Michael Brown Shooting

JimmyV

Gern Blansten said:

http://www.vox.com/2014/11/25/7281165/darren-wilsons-story-side

Interesting view

From the article:

But the larger question is, in a sense, simpler: Why?

Why did Michael Brown, an 18-year-old kid headed to college, refuse to move from the middle of the street to the sidewalk? Why would he curse out a police officer? Why would he attack a police officer? Why would he dare a police officer to shoot him? Why would he charge a police officer holding a gun? Why would he put his hand in his waistband while charging, even though he was unarmed?

None of this fits with what we know of Michael Brown. Brown wasn't a hardened felon. He didn't have a death wish. And while he might have been stoned, this isn't how stoned people act. The toxicology report did not indicate he was on PCP or something that would've led to suicidal aggression.

I never watched the convenience store video until this morning. It clearly shows Michael Brown acting out in an aggressive manner, both in stealing the cigarillos and threatening/pushing the clerk. So as we ask these why questions, we also need to ask why was he doing the things we have video evidence of him doing in the minutes before he encountered Officer Wilson? His behavior is very aggressive on the tape, yet that behavior is almost entirely discounted as a contributor to the incident that follows.

Cliffy6745

Former New York state Chief Judge Sol Wachtler famously remarked that a prosecutor could persuade a grand jury to "indict a ham sandwich." The data suggests he was barely exaggerating: According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them.

The system doesn't work.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

JC29856 said:

Gern Blansten said:

http://www.vox.com/2014/11/25/7281165/darren-wilsons-story-side

Interesting view

Wow, someone else out there with the ability to actually think for themself comes to the same conclusion i did after reading Wilson's story.

The story is a challenging one to believe- but no more challenging than the alternative.

Why is it beyond someone to think Brown was acting brazenly as he just robbed the convenience store? Why is it beyond someone to think Brown could never have been defiant? Why is it beyond someone to think Brown may have felt the need to grapple with the officer thinking he was about to get arrested for his robbery?

This piece offers Brown every bit of credibility it can eke out given the circumstances, while at the same time offers Wilson nothing. Bias here?

And you gloat that the writer of the piece are great thinkers? I would say you're great at convincing yourselves of the things you wish to convince yourself of.

Last-12-Exit

.

JC29856 said:

Now a question for the blood experts...hopefully cnn fox and other websites already answered this so you can post their version....
Is the 25 feet away blood, blood spatter, drops of blood, or the blood that flowed out of Brown's body for 4.5 hours it lay there dead? Or a combination....this is for the blood experts!

What does it matter how long he was there dead? Seriously? It's really irrevelant the amount of time his body is laying there.

Gern Blansten

JimmyV said:

Gern Blansten said:

http://www.vox.com/2014/11/25/7281165/darren-wilsons-story-side

Interesting view

From the article:

But the larger question is, in a sense, simpler: Why?

Why did Michael Brown, an 18-year-old kid headed to college, refuse to move from the middle of the street to the sidewalk? Why would he curse out a police officer? Why would he attack a police officer? Why would he dare a police officer to shoot him? Why would he charge a police officer holding a gun? Why would he put his hand in his waistband while charging, even though he was unarmed?

None of this fits with what we know of Michael Brown. Brown wasn't a hardened felon. He didn't have a death wish. And while he might have been stoned, this isn't how stoned people act. The toxicology report did not indicate he was on PCP or something that would've led to suicidal aggression.

I never watched the convenience store video until this morning. It clearly shows Michael Brown acting out in an aggressive manner, both in stealing the cigarillos and threatening/pushing the clerk. So as we ask these why questions, we also need to ask why was he doing the things we have video evidence of him doing in the minutes before he encountered Officer Wilson? His behavior is very aggressive on the tape, yet that behavior is almost entirely discounted as a contributor to the incident that follows.




Yeah it definitely gives some interesting insight. I'm not sure that bridges the gap to threatening a police officer but it's an odd fit no doubt about it.

Cliffy6745

Whether Wilson was right or wrong, there is no excuse for there not to be an indictment and anyone who thinks otherwise clearly does not understand the American justice system.

muskydan

Last-12-Exit said:

How is that Crimp guy a lawyer? "It should be indicted. Because the system is broken!"

Seriously? Indict him because he's a black kid that punched a cop in the face and tried to take his gun. This guy is as bad Sharpton.

No kidding, I am even embarrassed for this family that they are getting legal guidance from a dummy like that.

The one thing he did say that made sense was the Brown family wants to have a new National Law Named after their son where all Law enforcement have to wear Body Camera's. I am all for that. If I had a camera on me the past 10 years of my life working areas 10 times worse than Ferguson, no Police officer would ever have to explain themselves for what they have to deal with and what they do…just play the tape.

Gern Blansten

Cliffy6745 said:

Whether Wilson was right or wrong, there is no excuse for there not to be an indictment and anyone who thinks otherwise clearly does not understand the American justice system.

This sums it up nicely.

Pretty rare for a prosecutor to be on the side of the accused in a grand jury presentation. Not appropriate in my opinion but maybe I'm missing something.

JimmyV

Cliffy6745 said:

Whether Wilson was right or wrong, there is no excuse for there not to be an indictment and anyone who thinks otherwise clearly does not understand the American justice system.

This is a valid point. If indictments are almost automatic then this case is an outlier. Very reasonable to question why.

norm

Cliffy6745 said:

Whether Wilson was right or wrong, there is no excuse for there not to be an indictment and anyone who thinks otherwise clearly does not understand the American justice system.

jeffbr

Cliffy6745 said:

Whether Wilson was right or wrong, there is no excuse for there not to be an indictment and anyone who thinks otherwise clearly does not understand the American justice system.

??? Please explain what you mean. The "excuse" is that there was insufficient evidence to take this to trial. The grand jury had a lower bar of preponderance of evidence, and the evidence couldn't even meet that low standard, let alone the beyond a shadow of a doubt requirement for the criminal trial. So since I clearly don't understand the American justice system as well as you do, please explain what you mean. Do you mean that the grand jury should have automatically handed down an indictment regardless of lack of evidence, so that it could go to trial? What would have been the point in that?

Last-12-Exit

Cliffy6745 said:

Whether Wilson was right or wrong, there is no excuse for there not to be an indictment and anyone who thinks otherwise clearly does not understand the American justice system.

I have a clear understanding of the criminal justice system. So please, enlighten me on why there had to be an indictment.

norm

Cliffy6745 said:

Former New York state Chief Judge Sol Wachtler famously remarked that a prosecutor could persuade a grand jury to "indict a ham sandwich." The data suggests he was barely exaggerating: According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them.

The system doesn't work.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/

Cliffy6745

Last-12-Exit said:

Cliffy6745 said:

Whether Wilson was right or wrong, there is no excuse for there not to be an indictment and anyone who thinks otherwise clearly does not understand the American justice system.

I have a clear understanding of the criminal justice system. So please, enlighten me on why there had to be an indictment.

The prosecutor clearly had no interest in getting an indictment. This was the most predictable thing from the beginning. The DA clearly didn't want this ongoing case in their community. No one can say there was not enough doubt in what happened to have this be heard by a court.

jeffbr said:

Cliffy6745 said:

Whether Wilson was right or wrong, there is no excuse for there not to be an indictment and anyone who thinks otherwise clearly does not understand the American justice system.

??? Please explain what you mean. The "excuse" is that there was insufficient evidence to take this to trial. The grand jury had a lower bar of preponderance of evidence, and the evidence couldn't even meet that low standard, let alone the beyond a shadow of a doubt requirement for the criminal trial. So since I clearly don't understand the American justice system as well as you do, please explain what you mean. Do you mean that the grand jury should have automatically handed down an indictment regardless of lack of evidence, so that it could go to trial? What would have been the point in that?

Oh bullshit. Every prosecutor can get an indictment on anything they want. They didn't want this trial in their community. Period.

The DA doesn't even need a fucking grand jury

Do you know when grand juries don't indict people? When witnesses are being uncooperative likely due to threats

Self defense is an affirmative defense at trial, it is NOT a defense to not being charged with the crime

Gern Blansten

The grand jury response doesn't mean the evidence wasn't sufficient....it means 75% of the grand jury didn't believe it was sufficient. Like I said...maybe 8 of the 12 voted to indict, we'll never know.

Indifference

norm said:

Cliffy6745 said:

Former New York state Chief Judge Sol Wachtler famously remarked that a prosecutor could persuade a grand jury to "indict a ham sandwich." The data suggests he was barely exaggerating: According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them.

The system doesn't work.

Why the use of federal states for a state case

Last-12-Exit

Has it occured to anyone that the prosecution knew he could not get a conviction? If this case did not have the national exposure, the prosecutor probably wouldn't have even presented this to the grand jury. There's no point to go through the process if it's clear no conviction can be attained. But, since this case was such a high profile case, the prosecutor had to take this to a grand jury if for no other reason, cover his own ass.

Cliffy6745

Gern Blansten said:

Cliffy6745 said:

Whether Wilson was right or wrong, there is no excuse for there not to be an indictment and anyone who thinks otherwise clearly does not understand the American justice system.

This sums it up nicely.

Pretty rare for a prosecutor to be on the side of the accused in a grand jury presentation. Not appropriate in my opinion but maybe I'm missing something.

Agreed

jeffbr

Cliffy6745 said:

Last-12-Exit said:

Cliffy6745 said:

Whether Wilson was right or wrong, there is no excuse for there not to be an indictment and anyone who thinks otherwise clearly does not understand the American justice system.

I have a clear understanding of the criminal justice system. So please, enlighten me on why there had to be an indictment.

The prosecutor clearly had no interest in getting an indictment. This was the most predictable thing from the beginning. The DA clearly didn't want this ongoing case in their community. No one can say there was not enough doubt in what happened to have this be heard by a court.

jeffbr said:

Cliffy6745 said:

Whether Wilson was right or wrong, there is no excuse for there not to be an indictment and anyone who thinks otherwise clearly does not understand the American justice system.

??? Please explain what you mean. The "excuse" is that there was insufficient evidence to take this to trial. The grand jury had a lower bar of preponderance of evidence, and the evidence couldn't even meet that low standard, let alone the beyond a shadow of a doubt requirement for the criminal trial. So since I clearly don't understand the American justice system as well as you do, please explain what you mean. Do you mean that the grand jury should have automatically handed down an indictment regardless of lack of evidence, so that it could go to trial? What would have been the point in that?

Oh bullshit. Every prosecutor can get an indictment on anything they want. They didn't want this trial in their community. Period.

The DA doesn't even need a fucking grand jury

Do you know when grand juries don't indict people? When witnesses are being uncooperative likely due to threats

Self defense is an affirmative defense at trial, it is NOT a defense to not being charged with the crime

Ha, ok. So in a post higher up this page you showed federal stats for US grand jury numbers (ie grand juries would indict a ham sandwich), to which you commented that the system is broken, presumably because they just pass these things through. Then when a grand jury actually does its job and examines evidence, weighs it, and makes what appears to be a sound decision you don't like it because the grand jury didn't act as they usually do (ie the way in which the system is broken). Are you being inconsistent?

And do you believe the prosecutor should have just taken the case to trial regardless, even if he believed there was insufficient evidence to get a conviction? Why? That sounds counter-productive, and a waste of time and money. And would likely have prolonged the idiots in the streets.

JC29856

Ok let's wait until the nyt cnn fox and other website deal with th

JimmyV said:

Gern Blansten said:

JimmyV said:

CNN had the blood spatter chart last night. It exists.

yeah...I just posted it above

Thanks.

ok i know we dont like answering questions and maybe we dont like the asker. but from the nice diagram from nyt. (since we cannot identify the blood as splatter from gunshot, drops from body or blood-run)
how about these questions i have, why are casing shown beyond browns body? is it common for a casing to travel 25-35 feet? it looks like 6 of the 10 casing are laying past brown. these are just questions from a non gun expert.