Michael Brown shooting II

[stanfr]

The post I quoted was referencing the Cleveland shooting, not the Brown case. It was intended to show that police officers are trained not to use Tasers in deadly-force situations, as they do not reliably stop aggressive suspects.

you must have me confused with someone else, I never said anything about tasers...

 

[qayak]

Way to go Rams!

https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/n...sciplined-for-ferguson-gesture-035909458.html

The St. Louis Police Officers Association was not happy that members of the St. Louis Rams came out for Sunday's game in a hands up "don't shoot" gesture, in reference to the unrest in nearby Ferguson, and they want those players disciplined.

 

[stanfr]

I see you're not aware of the fact stanfr is claiming to be a lawyer and that he believes this assertion somehow makes his opinion more valid than others.

Wildcat is referencing that in his post. If you were paying attention to this thread you would understand that.

Minor correction, I don't believe my JD makes my opinion more valid, but I do know that my experience in trying cases, sitting in on Grand Juries, dealing one on one with cops, prosecutors, (and incidentally, I had a very good relationship with the prosecutors I worked with) judges and attorneys for a number of years does give me some insight into the process which quite obviously is lacking in a number of members here.

 

[stanfr]

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?

thc acts extremely differently on different people. 'High as a kite' is somewhat subjective.
Those are fair questions though. While I would agree that Browns actions at the store constituted a robbery, really he was just preventing the owner fom stopping him--if he were truly aggressive he would have leveled that guy easily. What provoked the altercation at the car? He didn't steal anything from Wilson--at that point his horrible crime was walking in the street. Seems to me it could have been handled better by both parties, IMO the guy with the gun should have taken the lead on being smart there.

 

[qayak]

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

12ng/ml is average for regular marijuana smokers. The level can range from 5 to 200 ng/ml. Brown was just an average pot smoker with an average level in his system.

The numbers you use are from levels deemed safe for people driving a car. Brown was not driving. Someone with a .08 level of alcohol is able to function very well but they cannot legally drive a car.

Besides, equating the effects of pot and alcohol is like equating the effects of a bongo drum and a water ski, pretty silly.

 

[Checkmite]

So evidently - I'm hearing this on TV and don't have a link yet I'm afraid, but there'll probably be links available during the day tomorrow - a handful of St. Louis Rams players emerged onto the field in the lead-up to tonight's (well, it would be last night's) football game with their hands raised, in a way that could have been a reference to the "hands up don't shoot" posture that many of the police brutality protesters have been using in the wake of the Brown incident. They didn't appear to say anything, it was merely this hands-up position, which they maintained for a few moments as they walked onto the field.

Evidently the St. Louis-area police fraternity has severely flipped out over the incident, releasing a press statement calling the act offensive and inflamatory, and demanding that both the team and the NFL issue public apologies and discipline the players involved.

 

[Tony Stark]

We'll never know because in this case the prosecutor turned out to be the defence attorney who held a trial of his own in secret that exonerated a cold blooded killer.

Great system that.

Just look at all the lawyers, public defenders, and prosecutors around the country who have said they have never seen a GJ run like this before and that it is against the law.

It is true that the grand jury proceedings in this case were unusual and suggest that the prosecution didn't really want to go to trial. But he was under no obligation to present a case to a grand jury at all. It was fully in his power to decide unilaterally to not press charges.

 

[marplots]

I would not rely on a taser if someone is charging me. I linked to this video earlier in the thread.

Watch the video - at about a minute in, the guy in the checkered shirt (Ammon Bundy) gets tasered - twice. He does not go down, he does not lose his balance - he just gets even more angry.

Tasers are useful, but they are also over-rated. They are not as effective as most people seem to think they are.

Isn't this the same thing they say about guns?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Thanks, that was a thoughtful response and I appreciate your politeness, its refreshing after some of the retorts here.
I disagree that witnesses were not needed. In fact the witnesses are crucial here I would say. Many people have been convicted of murder at trial based on the testimony of ONE witness, if believed. Of course, the testimony has to be scrutinized to see if it matches the evidence. Here, the majority of the witnesses say Brown was doing something that was either surrendering or not acting in a threatening matter. Some of the witnesses were clearly more believable than others, but on a whole my reading of the statements given seem to indicate Brown did not pose an imminent threat (of course, the reasonable belief of the cop is another hurdle to clear...) Witness 14 for example, struck me as credible and I think one could indict based on that alone unless something contradicted it. I disagree with your numerous conclusions about what the forensics said. I also don't see how anything you stated gives a "clear picture" which exonerates Wilson. One interesting thing I note in the witness statements which are backed up by the evidence is that we all apparently agree that Brown turns around at some point, and comes back towards the officer. Many of the witness statements say that it was a result of him being shot while fleeing. Regardless, it poses the question, why would a person who has been shot and initially fleeing, come back for more? That's a puzzling question, and to me it makes no sense at all that he was coming back in order to disarm/hurt/kill Wilson. Again, thanks for your thoughts.

It's well known that Eye witness testimony is the worse form of evidence there is. People corrupt their own memories via biases, talking with other people and watching TV. The biggest trouble with Witness 14's statement is that from turning and falling, he has Brown taking "Two or three steps" before moving "really slowly" towards Brown during the second volley of 4 shots. The physical, evidence says that Brown turned and moved 49 feet back towards Wilson. This just doesn't jive with what 14's Statement says.

14 also has Brown standing during the first volley of 6 shots and Brown being hit by 3 or 4 of them, but again, none of the bullets three bullets that hit Brown in the torso and head hit him when he was in an upright position, so this is impossible.

Next he changes his story to whether Brown was standing looking at Wilson (First Interview, and start of second) to his being bent over (later in second)when the second round of shots occur. The trouble here is that Brown can't have bent over from being shot 3-4 times as #14 claims, because none of the bullets hit him in the torso while he was upright. That is a major hole in #14's tale.

He also has Brown falling directly down, with his hands forwards, but the body clearly has the hands to his sides, not in front of him as would be the case if his hands were forward of his head, the interviewer in the second interview makes this point. 14's statements just do not match the physical evidence.

Also compare it with Witness 10 and the video that was posted earlier of Brown's body shortly after the shooting. A man can be heard describing what happened, and he states that "(Brown) run at the police" along with the contemporary diary entry of #40.

Witnesses that claim he was shot when running away have several problems. First, there are no shells between the car and the final position. Also all of the bullets in Wilson's gun have been accounted for. 2 at the car, 10 at the final position (6 + 4) and one was still in the gun. Add to that none of the shots were from back to the front. This means simply anyone claiming that Brown was shot running away is wrong.

Similarly we can know that when Brown was shot in the upper arm, he didn't have his hands up. We know this because the bullet wound was a through and through, from the front of the upper arm and out the back. If you put up your hands, your upper arm rotates. Had be been shot in the arm with his hands up, the wound would have been from the back of the arm to the front. We also know that the arm wasn't in front of him when it was hit because the wound then would have been in the lower arm and out the top.

We can also eliminate the whole "He was kneeling." For one thing, he moved 49 feet in 7 seconds, which is hard to do while kneeling, and secondly, while it is feasible that Wilson walked up and shot directly down into Brown as she knelt there, the evidence doesn't agree. The only close wound in the one to his hand, the rest are at distance, so for Wilson to have fired down at a distance, was for him to be standing 10 feet in the air above Brown, I think you'd agree this is unlikely.

This is the thing, we can't just read a witness statement and think that they could credible, we have to compare their claims with the physical evidence and see it matches. The majority of witness statements simply don't match, and when questioned on the stand we find out why. Many of them simply didn't actually see what they claimed too, they added to their story with what they believed happened, or what they heard others claim happened.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Obviously you have no clue as to how GJs work and what their purpose is.

No the thing is I'm just aware that the majority of GJ's are used by Prosecutors to get Indictments by cherry picking their evidence. People keep calling this one "unfair" when in fact that it the furthest from the truth because the Prosecution introduced evidence whether or not it suited their case. If anything GJ that exclude exculpatory evidence are the ones that are unfair because they don't give the Jury all of the evidence to work with, just what the Prosecutor wants them to see.

1980

Wow, the US is just full of psychics.

If that is the case, why are you so afraid that an attorney be allowed to question him on it? You want to bypass the system when it goes against your prejudices.

You realise that had this gone to trial, a) Wilson wouldn't have had to testify at all, b) There'd be a defence attorney shredding every single point the Prosecution tried to come up with, and c) The Prosecution would have had to have proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt?

You are aware that evidence of witnesses that were closest to the scene was left out by the prosecutor during the GJ are you not?

Who do you believe was left out? They had over 60 witnesses testify.

Their testimony and the autopsy evidence contradict the fabrications of Wilson.

Perhaps you should reread the autopsy, it fits Wilson's claim way better than any of the "hands up" and "shot him while running" witnesses claims.

The prosecutor made a mockery of the process and people are mocking it. It is a joke. If there is nothing to hide why did he use a secret GJ to present his case instead of using it to get an indictment and letting this go to a public preliminary hearing and trial if necessary. He bypassed the very system he insists others have faith in.

Because he didn't have the evidence for an indictment without losing pretty much the entire evidence file. None of the physical evidence fits for an indictment, and half the witnesses who gave police statements changed their claims on the stand. What was he supposed to indict with?

 

[Nihilianth]

Of course it is, Officer Wilson had no reason to believe that he was going to need a Taser that day, just as he hadn't needed one the other however many hundred times he'd gone out on patrol. Yes he played the odds, the odds that he wasn't going to be attacked by a doped up and violent criminal, because that didn't happen on a regular basis. For him, the odds of being highly uncomfortable in the vehicle outweighed the odds of being attacked and needing it. Sadly that day he was wrong.

(The ESP thing, that's crazy. Sorry, but it is. It is not at all an argument I was making.)

I am going to respond to this statement. "He had no reason to believe that he was going to need a taser that day...."

Then why have a gun? Or a baton? Or pepper spray? Or did he only carry a gun? Listen. He is a police officer. His JOB is to keep the peace. Go after a criminal once in a great while. It isn't a police officer's job to assume everything is going to be the same as it was the last 100 times they went out.
.

As to comparing the UK and US with shootings, that is plain dumb. For a start, UK cops don't carry guns for the most part, and you know what else, most UK criminals don't either. It's a totally different dynamic. In the US the police travel to an incident with the knowledge that one or more of the actors may very likely be armed with a gun. In the UK they don't. In the US, it's not beyond the pale to have the driver of a stopped car pull out an AK-47 and shoot up the cop car, this doesn't ever happen in the UK. This year in the UK three officers died while on duty, one from a heart attack, and two from vehicle accidents. In the US, 43 officers died because they were shot, another 2 died by from being assaulted, and 3 were hit deliberately with vehicles, and that doesn't include the 7 dogs that were shot or stabbed. As you can see, the dynamics are way different.

That is exactly my point: The dynamics are way different. They are different because:

A. Guns are not really involved in the UK.
B. There is not blatant racism occurring on a daily basis for most black people.
C. Poverty is not a race thing in the UK either.

-------------rant below--------------

This particular case, MAYBE Darren Wilson was justified. The court system seems to think so. And my concerns about the case itself have been satisfactorily answered. However, this case is a social issue. We, as a nation, have to have a serious discussion about social issues that lead to so many incidences like this. Police, most of all, need to change their tune. Police departments around the nation really need to take a page out of my hometown's book. The officers in my area are very professional. They interact with the community. I have even seen an officer get out of his car to help an old (black) lady take groceries into her house. When I went to a town a little further south of where I live, it was a completely different story.

In any case, you cite the number of officers killed last year at 43 by firearms. I can tell you that at least one of those deaths from a firearm, is something the officer and his partner would never have been able to do anything about, even though they do have a gun on them. Eric Frein in PA. So not all firearms-related deaths would have been prevented.

USA Today has published statistics for 2013:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/30/law-enforcement-deaths/4247393/

So, you say 43 officers killed this year. Last year, the figure was 33. There were 120,000 full-time officers with the power to arrest and carry a firearm in 2008. If you include part-time, and general-sworn officers in that figure, it is closer to a million. So, a million sworn officers with at least general arrest powers, and 33 of them died by firearm.

That is approximately 3.3 per 100,000. Or about .033 per 1,000 There are more murders than that in my hometown of about 38,000! I have a greater chance of walking down the street and getting shot and killed.

If you take the lower figure of 120,000 full-time officers who can carry a gun, (even though not all of the 33 deaths were from this category!) It's a little under 33 per 100,000. Detroit, MI has a gun murder rate of 47.5. Baltimore is at 29.5. New Orleans at 27.7. Oakland 27.3. Then Memphis drops down to 19.3. So ASSUMING all 33 officer-related deaths by gunfire are full-time sworn officers who are licensed to carry a gun, it is a safer job than living in the city of Detroit. And comparable to living in Baltimore, New Orleans, and Oakland.

Since 9/11, officers have shot and killed about 5,000 people. That is about 384 people per year. It is FAR more dangerous for anyone to be around a police officer, than it is for a police officer to do their job. Especially if you are black, and living in poverty.

 

[Nihilianth]

So evidently - I'm hearing this on TV and don't have a link yet I'm afraid, but there'll probably be links available during the day tomorrow - a handful of St. Louis Rams players emerged onto the field in the lead-up to tonight's (well, it would be last night's) football game with their hands raised, in a way that could have been a reference to the "hands up don't shoot" posture that many of the police brutality protesters have been using in the wake of the Brown incident. They didn't appear to say anything, it was merely this hands-up position, which they maintained for a few moments as they walked onto the field.

Evidently the St. Louis-area police fraternity has severely flipped out over the incident, releasing a press statement calling the act offensive and inflamatory, and demanding that both the team and the NFL issue public apologies and discipline the players involved.

I heard about that! I see it as the famous photos of the black Olympians who turned their back on the national anthem. The St. Louis police really should not have made that press release. Best thing they should do, is keep their heads down, and start interacting in a positive manner with the communities they serve.

 

[ProBonoShill]

You are completely missing the nuances here. Or perhaps you are intentionally misquoting me. I have no where stated that the prosecutor was aware a group that was fundraising for Wilson was claiming it was providing funds to an organization in close ties to the prosecutor. That's your misinterpretation. What I have said is the fact that those representations were made raises the issue of conflict of interest, through the appearance of impropriety (which does not require conclusive proof that the prosecutor knew about the fund-raising issue) and is just one more reason why this prosecutor should not have been in charge here.

Great, so McCulloch did nothing wrong here and this "appearance of impropriety" your ranting about is nothing more than a figment of your fertile imagination.

Glad we cleared that up.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

We'll never know because in this case the prosecutor turned out to be the defence attorney who held a trial of his own in secret that exonerated a cold blooded killer.

Great system that.

Are you sure you know what the phrase "cold-blooded" means?

Here are some of the relevant definitions on a couple of major Dictionary sites:

"cold–blood·ed adjective \ˈkōl(d)-ˈblə-dəd\

showing no sympathy or mercy : done in a planned way without emotion

done or acting without consideration, compunction, or clemency <cold–blooded murder>" - Merriam-Webster.com

"cold-blood·ed (kldbldd)
adj.

Lacking feeling or emotion: a cold-blooded killer.

having or showing a lack of feeling or pity: a cold-blooded killing." - TheFreeDictionary.com

So I think you may want to reconsider using that phrase in describing Michael Brown's death and Darren Wilson's actions.

See, the evidence just doesn't support it. The scenario doesn't even really allow for it.

Cold-blooded is a robber having the clerk at a gas station empty the register, comply fully, and offer no resistance at all... yet he still decides to shoot him in the face because he figures it will buy him more time before police are alerted and he won't have the guy calling 911 the moment he runs out the door. He's already got what he came for, the clerk has done everything he asked... but his own convenience and buying himself more time to escape are worth more to him than the clerk's life.

Cold-blooded would also be a man abducting a woman and raping her out in a remote area and then he strangles her to death while she's helpless, tied up, and offering no resistance. He does this again, like the robber, to eliminate a witness against him and because her life means less to him than his own convenience and the chance of improving his odds of evading capture. That is cold-blooded.

Could a cop kill someone in a cold-blooded way? Certainly. If a cop busted a criminal who was scrambling for his pistol on the night stand next to him but didn't make it, gave up trying, and was surrendering... but the cop decided to "take out the trash" and shoot the guy, knowing that his gun being right there and doubtless being covered with the guy's fingerprints already would make it very easy to create a scene nobody would question. Just move the gun into his hand while holding it with a towel or something... and he decides to do this because he just figures the streets are safer without this guy out there. That'd be cold-blooded.

Now, in the case of Wilson and Brown it seems that nobody denies that there was a physical altercation which would have absolutely nullified "cold-blooded" and put Wilson in a very hot-blooded state indeed. Both men would have been, based on everything we know. There seems to have clearly been rage and aggression in Brown that day, and Wilson claims he felt only fear. Based on what he describes, and what the evidence supports, his claim seems valid.

Is it possible he got angry at Brown and the anger mixed with the fear and adrenaline, but he isn't going to admit to the anger now because it would sound bad? Sure, that's possible. It could even be possible that such anger made him more prepared to open fire... but the fact is, the evidence is such that we have no good reason to question his assertion that Brown was an ongoing threat right til the very end. So anything about anger in Wilson being at play is something which will never move beyond the realm of pure speculation.

But whether anger was there or not, it was not cold-blooded. Even the scenarios people have put forward of Brown surrendering wouldn't fit the bill because it can't be a cold-blooded killing if the killer is angry, and by definition hot-blooded as a result.

Just look at all the lawyers, public defenders, and prosecutors around the country who have said they have never seen a GJ run like this before and that it is against the law.

When ignorant, angry, bloodthirsty mobs demand show trials I think it's pretty rich for them to then turn around and say "woah, that bogus show trial the facts didn't support that we intimidated the DA into doing sure seems fishy and unusual!"

Well yea... of course it's unusual. It's a proceeding that should have never taken place. It was done to appease and placate (unfortunately) and much like the prosecution of Zimmerman, any time you launch a proceeding which isn't justified by the facts, you are liable to end up with results which stick out like a sore thumb.

 

[WildCat]

The witness statements are readily available, I suggest you read them.

What specific witness statements did you find credible? GJ testimony only please, no links to media interviews and testimony to Oprah.

Obviously you have no clue as to how GJs work and what their purpose is.



1980

You should try reading the case mentioned, you'll find it does not say what your woo source claims it said.

 

[WildCat]

well, I think that Wilson made a lot of mistakes and missed opportunities to diffuse a situation that could have been diffused. I don't believe either Wilson or Johnsons account of the initial encounter. The truth is usually in between the two extremes. I suspect it is when Wilson backed up, either intentionally or not he struck Brown, words were exchanged, and that led to the scuffle at the car. I think a poor choice of words probably came from both mouths--the difference is, as a cop you're supposed to be able to handle an insult or two and not let it affect your behavior.

Now you're just speculating. Do you have any evidence?

Hey Wildcat, care to make a public wager on my pretending? I thought not...

I do wonder how you ever passed a bar exam, seeing as you appear to lack basic critical thinking skills. You don't even know the difference between the words "diffuse" and "defuse" apparently.

We'll never know because in this case the prosecutor turned out to be the defence attorney who held a trial of his own in secret that exonerated a cold blooded killer.

Great system that.

Just look at all the lawyers, public defenders, and prosecutors around the country who have said they have never seen a GJ run like this before and that it is against the law.

Please, read the court decision for yourself that you think makes this illegal. It's getting embarrassing.

 

[bobdroege7]

(The ESP thing, that's crazy. Sorry, but it is. It is not at all an argument I was making.)

I am going to respond to this statement. "He had no reason to believe that he was going to need a taser that day...."

Then why have a gun? Or a baton? Or pepper spray? Or did he only carry a gun? Listen. He is a police officer. His JOB is to keep the peace. Go after a criminal once in a great while. It isn't a police officer's job to assume everything is going to be the same as it was the last 100 times they went out.
.



That is exactly my point: The dynamics are way different. They are different because:

A. Guns are not really involved in the UK.
B. There is not blatant racism occurring on a daily basis for most black people.
C. Poverty is not a race thing in the UK either.

-------------rant below--------------

This particular case, MAYBE Darren Wilson was justified. The court system seems to think so. And my concerns about the case itself have been satisfactorily answered. However, this case is a social issue. We, as a nation, have to have a serious discussion about social issues that lead to so many incidences like this. Police, most of all, need to change their tune. Police departments around the nation really need to take a page out of my hometown's book. The officers in my area are very professional. They interact with the community. I have even seen an officer get out of his car to help an old (black) lady take groceries into her house. When I went to a town a little further south of where I live, it was a completely different story.

In any case, you cite the number of officers killed last year at 43 by firearms. I can tell you that at least one of those deaths from a firearm, is something the officer and his partner would never have been able to do anything about, even though they do have a gun on them. Eric Frein in PA. So not all firearms-related deaths would have been prevented.

USA Today has published statistics for 2013:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/30/law-enforcement-deaths/4247393/

So, you say 43 officers killed this year. Last year, the figure was 33. There were 120,000 full-time officers with the power to arrest and carry a firearm in 2008. If you include part-time, and general-sworn officers in that figure, it is closer to a million. So, a million sworn officers with at least general arrest powers, and 33 of them died by firearm.

That is approximately 3.3 per 100,000. Or about .033 per 1,000 There are more murders than that in my hometown of about 38,000! I have a greater chance of walking down the street and getting shot and killed.

If you take the lower figure of 120,000 full-time officers who can carry a gun, (even though not all of the 33 deaths were from this category!) It's a little under 33 per 100,000. Detroit, MI has a gun murder rate of 47.5. Baltimore is at 29.5. New Orleans at 27.7. Oakland 27.3. Then Memphis drops down to 19.3. So ASSUMING all 33 officer-related deaths by gunfire are full-time sworn officers who are licensed to carry a gun, it is a safer job than living in the city of Detroit. And comparable to living in Baltimore, New Orleans, and Oakland.

Since 9/11, officers have shot and killed about 5,000 people. That is about 384 people per year. It is FAR more dangerous for anyone to be around a police officer, than it is for a police officer to do their job. Especially if you are black, and living in poverty.

Something is wrong about your use of statistics: something about uniform priors, however I am not a statistician and I avoid the Holiday Inn express.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

I do wonder how you ever passed a bar exam, seeing as you appear to lack basic critical thinking skills. You don't even know the difference between the words "diffuse" and "defuse" apparently.

If this guy can pass the bar, anyone can:

well, I think that Wilson made a lot of mistakes and missed opportunities to diffuse a situation that could have been diffused. I don't believe either Wilson or Johnsons account of the initial encounter. The truth is usually in between the two extremes. I suspect it is when Wilson backed up, either intentionally or not he struck Brown, words were exchanged, and that led to the scuffle at the car. I think a poor choice of words probably came from both mouths--the difference is, as a cop you're supposed to be able to handle an insult or two and not let it affect your behavior.

I can tell you're trying to be very even handed but although that may seem imminently reasonable and impartial, I would encourage you to consider something:

Brown and Johnson were criminals, even if Brown hadn't yet been convicted for the felony he had just committed minutes before his encounter with Wilson. He was a young man full of a lot of physical aggression that day, and was apparently prepared to engage in violence for what most people would consider to be "no good reason."

If you're a tiny Bangladeshi man of advanced years without a weapon who is trying to prevent him from leaving the store, you may get off with a grab by the scruff and being unceremoniously moved out of the way, and threatened with a greater level of physical violence when you don't immediately take the hint afterward.

If, on the other hand... you are a police officer with backup a radio call away, a firearm and other offensive measures, a pair of handcuffs, and the full weight of the law behind you who is white (Brown had expressed dislike for white men in his rap lyrics) who is on the verge of apprehending Brown for a serious felony... well, you may merit a higher level of physical violence up to and including taking your life to avoid prison.

Brown may have felt the only way he could take Wilson out was to hit him with an unexpected burst of intense violence, catch him off guard, deliberately act more recklessly and rapidly than the officer was expecting (as Wilson admits, he was taken off guard by it big time, and he knew these were robbery suspects.) Think of it like a criminal's "Hail Mary pass" - Brown took a shot at neutralizing the cop before the cop could fully verify that he was the robber, and before Wilson was prepared. It didn't work out for him, but it seems that even after taking a couple of bullets he still felt it was his best play.

So what I'm getting at here is the fact that these two sides are not on equal footing and you shouldn't grant them equal credibility or their testimony equal weight. You've got criminals with every reason to lie and be violent on one hand, and on the other hand you have a decorated officer with a clean record who has now been exonerated of any wrong doing by a body which looked closely at all the physical and witness evidence.

And while I will certainly grant that Wilson has a vested interest in coming across this way, he struck me as genuinely unassuming and uh, let's say... much more optimistic about helping that community than I would be.

His Wrestling reference and my own strong knowledge of that area of the country (I'm from it) and the kind of guy Wilson is (knew many like him) lead me to believe he isn't someone with much, if any, malice in him. He may not be the brightest guy, but he strikes me as one of those people who just has way too much faith in humanity and that may be why his guard was down. I don't have a hard time at all believing that he didn't curse at them, but they cursed at him.

I can only hope he has come closer to the appropriate level of pessimism toward humanity and that community in particular after his ordeal.

ETA: In other words, it's not like we're looking at a situation where Wilson shot and killed the head of the PTA or a volunteer with Doctors Without Borders or something. It's entirely okay to default to believing a cop over violent criminals.

 

[qayak]

When ignorant, angry, bloodthirsty mobs demand show trials. . .

The angry mod was demanding a real trial, what they got was a show trial by GJ.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

The angry mod was demanding a real trial, what they got was a show trial by GJ.

Which was still more than they deserved to get.