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

[Jayrod]

So I just wasted (yes wasted) an hour or so reading Johnson's testimony.

Holy crap what a load of crap.

So he got up at 7, left to get food for his girlfriend and to smoke some weed. Mike Brown joins him to smoke too. They talk about the future and life because Johnson is some kind of neighborhodd mentor because he has a job and went to college (even though he is actually just now looking for a job, I think). They go to get cigarillos, stop to chat for a couple of minutes with a construction worker. Somehow he doesn't hear any of this conversation. Then they wander to the store where, to the shock of Johnson, Brown decides to just take a bunch of cigarillos. They leave and then....wander off down the street where they end up walking down the middle of the street and the confrontation with Wilson begins around 11:30 (4.5 hours later?). Now Wilson gets mad because they don't get out of the street, backs up quickly (tires squalling) and almost hits them. Then he tries to open the door quickly, but it hits the two of them. Then Wilson grabs Brown and pulls him into the car. A 6'4" 300lb grown man, just pulls him in with one arm. Then somehow Brown can't get free of the officer's grip. Then Wilson says, "I'll shoot" a couple of times and then fires out of the car and hits Brown (per Johnson, it hit him in the chest).

I stopped there as my life is draining away. I didn't even get to the other shots being fired. So it somehow took him over 4 hours to walk a couple of blocks, stop for a short conversation and steal some cigarillos? There has to be a ton he left out there. And really the officer was able to hold Brown's head down into the car for any legth of time? And he just pulled his gun out and fired at an unarmed man because he wouldn't get out of the street?

Whole thing is BS.

So there, RHE. I've read it and now I personally think the guy is full of crap. So you are telling me you read that rambling testimony and you do believe him?

You find him a credible witness?

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.

 

[SWC]

no you do not have to take one side or the other but i think anyone with half a brain knows that if a laywer is picking apart what you say you can bet your butt that lawywer will find some inconsistencies in what you say but if you just get to sit and talk without that barrister doing his thing there will probably not be the inconsistencies and that makes it pretty hard to honestly compare the two sets of statements that is all i am saying but you know this is a thread i avoiced because it is like where people come to show there rear ends and i made it this many days without showing mine and now i am so i am leaving good on you brohans pray for better race relations and pray that the da in new york is investigated and the process sees the light of day because it stinks to high hell even from way over here in milwaukee take that to the bank brohans

 

[johnnycakes]

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

Already vetted the major...

https://spike.wharton.upenn.edu/ugrprogram/academics/concentrations/legalstudies.cfm

Still reminded of my first job out of college, though. I worked for a legitimate Wharton graduate... scored tops nationally on the CPA exam back in the '60's, etc.... he hired this one kid once solely because he was a Wharton graduate. This kid was the slowest learner and.... I don't know what... I was the senior out on an audit job after he had been with us for 6 months or so... around noontime the boss calls up and asks me what Wharton is up to.... I ask him.... :"numbering my workpapers" he tells me... boss tells me to send him in to his office... I say but I still have these part of the audit job I need the guy to do... no, no, no, send numbnuts to me... the boss couldn't fire Wharton fast enough. It's like is expectations were set so high because he was a Wharton graduate and not even able to do a bank reconciliation without help.

 

[squistion]

no you do not have to take one side or the other but i think anyone with half a brain knows that if a laywer is picking apart what you say you can bet your butt that lawywer will find some inconsistencies in what you say but if you just get to sit and talk without that barrister doing his thing there will probably not be the inconsistencies and that makes it pretty hard to honestly compare the two sets of statements that is all i am saying but you know this is a thread i avoiced because it is like where people come to show there rear ends and i made it this many days without showing mine and now i am so i am leaving good on you brohans pray for better race relations and pray that the da in new york is investigated and the process sees the light of day because it stinks to high hell even from way over here in milwaukee take that to the bank brohans

This makes as much sense as what we have been hearing from the Wilson supporters.

 

[timschochet]

no you do not have to take one side or the other but i think anyone with half a brain knows that if a laywer is picking apart what you say you can bet your butt that lawywer will find some inconsistencies in what you say but if you just get to sit and talk without that barrister doing his thing there will probably not be the inconsistencies and that makes it pretty hard to honestly compare the two sets of statements that is all i am saying but you know this is a thread i avoiced because it is like where people come to show there rear ends and i made it this many days without showing mine and now i am so i am leaving good on you brohans pray for better race relations and pray that the da in new york is investigated and the process sees the light of day because it stinks to high hell even from way over here in milwaukee take that to the bank brohans

This makes as much sense as what we have been hearing from the Wilson supporters.

in some cases a lot more.

 

[SIDA!]

I would still like to hear from those who think Wilson was in the wrong and wrongfully killed Mike Brown to articulate what facts/evidence concern them with respect to the events that transpired from when Wilson left the last call to the point Brown was killed in the street.

I think we can all agree that things could have been done differently or that some protocols were violated, yada yada yada.

I am not trying to be obtuse, but I don't think anyone (besides Tim) has really pointed to anything specific that would support their viewpoint that Wilson was in the wrong.

Tim has said he doesn't think Brown charged Wilson. He has not presented any evidence, just pointed to eyewitness statements and his overall belief that it would be irrational for Brown to do that.

It seems others think Wilson was wrong but have yet to really point to anything specific.

 

[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.

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.

Really? You are really going to discredit Witness #10 because he said they were initially walking on the sidewalk and not the middle of the road? Really? Dude, come on. I can guarantee you that nobody sees things 100% correctly, particularly events that precede something dramatic. The brain will remember important elements.

The walking on the sidewalk part is pretty inconsequential here, don't you think? As opposed to say, someone saying he was "shot in the back"? I mean, it's analogous to someone witnessing the Kennedy assassination, have all of his observations completely jive with the physical evidence, but having his entire testimony dismissed because he said the limo was in the lefthand lane as it approached the scene rather than being in the middle of the road.

Witness #10 is a black man who, despite being threatened by the mob for telling the story as he saw it, came forth anyways and gave testimony that for the most part completely jived with the physical evidence and with Officer Wilson's story. He came forward knowing full well he would be scorned by many in the black community. He feared for he and his family, but did it anyways - out of a sense of justice and a sense of responsibility to give the family appropriate closure by providing the truth. He's one of the most believable people in this whole affair, and not just because he supports my position.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

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.

we`re all wicked smaaaat round here

 

[SIDA!]

no you do not have to take one side or the other but i think anyone with half a brain knows that if a laywer is picking apart what you say you can bet your butt that lawywer will find some inconsistencies in what you say but if you just get to sit and talk without that barrister doing his thing there will probably not be the inconsistencies and that makes it pretty hard to honestly compare the two sets of statements that is all i am saying but you know this is a thread i avoiced because it is like where people come to show there rear ends and i made it this many days without showing mine and now i am so i am leaving good on you brohans pray for better race relations and pray that the da in new york is investigated and the process sees the light of day because it stinks to high hell even from way over here in milwaukee take that to the bank brohans

This makes as much sense as what we have been hearing from the Wilson supporters.

It would be great if you and others sharing your viewpoint would provide us all a play by play of how this entire exchange with Wilson and Brown went down. Based on all the facts, evidence and information available, please walk us through the events that transpired. Please tell us what you know to have happened and what you believed to have happened that afternoon.

 

[timschochet]

This repeated assertion that witness #10 and his family were threatened- any proof of that?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

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!!!!!!

Or Black Cops!

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I would still like to hear from those who think Wilson was in the wrong and wrongfully killed Mike Brown to articulate what facts/evidence concern them with respect to the events that transpired from when Wilson left the last call to the point Brown was killed in the street.

I think we can all agree that things could have been done differently or that some protocols were violated, yada yada yada.

I am not trying to be obtuse, but I don't think anyone (besides Tim) has really pointed to anything specific that would support their viewpoint that Wilson was in the wrong.

Tim has said he doesn't think Brown charged Wilson. He has not presented any evidence, just pointed to eyewitness statements and his overall belief that it would be irrational for Brown to do that.

It seems others think Wilson was wrong but have yet to really point to anything specific.

It's called a supposition.

 

[SIDA!]

I would still like to hear from those who think Wilson was in the wrong and wrongfully killed Mike Brown to articulate what facts/evidence concern them with respect to the events that transpired from when Wilson left the last call to the point Brown was killed in the street.

I think we can all agree that things could have been done differently or that some protocols were violated, yada yada yada.

I am not trying to be obtuse, but I don't think anyone (besides Tim) has really pointed to anything specific that would support their viewpoint that Wilson was in the wrong.

Tim has said he doesn't think Brown charged Wilson. He has not presented any evidence, just pointed to eyewitness statements and his overall belief that it would be irrational for Brown to do that.

It seems others think Wilson was wrong but have yet to really point to anything specific.

It's called a supposition.

I am not sure what you are trying to convey with this post. I know it is a supposition. Maybe it went over my head. :whoosh:

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

no you do not have to take one side or the other but i think anyone with half a brain knows that if a laywer is picking apart what you say you can bet your butt that lawywer will find some inconsistencies in what you say but if you just get to sit and talk without that barrister doing his thing there will probably not be the inconsistencies and that makes it pretty hard to honestly compare the two sets of statements that is all i am saying but you know this is a thread i avoiced because it is like where people come to show there rear ends and i made it this many days without showing mine and now i am so i am leaving good on you brohans pray for better race relations and pray that the da in new york is investigated and the process sees the light of day because it stinks to high hell even from way over here in milwaukee take that to the bank brohans

This makes as much sense as what we have been hearing from the Wilson supporters.

It would be great if you and others sharing your viewpoint would provide us all a play by play of how this entire exchange with Wilson and Brown went down. Based on all the facts, evidence and information available, please walk us through the events that transpired. Please tell us what you know to have happened and what you believed to have happened that afternoon.

Even if negligent homicide, I have never been able to understand the argument for motive or the mental state of Wilson.

Presuming it (presume it FTSOA) Brown has stopped, hands in the air, why does Wilson shoot Brown? Why? Purely talking motive or mental state here. Fear? Loathing?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I would still like to hear from those who think Wilson was in the wrong and wrongfully killed Mike Brown to articulate what facts/evidence concern them with respect to the events that transpired from when Wilson left the last call to the point Brown was killed in the street.

I think we can all agree that things could have been done differently or that some protocols were violated, yada yada yada.

I am not trying to be obtuse, but I don't think anyone (besides Tim) has really pointed to anything specific that would support their viewpoint that Wilson was in the wrong.

Tim has said he doesn't think Brown charged Wilson. He has not presented any evidence, just pointed to eyewitness statements and his overall belief that it would be irrational for Brown to do that.

It seems others think Wilson was wrong but have yet to really point to anything specific.

It's called a supposition.

I am not sure what you are trying to convey with this post. I know it is a supposition. Maybe it went over my head. :whoosh:

I don't think it's so much for you as for Tim and others. People have inserted an assumption into the facts because well it suits them. Or their beliefs. Tim will often say, "I just don't believe." Ok, he doesn't, won't believe what he will not permit. It's not just a Tim thing btw, this goes on.

 

[General Tso]

I would still like to hear from those who think Wilson was in the wrong and wrongfully killed Mike Brown to articulate what facts/evidence concern them with respect to the events that transpired from when Wilson left the last call to the point Brown was killed in the street.

I think we can all agree that things could have been done differently or that some protocols were violated, yada yada yada.

I am not trying to be obtuse, but I don't think anyone (besides Tim) has really pointed to anything specific that would support their viewpoint that Wilson was in the wrong.

Tim has said he doesn't think Brown charged Wilson. He has not presented any evidence, just pointed to eyewitness statements and his overall belief that it would be irrational for Brown to do that.

It seems others think Wilson was wrong but have yet to really point to anything specific.

This this and this.

All we get are misdirections and a focus on the process, not the result. It's what you do when you don't have a case. I used to get the impression that tim at least was searching for truth, but that ship has long since sailed.

 

[Sammy3469]

Fwiw, the UWS is a complete mess right now. West Side highway is closed with cops, sirens, and helicopters everywhere. Fun.

 

[General Tso]

This repeated assertion that witness #10 and his family were threatened- any proof of that?

For starters, Grand Jury Volume VI, page 190. Look it up.

 

[SIDA!]

This repeated assertion that witness #10 and his family were threatened- any proof of that?

For starters, Grand Jury Volume VI, page 190. Look it up.

Well there is that and the annual 'hood classic: "Snitches Get Stitches".

 

[Patrick Bateman]

This repeated assertion that witness #10 and his family were threatened- any proof of that?

For starters, Grand Jury Volume VI, page 190. Look it up.

He said proof.

 

[General Tso]

This repeated assertion that witness #10 and his family were threatened- any proof of that?

For starters, Grand Jury Volume VI, page 190. Look it up.

He said proof.

Really? Do you honestly think the mob that was yelling at him is going to come forward and admit this? Do you think Witness #10's statement and admission of fearing for him and his family needs to be proven?You guys are taking this misdirection thing to a ridiculous extreme. And you are conveniently forgetting that the burden of proof here lies with you, not me.

So once again, for the 100th time, please cite some evidence showing that Officer Wilson murdered Mike Brown without cause.

 

[Henry Ford]

This repeated assertion that witness #10 and his family were threatened- any proof of that?

For starters, Grand Jury Volume VI, page 190. Look it up.

He said proof.

Really? Do you honestly think the mob that was yelling at him is going to come forward and admit this? Do you think Witness #10's statement and admission of fearing for him and his family needs to be proven?You guys are taking this misdirection thing to a ridiculous extreme. And you are conveniently forgetting that the burden of proof here lies with you, not me.

So once again, for the 100th time, please cite some evidence showing that Officer Wilson murdered Mike Brown without cause.

"Murdered" specifically?

 

[SIDA!]

This repeated assertion that witness #10 and his family were threatened- any proof of that?

For starters, Grand Jury Volume VI, page 190. Look it up.

He said proof.

Outside of a witness stating they were threatened and/or afraid, what are you looking for? An arrest for witness intimidation? Hell, Brown's step-dad hasn't even been arrested for inciting a riot on video. Here is a link to an LA Times story about multiple witnesses expressing fear and concern. And these are witnesses that support and oppose Wilson's account of the events.

 

[Christo]

This repeated assertion that witness #10 and his family were threatened- any proof of that?

For starters, Grand Jury Volume VI, page 190. Look it up.

He said proof.

What do you think proof is in a legal proceeding?

 

[Henry Ford]

This repeated assertion that witness #10 and his family were threatened- any proof of that?

For starters, Grand Jury Volume VI, page 190. Look it up.

He said proof.

What do you think proof is in a legal proceeding?

When the guy hops up and admits to Perry Mason that he is the murderer.

 

[Native]

Are we talking about Eric Garner in here? Or is there a separate thread? I know the two issues are connected, but they are completely different stories.

 

[Henry Ford]

Are we talking about Eric Garner in here? Or is there a separate thread? I know the two issues are connected, but they are completely different stories.

What are you going to do, ruin the great conversation? Chat away.

 

[General Tso]

Are we talking about Eric Garner in here? Or is there a separate thread? I know the two issues are connected, but they are completely different stories.

Good question. I'm moving over to that case, where it looks like the real deal. Someone start a thread.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

Are we talking about Eric Garner in here? Or is there a separate thread? I know the two issues are connected, but they are completely different stories.

Good question. I'm moving over to that case, where it looks like the real deal. Someone start a thread.

Done

 

[Gawain]

Wife has some pics of walking through the protest to go to dinner. Feel for anyone that needed an ambulance.

 

[SIDA!]

This repeated assertion that witness #10 and his family were threatened- any proof of that?

For starters, Grand Jury Volume VI, page 190. Look it up.

He said proof.

If you actually took the time to read the reports and witness testimony, you would see that even witnesses presenting testimony favorable to Brown were talking about snitching and threats were being made. A police report recounts a rowdy scene consistent with the testimony of Witness #10 and others. On Page 2 and Page 7 it reads:

The scene near 2947 Canfield Drive had been cordoned off with yellow crime scene tape, and police officers from both the Ferguson Police Department and the Saint Louis County Police Department were standing atvarious points around the tape preserving the scene. There were groups of bystanders just outside the yellow crime scene tape at points all around the scene. Many individuals were clearly upset and were expressing their frustration, by at times yelling obscenities and threats, and attempting to encroach on the crime scene itself.

----

As the scene investigation continued, there were several large groups of hostile individuals around the perimeter of the crime scene. The investigation of the scene was interrupted several times by death threats directed toward police officers and gunshots being fired by an unknown persons around the crime scene.

Witness 14 recounted the following after the shooting from Page 24-25:

...these young guys they have nothing to do. When they can latch onthe something they embellish it because they want something to do.

This is something they giving the okay now we got something we can

get into. I?ve lived out there off and on for years. The majority of

them do not work. They all they do is sit around and get high all day.

Okay, that?s it and just talk stupid and they had that there and then

when we were standing there someone at the top of the hill I had

gotten back to my porch. Someone at the top of the hill my brother, my

sister and sister-in-law and was back on the porch

when I came back. Fired off some shots the officers heard and they

started running okay. Everyone that was on the other side of the street

started pointing where did it come from everybody started point we

had two people never seen these people before in my life in the whole

time have been out there and I sit out there a lot. Came up

threatenin?, hey ya?ll better not say nothing ah, you?ll snitching and

see that upset

Did they say this to you and

were was looking at the officers. was

standing there and I happened to turn when said it, I?m like what?

What? Ya know, and I thought wait a minute I said turn around

everybody was still doing this but and this other girl had made a

point to say something to

To

Right.

About not snitching?

About not snitching.

Two females?

Yeah.

So I?m like wait, what and I?m like and I told the girls I said tell

what ya what, you?all, in a very derogatory term, turn around everyone

is pointing that way, ya know. For three days I had to deal with

because thatjust shook to the core not used to anything like

this.

Can you explain this, 'cause I?m a little bit confused, what prompted these girls to come over to you and...

And other witnesses express fear and concern and what not.

 

[timschochet]

Personally I'm satisfied with the witness testimony. Thanks, General Tso.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

“It's a shame this thing has come to this,” Ditka said. “The shame of it is, I'm not sure they care about Michael Brown or anything else. This was a reason to protest and to go out and loot. Is this the way to celebrate the memory of Michael Brown? Is this an excuse to be lawless? Somebody has to tell me that. I don't understand it. I understand what the Rams' take on this was. I'm embarrassed for the players more than anything. They want to take a political stand on this? Well, there are a lot of other things that have happened in our society that people have not stood up and disagreed about.

“I wasn't in Ferguson. I don't know exactly what happened. But I know one thing: If we dismantle and limit the power of our policemen any more than we have already, then we're going to have a lot of problems in this country.

“What do you do if someone pulls a gun on you or is robbing a store and you stop them? I don't want to hear about this hands-up crap. That's not what happened. I don't know exactly what did happen, but I know that's not what happened. This policeman's life is ruined. Why? Because we have to break somebody down. Because we have to even out the game. I don't know. I don't get it. Maybe I'm just old fashioned.”

 

[fatness]

So that's one more time Mike Ditka doesn't know what happened.

Football Hall of Famer Mike Ditka said Tuesday that he will dissolve a charity that collected $1.3 million in its first three years and gave only $57,000 to needy ex-players.

Ditka's Hall of Fame Assistance Trust, USA TODAY reported Friday, spent the bulk of its money — more than $715,000 — staging three golf tournaments from 2004 to 2006 to aid the charity. In 2005, the trust paid $65,000 in appearance fees to get former stars to play in the tournament. That was $8,000 more than the charity paid indigent players in its first three years.

Ditka said he hopes that folding the charity will end the furor. "There's nothing that can be said about that anymore," he said at a news conference in Minneapolis. "There was nothing wrong that was ever done, except the money was accumulated. Some was given out, probably not enough was given out. You can always find fault with anything you want to in life."

 

[lod01]

Ok. Case finally closed. Wilson supporters get the unanimous decision - 12 rounds Wilson, 0 rounds Brown. Probably should have been a 1st round KO with the beating Brown supporters took. Gotta hand it to them. They kept getting up and getting punched right in the face time and time again.

 

[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.

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.

Really? You are really going to discredit Witness #10 because he said they were initially walking on the sidewalk and not the middle of the road? Really? Dude, come on. I can guarantee you that nobody sees things 100% correctly, particularly events that precede something dramatic. The brain will remember important elements.

The walking on the sidewalk part is pretty inconsequential here, don't you think? As opposed to say, someone saying he was "shot in the back"? I mean, it's analogous to someone witnessing the Kennedy assassination, have all of his observations completely jive with the physical evidence, but having his entire testimony dismissed because he said the limo was in the lefthand lane as it approached the scene rather than being in the middle of the road.

Witness #10 is a black man who, despite being threatened by the mob for telling the story as he saw it, came forth anyways and gave testimony that for the most part completely jived with the physical evidence and with Officer Wilson's story. He came forward knowing full well he would be scorned by many in the black community. He feared for he and his family, but did it anyways - out of a sense of justice and a sense of responsibility to give the family appropriate closure by providing the truth. He's one of the most believable people in this whole affair, and not just because he supports my position.

HES A L1AR!!! NOTHING HE SAYS IS TRUE! HE WAS INCONSISTENT!

 

[Todd Andrews]

Dang protestors.

Just unbelievable.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I actually have some sympathy for him. I do think he did a crappy job, that he acted like an insensitive dooshbag after the grand jury decision, and that his life won't be "ruined" by a long shot. But assuming the shooting truly was justified, I do feel a little bad for him. Not much, because as I said I don't find him to be a particularly sympathetic figure for many reasons. But a little. I shouldn't have suggested that I had zero sympathy.

I have a little bit of sympathy for Rubin Carter. Not a lot. Just a little bit. Kinda sucks he was imprisoned for a crime he didn't commit, but hey - he was acting like a douchbag that day and he was carrying a firearm in his car. He also didn't express a lot of sympathy for the family of the murdered victim. He got a bad break, but was his life ruined? I think not. The guy got a movie made after him and he became a celebrity.Do you see how ridiculous this all sounds? Dude - that is how you sound right now to an awful lot of people - the overwhelming majority of whom are good people who see past color. You really do need to check yourself. I'm telling you this as someone who is extremely committed to the cause of racial equality.

Let me see if I have this straight. If anything I say here is incorrect please feel free to correct it.

1. You equated the plight of Darren Wilson with that of blacks lynched in the Jim Crow south. The basis for this comparison is that you believe Wilson has been wrongfully accused of murder by some members of the community and forced to resign from his job as a result. Wilson, it should be noted, is also the beneficiary of a rather large fundraising effort and is held up by some in the conservative community (including posters in this thread) as a sort of hero. This fate, in your words, is "just as wrong as the injustices that occurred in the Jim Crow south with the lynchings." That is, you consider living life as a wrongfully accused but free man to be just as much of a miscarriage of justice as being hung by an angry mob because of the color of your skin.

2. You then, in the post quoted here, drew an analogy the fate of between Wilson, a man who will never even face trial for killing Brown, and a man falsely imprisoned for 20 years. You continue with this analogy by suggesting that Wilson having no compassion or sympathy for the family of the man that even he admits to killing is similar to Carter having no compassion of sympathy for the family of people he's never met.

3. Finally, you call me a racist despite the fact that the only person to introduce race into this particular conversation was you, when you compared Wilson's fate to that of lynched blacks.

Is all of that correct? As I said, please feel free to point out if any of this is wrong.

You mention that you were once wrongfully accused of a crime. If that's true, you have my sympathy. Thankfully I have no idea what this feels like, but I'm sure it's horrible. But it's not a free pass to post crap like this.

 

[Sand]

Dang protestors.

Salon reporting on a Berkley study. Talk about a super hard left circle jerk.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

What are you guys doing over here?..This is old news we have moved on to the choke hold thread.

 

[SIDA!]

I would still like to hear from those who think Wilson was in the wrong and wrongfully killed Mike Brown to articulate what facts/evidence concern them with respect to the events that transpired from when Wilson left the last call to the point Brown was killed in the street.

I think we can all agree that things could have been done differently or that some protocols were violated, yada yada yada.

I am not trying to be obtuse, but I don't think anyone (besides Tim) has really pointed to anything specific that would support their viewpoint that Wilson was in the wrong.

Tim has said he doesn't think Brown charged Wilson. He has not presented any evidence, just pointed to eyewitness statements and his overall belief that it would be irrational for Brown to do that.

It seems others think Wilson was wrong but have yet to really point to anything specific.

Bueller? Bueller?

Anybody care to weigh in or is it time to shut this baby down...

 

[timschochet]

Mike Ditka should stick to football. Just an ignorant and embarrassing rant.

 

[squistion]

Mike Ditka should stick to football. Just an ignorant and embarrassing rant.

The GOP tried to talk him into running against Obama for the Illinois senate seat. Unfortunately he declined, as it would have been quite entertaining as evidenced by his recent comments on the St. Louis players:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/03/mike-ditka-ferguson_n_6258078.html

Mike Ditka 'Embarrassed' For Rams After Ferguson Protest, Upset By 'This Hands-Up Crap'

Mike Ditka admits he doesn't know exactly what happened in Ferguson, Missouri, but the former Chicago Bears coach seems pretty certain about what didn't happen.

In response to five St. Louis Rams players taking the field while making the "hands up, don't shoot" gesture before their game on Sunday, Ditka told the Chicago Sun-Times: "I dont want to hear about this hands-up crap. Thats not what happened. I dont know exactly what did happen, but I know thats not what happened."

The "hands up, don't shoot" gesture has come to symbolize solidarity with the protests in Ferguson. It's modeled after the position some witnesses said Michael Brown was in when he was fatally shot by then-Officer Darren Wilson.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Mike Ditka should stick to football. Just an ignorant and embarrassing rant.

The GOP tried to talk him into running against Obama for the Illinois senate seat. Unfortunately he declined, as it would have been quite entertaining as evidenced by his recent comments on the St. Louis players:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/03/mike-ditka-ferguson_n_6258078.html

Mike Ditka 'Embarrassed' For Rams After Ferguson Protest, Upset By 'This Hands-Up Crap'

Mike Ditka admits he doesn't know exactly what happened in Ferguson, Missouri, but the former Chicago Bears coach seems pretty certain about what didn't happen.

In response to five St. Louis Rams players taking the field while making the "hands up, don't shoot" gesture before their game on Sunday, Ditka told the Chicago Sun-Times: "I dont want to hear about this hands-up crap. Thats not what happened. I dont know exactly what did happen, but I know thats not what happened."

The "hands up, don't shoot" gesture has come to symbolize solidarity with the protests in Ferguson. It's modeled after the position some witnesses said Michael Brown was in when he was fatally shot by then-Officer Darren Wilson.

Ditka would do well here.

 

[jon_mx]

Mike Ditka should stick to football. Just an ignorant and embarrassing rant.

The GOP tried to talk him into running against Obama for the Illinois senate seat. Unfortunately he declined, as it would have been quite entertaining as evidenced by his recent comments on the St. Louis players:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/03/mike-ditka-ferguson_n_6258078.html

Mike Ditka 'Embarrassed' For Rams After Ferguson Protest, Upset By 'This Hands-Up Crap'

Mike Ditka admits he doesn't know exactly what happened in Ferguson, Missouri, but the former Chicago Bears coach seems pretty certain about what didn't happen.

In response to five St. Louis Rams players taking the field while making the "hands up, don't shoot" gesture before their game on Sunday, Ditka told the Chicago Sun-Times: "I dont want to hear about this hands-up crap. Thats not what happened. I dont know exactly what did happen, but I know thats not what happened."

The "hands up, don't shoot" gesture has come to symbolize solidarity with the protests in Ferguson. It's modeled after the position some witnesses said Michael Brown was in when he was fatally shot by then-Officer Darren Wilson.

So it is an endorsement of false rhetoric which is fueling people to beat people with hammers.

 

[Ketamine Dreams]

Yeah, Ditka does well until the 'happened' segment. That is painful to read. But the hands up thing was truly embarrassing. By using that display it implies Brown was murdered by Wilson while surrendering, and evidence supports Wilson being justified in the shooting, (100% justified IMO). It paints cops as shooting without regard to the law and police procedure. Really a shameful act by the Rams players.

 

[jon_mx]

The Hands Up gesture is far worse than the Death Panels rhetoric.

 

[timschochet]

Yeah, Ditka does well until the 'happened' segment. That is painful to read. But the hands up thing was truly embarrassing. By using that display it implies Brown was murdered by Wilson while surrendering, and evidence supports Wilson being justified in the shooting, (100% justified IMO). It paints cops as shooting without regard to the law and police procedure. Really a shameful act by the Rams players.

look you're just going to have to get over the fact that millions of people disagree with you on whether or not this shooting was justified. Their viewpoint, which encompasses not only this case but a much larger pattern of police mistreatment against blacks, is perfectly legitimate and not at all shameful. And their use of the "hands up don't shoot" symbol is not at all shameful either , but a reasonable expression of their discontent.

 

[jon_mx]

Yeah, Ditka does well until the 'happened' segment. That is painful to read. But the hands up thing was truly embarrassing. By using that display it implies Brown was murdered by Wilson while surrendering, and evidence supports Wilson being justified in the shooting, (100% justified IMO). It paints cops as shooting without regard to the law and police procedure. Really a shameful act by the Rams players.

look you're just going to have to get over the fact that millions of people disagree with you on whether or not this shooting was justified. Their viewpoint, which encompasses not only this case but a much larger pattern of police mistreatment against blacks, is perfectly legitimate and not at all shameful. And their use of the "hands up don't shoot" symbol is not at all shameful either , but a reasonable expression of their discontent.

It is shameful because it distorts the truth.

 

[jon_mx]

So if people are discontent with Obama, it should be a reasonable expression to draw him as Hitler?