General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIf there was any doubt about whether Wilson gave a flying fuck about Michael Brown
He has answered that doubt with his recent interviews. The family of Michael Brown reacts:
_______________________________________
The family of slain Ferguson teenager Michael Brown is hurt and "taken aback" by Officer Darren Wilson's statement that he has a "clean conscience" and couldn't have done it any differently.
Brown's parents appeared in New York with the Rev. Al Sharpton and the families of other African Americans who were killed by police. Sharpton said it would be the first Thanksgiving for these families "with an empty seat at the table."
snip
At one point during the interview with Stephanopoulos, Wilson said he doesn’t believe he could have done anything differently that day and that he had a clean conscience.
"The reason I have a clean conscience is because I know I did my job right,” he said.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/michael-browns-parents-aback-darren-wilsons-clean-conscience/story?id=27205301
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)I don't know about anybody else but that makes me very very very angry
even if you believe he knew about the stealing of cigars which is doubtful he is saying that the outcome of death for the 18 year old kid is appropriate for stealing cigars
spin
(17,493 posts)his pistol. That's a BIG deal! The advantage of being armed while facing an unarmed individual is gone when he grabs your weapon. It's not uncommon for a cop to get killed by a person who manages to get control of his pistol. That's why many cops use level III retention holsters.
Apparently Brown also failed to drop to the street when told to do so by Officer Wilson. Brown may or may not have had his hands up but having your hands up is not necessarily a gesture of surrender. I learned in a jujitsu class that that having your hands up allows you to make many very effective moves to disarm or disable your opponent and in fact is a better starting position than hands down.
Also Brown didn't just shoplift some cigars. What he did is considered strong-arm robbery.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)if that story was even true. But, it looks more like Wilson pulled his gun and Brown tried to push the gun away. WTF.
spin
(17,493 posts)not by cops or bad guys but by civilians who thought I was an intruder. I didn't try to grab the weapon. I simply was polite and compliant. If for some reason a cop pointed a gun at me, I would never be so stupid as to try to push the gun away. Cops are very protective of their weapons for good reason.
You feel that if Brown physically attacked Wilson, Wilson would have showed far more damage. Have you ever watched a boxing match that was stopped by the referee? Often the losing fighter doesn't appear all that injured even the day after. Yet had the ref not stopped the fight he would have been knocked out and perhaps seriously injured. I remember watching a boxing match where one boxer ended up dead.
I talked to a guy who used to be an emergency room tech. He said that sometimes a person who had suffered a minor blow to the head would look terrible while another person who was much more seriously injured would look almost normal. He stated that much depended on the individual.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)and seem to be around a lot of violent entertainment. Yet you still don't know it's instinct to push a gun away from your face. Very odd indeed there is much here in what you wrote that doesn't add up.
spin
(17,493 posts)it's best to comply with his orders.
For example let's say you are walking down a street and a guy pulls a gun on you and demands your wallet. I learned in a jujitsu class that the best approach is to look into the attacker's eyes and judge his motivations. If he seems calm, in control of his emotions, and you honestly feel that all he wants is your wallet — the wisest thing you can do is to hand it over. You can always replace your money, your credit cards and your IDs. It much harder to replace your health if you try to resist and are shot and it is possible that you will end up six feet under.
Now if you honestly feel that he intends to seriously hurt or kill you even if you do comply, then it is time to try to run or attempt to disarm or disable him. You don't have much to lose.
Note that I have a carry permit and I carry.
It may surprise you but it is very rare that I watch "violent entertainment." It simply is so unrealistic that it seems to be a waste of time to me. I tend to watch 24/7 cable news, the history channel or the discovery channel and I do enjoy watching football and field and track.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)The officer at this point issued no orders he just pulled his gun. It was in proximity to Brown's face. And I am straight up saying your stories seem to bear no resemblance to reality.
spin
(17,493 posts)in the middle of the street. What would you do? Would you comply or would you curse at him?
Let's say the officer learns that you have possibly just committed a strong-arm robbery in a convenience store and backs his car up to confront you. Would you follow the instructions of the officer or would you attack him? Would you try to grab his pistol?
So after the confrontation in the car you run and the officer follows you. You turn toward him and he orders you to get down on the street. What would you do. Let's say you decide to advance toward him and he fires several rounds and stops and tells you to get down again. What would you do?
In passing my stories are real but while a know a lot of truly tough guys I don't consider myself to be one. I actually have lived a very peaceful life. I lived in a dangerous neighborhood for many years but had no problems mainly because I practice situational awareness.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)yet your scenarios don't ring true. Not even a little. Maybe Brown cursed. Last I checked you don't get the death penalty for that. Lets say Wilson is telling the truth. He sounds like an idiot. He could have stayed in his car and called for backup. If he truly feared for his life getting out of the car was the most retarded thing he could have done.
PS I still don't believe you.
spin
(17,493 posts)Probably the most important question that I asked is would you have attacked a police officer?
There is little doubt of an altercation happening at the police car. If Brown would have complied with Wilson's orders at that moment and not chose to attack the officer, he would be alive today.He would simply be facing a charge of strong-arm robbery and he probably would have only have to serve some community service or at the most spend a short time in jail.
Officer Wilson is a cop. His job to to serve and protect and that means that it is possible that he may have to put his life in danger. I see no problem with his decision to leave his police car and pursue Brown. I admire his courage but most police officers in that situation would have done the same.
PS. It doesn't bother me in the least that you don't believe me. I'm not trying to make myself out to be a tough guy to impress you. Your opinion of me is totally irrelevant. I haven't bothered to form any opinion of you as I am merely interested in discussing the issue.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)so there is no there there. We don't know that Brown did any such thing. We have Wilson's word and he is not credible even a little. So we don't know what happened and that is the end of that story. I don't think Brown attacked Wilson. I think based on the position of the squad car he maneuvered in front of Brown and grabbed him. Did he pull him into the car maybe not, but after being touched Brown might have volunteered to pop his head into the car then they had a confrontation. So yes if that's the situation I would have put some bruises on the cop.
The question though is really is officer Wilson justified in murdering Brown for that? And he isn't even though he got away with it.
spin
(17,493 posts)that backs up Wilson's story.
Darren Wilson told investigators he was trapped in his car by Brown, New York Times reports
October 18, 2014 8:15 am • FROM STAFF REPORTS
***snip***
Wilson told authorities Brown reached for the officer’s gun during a struggle inside his police SUV, the Times reported. The gun fired twice inside the car. One bullet hit Brown in the arm and the other bullet missed him, the Times reported. Brown was unarmed.
