Michael Brown shooting II

[Nihilianth]

As for Brown doing something suicidal, I can easily reverse that on you -- why would Wilson execute a man who was surrendering with his hands up in front of a dozen witnesses in broad daylight? Two volleys of shots at a man who has his hands up in surrender? Makes no sense. That's career suicide.

What about that video of those two white workers from out-of-town? They both had their hands raised in the air while shots were being fired, and one said: "He had his hands in the air!" While it was occurring. When one has their hands raised, the inside of your forearms are usually out, so the officer can see the palms. If he was charging him, the forearms would have the insides in towards the chest.

The first bullet hit the outside portion of his arm. The second bullet from the opposite direction. The pathologist said it is difficult to interpret the second shot in the arm. I am not sure about that.

Also, this is supposed to be a TRAINED police officer. Why is the GUN the first thing he reached for? There are three other options a cop can go for, before reaching for the gun:

They have a billy club, a can of pepper spray, and a tazer.

 

[lionking]

It's about time!

Indeed. Let's hope he doesn't try to get a job as a cop in another jurisdiction.

 

[Cylinder]

There were plenty of inconsistencies for sure, but also at least a half dozen witnesses who if they had even a smidgen of credibility gave evidence that was more than enough to indict. You apparently are convinced they were all liars. I would have preferred a jury trial to make that determination.

It's not so much the person's credibility but rather how the statement comports with physical evidence. If the narrative fails to explain Brown's movement back toward Wilson's patrol vehicle then it is excluded as an accurate telling of the events. When Brown stopped, he bled -- most probably from the wound to his hand. Then he returned west on Canfield where the fatal injury occurred.

The red dots are small puddles of Mike Brown's blood. Those cannot be explained by a narrative that claims Brown stopped and complied and was shot dead on that spot.

[imgw=600]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=853&pictureid=9283[/imgw]

What narrative both explains this motion and inculpates Wilson?

 

[stanfr]

Even if it didn't matter at all in this case, there should still be entirely separate prosecutors for when the suspect is a police officer.

Prosecutors work closely with the police on a daily basis.

Yep, they sure do...I'm surprised that the folks here defending the GJ presentation here don't seem to get that. If your son was shot and killed, how would you feel if the person whose duty it was to determine if the killer should be charged was a friend or co-worker of the killer? Think about that. Think hard.

 

[stanfr]

It's not so much the person's credibility but rather how the statement comports with physical evidence. If the narrative fails to explain Brown's movement back toward Wilson's patrol vehicle then it is excluded as an accurate telling of the events. When Brown stopped, he bled -- most probably from the wound to his hand. Then he returned west on Canfield where the fatal injury occurred.

The red dots are small puddles of Mike Brown's blood. Those cannot be explained by a narrative that claims Brown stopped and complied and was shot dead on that spot.

[imgw=600]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=853&pictureid=9283[/imgw]

What narrative both explains this motion and inculpates Wilson?

Where is that diagram from? The witnesses who said Brown was surrendering or had hands up or simply had no clue what he was doing don't preclude him from moving back towards the car. Only a few of the witnesses said he was 'charging'

 

[Cylinder]

Even if it didn't matter at all in this case, there should still be entirely separate prosecutors for when the suspect is a police officer.

Prosecutors work closely with the police on a daily basis.

That's the whole point of the process where grand juries investigate potential crimes.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Sorry. This thread was TL;DR. Probably shouldn't jump into a thread this late like this.

Probably true

But what I do not buy, is that he was charging him like a football player. For one, a person doesn't just charge another person head down like that. Not even in football. Only time one puts their head down like that, is if they are really close to someone and two seconds away from uprooting them if playing defense on a football team, or if you are the one with the ball and need to make it through.

Well the witness was using it a description, but it fits the autopsy.

Michael Brown was shot several times before being shot in the head. Someone who has been shot in the arm, is likely to bend over their arm. He was then shot in the chest, downward-facing, through the face, and through the top of the head at the end.

He was hit 4-5 times in the final volley, we don't know which shot(s) hit his arm during that volley. We do know that the shot to the hand and forearm was first, back at the car, and we can assume that the shot to the top of the head was last, as it stopped him and he dropped immediately afterwards. One of the two shots to the arm was superficial and could have happened at the car or in the final volley, the second appeared on reading to have slight downwards direction, but without diagrams it is had to know exactly where the entry vs exit wounds are because the autopsy read top of arm and back of arm. The other two shots, especially the one that hit the forehead and ended up at the 5th rib, clearly show that Brown was bent over with the top of his head towards Wilson when he was shot, there is no other way that a bullet could strike the forehead and end up at the 5th rib unless the shooter was directly above whish would have Wilson standing in mid-air.

You can disbelieve it all you want too, it doesn't change the path of the bullet, and that bullet clearly shows beyond any doubt whatsoever, that when it hit, Brown was in a position where the top of his head was pointing directly towards Wilson. The fatal bullet says the same thing, the bullet that hit the upper chest and ended up at the 8th rib also confirms that Brown was bend over at the time of the shooting.

This evidence is indisputable, it's from the private autopsy done for the family and it clearly backs up the claims of the witnesses that stated that brown was bent over in a charge head first.

