General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIf 12 witnesses said Wilson shot at Brown as Brown ran away and only 4 witnesses denied that,
then why wasn't Wilson indicted? Were the 12 really less credible than the 4 on that point? I am looking forward to examining the grand jury report more closely.
The numbers here are from a chart that can be found at http://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/11/26/7295595/eyewitnesses-ferguson-grand-jury (Please tell me if the source is unreliable.)
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
kelly1mm
(4,735 posts)most reports but rather weigh the evidence based on the credibility of the witness account.
Not saying that the witnesses were not credible, but apparently the grand jury thought so.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)kelly1mm
(4,735 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)I was just being sloppy. I think the difference in numbers is interesting, and it raises the question of why the four would be judged more reliable than the 12.
kelly1mm
(4,735 posts)It is all good.
rug
(82,333 posts)Wilson should be on trial.
kelly1mm
(4,735 posts)never know.
rug
(82,333 posts)
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)this was a fix.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Already so many contradictions and errors pointed out, will anyone pay attention? You think the legal teams at the FBI have a copy?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)its despicable and deplorable...
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)It was much more than just a "document dump".
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)He is SUPPOSED to pull all the witness and documents together FOR the Jury.. I was on a jury in an actual murder trial....so I have kinda seen what a Prosecutor is SUPPOSED to do....
The ADA also gave them FALSE and 30 yr old unconstitutional statute on what is legal for a cop with a fleeing suspect and shooting to kill.....a Statute that was deemed unconstitutional before this ADA ever became one....the DA which by the way....never even gave this jury a charge to decide on....
The whole damn thing is a farce....
And as one on a Jury of a murder trial of a Black victim and Black Suspect....with a jury full of White Upper Middle class Americans....hearing what they said about the victim in that jury room.....I had to immediately leave my town for a few days I was SOOOOO disgusted by them and with what I saw and heard during that entire experience. I wanted away from those bigotted jurors who would swear to you they are not racist, completely oblivious to it...they utterly made me nauseous...
Mainly a Public defender that presented NO alternative theory NOR a single witness.....he showed up every day looking like he slept in his suit....the same suit day after day. In other words...HE didn't do HIS job.....I was completely and utterly horrified and mortified by the whole courtroom experience....if I ever get a Jury Notice again my heart will sink...
So BELIEVE me when I tell you this.....this is not an episode of L.A. Law....things are MUCH different in the courtroom in real life....
Recursion
(56,582 posts)That simply requires sufficiency of evidence (ie, the witness statements mean it is possibly true that) Wilson was engaged in a legal activity (to give him the most charitable framing, stopping a fleeing felon) in a negligent manner.
This is why grand juries are usually considered rubber stamps: their job is to prevent prosecutions that are simply implausible on their face.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)If the members of the grand jury judged that it is more likely than not that Wilson shot at Brown while Brown was running away, then they should have indicted. I guess they judged otherwise. But why?
PDJane
(10,103 posts)When it was declared unconstitutional before Wilson testified. The statute said it was legal to shoot a fleeing suspect. In no way was that an accident.
Lawrence O'Donnell devoted time to that tonight. That's obscene, and it proves as much as anything can that this was a fix from the beginning.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)Since Michael Brown wasn't shot in the back, he obviously wasn't shot while he was fleeing.
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)Just because Brown wasn't actually shot in the back, doesn't mean Wilson didn't shoot at him while he was fleeing.
12 shots were fired, 6 struck Brown. Where did the other 6 shots go? We know for certain one went into the door panel of the SUV and another ended up in a woman's apartment. That leaves 4 bullets unaccounted for.
We also know that measurements weren't taken at the crime scene so it's safe to assume that bullet trajectory wasn't even investigated so how can you say Wilson didn't shoot at a fleeing Brown?
aint_no_life_nowhere
(21,925 posts)from the back. Odd that everyone seems to have forgotten those findings.
Spazito
(50,514 posts)The ADA assigned to the Grand Jury case gave the jurors a statute that had been ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in 1985, she gave this to the jurors BEFORE wilson testified. This unconstitutional statute allowed police officers to shoot suspects if they were fleeing.
She did NOT correct her 'mistake' until the jury were nearing deliberation and did not explain what the change was at all. She did say, some of the original statute was still good and left it at that. When a juror asked if the US Supreme Court overruled Missouri statutes and the answer given was "Don't worry about that now".
Oh, and the unconstitutional statute she gave them had not been in use since BEFORE she became a prosecuting attorney.
Lawrence O'Donnell covered it on his show tonight, it is a MUST WATCH segment, it is his Re-write segment. Here's the link:
http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word
Vattel
(9,289 posts)(In Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), the Supreme Court of the United States held that under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may use deadly force to prevent escape only if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.)
helpmetohelpyou
(589 posts)Why Ferguson Officer Wasn’t Charged: A Look at ‘Use of Force’ Doctrine
The state laws on “use of force” — or when a police officer is justified in using deadly force — varies from state to state. Missouri’s law is considered more officer-friendly than that in other states, say legal experts
Specifically, the law says:
563.046. A law enforcement officer in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody is justified in using deadly force:
(2) When he reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested
(a) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony; or
(b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon; or
(c) May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.
It’s really pretty straightforward — a police officer can use deadly force when it’s necessary to prevent bodily injury or death,” said David Klinger, a professor of criminology and criminal justice at the University of Missouri, St. Louis.
State laws on use of force differ slightly. But all are informed by seminal U.S. Supreme Court cases. The first, Tennessee v. Garner, decided in 1985, established the principle that a police officer could, in fact, inflict deadly force on a fleeing suspect if the officer had probable cause to believe that the suspect poses significant threat of death or injury to the officer or others.
The second case, Graham v. Connor, decided four years later, established the standard by which a jury is to judge an officer’s actions. That is, jurors are to ask whether an officer’s actions are “objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them.”
The court held that “reasonableness” of a particular use of force must be judged from the “perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene.” Jurors, the court said, should account for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions
Spazito
(50,514 posts)the proceedings, they were given the statute which included the section that had been ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in 1985, the right to shoot an unarmed, non-dangerous fleeing suspect.
The one cited in your post is the one the Grand Jury wasn't given until AFTER wilson testified and they were nearing deliberations. The were given the current statute with NO explanation of the crucial difference between the unconstitutional one and the current one.
helpmetohelpyou
(589 posts)Wilson. According to the transcript of the hearings, this is what transpired:
“Real quick, can I interrupt about something?” interjected Alizadeh. “Previously, in the very beginning of this process, I printed out a statute for you that was, the statute in Missouri for the use of force to affect an arrest.
“So if you all want to get those out. What we have discovered, and we have been going along with this, doing our research, is that the statute in the State of Missouri does not comply with the case law.
“....And so the statute for the use of force to affect an arrest in the state of Missouri does not comply with Missouri Supreme Court, I'm sorry United States Supreme Court cases....
“So the statute I gave you, if you want to fold that in half just so that you know don't necessarily rely on that because there is a portion of that that doesn't comply with the law.
“…I don't want you to get confused and don’t rely on that copy or that print-out of the statute that I've given you a long time ago.”
A grand juror asks, “So we’re to disregard this?”
Alizadehanswers: “It is not entirely incorrect or inaccurate, but there is something in it that’s not correct, ignore it totally.”
When a grand juror asks more questions,
Whirley chimes in, “We don’t want to get into a law class.”
Spazito
(50,514 posts)the verdict of this Grand Jury should be thrown out, imo.
helpmetohelpyou
(589 posts)Lets see what they do with this
madville
(7,412 posts)It's more like:
One witness says shot in the back while running away.
One witness says shot in the back while standing still with hands in the air.
One witness says shot while facing officer with hands in the air.
One witness says shot in the front while walking towards officer with hands in the air.
Four witnesses say he was "charging" at the officer when hit by the last barrage of bullets.
With that much contradiction I can understand why there wasn't an indictment, especially the way it was presented to the GJ.
Wilson would have been "not guilty" on any all the charges if taken to trial, just the witness accounts alone create doubt, that's not even applying the actual evidence to each account (the evidence that happens to support Wilson and several witnesses' accounts). That creates even more doubt in jurors minds.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)If the evidence supports the conclusion that Wilson shot at Brown while Brown was running away, then it doesn't matter whether Brown was moving toward or even charging Wilson (perhaps in a vain attempt to defend himself) once he turned around. Wilson would still be guilty of a crime. Eyewitnesses always disagree on the details, but that doesn't necessarily block convictions. I do grant that there is an uphill battle at trial if witnesses disagree on crucial points and are equally credible. But here the issue was only whether to indict, not convict.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)then it tends to bring doubt on the credibility of those 12 witnesses. Physical evidence almost always trumps witness testimony.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)it may conflict with other things they testified to, but what exactly is the conflict here? (Genuine question. I am not familiar with the details of the grand jury testimony.)
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)but if Wilson shot at Brown while Brown was running away, why are the empty casings in only two basic spots according to the diagram at the link?
http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/stltoday.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/9/2c/92c14ae3-8c5f-59ef-938b-664d66feea96/5474c47232205.pdf.pdf
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Geez, what a mess. I can't really say whether Wilson shot at Brown when Brown was fleeing. As for the casings, it is possible that Wilson shot at Brown as he fled and then shot at him from the same spot or close to it once he turned around. But the location of the casings does cast doubt on testimony to the effect that Wilson came out of his SUV firing.
NickB79
(19,276 posts)Then yes, they were less credible.