while in custody is a pretty popular theme.

 

[parasaurolophus]

So wait, Tim, can I use as a legit source "I heard it on talk radio"?

Not sure about Tim, but Hang10 would have no problem with that.

This whole tangent is one of the reasons people hate Tim. He sure has taken Hang 10 to task here for doing the exact thing he has done a number of times.

 

[Yenrub]

But the ignorant public that is making a spectacle out of this case with "Hands Up Don't Shoot" is beyond belief and strikes to a bigger problem that we have people in our country of law and order (to the best of our ability) basically saying the police are all corrupt, they all racially profile and gun down innocent black men, shooting them in the back

Exhibit #1,549,832

I probably shouldn't have but for some reason I found that funny

 

[kentric]

I don't get the whole pile on Tim thing. He may not always be correct, but at least he has *some* sense of intellect about him, unlike many others here....

I dunno. Is it because he posts a lot?

It's not the magnitude of posts (though that doesn't help). It's the sheer arrogance in which he expresses an opinion and vaguely or blatantly insults the opposition. He'll often change his stance and immediately start questioning the intelligence/thinking of how anyone could dare to believe what he himself was just taking the side of. It's the fact he regularly asks for information, claims he'll read it later, but never actually gets around to reading it, but goes ahead and asks questions that the ignored post would have answered. Hell, it's the fact he clearly posts articles/links and argues points that he doesn't remotely understand. Among many other issues.He seems plenty nice and clearly tries hard to fit in. Perhaps I've given him entirely too much credit and he's actually sporting a rather low IQ, but it seems he has some intelligence. He lacks a lot of common sense and seemingly has a low EQ. At times he's a real asset to the board. On a lot of other occasions he's an insufferable pseudo intellectual who inadvertently hijacks quality threads by saying or doing mind numbingly moronic things.

Fair enough.

Love the reply.

 

[timschochet]

So wait, Tim, can I use as a legit source "I heard it on talk radio"?

Not sure about Tim, but Hang10 would have no problem with that.

This whole tangent is one of the reasons people hate Tim. He sure has taken Hang 10 to task here for doing the exact thing he has done a number of times.

First off, let me just say, the only people that hate me here are #######s . They don't need reasons. Second, while I often repeat what I've heard on the radio and elsewhere, I don't represent it as fact, which is what Hang 10 did. For further clarification please read my sig.

 

[kentric]

Turning Michael Brown into a really bad guy is just as wrong, IMO, as turning him into some kind of hero. I think Michael Brown was a stupid thug. But he was only a teenager and his death is a tragedy, because he might have grown up into something better. Who knows?

Everybody seems to want their stories tied into nice neat bows, good and evil. If you believe that Michael Brown was wrongfully killed, then you need Brown to become pristine, a great guy who never did anyone any harm. If you believe that Wilson was justified, then you need to turn Brown into something evil under a rock. Real life is never that smooth; it's murky.

I have teenagers. They don't go around stealing and assaulting people. Not to mention the potential murder and altercation with Wilson.

then your teenagers, like mine , are much better people than Michael Brown. That has nothing to do with whether or not Brown deserved to die.

No, but his actions leading up to his death had a say in him dying - deservedly or not, he is dead because of his and Wilson's actions.

He would not be dead if he didn't steal the cigars and assault the storekeeper;

He would not be dead if he didn't walk down the middle of the street;

He would not be dead if he didn't confront Wilson at the car;

He would not be dead if he didn't go back toward Wilson.

Yes, none of the above is worthy of death, but they obviously culminated in Brown's death.

No. I do not know what actually happened. Was Brown running toward Wilson or just ambling over to Wilson.

 

[Bucky86]

But the ignorant public that is making a spectacle out of this case with "Hands Up Don't Shoot" is beyond belief and strikes to a bigger problem that we have people in our country of law and order (to the best of our ability) basically saying the police are all corrupt, they all racially profile and gun down innocent black men, shooting them in the back

Exhibit #1,549,832

I probably shouldn't have but for some reason I found that funny

I enjoyed that.

 

[kentric]

I've heard that Officer Wilson appeared on TV this weekend and came out in support of cameras on policemen. I've been unsure of how I felt about it , but now I'm leaning in favor. Do you guys agree this is a good idea?

What is the argument against body cameras (other than maybe cost)?

Invasion of privacy.

Difficult argument from the police officer's perspective. From the person who is being confronted by the officer, it should be pretty easy to have the video sealed unless required for supporting a charge. I'm pretty sure the primary reason they are not used now is the cost. There would have to be a federal subsidy involved to bring the use of cameras national. My solution for this would be to have it as a requirement for the military and then instantaneously say that they are not needed. Can you say military surplus? ;-)

 

[Hang 10]

So wait, Tim, can I use as a legit source "I heard it on talk radio"?

Not sure about Tim, but Hang10 would have no problem with that.

This whole tangent is one of the reasons people hate Tim. He sure has taken Hang 10 to task here for doing the exact thing he has done a number of times.

First off, let me just say, the only people that hate me here are #######s . They don't need reasons. Second, while I often repeat what I've heard on the radio and elsewhere, I don't represent it as fact, which is what Hang 10 did. For further clarification please read my sig.

I guess when you've got nothing left, you make the argument about semantics. The statement of fact is you calling Wilson a liar. This despite the fact there are witnesses that corroborated Wilson's story. Is there any dispute about any of this?

 

[Zow]

I've heard that Officer Wilson appeared on TV this weekend and came out in support of cameras on policemen. I've been unsure of how I felt about it , but now I'm leaning in favor. Do you guys agree this is a good idea?

What is the argument against body cameras (other than maybe cost)?

Invasion of privacy.

Don't agree with that. County and state empoloyees, paid by tax payers and pensions provided by the tax payers. They can wear cameras on company time.

Not the officers' privacy.

The current jurisdictions that use them only require that they be activated during a live call.

 

[parasaurolophus]

So wait, Tim, can I use as a legit source "I heard it on talk radio"?

Not sure about Tim, but Hang10 would have no problem with that.

This whole tangent is one of the reasons people hate Tim. He sure has taken Hang 10 to task here for doing the exact thing he has done a number of times.

First off, let me just say, the only people that hate me here are #######s . They don't need reasons.Second, while I often repeat what I've heard on the radio and elsewhere, I don't represent it as fact, which is what Hang 10 did. For further clarification please read my sig.

Lets not pretend that you putting that signature at the bottom of your posts somehow makes your crap slinging ok. Hang 10 made a statement. You make statements all the time. His source was rudy, your source is frequently thin air or "I heard it on talk radio". Sometimes you even write "IMO" in your post. Why would you ever write that if everything is supposed to be taken as your opinion? Sometimes you use the word "absolutely". Does that count as your opinion still or is that one of those times that it is "otherwise stated".

Lets be honest Tim. You have that sig because you fear legal action and somehow think that would protect you.

FYI...

Can my opinion be defamatory?No—but merely labeling a statement as your "opinion" does not make it so. Courts look at whether a reasonable reader or listener could understand the statement as asserting a statement of verifiable fact. (A verifiable fact is one capable of being proven true or false.) This is determined in light of the context of the statement. A few courts have said that statements made in the context of an Internet bulletin board or chat room are highly likely to be opinions or hyperbole, but they do look at the remark in context to see if it's likely to be seen as a true, even if controversial, opinion ("I really hate George Lucas' new movie") rather than an assertion of fact dressed up as an opinion ("It's my opinion that Trinity is the hacker who broke into the IRS database").

https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/defamation

 

[Zow]

I've heard that Officer Wilson appeared on TV this weekend and came out in support of cameras on policemen. I've been unsure of how I felt about it , but now I'm leaning in favor. Do you guys agree this is a good idea?

What is the argument against body cameras (other than maybe cost)?

The storage requirements for video are staggering. As such there will be protocols for storage durations before video is destroyed. Setting these retention policies will create potential time consuming due process arguments by defense Attorneys whose clients video was not retained. Also, there will inevitably be charges that the video is one-sided, after all it will be the Cops who decide where to point the cameras, when to turn them on, and when off. ( Most systems will automatically arm whenever an officer steps foot outside of their patrol car. Most units also have 30 seconds previous to arming automatically retained. Officers will have the ability to arm the system in their cars. Officers will also have the ability to disarm the system for privacy concerns -rape victims, juvenile victims- but that ability will always be suspect.) Finally, Plaintiff's attorneys will ceaselessly seek video hoping that incidents they are involved with may have been picked up by video wholly unrelated to their matter. Until the Courts come to some understanding on limiting wild fishing expeditions in civil matters having video will mean having crippling amounts of time and resources going to searching that video in response to Criminal Justice records Requests and Subpoenas Duces Tecum.

Most large Departments are moving rapidly to implement body cameras. They will be standard within a year. The concerns, valid though they are, are not sufficient to deter most Departments from moving responsibly towards this protection now that technology has made it somewhat affordable. I note that the technology for this was developed by several companies, including Tazer International, not at the behest of citizen advocacy groups, but at the behest of Police departments.

I have seen proprietary studies of the use and effectiveness of these systems and it is remarkable how often good and true citizens will lie to Cops or about Cops when they are unaware they are being recorded. One would not be exaggerating to say that the majority of complaints most Departments received during these studies are fabricated by defendants trying to achieve leverage in their criminal suit, or for a possible civil suit. Now that said I do note that the Officers using the cameras for most evaluation periods tend to be the best officers a Department has, and they had the advantage of knowing they were on tape will the citizens did not. One is unlikely to act poorly when on tape. In the end it is that fact which is significant. Officers who might otherwise been abusive or untruthful will now have to comport themselves far better. In my experience these Officers are few and far between, somewhere less than 1% of the average police force. Unfortunately with the Officers who are problems they work 200 shifts or so each year, often contacting dozens of citizens on each shift, meaning that even one bad Officer can generate potentially thousands of bad interactions in a year.

I'd like to chime in on this issue later. In short though, from a defense attorney's prospective these body cameras make sliced bread look like jump to conclusion mats.

 

[timschochet]

So wait, Tim, can I use as a legit source "I heard it on talk radio"?

Not sure about Tim, but Hang10 would have no problem with that.

This whole tangent is one of the reasons people hate Tim. He sure has taken Hang 10 to task here for doing the exact thing he has done a number of times.

First off, let me just say, the only people that hate me here are #######s . They don't need reasons. Second, while I often repeat what I've heard on the radio and elsewhere, I don't represent it as fact, which is what Hang 10 did. For further clarification please read my sig.

I guess when you've got nothing left, you make the argument about semantics. The statement of fact is you calling Wilson a liar. This despite the fact there are witnesses that corroborated Wilson's story. Is there any dispute about any of this?

Yes. I offered my opinion that Wilson was lying about the charge by Brown. I've explained several times why I thought that, you don't need to hear me go through it again. But I've never offered it as anything but my opinion, which is why I always used words such as likely, unlikely, probably, etc.

 

[belljr]

anybody post Charles Barkley yet

 

[SIDA!]

So wait, Tim, can I use as a legit source "I heard it on talk radio"?

Not sure about Tim, but Hang10 would have no problem with that.

This whole tangent is one of the reasons people hate Tim. He sure has taken Hang 10 to task here for doing the exact thing he has done a number of times.

First off, let me just say, the only people that hate me here are #######s . They don't need reasons.Second, while I often repeat what I've heard on the radio and elsewhere, I don't represent it as fact, which is what Hang 10 did. For further clarification please read my sig.

I thought you only gave your opinion a couple of times in this thread.

 

[Hang 10]

So wait, Tim, can I use as a legit source "I heard it on talk radio"?

Not sure about Tim, but Hang10 would have no problem with that.

This whole tangent is one of the reasons people hate Tim. He sure has taken Hang 10 to task here for doing the exact thing he has done a number of times.

First off, let me just say, the only people that hate me here are #######s . They don't need reasons. Second, while I often repeat what I've heard on the radio and elsewhere, I don't represent it as fact, which is what Hang 10 did. For further clarification please read my sig.

