Michael Brown shooting II

[WildCat]

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

Which mod? Darat?

 

[tyr_13]

What physical evidence "contradicts" the no threat part?

I think PhantomWolf did a pretty good job getting a lot of the details out.

What is evidence for the 'no threat' assertions? Witness statements that Brown was not charging or even approaching, had his hands up, got on his knees, appear to be the basis for that assessment. The blood spots as well as casings prove Brown was coming at Wilson, and coupled with the time frame proves he was coming at Wilson fast, which disproves the 'not charging'. Wound placements and injury proves that his hands could not have been up or been on his knees. So what makes the witness assessment that Brown was no threat, credible? The witness who make that assessment also say a lot of other things incorrect or troubling, such as admitting they were not actually witnesses or insisting there were several officers in the car.

On what do you base the 'no threat' assessment? What evidence is there for it? The 'threat' assessment has a lot going for it, including a physical altercation. 'Ifs' with no evidence don't become evidence for something else. The Golden Mean Fallacy certainly isn't evidence.

 

[3point14]

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.

You must not have met the policemen I have met. All those I have met seemed to have very thin skins and react badly to insults.

Of course, I'm in another country and I certainly doin't have a reasonable sample.

 

[Brainster]

Way to go Rams!

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

And just like Michael Brown, they didn't really mean they were surrendering. Instead, they did to the Raiders what Brown would have done to Wilson had he gotten the chance.

 

[NoahFence]

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.

You think Wilson is a cold blooded killer?!?!

 

[tsig]

You think Wilson is a cold blooded killer?!?!

By his own admission he's a fear driven killer.

 

[Gallstones]

This has since been confirmed as authentic, and was presented to the Grand Jury as evidence.

2:15 "One day the whole world will know my name"

Well, he was right.

 

[Gallstones]

Yeah, after all of this, I wonder if most people looking at the case know that. Ferguson isn't some inner-city ghetto; it was actually pretty nice before the riots.

I think some people automatically see "black community" and assume poverty.

 

[Gallstones]

<snip>

I will grant you that this particular case probably did not have anywhere near enough evidence against Wilson to obtain any sort of conviction. However, there is an even greater issue than this at hand:

<snip>

Or he simply did nothing wrong.

However, the people who expected retribution have gotten it. And savagery as a method has been reinforced and emboldened.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

I think some people automatically see "black community" and assume poverty.

I think most of us when we say anything about "the neighborhood" or "the community" are referring to a SECTION of Ferguson. Darren Wilson himself, and who would know better, described what we're talking about.

He said that the area this happened in was a particular part of Ferguson that had an anti-cop attitude and was essentially dangerous, hostile territory for cops.

And yea, that figures. Apparently he was in a Section 8 cluster or something similar. That's my understanding.

And by the way? People can speak about the woes of gentrification and historically black neighborhoods being pushed aside and whites moving in and taking over (even though they're actually reclaiming areas that white people built and lived before being pushed out a century+ ago), and they're able to get away with complaining about this on national media (Spike Lee is the biggest example but I've seen several other AA commentators gripe about it too, I believe Marc Lamont Hill and Cornell West were among them, I could be wrong.) And the people in these neighborhoods themselves can openly voice their dissatisfaction with the racial makeup of their area changing.

Yet, Ferguson has rapidly transformed from being nearly all white to mostly black, and not that long ago.

What of the longtime white residents of Ferguson who didn't like the demographic change in their city? What of the people who didn't like the increase in crime, and now becoming the sort of place where businesses are burned and people are killed and stuffed in car trunks during riots, and the police are hated and they, white people, are openly hated?

Do white people not have a right to say "hey we lived here, we liked it, and we don't like this demographic change" ? Nobody would deny any other group the right to be upset and express their frustration with that. Apparently whites are the one group who are expected to shut up, pretend they aren't a group with their own interests, and accept and even embrace their own displacement.

I disagree with that.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

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.

Can you quote some of these lawyers, public defenders, and prosecutors that claim this is against the law, and what specific laws it broke ?

 

[Gallstones]

Darren Wilson goes through his options and why he didn't choose them in his post-shooting interview (p. 6-9). The one he didn't mention that I wondered why he didn't consider was simply putting the vehicle in gear and hitting the accelerator. That would have solved his immediate problem without having to bring out the gun, which just made his situation worse and from his own account almost got him shot.


Once he was out of the vehicle, the problem with a guy the size of a typical NFL Offensive lineman attacking is that if you have a gun and don't use it then in short order it could be his gun. He's still that big and strong and odds are you're not only without your gun you're beaten and quite possibly about to draw your final breath...

I would speculate that when one's attention is so heavily occupied with surviving that level of imminent threat one's mind doesn't think of every option that a reflecting mind not under threat would come up with.
Also, to put the vehicle in gear would require that he remove one hand/arm from defending his person.

 

[davefoc]

You're the second person on this board today to declare that Police should have less rights that normal people.

As to releasing a statement from Wilson, no-one that had already made up their minds would have believed it anyway.

There might be good arguments against making it so that police officers can not decline to issue reports based on the possibility of self incrimination but this isn't one of them. Many people have one right or another restricted because of the job they chose. As a citizen I don't think police should be allowed to wait until the evidence is in and then craft a statement that fits the evidence while they are being paid to be a policeman. An integral part of a policeman's job is to write accurate, truthful reports. I don't think they should be able to not fulfill that requirement when all of a sudden it doesn't suit their purposes.

And it looks like before the 1968 court decision Gardner v. Broderick police departments did have the right to fire policemen if they invoked their right against self incrimination.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

I would speculate that when one's attention is so heavily occupied with surviving that level of imminent threat one's mind doesn't think of every option that a reflecting mind not under threat would come up with.
Also, to put the vehicle in gear would require that he remove one hand/arm from defending his person.

True, plus the fact that he had angled his vehicle in a way that made this less viable.

A police officer's duty is to protect the community. Letting someone who has just violently robbed a store and is now violently attacking a cop get away is not what they should be doing.

It just isn't good police practice.

What if this guy decides he's already been identified and the cops will surely be showing up at his house soon, so he decides to go settle some scores after getting his weapon, etc.?

Once someone has behaved like that, there are a million reasons (both ones we can think of and ones we cannot) why they need to be subdued and brought into custody ASAP. That's the cop's job.

I am sort of baffled by the people saying he should've run away or that Herculean effort should've been put into preserving the life of this violent thug who tried to kill a cop.

 

[Cylinder]

It's beyond dispute that this particular grand jury (absent some conspiracy with the court where the grand jury was switched) had the authority -- and probably a constitutionally-protected right -- to investigate this shooting.

Missouri Constitution Art 1; Sec. 16.

Grand juries—composition—jurisdiction to convene—powers.— That a grand jury shall consist of twelve citizens, any nine of whom concurring may find an indictment or a true bill: Provided, that no grand jury shall be convened except upon an order of a judge of a court having the power to try and determine felonies; but when so assembled such grand jury shall have power to investigate and return indictments for all character and grades of crime; and that the power of grand juries to inquire into the willful misconduct in office of public officers, and to find indictments in connection therewith, shall never be suspended.​

With the small caveat above, they were the grand jury "so assembled" for the term in which the event occurred.

They have the power to "investigate and return indictments for all character and grades of crime" -- including an accusation of a "grade of crime" where Wilson shoots Brown.

They have the power to "inquire into the willful misconduct in office of public officers" -- including an FPD patrol officer.

There is no circumstance -- even the appearance of an angry mob -- where it's lawful to suspend their power to inquire into the circumstances which led to this shooting.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

One thing I've been wondering though, is about the grand jury simply failing to bring an indictment.

Does that put Wilson in essentially the same position he was before they even looked at it? It's not something which would trigger double jeopardy like a full trial, right?

 

[Cylinder]

One thing I've been wondering though, is about the grand jury simply failing to bring an indictment.

Does that put Wilson in essentially the same position he was before they even looked at it? It's not something which would trigger double jeopardy like a full trial, right?

There's no double jeopardy issue established, though there's a due process presumption that as the evidence exists there is not probable cause to indict Wilson.

 

[davefoc]

you missed the "appearance" part--ill wait for you to look up that word.
Honestly, I don't think that particular incident is that huge compared to the overall unfairness of no special prosecutor being appointed.

It seemed like from the outside that almost every person with some sort of political role in this situation wanted the prosecutor to recuse himself. I don't how why he didn't, but he had enough political power to keep himself from being forcibly removed. I, for one, agree with you and think that he should have recused himself.

But, based mostly on the arguments made in this thread, it doesn't seem like any fair GJ would have indicted Wilson although I imagine that many GJ's might have with the appropriate DA leading the charge. Even before I had heard much about the details of the evidence I thought it was unlikely that Wilson would be indicted. The nature of the shooting seemed to be such that it would be very difficult to find enough evidence to convict Wilson. As the evidence played out I moved from somebody that thought there was a pretty fair chance that Wilson had shot Brown inappropriately to someone who thinks there is a pretty good chance that he didn't if one only judges the situation based only on what occurred after Wilson began to chase Brown.

 

[NoahFence]

By his own admission he's a fear driven killer.

As are most (if not all) people who kill in self-defense. I would think.

 

[PhantomWolf]

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

There were other posters that seemed to be suggesting that he should have known he would need it so it was murder because he didn't have it.

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.

Well as has been noted, a Taser would have been unlikely to have been the weapon of choice anyway. Tasers are not always non-fatal either. Plenty of cops have been blamed for Tasering people who have then died because they had a heart condition, or fell and hit their heads or.... Cops really are in a no win situation because every time one of these incidents occur, people demand that they should have known everything learned after the fact, before the fact.

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

A. Guns are not really involved in the UK.

Agreed, gun laws are radically different, as is the attitude to guns, and the availability.

B. There is not blatant racism occurring on a daily basis for most black people.

Rather disagree there.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/jul/29/racism-police-insiders-view-leroy-logan
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/apr/01/met-police-officer-carol-howard-tribunal
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...e-of-94-discrimination-inquiries-9488243.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-200483/Five-quit-amid-police-racism-storm.html

C. Poverty is not a race thing in the UK either.

Again, not true at all

◦20% for White people.
◦30% for Indians and Black Caribbeans.
◦50% for Black Africans.
◦60% for Pakistanis.
◦70% for Bangladeshis.

In the US the figures are

10% for Whites
30% for Blacks

So in fact the UK's figures are worse.

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.

The physical evidence seems to think so too.

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.

Without living in the US, I can't really comment on this, I'll take it as accepted, but at the same time say that if it is as rampant as claimed, then there has to be better cases to hitch the wagon to that this one.

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.

I'm just going to cover this as a whole.

It's clear that around 400 people a year get shot by cops, but it's also clear that the vast majority of them don't end up in the media as stories of "They shouldn't have been shot." I'd suggest that the vast number of them are more like this one...



Even if we say that a 1/4 are bad and there was no danger to the cops (which I think is way high based on the lack of news articles to indicate it being true) that would still mean that in around 300 of those incidents, had the cops not fired and killed the suspect, the suspect would have killed the cop(s). And on top of that we haven't got figures for incidents where the cop(s) fired on the suspect who would have killed them and neutralised the suspect, but didn't actually kill them and we don't know how many they justly killed, but weren't reported. You are not including any of these in your stats, and you certainly should be. Want we should be looking at is the Attempted Murder stats for Cops, not just the ones that were successful. The reason I brought up the murdered number, was to compare to the UK and show that policing is far more dangerous in the US than the UK. To determine how dangerous compared to the life of an Ordinary Joe, you need to compare the assaults and attempted murders as well as the murders, and then compare. (I'd also suggest that you remove the gang and felony related homicides from the other side since most Ordinary Joes aren't going to be killed while in the commission of a felony or by gang fighting.)

I'd also point out this. Overall more white people are shot by cops than blacks, which makes sense since there are more whites. Now, yes, the ratio of Blacks is higher when you account for population, but, when you look at Poverty rates and criminal activity, Blacks are far higher than whites in both (this is unsurprising since criminal activity is strongly linked to poverty.) What is quite striking is that according to the FBI statistics, Young Black Men (15-29) commit somewhere in the 60-75% of murders in their age range and as a group, 15-29 year olds commit the most murders by a long stretch. Considering that Black 15-29 years old are only 15% of their age range, this is a serious indictment on the violence that occurs in their communities. Again, it's not a surprise, since these tend to be the most affected by Poverty as well. What it does show though, is that as a group, 15-29 year old Blacks are the most likely to come to the attention of the Police for violent crimes, and in many cases, due to a lot of factors, when they do, things can turn out badly. What I'm trying to show here is that merely pointing to the figures and saying "Police shoot more young black men per capita, thus they are racist" isn't really supported by the statistics because they have no context. When you add in the context of criminal activity, we start to see why young black men tend to be killed more often.

That's not saying that there isn't a problem, it's just saying that the problems are way more complex that just racist police.