Michael Brown Shooting

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.

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.

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.

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?

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 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.