I guess when you've got nothing left, you make the argument about semantics. The statement of fact is you calling Wilson a liar. This despite the fact there are witnesses that corroborated Wilson's story. Is there any dispute about any of this?

Yes. I offered my opinion that Wilson was lying about the charge by Brown. I've explained several times why I thought that, you don't need to hear me go through it again. But I've never offered it as anything but my opinion, which is why I always used words such as likely, unlikely, probably, etc.

Oh so it was just an opinion that Wilson obviously lied? Maybe the statement of fact was you calling anyone that believed him stupid.

 

[Widbil83]

Al Sharpton meeting yet again today at the White House for some reason.

 

[SIDA!]

anybody post Charles Barkley yet

He isn't black enough to count.

 

[SIDA!]

So wait, Tim, can I use as a legit source "I heard it on talk radio"?

Not sure about Tim, but Hang10 would have no problem with that.

This whole tangent is one of the reasons people hate Tim. He sure has taken Hang 10 to task here for doing the exact thing he has done a number of times.

First off, let me just say, the only people that hate me here are #######s . They don't need reasons.Second, while I often repeat what I've heard on the radio and elsewhere, I don't represent it as fact, which is what Hang 10 did. For further clarification please read my sig.

I guess when you've got nothing left, you make the argument about semantics. The statement of fact is you calling Wilson a liar. This despite the fact there are witnesses that corroborated Wilson's story. Is there any dispute about any of this?

Yes. I offered my opinion that Wilson was lying about the charge by Brown. I've explained several times why I thought that, you don't need to hear me go through it again. But I've never offered it as anything but my opinion, which is why I always used words such as likely, unlikely, probably, etc.

He believes that Wilson lied about Brown charging at him but has no opinion/does not think it relevant to analyze or look at the order in which shots were fired and where they hit Brown.

 

[Hang 10]

anybody post Charles Barkley yet

Yes, Tobias already dismissed Barkley as knowing absolutely nothing (and certainly less than Tobias himself) about being black and poor in present day America. This despite Barkley growing up of modest means and, well, being black.

Yeah Barkley is far too rich and old to still be black.

 

[timschochet]

We have a bigger problem here that needs to be discussed: first off, I want to re-emphasize that even with my disagreement with most of you about what actually happened, I don't believe there was enough evidence to indict Officer Wilson of a crime. And I certainly don't believe that he ever would have been convicted of a crime. On those fundamental points most of us posting here are in agreement.

Which leads to the problem: although there has been no polling as of yet, it seems pretty clear over the last few days that a majority of blacks, probably a strong majority, believe this result (no indictment) was a gross injustice. In fact, I am betting that this will be the biggest divide between blacks and whites since the OJ trial, and basically for the same reason: whites trust the police. Blacks don't. Yes these are generalities, but they are generally true.

What are we to do about this?

No matter what steps are taken to try to get black people to trust the police more, blacks will always distrust the police far more than whites because blacks will continue to get arrested at a higher rate than whites. Black people will argue the disparte black arrest rate is indicative of police discrimination. Others will correctly note that the higher black arrest rate is due to a higher rate of blacks committing crime. No amount of dialogue or tweaking the system will have a dramatic change on arrest rates, and no amount of dialogue or tweaking the system will change how blacks view the disparate arrest rate.

Tim,

Now that you're back do you have any interest replying to my response to your question? It's fine if you don't. I wasn't sure if you got tied up with other matters or if you didn't like my accurate response.

Anyway, extensive dialouge, considerable attempts to address black concerns, and significant investment in the black community have occurred for the past fifty years now. Despite, that dialouge, investment, and good faith effort numerous American cities are currently expereincing protests as is if that dialogue and investment had never occurred. Ferguson is up in flames like American urban centers nearly a half century ago. Do you think the situation will be any different in the coming decades?

Olaf I have been thinking about what you wrote, quite deeply in fact. I think you're more of a pessimist than I am. There are ways to improve this situation. When I have time I'll post a longer reply.

Tim, it's been several days and several hundred posts since you wrote the highlighted. I'll gladly grant you an extension because I know you're a busy man who doesn't like to waste time.

Sorry Olaf, still on my iPhone. I appreciate your persistence (and your sarcasm!) I'd start with the fact that we begin at two different points. You believe the main issue is the high level of arrest rates for black males. I think the main issue is the lack of dignity afforded to black males . It is my contention that if only 5% of all black males found themselves in trouble with the law, they would still be treated differently, with less respect. The differences are , IMO, more rooted in history and culture than they are in current crime statistics . And I say they can be solved. Through dialogue. Through more restrictions on police practices: mainly an absolute end to racial profiling. Through better education. But in order to accomplish that we need to take a hard look at ourselves as a nation and realize that we are all a bit, or a lot, responsible for this situation. Neither blacks nor cops can solve it by themselves.

 

[lod01]

anybody post Charles Barkley yet

He isn't black enough to count.

He sold out by becoming successful.

 

[timschochet]

Al Sharpton meeting yet again today at the White House for some reason.

this is an embarrassment for President Obama, and for the White House. It is repugnant to me that this man is meeting with the POTUS.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I've heard that Officer Wilson appeared on TV this weekend and came out in support of cameras on policemen. I've been unsure of how I felt about it , but now I'm leaning in favor. Do you guys agree this is a good idea?

What is the argument against body cameras (other than maybe cost)?

The storage requirements for video are staggering. As such there will be protocols for storage durations before video is destroyed. Setting these retention policies will create potential time consuming due process arguments by defense Attorneys whose clients video was not retained. Also, there will inevitably be charges that the video is one-sided, after all it will be the Cops who decide where to point the cameras, when to turn them on, and when off. ( Most systems will automatically arm whenever an officer steps foot outside of their patrol car. Most units also have 30 seconds previous to arming automatically retained. Officers will have the ability to arm the system in their cars. Officers will also have the ability to disarm the system for privacy concerns -rape victims, juvenile victims- but that ability will always be suspect.) Finally, Plaintiff's attorneys will ceaselessly seek video hoping that incidents they are involved with may have been picked up by video wholly unrelated to their matter. Until the Courts come to some understanding on limiting wild fishing expeditions in civil matters having video will mean having crippling amounts of time and resources going to searching that video in response to Criminal Justice records Requests and Subpoenas Duces Tecum.Most large Departments are moving rapidly to implement body cameras. They will be standard within a year. The concerns, valid though they are, are not sufficient to deter most Departments from moving responsibly towards this protection now that technology has made it somewhat affordable. I note that the technology for this was developed by several companies, including Tazer International, not at the behest of citizen advocacy groups, but at the behest of Police departments.

I have seen proprietary studies of the use and effectiveness of these systems and it is remarkable how often good and true citizens will lie to Cops or about Cops when they are unaware they are being recorded. One would not be exaggerating to say that the majority of complaints most Departments received during these studies are fabricated by defendants trying to achieve leverage in their criminal suit, or for a possible civil suit. Now that said I do note that the Officers using the cameras for most evaluation periods tend to be the best officers a Department has, and they had the advantage of knowing they were on tape will the citizens did not. One is unlikely to act poorly when on tape. In the end it is that fact which is significant. Officers who might otherwise been abusive or untruthful will now have to comport themselves far better. In my experience these Officers are few and far between, somewhere less than 1% of the average police force. Unfortunately with the Officers who are problems they work 200 shifts or so each year, often contacting dozens of citizens on each shift, meaning that even one bad Officer can generate potentially thousands of bad interactions in a year.

I have no doubt that this is where the major sticking point is in a lot of discussions on police misconduct. Admittedly, my viewpoint is skewed by the facts that:1. I file lawsuits against police officers/departments who I believe have violated someone's civil rights on a semi-regular basis; and

2. I'm dealing with Louisiana police officers.

I think #2 may be a big issue for me. Louisiana, especially southeast Louisiana, has a pretty long and storied history with police corruption, and I don't think I could say that less than 1% of the officers around here are abusive or untruthful with a straight face.

There certainly are Departments, regions, and specific units that seem t defy the odds. Louisiana, particularly the parishes around N.O have some notorious problems, as have N.Y.P.D. Chicago P.D., L.A.P.D. (we all remember Darrell gates, no?) and Miami and Dade County agencies, particularly those involved in narcotics. We could probably have some interesting discussions. One of my favorite issues is that there are attorney's who will fight the firing of Cops for abuses, after all the Cops have rights, while other attorneys demand to know why specific cops are still on the force. A bit of a Catch 22 at times, but that is the nature of public service and any who do not like it out to get out of public service.

I'd love to hear your favorite story about Cops. Every litigator has one.

I can't really discuss my favorite stories about corrupt officers. The settlements usually include some kind of confidentiality provision.

Indeed, not in any great specificity, but sometimes issues well defined are plenty. that said I have limits to what I will write on this board as well. Prudence first.BTW, I edited my earlier post to distinguish between those officers who may resort to excessive force and those who will bend, break, or stomp on the truth.

"He slipped and hurt himself" while in custody is a pretty popular theme.

Back in the day Milwaukee had a Police Chief, Chief Harold Breier. He didn't need the national guard during the 68 riots, he had his own tanks before having tanks was cool. He was a law and order sort of guy. Three times during my young adult hood Milwaukee Cops were shot and killed or crippled and the suspect was captured not killed during apprehension. This was unusual as back in those days Cop Killers were almost always killed during apprehension. At any rate I would take bets with my less cynical friends on how soon the suspect would slip and fall on the jail's back stairway. My contention was that these guys always slipped and fell. Interestingly some of them would manage to put their handcuffed hands out in front of themselves to break their fall and would break all of their fingers in the process. The long and short of the story is that I never lost the bet. They all slipped and fell. It seemed that there was an unusual amount of condensation on those cold concrete steps that coupled with the paint job rendered them unusually slippery when cop killing prisoners were being transported.

Fortunately things have improved massively over the years, though some will not believe that. Improved is not to say, however, that there are still not pockets of abuse or corruption. I do think those old ways are mostly things of the past in most Departments and will be dying out with my generation.

 

[Hang 10]

Al Sharpton meeting yet again today at the White House for some reason.

Newly appointed reparations czar.

 

[timschochet]

DW and Henry Ford having a magnificent discussion in here.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I've heard that Officer Wilson appeared on TV this weekend and came out in support of cameras on policemen. I've been unsure of how I felt about it , but now I'm leaning in favor. Do you guys agree this is a good idea?

What is the argument against body cameras (other than maybe cost)?

The storage requirements for video are staggering. As such there will be protocols for storage durations before video is destroyed. Setting these retention policies will create potential time consuming due process arguments by defense Attorneys whose clients video was not retained. Also, there will inevitably be charges that the video is one-sided, after all it will be the Cops who decide where to point the cameras, when to turn them on, and when off. ( Most systems will automatically arm whenever an officer steps foot outside of their patrol car. Most units also have 30 seconds previous to arming automatically retained. Officers will have the ability to arm the system in their cars. Officers will also have the ability to disarm the system for privacy concerns -rape victims, juvenile victims- but that ability will always be suspect.) Finally, Plaintiff's attorneys will ceaselessly seek video hoping that incidents they are involved with may have been picked up by video wholly unrelated to their matter. Until the Courts come to some understanding on limiting wild fishing expeditions in civil matters having video will mean having crippling amounts of time and resources going to searching that video in response to Criminal Justice records Requests and Subpoenas Duces Tecum.

Most large Departments are moving rapidly to implement body cameras. They will be standard within a year. The concerns, valid though they are, are not sufficient to deter most Departments from moving responsibly towards this protection now that technology has made it somewhat affordable. I note that the technology for this was developed by several companies, including Tazer International, not at the behest of citizen advocacy groups, but at the behest of Police departments.

I have seen proprietary studies of the use and effectiveness of these systems and it is remarkable how often good and true citizens will lie to Cops or about Cops when they are unaware they are being recorded. One would not be exaggerating to say that the majority of complaints most Departments received during these studies are fabricated by defendants trying to achieve leverage in their criminal suit, or for a possible civil suit. Now that said I do note that the Officers using the cameras for most evaluation periods tend to be the best officers a Department has, and they had the advantage of knowing they were on tape will the citizens did not. One is unlikely to act poorly when on tape. In the end it is that fact which is significant. Officers who might otherwise been abusive or untruthful will now have to comport themselves far better. In my experience these Officers are few and far between, somewhere less than 1% of the average police force. Unfortunately with the Officers who are problems they work 200 shifts or so each year, often contacting dozens of citizens on each shift, meaning that even one bad Officer can generate potentially thousands of bad interactions in a year.

I'd like to chime in on this issue later. In short though, from a defense attorney's prospective these body cameras make sliced bread look like jump to conclusion mats.

They will certainly not be a panacea. They are going to be the standard in the industry. There is no turning back now. They will not so much end arguments as shift the ground argued over. I suppose that will be refreshing. Were I Defense Counsel I would be leery of "evidence" that is produced, directed by, written, and performed by, at least in part, the Police. When folks think about this some, when they get who points the camera and who directs action by asking certain questions, by keeping combatants in view of each other or separating them, by a million subtleties and less than subtleties they will get that video is not objective.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

But the ignorant public that is making a spectacle out of this case with "Hands Up Don't Shoot" is beyond belief and strikes to a bigger problem that we have people in our country of law and order (to the best of our ability) basically saying the police are all corrupt, they all racially profile and gun down innocent black men, shooting them in the back

Exhibit #1,549,832

I probably shouldn't have but for some reason I found that funny

Now THAT would have been a justifiable shooting ...jesus ,what an idiot.

 

[SIDA!]

But the ignorant public that is making a spectacle out of this case with "Hands Up Don't Shoot" is beyond belief and strikes to a bigger problem that we have people in our country of law and order (to the best of our ability) basically saying the police are all corrupt, they all racially profile and gun down innocent black men, shooting them in the back

Exhibit #1,549,832

I probably shouldn't have but for some reason I found that funny

Now THAT would have been a justifiable shooting ...jesus ,what an idiot.

Hey BK...a few pages back I posted last night asking for clarification about the shot to the arm you were referring to and linked to the private and official autopsies. When you get a chance can you clarify which one you are referring to? If you could copy and paste some of the text about the specific wound in the description or some other citation I would appreciate. Thanks.

 

[squistion]

Al Sharpton meeting yet again today at the White House for some reason.

this is an embarrassment for President Obama, and for the White House. It is repugnant to me that this man is meeting with the POTUS.

Tim, he was just one of many Civil Rights leaders who met with Obama today. Like it or not, your view of him is not shared by a majority of African Americans and he is considered by them a legitimate spokesman for the black community on matters of race relations. I don't want to debate with you Sharpton's past or positions, just pointing that not everyone considers his meeting with Obama the embarrassment you do.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

But the ignorant public that is making a spectacle out of this case with "Hands Up Don't Shoot" is beyond belief and strikes to a bigger problem that we have people in our country of law and order (to the best of our ability) basically saying the police are all corrupt, they all racially profile and gun down innocent black men, shooting them in the back

Exhibit #1,549,832

I probably shouldn't have but for some reason I found that funny

Now THAT would have been a justifiable shooting ...jesus ,what an idiot.

Hey BK...a few pages back I posted last night asking for clarification about the shot to the arm you were referring to and linked to the private and official autopsies. When you get a chance can you clarify which one you are referring to? If you could copy and paste some of the text about the specific wound in the description or some other citation I would appreciate. Thanks.

This was the bullet wound in question....i had also heard forensic expert on tv talk about that wound to the forearm ...he said it went in at an upward angle ...i dont see that stated like that here .

Perhaps most important, the ME carefully explained how he was able to identify entry points and exit points for the wounds to Brown. With regard to the wounds on the torso and head, there were no wounds from the back (197:18). With regard to the arms, there was only one injury that was from the back — an injury to “the posterior portion of the right forearm” (198:25). The ME indicated that it is extremely difficult to identify, from bullet wounds, the position of the arms at the time of a shot because “you’ve got . . . an elbow joint, you have a shoulder joint and then the wrist, you have a lot of mobility within that arm and it can be in a lot of scenarios” (133:11).

 

[MaxThreshold]

Al Sharpton meeting yet again today at the White House for some reason.

this is an embarrassment for President Obama, and for the White House. It is repugnant to me that this man is meeting with the POTUS.

Tim, he was just one of many Civil Rights leaders who met with Obama today. Like it or not, your view of him is not shared by a majority of African Americans and he is considered by them a legitimate spokesman for the black community on matters of race relations. I don't want to debate with you Sharpton's past or positions, just pointing that not everyone considers his meeting with Obama the embarrassment you do.

Oh my gosh. That's simply ridiculous. Not going to get very far with Sharpton as your spokeseman. Most people see him nothing more than a race-baiting clown.

 

[timschochet]

Al Sharpton meeting yet again today at the White House for some reason.

this is an embarrassment for President Obama, and for the White House. It is repugnant to me that this man is meeting with the POTUS.

Tim, he was just one of many Civil Rights leaders who met with Obama today. Like it or not, your view of him is not shared by a majority of African Americans and he is considered by them a legitimate spokesman for the black community on matters of race relations. I don't want to debate with you Sharpton's past or positions, just pointing that not everyone considers his meeting with Obama the embarrassment you do.

the world would be a much better place if everyone agreed with me.

 

[SIDA!]

But the ignorant public that is making a spectacle out of this case with "Hands Up Don't Shoot" is beyond belief and strikes to a bigger problem that we have people in our country of law and order (to the best of our ability) basically saying the police are all corrupt, they all racially profile and gun down innocent black men, shooting them in the back

Exhibit #1,549,832

I probably shouldn't have but for some reason I found that funny

Now THAT would have been a justifiable shooting ...jesus ,what an idiot.

Hey BK...a few pages back I posted last night asking for clarification about the shot to the arm you were referring to and linked to the private and official autopsies. When you get a chance can you clarify which one you are referring to? If you could copy and paste some of the text about the specific wound in the description or some other citation I would appreciate. Thanks.

This was the bullet wound in question....i had also heard forensic expert on tv talk about that wound to the forearm ...he said it went in at an upward angle ...i dont see that stated like that here .

