Michael Brown shooting II

[johnny karate]

It could be that there is massive police conspiracy to keep wilson from being charged.

I don't know... what are the odds that a police department would close ranks around one of their own? If there is one organization that values transparency and self-regulation, it's the police.

 

[johnny karate]

By virtue of his law enforcement duty, Wilson has zero duty of retreat or avoidance. Wilson had the power to detain and arrest Brown and the expectation intact that Brown would do nothing but comply.

What exactly was Brown expected to comply with?

 

[KatieG]

The line is drawn at the points where a reasonably cautious and prudent person, in the same circumstance as Wilson, would be in fear of death or serious physical injury, feel the threat was immediate and feel the use of force was necessary to prevent death or serious injury; or -- since Wilson was a law enforcement officer presumably attempting a lawful detention -- at the point where a reasonably cautious and prudent person would feel the need to effect Brown's arrest without delay in order to prevent death or serious injury to himself or others and feel the use of force was necessary to effect the arrest.

If Brown surrendered and was compliant, the use of force was most probably unlawful.

If Brown surrendered and was not compliant, but did not give rise to fear of death or great bodily injury, the use of force was probably unlawful.

If Brown surrendered, then started exhibiting aggressive behaviors after have just assaulted and injured a police officer, the use of force will probably be viewed as justified.

There's a reason that Wilson hasn't been charged. Again, I suggest that after/if the actual police statements are released by the court, eyewitness testimony isn't going to be the gold standard for reliability that we see here today.

Nothing that comes from the chief of police or the officers of the FPD can even come close to being the truth. Their reputation can't possibly sink any lower.

 

[Mumbles]

So, the only choices are lying or stupid?

Was everyone who failed to see the gorilla lying or stupid ?

http://www.theinvisiblegorilla.com/videos.html

Well, yes, I'm sure that the people who saw Darren Wilson shooting at Michael Brown would have also failed to notice a guy in a gorilla suit nearby. But your own videos run *against* Wilson, not in favor of him.

In the videos the viewer is specifically asked to concentrate on a particular thing that occurs, gives them the correct answer to what they were asked to observe and then surprises them by showing them what they did not notice. Since the people who noticed Wilson shooting at Brown were concentrating on that, the trick of the test is irrelevant.

Do you really think Darren Wilson is going to have much success trying to explain himself, ever?

What would make you happy? For him to just suck it up and plead guilty to murder?

I'm going to guess is that what does *not* make Unabogie happy is having the police chief smear the shooting victim, refuse sunshine law applications, and let the shooter go into hiding, all while laying siege to the town he's supposed to protect.

 

[Fudbucker]

Wow. Contemporaneous video, shot just after the killing.

"He had his *********** hands in the air!"

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/us...ewire/cnn-ferguson-video-bystanders-hands-air

I'm not sure how long people are going to keep pretending that these witnesses didn't see what they clearly saw.

I think this moves the needle towards the Brown side of things. Personally, It;'s increased my doubt about Wilson's side by about 10%.

 

[Unabogie]

So, the only choices are lying or stupid?

Was everyone who failed to see the gorilla lying or stupid ?

http://www.theinvisiblegorilla.com/videos.html

No matter how many unrelated events you can dredge up in which people didn't see what they thought they saw, we have at least three people who explained what they saw in real time or in near real time, and at least seven people who saw witnessed the shooting. The autopsy, the placement of the shells, the audio of the shots fired, and the people who were there, all of it is lining up squarely on one side of the ledger. A personal would have to be in willful denial in order to just wave away all of this evidence. And I'd wager my house that if this many people saw Michael Brown "bumrushing" Darren Wilson, the value of eyewitness testimony would experience a sudden surge. To me this is evidence that some people just will not accept that Brown was surrendering when he was shot, no matter what evidence is revealed.

Do you really think Darren Wilson is going to have much success trying to explain himself, ever?

Perhaps this is an indication that his explanation won't hold much water and the facts are against him? But still, why won't he give it a try? You don't think the media would give him a platform to tell his side?

What would make you happy? For him to just suck it up and plead guilty to murder?

So there's only two choices? Let him skate and ignore the fact that he won't explain himself or put him to death with no trial? How about forcing him to answer to his fellow citizens and explain why seven witnesses are all wrong when they say they saw him shoot an unarmed teenager who had his hands up and was voicing his intention to surrender? Do you feel that this is an unreasonable request?

 

[Cylinder]

What exactly was Brown expected to comply with?

Detention for the purpose of investigating a stealing BOLO.

 

[Cylinder]

I don't know... what are the odds that a police department would close ranks around one of their own? If there is one organization that values transparency and self-regulation, it's the police.

Assuming a local whitewash doesn't explain state and federal inaction. Wilson has six years on patrol. With all of this evidence stacked against Wilson that will see the light of day at some point, how can that be?

 

[Cylinder]

It only takes a bias by the prosecutor which the appearance of is well documented by his refusal to recuse himself despite cause.

If there is cause for recusal, the Brown family certainly has standing to petition the court...or file an ethics complaint...or petition the governor for a special prosecutor.

McColluch invited Nixon to intervene but no-one wants this tar baby. I suggest there is a reason for that.

 

[johnny karate]

Yes, you are.

No, I'm not.

That is why you won't discuss anything else or claim that events that transpired moments before are unrelated.

What specifically have I refused to discuss?

And as far as the two events being separate, I've made my argument and presented my logic. If you disagree, that's certainly your prerogative.

All that matters to you is that he was surrendering, and then you work from there.

You say that as if it's just some minor quibble.

Your position has been fairly consistent throughout the entire thread.

I agree. My position has been to draw conclusions based on the evidence, and that's what I have consistently been doing.

Of course he has the option to surrender. He had the option to just get out of the road when asked as well but he chose not to. Once Wilson makes the decision to use lethal force though I don't expect him to just assume that Brown is giving up.

He didn't have to assume anything. Brown was giving up. That's what it means when you put your hands in the air.

To use your term, there are no take-backs here. We're talking about human beings, not light switches that can be turned on and off. I realize that is the expectation that some people have of the police, but that doesn't seem realistic to me.

You don't think it's "realistic" to expect the police to not shoot and kill people who are surrendering to them?

I don't assume that Wilson was assaulted, I'm pointing out that he claims he was, and I don't discount that automatically just because he shot Brown. As someone else already stated, if it was clear that there was no altercation between these two men before Brown was shot then Wilson would likely have been charged by now.

And that person has been asked to back up that assertion with examples in which a police officer was immediately charged after killing someone in the line of duty.

Perhaps you'd like to offer assistance in providing an example instead of just accepting the claim on face value.

 

[Lorentz]

I don't know... what are the odds that a police department would close ranks around one of their own? If there is one organization that values transparency and self-regulation, it's the police.

Im unsure if that was sarcasm...

 

[casebro]

"Hands up" is no more important than "orbital fracture".

The severity of the facial injuries is not critical, the fact of any facial injuries shows assault on the peace officer.

And posture is far less important then Brown not stopping in his approach towards the armed officer.

Some of the "witnesses" say to within 4 feet, while Wilson was backing away. Yup, I say Wilson had every right to defend himself from a perceived threat.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I'll take door number three.

It only takes a bias by the prosecutor which the appearance of is well documented by his refusal to recuse himself despite cause.

And the GJ is a normal process even when the prosecutors do feel there is enough evidence of a crime in many cases.

I'm going to disagree on there being legitimate cause for recusal. That, and the fact he's not actually handling the prosecution himself make the prosecutor a non-issue, IMO.

Clarify for me if you will. Are you saying you haven't seen evidence of Wilson's wrongdoing, or that you believe there is surely some exonerating evidence we haven't seen or he'd have been indicted already?

The latter. Clearly there is physical evidence that exists we aren't privy to, yes ?

I find it likely that in there exists evidence that explains why wilson has not yet been charged.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I don't know... what are the odds that a police department would close ranks around one of their own? If there is one organization that values transparency and self-regulation, it's the police.

Which, of course, is not quite the same thing as I am suggesting and other posters were implying.

For example:

Nothing that comes from the chief of police or the officers of the FPD can even come close to being the truth. Their reputation can't possibly sink any lower.

But good job trying to poison the well against police in general.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

<SNIP>
So there's only two choices? Let him skate and ignore the fact that he won't explain himself or put him to death with no trial? How about forcing him to answer to his fellow citizens and explain why seven witnesses are all wrong when they say they saw him shoot an unarmed teenager who had his hands up and was voicing his intention to surrender? Do you feel that this is an unreasonable request?

He has already been interviewed multiple times by the police and DOJ.

Just because he didn't explain himself to you or the general public is irrelevant.

 

[quadraginta]

I'm going to disagree on there being legitimate cause for recusal. That, and the fact he's not actually handling the prosecution himself make the prosecutor a non-issue, IMO.

<snip>

If it is handled by his subordinates then the difference would be too small to get a razor blade into.

IOW, a distinction without a difference.

 

[quadraginta]

Assuming a local whitewash doesn't explain state and federal inaction. Wilson has six years on patrol. With all of this evidence stacked against Wilson that will see the light of day at some point, how can that be?

So far?

Is there a time limit?

Do you know for a fact that the Feds have decided not to pursue anything related to this case, ever?

 

[casebro]

"sealed indictment" sound familiar, for cases where the GJ says to prosecute, but does not want to release the evidence to the public.

But are there "sealed no bills", where the GJ testimony remains secret in spite of a 'no true bill' finding? I suppose in juvenile proceedings, and sex crimes, but in this case?

One probable deciding bit of evidence might be a phone video starting at the car door and continuing through the final shot. Perhaps it will show Brown with hands up while charging the officer. Let the squabbling continue eternally from there.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

In atypical approach, grand jury in Ferguson shooting receives full measure of case
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ec6ffe-339b-11e4-8f02-03c644b2d7d0_story.html

Instead of telling grand jury members what charges they believe police officer Darren Wilson should face, they are leaving it open-ended for now and involving the grand jury as co-investigators.
...


There must be some very strong evidence on wilsons side.

This strategy appears to me to be a setup for the GJ to return no bill, and then pass off the blame to the GJ.

I'd like to hear an argument for why this is a good method to try to indict wilson if he is clearly guilty of shooting brown when he was not a threat.

More from the WaPo on the Grand Jury. More conspiracy theory against the prosecutor ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...2226ca-3a82-11e4-9c9f-ebb47272e40e_story.html

The latest evidence that the fix is in came this week from The Post’s Kimberly Kindy and Carol Leonnig, who discovered that McCulloch’s office has declined so far to recommend any charges to the grand jury.
...And McCulloch won’t have his prosecutors recommend even involuntary manslaughter? If he persists and if the governor won’t intervene, their behavior will confirm suspicions that justice is rigged....

As pointed out earlier , it's somewhat interesting that that the State and Federal governments are so silent on this matter, if it's so clearly a rigged game:

But if McCulloch lacks credibility, he apparently has political clout. This could explain why Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon — like McCulloch, a Democrat — is refusing to appoint a special prosecutor. This could also explain Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill’s statement in support of McCulloch.

Wow, this prosecutor holds that much political clout over a governor and a senator ?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Assuming a local whitewash doesn't explain state and federal inaction. Wilson has six years on patrol. With all of this evidence stacked against Wilson that will see the light of day at some point, how can that be?

Federal inaction? They've opened an investigation into the whole police department. In addition, Wilson's first job was on a nearby PD force that was dissolved subsequent to rampant racism and corruption. Do you have any evidence Wilson was above it all?

If there is cause for recusal, the Brown family certainly has standing to petition the court...or file an ethics complaint...or petition the governor for a special prosecutor.

McColluch invited Nixon to intervene but no-one wants this tar baby. I suggest there is a reason for that.

Are you claiming that having received complaints about past failures to prosecute cops who killed and having a father who was an on duty cop killed by a black man is not a reason for recusal?

It's one thing to cite laws that say all Wilson has to do is claim he felt threatened. But you've cited as evidence the fact Wilson was not charged, despite the fact charges could still be pending. And now you claim because the governor did not act, that is somehow evidence McCulloch shouldn't be recused?

Bar Association Calls On Prosecutor To Recuse Himself From Ferguson Investigation

The Mound City Bar Association is concerned that St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Bob McCulloch's family ties with St. Louis' police department may impact his ability to conduct an impartial investigation. The prosecutor's father, mother, brother, uncle and cousin have all worked for the department, and his father was killed while responding to a call involving a black suspect, according to CBS News.

It's a statement in itself that McCulloch won't recuse himself considering how far it would go to give the appearance of justice. Instead he choses not to, public perception be damned.