Michael Brown shooting II

[The Central Scrutinizer]

It's quite clear. There is more than one witness who corroborates the most important part of Wilson's account (being rushed by Brown). Unlike the other witnesses who have motive to lie and/or embellish (so that their version roughly fits with the popular, far left racist narrative), these witness had nothing to gain. Indeed, they risked their own safety by telling their version to the grand jury. I think they're the most credible.

Yep. They chose to testify to the grand jury instead of Oprah.

 

[Upchurch]

The GJ are the only people who actually saw all of the evidence. If they are not an expert authority than who is?

Expert authority?

Once again: Appropriate authorities are those who are (1) trained and have extensive experience in the relevant field and (2) generally considered by others in the field to be an authority in the field.

Instead of posting snarky comments you could have been looking at the evidence, or even commenting on the evidence posted in this thread.

Peaceful snarky comments, you mean?

 

[WildCat]

Expert authority?

Once again: Appropriate authorities are those who are (1) trained and have extensive experience in the relevant field and (2) generally considered by others in the field to be an authority in the field.


Peaceful snarky comments, you mean?

I see you're hard at work reviewing the evidence.

 

[rwguinn]

Pathetic strawman is pathetic. Never did I once indicate that this is what I wanted. My only point was the DA did not want a trial (because he couldn't win one) and that this was obvious. If he did, he could have easily got a grand jury to rubber stamp an indictment as is almost always done. Instead, he took the highly unusual move of convening a grand jury and presenting it all the evidence, including that which worked in Wilson's favor. Doing that made it possible to both to avoid a real trial and shift the blame of that onto the grand jury.

Why lie. He didn't "convene a grand jury". It was already sitting. He simply asked it to be a "coroner's jury, which is a traditional convention in the West.

 

[theprestige]

Authority has two criteria. First, they have to have training and experience in the relevant field. Second, they have to be generally recognized as an authority in the relevant field by those in the field.

Again, what's your null hypothesis?

That grand juries are not properly equipped to decide questions of criminal indictment?

That grand juries are not generally recognized as the authority to decide questions of criminal indictment?

Anonymous, randomly selected citizens? Seems legit.

Have you always assumed the grand jury institution is bankrupt, or only when you think you might dispute its findings?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

<snip>
You have shown no evidence whatsoever that the DA did anything unusual in this case. All you've done is complain how the process wasn't designed to railroad Wilson in a miscarriage of justice.

Is it usual to present all the evidence to a grand jury ? No.

Is it usual to have a defendant testify to a grand jury ? No.

Is it usual to present a smorgasbord of charges to a grand jury, and have them pick the one they want ? No.

Clearly the DA did a number of unusual things. And we know why. He presented the case to the GJ to cover his ass. He did it in the way most likely to result in no indictment, because there was not a good case.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Again, what's your null hypothesis?

That grand juries are not properly equipped to decide questions of criminal indictment?

That grand juries are not generally recognized as the authority to decide questions of criminal indictment?


Have you always assumed the grand jury institution is bankrupt, or only when you think you might dispute its findings?

The Gospel of St. Michael was written within hours of the incident. For the Apostles, it is inerrant. Any facts that diverge from this script are attacked then ignored.

 

[tyr_13]

Again, what's your null hypothesis?

That grand juries are not properly equipped to decide questions of criminal indictment?

That grand juries are not generally recognized as the authority to decide questions of criminal indictment?


Have you always assumed the grand jury institution is bankrupt, or only when you think you might dispute its findings?

What is everyone else saying? That examining the evidence is unskeptical? That True Skeptics don't consider it possible for grand juries to get things wrong?

He's already said that grand juries are the authority to decide questions of criminal indictments. But yes, it is very possible for grand juries to get things wrong.

I believe that the grand jury is correct in their finding and that the shooting was probably justified. While I have trust in the jury, it is much more important that I examine the evidence to come to this conclusion. This hostility to examining the evidence isn't rational and certainly isn't skeptical.

 

[Tony Stark]

Darren Wilson's police interview the day after.

I followed him in that direction. After I said on the radio, “Shots fired. Send me more cars”, I was yelling at him to stop and get on the ground. He kept running and then eventually he stopped in this area somewhere. When he stopped, he turned, looked at me, made like a grunting noise and had the most intense aggressive face I've ever seen on a person. When he looked at me, he then did like the hop…you know like people do to start running. And, he started running at me. During his first stride, he took his right hand put it under his shirt and into his waistband. And I ordered him to stop and get on the ground again. He didn't; I fired, a, multiple shots. After I fired the multiple shots I paused for a second, yelled at him to get on the ground again, he was still in the same state. Still charging hands still in his waistband, hadn't slowed down. I fired another set of shots. Same thing, still running at me hadn't slowed down, hands still in his waistband. He gets about eight to ten feet away, a he’s still coming at me in the same way. I fired more shots. One of those, however many of them hit on him in the head and he went down right there.

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1370945-interview-po-darren-wilson.html

The day after that, this person comes forward:

Mike Brown, my initial thought was he's a big guy. He's tall and like stocky build and that's it. He-he, they both walked passed me. I took my tools, went into I came back outside to get some more stuff and I looked down the street and I seen the police car at a slant and I seen Mr. Brown in the window of the police car looked ...it appeared as they were wrestling through the window and one gunshot had let off. And, Mr.Brown took off running and my first thought was like "oh my gosh" did I actually just witness a police officer being murdered because it took a while for the police officer to get out of the car and pursue the-the suspect. And, I wanna say maybe six seconds, but it seemed like it was forever after the-the-the first gunshot. So, the police officer exited the vehicle with his weapon drawn pursuing Mr. Brown. Mr. Brown was quite a distance and he stopped and when he stopped, he didn't get down on the ground or anything. He turned around and he did some type of movement. I never seen him put his hands up or anything. I can't recall the movement that he did. I'm not sure if he pulled his pants up or-or whatever he did but I seen some type of movement and he started charging towards the police officer. The police officer then returned fire, well, not returned fire, open fire on Mr. Brown. Um, if I had to guess the shots and the-the distance between him and, a, Mr. Brown, it would have to be five to ten yards and the shots that were fired was four, five to six shots fired and Mr.Brown was still standing up. Um, and my thoughts was while he's missing this guy this close, is he-is he hitting him or because Mr. Brown there was no reaction from him to show that he was been hit. Um, after that, Mr. Brown then paused. He stopped running and when he stopped running the police officer stopped firing. And, then Mr. Brown continued, started again to charge towards him and after that the police officer returned fire and um well not returned, I'm using wrong ...a started to fire once more at him. Um, if I had to guess the rounds that were fired then it would be four to five more shots and after that Mr. Brown collapsed and fell to the ground.

Basically the same version of of events that Wilson gave.

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1370946-interview-witness-10.html

Same person on why he decided to come forward:

I came forward to bring closure to the family and also for the police officer because, um, with me knowing actually what happened, um, and know it is going to be a hard case and a hard thing to prove with so many people that's saying the opposite of what I actually seen. I just wanted to bring closure to the family not thinking that hey, this is, they got away with murdering my son. I do know that there is corruption in some police departments and I believe that this was not the case. And I just wanted to bring closure to the family.

Witness 10 also testified in front of the. His testimony matches his earlier interview with police.

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1370908-grand-jury-volume-6.html (starts at page 150)

His accounts matching each other and corroborating Wilson's is pretty compelling. I certainly believe them over the ones that claim that Wilson executed Brown for no reason. Sounds like they are to blame for things getting out of control.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

<snip>
The evidence was posted last night. You're remarkably silent on it.

How do you think Brown's blood ended up 25 feet behind his body? The location of the shell casings? The witness testimony that is supported by the physical evidence?

So far it's <crickets>.

There is a lot of evidence to go through.

Here is one link:
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/11/us/ferguson-grand-jury-docs/index.html

If/when someone matches up some witness numbers to names, I would be interested in seeing that.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

What is everyone else saying? That examining the evidence is unskeptical? That True Skeptics don't consider it possible for grand juries to get things wrong?

He's already said that grand juries are the authority to decide questions of criminal indictments. But yes, it is very possible for grand juries to get things wrong.

Define "wrong". If the grand jury's conclusion conflicts with your own investigation, how will you know it's not you who is wrong?

 

[carlitos]

There is an easy explanation for the hand in the waistband. I've seen that move a million times when someone has to run to cross a street or catch a bus. He was probably wearing baggy low-waist jeans and so he had to hold his pants up to run.

 

[tyr_13]

Define "wrong". If the grand jury's conclusion conflicts with your own investigation, how will you know it's not you who is wrong?

By supporting my position with evidence and reasoning.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

By supporting my position with evidence and reasoning.

Just like the grand jury did.

 

[BStrong]

Pathetic strawman is pathetic. Never did I once indicate that this is what I wanted. My only point was the DA did not want a trial (because he couldn't win one) and that this was obvious. If he did, he could have easily got a grand jury to rubber stamp an indictment as is almost always done. Instead, he took the highly unusual move of convening a grand jury and presenting it all the evidence, including that which worked in Wilson's favor. Doing that made it possible to both to avoid a real trial and shift the blame of that onto the grand jury.

Not at all unusual in OIS cases.

In every one I'm aware of involving my agency, The officer would be subject to a departmental investigation and a DA investigation. The conclusions of both reports became the basis for evidence put before the local GJ. The information is always "warts and all."

 

[theprestige]

I know True Skeptics are okay with arguments from authority. Me, I'm taking a look at what evidence is now available before reaching a conclusion. Call me crazy.

It's fine to question authority, but arguments from authority are truly skeptical if it is a proper authority, which I think a Grand Jury is, in questions of criminal indictment.

So go ahead and disagree with the Grand Jury if you like, that's skeptical too. I'm just trying to understand where you think the burden of proof now lies. The way I see it, the Grand Jury is a proper authority, so the burden of proof is on anyone who disputes their decision.

Before the Grand Jury released their decision, there was no authoritative position on the subject, and the burden of proof would have been on anyone who argued for indictment or against indictment. The truly skeptical thing to do at that point would have been to only draw conclusions that were warranted by the available evidence.

 

[Quad4_72]

Give it another 20 years of demographic shifts.

Actually, as much as I liked your comment (and both verdicts you referenced) I'm forced to disagree a bit.

The fact that this Grand Jury was even asked to look at this, and particularly the fact that Zimmerman was taken to trial... both represented massive victories for the lynch mobs in the respective cases.

Ya know what I absolutely agree with you there. Neither of those cases should have gone anywhere. The evidence just simply wasn't there and it was done to appease the ignorant masses. Good point.

 

[theprestige]

What is everyone else saying? That examining the evidence is unskeptical? That True Skeptics don't consider it possible for grand juries to get things wrong?

He's already said that grand juries are the authority to decide questions of criminal indictments. But yes, it is very possible for grand juries to get things wrong.

I believe that the grand jury is correct in their finding and that the shooting was probably justified. While I have trust in the jury, it is much more important that I examine the evidence to come to this conclusion. This hostility to examining the evidence isn't rational and certainly isn't skeptical.

Thanks, I'm just catching up with the last page in the thread. If Upchurch and Scrut both agree that the Grand Jury's "no bill" was in fact "justice" as Scrut put it with his fancy font tags, then I agree with both of them. My opinion is that the Grand Jury is a proper authority on justice, and that it's truly skeptical to appeal to them on that subject. On the subject of truth, Upchurch is of course right, and always has been.

 

[LTC8K6]

McCulloch said he won't be presenting the case to the grand jury himself. That will be the job of two assistant prosecutors, Kathi Alizadeh and Sheila Whirley. Alizadeh, who is white, is the homicide prosecutor on duty and has 27 years' experience. Whirley, who is black, has the grand jury assignment and has 18 years' experience.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_a2893384-0bcf-51a9-b479-9c7e9496c6a1.html

 

[Tony Stark]

You have shown no evidence whatsoever that the DA did anything unusual in this case. All you've done is complain how the process wasn't designed to railroad Wilson in a miscarriage of justice.

You've never heard the phrase that a decent DA can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwhich if he wants? And you're pretending that I'm the ignorant one. How laughable. Anyway...

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/ferguson-grand-jury-unusual-ways-27103419?singlePage=true

http://www.vox.com/2014/8/19/604483...r-suggests-da-is-abdicating-responsibility-in

What an outrage, giving them facts and evidence in order to reach an informed conclusion!

And yet another strawman. I didn't say that it was an outrage, rather that it highly unusual and not something prosecutors do when they want an indictment.