Perhaps most important, the ME carefully explained how he was able to identify entry points and exit points for the wounds to Brown. With regard to the wounds on the torso and head, there were no wounds from the back (197:18). With regard to the arms, there was only one injury that was from the back — an injury to “the posterior portion of the right forearm” (198:25). The ME indicated that it is extremely difficult to identify, from bullet wounds, the position of the arms at the time of a shot because “you’ve got . . . an elbow joint, you have a shoulder joint and then the wrist, you have a lot of mobility within that arm and it can be in a lot of scenarios” (133:11).

I am not sure where that text is from. Is #8 on page 4 of this link the shot you are referring to?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/national/ferguson-documents/img/autopsy/report-one.pdf

 

[timschochet]

Al Sharpton meeting yet again today at the White House for some reason.

this is an embarrassment for President Obama, and for the White House. It is repugnant to me that this man is meeting with the POTUS.

You are aware that Sharpton is Obama's primary advisor on race matters and has been for some time, right? The two meet all the time.

Politico: Al Sharpton Becomes Obama's Race Ambassador (August 2014)

Obama's New Partner: Al Sharpton (March 2010)

Al Sharpton: Im Helping Obama Pick Eric Holders Replacement

Yes. It's nauseating. And I'm a guy that agrees with President Obama on most racial issues. But Sharpton is a not a good person.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Al Sharpton meeting yet again today at the White House for some reason.

this is an embarrassment for President Obama, and for the White House. It is repugnant to me that this man is meeting with the POTUS.

Tim, he was just one of many Civil Rights leaders who met with Obama today. Like it or not, your view of him is not shared by a majority of African Americans and he is considered by them a legitimate spokesman for the black community on matters of race relations. I don't want to debate with you Sharpton's past or positions, just pointing that not everyone considers his meeting with Obama the embarrassment you do.

the world would be a much better place if everyone agreed with me.

The world would be a better place if we stopped referring to Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and their ilk as Civil Rights leaders when they concern themselves almost exclusively with black interests while ignoring civil rights violations to other groups and even occasionally taking pot-shots at other groups . Do you think that Sharpton and the other "civil rights leaders" will discuss the Bosnian guy having his right to not have craters in his skull violated? Doubtful. A little truth in advertising would be nice. Sharpton and company are black interests leaders, not civil rights leaders.

Correction: They are self-serving black interest "leaders". At this point, they don't come out and get all outraged unless it involves some personal gain.

 

[jon_mx]

Al Sharpton meeting yet again today at the White House for some reason.

this is an embarrassment for President Obama, and for the White House. It is repugnant to me that this man is meeting with the POTUS.

You are aware that Sharpton is Obama's primary advisor on race matters and has been for some time, right? The two meet all the time.

Politico: Al Sharpton Becomes Obama's Race Ambassador (August 2014)

Obama's New Partner: Al Sharpton (March 2010)

Al Sharpton: Im Helping Obama Pick Eric Holders Replacement

Yes. It's nauseating.And I'm a guy that agrees with President Obama on most racial issues. But Sharpton is a not a good person.

Yeah, it was better much when Obama had the level-headed Rev. Wright to advise him.

 

[timschochet]

Al Sharpton meeting yet again today at the White House for some reason.

this is an embarrassment for President Obama, and for the White House. It is repugnant to me that this man is meeting with the POTUS.

Tim, he was just one of many Civil Rights leaders who met with Obama today. Like it or not, your view of him is not shared by a majority of African Americans and he is considered by them a legitimate spokesman for the black community on matters of race relations. I don't want to debate with you Sharpton's past or positions, just pointing that not everyone considers his meeting with Obama the embarrassment you do.

the world would be a much better place if everyone agreed with me.

The world would be a better place if we stopped referring to Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and their ilk as Civil Rights leaders when they concern themselves almost exclusively with black interests while ignoring civil rights violations to other groups and even occasionally taking pot-shots at other groups . Do you think that Sharpton and the other "civil rights leaders" will discuss the Bosnian guy having his right to not have craters in his skull violated? Doubtful. A little truth in advertising would be nice. Sharpton and company are black interests leaders, not civil rights leaders.

I'm not a fan of Jesse Jackson by any means, but compared to Al Sharpton he's a saint. I don't like putting them in the same grouping, frankly.

However, I have heard both men stick up for many other minorities, especially Native Americans and Latinos. So I don't agree with you. As for Bosnians, today is the first day in my entire life I've ever heard it discussed that being Bosnian in this country might subject you to ill-treatment. Forgive me if I'm a little skeptical of that charge. (For the sake of clarification: my father was born on the Bosnian border and so, technically, I guess I'm half Bosnian myself.)

 

[Hang 10]

 

[General Tso]

Farrakhan:

Jefferson, oops I mean Ferguson

Can't die soon enough... The only thing worse than a belligerent, loud mouthed racist is a senile, belligerent, loud mouthed racist.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

But the ignorant public that is making a spectacle out of this case with "Hands Up Don't Shoot" is beyond belief and strikes to a bigger problem that we have people in our country of law and order (to the best of our ability) basically saying the police are all corrupt, they all racially profile and gun down innocent black men, shooting them in the back

Exhibit #1,549,832

I probably shouldn't have but for some reason I found that funny

Now THAT would have been a justifiable shooting ...jesus ,what an idiot.

Hey BK...a few pages back I posted last night asking for clarification about the shot to the arm you were referring to and linked to the private and official autopsies. When you get a chance can you clarify which one you are referring to? If you could copy and paste some of the text about the specific wound in the description or some other citation I would appreciate. Thanks.

This was the bullet wound in question....i had also heard forensic expert on tv talk about that wound to the forearm ...he said it went in at an upward angle ...i dont see that stated like that here .

Perhaps most important, the ME carefully explained how he was able to identify entry points and exit points for the wounds to Brown. With regard to the wounds on the torso and head, there were no wounds from the back (197:18). With regard to the arms, there was only one injury that was from the back — an injury to “the posterior portion of the right forearm” (198:25). The ME indicated that it is extremely difficult to identify, from bullet wounds, the position of the arms at the time of a shot because “you’ve got . . . an elbow joint, you have a shoulder joint and then the wrist, you have a lot of mobility within that arm and it can be in a lot of scenarios” (133:11).

I am not sure where that text is from. Is #8 on page 4 of this link the shot you are referring to?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/national/ferguson-documents/img/autopsy/report-one.pdf

based on what i read i would agree with that...and i will admit it doesnt prove much either way so its irrelevant at best...never mind lol

 

[SIDA!]

But the ignorant public that is making a spectacle out of this case with "Hands Up Don't Shoot" is beyond belief and strikes to a bigger problem that we have people in our country of law and order (to the best of our ability) basically saying the police are all corrupt, they all racially profile and gun down innocent black men, shooting them in the back

Exhibit #1,549,832

I probably shouldn't have but for some reason I found that funny

Now THAT would have been a justifiable shooting ...jesus ,what an idiot.

Hey BK...a few pages back I posted last night asking for clarification about the shot to the arm you were referring to and linked to the private and official autopsies. When you get a chance can you clarify which one you are referring to? If you could copy and paste some of the text about the specific wound in the description or some other citation I would appreciate. Thanks.

This was the bullet wound in question....i had also heard forensic expert on tv talk about that wound to the forearm ...he said it went in at an upward angle ...i dont see that stated like that here .

Perhaps most important, the ME carefully explained how he was able to identify entry points and exit points for the wounds to Brown. With regard to the wounds on the torso and head, there were no wounds from the back (197:18). With regard to the arms, there was only one injury that was from the back — an injury to “the posterior portion of the right forearm” (198:25). The ME indicated that it is extremely difficult to identify, from bullet wounds, the position of the arms at the time of a shot because “you’ve got . . . an elbow joint, you have a shoulder joint and then the wrist, you have a lot of mobility within that arm and it can be in a lot of scenarios” (133:11).

I am not sure where that text is from. Is #8 on page 4 of this link the shot you are referring to?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/national/ferguson-documents/img/autopsy/report-one.pdf

based on what i read i would agree with that...and i will admit it doesnt prove much either way so its irrelevant at best...never mind lol

Yeah. The autopsy says the bullet entered the dorsal forearm which would be the side that is exposed if you are a surgeon who has just scrubbed and has their hands out. Almost like the reverse hands up in a freezing/don't shoot manner we customarily think of with cops and bad guys.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Descriptions of Brown’s movements

CHARGING

​

“like he was going to run right through me”

“When he charged once more”

“started charging towards the officer”

“I thought he was trying to charge him”

WALKING BACK

​

“it wasn't fast enough to be a charge”

“casually walking ”

“he picked up a little bit of speed”

“taking two small steps ”

TURNED AROUND

​

“turn around facing the officer”

“he was turned around”

“I saw him turn to his right”

“turned around”

“I see Big Mike turn around and face the officer”

“He turned around”

FALLING

​

“Michael Brown was on his knees”

“he was just catching his balance”

SURRENDER

​

“kept saying, I got, my hands is up”

“he was walking in a demeanor as I give up”

“okay, okay, okay, hands up”

“he put his arms about shoulder length and just stopped”

“Mike Brown with his arms up”

“he was giving up”

“he was not close at all to him”
Read the complete statements:


“Just coming straight at me like he was going to run right through me.”

Read original – Grand Jury Volume 5, page 229

Officer Darren Wilson

​

“Mike Brown continuously came forward in the charging motion and at some point, at one point he started to slow down and he came to a stop. And when he stopped, that's when the officer ceased fire and when he ceased fired, Mike Brown started to charge once more at him. When he charged once more, the officer returned fire with, I would say, give an estimate of three to four shots. And that's when Mike Brown finally collapsed right about even with this driveway.”

Read original – Grand Jury Volume 6 , page 167

Witness walking to his vehicle parked nearby.

​

“Then Michael turned around and started charging towards the officer and the officer still yelling stop. He did have his firearm drawn, but he was yelling stop, stop, stop. He didn't so he started shooting him.”

Read original – Grand Jury Volume 18, page 27

Witness sitting in van with her family.

​

“I thought he was trying to charge him at first because the only thing I kept saying was is he crazy? Why don't he just stop instead of running because if somebody is pulling a gun on you, first thing I would think is to drop down on the ground and not try to look like I'm going to attack 'em, but that was my opinion. ”

Read original – Grand Jury Volume 11, page 181

Witness was driving through the complex in a van with her family.

​

“I didn't get the impression of a charge because it wasn't fast enough to be a charge.”

Read original – Grand Jury Volume 12, page 44

Witness traveling through the complex in van with his family.

​

“He was casually walking as if he had got shot and he started feeling the pain or something like that, where like he couldn't you know, pick up his pace because of the shot. ”

Read original – Grand Jury Volume 11, page 151

Witness was on patio of her apartment.

​

“Um, I guess it was like he stopped and he turned around like this, and then he started moving towards the officer and kind of looked like he picked up a little bit of speed, and then he started going down.”

Read original – Grand Jury Volume 23, page 137

Witness was sitting in van with her family.

​

“Yeah, I remember him like taking two small steps like he was stumbling and like I said, the officer lets out some more shots and that's when he hit the ground.”

Read original – Grand Jury Volume 7, page 21

Witness in second-floor apartment, looking out window and then on balcony

​

“And that's when I proceeded to look out my rear view mirror, he was running, shorts was fired, I saw Mike Brown turn around facing the officer at this time. Hands was up probably about like this, they weren't all the way up, but they was probably just like this. And that's when I looked at the review mirror, heard about two or three more gunshots, Michael Brown fell to the ground. ”

Read original – Grand Jury Volume 12, page 120

Witness was stopped in her Monte Carlo along Canfield.

​

“And then whenever the officer is walking up on him shooting, he was turned around with his hands up and he just went all the way down as the shots hit him. ”

Read original – Grand Jury Volume 7, page 102

Witness sitting in a car parked in the complex.

