Michael Brown shooting II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mumbles said:
Yeah, looking at Wilson's own testimony...well, he admitted to firing at Brown in anger, with "tunnel vision". Claimed that grabbing a clearly obese 18 year old guy is like grabbing onto "Hulk Hogan". Claimed that Brown "bulked up" while being shot at. Claimed that he was looking at Wilson, the man who was shooting at him, as though he weren't there. Claimed that Brown had his arm under his waistband, for no apparent reason.

Yeah...I'd have voted to indict based simply on that fresh batch of fried nonsense, alone.
Click to expand...

Yes, after reading a little, you know better than the GJ.
 
It's hard to dispute the claim that Brown returned toward Wilson.

picture.php


ETA: The red stars are "red stains on pavement."

Marker 17 is an "apparent projectile" which is the unlabeled circle just north of Brown.
 
Last edited:
Kaosium said:
Isn't it a good thing if the Grand Jury isn't used as a rubber stamp by the prosecutors? Yes, they are often abused by prosecutors who omit exculpatory evidence but that is an (allowed) abuse of the system in my (and the ABA's) opinion, not something that should be encouraged or emulated.
Click to expand...

I don't think that grand juries should even exist anymore given that they are usually a rubber stamp. But prosecutors that don't use them as rubber stamps don't really want to go to trial but want to shift the blame of that to the grand jury.

LTC8K6 said:
Then what do you do at the trial with no evidence?
Click to expand...

My point is that he didn't even want a trial.
 
Last edited:
Mumbles said:
Football players tend to hold their head up, since they need to see where they're going. What you're describing is more like Juggernaut from the X-Men - since he can simply run through a mountain without issue.
Click to expand...

I'm not describing anything.

Witnesses aren't always precise.

The testimony roughly matches the physical evidence, which is what we want to see when we are trying to figure out what actually happened after a chaotic and confusing incident.
 
Personally I can understand a bit of anger on the part of an officer who narrowly avoided being murdered with his own weapon and was still stinging with pain from the large, violent criminal's attack.

I can also understand having a very, very low amount of patience and tolerance for that same criminal and being ready to put an end to his shenanigans permanently if he did anything less than completely comply after trying to kill the officer.

I wouldn't be particularly upset with an officer who "executed" a criminal who'd just tried to kill him for doing his job (trying to question him about a strong arm robbery he'd just committed) even if that criminal was simply refusing commands to get down on the ground. But Brown did more than that... he tried one last ditch rush at Wilson, which constitutes another attempt on Wilson's life.

Then you factor in the fact that the accomplice, who for all Wilson knows is packing heat and readying for an attack from his flank, is around and unaccounted for while he's dealing with Brown. Yea, I'd say having a pretty low level of tolerance for Brown doing anything less than full compliance at that point is understandable, even prudent I dare say.

But even for those who wouldn't grant Wilson as much leeway as I would, who can possibly say he didn't have the right to unload per procedure once the "bull rush" began? Wilson couldn't very well permit Brown to close the distance.
 
Tony Stark said:
I don't think that grand juries should even exist anymore given that they are usually a rubber stamp. I'm just saying that prosecutors that don't use them as rubber stamps don't really want to go to trial but want to shift the blame of that to the grand jury.



My point is that he didn't even want a trial.
Click to expand...

You really think there was much of a choice other than the GJ?

http://ago.mo.gov/publications/courtprocess.pdf
 
Skeptic Tank said:
Personally I can understand a bit of anger on the part of an officer who narrowly avoided being murdered with his own weapon and was still stinging with pain from the large, violent criminal's attack.

I can also understand having a very, very low amount of patience and tolerance for that same criminal and being ready to put an end to his shenanigans permanently if he did anything less than completely comply after trying to kill the officer.

I wouldn't be particularly upset with an officer who "executed" a criminal who'd just tried to kill him for doing his job (trying to question him about a strong arm robbery he'd just committed) even if that criminal was simply refusing commands to get down on the ground. But Brown did more than that... he tried one last ditch rush at Wilson, which constitutes another attempt on Wilson's life.

Then you factor in the fact that the accomplice, who for all Wilson knows is packing heat and readying for an attack from his flank, is around and unaccounted for while he's dealing with Brown. Yea, I'd say having a pretty low level of tolerance for Brown doing anything less than full compliance at that point is understandable, even prudent I dare say.

But even for those who wouldn't grant Wilson as much leeway as I would, who can possibly say he didn't have the right to unload per procedure once the "bull rush" began? Wilson couldn't very well permit Brown to close the distance.
Click to expand...

Particularly with the hand at the waistband? I'd be thinking "gun", plus his accomplice is still around somewhere.
 
LTC8K6 said:
Particularly with the hand at the waistband? I'd be thinking "gun", plus his accomplice is still around somewhere.
Click to expand...

Yea, and frankly I would also say that Brown's "community" in Ferguson is in the process as we speak of proving why cops are justified in being even more cautious while dealing with criminals there.

Cops know what neighborhoods shun their criminals, and what neighborhoods embrace them instead.

It's very different to police the type of area where the general populace and the criminal element blend seamlessly together with no clear line of demarcation, and the general populace feel great sympathy for, and identify with their criminal element. They circle the wagons around them and help them avoid capture, they adhere to "no snitching" ethos for them, and deal with a lot of things "in house" which other communities would contact law enforcement about.

I don't think it would be out of bounds for cops to legitimately fear they might be ganged up on by bystanders in such an area, and attacked. I believe a major factor in Oscar Grant being accidentally shot was the hostile, loud, angry crowd which had gathered and made the cops' have to worry what they might do. That cop was far more nervous than he needed to be because of them.

The GJ's findings just firm up everything about my impressions of that area. There are some good people, but there are tons who will lie to cops without any hesitation if they think it represents an opportunity to strike out at whites/cops and score one for their team.

The recently released audio of police radioing in that "we're going to have a problem here" and the apparent fact that a big factor in not being able to remove the body sooner was the community blocking them and making their job more difficult... all reinforce my point which is again, it is very different to police certain areas than others.

And it's entirely understandable for cops to factor in that they are in hostile territory and not exactly go into "hair trigger" or "zero tolerance" mode, but perhaps something closer to that than if they were in Mayberry.
 
Last edited:
LTC8K6 said:
You really think there was much of a choice other than the GJ?

http://ago.mo.gov/publications/courtprocess.pdf
Click to expand...

I'm sure he felt that he had to given the high profile nature of the case. But I also don't think he wanted there to be a trial and grand juries almost always return indictments. Presenting evidence to a grand jury in Wilson's favor was a way of avoiding a real trial as much as possible while being able to blame a grand jury.
 
Last edited:
Tony Stark said:
I'm sure he felt that he had to given the high profile nature of the case. But I also don't think he wanted there to be a trial and grand juries almost always return indictments. Presenting evidence to a grand jury in Wilson's favor was a way of avoiding a real trial as much as possible while being able to blame a grand jury.
Click to expand...

He should have simply declined to prosecute, given the evidence he had, but we know what would have happened to him.
 
None of us will ever know exactly what Brown's final charge toward Wilson (if it did take place) looked like. To what degree was his head up vs. down, etc.

He wasn't a professional football player and he wasn't doing anything according to any specific guidelines. He was a desperate, angry, injured criminal full of adrenaline and THC who made a split second decision. A calculation that he could still get this cop, that he could reach the cop before he could stop him.

It was the same sort of impulsiveness that lead him shortly before that point to commit the strong armed robbery, and to make the initial attempt on Wilson's life.

When confronted with Wilson returning and blocking he and Johnson with the police SUV, Brown most certainly assumed Wilson had put two and two together and probably had thought even from the initial contact about the jaywalking that Wilson was aware of the burglary. When he turned the vehicle and came back... Brown would've felt CERTAIN that Wilson knew about it.

He didn't want to face the consequences of his criminality, and he impulsively made a series of very brash, very stupid choices to try to avoid those consequences.

Criminals do that sort of stuff all the time. Many times on video, most times not. People who are already criminally inclined and then you add the element of making them feel cornered and desperate? It's a recipe for volatile, violent and dangerous bursts of action.

Nothing about this entire incident is really all that surprising. The only surprising thing is why anyone ever sympathized with Brown or doubted Wilson for one moment.
 
Was 7:00 p.m. the best time for this announcement? Is there any research on how to time these things? Is it because at 9:00 in the morning, citizens are out at work and kids are in school, but after dark people are protected in their homes? Closer to a curfew?

Every announcement has seem mismanaged, even if they geared up for this with barricades and extra police. I dunno, I feel that if this was announced at 8:30 a.m., the really bad people would still be asleep and their sheepish followers are busy working, or stuck in traffic. With cameras everywhere, people would also be more likely to get caught on video.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom