Michael Brown shooting II

Status
Not open for further replies.
stanfr said:
No, im asking you to take a look at the history of Grand Juries, what their function is, what the standards are, and how they should conducted. Free of your personal bias as to how this case should have been resolved. If you had a solid understanding of those points, I would hope you would understand some of the problems we see with how this was handled.
Click to expand...

I guess it really does matter what you think a GJ is for.

If you think that they are for Prosecutors to Cherry pick the evidence to get an indictment at all cost regardless of how bad their case really is and what evidence they have to prevent the GJ seeing to make sure that they get the indictment, then yeah, I guess they did a poor job, though it does raise the question, what evidence they could have used since most of the witnesses version supported Wilson in that Brown was approaching him, and most of those that didn't changed their story when confronted with the physical evidence which clearly supports Wilson.

If you believe that a GJ should be given the evidence by the prosecutor and then allowed to determine if there is a case to answer for based on that evidence, then they did a pretty good job really.
 
BasqueArch said:
Didn't read good. All entry wounds from front. Brown skin, blood DNA found inside Wilson's car. Two shell casings near cop car door. Gun powder residue in Brown's hand. Entry wound in thumb. Some witnesses say Brown charged Wilson.
Read again.
Click to expand...

you are very confused. This contradicts my statement that his hands were raised before the fatal shot, how?
 
Ziggurat said:
Now it appears that you simply don't like my answer. But couching that disagreement as an insistence that I "free" myself from my "personal biases" is basically a way of claiming that there is only one conclusion that one can reach if one has no bias. But you don't get to claim that authority. Present facts, evidence, and logic. Don't just accuse me of being biased.

As for the history of grand juries, well, that history is full of indictments that should never have been handed down. The old saying about prosecutors being able to indict a ham sandwich has an element of truth to it. The fact that the prosecutor here did not take such an approach is not a sign of unfairness, it's a sign that he didn't abuse his position in pursuit of a politically popular outcome. Wilson would never have been convicted at trial, and the proceedings made that plain. There is no reason a grand jury should indict under those conditions, and the fact that many prosecutors manipulate the grand jury into handing down an indictment anyways is not a precedent worth following.
Click to expand...

But it was unfair because the Prosecution was balanced and gave all the evidence, it'd only be fair if the Prosecution was unfair in its presentation.
 
stanfr said:
you are very confused. This contradicts my statement that his hands were raised before the fatal shot, how?
Click to expand...

Try bending at the middle, looking at the ground, then walk forwards with your hands raised. I suggest doing it over something soft. Honestly, were you really a defence lawyer?
 
PhantomWolf said:
But it's only biased towards Wilson because the evidence is biased towards Wilson. The evidence against him simply doesn't stack up.

Seriously, if I was in Wilson's shoes and got you as my public Defender, I'd be asking for another Lawyer. Any good defence lawyer would have gotten this kicked BEFORE it got to the GJ. The Prosecution knew that they didn't have a case, but they had the GJ purely as theatre to try and appease the mob. Going to trial would have been nothing more, and when Wilson had been found not guilty at considerable expense to everyone involved, the exact same thing would have occurred.

The Mob doesn't care about the evidence, they just wanted Wilson, an innocent man, strung up and the fact that the legal system went out of it's way to appease them is what is the most unfair thing of all.
Click to expand...

The highlight is where you and I differ. You know of his innocence. I don't, and would have liked a jury to decide, as it would with any case not involving a cop. As to the previous highlight. Hahahahahaa! Would like to put in the laughing dog gif but that would just be rubbing it in.
Here's a question for you: Two witnesses heard Brown say "OK,OK..." before he was killed. I see no reason to doubt this testimony. My question is how does one interpret that response? Under the circumstances, what do you think his intention in sayin "OK" was? Just curious how you interpret...
 
PhantomWolf said:
Try bending at the middle, looking at the ground, then walk forwards with your hands raised. I suggest doing it over something soft. Honestly, were you really a defence lawyer?
Click to expand...

What does that have anything to do with witnesses saying he had his hand raised before the fatal shot? You seem to have completely missed the previous statements. Is your reading comprehension that low?? Show me the contradiction.
 
Last edited:
stanfr said:
What does that have anything to do with witnesses saying he had his hand raised before the fatal shot? You seem to have completely missed the previous statements. Is your reading comprehension that low?? Show me the contradiction.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing that you didn't try it. Here's the contradiction. It is physically impossible to raise your hand above your head while bend over at the waist and looking at the ground, the position that Brown was in when he was struck by two of the bullets. You shoulders simply are unable to function this way, and you'd know that if you'd tried it.

Further, if the claim was modified to that he had his hands ahead of him, i.e. pointed at Officer Wilson, there is no physical way that the through and through to his upper arm could have occurred.

That I have to explain this to you seriously diminishes my belief that you are in fact a defence lawyer, this stuff should be meat and potatoes for you, it's the sort of thing that a defence lawyer would love to have in his hands at a trial because it would blow the prosecution's case out of the water in one fell swoop.
 
stanfr said:
The highlight is where you and I differ. You know of his innocence. I don't, and would have liked a jury to decide, as it would with any case not involving a cop. As to the previous highlight. Hahahahahaa! Would like to put in the laughing dog gif but that would just be rubbing it in.
Here's a question for you: Two witnesses heard Brown say "OK,OK..." before he was killed. I see no reason to doubt this testimony. My question is how does one interpret that response? Under the circumstances, what do you think his intention in sayin "OK" was? Just curious how you interpret...
Click to expand...

Are you going by what the Police Statements say, or what they testified to before the GJ? A number of witnesses changed their stories on the stand, admitting that they didn't see the shooting at all, because it was out of their sight but only heard what happened afterwards, or figured that was what happened because, well it was a cop.
 
stanfr said:
The highlight is where you and I differ. You know of his innocence. I don't, and would have liked a jury to decide, as it would with any case not involving a cop.
Click to expand...

A jury did decide. And they decided using a far far lower standard of proof than a jury in a criminal trial. What on earth makes you think that a trial jury, facing the same evidence but now requiring proof reasonable doubt, would have convicted where this grand jury, which need only meet a probable cause standard, refused to indict? It makes no sense.
 
BasqueArch said:
The headline of the Washington Post article is
"The physical evidence in the Michael Brown case supported the officer [updated with DNA evidence]"

Is there anything in this article and headline you disagree with and have evidence to support it?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...the-michael-brown-case-supported-the-officer/
Click to expand...

Good grief, dude, reread my statement. To help out, I said a statement that (paraphrased) Brown wouldn't have got killed if he raised his hands was silly, since virtually everyone is in agreement that his hands were raised (not in agreement as to WHY they were raised.) I was making a joke, which apparently flew wayyyy over your head. Carry on...
 
Ziggurat said:
A jury did decide. And they decided using a far far lower standard of proof than a jury in a criminal trial. What on earth makes you think that a trial jury, facing the same evidence but now requiring proof reasonable doubt, would have convicted where this grand jury, which need only meet a probable cause standard, refused to indict? It makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Sigh....because hopefully at full trial they would have had a prosecutor who actually cross-examined Wilson, and would not have reversed their role by playing defense counsel for him. But sadly, that may be too much to ask for in our system as it stands. Incidentally, we don't know how this jury voted...we would have if it had gone to trial.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Are you going by what the Police Statements say, or what they testified to before the GJ? A number of witnesses changed their stories on the stand, admitting that they didn't see the shooting at all, because it was out of their sight but only heard what happened afterwards, or figured that was what happened because, well it was a cop.
Click to expand...

Im going by news accounts--I don't have time to read a gazillion pages of documents. So, you don't believe that two witnesses heard Brown say 'OK'?
 
http://kansasexposed.org/2014/11/29/ku-journalism-major-shreds-case-against-mike-brown/

-The most common misconception I’m hearing is that Mike Brown was significantly larger than Officer Wilson. This is incorrect. On page 198 of the official grand jury transcript, you can see that Officer Wilson testifies he is 6 ft 4 and weighs 210 lbs

-Owner of Ferguson Market states that he did not call police to report a theft of cigars, that the theft had nothing to do with Mike Brown, and that the man on the security footage is not Mike Brown.

-While Officer Wilson’s story of what happened that day has changed at least three times, six separate eyewitnesses, four of whom have never met each other, all have identical accounts of what happened. They were never interviewed by police.
Click to expand...
 
Ziggurat said:
A jury did decide. And they decided using a far far lower standard of proof than a jury in a criminal trial. What on earth makes you think that a trial jury, facing the same evidence but now requiring proof reasonable doubt, would have convicted where this grand jury, which need only meet a probable cause standard, refused to indict? It makes no sense.
Click to expand...

How many prosecuting attorneys you know raise money for the people they are supposed to be prosecuting? :rolleyes:

-The prosecuting attorney for the case against Darren Wilson has helped raise $600,000 in donations for Darren Wilson, creating a clear conflict of interest.
Click to expand...

http://aattp.org/fair-trial-st-louis-prosecuting-attorney-raising-funds-for-darren-wilson/
 
PhantomWolf said:
I'm guessing that you didn't try it. Here's the contradiction. It is physically impossible to raise your hand above your head while bend over at the waist and looking at the ground, the position that Brown was in when he was struck by two of the bullets. You shoulders simply are unable to function this way, and you'd know that if you'd tried it.

Further, if the claim was modified to that he had his hands ahead of him, i.e. pointed at Officer Wilson, there is no physical way that the through and through to his upper arm could have occurred.

That I have to explain this to you seriously diminishes my belief that you are in fact a defence lawyer, this stuff should be meat and potatoes for you, it's the sort of thing that a defence lawyer would love to have in his hands at a trial because it would blow the prosecution's case out of the water in one fell swoop.
Click to expand...

Of course he was falling forward when the fatal shots were fired. So what? Do you disagree that the witnesses said his hand were raised? That's only point I made, as a sarcastic rebuttal to the statement he would have lived if he had raised his hands. I'm sorry you couldn't figure that out. Let me know how you've done once you've handled a few jury trials.
 
stanfr said:
Im going by news accounts--I don't have time to read a gazillion pages of documents. So, you don't believe that two witnesses heard Brown say 'OK'?
Click to expand...

In a word, "No". And I'm sure you'll find others here who agree. It's well documented (If you'd bother to read...) that several who were quite happy to tell their story to the TV cameras, that when actually testifying before the GJ, changed their story from previous accounts, to better fit the now known facts, or recanted completely.
But if you want to cling to a blind fantasy, I doubt anyone here will change your mind.
 
Last edited:
stanfr said:
Good grief, dude, reread my statement. To help out, I said a statement that (paraphrased) Brown wouldn't have got killed if he raised his hands was silly, since virtually everyone is in agreement that his hands were raised (not in agreement as to WHY they were raised.) I was making a joke, which apparently flew wayyyy over your head. Carry on...
Click to expand...

No worries, all's well that ends well. I'm glad to hear you agree that "The physical evidence in the Michael Brown case supported the officer [updated with DNA evidence]"
So why the bitchin.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom