Michael Brown shooting II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nihilianth said:
OUCH!!

http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/shocking-mistake-in-darren-wilson-grand-jury-364273731666

This makes me sick. I see this broke 3 days ago. And I did not read this thread. Jeez....
Click to expand...

click
 
Mumbles said:
Saw that, too. Didn't bother posting it, since it was already perfectly clear that the prosecutors were intentionally throwing the case anyway.
Click to expand...

You mean by introducing the physical evidence and witnesses that all said that Brown was approaching Wilson when the shots where fired or who stated that they hadn't actually seen what they told the cops they had, rather then just sticking giving out the statements of the witnesses who claimed Brown was running away with his hands in the air?
 
stanfr said:
It's called probable cause--you heard of that?
Click to expand...
Where is probable cause mentioned in the 5th Amendment? Have you read the 5th Amendment yet? It's not very long.

stanfr said:
Point being that many many many people (many of them minorities...) are put on trial with far less evidence
Click to expand...
Because injustices exist elsewhere it should have been done in this case? What is the interest of society in that, and how does that serve the interests of justice?

stanfr said:
than the conflicting witness testimony (and debatable forensics) that were in this case.
Click to expand...
What's debatable about the forensics? The forensics helps identify which witness testimony is suspect, as well as other things like the witness who swore that there was another officer in the car with Wilson, did you find that credible? The GJ didn't.

stanfr said:
Brown was unarmed (fact) he was shot at a distance (fact)
Click to expand...
The distance was a few inches (the car) to 20 feet or less. The physical evidence confirms that part.

stanfr said:
There are witnesses who say he was shot while attempting to surrender (fact)
Click to expand...
And there is a witness who said there was another cop in the car with Wilson. When there is conflicting witness testimony, and there almost always is, you have to look at which ones most closely match the physical evidence. Does the witness testimony that says he was shot while surrendering match the physical evidence?

stanfr said:
You may disagree with the evidence, but it's not your decision to make. Traditionally, it has been a jury's decision, assuming there is a prosecutor with the guts to charge a cop.
Click to expand...
You cannot charge in this case unless a Grand Jury indicts (that 5th Amendment you're unfamiliar with), and the GJ did not indict based upon the evidence presented to them.

stanfr said:
I don't think there should be two different standards for cops and citizens--why do you think there should??
Click to expand...
I agree, citizens should be equally treated. But I'd rather see the bar for trial raised for citizens, rather than lowered for the police.

What witness testimony favoring indicting Wilson did you find credible and why?
 
Nihilianth said:
OUCH!!
...
This makes me sick. I see this broke 3 days ago. And I did not read this thread. Jeez....
Click to expand...

Nihilianth said:
It doesn't matter. They were given wrong information. And the prosecutor couldn;t even answer a very simple, basic question that a 9th grader could.
Click to expand...


That error was corrected in the instructions to the grand jury prior to their deliberations. (See Volume 24, pp. 133 and following.)

It appears that perhaps the irate news fellow did not read the transcripts in full before going off on that righteous rant.
 
Last edited:
The thing that amazes me is this. People wanted a jury to see it, they got a jury to see it, a jury that didn't have a defence lawyer hitting them with all the things that cause reasonable doubt, cross examining the witnesses and generally blasting holes in the case. A jury who didn't have to find for guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but rather that there was on the balance or probably reason to proceed to trial.

So they had a jury who had a lower standard of evidence and no defence at all.

If that jury couldn't say there was a case, how the heck could a trial jury find guilt?
 
WildCat said:
Can you summarize your video in your own words for those of us who don't want to sit through the ads, then the video, then try to figure out which parts make you sick?
Click to expand...

Apparently the prosecutor gave the jury a law that said that police officers were allowed to shoot fleeing suspects, but the law had been overturned as unconstitutional in 1985.
 
PhantomWolf said:
If the wrong information had no affect on the outcome then yes you're right, it doesn't matter. Since the physical evidence shows that it is was never a case of Wilson shooting a fleeing Brown, then whether or not he was allowed to do so is irrelevant. Had he fired at a fleeing Brown, then yes it'd be an incredibly bad mistake because it would have affected the outcome, but since he never did it, what the law says about whether he could or not is totally irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Whether he was running away, or towards the cop is what is irrelevant in this little revelation.

BTW, what's it say to you, when someone is bent over, and the last shot is at the top of the head the ultimately put a someone down? Surely, after getting shot the first 5 times, bending over from those shots, the 6th shot was completely unnecessary? It was an execution. Period.
 
Nihilianth said:
Whether he was running away, or towards the cop is what is irrelevant in this little revelation.

BTW, what's it say to you, when someone is bent over, and the last shot is at the top of the head the ultimately put a someone down? Surely, after getting shot the first 5 times, bending over from those shots, the 6th shot was completely unnecessary? It was an execution. Period.
Click to expand...

Wittiness say that he was charging head down, so in that position his head would be in front of the centre of mass. Unlike what armchair shooters want to believe, police don't fire at limbs, they fire centre of mass. In this case brown's head was at his centre of mass.

ETA: Read the autopsy result, other than the bullet wound to the hand and lower arm, which occurred in the car, all of the major shots had a downward projection. One entered the top of the head and entered the skull, one just below the clavicle and went downwards into his 8th rib, the third hit the forehead, and ended up in the ribcage. The only way that this could have happened was if a) Wilson was standing up in the air above Brown, or b) Brown's head and chest were near vertical to Wilson when the shots were fired.
 
Last edited:
PhantomWolf said:
Here's a good one for you. Shot 12 times for standing on his porch with a hose. Wasn't even warned that the Police were there.

http://www.laweekly.com/informer/20...says-they-killed-troubled-man-in-self-defense
Click to expand...
Nobody cares, because the victim was white and it doesn't fit the meme the social justice warriors champion. See also Dillon Taylor, the 5 innocent people shot and one rammed off the road during the manhunt for Christopher Dorner, and John Wrana.

With all that low-hanging fruit and they pick Michael Brown as their poster child?
 
PhantomWolf said:
Apparently the prosecutor gave the jury a law that said that police officers were allowed to shoot fleeing suspects, but the law had been overturned as unconstitutional in 1985.
Click to expand...

It was a ten-minute video. You are only concentrating on that one portion of it. That is irrelevant, in any case. What is relevant, is the prosecutor gave them the wrong instructions to look at to begin with. Then swapped out that law, and gave them the updated law without any explanation. And when one juror asked the question: "Does federal law supersede Missouri law?" The prosecutor's reply was: "Don;t worry about that."

Don;t worry about that? It was a yes/no question! And one that, frank, a high school student in a basic civics class would have been able to answer with one definitive word: "Yes." Yes, federal law does trump state law. "Don;t worry about that?" COME ON! You can't be serious.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Wittiness say that he was charging head down, so in that position his head would be in front of the centre of mass. Unlike what armchair shooters want to believe, police don't fire at limbs, they fire centre of mass. In this case brown's head was at his centre of mass.
Click to expand...

Wait a minute: Wasn't Officer Wilson let go BECAUSE of what "witnesses said?" Hhhmmm..... :rolleyes:
 
WildCat said:
Nobody cares, because the victim was white and it doesn't fit the meme the social justice warriors champion. See also Dillon Taylor, the 5 innocent people shot and one rammed off the road during the manhunt for Christopher Dorner, and John Wrana.

With all that low-hanging fruit and they pick Michael Brown as their poster child?
Click to expand...

I don't know who you're referring to, but my posts concentrate on stupid police behaviour. It's hardly my fault that blacks are disproportionate victims of police stupidity.
 
Nihilianth said:
Wait a minute: Wasn't Officer Wilson let go BECAUSE of what "witnesses said?" Hhhmmm..... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The witnesses that agreed with the physical evidence, see my above ETA

ETA: Read the autopsy result, other than the bullet wound to the hand and lower arm, which occurred in the car, all of the major shots had a downward projection. One entered the top of the head and entered the skull, one just below the clavicle and went downwards into his 8th rib, the third hit the forehead, and ended up in the ribcage. The only way that this could have happened was if a) Wilson was standing up in the air above Brown, or b) Brown's head and chest were near vertical to Wilson when the shots were fired.
Click to expand...

The only way that the three bullets that hit Brown's chest and head could have hit his chest and head was if Wilson was directly above him, or if he was as witnesses claimed, charging head down like a footballer.
 
lionking said:
I don't know who you're referring to, but my posts concentrate on stupid police behaviour. It's hardly my fault that blacks are disproportionate victims of police stupidity.
Click to expand...

Except that you ignore it when whites are the victims and even derail those threads to Texas open carry laws which had nothing to do with the price of fish. All the while there are plenty of whites that are killed in far worse situations than Brown, Rice, or Crawford, and virtually no one says boo.

Heck Douglas Zerby was shot holding a hose head, he wasn't even aware that the police were creeping up on him when they shot him without any warning whatsoever. The number of people joining up to "Justice for Douglas Zerby" a whooping 100 people. :rolleyes:
 
PhantomWolf said:
Except that you ignore it when whites are the victims and even derail those threads to Texas open carry laws which had nothing to do with the price of fish. All the while there are plenty of whites that are killed in far worse situations than Brown, Rice, or Crawford, and virtually no one says boo.

Heck Douglas Zerby was shot holding a hose head, he wasn't even aware that the police were creeping up on him when they shot him without any warning whatsoever. The number of people joining up to "Justice for Douglas Zerby" a whooping 100 people. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I simply don't get your point. Are you saying I'm only concerned about black victims of police stupidity? Really?
 
Nihilianth said:
It was a ten-minute video. You are only concentrating on that one portion of it. That is irrelevant, in any case. What is relevant, is the prosecutor gave them the wrong instructions to look at to begin with. Then swapped out that law, and gave them the updated law without any explanation. And when one juror asked the question: "Does federal law supersede Missouri law?" The prosecutor's reply was: "Don;t worry about that."

Don;t worry about that? It was a yes/no question! And one that, frank, a high school student in a basic civics class would have been able to answer with one definitive word: "Yes." Yes, federal law does trump state law. "Don;t worry about that?" COME ON! You can't be serious.
Click to expand...



It would appear that you haven't read the transcript either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom