Looting in Missouri after cops shoot 18 year old (4 Viewers)

[Good Posting Judge]

Favorite hashtags on Twitter right now: #CrimingWhileWhite, and #####ThatTree.

 

[rdog5]

Very unwise to compare to Wilson's treatment to the lynchings that victimized black Americans during the Jim Crow area. Any other argument you might have been trying to make is destroyed by making that analogy, which I believe most blacks would rightfully find extremely offensive.

Agreed that part was...not so hot. The rest was good though.

My fire-brand Liberal roots shining through I guess. I knew full well the impact of that sentence and said it anyways. It was meant to be jarring. Trying desperately to wake people up.My sincere apologies if it was over the top. But no apology for defending a man who's life has been ruined at the hands of racism. I'll fight that #### passionately till the day I die.

Wake people up to what?

I think you're severely overselling the bolded. I suspect one of two things will happen with Wilson going forward: (1) he'll choose to live in virtual anonymity, maybe after a move and a name change, maybe not; or (2) he'll go on the conservative talk circuit and make millions. Either way I don't think I'd say his life was "ruined." Furthermore, it's silly to pretend he had no role in his fate. At best he was a poor excuse for a cop who rolled up on two kids walking down an empty street minding their own business for no particular reason, for some reason put himself in a vulnerable, defenseless position that allowed one of the kids to punch him repeatedly with no means to extricate himself (perhaps by just moving his vehicle a few feet?), needed twelve shots to remove a perceived threat to his safety, and then made no effort to save the life of the person he'd just shot. That's at best, assuming his own narrative is 100% true.

And then, after the grand jury decision was announced, he issued a statement that expressed no concern whatsoever for the family that had suffered a loss of life, and then subsequently described his resignation as "the hardest thing I've ever had to do," which is perhaps the most tone-deaf statement in this saga that's been a crash course on tone-deafness.

I'm supposed to feel bad for this guy? Really?

What makes you the complete judge and jury? You have cast posters on here is certain light when they disagree with you and now you have judged an officer you have never met in this manner? We have a small snapshots of their lives but yet you can judge by his color and uniform that he is a bad person. Maybe you are the one with a ruined life because your self-absorbed judgements do not allow you to maintain an open mind.

 

[BassNBrew]

I can't understand this Garner thing...can someone explain it to me?

The cop used an illegal action that results in this guy's death.

How is that not worthy of indictment?

How do you get passed the illegality of the cop's actions?

Even if intent wasn't to choke...it's still manslaughter, right?

We all see him use the illegal maneuver...how does anyone explain that away?

You know who did get indicted? The person who filmed the incident on their phone.

Proves prosecutors get indictments when they want them.

Probably a German prosecutor.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

And while few of us would think to ridicule Jews for still harboring less than warm feelings for Germans some 70 years laterwe would understand the lack of trust, the wariness, even the angerwe apparently find it hard to understand the same historically embedded logic of black trepidation and contempt for law enforcement in this country.

I don't know any Jews that harbor resentment towards Germans.

Sure, some people love Germany so much they wish there still two of them.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I'm passionate about this, but not because of the racism angle. Because of the tragedy of seeing a man wrongfully accused. I also can't see how a reasonable person can view all the evidence and not conclude the exact same as the Grand Jury.

But I will acknowledge that I wasn't there.

Hell of a discussion in here.

Good luck.

 

[fantasycurse42]

And I don't think the evidence that force was justified, which was probably sufficient to establish reasonable doubt, was anything close to overwhelming.

No matter which stance anyone takes here, we can all agree there is zero chance they'd get a conviction.

 

[lod01]

I've read some reviews of the forensic evidence. What the forensic evidence rebuts is that Brown was shot in the back.

Almost every additional gloss that I've heard, that it proves that Brown reached for the gun, that it proves that Brown "charged" is stated far, far too assertively. The evidence is not inconsistent with those things. Brown was certainly near to Wilson when the shot that hit his thumb was fired, but that does not prove that he reached for the gun or even that he was assaulting Wilson considering that Johnson testified that Wilson pulled Brown toward the window.

Nor does the fact that Brown collapsed closer to Wilson than the furthest blood evidence or that the bullets had downward trajectories prove that Brown charged Wilson. When I read the stuff that the guy on the Volokh Conspiracy is posting, I'm struck by how often he's interpreting the evidence instead of just presenting the evidence.

All of us have biases. Me included. I probably tend to hold police officers to high standards because I think being entrusted by the public to use deadly force is an awesome responsibility not to be taken lightly. I'd pay police a lot more. I'd support their unions. But I think that self-defense claims should be subject to at least as much scrutiny as every other criminal defendant faces. I don't think that happened here. And I don't think the evidence that force was justified, which was probably sufficient to establish reasonable doubt, was anything close to overwhelming.

You should have quit typing right when you mentioned Johnson. Dude's a flat out liar that can't be believed. He was caught in lies and had to 'change his story' Anything he says has as much value as dog #### on the bottom of your foot.

 

[Aerial Assault]

I can't understand this Garner thing...can someone explain it to me?

The cop used an illegal action that results in this guy's death.

How is that not worthy of indictment?

How do you get passed the illegality of the cop's actions?

Even if intent wasn't to choke...it's still manslaughter, right?

We all see him use the illegal maneuver...how does anyone explain that away?

Grand jury indictments against police officers in excessive force cases are about as frequent as a Trent Richardson run over 1.7 yards.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I've read some reviews of the forensic evidence. What the forensic evidence rebuts is that Brown was shot in the back.

Almost every additional gloss that I've heard, that it proves that Brown reached for the gun, that it proves that Brown "charged" is stated far, far too assertively. The evidence is not inconsistent with those things. Brown was certainly near to Wilson when the shot that hit his thumb was fired, but that does not prove that he reached for the gun or even that he was assaulting Wilson considering that Johnson testified that Wilson pulled Brown toward the window.

Nor does the fact that Brown collapsed closer to Wilson than the furthest blood evidence or that the bullets had downward trajectories prove that Brown charged Wilson. When I read the stuff that the guy on the Volokh Conspiracy is posting, I'm struck by how often he's interpreting the evidence instead of just presenting the evidence.

All of us have biases. Me included. I probably tend to hold police officers to high standards because I think being entrusted by the public to use deadly force is an awesome responsibility not to be taken lightly. I'd pay police a lot more. I'd support their unions. But I think that self-defense claims should be subject to at least as much scrutiny as every other criminal defendant faces. I don't think that happened here. And I don't think the evidence that force was justified, which was probably sufficient to establish reasonable doubt, was anything close to overwhelming.

You should have quit typing right when you mentioned Johnson. Dude's a flat out liar that can't be believed. He was caught in lies and had to 'change his story' Anything he says has as much value as dog #### on the bottom of your foot.

I know I'm not going to convince you and everyone else on the "thugs need to pull up their pants train", but if Dorian Johnson was caught in inconsistencies, you might ask yourself if that is perhaps because he was cross-examined with more vigor than the actual accused was. And you might wonder why that is.

 

[Todd Andrews]

I've read some reviews of the forensic evidence. What the forensic evidence rebuts is that Brown was shot in the back.

Almost every additional gloss that I've heard, that it proves that Brown reached for the gun, that it proves that Brown "charged" is stated far, far too assertively. The evidence is not inconsistent with those things. Brown was certainly near to Wilson when the shot that hit his thumb was fired, but that does not prove that he reached for the gun or even that he was assaulting Wilson considering that Johnson testified that Wilson pulled Brown toward the window.

Nor does the fact that Brown collapsed closer to Wilson than the furthest blood evidence or that the bullets had downward trajectories prove that Brown charged Wilson. When I read the stuff that the guy on the Volokh Conspiracy is posting, I'm struck by how often he's interpreting the evidence instead of just presenting the evidence.

All of us have biases. Me included. I probably tend to hold police officers to high standards because I think being entrusted by the public to use deadly force is an awesome responsibility not to be taken lightly. I'd pay police a lot more. I'd support their unions. But I think that self-defense claims should be subject to at least as much scrutiny as every other criminal defendant faces. I don't think that happened here. And I don't think the evidence that force was justified, which was probably sufficient to establish reasonable doubt, was anything close to overwhelming.

You should have quit typing right when you mentioned Johnson. Dude's a flat out liar that can't be believed. He was caught in lies and had to 'change his story' Anything he says has as much value as dog #### on the bottom of your foot.

I know I'm not going to convince you and everyone else on the "thugs need to pull up their pants train", but if Dorian Johnson was caught in inconsistencies, you might ask yourself if that is perhaps because he was cross-examined with more vigor than the actual accused was. And you might wonder why that is.

They probably might not.

 

[Jayrod]

I've read some reviews of the forensic evidence. What the forensic evidence rebuts is that Brown was shot in the back.

Almost every additional gloss that I've heard, that it proves that Brown reached for the gun, that it proves that Brown "charged" is stated far, far too assertively. The evidence is not inconsistent with those things. Brown was certainly near to Wilson when the shot that hit his thumb was fired, but that does not prove that he reached for the gun or even that he was assaulting Wilson considering that Johnson testified that Wilson pulled Brown toward the window.

Nor does the fact that Brown collapsed closer to Wilson than the furthest blood evidence or that the bullets had downward trajectories prove that Brown charged Wilson. When I read the stuff that the guy on the Volokh Conspiracy is posting, I'm struck by how often he's interpreting the evidence instead of just presenting the evidence.

All of us have biases. Me included. I probably tend to hold police officers to high standards because I think being entrusted by the public to use deadly force is an awesome responsibility not to be taken lightly. I'd pay police a lot more. I'd support their unions. But I think that self-defense claims should be subject to at least as much scrutiny as every other criminal defendant faces. I don't think that happened here. And I don't think the evidence that force was justified, which was probably sufficient to establish reasonable doubt, was anything close to overwhelming.

You should have quit typing right when you mentioned Johnson. Dude's a flat out liar that can't be believed. He was caught in lies and had to 'change his story' Anything he says has as much value as dog #### on the bottom of your foot.

I know I'm not going to convince you and everyone else on the "thugs need to pull up their pants train", but if Dorian Johnson was caught in inconsistencies, you might ask yourself if that is perhaps because he was cross-examined with more vigor than the actual accused was. And you might wonder why that is.

What the heck does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

Dude lied. Isn't a reliable witness. How much cross-x was done on Wilson has nothing to do with Johnson not being a reliable witness.

 

[Patrick Bateman]

I've read some reviews of the forensic evidence. What the forensic evidence rebuts is that Brown was shot in the back.

Almost every additional gloss that I've heard, that it proves that Brown reached for the gun, that it proves that Brown "charged" is stated far, far too assertively. The evidence is not inconsistent with those things. Brown was certainly near to Wilson when the shot that hit his thumb was fired, but that does not prove that he reached for the gun or even that he was assaulting Wilson considering that Johnson testified that Wilson pulled Brown toward the window.

Nor does the fact that Brown collapsed closer to Wilson than the furthest blood evidence or that the bullets had downward trajectories prove that Brown charged Wilson. When I read the stuff that the guy on the Volokh Conspiracy is posting, I'm struck by how often he's interpreting the evidence instead of just presenting the evidence.

All of us have biases. Me included. I probably tend to hold police officers to high standards because I think being entrusted by the public to use deadly force is an awesome responsibility not to be taken lightly. I'd pay police a lot more. I'd support their unions. But I think that self-defense claims should be subject to at least as much scrutiny as every other criminal defendant faces. I don't think that happened here. And I don't think the evidence that force was justified, which was probably sufficient to establish reasonable doubt, was anything close to overwhelming.

You should have quit typing right when you mentioned Johnson. Dude's a flat out liar that can't be believed. He was caught in lies and had to 'change his story' Anything he says has as much value as dog #### on the bottom of your foot.

I know I'm not going to convince you and everyone else on the "thugs need to pull up their pants train", but if Dorian Johnson was caught in inconsistencies, you might ask yourself if that is perhaps because he was cross-examined with more vigor than the actual accused was. And you might wonder why that is.

What the heck does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

Dude lied. Isn't a reliable witness. How much cross-x was done on Wilson has nothing to do with Johnson not being a reliable witness.

Wilson lied. Isn't a reliable witness.

 

[Jayrod]

I've read some reviews of the forensic evidence. What the forensic evidence rebuts is that Brown was shot in the back.

Almost every additional gloss that I've heard, that it proves that Brown reached for the gun, that it proves that Brown "charged" is stated far, far too assertively. The evidence is not inconsistent with those things. Brown was certainly near to Wilson when the shot that hit his thumb was fired, but that does not prove that he reached for the gun or even that he was assaulting Wilson considering that Johnson testified that Wilson pulled Brown toward the window.

Nor does the fact that Brown collapsed closer to Wilson than the furthest blood evidence or that the bullets had downward trajectories prove that Brown charged Wilson. When I read the stuff that the guy on the Volokh Conspiracy is posting, I'm struck by how often he's interpreting the evidence instead of just presenting the evidence.

All of us have biases. Me included. I probably tend to hold police officers to high standards because I think being entrusted by the public to use deadly force is an awesome responsibility not to be taken lightly. I'd pay police a lot more. I'd support their unions. But I think that self-defense claims should be subject to at least as much scrutiny as every other criminal defendant faces. I don't think that happened here. And I don't think the evidence that force was justified, which was probably sufficient to establish reasonable doubt, was anything close to overwhelming.

You should have quit typing right when you mentioned Johnson. Dude's a flat out liar that can't be believed. He was caught in lies and had to 'change his story' Anything he says has as much value as dog #### on the bottom of your foot.

I know I'm not going to convince you and everyone else on the "thugs need to pull up their pants train", but if Dorian Johnson was caught in inconsistencies, you might ask yourself if that is perhaps because he was cross-examined with more vigor than the actual accused was. And you might wonder why that is.

What the heck does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

Dude lied. Isn't a reliable witness. How much cross-x was done on Wilson has nothing to do with Johnson not being a reliable witness.

Wilson lied. Isn't a reliable witness.

Really? About what?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I can't understand this Garner thing...can someone explain it to me?

The cop used an illegal action that results in this guy's death.

How is that not worthy of indictment?

How do you get passed the illegality of the cop's actions?

Even if intent wasn't to choke...it's still manslaughter, right?

We all see him use the illegal maneuver...how does anyone explain that away?

Grand jury indictments against police officers in excessive force cases are about as frequent as a Trent Richardson run over 1.7 yards.

We had two major prosecutions down here, related to Katrina.

The Henry Glover case, and the "Danziger 5".

The NOPD today is under federal consent order and frankly it has been a long, long, long time coming.

I will add that some of the most powerful, unregulated and non-transparent agencies of any kind, state or federal, are typically county sheriffs' offices.

 

[Patrick Bateman]

I've read some reviews of the forensic evidence. What the forensic evidence rebuts is that Brown was shot in the back.

Almost every additional gloss that I've heard, that it proves that Brown reached for the gun, that it proves that Brown "charged" is stated far, far too assertively. The evidence is not inconsistent with those things. Brown was certainly near to Wilson when the shot that hit his thumb was fired, but that does not prove that he reached for the gun or even that he was assaulting Wilson considering that Johnson testified that Wilson pulled Brown toward the window.

Nor does the fact that Brown collapsed closer to Wilson than the furthest blood evidence or that the bullets had downward trajectories prove that Brown charged Wilson. When I read the stuff that the guy on the Volokh Conspiracy is posting, I'm struck by how often he's interpreting the evidence instead of just presenting the evidence.

All of us have biases. Me included. I probably tend to hold police officers to high standards because I think being entrusted by the public to use deadly force is an awesome responsibility not to be taken lightly. I'd pay police a lot more. I'd support their unions. But I think that self-defense claims should be subject to at least as much scrutiny as every other criminal defendant faces. I don't think that happened here. And I don't think the evidence that force was justified, which was probably sufficient to establish reasonable doubt, was anything close to overwhelming.

You should have quit typing right when you mentioned Johnson. Dude's a flat out liar that can't be believed. He was caught in lies and had to 'change his story' Anything he says has as much value as dog #### on the bottom of your foot.

I know I'm not going to convince you and everyone else on the "thugs need to pull up their pants train", but if Dorian Johnson was caught in inconsistencies, you might ask yourself if that is perhaps because he was cross-examined with more vigor than the actual accused was. And you might wonder why that is.

What the heck does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

Dude lied. Isn't a reliable witness. How much cross-x was done on Wilson has nothing to do with Johnson not being a reliable witness.

Wilson lied. Isn't a reliable witness.

Really? About what?

The reason he stopped Brown for starters.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I've read some reviews of the forensic evidence. What the forensic evidence rebuts is that Brown was shot in the back.

Almost every additional gloss that I've heard, that it proves that Brown reached for the gun, that it proves that Brown "charged" is stated far, far too assertively. The evidence is not inconsistent with those things. Brown was certainly near to Wilson when the shot that hit his thumb was fired, but that does not prove that he reached for the gun or even that he was assaulting Wilson considering that Johnson testified that Wilson pulled Brown toward the window.

Nor does the fact that Brown collapsed closer to Wilson than the furthest blood evidence or that the bullets had downward trajectories prove that Brown charged Wilson. When I read the stuff that the guy on the Volokh Conspiracy is posting, I'm struck by how often he's interpreting the evidence instead of just presenting the evidence.

All of us have biases. Me included. I probably tend to hold police officers to high standards because I think being entrusted by the public to use deadly force is an awesome responsibility not to be taken lightly. I'd pay police a lot more. I'd support their unions. But I think that self-defense claims should be subject to at least as much scrutiny as every other criminal defendant faces. I don't think that happened here. And I don't think the evidence that force was justified, which was probably sufficient to establish reasonable doubt, was anything close to overwhelming.

You should have quit typing right when you mentioned Johnson. Dude's a flat out liar that can't be believed. He was caught in lies and had to 'change his story' Anything he says has as much value as dog #### on the bottom of your foot.

I know I'm not going to convince you and everyone else on the "thugs need to pull up their pants train", but if Dorian Johnson was caught in inconsistencies, you might ask yourself if that is perhaps because he was cross-examined with more vigor than the actual accused was. And you might wonder why that is.

What the heck does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

Dude lied. Isn't a reliable witness. How much cross-x was done on Wilson has nothing to do with Johnson not being a reliable witness.

It's the very rare witness indeed who isn't caught in apparent contradictions when he or she is subject to cross-examination, which is how I'd characterize Johnson's testimony. Memory can be unreliable and prone to suggestion, particularly when facing an adversarial attorney. So when we talk about the reliability of witnesses, it's completely relevant to talk about whether the witness faced an adversarial attorney.

In a typical Grand Jury proceeding, a criminal defendant like Wilson would face that adversary while an eyewitness like Johnson would not. I find it curious that it was the other way around. If you're actually read Johnson's testimony and found that it lacked credibility, then we can agree to disagree. But I suspect you haven't. I suspect you've read someone who's told you his testimony lacked credibility.

 

[parasaurolophus]

I've read some reviews of the forensic evidence. What the forensic evidence rebuts is that Brown was shot in the back.

Almost every additional gloss that I've heard, that it proves that Brown reached for the gun, that it proves that Brown "charged" is stated far, far too assertively. The evidence is not inconsistent with those things. Brown was certainly near to Wilson when the shot that hit his thumb was fired, but that does not prove that he reached for the gun or even that he was assaulting Wilson considering that Johnson testified that Wilson pulled Brown toward the window.

Nor does the fact that Brown collapsed closer to Wilson than the furthest blood evidence or that the bullets had downward trajectories prove that Brown charged Wilson. When I read the stuff that the guy on the Volokh Conspiracy is posting, I'm struck by how often he's interpreting the evidence instead of just presenting the evidence.

All of us have biases. Me included. I probably tend to hold police officers to high standards because I think being entrusted by the public to use deadly force is an awesome responsibility not to be taken lightly. I'd pay police a lot more. I'd support their unions. But I think that self-defense claims should be subject to at least as much scrutiny as every other criminal defendant faces. I don't think that happened here. And I don't think the evidence that force was justified, which was probably sufficient to establish reasonable doubt, was anything close to overwhelming.

You should have quit typing right when you mentioned Johnson. Dude's a flat out liar that can't be believed. He was caught in lies and had to 'change his story' Anything he says has as much value as dog #### on the bottom of your foot.

I know I'm not going to convince you and everyone else on the "thugs need to pull up their pants train", but if Dorian Johnson was caught in inconsistencies, you might ask yourself if that is perhaps because he was cross-examined with more vigor than the actual accused was. And you might wonder why that is.

By this time, the officer is out the car. . . . And the officer is walking with his gun drawn, but its almost like he couldn’t see me. . . . But he’s walking in such a way that his vision wasn’t even on nobody else but what he was trying to do. And as he got closer, he fired one more shot. That shot struck my friend in the back.

[The officer] reached out the window with his left arm. He grabbed on to my friend, Big Mike’s throat. And he’s trying to pull him in[to] the vehicle. And my friend, Big Mike, very angrily is trying to pull away from the officer. And the officer now is struggling with trying to hold a grip on my friend Big Mike as he’s trying to pull away.

I dont think it would take too much to discredit him. Saying he got caught in inconsistencies is kind of like saying Tim posts a little more than the average FBG.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Man...i wish I could choke someone to death on video with the world watching and get away with it ...i have a list id start on right now...what a country

 

[Henry Ford]

I've read some reviews of the forensic evidence. What the forensic evidence rebuts is that Brown was shot in the back.

Almost every additional gloss that I've heard, that it proves that Brown reached for the gun, that it proves that Brown "charged" is stated far, far too assertively. The evidence is not inconsistent with those things. Brown was certainly near to Wilson when the shot that hit his thumb was fired, but that does not prove that he reached for the gun or even that he was assaulting Wilson considering that Johnson testified that Wilson pulled Brown toward the window.

Nor does the fact that Brown collapsed closer to Wilson than the furthest blood evidence or that the bullets had downward trajectories prove that Brown charged Wilson. When I read the stuff that the guy on the Volokh Conspiracy is posting, I'm struck by how often he's interpreting the evidence instead of just presenting the evidence.

All of us have biases. Me included. I probably tend to hold police officers to high standards because I think being entrusted by the public to use deadly force is an awesome responsibility not to be taken lightly. I'd pay police a lot more. I'd support their unions. But I think that self-defense claims should be subject to at least as much scrutiny as every other criminal defendant faces. I don't think that happened here. And I don't think the evidence that force was justified, which was probably sufficient to establish reasonable doubt, was anything close to overwhelming.

Yup.

 

[General Tso]

I've read some reviews of the forensic evidence. What the forensic evidence rebuts is that Brown was shot in the back.

Almost every additional gloss that I've heard, that it proves that Brown reached for the gun, that it proves that Brown "charged" is stated far, far too assertively. The evidence is not inconsistent with those things. Brown was certainly near to Wilson when the shot that hit his thumb was fired, but that does not prove that he reached for the gun or even that he was assaulting Wilson considering that Johnson testified that Wilson pulled Brown toward the window.

Nor does the fact that Brown collapsed closer to Wilson than the furthest blood evidence or that the bullets had downward trajectories prove that Brown charged Wilson. When I read the stuff that the guy on the Volokh Conspiracy is posting, I'm struck by how often he's interpreting the evidence instead of just presenting the evidence.

All of us have biases. Me included. I probably tend to hold police officers to high standards because I think being entrusted by the public to use deadly force is an awesome responsibility not to be taken lightly. I'd pay police a lot more. I'd support their unions. But I think that self-defense claims should be subject to at least as much scrutiny as every other criminal defendant faces. I don't think that happened here. And I don't think the evidence that force was justified, which was probably sufficient to establish reasonable doubt, was anything close to overwhelming.

You should have quit typing right when you mentioned Johnson. Dude's a flat out liar that can't be believed. He was caught in lies and had to 'change his story' Anything he says has as much value as dog #### on the bottom of your foot.

I know I'm not going to convince you and everyone else on the "thugs need to pull up their pants train", but if Dorian Johnson was caught in inconsistencies, you might ask yourself if that is perhaps because he was cross-examined with more vigor than the actual accused was. And you might wonder why that is.

Dude, I beg you - please stop. You are so far off the reservation it's scary. Dorian Johnson should be arrested and charged with perjury and inciting a riot. And that is not hyperbole. This is the POS who said that Brown was shot in the back - executed if you will. Do you still believe that one? Because even the Michael Brown family Nedical Examiner concluded that he was not shot in the back.Please do yourself a favor and read the attached article, written by a Liberal and appearing in one of the country's most respected newspapers. I'm sure you'll explain all this away. A fabrication of the racist white media or some other bullshiit. Problem is, all of Johnson's perjurious lies are on the record with television transcripts and Grand Jury testimony. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/02/why-michael-browns-best-friends-story-is-incredible/

 

[whiskey7]

I've read some reviews of the forensic evidence. What the forensic evidence rebuts is that Brown was shot in the back.

Almost every additional gloss that I've heard, that it proves that Brown reached for the gun, that it proves that Brown "charged" is stated far, far too assertively. The evidence is not inconsistent with those things. Brown was certainly near to Wilson when the shot that hit his thumb was fired, but that does not prove that he reached for the gun or even that he was assaulting Wilson considering that Johnson testified that Wilson pulled Brown toward the window.

Nor does the fact that Brown collapsed closer to Wilson than the furthest blood evidence or that the bullets had downward trajectories prove that Brown charged Wilson. When I read the stuff that the guy on the Volokh Conspiracy is posting, I'm struck by how often he's interpreting the evidence instead of just presenting the evidence.

All of us have biases. Me included. I probably tend to hold police officers to high standards because I think being entrusted by the public to use deadly force is an awesome responsibility not to be taken lightly. I'd pay police a lot more. I'd support their unions. But I think that self-defense claims should be subject to at least as much scrutiny as every other criminal defendant faces. I don't think that happened here. And I don't think the evidence that force was justified, which was probably sufficient to establish reasonable doubt, was anything close to overwhelming.

You should have quit typing right when you mentioned Johnson. Dude's a flat out liar that can't be believed. He was caught in lies and had to 'change his story' Anything he says has as much value as dog #### on the bottom of your foot.

I know I'm not going to convince you and everyone else on the "thugs need to pull up their pants train", but if Dorian Johnson was caught in inconsistencies, you might ask yourself if that is perhaps because he was cross-examined with more vigor than the actual accused was. And you might wonder why that is.

I saw him in an interview say things the evidence proves did not happen.ETA: General beat me to it

 

[AB in DC]

Please do yourself a favor and read the attached article, written by a Liberal

Volokh Conspiracy is a conservative blog. Always has been.

 

[lod01]

I've read some reviews of the forensic evidence. What the forensic evidence rebuts is that Brown was shot in the back.

Almost every additional gloss that I've heard, that it proves that Brown reached for the gun, that it proves that Brown "charged" is stated far, far too assertively. The evidence is not inconsistent with those things. Brown was certainly near to Wilson when the shot that hit his thumb was fired, but that does not prove that he reached for the gun or even that he was assaulting Wilson considering that Johnson testified that Wilson pulled Brown toward the window.

Nor does the fact that Brown collapsed closer to Wilson than the furthest blood evidence or that the bullets had downward trajectories prove that Brown charged Wilson. When I read the stuff that the guy on the Volokh Conspiracy is posting, I'm struck by how often he's interpreting the evidence instead of just presenting the evidence.

All of us have biases. Me included. I probably tend to hold police officers to high standards because I think being entrusted by the public to use deadly force is an awesome responsibility not to be taken lightly. I'd pay police a lot more. I'd support their unions. But I think that self-defense claims should be subject to at least as much scrutiny as every other criminal defendant faces. I don't think that happened here. And I don't think the evidence that force was justified, which was probably sufficient to establish reasonable doubt, was anything close to overwhelming.

You should have quit typing right when you mentioned Johnson. Dude's a flat out liar that can't be believed. He was caught in lies and had to 'change his story' Anything he says has as much value as dog #### on the bottom of your foot.

I know I'm not going to convince you and everyone else on the "thugs need to pull up their pants train", but if Dorian Johnson was caught in inconsistencies, you might ask yourself if that is perhaps because he was cross-examined with more vigor than the actual accused was. And you might wonder why that is.

What the heck does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

Dude lied. Isn't a reliable witness. How much cross-x was done on Wilson has nothing to do with Johnson not being a reliable witness.

Wilson lied. Isn't a reliable witness.

We'll toss out his statements also. Let's go with Witness #10 male, black man who said it happened just as Wilson described. Case closed, you guys lose again.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I've read some reviews of the forensic evidence. What the forensic evidence rebuts is that Brown was shot in the back.

Almost every additional gloss that I've heard, that it proves that Brown reached for the gun, that it proves that Brown "charged" is stated far, far too assertively. The evidence is not inconsistent with those things. Brown was certainly near to Wilson when the shot that hit his thumb was fired, but that does not prove that he reached for the gun or even that he was assaulting Wilson considering that Johnson testified that Wilson pulled Brown toward the window.

Nor does the fact that Brown collapsed closer to Wilson than the furthest blood evidence or that the bullets had downward trajectories prove that Brown charged Wilson. When I read the stuff that the guy on the Volokh Conspiracy is posting, I'm struck by how often he's interpreting the evidence instead of just presenting the evidence.

All of us have biases. Me included. I probably tend to hold police officers to high standards because I think being entrusted by the public to use deadly force is an awesome responsibility not to be taken lightly. I'd pay police a lot more. I'd support their unions. But I think that self-defense claims should be subject to at least as much scrutiny as every other criminal defendant faces. I don't think that happened here. And I don't think the evidence that force was justified, which was probably sufficient to establish reasonable doubt, was anything close to overwhelming.

You should have quit typing right when you mentioned Johnson. Dude's a flat out liar that can't be believed. He was caught in lies and had to 'change his story' Anything he says has as much value as dog #### on the bottom of your foot.

I know I'm not going to convince you and everyone else on the "thugs need to pull up their pants train", but if Dorian Johnson was caught in inconsistencies, you might ask yourself if that is perhaps because he was cross-examined with more vigor than the actual accused was. And you might wonder why that is.

Dude, I beg you - please stop. You are so far off the reservation it's scary. Dorian Johnson should be arrested and charged with perjury and inciting a riot. And that is not hyperbole. This is the POS who said that Brown was shot in the back - executed if you will. Do you still believe that one? Because even the Michael Brown family Nedical Examiner concluded that he was not shot in the back.Please do yourself a favor and read the attached article, written by a Liberal and appearing in one of the country's most respected newspapers. I'm sure you'll explain all this away. A fabrication of the racist white media or some other bullshiit. Problem is, all of Johnson's perjurious lies are on the record with television transcripts and Grand Jury testimony. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/02/why-michael-browns-best-friends-story-is-incredible/

Just for starters, liberals don't typically write for the Volokh Conspiracy. Nor do they clerk for Antonin Scalia and join the Federalist Society. Paul Cassell is a very well credentialed legal scholar. He is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a liberal. I'm going to assume that you just assumed because the Post has run his blog posts that he was and that you're not being disingenuous, but you should adjust your bias radar accordingly.

Let's just take a few of his points. Johnson testifies that the first shot, from inside the car, hit Brown in the chest because "he saw blood run down Brown's side." Maybe Johnson is lying. Or maybe, as seems perfectly reasonable, the wound from Brown's thumb caused blood to run down Brown's side leading Johnson to believe that Brown had been shot in the chest. Similarly, Johnson can be mistaken about whether Brown was struck in the back without lying about he saw. In a situation where many shots are fired it would be very easy for him to mistake what shots hit or did not hit Brown.

Again, there are inconsistencies. Maybe fatal ones. But in every Cassell post I've read, he's taken the evidence presented and drawn the inference most favorable to Darren Wilson. Even when multiple inferences are available.

 

[Apple Jack]

Going to be interesting to see how NYC shakes out, because that one is even more appalling.

 

[Henry Ford]

I've read some reviews of the forensic evidence. What the forensic evidence rebuts is that Brown was shot in the back.

Almost every additional gloss that I've heard, that it proves that Brown reached for the gun, that it proves that Brown "charged" is stated far, far too assertively. The evidence is not inconsistent with those things. Brown was certainly near to Wilson when the shot that hit his thumb was fired, but that does not prove that he reached for the gun or even that he was assaulting Wilson considering that Johnson testified that Wilson pulled Brown toward the window.

Nor does the fact that Brown collapsed closer to Wilson than the furthest blood evidence or that the bullets had downward trajectories prove that Brown charged Wilson. When I read the stuff that the guy on the Volokh Conspiracy is posting, I'm struck by how often he's interpreting the evidence instead of just presenting the evidence.

All of us have biases. Me included. I probably tend to hold police officers to high standards because I think being entrusted by the public to use deadly force is an awesome responsibility not to be taken lightly. I'd pay police a lot more. I'd support their unions. But I think that self-defense claims should be subject to at least as much scrutiny as every other criminal defendant faces. I don't think that happened here. And I don't think the evidence that force was justified, which was probably sufficient to establish reasonable doubt, was anything close to overwhelming.

You should have quit typing right when you mentioned Johnson. Dude's a flat out liar that can't be believed. He was caught in lies and had to 'change his story' Anything he says has as much value as dog #### on the bottom of your foot.

Every witness had inconsistencies. Johnson simply had his pointed out. Why, do you suppose?

 

[lod01]

Going to be interesting to see how NYC shakes out, because that one is appalling.

Fixed.

 

[lod01]

I've read some reviews of the forensic evidence. What the forensic evidence rebuts is that Brown was shot in the back.

Almost every additional gloss that I've heard, that it proves that Brown reached for the gun, that it proves that Brown "charged" is stated far, far too assertively. The evidence is not inconsistent with those things. Brown was certainly near to Wilson when the shot that hit his thumb was fired, but that does not prove that he reached for the gun or even that he was assaulting Wilson considering that Johnson testified that Wilson pulled Brown toward the window.

Nor does the fact that Brown collapsed closer to Wilson than the furthest blood evidence or that the bullets had downward trajectories prove that Brown charged Wilson. When I read the stuff that the guy on the Volokh Conspiracy is posting, I'm struck by how often he's interpreting the evidence instead of just presenting the evidence.

All of us have biases. Me included. I probably tend to hold police officers to high standards because I think being entrusted by the public to use deadly force is an awesome responsibility not to be taken lightly. I'd pay police a lot more. I'd support their unions. But I think that self-defense claims should be subject to at least as much scrutiny as every other criminal defendant faces. I don't think that happened here. And I don't think the evidence that force was justified, which was probably sufficient to establish reasonable doubt, was anything close to overwhelming.

You should have quit typing right when you mentioned Johnson. Dude's a flat out liar that can't be believed. He was caught in lies and had to 'change his story' Anything he says has as much value as dog #### on the bottom of your foot.

Every witness had inconsistencies. Johnson simply had his pointed out. Why, do you suppose?

Because his statement contradicted the physical evidence, DUH!

 

[Guest]

Going to be interesting to see how NYC shakes out, because that one is appalling.

Fixed.

Agree with the edit.

 

[Henry Ford]

I've read some reviews of the forensic evidence. What the forensic evidence rebuts is that Brown was shot in the back.

Almost every additional gloss that I've heard, that it proves that Brown reached for the gun, that it proves that Brown "charged" is stated far, far too assertively. The evidence is not inconsistent with those things. Brown was certainly near to Wilson when the shot that hit his thumb was fired, but that does not prove that he reached for the gun or even that he was assaulting Wilson considering that Johnson testified that Wilson pulled Brown toward the window.

Nor does the fact that Brown collapsed closer to Wilson than the furthest blood evidence or that the bullets had downward trajectories prove that Brown charged Wilson. When I read the stuff that the guy on the Volokh Conspiracy is posting, I'm struck by how often he's interpreting the evidence instead of just presenting the evidence.

All of us have biases. Me included. I probably tend to hold police officers to high standards because I think being entrusted by the public to use deadly force is an awesome responsibility not to be taken lightly. I'd pay police a lot more. I'd support their unions. But I think that self-defense claims should be subject to at least as much scrutiny as every other criminal defendant faces. I don't think that happened here. And I don't think the evidence that force was justified, which was probably sufficient to establish reasonable doubt, was anything close to overwhelming.

You should have quit typing right when you mentioned Johnson. Dude's a flat out liar that can't be believed. He was caught in lies and had to 'change his story' Anything he says has as much value as dog #### on the bottom of your foot.

I know I'm not going to convince you and everyone else on the "thugs need to pull up their pants train", but if Dorian Johnson was caught in inconsistencies, you might ask yourself if that is perhaps because he was cross-examined with more vigor than the actual accused was. And you might wonder why that is.

What the heck does this have to do with the price of tea in China?Dude lied. Isn't a reliable witness. How much cross-x was done on Wilson has nothing to do with Johnson not being a reliable witness.

Wilson lied. Isn't a reliable witness.

We'll toss out his statements also. Let's go with Witness #10 male, black man who said it happened just as Wilson described. Case closed, you guys lose again.

On the stand, or in the original statement witness 10 gave? Like when witness 10 said Brown was walking on the sidewalk, which is clearly wrong?

 

[Henry Ford]

I've read some reviews of the forensic evidence. What the forensic evidence rebuts is that Brown was shot in the back.

Almost every additional gloss that I've heard, that it proves that Brown reached for the gun, that it proves that Brown "charged" is stated far, far too assertively. The evidence is not inconsistent with those things. Brown was certainly near to Wilson when the shot that hit his thumb was fired, but that does not prove that he reached for the gun or even that he was assaulting Wilson considering that Johnson testified that Wilson pulled Brown toward the window.

Nor does the fact that Brown collapsed closer to Wilson than the furthest blood evidence or that the bullets had downward trajectories prove that Brown charged Wilson. When I read the stuff that the guy on the Volokh Conspiracy is posting, I'm struck by how often he's interpreting the evidence instead of just presenting the evidence.

All of us have biases. Me included. I probably tend to hold police officers to high standards because I think being entrusted by the public to use deadly force is an awesome responsibility not to be taken lightly. I'd pay police a lot more. I'd support their unions. But I think that self-defense claims should be subject to at least as much scrutiny as every other criminal defendant faces. I don't think that happened here. And I don't think the evidence that force was justified, which was probably sufficient to establish reasonable doubt, was anything close to overwhelming.

You should have quit typing right when you mentioned Johnson. Dude's a flat out liar that can't be believed. He was caught in lies and had to 'change his story' Anything he says has as much value as dog #### on the bottom of your foot.

Every witness had inconsistencies. Johnson simply had his pointed out. Why, do you suppose?

Because his statement contradicted the physical evidence, DUH!

That's so weird. It's almost like you've deliberately avoided reading every post by RHE Who, by the way, is absolutely killing it in here.

 

[Todd Andrews]

I've read some reviews of the forensic evidence. What the forensic evidence rebuts is that Brown was shot in the back.

Almost every additional gloss that I've heard, that it proves that Brown reached for the gun, that it proves that Brown "charged" is stated far, far too assertively. The evidence is not inconsistent with those things. Brown was certainly near to Wilson when the shot that hit his thumb was fired, but that does not prove that he reached for the gun or even that he was assaulting Wilson considering that Johnson testified that Wilson pulled Brown toward the window.

Nor does the fact that Brown collapsed closer to Wilson than the furthest blood evidence or that the bullets had downward trajectories prove that Brown charged Wilson. When I read the stuff that the guy on the Volokh Conspiracy is posting, I'm struck by how often he's interpreting the evidence instead of just presenting the evidence.

All of us have biases. Me included. I probably tend to hold police officers to high standards because I think being entrusted by the public to use deadly force is an awesome responsibility not to be taken lightly. I'd pay police a lot more. I'd support their unions. But I think that self-defense claims should be subject to at least as much scrutiny as every other criminal defendant faces. I don't think that happened here. And I don't think the evidence that force was justified, which was probably sufficient to establish reasonable doubt, was anything close to overwhelming.

You should have quit typing right when you mentioned Johnson. Dude's a flat out liar that can't be believed. He was caught in lies and had to 'change his story' Anything he says has as much value as dog #### on the bottom of your foot.

I know I'm not going to convince you and everyone else on the "thugs need to pull up their pants train", but if Dorian Johnson was caught in inconsistencies, you might ask yourself if that is perhaps because he was cross-examined with more vigor than the actual accused was. And you might wonder why that is.

What the heck does this have to do with the price of tea in China?Dude lied. Isn't a reliable witness. How much cross-x was done on Wilson has nothing to do with Johnson not being a reliable witness.

Wilson lied. Isn't a reliable witness.

We'll toss out his statements also. Let's go with Witness #10 male, black man who said it happened just as Wilson described. Case closed, you guys lose again.

On the stand, or in the original statement witness 10 gave? Like when witness 10 said Brown was walking on the sidewalk, which is clearly wrong?

#10 is LIAR! His testimony can never count!!~1

 

[timschochet]

General Tso- a bit of advice: you're in way over your head with RHE. You're begging him to stop, and he might- if he has pity on you.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I've read some reviews of the forensic evidence. What the forensic evidence rebuts is that Brown was shot in the back.

Almost every additional gloss that I've heard, that it proves that Brown reached for the gun, that it proves that Brown "charged" is stated far, far too assertively. The evidence is not inconsistent with those things. Brown was certainly near to Wilson when the shot that hit his thumb was fired, but that does not prove that he reached for the gun or even that he was assaulting Wilson considering that Johnson testified that Wilson pulled Brown toward the window.

Nor does the fact that Brown collapsed closer to Wilson than the furthest blood evidence or that the bullets had downward trajectories prove that Brown charged Wilson. When I read the stuff that the guy on the Volokh Conspiracy is posting, I'm struck by how often he's interpreting the evidence instead of just presenting the evidence.

All of us have biases. Me included. I probably tend to hold police officers to high standards because I think being entrusted by the public to use deadly force is an awesome responsibility not to be taken lightly. I'd pay police a lot more. I'd support their unions. But I think that self-defense claims should be subject to at least as much scrutiny as every other criminal defendant faces. I don't think that happened here. And I don't think the evidence that force was justified, which was probably sufficient to establish reasonable doubt, was anything close to overwhelming.

You should have quit typing right when you mentioned Johnson. Dude's a flat out liar that can't be believed. He was caught in lies and had to 'change his story' Anything he says has as much value as dog #### on the bottom of your foot.

I know I'm not going to convince you and everyone else on the "thugs need to pull up their pants train", but if Dorian Johnson was caught in inconsistencies, you might ask yourself if that is perhaps because he was cross-examined with more vigor than the actual accused was. And you might wonder why that is.

Dude, I beg you - please stop. You are so far off the reservation it's scary. Dorian Johnson should be arrested and charged with perjury and inciting a riot. And that is not hyperbole. This is the POS who said that Brown was shot in the back - executed if you will. Do you still believe that one? Because even the Michael Brown family Nedical Examiner concluded that he was not shot in the back.Please do yourself a favor and read the attached article, written by a Liberal and appearing in one of the country's most respected newspapers. I'm sure you'll explain all this away. A fabrication of the racist white media or some other bullshiit. Problem is, all of Johnson's perjurious lies are on the record with television transcripts and Grand Jury testimony. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/02/why-michael-browns-best-friends-story-is-incredible/

Just for starters, liberals don't typically write for the Volokh Conspiracy. Nor do they clerk for Antonin Scalia and join the Federalist Society. Paul Cassell is a very well credentialed legal scholar. He is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a liberal. I'm going to assume that you just assumed because the Post has run his blog posts that he was and that you're not being disingenuous, but you should adjust your bias radar accordingly.

...

He clerked for then-Judge Antonin Scalia when Scalia was on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (1984-85) and then for the Chief Justice of the United States, Warren Burger (1985-86).

In November 2007, he resigned his judgeship to return full time to the College of Law, to teach, write, and litigate on issues relating to crime victims' rights and criminal justice reform.

Professor Cassell teaches criminal procedure, crime victims' rights, criminal law, and related classes.

Ramsey, he doesn't sound like your "Law & Order" type, quite the opposite.

Warren Burger was also not a liberal. He was a conservative appointed by Richard Nixon. It is true that a conservative judge appointed by Richard Nixon would still seem pretty liberal in comparison to a conservative judge who, like Cassell, was appointed by George W. Bush, it's certainly not a sign that Cassell is a liberal. Advocating for crime victim's rights, as opposed to criminal defendant's rights, is pretty much the definition of being a law and order type.

For instance, Cassell's latest published law review article is an extended critique of the Innocence Project.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I've read some reviews of the forensic evidence. What the forensic evidence rebuts is that Brown was shot in the back.

Almost every additional gloss that I've heard, that it proves that Brown reached for the gun, that it proves that Brown "charged" is stated far, far too assertively. The evidence is not inconsistent with those things. Brown was certainly near to Wilson when the shot that hit his thumb was fired, but that does not prove that he reached for the gun or even that he was assaulting Wilson considering that Johnson testified that Wilson pulled Brown toward the window.

Nor does the fact that Brown collapsed closer to Wilson than the furthest blood evidence or that the bullets had downward trajectories prove that Brown charged Wilson. When I read the stuff that the guy on the Volokh Conspiracy is posting, I'm struck by how often he's interpreting the evidence instead of just presenting the evidence.

All of us have biases. Me included. I probably tend to hold police officers to high standards because I think being entrusted by the public to use deadly force is an awesome responsibility not to be taken lightly. I'd pay police a lot more. I'd support their unions. But I think that self-defense claims should be subject to at least as much scrutiny as every other criminal defendant faces. I don't think that happened here. And I don't think the evidence that force was justified, which was probably sufficient to establish reasonable doubt, was anything close to overwhelming.

You should have quit typing right when you mentioned Johnson. Dude's a flat out liar that can't be believed. He was caught in lies and had to 'change his story' Anything he says has as much value as dog #### on the bottom of your foot.

I know I'm not going to convince you and everyone else on the "thugs need to pull up their pants train", but if Dorian Johnson was caught in inconsistencies, you might ask yourself if that is perhaps because he was cross-examined with more vigor than the actual accused was. And you might wonder why that is.

Dude, I beg you - please stop. You are so far off the reservation it's scary. Dorian Johnson should be arrested and charged with perjury and inciting a riot. And that is not hyperbole. This is the POS who said that Brown was shot in the back - executed if you will. Do you still believe that one? Because even the Michael Brown family Nedical Examiner concluded that he was not shot in the back.Please do yourself a favor and read the attached article, written by a Liberal and appearing in one of the country's most respected newspapers. I'm sure you'll explain all this away. A fabrication of the racist white media or some other bullshiit. Problem is, all of Johnson's perjurious lies are on the record with television transcripts and Grand Jury testimony. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/02/why-michael-browns-best-friends-story-is-incredible/

Just for starters, liberals don't typically write for the Volokh Conspiracy. Nor do they clerk for Antonin Scalia and join the Federalist Society. Paul Cassell is a very well credentialed legal scholar. He is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a liberal. I'm going to assume that you just assumed because the Post has run his blog posts that he was and that you're not being disingenuous, but you should adjust your bias radar accordingly.

...

He clerked for then-Judge Antonin Scalia when Scalia was on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (1984-85) and then for the Chief Justice of the United States, Warren Burger (1985-86).

In November 2007, he resigned his judgeship to return full time to the College of Law, to teach, write, and litigate on issues relating to crime victims' rights and criminal justice reform.

Professor Cassell teaches criminal procedure, crime victims' rights, criminal law, and related classes.

Ramsey, he doesn't sound like your "Law & Order" type, quite the opposite.

Warren Burger was also not a liberal. He was a conservative appointed by Richard Nixon. It is true that a conservative judge appointed by Richard Nixon would still seem pretty liberal in comparison to a conservative judge appointed by George W. Bush, it's certainly not a sign that Cassell is a liberal. Advocating for crime victim's rights, as opposed to criminal defendant's rights, is pretty much the definition of being a law and order type.

For instance, Cassell's latest published law review article is an extended critique of the Innocence Project.

Actually I withdrew the post after seeing the bit about victims' rights (as opposed to accused criminals' rights).

I do think of Burger's court as having some great liberal decisions (not in a bad way mind you), especially as to due process and 4th Amendment rights.

Anyway, carry on... thanks.

 

[General Tso]

I've read some reviews of the forensic evidence. What the forensic evidence rebuts is that Brown was shot in the back.

Almost every additional gloss that I've heard, that it proves that Brown reached for the gun, that it proves that Brown "charged" is stated far, far too assertively. The evidence is not inconsistent with those things. Brown was certainly near to Wilson when the shot that hit his thumb was fired, but that does not prove that he reached for the gun or even that he was assaulting Wilson considering that Johnson testified that Wilson pulled Brown toward the window.

Nor does the fact that Brown collapsed closer to Wilson than the furthest blood evidence or that the bullets had downward trajectories prove that Brown charged Wilson. When I read the stuff that the guy on the Volokh Conspiracy is posting, I'm struck by how often he's interpreting the evidence instead of just presenting the evidence.

All of us have biases. Me included. I probably tend to hold police officers to high standards because I think being entrusted by the public to use deadly force is an awesome responsibility not to be taken lightly. I'd pay police a lot more. I'd support their unions. But I think that self-defense claims should be subject to at least as much scrutiny as every other criminal defendant faces. I don't think that happened here. And I don't think the evidence that force was justified, which was probably sufficient to establish reasonable doubt, was anything close to overwhelming.

You should have quit typing right when you mentioned Johnson. Dude's a flat out liar that can't be believed. He was caught in lies and had to 'change his story' Anything he says has as much value as dog #### on the bottom of your foot.

I know I'm not going to convince you and everyone else on the "thugs need to pull up their pants train", but if Dorian Johnson was caught in inconsistencies, you might ask yourself if that is perhaps because he was cross-examined with more vigor than the actual accused was. And you might wonder why that is.

Dude, I beg you - please stop. You are so far off the reservation it's scary. Dorian Johnson should be arrested and charged with perjury and inciting a riot. And that is not hyperbole. This is the POS who said that Brown was shot in the back - executed if you will. Do you still believe that one? Because even the Michael Brown family Nedical Examiner concluded that he was not shot in the back.Please do yourself a favor and read the attached article, written by a Liberal and appearing in one of the country's most respected newspapers. I'm sure you'll explain all this away. A fabrication of the racist white media or some other bullshiit. Problem is, all of Johnson's perjurious lies are on the record with television transcripts and Grand Jury testimony. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/02/why-michael-browns-best-friends-story-is-incredible/

Just for starters, liberals don't typically write for the Volokh Conspiracy. Nor do they clerk for Antonin Scalia and join the Federalist Society. Paul Cassell is a very well credentialed legal scholar. He is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a liberal. I'm going to assume that you just assumed because the Post has run his blog posts that he was and that you're not being disingenuous, but you should adjust your bias radar accordingly.

Let's just take a few of his points. Johnson testifies that the first shot, from inside the car, hit Brown in the chest because "he saw blood run down Brown's side." Maybe Johnson is lying. Or maybe, as seems perfectly reasonable, the wound from Brown's thumb caused blood to run down Brown's side leading Johnson to believe that Brown had been shot in the chest. Similarly, Johnson can be mistaken about whether Brown was struck in the back without lying about he saw. In a situation where many shots are fired it would be very easy for him to mistake what shots hit or did not hit Brown.

Again, there are inconsistencies. Maybe fatal ones. But in every Cassell post I've read, he's taken the evidence presented and drawn the inference most favorable to Darren Wilson. Even when multiple inferences are available.

It's my opinion that Cassell is a Liberal on issues of victims rights, and if you look deeply enough into his background you'll understand why. But that's besides the point, isn't it.

The point is, Dorian Johnson and his credibility. Are you really going to make the argument that this witness is credible? And Ford, are you really going to make the argument that Witness 10 isn't one of if not THE most credible witness in this case?

Let's just focus on the most incendiary comment made by anyone in this case - the one that really ignited this whole mess. It was Johnson's initial claim on August 12th on the Al Sharpton show that claimed Officer Wilson walked towards Mike Brown and shot him in the back. Here is the direct quote from a transcript of the show:

By this time, the officer is out the car. . . . And the officer is walking with his gun drawn, but its almost like he couldn’t see me. . . . But he’s walking in such a way that his vision wasn’t even on nobody else but what he was trying to do. And as he got closer, he fired one more shot. That shot struck my friend in the back.

Do I need to go into detail about how this has been disproven by other eyewitness testimony and the physical evidence at the scene? The ballistics evidence and shell casings from Wilson's gun show that from the first shot to the last Wilson was retreating backwards. The autopsies show no entrance wounds to the back. The Michael Brown Medical Examiner agrees that he was not shot in the back.

So I guess you'll tell me next that Johnson misspoke or perhaps the "inconsistency" here is otherwise explainable. Tell me - how does one incorrectly see someone get shot in the back? How does one incorrectly state what he saw so that it comes out that way?

The answer is simple. Johnson lied. He lied many times in the first couple days in his TV interviews and fanned the flames. He created the entire narrative that this was murder by cop. He created the hands up don't shoot lie. He lied and lied and lied again. He said Wilson shot Brown in the chest from inside the car. Did not happen - disproved by the evidence. He said the two ran away from the car for "two or three minutes". He didn't say this once. He said this twice. This one doesn't pass the smell test. I know Mike Brown was a bit of a lumberer, but in two to three minutes he's going to be very very far away from Wilson. Fact of the matter is that the blood on the ground shows Brown was shot within close proximity of Wilson, and that Brown was moving toward Wilson, not the other way around.

But please keep citing minor inconsistencies in other witness testimonies, and continue to assert that the people posting the evidence are conservatives and racists. If you keep saying it enough, maybe you'll believe it.

 

[General Tso]

General Tso- a bit of advice: you're in way over your head with RHE. You're begging him to stop, and he might- if he has pity on you.

Thanks Tim. Appreciate the warning. But I feel pretty good about my case. I also graduated tops in my class in Legal Studies at the Wharton School. In other words - we're all smart.

 

[Underachievers]

I

Going to be interesting to see how NYC shakes out, because that one is appalling.

Fixed.

Agree with the edit.

I just want to see a riot. It's what makes all these lame protests worth watching.

 

[SWC]

General Tso- a bit of advice: you're in way over your head with RHE. You're begging him to stop, and he might- if he has pity on you.

Thanks Tim. Appreciate the warning. But I feel pretty good about my case. I also graduated tops in my class in Legal Studies at the Wharton School. In other words - we're all smart.

i drove past a college once and i would not call me smart but i think everyone gets the point you are ignoring which is that it is unfair for some folks to get crossexamined while others get to sit on a stool and give a soliloquey about how they were justified without anyone calling out any inconsistencies in there testimony but hey you went to wharton so what do i know

 

[CowboysFromHell]

I've read some reviews of the forensic evidence. What the forensic evidence rebuts is that Brown was shot in the back.

Almost every additional gloss that I've heard, that it proves that Brown reached for the gun, that it proves that Brown "charged" is stated far, far too assertively. The evidence is not inconsistent with those things. Brown was certainly near to Wilson when the shot that hit his thumb was fired, but that does not prove that he reached for the gun or even that he was assaulting Wilson considering that Johnson testified that Wilson pulled Brown toward the window.

Nor does the fact that Brown collapsed closer to Wilson than the furthest blood evidence or that the bullets had downward trajectories prove that Brown charged Wilson. When I read the stuff that the guy on the Volokh Conspiracy is posting, I'm struck by how often he's interpreting the evidence instead of just presenting the evidence.

All of us have biases. Me included. I probably tend to hold police officers to high standards because I think being entrusted by the public to use deadly force is an awesome responsibility not to be taken lightly. I'd pay police a lot more. I'd support their unions. But I think that self-defense claims should be subject to at least as much scrutiny as every other criminal defendant faces. I don't think that happened here. And I don't think the evidence that force was justified, which was probably sufficient to establish reasonable doubt, was anything close to overwhelming.

You should have quit typing right when you mentioned Johnson. Dude's a flat out liar that can't be believed. He was caught in lies and had to 'change his story' Anything he says has as much value as dog #### on the bottom of your foot.

I know I'm not going to convince you and everyone else on the "thugs need to pull up their pants train", but if Dorian Johnson was caught in inconsistencies, you might ask yourself if that is perhaps because he was cross-examined with more vigor than the actual accused was. And you might wonder why that is.

Dude, I beg you - please stop. You are so far off the reservation it's scary. Dorian Johnson should be arrested and charged with perjury and inciting a riot. And that is not hyperbole. This is the POS who said that Brown was shot in the back - executed if you will. Do you still believe that one? Because even the Michael Brown family Nedical Examiner concluded that he was not shot in the back.Please do yourself a favor and read the attached article, written by a Liberal and appearing in one of the country's most respected newspapers. I'm sure you'll explain all this away. A fabrication of the racist white media or some other bullshiit. Problem is, all of Johnson's perjurious lies are on the record with television transcripts and Grand Jury testimony. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/02/why-michael-browns-best-friends-story-is-incredible/

Just for starters, liberals don't typically write for the Volokh Conspiracy. Nor do they clerk for Antonin Scalia and join the Federalist Society. Paul Cassell is a very well credentialed legal scholar. He is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a liberal. I'm going to assume that you just assumed because the Post has run his blog posts that he was and that you're not being disingenuous, but you should adjust your bias radar accordingly.

Let's just take a few of his points. Johnson testifies that the first shot, from inside the car, hit Brown in the chest because "he saw blood run down Brown's side." Maybe Johnson is lying. Or maybe, as seems perfectly reasonable, the wound from Brown's thumb caused blood to run down Brown's side leading Johnson to believe that Brown had been shot in the chest. Similarly, Johnson can be mistaken about whether Brown was struck in the back without lying about he saw. In a situation where many shots are fired it would be very easy for him to mistake what shots hit or did not hit Brown.

Again, there are inconsistencies. Maybe fatal ones. But in every Cassell post I've read, he's taken the evidence presented and drawn the inference most favorable to Darren Wilson. Even when multiple inferences are available.

What about the last part of the article, where Johnson says Brown only took a step back towards Wilson? The linked crime scene photo is pretty damning, showing a trail of blood around 20 feet long.

 

[General Tso]

I

Going to be interesting to see how NYC shakes out, because that one is appalling.

Fixed.

Agree with the edit.

I just want to see a riot. It's what makes all these lame protests worth watching.

A little comic relief... During my years at Penn Luis Farrakhan visited the campus and it created months of passionate protests on the campus. The Jews were protesting, the blacks, the conservatives, the liberals... At the height of tensions a group called "Students Against Nothing" staged a protest in the middle of the campus waiving blank placards. They stormed the President's office and staged a sit-in, chanting, "What do we want? NOTHING! When do we want it? NOW".

 

[johnnycakes]

General Tso- a bit of advice: you're in way over your head with RHE. You're begging him to stop, and he might- if he has pity on you.

Thanks Tim. Appreciate the warning. But I feel pretty good about my case. I also graduated tops in my class in Legal Studies at the Wharton School. In other words - we're all smart.

Did you go to school with Jason Wood?

 

[njherdfan]

I've read some reviews of the forensic evidence. What the forensic evidence rebuts is that Brown was shot in the back.

Almost every additional gloss that I've heard, that it proves that Brown reached for the gun, that it proves that Brown "charged" is stated far, far too assertively. The evidence is not inconsistent with those things. Brown was certainly near to Wilson when the shot that hit his thumb was fired, but that does not prove that he reached for the gun or even that he was assaulting Wilson considering that Johnson testified that Wilson pulled Brown toward the window.

Nor does the fact that Brown collapsed closer to Wilson than the furthest blood evidence or that the bullets had downward trajectories prove that Brown charged Wilson. When I read the stuff that the guy on the Volokh Conspiracy is posting, I'm struck by how often he's interpreting the evidence instead of just presenting the evidence.

All of us have biases. Me included. I probably tend to hold police officers to high standards because I think being entrusted by the public to use deadly force is an awesome responsibility not to be taken lightly. I'd pay police a lot more. I'd support their unions. But I think that self-defense claims should be subject to at least as much scrutiny as every other criminal defendant faces. I don't think that happened here. And I don't think the evidence that force was justified, which was probably sufficient to establish reasonable doubt, was anything close to overwhelming.

You should have quit typing right when you mentioned Johnson. Dude's a flat out liar that can't be believed. He was caught in lies and had to 'change his story' Anything he says has as much value as dog #### on the bottom of your foot.

I know I'm not going to convince you and everyone else on the "thugs need to pull up their pants train", but if Dorian Johnson was caught in inconsistencies, you might ask yourself if that is perhaps because he was cross-examined with more vigor than the actual accused was. And you might wonder why that is.

Dude, I beg you - please stop. You are so far off the reservation it's scary. Dorian Johnson should be arrested and charged with perjury and inciting a riot. And that is not hyperbole. This is the POS who said that Brown was shot in the back - executed if you will. Do you still believe that one? Because even the Michael Brown family Nedical Examiner concluded that he was not shot in the back.Please do yourself a favor and read the attached article, written by a Liberal and appearing in one of the country's most respected newspapers. I'm sure you'll explain all this away. A fabrication of the racist white media or some other bullshiit. Problem is, all of Johnson's perjurious lies are on the record with television transcripts and Grand Jury testimony. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/02/why-michael-browns-best-friends-story-is-incredible/

Just for starters, liberals don't typically write for the Volokh Conspiracy. Nor do they clerk for Antonin Scalia and join the Federalist Society. Paul Cassell is a very well credentialed legal scholar. He is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a liberal. I'm going to assume that you just assumed because the Post has run his blog posts that he was and that you're not being disingenuous, but you should adjust your bias radar accordingly.

Let's just take a few of his points. Johnson testifies that the first shot, from inside the car, hit Brown in the chest because "he saw blood run down Brown's side." Maybe Johnson is lying. Or maybe, as seems perfectly reasonable, the wound from Brown's thumb caused blood to run down Brown's side leading Johnson to believe that Brown had been shot in the chest. Similarly, Johnson can be mistaken about whether Brown was struck in the back without lying about he saw. In a situation where many shots are fired it would be very easy for him to mistake what shots hit or did not hit Brown.

Again, there are inconsistencies. Maybe fatal ones. But in every Cassell post I've read, he's taken the evidence presented and drawn the inference most favorable to Darren Wilson. Even when multiple inferences are available.

It's my opinion that Cassell is a Liberal on issues of victims rights, and if you look deeply enough into his background you'll understand why. But that's besides the point, isn't it.

The point is, Dorian Johnson and his credibility. Are you really going to make the argument that this witness is credible? And Ford, are you really going to make the argument that Witness 10 isn't one of if not THE most credible witness in this case?

Let's just focus on the most incendiary comment made by anyone in this case - the one that really ignited this whole mess. It was Johnson's initial claim on August 12th on the Al Sharpton show that claimed Officer Wilson walked towards Mike Brown and shot him in the back. Here is the direct quote from a transcript of the show:

By this time, the officer is out the car. . . . And the officer is walking with his gun drawn, but its almost like he couldn’t see me. . . . But he’s walking in such a way that his vision wasn’t even on nobody else but what he was trying to do. And as he got closer, he fired one more shot. That shot struck my friend in the back.

Do I need to go into detail about how this has been disproven by other eyewitness testimony and the physical evidence at the scene? The ballistics evidence and shell casings from Wilson's gun show that from the first shot to the last Wilson was retreating backwards. The autopsies show no entrance wounds to the back. The Michael Brown Medical Examiner agrees that he was not shot in the back.

So I guess you'll tell me next that Johnson misspoke or perhaps the "inconsistency" here is otherwise explainable. Tell me - how does one incorrectly see someone get shot in the back? How does one incorrectly state what he saw so that it comes out that way?

The answer is simple. Johnson lied. He lied many times in the first couple days in his TV interviews and fanned the flames. He created the entire narrative that this was murder by cop. He created the hands up don't shoot lie. He lied and lied and lied again. He said Wilson shot Brown in the chest from inside the car. Did not happen - disproved by the evidence. He said the two ran away from the car for "two or three minutes". He didn't say this once. He said this twice. This one doesn't pass the smell test. I know Mike Brown was a bit of a lumberer, but in two to three minutes he's going to be very very far away from Wilson. Fact of the matter is that the blood on the ground shows Brown was shot within close proximity of Wilson, and that Brown was moving toward Wilson, not the other way around.

But please keep citing minor inconsistencies in other witness testimonies, and continue to assert that the people posting the evidence are conservatives and racists. If you keep saying it enough, maybe you'll believe it.

What makes some some inconsistencies minor, other than who they support? Because Witness 10's statement that Brown and his friend were walking on the sidewalk is completely at odds with other witness statements, is it not? Can you give any sort of standard for what makes discrepancies irrelevant, particularly when they're not even the result of any sort of adversarial cross-examination. Because it really seems like the fact that Witness 10's statement appears to absolve Wilson is what gives it credibility to you.

 

[SIDA!]

I've read some reviews of the forensic evidence. What the forensic evidence rebuts is that Brown was shot in the back.

Almost every additional gloss that I've heard, that it proves that Brown reached for the gun, that it proves that Brown "charged" is stated far, far too assertively. The evidence is not inconsistent with those things. Brown was certainly near to Wilson when the shot that hit his thumb was fired, but that does not prove that he reached for the gun or even that he was assaulting Wilson considering that Johnson testified that Wilson pulled Brown toward the window.

Nor does the fact that Brown collapsed closer to Wilson than the furthest blood evidence or that the bullets had downward trajectories prove that Brown charged Wilson. When I read the stuff that the guy on the Volokh Conspiracy is posting, I'm struck by how often he's interpreting the evidence instead of just presenting the evidence.

All of us have biases. Me included. I probably tend to hold police officers to high standards because I think being entrusted by the public to use deadly force is an awesome responsibility not to be taken lightly. I'd pay police a lot more. I'd support their unions. But I think that self-defense claims should be subject to at least as much scrutiny as every other criminal defendant faces. I don't think that happened here. And I don't think the evidence that force was justified, which was probably sufficient to establish reasonable doubt, was anything close to overwhelming.

You should have quit typing right when you mentioned Johnson. Dude's a flat out liar that can't be believed. He was caught in lies and had to 'change his story' Anything he says has as much value as dog #### on the bottom of your foot.

I know I'm not going to convince you and everyone else on the "thugs need to pull up their pants train", but if Dorian Johnson was caught in inconsistencies, you might ask yourself if that is perhaps because he was cross-examined with more vigor than the actual accused was. And you might wonder why that is.

While there is some merit to this...it obviously didn't take any cross examination to determine he was full of it when he claimed that Brown was shot in the back.

 

[Henry Ford]

General Tso- a bit of advice: you're in way over your head with RHE. You're begging him to stop, and he might- if he has pity on you.

Thanks Tim. Appreciate the warning. But I feel pretty good about my case. I also graduated tops in my class in Legal Studies at the Wharton School. In other words - we're all smart.

I don't think intelligence is the issue.

 

[avoiding injuries]

I

Going to be interesting to see how NYC shakes out, because that one is appalling.

Fixed.

Agree with the edit.

I just want to see a riot. It's what makes all these lame protests worth watching.

A little comic relief... During my years at Penn Luis Farrakhan visited the campus and it created months of passionate protests on the campus. The Jews were protesting, the blacks, the conservatives, the liberals... At the height of tensions a group called "Students Against Nothing" staged a protest in the middle of the campus waiving blank placards. They stormed the President's office and staged a sit-in, chanting, "What do we want? NOTHING! When do we want it? NOW".

And now we know where John Singleton came up with the plot for "Higher Learning".

 

[Slapdash]

I didn't know Penn called its law school Wharton too.

 

[General Tso]

General Tso- a bit of advice: you're in way over your head with RHE. You're begging him to stop, and he might- if he has pity on you.

Thanks Tim. Appreciate the warning. But I feel pretty good about my case. I also graduated tops in my class in Legal Studies at the Wharton School. In other words - we're all smart.

i drove past a college once and i would not call me smart but i think everyone gets the point you are ignoring which is that it is unfair for some folks to get crossexamined while others get to sit on a stool and give a soliloquey about how they were justified without anyone calling out any inconsistencies in there testimony but hey you went to wharton so what do i know

SWC you are one of my favorite people in here. My bit about Wharton was tongue in cheek. Some of the smartest people I've ever met were people without a higher education. And some of the dumbest people I've ever met were people with Doctorates.

And it's probably about time I do address some of the "process" issues that I've neglected to focus on. It does bother me that the process wasn't handled as well as it should have been. It also bothers me to no end how horribly the police handled things after the shooting. But it pales in comparison to the larger injustice here, which in my opinion is the using of this case to further a cause, while most right minded people looking at the evidence know that this was a justified shooting. And you can take that to the bank bro.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

I didn't say that he's suffered no negative repercussions, only that saying he was "a man who's life has been ruined" is overselling it by quite a bit. I know he's received death threats and has been subject to a lot of other negative consequences, but there's a long way from that to a ruined life.

I thought I'd read that the street was empty. Maybe not? Either way, at the time they were minding their own business by all accounts at the time of the initial contact, jaywalking at worst.

Fair enough, possible that there was no reason to attempt to resuscitate Brown. The rest stands, though- including the tone-deaf statement about "the hardest thing he's ever had to do," putting himself in position t be apprehended and beaten with no way to fight back or extricate himself (I didn't say he wasn't, I only said it was a mistake to put himself in such a position) and the fact that he had to discharge his weapon at least 10 times in order to alleviate a perceived threat.

..........Because acts of stealing, that happen earlier in the day, do not count.

That's not why Wilson stopped him.

I'm fairly sure any police officer in America and probably the majority of other countries would stop and ask two people walking in the middle of the street to use the sidewalk.......I'm also pretty sure the proper response would be.. "ok officer" not "#### off officer".

 

[mr roboto]

General Tso- a bit of advice: you're in way over your head with RHE. You're begging him to stop, and he might- if he has pity on you.

Thanks Tim. Appreciate the warning. But I feel pretty good about my case. I also graduated tops in my class in Legal Studies at the Wharton School. In other words - we're all smart.

i drove past a college once and i would not call me smart but i think everyone gets the point you are ignoring which is that it is unfair for some folks to get crossexamined while others get to sit on a stool and give a soliloquey about how they were justified without anyone calling out any inconsistencies in there testimony but hey you went to wharton so what do i know

SWC you are one of my favorite people in here. My bit about Wharton was tongue in cheek. Some of the smartest people I've ever met were people without a higher education. And some of the dumbest people I've ever met were people with Doctorates.And it's probably about time I do address some of the "process" issues that I've neglected to focus on. It does bother me that the process wasn't handled as well as it should have been. It also bothers me to no end how horribly the police handled things after the shooting. But it pales in comparison to the larger injustice here, which in my opinion is the using of this case to further a cause, while most right minded people looking at the evidence know that this was a justified shooting. And you can take that to the bank bro.

WELL YOU HAVE TO TAKE ONE SIDE AND ONE SIDE ONLY!!!!!! BLACKS OR COPS!!!!!!