• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Michael Brown Shooting

Status
Not open for further replies.
LTC8K6 said:
Wilson would have been attended to almost immediately by the EMTs that arrived at 12:04.
That's less than 5 minutes after Brown was shot.

Wilson was probably on the way to the hospital pretty quickly after the shooting.
Click to expand...

I'd say he took no more than two victory laps around the crime scene, inquiring to bystanders, "anybody else want summa this?!"
 
Cylinder said:
No. It's to examine the evidence the government used to assert a person has committed a crime and give the accused an opportunity to present evidence to be considered.
Click to expand...

1) Cops have to think there is a case, and refer it to the prosecutor

2) the prosecutor has to think he may have a case.

3) then the prosecutor takes his case either to a preliminary trail before a judge or a Grand Jury to see whether probable cause exists. (root word of "probable" is "probe").

4) a trial.

Taking a weak case before a grand jury may be a PR ploy, circumventing the political system as much as possible and preventing a media circus. Unlike Zimmerman, where there really was no case, but the politicos wanted a show trial, so appointed a special prosecutor. This way, the cops can say " we referred it to the prosecutor", who says "I took it to the grand jury", who finally, after six weeks of cooling off, the grand jury lets Mr. Wilson get back to his life.

Hey, do we even know what the charges before the grand jury are? Or is that up to the GJ? Perhaps "discharge of a fire arm within in the city limits" ? Littering, for leaving all that brass all over the street?
 
tsig said:
Saying the shooting might have been justifiable, is not arguing that the shooting is justifiable?


Really?
Click to expand...

Really? On a skeptics forum? You really don't know the difference between "might be" and "is"?

"It is raining"

"It might be raining"

Those are the same? :confused:
 
casebro said:
Hey, do we even know what the charges before the grand jury are? Or is that up to the GJ? Perhaps "discharge of a fire arm within in the city limits" ? Littering, for leaving all that brass all over the street?
Click to expand...

IIRC (it's been 20+ years), they tell you the charges you are considering.
 
Back up cops were there in seconds. I wonder if calling for back up is what Wilson was doing between the first 'get on the sidewalk' and the start of altercation at the car window? With or without knowing about the cigar heist.
 
I did a typo a minute ago, and it brought a thought to mind-

Wasn't a 'Gran Jury' Ford's response to the GTO 'Judge'? (ca 1969) :)
 
casebro said:
I did a typo a minute ago, and it brought a thought to mind-

Wasn't a 'Gran Jury' Ford's response to the GTO 'Judge'? (ca 1969) :)
Click to expand...

It was also a rather good Clint Eastwood movie where a curmudgeon takes under his wing a guy who sounds exactly like Piglet.
 
newyorkguy said:
I understand the relentless snark from the people who are arguing this was a justifiable shooting and have been doing so since almost the first day.

Even the police haven't said it was justifiable. They haven't said anything one way or the other. A couple of eyewitnesses, plus Brown's companion, came forward to say the shooting looked bad, the shooting looked excessive. Yet no one on the 'other' side, the official side, has said yet that the shooting was justified. All they've said is, they're investigating it.
Click to expand...

The snark has been largely directed at those who apparently do not need evidence to determine whether the shooting was justified or not. Here are just a couple of examples of posts where the anti-cop side demonstrates their lack of critical thinking:

Skeptic Ginger said:
... the fracture will be a lie (it just is, get over it)....
Click to expand...

KatieG said:
He would be in extreme pain and not able to stand, gloating, for hours over the body of the young man he killed.
Click to expand...

How does Ginger know that the fracture will be a lie? She doesn't; she just pulls it out of thin air (to be polite).

How does KatieG know that the office stood there, gloating for hours? Ditto.

Those of us who are more critical thinkers know that there is some reason to be skeptical of the fracture (for example, that the claim comes from sources close to the cop involved, or that it was originally posted at Gateway Pundit, which has a reputation for posting unreliable information). However, we also know that there is some reason to be skeptical that the fracture story is untrue (it will do nothing to help the officer's case in the public eye and indeed possibly hurt his case if it is not true).

There are plenty of similar examples in this thread. Many of the folks who appear to believe the cop murdered Brown in cold blood asserted as fact the statement from Dorian Johnson that Brown was shot in the back. We now know that was not the case. There were people who refused to believe that Brown committed the cigarillo robbery, even after it was pointed out that the family's own attorney admitted that was him.

There is a lot that we don't know about this case, and for the most part it is the anti-Wilson side that seems to think they "know" things based on very thin reeds.
 
casebro said:
Hey, do we even know what the charges before the grand jury are? Or is that up to the GJ? Perhaps "discharge of a fire arm within in the city limits" ? Littering, for leaving all that brass all over the street?
Click to expand...

The grand jury is (in my opinion) almost certainly an investigation as opposed to consideration of a bill of indictment. The prosecutor asserts it will take the full term for resolution and that all evidence will be presented -- every report, every photo, every available witness.

From the Missouri Constitution:

Section 16. That a grand jury shall consist of twelve citizens, any nine of whom concurring may find an indictment or a true bill: Provided, that no grand jury shall be convened except upon an order of a judge of a court having the power to try and determine felonies; but when so assembled such grand jury shall have power to investigate and return indictments for all character and grades of crime; and that the power of grand juries to inquire into the willful misconduct in office of public officers, and to find indictments in connection therewith, shall never be suspended.​

So yeah, they could charge Wilson with littering....or capital murder. Also that article seems to indicate the political forces in the state are now powerless to intervene with the grand jury's authority over the matter.
 
jhunter1163 said:
No; the bullet that caused the graze wound may or may not have been fired from behind (the evidence is inconclusive on this point). We can agree, though, that the fatal shots were fired from the front, as were three of the four arm shots.
Click to expand...
Cl1mh4224rd said:
The likelihood of this seems remote at best. If that grazing shot occurred while Brown was facing away form Wilson, it means that Wilson was aiming slightly to his right. If Brown then turned around after that grazing shot, Brown's right side is now on Wilson's left. That means Wilson would suddenly switch to aiming slightly to his left in order to get all/most of the bullets into Brown's right side.
Click to expand...

This is why I want to know where the first shot occurred.
From within the car?
The grazed hand doesn't make sense yet to me.
 
quadraginta said:
That's kinda the point of a trial, isn't it? To decide whether or not they committed a crime?
Click to expand...
A trial in the USA, at least, is not allowed to be a witch-hunt. Before a trial can be conducted, specific violations of the law must be made known to the defendant and a charge made. You cannot just go in there with the "let's see if he might have done something wrong" philosophy
 
casebro said:
so the proceedings are secret? except from the potential defendant? hmm, I guess so, since up-thread they said the defendant can be there, but his lawyer has to wait in the hall.
Click to expand...

Yes, secret. Just the jurors and the prosecutor and a/the witness. Then the prosecutor leaves when you vote.

I posted an article earlier that explains it all very well.
 
Brainster said:
Those of us who are more critical thinkers know that there is some reason to be skeptical of the fracture (for example, that the claim comes from sources close to the cop involved, or that it was originally posted at Gateway Pundit, which has a reputation for posting unreliable information). However, we also know that there is some reason to be skeptical that the fracture story is untrue (it will do nothing to help the officer's case in the public eye and indeed possibly hurt his case if it is not true).
Click to expand...

If you have followed any similar case in the past, you should be skeptical of leaked information supporting either side.

Public attitudes are often set by what people hear and see early in an investigation. Even if it is later proved to be false, the damage is still done.
 
Kestrel said:
If you have followed any similar case in the past, you should be skeptical of leaked information supporting either side.

Public attitudes are often set by what people hear and see early in an investigation. Even if it is later proved to be false, the damage is still done.
Click to expand...

So far there's not much reason to trust anything much yet.
 
The second shooting, he guy that was holding the knife... Surely they could have kept him alive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom