Michael Brown shooting II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quad4_72 said:
I thought the statement given for this case by McCulloch was excellent. Very informative and well worded. I can't think of a better way to explain in such a rational and logical matter why Wilson was not indicted.

Unfortunately, logic is not something being used by any of the protesters. They hung Wilson as a murderer the very day the story broke, before any facts were gathered and not a thing was gonna change their mind. Ignorance runs deep in a lot of people unfortunately, and the media is partially to blame. They sensationalized the story and the hearsay regarding the story from the beginning. But this case, as with the trayvon case, shows that the system does work, and they won't bend to social pressure just to appease a lynch mob. Well done.
Click to expand...

They should have waited until the case was tried in it's proper venue, Facebook.
 
Tony Stark said:
I dunno that it matters. He's the one that made the decision to present the case to a grand jury and to do it the way it was.
Click to expand...

I don't think he made many decisions except to give it to the GJ and to assign the 2 female prosecutors.

I would bet they pretty much ran the presentation to the GJ.

My recollection is that the GJ was seen as a good idea until some of the evidence leaked out, and people weren't so certain any more that Wilson murdered Brown.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinio...cle_44813b31-abc9-5280-ab8f-4ce23859fba7.html

The jurors — seven men, five women; nine whites, three blacks — did a job they couldn’t have dreamed they’d be doing in May, a job that none of them signed up for. They listened to two assistant prosecutors present physical evidence gathered by police investigators. They listened to Officer Wilson’s account of what happened. They listened to some 60 witnesses. They were instructed in what Missouri law says about what’s needed to bring various categories of homicide charges against a cop.

It boils down to whether, “He or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself, when he reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest,” and when the subject, “May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.”

In Graham v. Connor in 1989, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that reasonableness “must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation.”

Did Darren Wilson do what a reasonable cop would do? The grand jury thinks he did.
Click to expand...
 
WildCat said:
I've noticed we still have a distinct lack of Brown supporters in this thread who want to discuss the evidence.
Click to expand...

I know True Skeptics are okay with arguments from authority. Me, I'm taking a look at what evidence is now available before reaching a conclusion. Call me crazy.
 
Upchurch said:
I know True Skeptics are okay with arguments from authority. Me, I'm taking a look at what evidence is now available before reaching a conclusion. Call me crazy.
Click to expand...

It's quite clear. There is more than one witness who corroborates the most important part of Wilson's account (being rushed by Brown). Unlike the other witnesses who have motive to lie and/or embellish (so that their version roughly fits with the popular, far left racist narrative), these witness had nothing to gain. Indeed, they risked their own safety by telling their version to the grand jury. I think they're the most credible.
 
LTC8K6 said:
It looks like we got a very good investigation of all aspects of the case.

I don't see any room to criticize the work done.
Click to expand...

That "bruise" looks like a razor burn from shaving, so says the Gawker crowd.

That's the unfortunate thing about broken eye socket source, the far left was expecting a severe beating to be apparent in the photos. Instead, it's the early stages of a single nasty bruise.
 
Ammonitida said:
That "bruise" looks like a razor burn from shaving, so says the Gawker crowd.

That's the unfortunate thing about broken eye socket source, the far left was expecting a severe beating to be apparent in the photos. Instead, it's the early stages of a single nasty bruise.
Click to expand...

The side of the face it is on is the important info, imo.

I think people are overlooking that.
 
Quad4_72 said:
But this case, as with the trayvon case, shows that the system does work, and they won't bend to social pressure just to appease a lynch mob. Well done.
Click to expand...

Give it another 20 years of demographic shifts.

Actually, as much as I liked your comment (and both verdicts you referenced) I'm forced to disagree a bit.

The fact that this Grand Jury was even asked to look at this, and particularly the fact that Zimmerman was taken to trial... both represented massive victories for the lynch mobs in the respective cases.
 
Upchurch said:
I know True Skeptics are okay with arguments from authority.
Click to expand...
Do you understand that argument from authority is not a fallacy when the authority is actually an expert on the subject under discussion?

Upchurch said:
Me, I'm taking a look at what evidence is now available before reaching a conclusion. Call me crazy.
Click to expand...
The evidence was posted last night. You're remarkably silent on it.

How do you think Brown's blood ended up 25 feet behind his body? The location of the shell casings? The witness testimony that is supported by the physical evidence?

So far it's <crickets>.
 
WildCat said:
Do you understand that argument from authority is not a fallacy when the authority is actually an expert on the subject under discussion?
Click to expand...
Yes, I understand it perfectly well. I even explained why a grand jury fails as an appropriate authority.

WildCat said:
The evidence was posted last night. You're remarkably silent on it.
Click to expand...
Some of us do have kids and jobs to take care of, in addition to our evidence reviewing.
 
WildCat said:
More evidence that what you want to pass for "justice" is appeasement of lynch mobs.
Click to expand...

Pathetic strawman is pathetic. Never did I once indicate that this is what I wanted. My only point was the DA did not want a trial (because he couldn't win one) and that this was obvious. If he did, he could have easily got a grand jury to rubber stamp an indictment as is almost always done. Instead, he took the highly unusual move of convening a grand jury and presenting it all the evidence, including that which worked in Wilson's favor. Doing that made it possible to both to avoid a real trial and shift the blame of that onto the grand jury.
 
Last edited:
Upchurch said:
Yes, I understand it perfectly well. I even explained why a grand jury fails as an appropriate authority.
Click to expand...

Wait. I just realized that we're talking about two different things. Yes, the grand jury is an appropriate authority for legal status of the situation.

Legal status isn't what I'm interested in. I'm interested in what actually happened.
 
LTC8K6 said:
I don't think he made many decisions except to give it to the GJ and to assign the 2 female prosecutors.

I would bet they pretty much ran the presentation to the GJ.

My recollection is that the GJ was seen as a good idea until some of the evidence leaked out, and people weren't so certain any more that Wilson murdered Brown.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinio...cle_44813b31-abc9-5280-ab8f-4ce23859fba7.html
Click to expand...

He announced a couple months ago that the plan to "present absolutely everything to this grand jury.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ed-to-michael-brown-shooting-through-october/
 
Upchurch said:
Yes, I understand it perfectly well. I even explained why a grand jury fails as an appropriate authority.
Click to expand...
The GJ are the only people who actually saw all of the evidence. If they are not an expert authority than who is? The people matching down the street with their hands up carrying posters the Socialist Workers Party printed up for them?

Upchurch said:
Some of us do have kids and jobs to take care of, in addition to our evidence reviewing.
Click to expand...
Instead of posting snarky comments you could have been looking at the evidence, or even commenting on the evidence posted in this thread.

Tony Stark said:
Pathetic strawman is pathetic. Never did I once indicate that this is what I wanted. My only point was the DA did not want a trial (because he couldn't win one) and that this was obvious. If he did, he could have easily got a grand jury to rubber stamp an indictment as is almost always done. Instead, he took the highly unusual move of convening a grand jury and presenting it all the evidence, including that which worked in Wilson's favor. Doing that made it possible to both to avoid a real trial and shift the blame of that onto the grand jury.
Click to expand...
You have shown no evidence whatsoever that the DA did anything unusual in this case. All you've done is complain how the process wasn't designed to railroad Wilson in a miscarriage of justice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom