Michael Brown shooting II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mike! said:
The most recent witness 'testimony', the two workers, say the Brown was moving toward Wilson. It's up thread someplace fairly close.
For a moment, rather than focusing on witness testimony, how about we 'focus' on what Wilson would be seeing, from his perspective. I've not talking about what he's thinking as this is transpiring, but what he is SEEING, from where he is standing. What does it LOOK like Brown is doing, as far as he can tell? If Brown steps towards him, and then bends his head down, what would that appear to be from Wilson's point of view? A surrender or a start of a 'bulrush charge'?
I'm not sure, so I'm asking.

On a side note, I recently got an old 60's G.I.Joe doll action figure, that has an insane amount of articulation. I was thinking about using it to recreate the possible positions Brown could have been in during the shooting. It might provide a better perspective than my skull illustrations.
Click to expand...
I find it hard to believe Brown looked like he was coming at Wilson unless Wilson was incompetent in making an assessment.

Walking toward Wilson, maybe that was misinterpreted. But once his head was down, he had to either be stumbling, falling, or getting down. Given the 3 second pause and the kill shot being in the top of Brown's head, it's really hard to imagine any scenario Brown looked like a threat by the time those last 4 shots happened.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I assumed the blank incident reports were just something released to the public and the real accounts were being held back. It's shocking to think Wilson was not officially debriefed.

But then I read the union advises police not to talk to the police and if you think about the other side of it, a shooter who wasn't a cop would surely be advised by a lawyer not to give a statement to police.

At some point hopefully, Wilson will be deposed, under oath and can either plead the 5th or give an account.

I haven't drawn a conclusion about what reports Wilson has or has not made. I have no idea.
Click to expand...

Found it:
http://www.kmov.com/news/mobile/New...nd-use-of-tear-gas-in-protests-272802571.html

Belmar also said St. Louis County police have interviewed Officer Darren Wilson twice, including a lengthy interview the day after Brown was shot.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
"where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party"


That looks like an actual thing , not an appearance of a thing. Something else we'll simply have to disagree on, unless you can point to the law that talks about the appearance of fairness, not actual fairness.
Click to expand...


Judicial ethics tends to advocate that judges avoid even the appearance of impropriety. However, recusal is a personal decision made by the judge. Unless there's some hard evidence of a bias, there's not going to be anything that can be done. Hard evidence usually constitutes a financial interest or a clear statement on the record favoring one party.
 
Lerxst said:
Humans are often illogical and their decisions are often based on emotional reactions, especially in a heated situation such as this one. If you can't understand, based on your own human experience, how someone might not be able to instantly calm down and not respond to force with force then I doubt any such example would be helpful to you. I imagine you might even claim it's unrelated.
Click to expand...

We grant police the literal power over life and death.

They should be held accountable when they don't exercise that power responsibly.

If a cop can't keep his head in a heated situation and kills someone he doesn't need to, maybe he shouldn't be cop anymore.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I find it hard to believe Brown looked like he was coming at Wilson unless Wilson was incompetent in making an assessment.

Walking toward Wilson, maybe that was misinterpreted. But once his head was down, he had to either be stumbling, falling, or getting down. Given the 3 second pause and the kill shot being in the top of Brown's head, it's really hard to imagine any scenario Brown looked like a threat by the time those last 4 shots happened.
Click to expand...

And let's not forget (from the audio)

.636 s between shot 1 and shot 2
.380 s between shot 2 and shot 3
.304 s between shot 3 and shot 4
.275 s between shot 4 and shot 5
.332 s between shot 5 and shot 6

3.038 s between shot 6 and shot 7

.959 s between shot 7 and shot 8

.399 s between shot 8 and shot 9*
.389 s between shot 9 and shot 10*

* shot 9 is a little hard to pinpoint

Those last four shots aren't all rapid fire. After the 3 second pause, Wilson fires shot 7 and THEN waits almost a second (.959s) before firing the last three. If Brown was "bull-rushing" one second seems like a long time to wait before shooting.
 
Grand Jury Term Extended to Jan. 7 2015


The grand jury considering whether Ferguson police Officer Darren Wilson should be criminally charged in the shooting death of unarmed teenager Michael Brown now has until Jan. 7 to decide.

The extension of the grand jurors’ term of duty does not necessarily mean the job will take that long, officials said. But it could...

A St. Louis County grand jury usually sits for four months, a period that for the current panel expired last week. State law provides for a term of up to six months, which moves the date to November. On Wednesday, Circuit Judge Carolyn Whittington issued an order adding 60 days more.

“She extended it to the full amount allowed by law,” Court Administrator Paul Fox said Monday. But he added that the grand jury will keep meeting until Jan. 7 only if it needs to.

The panel is hearing evidence in the Michael Brown case exclusively, and can meet whenever it needs to, Fox said.
Click to expand...


The article also confirms that McCulloch is not presenting a bill of indictment, but rather allowing the grand jury to hear all available evidence, become instructed on the law and then make the decision if charges are warranted.

In a related story, a recent opinion poll of St. Louis County residents show the racial divide on this issue.

65% of black residents believe Wilson's use of force was unjust, 62% of white residents think it was justified.

64% of black residents think Brown was targeted because of race, 77% of white residents disagree.

32% of black residents have faith is McCulloch's impartiality in resolving this case, 70% of white residents thought McCulloch would be fair and impartial.

Missouri governor Jay Nixon seemed to find a way to bridge the ethnic divide -- 70% of black residents disapprove of his handling of the shooting's aftermath, with 62% of white residents voicing similar disapproval.
 
http://fox2now.com/2014/09/08/two-je...rown-shooting/

“I saw him staggering and running and when he finally caught himself he threw his hands up and started screaming OK OK OK OK OK and then the three officers come through the thing and the one just started shooting,” the worker told Fox 2`s Washington on August 12.
Click to expand...

The three officers? One shooting and two not? Does any other witness put two other officers there during the shooting?
 
I wonder why Brown's family is so adamant about keeping his juvenile record away from journalists. It appears they plead to the papers to stop them from moving forward. If there is nothing in it why not just let it open up, and prove the gentle giant they claim he is? It seems a bit weird.

Link
 
bynmdsue said:
The three officers? One shooting and two not? Does any other witness put two other officers there during the shooting?
Click to expand...

It looks like they pulled that link down. I'm thinking someone caught on that they posted the story wrong, quoted the individuals wrong, or it was complete poppycock.
 
plague311 said:
I wonder why Brown's family is so adamant about keeping his juvenile record away from journalists. It appears they plead to the papers to stop them from moving forward. If there is nothing in it why not just let it open up, and prove the gentle giant they claim he is? It seems a bit weird.

Link
Click to expand...

I imagine there may be some stuff there, but unless it becomes somehow relevant, we won't know.

Crump is full of crap, however:

“We know many things about Michael Brown,” the letter said. “We know that he was 18 years old when he died. We know that he was shot to death by a Ferguson police officer. We know that he wasn't armed at the time he was shot and killed. We know that his body was left uncovered on the ground in the baking sun for hours, causing untold agony for his family and community.”

It was covered.

The letter continues: “We also know that he was facing no criminal charges at the time that he died, either as a juvenile or as an adult. Michael Brown, as it turns out, has no arrest record. The last fact is a particularly difficult truth if you are trying to make a case that Michael Brown deserved what he got. Or if you’re trying to drive traffic to your website.”

No one validated that he was never arrested:
As a child, Michael Brown was never found delinquent of the juvenile equivalents of Missouri’s most serious felony charges and was not facing any at the time he died, a court official said Wednesday.

Nope, doesn't say he was never arrested, or never was charged with crimes less than a class A or B felony...

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_43c9bbbb-356f-5ea6-b9e2-7dde7e3e5c83.html
It is not known whether Brown had ever been accused of lesser offenses. Class C felonies, for example, which include involuntary manslaughter and second-degree assault, would become open only if there were two previous adjudications for class A, B or C felonies. That was not the case with Brown.
 
plague311 said:
I wonder why Brown's family is so adamant about keeping his juvenile record away from journalists. It appears they plead to the papers to stop them from moving forward. If there is nothing in it why not just let it open up, and prove the gentle giant they claim he is? It seems a bit weird.

Link
Click to expand...

On inference is that there is something in there.

Another is that the news mongers are still trying to publish it.

My Million Dollar Challenge prediction it will be released at the same time as the 'no true bill' news. Or maybe just before.

Hey, who will be the one holding the press conference with the GJ results? McCullough? My Mojo doesn't do 'press conference'.
 
johnny karate said:
We grant police the literal power over life and death.

They should be held accountable when they don't exercise that power responsibly.

If a cop can't keep his head in a heated situation and kills someone he doesn't need to, maybe he shouldn't be cop anymore.
Click to expand...

Oh he won't be a cop anymore regardless of how this turns out. The problem is we can't agree on what "responsibly" and "need to" means. If you believe, based on the limited information we have now, that the shooting was not at all justified, then tell me what you feel would have been justified. I've asked this question before, and the response is always vague, like "he would have to be an imminent threat". Okay, so what does that means exactly, how would the situation have to be different for you to feel Brown was an imminent threat? What evidence would have have to come to light for you to change your mind?
 
plague311 said:
It looks like they pulled that link down. I'm thinking someone caught on that they posted the story wrong, quoted the individuals wrong, or it was complete poppycock.
Click to expand...

The link was broken, story still there, there is also video of him saying it. Both links are in one of my posts from a day or two ago.
 
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_74022ab8-756f-5e1d-81b3-3c577f1e9208.html

Ferguson police Officer Darren Wilson testified for almost four hours Tuesday in front of a St. Louis County grand jury investigating his Aug. 9 shooting of Michael Brown, a source with knowledge of the investigation said Wednesday.

Wilson was not obligated to testify, and also has spoken with St. Louis County investigators twice and federal investigators once, the source said. The source said that Wilson had been “cooperative.”

Also:
Tiffany Mitchell, a witness to the shooting who has spoken publicly about what she saw, has not yet been subpoenaed, her lawyer, Peter Cohen said Wednesday. Asked the same question last week about another public witness, Piaget Crenshaw, lawyer Karen Lewis declined to comment.

Why is it these "witnesses" need lawyers ???
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
All the more reason he should have recused himself. The reason for recusal is not only because one is not, or cannot be fair, it is to maintain the appearance of fairness. If he isn't handling the case (and I don't agree that simply delegating some of the work means you are not critically involved) then why not step away altogether?

How does Wilson not being charged before the GJ hears the evidence mean anything as to the strength of the case?

From what I read, no he wasn't interviewed multiple times. It was mentioned that the police union advises these guys to not give official reports. It sounds like that is the route Wilson may have taken so far.
Click to expand...

Standard procedure for corrupt cops. Admit nothing, ever. Say absolutely nothing more than necessary. Deny everything. That may not be the case here, but that is how they get away with it.
 
a_unique_person said:
Standard procedure for corrupt cops. Admit nothing, ever. Say absolutely nothing more than necessary. Deny everything. That may not be the case here, but that is how they get away with it.
Click to expand...

To be fair...

If I were a good cop, who shot someone, I still would not make a public statement. Hell, I've been accused of crimes before, as a civilian, and those were clear mistakes.

Police know to keep their mouths shut about them shooting someone. The idea that Wilson was justified in shooting Brown is, as far as I care, still open, though unlikely.

Granted, the behavior of the police since the shooting was horrible, but he still could be innocent.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
...
Also:
Tiffany Mitchell, a witness to the shooting who has spoken publicly about what she saw, has not yet been subpoenaed, her lawyer, Peter Cohen said Wednesday. Asked the same question last week about another public witness, Piaget Crenshaw, lawyer Karen Lewis declined to comment.

Why is it these "witnesses" need lawyers ???
Click to expand...
Because they don't trust the police.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom