Status
Not open for further replies.
well, the evidence is that an unarmed guy was gunned down, and half a dozen or more witnesses say he was not an imminent threat to Wilson. What more would you like for probable cause? <snip>


Based on his actions it seemed to me Brown was acting out as though he were (temporarily) emotionally disturbed. Did Wilson use racially inflammatory language on him? We don't know but given the history in Ferguson it certainly seems possible. A wide range of legal and political persons had suggested from the start that McCulloch's office should recuse itself and allow a special prosecutor to be appointed. For one thing, long before the incident in which Michael Brown was shot to death, McCulloch had a reputation within the black community as a racist.

This summer, African-American leaders called for a special prosecutor to replace McCulloch on the Brown case, citing [earlier] controversies as well as McCulloch’s decision to support challenger Steven Senger (a white man) over incumbent Charlie Dooley (a black man) in the 2014 Democratic primary for county executive. Link
 
Ohh okay so no impropriety actually took place, only the appearance of one?

Is that correct?

Like I said, you're posting in the wrong area of this forum.
In the Canon of Judicial Ethics (in my state) it's explicitly stated that a judge shall always avoid even the appearance of impropriety, whether or not any actual impropriety took place.

Are you implying that prosecutors and related offices and officers do not have a similar ethical constraint upon them and that to claim that they do is a conspiracy? Do you realize how absurd that makes you look?
 
Oopps, I have to admit to being wrong, it was actually 49 feet between the point Brown turns and his body, assuming that the police drawing is correctly to scale.

Based on that Brown covered 49 feet in 7 seconds (the time it took the shots to occur)

That's 7 feet a second or just over 2m/s, about 7.5 km per hour. Not a sprint, but it's about the speed a 1,000m runner goes at, so way faster than a stumble or stagger. Although this also assumes that he didn't slow on being hit by the two shots to his body, he might have started out faster

I'd also point out that there was no reason that he would have been staggering anyways, a shot to the arm doesn't make a person stagger, and all three shots to the torso indicate that he was bend down towards the shooter so he didn't bend over and stagger from one of them unless it was towards the end of the charge.
 
Last edited:
I do remodeling/rehabbing, plumbing, electrical, carpentry, etc. 2 weeks ago I sat on a Federal Court jury in a civil case, which I suspect is more experience in a courtroom than you've ever had.
I'm in computers, IT and network security and with a judge's permission, assisted a disabled friend in court (who was there pro se), by writing legal opinions and arguments which were accepted and adjudicated which I suspect is more experience in a courtroom than you've ever had.
 
In the Canon of Judicial Ethics (in my state) it's explicitly stated that a judge shall always avoid even the appearance of impropriety, whether or not any actual impropriety took place.

Are you implying that prosecutors and related offices and officers do not have a similar ethical constraint upon them and that to claim that they do is a conspiracy? Do you realize how absurd that makes you look?

Why is there an appearance of impropriety? Is it because of anything that the prosecutor did?

No, it is not.

The entire appearance, such as it is, is due to the actions of a third party. And it only even appears as an impropriety to people who don't actually understand what happened.

Is it your position that third parties should be able to create an "appearance of impropriety" even when the officials have done nothing improper, such that these officials will be forced to recuse themselves from some issue? Because that standard is ripe for abuse.
 
well, the evidence is that an unarmed guy was gunned down, and half a dozen or more witnesses say he was not an imminent threat to Wilson. What more would you like for probable cause?

A little consistency in their testimony (people will see details and even big things differently so I don't just dismiss it totally out of hand) and corroboration from the physical evidence. Not only does the physical evidence not corroborate the testimony that Brown was no threat, it contradicts it.


Open question for those brave enough to speculate on a skeptics forum. I know that is frowned upon, so if helps, do it purely on the evidence you've seen. We all can probably agree that Brown was moving towards Wilson when the fatal shot was fired. In your opinion, is it more likely that he was charging Wilson in attempt to kill/harm him, or is it more likely that he was attempting to surrender? Or feel free to add a third scenario... I really would be curious as to your thoughts, especially Wildcat, Phantom or Ziggurat. Why do you come to that conclusion? I really don't have a dog in this race (could be Brown deserved to die...) I just think the process went unfairly for him (and many others).


The physical evidence together with witness testimony makes me conclude that the shooting was justified. 'Deserved' doesn't enter into it, as that's a loaded term.

For all my criticism of how Ferguson operates, and the police reactions, following the evidence doesn't let me find any other way. I'm also unmoved by your complaints about the process, which seems to boil down that for once a grand jury worked as intended without the prosecutor cherry picking to get the desired outcome and that there won't be the chance to get a jury biased against Wilson. Oh, and something about thinking that Wilson would have taken the stand and been cross examined. I don't believe that Wilson would have taken the stand in a trial, and I don't believe a cross examination would have provided any more evidence than was already presented.
 
In the Canon of Judicial Ethics (in my state) it's explicitly stated that a judge shall always avoid even the appearance of impropriety, whether or not any actual impropriety took place.

Are you implying that prosecutors and related offices and officers do not have a similar ethical constraint upon them and that to claim that they do is a conspiracy? Do you realize how absurd that makes you look?

I'm implying no such thing, do you have a problem reading for comprehension?

It appears the state of Missouri is satisfied no impropriety, nor the appearance of one with regards to Robert McCulloch took place in this case, if you have information that says differently please post it.

The fact stanfr believes there's an air of impropriety shown by the prosecuter in this case, yet has no evidence to support such a claim does indeed make it a conspiracy or do you not understand the term either?
 
I'm in computers, IT and network security and with a judge's permission, assisted a disabled friend in court (who was there pro se), by writing legal opinions and arguments which were accepted and adjudicated which I suspect is more experience in a courtroom than you've ever had.

And this is relevant why?
 
Why is there an appearance of impropriety? Is it because of anything that the prosecutor did?

No, it is not.

The entire appearance, such as it is, is due to the actions of a third party. And it only even appears as an impropriety to people who don't actually understand what happened.

Is it your position that third parties should be able to create an "appearance of impropriety" even when the officials have done nothing improper, such that these officials will be forced to recuse themselves from some issue? Because that standard is ripe for abuse.
It's a risk, but apparently one that hasn't been abused.
 
A little consistency in their testimony (people will see details and even big things differently so I don't just dismiss it totally out of hand) and corroboration from the physical evidence. Not only does the physical evidence not corroborate the testimony that Brown was no threat, it contradicts it.

No, it does not. No one got to speak for Brown in the Grand Jury fiasco. It was a violation of the Constitution according to the SCOTUS.

The physical evidence together with witness testimony makes me conclude that the shooting was justified. 'Deserved' doesn't enter into it, as that's a loaded term.

Only witnesses supporting Wilson were permitted. No one spoke for Brown or his family.

For all my criticism of how Ferguson operates, and the police reactions, following the evidence doesn't let me find any other way. I'm also unmoved by your complaints about the process, which seems to boil down that for once a grand jury worked as intended without the prosecutor cherry picking to get the desired outcome and that there won't be the chance to get a jury biased against Wilson. Oh, and something about thinking that Wilson would have taken the stand and been cross examined. I don't believe that Wilson would have taken the stand in a trial, and I don't believe a cross examination would have provided any more evidence than was already presented.

This is not how a Grand Jury is intended to operate. This was a kangaroo court. No one spoke for the murder victim.
 
Based on his actions it seemed to me Brown was acting out as though he were (temporarily) emotionally disturbed.

You don't think that this might have been a combination of being high as a kite and suddenly having it dawn on him that he was about to be busted for the robbery he committed 10 minutes previously?
 
I'm implying no such thing, do you have a problem reading for comprehension?
Grasping at anything to try and slip the insult in there. Classy.


It appears the state of Missouri is satisfied no impropriety, nor the appearance of one with regards to Robert McCulloch took place in this case, if you have information that says differently please post it.

The fact stanfr believes there's an air of impropriety shown by the prosecuter in this case, yet has no evidence to support such a claim does indeed make it a conspiracy or do you not understand the term either?
Wow, awesome. It's been a pleasure, surely.
 
No, it does not. No one got to speak for Brown in the Grand Jury fiasco. It was a violation of the Constitution according to the SCOTUS.

Only witnesses supporting Wilson were permitted. No one spoke for Brown or his family.

This is not how a Grand Jury is intended to operate. This was a kangaroo court. No one spoke for the murder victim.

You need to stop living in your fantasy world, you clearly haven't read the GJ documents. For a start, you aware that the private autopsy done by the family was entered into evidence?
 
No, it does not. No one got to speak for Brown in the Grand Jury fiasco. It was a violation of the Constitution according to the SCOTUS.

I'm curious as to what case you think the SCOTUS made such a ruling.

Only witnesses supporting Wilson were permitted.

Not true.

No one spoke for Brown or his family.

Why should anyone speak for his family? They weren't witnesses. They have no evidence to present. The only time his family might play a role in the trial would be at sentencing, but that would only apply if there was a conviction, which there wouldn't be.

This is not how a Grand Jury is intended to operate. This was a kangaroo court. No one spoke for the murder victim.

You know what, you're right. We need someone to speak for the victim. I know just the person.
 
Of course I did, what makes you think I didn't.

The fact you posted it. It's dreadful, indicative of such idiocy (or ignorance about this issue) I had to wonder if it was satire. Unfortunately I had to come to the conclusion that the disturbed young lady was serious.

Well, they did distance themselves once the news broke.

Which would just mean that more money would go directly to Darren Wilson if you think it all the way through. ;)

So what? Brown was severely overweight, it doesn't make him strong. Wilson was a highly trained, man of steel standing alone between you and the forces of evil.

He looked pretty damn strong to me in that video, Wilson thought he was too. Incidentally offensive linemen are usually the strongest (as per their reps at the Combine and pro days) and heaviest players on a football team.

P.S.- after a lot of experience fighting, size don't mean anything unless the two people are of equal ability. If Wilson was of the ability of a vastly overweight blob, I think it is doubly good news that he resigned.

The Blob was a helluva wrestler.

:p

Yeah, they [the Darkies] are a bad lot, ain't they, Boss?

I think I'll just link the video this time. Do you think that is Michael Brown and Dorian Johnson? What do you think denying that indicates about the quality of that woman's analysis?

The grand jury fiasco is just proof that the fix was in. What was done in this case with a grand jury is NEVER done with grand juries. Brown's family never gets a say. There is no fair process here.

There never should have been a grand jury convened, however a lynch mob formed which had to be placated and they got nothing but evidence until it hurt.


There's an old saying:

'When you have the facts on your side, pound the facts.
When you have the law on your side, pound the law.
When you have neither the facts nor the law, pound the table.'

All of the above is table-pounding by those who followed Crump into another cul-de-sac and are looking to blame it on someone else.

The problems in Ferguson was aptly noted 30 years ago:

“When a shocking crime occurs, a community reaction of outrage and public protest often follows. Thereafter the open processes of justice serve an important prophylactic purpose, providing an outlet for community concern, hostility, and emotion.” (Chief Justice Warren Burger)

That's exactly what they got, an extraordinarily open grand jury and all the evidence to ponder over. What they don't like is the evidence doesn't conform to their narrative and are misdirecting shamelessly rather than man up and admit they got duped and did the Full Kook Faceplant.'
 
Last edited:
No, it does not. No one got to speak for Brown in the Grand Jury fiasco. It was a violation of the Constitution according to the SCOTUS.



Only witnesses supporting Wilson were permitted. No one spoke for Brown or his family.



This is not how a Grand Jury is intended to operate. This was a kangaroo court. No one spoke for the murder victim.

Any you obviously have evidence for this?
bTW- a grand jury is concerned with facts . Arguments from emotion and sympathy have no place there, or the GJ would have indicted based on what the emotional feelings of the "protesters" indicated.
 
You don't think that this might have been a combination of being high as a kite and suddenly having it dawn on him that he was about to be busted for the robbery he committed 10 minutes previously?

I'm not sure the THC count in his blood indicated Brown was high as a kite (or would've made him violent) but either scenario seems plausible.
 
I'm not sure the THC count in his blood indicated Brown was high as a kite (or would've made him violent) but either scenario seems plausible.

It was 50% higher that what is classified as "impaired", if that's not High as a Kite, what is?

As to the aggression, I actually thought dope was supposed to mellow, but the video from the robbery shows that he was clearly aggressive towards the store owner.

The way he reacted to the store owner certainly makes the claim of how he reacted to Wilson ring true. If he's willing to shove a store owner out of the way to avoid paying, why is it so far a stretch for him to slam a door to prevent an officer exiting the vehicle, or to punch him when the scuffle occurred?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom