Michael Brown shooting II

[dudalb]

Because being murdered was not a violation of Brown's civil rights, but having a fair trial is a violation of Wilson's. The grand jury was given instructions such as to make it practically impossible for the case to go to trial.



The jury had to be able to prove that Wilson was not acting in self-defense before it could even go to trial. They had to be able to prove a negative. Wilson should've had to prove that there was a clear and present danger to his life, and the only way he could've protected himself was by killing Brown. Instead, it was the other way around.

Total nonsense.

 

[Iamafalser]

With regards to the second to last column, more than a third of the witnesses who claimed Mr. Brown had his hands up also claimed he was on his knees.

Many of the witnesses who said his hands were up also said Brown was running away when fired upon. Running away with his hands up? Is that like a half surrender?

What's missing from that table is a "Witness Changed Story" column. According the the prosecutor several of them changed their story once the autopsy came out or they were told of other physical evidence in the case. Other witnesses' stories remained consistent throughout and were more or less consistent with the physical evidence.

Though interesting, (at least to me) the table does not tell the whole story.

 

[WildCat]

Because being murdered was not a violation of Brown's civil rights, but having a fair trial is a violation of Wilson's. The grand jury was given instructions such as to make it practically impossible for the case to go to trial.

Are you in favor of violating someone's civil rights under the pretense that you think they might have violated someone else's civil rights? Because that sure seems to be what you're saying. If it's not then do clarify under which circumstances, if any, 5th Amendment rights should be denied.

The jury had to be able to prove that Wilson was not acting in self-defense before it could even go to trial. They had to be able to prove a negative. Wilson should've had to prove that there was a clear and present danger to his life, and the only way he could've protected himself was by killing Brown. Instead, it was the other way around.

All the jury had to conclude was that there was evidence that Wilson committed a crime. They didn't find any, indeed the physical evidence supported all of Wilson's material statements.

We don't put people on trial in the USA because a mob demands it, but because there is evidence they have committed a crime. Perhaps you have some evidence which the Grand Jury was unaware?

 

[Ammonitida]

You say, "absolutely ridiculous"? You mean like Dorian Johnson's claim that Darren Wilson was choking and pulling Brown through the SUV window to give Brown the tactical advantage over him? I recall that you had no problem accepting that load of BS as plausible. Further, Witness 10 is not the only witness that supports Wilson's version of events (in particular the charging), but nice try. You should actually read the grand jury testimony before you start asking for a trial. Stop getting your information from biased articles (such articles are now spreading this "only witness 10" myth to the Gawker crowd). Contrary to those articles, three (possibly five) other witnesses also support his testimony that Brown charged at him. And 25 feet is more than enough to support this testimony. That distance is not at all consistent with someone taking just a few, non-threatening slow steps forward and then falling down at the last volley, as claimed by other so-called "witnesses". Funny how that was once such a LONG distance for someone to be a threat but now it's "too short" for a charge/stop/charge. Let's see, 100 yards (he said 50 to 75 actually to the grand jury) vs "witnesses" who saw two cops exit Wilson's car, multiple "witnesses" who saw Wilson walk over to Brown as he lay dead on the street and empty a clip into his back, witnesses who said that either Brown only walked few steps forward or didn't move at all before he was dropped, witnesses who admitted before the grand jury that they changed their testimony to match what really happened. You mean THOSE witnesses?

No need for a trial when all the prosecution would have are bigoted, lying "witnesses" whose lies are refuted by forensic evidence. A prosecution nightmare.

That 25 feet of blood splatter behind Brown tells the real story (there's also a theory that the first blood drops at 25 feet came from the first volley of shots and not the thumb injury, as such a superficial wound would probably not have been bleeding that profusely). Brown charged at Wilson, who defended himself. Even if he "walked" toward Wilson for 25 feet or more (lol), he still showed himself to be a threat, causing Wilson to back up as evidenced by the shell casings being found behind Brown's body.

Edit : It's three witnesses that support Darren Wilson, including witness 10. Though one -- witness 40 -- is not the most credible of witnesses due to her racist views and memory issues, but witness 48 is the most credible of them all, and she also claimed Brown charged at Wilson as if he was going to tackle him, supporting witness 40. Another witness describes Brown walking with a fast pace toward Wilson, which can also be seen as threatening, especially to someone who just assaulted.

 

[Iamafalser]

Because being murdered was not a violation of Brown's civil rights, but having a fair trial is a violation of Wilson's. The grand jury was given instructions such as to make it practically impossible for the case to go to trial.



The jury had to be able to prove that Wilson was not acting in self-defense before it could even go to trial. They had to be able to prove a negative. Wilson should've had to prove that there was a clear and present danger to his life, and the only way he could've protected himself was by killing Brown. Instead, it was the other way around.

If Brown had any entry wounds in his back then I think that would lead to probable cause that Wilson was not acting in self defense. But that wasn't the case.

 

[Cylinder]

The problem with the witnesses is that those who claim to be describing the terminal sequence have to incorporate Brown moving toward Wilson because that's a consequence of the physical evidence. It becomes elimination evidence.

Moving ~20' isn't a subtle effect to someone who claims to be able to resolve things like the positions of the hands and how they were oriented.

 

[Mumbles]

Several eyewitnesses, the credible ones who didn't change their stories, disagree with you.

That simply is not true. The only witness I could find who fully agrees with this, again, is Witness 10, who apparently couldn't even figure out how far away he was when he watched it go down.

 

[Ammonitida]

Many of the witnesses who said his hands were up also said Brown was running away when fired upon. Running away with his hands up? Is that like a half surrender?

What's missing from that table is a "Witness Changed Story" column. According the the prosecutor several of them changed their story once the autopsy came out or they were told of other physical evidence in the case. Other witnesses' stories remained consistent throughout and were more or less consistent with the physical evidence.

Though interesting, (at least to me) the table does not tell the whole story.

All of the witnesses I read who claim that Brown had his hands up, with the exception witness 48, gave other details that discredited them as 'witnesses". One claims that two cops were inside Darren's SUV, and she repeated this testimony in more detail before the grand jury. We know this to be false, and since it's a detail that doesn't hurt or support Brown, we can conclude that she didn't witness anything, why else lie about something like that? She wasn't there. Other witnesses described Brown being shot in the back or head while he was on the ground (two I think) while others say that he did not move forward after he stopped, except to fall down. Others say that he only took a few steps forward, then was dropped. All incompatible with the blood trail that goes 20 or more feet behind his body away from Darren's SUV.

As for witness 48, she is incorrectly listed as having claimed that Brown's hands were up. In a actuality, she is Darren's strongest supporting witness, and only claimed that Brown appeared like he was thinking of putting his hands up, but decided to charge at Wilson instead.

 

[Ammonitida]

That simply is not true. The only witness I could find who fully agrees with this, again, is Witness 10, who apparently couldn't even figure out how far away he was when he watched it go down.

What you say is simply false. Witness 48 supports the statements of witness 10 on the most important issues. She even says to the grand jury, "I would have shot him instantly if he charged at me like that", suggesting that Wilson was more restrained than she would have been if she had been placed in his situation.

 

[plague311]

That simply is not true. The only witness I could find who fully agrees with this, again, is Witness 10, who apparently couldn't even figure out how far away he was when he watched it go down.

The important question isn't how many witnesses say insert_statement_here. It's how many witnesses have testimony that match the physical evidence. Witnesses can say anything they'd like, but unless it matches the available evidence then it's just useless. When reading this thread I see a lot of people, on both sides, really sticking to the eyewitness testimony while it's been stated several times that eyewitness testimony is the most unreliable evidence available.

 

[theprestige]

That's not being cowed; that is being deterred. Temporarily.

Repeated temporary deterrence seems like a clear win to me.

 

[Giz]

I feel sorry for cops. What a thankless task. You can do everything right and yet a large amount of the public would damn you as a murderer because of history and half-assed statistics, wilfully ignoring whether you as an individual are guilty or innocent.

 

[ehcks]

I feel sorry for cops. What a thankless task. You can do everything right and yet a large amount of the public would damn you as a murderer because of history and half-assed statistics, wilfully ignoring whether you as an individual are guilty or innocent.

I can not consider something done right when you shoot and kill an unarmed man 30 feet away while you're standing next to your SUV with at least two other ranged weapons capable of incapacitating him.

I can not consider anything the police do as right when they continue to fight against cameras on their uniforms or in their cars.

 

[plague311]

I can not consider something done right when you shoot and kill an unarmed man 30 feet away while you're standing next to your SUV with at least two other ranged weapons capable of incapacitating him.

After the chase wasn't he more like 100 feet+ away from his SUV? Which range weapons would be able to incapacitate him that Wilson had available? The last shots were also fired from a distance of about 8-10 feet, which is 1/3 of the distance you're describing.

I can not consider anything the police do as right when they continue to fight against cameras on their uniforms or in their cars.

Are the Ferguson police department fighting against it? I can't find any information on it.

 

[rwguinn]

I can not consider something done right when you shoot and kill an unarmed man 30 feet away while you're standing next to your SUV with at least two other ranged weapons capable of incapacitating him.

Nor would I, but that is NOT the case here. Lying about it don't make it true...

I can not consider anything the police do as right when they continue to fight against cameras on their uniforms or in their cars.

is it the cops, or the people paying the bills that prevents this

 

[Iamafalser]

I can not consider something done right when you shoot and kill an unarmed man 30 feet away while you're standing next to your SUV with at least two other ranged weapons capable of incapacitating him.

I can not consider anything the police do as right when they continue to fight against cameras on their uniforms or in their cars.

He was 150 feet away from his SUV.

Many (not all) police officers WANT body cameras so your blanket statement is not true. The reason they want them is from their experience with dash cams that they have been able to use to expose people who make bogus complaints against them.

Not sure if a body cam would've worked in the Brown shooting. When he struggled with Brown it might have gotten knocked out of position. Like his radio got switched from Ch 1 to Ch 3 during the struggle in the car.

 

[ehcks]

Are the Ferguson police department fighting against it? I can't find any information on it.

From 2012
http://reason.com/blog/2012/05/23/st-louis-cops-worry-that-in-car-cameras

"city police officers believe in-car cameras are being used against them, and they are trying to find ways to avoid driving cars equipped with them."

October 24
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-county-town-rejects-body-cameras-for-police/

Ballwin police officers won’t be using on-body video cameras.

http://woodtv.com/2014/10/30/grpd-chief-says-no-to-body-cams/

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. (WOOD) — The chief of one of the biggest police departments in West Michigan thinks officers carrying body cameras is a bad idea.

I can't find an article or a quote specific to Ferguson, but the first two were St Louis.

 

[WildCat]

I can not consider something done right when you shoot and kill an unarmed man 30 feet away

How close do they have to be?

while you're standing next to your SUV with at least two other ranged weapons capable of incapacitating him.

They were over 100' from the SUV, and what "ranged weapons" are you talking about?

I can not consider anything the police do as right when they continue to fight against cameras on their uniforms or in their cars.

Ferguson wasn't fighting them, IIRC they had ordered them but hadn't yet implemented them when this happened.

 

[WildCat]

From 2012
http://reason.com/blog/2012/05/23/st-louis-cops-worry-that-in-car-cameras


October 24
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-county-town-rejects-body-cameras-for-police/


http://woodtv.com/2014/10/30/grpd-chief-says-no-to-body-cams/


I can't find an article or a quote specific to Ferguson, but the first two were St Louis.

That's certainly relevant for some other conversation, but you were talking about Ferguson, remember? Anything about Ferguson police on your internet?

 

[newyorkguy]

I can not consider something done right when you shoot and kill an unarmed man 30 feet away while you're standing next to your SUV with at least two other ranged weapons capable of incapacitating him. <snip>

IMO there's three things driving this whole uproar over the Michael Brown killing. First is the disparity between black youths killed by police and any other group you can mention. It's 21 times greater than white youths of the same age.

Young black males in recent years were at a far greater risk of being shot dead by police than their white counterparts – 21 times greater, according to a ProPublica analysis of federally collected data on fatal police shootings. The 1,217 deadly police shootings from 2010 to 2012 captured in the federal data show that blacks, age 15 to 19, were killed at a rate of 31.17 per million, while just 1.47 per million white males in that age range died at the hands of police. ProPublica link

Second is the almost total lack of police accountability. Given the racial history in the United States common sense tells you that some of the police killings undoubtedly involved excessive use of force.

But newspaper accounts suggest, grand juries frequently decline to indict law-enforcement officials. A recent Houston Chronicle investigation found that “police have been nearly immune from criminal charges in shootings” in Houston and other large cities in recent years. In Harris County, Texas, for example, grand juries haven’t indicted a Houston police officer since 2004; in Dallas, grand juries reviewed 81 shootings between 2008 and 2012 and returned just one indictment. News link

One of the most frequent factors involved is when the police officer had alternatives to using deadly force but chose not to use them. Blacks say the treatment they often get at the hands of police would not be tolerated if it was whites on the receiving end.

Third, you could even say, some of the posters here are contributing to the climate that produces the kinds of violent reactions we saw in Ferguson. When people pretend there is no problem between police and blacks; it's all on blacks. If they weren't this, if they didn't do that. Some whites virtually gloat over the latest controversial police killing of a black youth in ways that suggest they're clearly biased. That attitude comes through loud and clear and produces extreme reactions. When black people feel the system is treating them unfairly, and a significant number of citizens actually support it because of racial hostility towards African Americans, some blacks will react more extremely. In New York we have had bad police shootings but we don't have the kinds of boiling over of emotions that we saw in Missouri. Why? Because at least in New York police have shown a willingness to consider, yes maybe there was something wrong. Police departments have acted to revise guidelines and use enhanced training techniques to lower the rate at which officers use deadly force. That makes a difference. It gives people hope that maybe tomorrow will be better. In places like Missouri people probably fear tomorrow may be even worse.