Brown’s blood was found on Wilson’s gun, uniform, and the inside of the vehicle door, the Times reported. Wilson said Brown “punched and scratched him repeatedly, leaving swelling on his face and cuts on his neck,” the Times said.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/darren-wilson-told-investigators-he-was-trapped-in-his-car/article_3d9ff30b-311a-545b-859a-5d6ef60debc4.html
My point remains that if Brown had simply followed Wilson's instructions and not attacked him in the police car, Brown would be alive today.
Look, I understand that often the police abuse their powers. I'm 68 and I have heard of many examples of this fact over the years. When I was a young man, it wasn't uncommon for the police to beat a confession out of a person. When I was Brown's age, the cops didn't have to read you your rights when they arrested you. There was an excellent chance that you would spend hours sitting on a wooden chair with a bright light in your face and cops screaming at you and if that didn't work you might get smacked around with a rubber hose.
I remember talking to a cop who told me that sometimes cops would lie to get a guy sent to prison. He justified this by saying that, "the prep had undoubtedly committed a large number of crimes but we just couldn't prove it. So the fact that he didn't commit the crime he was convicted of is irrelevant. He deserved to go to jail, period."
I support efforts to stop the police from abusing their authority. I actually have known some racist cops although most cops I know are not prejudiced. The Wilson/Brown shooting sounded like a good example of how the police shoot innocent young black males without reason when it first broke. Unfortunately as time passed and the evidence came out it turns out to be a poor example. However there are many good stories to find and use that don't suffer from the weaknesses that the Wilson/Brown story has. One that is currently drawing attention is the shooting of a 12 year old black teenager with a BB gun in Cleveland Ohio. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/11/26/officials-release-video-names-in-fatal-police-shooting-of-12-year-old-cleveland-boy/
Most people wish to see the police operate by the rules and treat all people fairly but they do not support sending a white cop to prison because he shot an unarmed black teen if the evidence shows that the cop was justified in using deadly force. Nor would they support sending a black cop to jail if he was legally justified in shooting a white teen.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)spin
(17,493 posts)supports his story. I agree with the grand jury that there is not enough evidence against Wilson to justify the time and expense of a trial. It's possible but unlikely that the Feds will charge Wilson with violating Brown's civil rights and if they do, Wilson will most likely walk free. (Of course it is possible that the Feds have evidence not currently available to the public.)
If you are unwilling to read and consider my replies then my posting them is simply a waste of my time. Therefore I wish you a good Thanksgiving Day.
tblue
(16,350 posts)Happy Thanksgiving. A good day for you to give thanks that you're not a black man in America--because you would be judged as harshly and heartlessly, and deemed an appropriate target for execution, as you have Michael Brown. Really, be thankful no one is shooting you without regret and then stomping on your grave as your loved ones weep.
spin
(17,493 posts)I refuse to put my life at risk on a daily basis for people who hate me because of the color of my skin and automatically feel that because I am white and wear a police uniform, I'm am a racist.
I do have a great deal of admiration and respect for those who chose to serve and protect and that applies to all those who do with the exception of those who actually are racists.
TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)with racist practices in an isolated, clannish and klannish culture that sees us as their enemies that in turn feeds an extraction system masquerading as a fake ass justice system using laws passed by a bunch of bought and sold crooks owned by the scum of the Earth.
spin
(17,493 posts)Out of curiosity how do you feel about people in our military?
TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)mostly for resource acquisition and control propped up by lies of patriotism and protecting the light of freedom and justice when the mission is as close to the opposite as possible.
I do think the military attracts somewhat less of a ratio of gangsters and bigots because of the mission and higher level of sacrifice required along with a somewhat less toxic structure at the Federal level.
spin
(17,493 posts)It summed the situation up nicely and didn't blame the individual soldier for following the orders of those far above his rank.
I have known a fairly large number of cops during my life and my experience is that that there is racism in their ranks but it is nowhere as prevalent as you feel.
TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)I've known plenty too, even related to some. The culture is what it is and is pervasive. I've already stated my belief that even minority officers operate as racists, from there it can't much matter what individual prejudices are had or in what level except to make matters worse or a better within the context they exist but the context, the structures define not the individuals. The individuals are drones and if they do not operate as drones they are cut out from the herd.
spin
(17,493 posts)I've known a number of cops who definitely didn't strike me as racist. (Of course it may be hard for me to know as I am white and racist cops may not advertise their bias.)
One roomed with us for a couple of years. He often worked the graveyard shift and frequently during the day black individuals would turn up at the front door and ask to talk with him. They often had problems and wished to get his advice on the best way to solve them. He was always willing to help even though it caused him to get out of bed and lose sleep. He also said that building trust in the black community helped him do his job and he often got information on criminals and their activities in the community. He and his wife who was a 911 dispatcher also did a lot for the Special Olympics and he coached different youth sporting teams.
But I also have known a few officers who were definitely racist although for all I know it may not have effected the way they did their job.
TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)and by pretending that away you are being an active apologists and therefore a supporter of the system.
spin
(17,493 posts)or have known.
You state ALL cops are racist mainly because they work in and support a racist institution.
I am looking at the trees and you are looking at the forest.
I see your point but I refuse to insult the guys who wear the uniform and risk their lives on a daily basis by saying that they all are racists because their institution is. That's like saying both you and I are racist because we live in a racist nation.
I can be a supporter of the system and still work within the it to effect change. I have seen major changes in the system since I was born in 1948. Imagine how much change a person born today will see during his "three score and ten years." Change usually doesn't happen overnight but often is a slow and gradual process with occasional lshort jumps forward.
I hope you are not one who would destroy the system in order to fix it. It's rare when that approach works. Usually things end up much worse than they were to start.
BootinUp
(47,141 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)eviscerated Wilson's claims...completely. but if you were interested in doing anything except supporting murderer, you would already know that.
spin
(17,493 posts)supported Wilson's story.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)or the one from FOX?
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)was concocted to fit the evidence.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)must be those invisible cuts and swelling, because the pics of Wilson taken right after the "altercation" show no marks of any kind.
You seem to have swallowed Wilson's tall tale hook, line and sinker. I have a bridge in Nevada you might like.
spin
(17,493 posts)Sometimes the loser looks terrible and sometimes not.
My son in law worked as an emergency room tech in a hospital and I asked him about his experience with injuries from a blow to the head.
He said much depended on the individual. Some people bruise and swell easily while others may have far more serious injuries and not look as bad.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)who can provide you with a narrative that supports your thesis.
I don't find you any more credible than Officer Wilson, so you can get back to your football, as any replies of a similar ilk will be for naught.
spin
(17,493 posts)Fortunately I'm recording it.
In passing I have known a lot of interesting people, from ex cons to rocket scientists, from welfare recipients to millionaires.
Beringia
(4,316 posts)How come photos of him after the event did not show any marks at all. Maybe bruises take a while to show up, but not cuts. A cut is very obvious.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)don't need real evidence...ey have faith in their stereotypes about black men, so they don't have any use for actual facts.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)if the link works, it is a piece by Chris Hayes
Mike Brown's friend once again.
spin
(17,493 posts)I don't put a lot of faith in eye witnesses especially in this case.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)What is he, if not an "eye witness"? How does his narrative pass the sniff test, when other "eye witnesses" are considered (by you) to be unreliable?
Even my dog thinks you're working too hard to convince yourself others.
spin
(17,493 posts)chervilant
(8,267 posts)Me, neither.
adigal
(7,581 posts)is DO NOT escalate. When a kid gets riled, you defuse the situation. You do not ever, ever escalate. The brains of 18 year olds are not developed, their judgement is faulty. Wilson was a trained adult cop. He screwed up from the first moment he made contact.
My approach to teens has served me well for over 20 years. Defuse, use calm talk, humor and be respectful.
spin
(17,493 posts)approach. It's worth a try.
One problem is that many cops think the most important thing is to take control of the situation.
Chemisse
(30,810 posts)I teach high school. Typical teens do not respond well to direct confrontations, particularly when they involve a person in power flexing his muscles (so to speak).
Cops should have a lot more training in working with people and preventing escalations to violence.
steve2470
(37,457 posts)If Wilson had called for backup and just waited to confront Mr. Brown, Brown would be alive today. An officer confronting two people alone is just asking for trouble.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)Well, who would have guessed..?
spin
(17,493 posts)Bettie
(16,095 posts)Just someone so deep into an authoritarian mindset that when a cop says something, you automatically take it as absolute truth.
spin
(17,493 posts)I have had two cops room with us in our large older house for a period of time.
The majority of cops that I know are dedicated individuals who try to help their community. Unfortunately a few are definitely racist and most likely abuse their authority.
Many of the cops I know are retired. I met them at the pistol ranges I shoot at. It is somewhat interesting that they have expressed the feeling that there seems to be a lower standard for a police officer than there was in their day. They suspect it is because far fewer people are interested in a career in law enforcement.
Pig.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)You seem to to imply that Micheal Brown was.....why? Because he was a Black kid?
I don't buy Wilson's story...not one bit....He tried to step out of that car and got the door back at him....he banged his peanut head and grabbed Brown and pulled him inside to keep him from retreating. Then the struggle inside the vehicle ensued....Brown got away...which explains the blood on the outside...and began to run away...
spin
(17,493 posts)and the individual's skin color is totally irrelevant.
In fact it's my opinion that punching anyone in the face (unless for legitimate self defense) is stupid. It can and probably will get you in a heap of trouble.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)who?
which eyewitness?
spin
(17,493 posts)Unfortunately much of the witness testimony was frabricated or made up.
Ferguson grand jury papers full of inconsistencies
By HOLBROOK MOHR, DAVID A. LIEB and PHILLIP LUCAS
Nov. 26, 2014 10:40 PM EST
FERGUSON, Mo. (AP) — Some witnesses said Michael Brown had been shot in the back. Another said he was face-down on the ground when Officer Darren Wilson "finished him off." Still others acknowledged changing their stories to fit published details about the autopsy or admitted that they did not see the shooting at all.
An Associated Press review of thousands of pages of grand jury documents reveals numerous examples of statements made during the shooting investigation that were inconsistent, fabricated or provably wrong. For one, the autopsies ultimately showed Brown was not struck by any bullets in his back.
Prosecutors exposed these inconsistencies before the jurors, which likely influenced their decision not to indict Wilson in Brown's death.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/078c82ad45ff4ec6aa1c7744dfa7df14/grand-jury-documents-rife-inconsistencies
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)and it's a sham to say they were discredited.
People saw him running.. they saw or heard shots
being fired as he was running.. moments later he
was dead on the ground.
It would be natural to assume he'd been shot in
the back, but apparently those were the shots that
went astray while the shooter was on his rampage.
spin
(17,493 posts)]Witnesses Saw Michael Brown Attacking–and Others Saw Him Giving Up
Officer Darren Wilson was spared criminal charges in part because of significant contradictions in the testimony of bystanders who saw the Ferguson, Missouri, teen get shot and killed.
CONOR FRIEDERSDORFNOV 25 2014, 6:18 AM ET
A grand jury in St. Louis County, Missouri, has ruled that there is no probable cause to believe Officer Darren Wilson committed a crime when he killed Michael Brown. Put another way, in their estimation, the state doesn't possess enough facts to cause a reasonable person to conclude that criminal charges are true. This judgment was shaped in part by the testimony of eye-witnesses to the shooting. Prosecutor Robert McCulloch has now released transcripts of many witness interviews.
The main takeaway: Eyewitness testimony is highly unreliable. To read through the accounts is to see seemingly honest people contradict one another on basic, significant matters of fact. It is seemingly impossible to know what really happened.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/11/major-contradictions-in-eyewitness-accounts-of-michael-browns-death/383157/
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)this is the witness who lied about how far he was away from the scene
or at best changed his story
You see the one who witness the DA decided to believe was the only one who told the story he wanted to hear the rest of them totally different story
spin
(17,493 posts)There also was a blood trail that shows Brown approched Wilson after he turned.
The common practice is for the cop to order an individual to drop to the street. Brown never did this.
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)The argument is over it is now time for change and action
spin
(17,493 posts)I support peaceful demonstrations to protest this treatment.
However, I do not believe that the Wilson/Brown shooting is the best example of mistreatment. There are better recent incidents such as the shooting of 12 year old Tamir Rice in Cleveland because he was holding a BB gun.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/11/26/officials-release-video-names-in-fatal-police-shooting-of-12-year-old-cleveland-boy/
BootinUp
(47,141 posts)According to Johnson he was shot in the torso during the altercation at the car.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)brown was shot in the head....on the way dropping down to the street....he was over 100 ft away from Wilson.
Response to spin (Reply #3)
rufus dog This message was self-deleted by its author.
spin
(17,493 posts)The evidence shows that Brown advanced toward Wilson.
CNN ANALYST READS CRUCIAL EVIDENCE THAT DESTROYS THE LIES ABOUT MICHAEL BROWN SHOOTING
Posted on Nov 25, 2014 at 10:56 AM in Politics | 84 Comments
CNN analyst Mel Robbins read a crucial piece of evidence from the transcript that destroys the lies surrounded the shooting of Michael Brown. In short, there is a trail of blood that proves Michael Brown turned away from officer Wilson and then turned back around and moved toward him at least 20 feet, which corroborates Officer Wilson’s testimony.
20 feet is a long way when an officer is telling you to stop and surrender.
http://therightscoop.com/cnn-analyst-reads-crucial-evidence-that-destroys-the-lies-about-michael-brown-shooting/
I originally felt that Officer Wilson was guilty of murder but after seeing the evidence, I agree with the grand jury's decision. If you put Wilson on trial, he would walk free. There simply is not enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted inappropriately and was not in fear for his health or his life.
obxhead
(8,434 posts)It fits very well.
spin
(17,493 posts)
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)can be "obtuse"
BootinUp
(47,141 posts)BootinUp
(47,141 posts)Here's what it tells us:
20 feet is how far it took Brown to die. 20 feet is anything from 5 to 20 steps. 5 at a "full charge" and 20 if you are staggering to your death. It certainly does not support Wilson firing multiple shots while he charging.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)you have to believe that Mike Brown was a "hulking, grunting demon," who made Wilson feel like a 5 yo.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)only ONE witness said so....who I believe I read had racist facebook entries....
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)The Right Scoop is not just right wing as the name implies, they are an overtly racist site that runs stories with headlines like "Blacks infuriated with 'Uncle Tom bi**h ass n****' Obama after Ferguson Address".
http://therightscoop.com/blacks-infuriated-at-uncle-tom-bch-a-nga-obama-after-his-ferguson-speech/
It says a lot that a Wilson defender like you gets your information from sources like this.
spin
(17,493 posts)a more acceptable source.
Blood stains on the road have been marked as tracing Brown’s movement throughout the incident, since he was bleeding from the hand wound sustained in the altercation at the car. Spatters found on the road seem to be interpreted to corroborate Wilson’s story that Brown was moving back toward him.
http://listverse.com/2014/11/25/10-of-the-most-important-pieces-of-evidence-from-darren-wilson-testimony/
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)First you cite an overtly racist right-wing site then when you get called on it you decide a more acceptable source is a site composed entirely of top ten lists.
Sure I guess a site where people go to find internet top ten lists is more acceptable than the white supremecist site you had previously cited, but if you try to pretend an internet top ten list proves that Michael Brown tried to charge Wilson as if he were a bull then your evidence is sorely lacking.
spin
(17,493 posts)I don't have time to go to the actual evidence presented to the grand jury which is available online. I can probably use a story from Fox News but then you would complain about that source.
My opinion and my presenting evidence published in an "acceptable" source is basically irrelevant as The grand jury has listened to all the testimony and viewed all the evidence. They decided to not indict Wilson. I accept their decision. Their opinion counts! You may not agree with their decision and that's fine with me.
Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)Why am I not surprised? 
spin
(17,493 posts)All three have an agenda. I get a more balanced view of the news by watching all three.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)In the first place, the fact that he got out of his car
and chased them, shooting wildly at them.
That alone should get him charged.
Reckless endangerment. He had other options.
Put yourself, and your gun, in his position. Don't
forget a dose of common sense.
Even if you believed he had stolen cigars.
Even if he had punched you in the face, and said
fuck you or whatever Wilson claims -- even then,
would you chase them on foot and shoot wildly
on a public street?
And watch this video if you haven't already.
You seem enormously gullible, I don't mean to
criticize you but I think you're limiting your
exposure to important information.
spin
(17,493 posts)Shooting an unarmed suspect could be justified, according to the law
August 11, 2014 5:20 pm • By Jennifer S. Mann jmann@post-dispatch.com 314-621-580473
ST. LOUIS • The fact that Michael Brown was unarmed and possibly fleeing when a Ferguson police officer shot him does not necessarily mean the use of force was unjustified in the eyes of the law.
As federal and local authorities begin investigating the case, the key question will be whether the officer had reason to believe Brown, 18, posed a threat — gun or no gun.
The courts, out of concern for public safety and recognizing the dangers of an officer’s job, have traditionally given police a lot of latitude on that front, experts say.
“The federal courts are very clear that there are times and places where officers are allowed to shoot people in the back when they are running away, even if they are unarmed,” said David Klinger, a criminal justice professor at the University of Missouri-St. Louis and expert on police shootings.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/shooting-an-unarmed-suspect-could-be-justified-according-to-the/article_e9b5412f-2283-512e-8636-0d2bbe958c5c.html
You asked me what I would do in that situation. As a civilian I can't pursue an attacker who is running away from me and shoot at him or confront him again. Once he turns and runs the immediate threat to my health or life has ended.
I have listened to other experts on the news who looked at the forensic evidence and the autopsy and they disagreed with the expert in your video.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)Darren Wilson alleges that Michael Brown grabbed for his gun, but that is far from proven fact. One thing that is a fact however is that Michael Brown was not in a position in which he would have even been capable of reaching for the gun at the time he was shot.
spin
(17,493 posts)don't.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)The Grand Jury never ruled that Brown grabbed for Wilson's gun, they simply did not indict. They never declared Wilson's story factual as you suggest. Your so called facts are not based on facts they are based on a killer's allegations.
spin
(17,493 posts)as Wilson said that they would have not indicted him? That was a major part of the incident.
If the grand jury had honestly felt Wilson was lying or if the evidence showed there was no struggle in the car the grand jury would have totally failed its responsibility to the community.
The easy and popular way out for the grand jury was to indict. The fact that they didn't is a good indication that they believed Wilson's story. I honestly expected that the grand jury would indict Wilson. The fact that I was wrong tells me that the case against Wilson was EXTREMELY weak.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)There are 12 jurors and it only takes 4 of them to stop the indictment. They have not revealed the vote count, but it is very possible the majority of the jury wanted to indict. You have no clue as to what each one of the jurors thought, don't try to put words in their mouths and pretend they all back up Wilson's story because you have no knowledge of what each one of them were thinking.
spin
(17,493 posts)overwhelmingly against indicting Wilson and not the majority ruling for indictment but stopped by four.
It doesn't appear that we will ever know.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)You were trying to claim that the Grand Jury believed Wilson, you had no basis for making such a claim. As even you acknowledge we don't even know the vote count so all of your claims in this thread that they backed up Wilson's story have no basis in fact.
spin
(17,493 posts)The bottom line is that the grand jury failed to indict Wilson. The system worked as designed.
If you don't like the results perhaps you can work to change the legal system. I see no problem with that.
In passing I will grant that you make a good point that it is unfair for me to state what the majority of the grand jury felt about the witnesses or the evidence.
I actually learned something from your post. I didn't know that only four votes on the grand jury can stop an indictment. I had it backward as I thought that only four votes would indict a person.
Chemisse
(30,810 posts)If they had been provided the evidence AGAINST the cop by a special prosecutor. What we saw was a prosecutor who set out to establish innocence, not to allow the grand jury assess his possible guilt.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)spin
(17,493 posts)They felt there was no reason to charge Wilson with committing a crime after hearing all the witnesses and reviewing the evidence. I have confidence that they reached the correct decision.
When the Wilson/Brown shooting occurred I felt it was very likely that Wilson murdered Brown, however I wisely decided to wait to see the evidence. Now I have seen it, it is and most likely will remain my opinion that Wilson had good reason to fear for his life and therefore his use of deadly force was justified. It is possible that more evidence may come to light that will change my opinion but it is unlikely.
If the evidence was strong enough I definitely would have favored charging Wilson and putting him in front of a jury. If Brown did indeed turn after running, put his hands up in surrender and not move toward Wilson, he should not have been shot. Even if Brown refused to drop to the street as instructed, he posed no danger as long as he didn't advance on Wilson and Wilson could have waited for the backup he had called for.
The grand jury could have bowed to public pressure and ruled that Wilson should be charged and that would have been the easy way out. The fact that they didn't convinces me that the evidence of any guilt on Wilson's part was extremely weak. If Wilson would have been put on trial, I honestly believe a responsible jury would have ruled that he was not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. He would have walked and the taxpayers would have simply wasted a large amount of money.
Now obviously you and many others here on DU have a far different viewpoint and little I can say will change your minds.
I wonder if we are reaching a point in our history where trial by the media and popular emotion replaces our current legal system? Will we totally do away with "innocent until proven guilty" and replace it with an internet poll or a vote by talking heads on TV news channels and large newspapers. If our legal system does not go along with popular opinion, will it become acceptable to riot, burn and destroy in protest. Will such activities influence our legal system and send innocent people to jail to appease the rioters? I certainly hope not and so should you.
We also will probably disagree on the message in Blackstone's formulation:
In criminal law, Blackstone's formulation (also known as Blackstone's ratio or the Blackstone ratio) is the principle that:
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer",
...as expressed by the English jurist William Blackstone in his seminal work, Commentaries on the Laws of England, published in the 1760s.
Historically, the details of the ratio change, but the message that government and the courts must err on the side of innocence is constant.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_formulation
Ben Franklin changed the wording somewhat as he said:
"it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer".
That means if I was chosen to be on a jury in a trial similar to the Wilson/Brown incident, I would have to be convinced that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That doesn't mean that he is definitely innocent, just that I would have a reasonable doubt that he was guilty. That's a very high standard.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)And if so, I must question how you can still come to such
conclusions. The grand jury is not there to determine guilt
or innocence. It is there to determine whether there is
probable cause to indict.
It is the job of the prosecutor, who represents the people,
supposedly, to present an indictable case. He did the opposite.
His presentation from all accounts was entirely biased toward
exoneration and defense of the shooter.
I think you are ill informed and I don't mean to say that
insultingly, just with some disbelief that you could be
fully informed and still hold the opinions you have
expressed. Nothing personal.
spin
(17,493 posts)He didn't feel that he could win a case against Wilson but he realized that his best course was to present all the evidence to a grand jury and let them make the decision.
treestar
(82,383 posts)It appears to be so dangerous to have them, and other unarmed people are a danger to them because they can take them away.
spin
(17,493 posts)Or if they do, they will be in no hurry to respond to any problem more serious than getting a cat out of a tree.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Who can take the guns from them and kill them. If they didn't have the gun, they wouldn't have to worry about that.
I'm being sarcastic, in that it is true they have to have guns in this country. But it seems like they are more in danger from having guns when they use this "they were trying to take the gun from me" strategy - they overlook that this excuse for shooting unarmed people makes it look like their guns are more dangerous to them than not.
spin
(17,493 posts)to ever use it to shoot an unarmed suspect.
I would imagine (but might be wrong) that you would also say that a homeowner who shot an unarmed robber inside his home was guilty of murder.
While a handgun can be a great deterrent it can kill you if your opponent gains possession of it.
Brown had already tried to grab Wilson's pistol and had a significant weight and possibly strength advantage. If Brown had succeeded in rushing Wilson and tackling him, he might have gained possession of Wilson's pistol in the wrestling on the street and shot him with it.
It is and will remain my opinion (unless new evidence turns up) that Wilson had reasonable fear for his health or life and therefore was justified in using deadly force.
treestar
(82,383 posts)but appears to be the convenient thing to say when someone has shot an unarmed person. They know that is trouble, so they use the excuse "he was trying to grab my gun" because it appears to support their shooting and fearing for their life. They don't realize it makes a case for their not having that gun if it's more of a danger to them because other people can grab it. Better not to have it so other people can't grab it.
It's also telling he used the "he put his hand in his waistband" story. Given that Brown had no gun, it is unlikely he reached into his waistband for one. But Wilson is attempting to justify his shooting and thought if he added in his fear of the other guy pulling out a gun, it would bolster his case.
The kid with the fake gun leaves the cops a better case, since at least they can realistically say they thought he was pulling a gun. But Wilson would have us believe that Brown arbitrarily reached into his waistband.
spin
(17,493 posts)attempted to grab Wilson's pistol.
New Michael Brown details just one piece of probe, law enforcement official says
By Michael Pearson, Faith Karimi and Michael Martinez, CNN
updated 6:14 PM EDT, Mon October 20, 2014
CNN) -- Blood from Michael Brown that was found on the uniform and in the police car of Officer Darren Wilson appears to back the officer's version of events, but still leaves questions unanswered, law enforcement sources told CNN.
Those sources corroborated to CNN details first reported by The New York Times about the officer's version of events in Wilson's shooting of the unarmed teen on August 9 in Ferguson, Missouri.
Brown's blood was found on Wilson's gun, on the squad car's interior and on the officer's uniform, according to a U.S. law enforcement official and a second source with knowledge of the forensics presented to the grand jury.
***snip***
At least one of the wounds Brown suffered is consistent with a struggle and appeared to be fired at close range, according to a different source with first-hand knowledge of the investigation.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/20/justice/michael-brown-darren-wilson-account/
Just as eye witnesses, the cop involved in a shooting is often wrong on the exact details of what happened.
You might find reading this article interesting.
The Dynamics of Shooting Incidents
by Michael A. Knox
http://www.crimescenejournal.com/content.php?id=0005
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)spin
(17,493 posts)You may disagree but in my opinion Wilson had good reason to fear for his life. Therefore he had the right to use deadly force in self defense.
If you think this is spinning then that's fine with me.
If this incident ended up in a jury trial and I was on that jury and heard the testimony and viewed the evidence that I have seen to this point, I would rule that Wilson was not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
The simple reality is that it would have been extremely hard to convince a jury to convict Wilson on any charge. (Of course the Feds may put him on trial for violating Brown's civil rights but most experts feel this is highly unlikely.)
Sorry about that.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)To the jury? The "Law" given to the jury said the police could use deadly force to keep a suspect from escaping custody. It had been found unconstitutional in the 1980's.
If a reasonable person would have found officer Wilson had good reason to fear for his life;
Why did the prosecutor lie about the LAW?
OTOH the standard of a Grand Jury is "preponderance of the evidence" AKA 51%.
So I am not buying your spin. You are wrong on the facts.
spin
(17,493 posts)FREE MAN
FERGUSON’S GRAND JURY BOUGHT DARREN WILSON’S STORY
BY PAUL CAMPOS11.24.14
***snip***
The relevant law here consisted of Missouri’s statute regulating the use of deadly force by police officers, as modified by Supreme Court decisions that put limits on how much freedom states can give police to use such force.
On its face, Missouri law still follows the old common law rule that it’s lawful to shoot and kill a fleeing suspected felon, even if the suspect doesn’t pose an immediate danger to the police or the public. That rule was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court nearly 30 years ago, but Missouri hasn’t yet revised its statutes to reflect this.
Because of that Supreme Court ruling, the grand jury in this case was instructed that—under current Missouri law—Wilson could have legally shot and killed Brown only if Wilson “reasonably believed that [Brown] was attempting to escape by the use of a deadly weapon or would endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay, and [Wilson] reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was immediately necessary to effect the arrest of the offender,” to quote the standard jury instruction used in the state.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/11/24/ferguson-s-grand-jury-bought-darren-wilson-s-story.html
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)since you swallowed Wilson's tall tale whole.
spin
(17,493 posts)Threedifferentones
(1,070 posts)How the fuck do you conclude that Brown grabbed the gun that was then used to shoot him AS HE RAN AWAY?!
If he had grabbed the gun, it COULD NOT HAVE SHOT HIM.
If Brown was such a berserk demonic hulk that he had to be shot even as he fled, why did he fail to win control of the gun or inflict any notable injuries?
I hear on TV all the time how cops and soldiers are such heroes. WTF?! A brave hero would have stayed rather cool under the circumstances.
Wilson, the guy with the gun, was evidently more scared than the kid who was running from the gun! How else can we explain him firing wildly, hitting Brown several times but also sending several bullets into nearby objects?
Wilson was at best negligent and at worst murderous. If petty theft and vandalism are grounds for execution, I woulda needed more lives than a fucking cat to survive my teens. But, I was white in a white suburb, so all I ever got was grounded or suspended.
Once the cops did catch me smoking weed in a park, actually. Someone had tipped them off about where we were hangin out at nights, and they leaped out of the dark and blinded us with mag lights while yelling HANDS UP. We all ran, they grabbed a couple of us, including me. Two of them wrestled me to the ground and then DROVE ME HOME TO MY PARENTS.
See the difference there? If I had got away, they would have tried to catch me another day, not unloaded a full mag at me. Shit, every time I talk about this issue I get angrier and angrier.
spin
(17,493 posts)You stated that if Brown grabbed the gun "it COULD NOT HAVE SHOT HIM."
It almost didn't. Unfortunately for Brown and luckily for Wilson Brown failed to gain control of the weapon. Let's look at Wilson's story of the struggle in the car...
Darren Wilson explains why he killed Michael Brown
By Terrence McCoy November 25
***snip***
Wilson told Brown to “get the f— back,” but Brown allegedly hit Wilson in the side of his face “with a fist…. There was a significant amount of contact that was made to my face,” Wilson testified.
Wilson, who weighs more than 200 pounds, said he grabbed the 6-foot-4-inch Brown. “When I grabbed him, the only way I can describe it is I felt like a five-year-old holding onto Hulk Hogan.” Thoughts raced through Wilson’s head, he said. “What do I do not to get beaten inside my car?” he said he thought.
***snip***
There was only other option he said he had. “I drew my gun…. He is standing here. I said, ‘Get back or I’m going to shoot you.’ He immediately grabs my gun and says, ‘you are too much of a p—- to shoot me.’” The men struggled for the gun, and Wilson pulled the trigger.
Nothing. “It just clicked,” Wilson testified. “I pull it again. It just clicked. At this point, I’m like ‘why isn’t this working,’ this guy is going to kill me if he gets ahold of this gun.’” It finally goes off and the car’s interior explodes with shattered glass and globs of blood. Wilson looked at the unarmed teen and the teen looked back. “He looked up at me and had the most intense aggressive face. The only way I can describe it, it looks like a demon, that’s how angry he looked. He comes back towards me again with his hands up.” But then, Wilson said Brown hit him again, and the cop couldn’t get his gun to work. It clicked again, until it finally discharged a second time.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/11/25/why-darren-wilson-said-he-killed-michael-brown/
It doesn't surprise me that Wilson's pistol failed to fire several times. Brown' hand was on the top of the pistol and on the slide.When the slide is pulled slightly back on a pistol it is "out-of-battery" and the weapon should not fire. If it does it is quite possible that operator will suffer a KB which is the abbreviation for a "kaboom." If that happens the pistol will be damaged.
(In passing if someone has a pistol pointed at you and you wish to disarm him it is wise to try to push the slide back as you try to twist the weapon out of his grip. With a double action revolver that is not cocked you try to grab the cylinder and you can effective disable the weapon if you can stop the cylinder from rotating. If the revolver is cocked this technique will fail sou you try to get a finger between the hammer and the firing pin. It is possible that if you do this you will end up with a broken finger which is better than being shot at close range.)
The evidence seems to back Wilson's story up on this point.
Ferguson Documents: The Physical Evidence
November 25, 2014 3:46 PM ET
***snip***
Another important piece of evidence comes from DNA analysis. It revealed that Brown's blood was on Officer Wilson's gun (a Sig Sauer P229) and on the inside of his police vehicle.
In order words, this seems to support Wilson's version of events, in which there was a confrontation while he was inside the police vehicle.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/11/25/366575509/ferguson-documents-the-physical-evidence
You ask why if Brown was such a "hulk" why couldn't he "why did he fail to gain control of the gun."
The simple answer is that to disarm a person with a weapon it's best to have training and practice is the "tricks" used to accomplish this. Even with good training it is quite possible that you will fail and end up seriously injured or dead.
You state that you hear on TV and the movies how cops are "such heroes." That's your problem, you think that you are learning about life by watching TV and movies. TV and movies are entertainment. In real life for one thing there is no dramatic soundtrack playing in the background.
You mention the Wilson seemed more scared than the kid and that he fired wildly and missed Brown.
Wilson probably was very scared and for good reason. He feared for his health or life and that was the justification for his use of deadly force.
I realize that in the movies the cops and soldiers are always deadly accurate and can accurately hit targets at extreme ranges and rarely miss. They also usually have the advantage of weapons that hold an amazing amount of ammo and also a dozen "clips" hidden on their person somewhere so they can reload.
You can be a competitive shooter at the range and in a real life gun fight miss most or all of the shots you fire.
In order to help you understand real life gunfights I will provide a couple of links rather than post excerpts.
6 Stupid Gun Myths Everyone Believes (Thanks to Movies)
http://www.cracked.com/article_19781_6-stupid-gun-myths-everyone-believes-thanks-to-movies_p2.html#ixzz3KOe4974W
What Really Happens In A Gunfight?
http://www.handgunsmag.com/tactics-training/tactics_training_what_happens_gunfight/
Oktober
(1,488 posts)Intellectually dishonest...
PDJane
(10,103 posts)It angers me, yes. Moreover, the people who defend him don't see that the system is so racist that a man like this in a position of authority is going to continue killing those of a darker skin colour because he can.
I belong to several boards, of course, and on at least one I am being jumped all over because I said that the grand jury process was a sham, and that the racism is so deep that most of the members can't see it.
One of the questions was about the fact that I feel that police shootings should be investigated. If a cop is investigated every time he shoots someone, why would anyone want to be a cop?
My question is, 'why is the cop shooting people?' Since the cop shot an unarmed young man, shouldn't he be investigated? Shouldn't he go to trial?
Why was that announcement made after dark, and why are people so convinced that it was those 'out of control black folks' who were to blame for the businesses being in ruins? There were so many law enforcement, military, fire department and KKK around, why isn't anyone suspicious about the 'riots?' I sure as hell am. It made really terrifying pictures though, didn't it?
It's infuriating.
Calista241
(5,586 posts)Other than the fact that he's both white and a police officer of course.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)what do you think THAT was about? That the entire force was completely eliminated because of it....
Calista241
(5,586 posts)That department was eliminated primarily because a joint Federal and local investigation learned that a Lieutenant was taking the federal funds for drunk driving arrests that never happened.
The department was under the microscope when another officer kicked and beat a woman who made a joke about the officer. The city was sued and had to pay out. Wilson's name never came up in either event and was not a target of the investigations.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Culture of corruption and abuse....they dont disband for one or two bad apples..
Calista241
(5,586 posts)Wilson had been on the job for less than 2 years when this happened.
And a lot of those cops re-applied and were accepted in new cop positions. Wilson caught on at Ferguson PD rather than rejoin his old department.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Last edited Fri Nov 28, 2014, 02:40 AM - Edit history (2)
although I notice you provide no evidence for these claims
and just as I suspected....you are full of shit...
http://www.salon.com/2014/08/24/darren_wilsons_former_police_force_was_disbanded_for_excessive_force_and_corruption/
According to officials interviewed by the Post, Wilson maintained a clean record, but the Post reports that his first job “was not an ideal place to learn how to police.” He entered the police force in 2009, joining a nearly all-white, 45-member task force that patrolled Jennings, Missouri, a small, impoverished city of 14,000 where the residents were 89 percent African-American. The racial tension was high, and the police were accused of using excessive force against its residents:
Racial tension was endemic in Jennings, said Rodney Epps, an African American city council member.
“You’re dealing with white cops, and they don’t know how to address black people,” Epps said. “The straw that broke the camel’s back, an officer shot at a female. She was stopped for a traffic violation. She had a child in the back [of the] car and was probably worried about getting locked up. And this officer chased her down Highway 70, past city limits, and took a shot at her. Just ridiculous.”
Police faced a series of lawsuits for using unnecessary force, Stichnote said. One black resident, Cassandra Fuller, sued the department claiming a white Jennings police officer beat her in June 2009 on her own porch after she made a joke. A car had smashed into her van, which was parked in front of her home, and she called police. The responding officer asked her to move the van. “It don’t run. You can take it home with you if you want,” she answered. She said the officer became enraged, threw her off the porch, knocked her to the ground and kicked her in the stomach.
The department paid Fuller a confidential sum to settle the case, she said.
Lt. Jeff Fuesting, who took over command of the Jennings force, assessed the problems of the former task force like this:
“There was a disconnect between the community and the police department. There were just too many instances of police tactics which put the credibility of the police department in jeopardy. Complaints against officers. There was a communication breakdown between the police and the community. There were allegations involving use of force that raised questions.”
Calista241
(5,586 posts)I mentioned the lawsuit, but there's also this quote which you left out:
"The department also endured a corruption scandal. In 2011, city council members voted 6-1 to shut down the force and start over, bringing in a new set of officers. Everyone was let go, including Wilson, but he soon found a job at the Ferguson police department, where he has been since."
The lawsuits you mentioned occurred in 2009, just as Wilson came on the force. The scandal happened after, and provided the impetus for the city council vote.
In any case, Wilson's name never came up in any of these incidents. That is NOT proof of Darren Wilson's racism, not by any stretch of the imagination.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)it was NOT as YOU claimed....the entire department was corrupt....HE was trained in that atmosphere....
YES it is an indictment of him....or do you have tunnel vision and cannot connect dots?
Calista241
(5,586 posts)Even if 1/3 of those cops were corrupt jackasses, which i find unlikely, there is ZERO evidence Wilson participated or was involved in any of it.
Jeff Fuesting, the officer brought in to reform the Jennings Police Department had this to say about Darren Wilson: “My impression is he didn’t go above and beyond, and he didn’t get in any trouble.”
Basically he said he was a mediocre officer. If you want to call him incompetent, fine. If you want to call him a douchebag, i don't have a problem with that. But there is ZERO evidence he was a racist.
You're essentially substituting someone else's proven racism onto Darren Wilson because he worked for the same institution. Several years ago, i worked for HP, when Carly Fiorina was the CEO. I wasn't seriously following politics at the time, and I had no idea of her political leanings. The fact that she turned out to be a Republican shill had and still has ZERO effect on me, my political beliefs, or my status as an upstanding person.
George Bush was our President. Twice. Does the fact that 50 million Americans voted for him an indictment of the intelligence of you or me? Does that make us idiot, pretzel chokers?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/08/25/heres-what-we-know-now-about-darren-wilson-the-officer-who-shot-michael-brown/
spin
(17,493 posts)young man.
He should have been and was. Extensively.
You also ask if the cop should go to trial.
A grand jury decided there was not enough evidence to justify putting Wilson on trial. A prosecutor would have to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Wilson actions were unwarranted. When a grand jury with a much lower standard determines that charges should not even be filed, the chances of a guilty verdict from a jury had a trial occurred are extremely low.
The fact that Wilson was armed doesn't mean that he is only allowed to shoot a person who is also armed. A civilian or a police officer has the right to use deadly force for self defense even against an unarmed attacker if they reasonably fear that the attacker is threatening them with serious bodily injury or death. Also be aware that is not uncommon for a suspect to gain possession of an officer's weapon and injure or kill him. In fact, Brown had tried to grab Wilson's pistol in the police car.
I have no idea if Wilson is a racist or not. The Feds are looking for evidence that Wilson violated Brown's civil rights and perhaps they will find some. However I do not think it is fair to automatically assume racism in this or any other case. It is true that in some cities and police departments racism is common but not all. I have known a good number of police officers over the years. Some but not all were racist.
PDJane
(10,103 posts)Those instructions were a violation of law and statute.
It was fixed, the cop was not cross examined, and he skated because the DA wanted him to skate. It was a perversion of law. The "riots" started because the police stopped a peaceful march; that didn't happen the way it was reported, either. It's a sham.
Frankly, the incident proves to me that that particular area, like a lot of areas in the south, was bypassed by the civil rights movement.
spin
(17,493 posts)I can comment but I am far from a legal expert.
As far as the south being more racist than the north all I can say is that it does appear that a lot of questionable shootings by police also occur in cities like New York and Cleveland. Some are far more questionable than the Wilson/Brown incident.
PDJane
(10,103 posts)Just that they are one of those areas. NYC got really ugly under Giuliani Mr. noun, verb, 9/11) as they do whenever the white majority talks about getting tough on crime.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)only the ones on Fox, so far.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)"looting and burning," ad nauseum, just as though it was scripted.
'Prosecutor's announcement at 9; film at 11!' I'm thoroughly disgusted.
(BTW, I too keep asking the question, "why are so MANY cops SHOOTING people, especially CHILDREN?!?" Why do our metropolitan police forces look like military companies?!? Also, I am deeply suspicious about the "riots."
DeadEyeDyck
(1,504 posts)Would Wilson have shot Brown if Brown was white?
If Wilson was black, would we even know the shooting happened?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)if he wasn't White?
mainstreetonce
(4,178 posts)has always been why did
Wilson draw the gun at the police car? Whether Brown tried to grab it or knock it away,it was already drawn.
Wilson needs a reason to justify that.
Originally both the chief of police and Wilson said that he did not know about the cigar theft.
In preparing for the testimony,that story changed.
Wilson testifies he knew about the robbery. All of a sudden a police tape backs him up.
Why did Wilson draw a gun in confronting two boys in the street?
That is where the whole problem begins. It is not Brown who made a bad decision.
It is not a story of an officer following procedure.
It would be ripped apart at trial.
There will never be a trial. McCulloch made sure of that.
Response to BootinUp (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
BootinUp
(47,141 posts)
nc4bo
(17,651 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)I see what you did there, but it is not the brilliant maneuver you believe it to be. 
Response to Rex (Reply #52)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Rex
(65,616 posts)Put down the crack pipe!
aint_no_life_nowhere
(21,925 posts)Last edited Thu Nov 27, 2014, 03:27 PM - Edit history (2)
We know that just before his job with the Ferguson PD, he was employed by the police department of a nearby town that had to be disbanded and started from scratch because of the sheer number of violent confrontations with the African American community (no evidence whether Wilson was involved in violent incidents as the records apparently were done away with).
Now it appears that six months before he shot Michael Brown, Wilson was involved in a violent confrontation with his future wife's ex. Her ex had left their home for several days over their domestic difficulties and returned to find Wilson staying in his house (despite Wilson still being married to his first wife). A violent confrontation ensued in which the ex hit Wilson repeatedly in the face with a pillow and put him in a choke hold, despite being nearly twice Wilson's age. Wilson suffered abrasions to his face. I wonder if he went to the ER over this matter the way he rushed to the hospital following the Michael Brown shooting. Of course this doesn't mean Wilson started the fight or was the main instigator of the conflict. But according to this article, it didn't look like this police officer tried to do anything to de-escalate the situation, like offering to leave this man's house.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2851015/Darren-Wilson-violent-confrontation-wife-s-ex-lover-Court-documents-reveal-volatile-home-life-officer-shot-Michael-Brown-grand-jury-never-told-of.htmle cause of the present act but only to show the defendant's state of mind, that type of evidence is usually allowed in.
At trial, evidence of prior similar acts would probably not be allowed and determined to be irrelevant, if intended to to prove the origin of the present act (that Wilson was the aggressor against Brown in the car and was not in fear for his life). The court determines that the probative value of the evidence of prior acts is outweighed by prejudice to the defendant. An exception, however is to use the evidence to show state of mind. Did this prior confrontation occurring so soon before the Brown shooting affect his mental state? Did it cause him to have unreasonable fear for his life? Did it render him more quick to anger? The grand jury, where rules of evidence don't even apply, was never told about this.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)unarmed black kid, usually male, then yes he did his job right. Now whether he was right is the different story, isn't it? He has no conscience. Those dead eyes of his tells me everything about the soulless demon driving his existence.
maced666
(771 posts)samsingh
(17,595 posts)otherwise, he would have at least wanted to wait for backup unless Brown was threatening someone else. That has never even been speculated so Brown was not a threat to anyone.
this is a horrible travesty.
Rex
(65,616 posts)then I might feel differently.
As it stands, Wilson is saying he would murder Brown over and over and over. Because he was right and Brown was wrong so he had to die. Nevermind the fact that Wilson had an ASP and mace...had to die, no other way around it.
Chasing Brown down the street (with a bullet hole in him already) Wilson had no way of grabbing his mace and spraying Brown with it...he had to die. THAT is what nobody wants to talk about. Why did Wilson chase him down and still use lethal force? Brown was unarmed and already shot, both ASP and mace are right there at Wilson's disposal.
Nope, Wilson wanted to kill the poor kid. All the evidence shows that.
still_one
(92,183 posts)Bullets after the suspect had been hit?
The prosecutor conveyed wrong instructions to the grand jury by lying to them about the law, and should be disbarred
and the so called libural media has giving him softball questions throughout, they are and have been worthless for years
I hope those that swept this under the carpet get sick from their turkey dinner
ladjf
(17,320 posts)about anyone but himself. However, since I've never interviewed Wilson, my guess might well be wrong.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)Maybe someday he'll actually believe it.
aint_no_life_nowhere
(21,925 posts)Other percipient witnesses were grilled somewhat and there was some effort at cross examination to test their memories. Wilson however was treated like the prosecutor's witness, not subject to cross examination. In fact, the prosecutor was leading the witness, feeding him the answers that would clear him. This is from the Washington Post:
“So you got out of the car, you are running, you are telling [Brown] to stop; is that right?
“Correct,’’ Wilson responds.
“And he’s not listening?’’ the prosecutor asks.
“No,’’ Wilson says.
At another point, a prosecutor tells Wilson that she doesn’t want to “put words in your mouth” even while asking that, as Brown was allegedly striking the officer in the face as he sat in his police car, “it was your opinion that you needed to pull out your weapon?’’
“I felt another one of those punches in my face could knock me out or worse,’’ Wilson testified. “I mean, it was, he’s obviously bigger than I was and stronger and I’ve already taken two to the face and . . . the third one could be fatal if it hit me right.’’
malaise
(268,962 posts)after defrauding lots of folks.
Just saying!