​

“I saw him turn to his right, turned around, but as he was turning, I'm sorry, he was like this. What I was saying was that I didn't see like a big all the way up there kind of thing, I just saw a turned around kind of right here.”
Q: “Kind of shoulder high, hands up?”
A: “Yes.”
Q: “But his palms were like facing the officer?”
A: “Yes.”

Read original – Grand Jury Volume 9, page 22

Witness looking out window of her apartment.

​

“Whenever he stopped and turned around at, that's where he fell dead at. ”

Read original – Grand Jury Volume 6, page 252

Witness standing in the grass about 20 feet away from the shooting.

​

“...I was still in shock and now I'm just watching the officer, you know, pace towards Big Mike. I See him fire the second shot, I see Big Mike turn around and face the officer. ”

Read original – Grand Jury Volume 4, page 121

Dorian Johnson, crouching along stopped vehicles on Canfield.

​

“I mean, he turned around, and I'm assuming that he was just stunned, that's how it appeared to me. That he looked down at his hands and he saw blood. He turned around and he just started walking back towards the officer. ”

Read original – Grand Jury Volume 10, page 41

Witness on exterior stairs of apartment complex.

​

“And so by the time I made it to where I could see what was going on, Michael Brown was on his knees.”

Read original – Grand Jury Volume 16, page 12

Witness standing in a parking lot along Canfield Drive.

​

“Q: So when the officer, when Michael Brown turned around and was staggering as you said, moving toward the officer, did it appear to you that he was charging the officer?”
A: “No, it appears to me that he was just catching his balance. That's when I thought, where I assumed again that he had been hit with the second shot, which I don't know.”

Read original – Grand Jury Volume 12, page 240

Witness was doing maintenance work at the complex.

​

“And the police just kept firing and saying something to the boy, and kept firing. The boy kept saying, I got, my hands is up, I don't have anything, what do you want. And next thing I know, I don't know where it hit, but when the boy fell, there was blood shot everywhere. ”

Read original – Grand Jury Volume 17, page 212

Witness was stopped in her vehicle on Canfield.

​

“I guess he was walking in a demeanor as I give up. ”

Read original – Grand Jury Volume 9, page 98

Witness standing on porch outside of second floor apartment

​

“Mike Brown started walking back at him okay, okay, okay, hands up and he just started shooting at him”

Read original – Grand Jury Volume 13, page 219

Witness was doing maintenance work at the complex.

​

“He just turned around like, you know, he put his arms about shoulder length and just stopped, like looking at him. And then, um, that's when I heard the rest of the shots. ”

Read original – Grand Jury Volume 17, page 25

Witness walking along sidewalk on Canfield.

​

“Q: So when you saw Mike Brown with his arms up coming towards the officer, he did not appear to be rushing the officer to you?”
A: “Not at all, not at all.”
Q: “Did he appear to be charging the officer?”
A: “Not at all, not at all.”

Read original – Grand Jury Volume 16, page 60

Witness was on apartment porch.

​

“When he left from here and he was walking toward him, I believehe was giving up. ...Because his hands was up, he was walking toward him. Where was he going to go. The officer was standing there with a gun dead aimed on him. ”

Read original – Grand Jury Volume 8, page 148

Witness standing on porch of her apartment.

​

“Q: When he turned around and raised his hands up shoulder length, did he charge at the officer?”
A: “No, no.”
Q: “Did he move in a threatening way towards the officer?”
A: “Not that I could see, no.”
Q: “As if he was coming to do him harm?”
A: “No, the officer wasn't that close, he was not close at all to him.”

Read original – Grand Jury Volume 7, page 167

 

[Todd Andrews]

Why Justice Scalia hates what prosecutor McCulloch did in the grand jury.

There is a whole lot of ignorance about grand juries in here. That grand jury did not "prove" anything or "hear" "all" of the "evidence". What happened was a prosecutor gave outdated unconstitutional law to a grand jury, presented one side of a case unopposed, attacked the credibility of witnesses he wanted to discredit, and then convinced the grand jury not to indict Wilson. The only thing that means or establishes is that Wilson wont face state criminal charges.

That doesnt mean Wilson is a murderer or committed a crime, but it also doesnt mean that he is not a murderer or did not commit a crime. It only means he wont face a state criminal trial. Which anyone paying any kind of attention to who prosecutor McCulloch is knew already.

 

[squistion]

Why Justice Scalia hates what prosecutor McCulloch did in the grand jury.

There is a whole lot of ignorance about grand juries in here. That grand jury did not "prove" anything or "hear" "all" of the "evidence". What happened was a prosecutor gave outdated unconstitutional law to a grand jury, presented one side of a case unopposed, attacked the credibility of witnesses he wanted to discredit, and then convinced the grand jury not to indict Wilson. The only thing that means or establishes is that Wilson wont face state criminal charges.

That doesnt mean Wilson is a murderer or committed a crime, but it also doesnt mean that he is not a murderer or did not commit a crime. It only means he wont face a state criminal trial. Which anyone paying any kind of attention to who prosecutor McCulloch is knew already.

The headline is a somewhat misleading because what Scalia said was taken from a 1992 case discussing grand juries in general and was not a recent commentary on the Wilson grand jury proceeding. However, one would hope that if he is consistent he would feel the same way today, but who knows.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Why Justice Scalia hates what prosecutor McCulloch did in the grand jury.

There is a whole lot of ignorance about grand juries in here. That grand jury did not "prove" anything or "hear" "all" of the "evidence". What happened was a prosecutor gave outdated unconstitutional law to a grand jury, presented one side of a case unopposed, attacked the credibility of witnesses he wanted to discredit, and then convinced the grand jury not to indict Wilson. The only thing that means or establishes is that Wilson wont face state criminal charges.

That doesnt mean Wilson is a murderer or committed a crime, but it also doesnt mean that he is not a murderer or did not commit a crime. It only means he wont face a state criminal trial. Which anyone paying any kind of attention to who prosecutor McCulloch is knew already.

Could you please link to Scalia's comments about this case?

 

[SIDA!]

BK...what a cluster#### of witness testimony that is. Which again brings me back to what I have been saying. There is a relevancy to the order of shots and where/how they hit the body regardless of whether or not Tim wants to admit such.