As Skeptics we have to accept the evidence even if we don't like the answer, but the autopsy results, the bullet shells and the blood trail all point to Wilson's claims being the correct ones.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Where is that diagram from? The witnesses who said Brown was surrendering or had hands up or simply had no clue what he was doing don't preclude him from moving back towards the car. Only a few of the witnesses said he was 'charging'

The autopsy results preclude it, unless Brown mastered the art of running away with his hands up, or kneeling, with the top of his head facing Wilson, and the rest of his torso inline with his head and neck (i.e. bent at the waist)

 

[Cylinder]

Where is that diagram from?

It is the crime scene diagram as prepared by the St. Louis County Police Crime Lab. The annotations are mine, following the legend contained in the diagram linked above. The assertion that the red dots were Brown's blood is contained in the DNA and blood lab reports.

The witnesses who said Brown was surrendering or had hands up or simply had no clue what he was doing don't preclude him from moving back towards the car. Only a few of the witnesses said he was 'charging'

Errr....OK.

So a person who "had no clue" about some significant and non-subtle detail may elicit less credibility than a person who not only had a clue but that clue is required by the physical evidence. How can one claim the level of resolution to assert surrendering without seeing the moving 20 feet part?

 

[PhantomWolf]

It's the standard of proof, that is what we are talking about here. All the 5th amendment does is declare the right to a grand jury. Im not sure why you keep bringing it up.



Who said it was unjust? The burden in a GJ is low, capiche?




What, you've never seen expert witnesses debate forensics? You know, at trial, which is public and where witnesses can be heavily cross-examined.




According to you it does. I think it a trial would have been a good way to determine those facts.




I don't know, why not let a jury decide? Again, you seem to be drawing your conclusions based on snippets of the GJ testimony, which some have argued was tailored by the prosecutor to be heavily in favor of Wilson.




Your ignorant sarcasm doesn't help your argument any. I've never said that it shouldn't have gone to a GJ--where you got that idea I haven't a clue. What I have said is that the burden of proof in a GJ is very low, which is why a return of no-bill is extremely rare. Whether that is a good thing or not is irrelevant, it is what it is. The first mistake here was not appointing a special prosecutor, but that is just the first mistake...



It isn't my job to determine who is credible here--that is a jury's function. And that credibility would be best determined in a full trial where lawyers could cross-examine the heck out of the witnesses--it just is not usual or fair for that level of inquiry to occur at the GJ stage. Anyone who has any experience with the criminal justice system knows that.
But It is quite clear that many of the witnesses gave testimony that Brown was shot while fleeing, shot while putting his hands up, shot while down etc--you've seen the chart posted here. From my reading of the various witness statements, there is more that supports a finding of probable cause than that favors letting Wilson walk. Whether they are credible or not should have been determined at trial. There was enough to meet the initial burden, and that is what you seem to be missing, mainly because of your unfamiliarity with our justice system. I could just as easily ask you if you think Wilson's testimony is plausible. Personally, the only way I think I could believe Wilson's story is if Brown were committing suicide--and I haven't seen any stories about him being suicidal.

A jury did decide, they decided that the case wasn't even enough to get beyond the point of Indictment.

This is what I don't get, what would a trial jury get that was different? The Prosecution would have had exactly the same case it presented to the GJ, if the GJ didn't accept it, why would a Trial Jury who have to find guilt to a WAY higher standard of proof? On top of that, the Cross examining and experts that would occur in any trial are DEFENCE ones, in other words, in the trial the Defence gets to put it's side forward, not just the Prosecution as happened in the GJ. If the Prosecution can't get it's case beyond a GJ, how in the nine circles of hell do you expect them to get to Beyond Reasonable Doubt with a Jury in a trial that has the defence lawyers cross examining and shredding the Prosecution case even further, as well as likely adding their own evidence that didn't arise in the GJ?

It's almost like people believe that by adding defence lawyers, it'd somehow magically make the Prosecution's case better.

 

[stanfr]

It is the crime scene diagram as prepared by the St. Louis County Police Crime Lab. The annotations are mine, following the legend contained in the diagram linked above. The assertion that the red dots were Brown's blood is contained in the DNA and blood lab reports.



Errr....OK.

So a person who "had no clue" about some significant and non-subtle detail may elicit less credibility than a person who not only had a clue but that clue is required by the physical evidence. How can one claim the level of resolution to assert surrendering without seeing the moving 20 feet part?

Sorry, you misunderstood me, I was talking about Brown not having a clue--as in an 18 year old who just got shot not knowing what to do next.

 

[stanfr]

A jury did decide, they decided that the case wasn't even enough to get beyond the point of Indictment.

This is what I don't get, what would a trial jury get that was different? The Prosecution would have had exactly the same case it presented to the GJ, if the GJ didn't accept it, why would a Trial Jury who have to find guilt to a WAY higher standard of proof? On top of that, the Cross examining and experts that would occur in any trial are DEFENCE ones, in other words, in the trial the Defence gets to put it's side forward, not just the Prosecution as happened in the GJ. If the Prosecution can't get it's case beyond a GJ, how in the nine circles of hell do you expect them to get to Beyond Reasonable Doubt with a Jury in a trial that has the defence lawyers cross examining and shredding the Prosecution case even further, as well as likely adding their own evidence that didn't arise in the GJ?

It's almost like people believe that by adding defence lawyers, it'd somehow magically make the Prosecution's case better.

Read my post above about having a friend of a cop trying a cop. Do you think that is fair? A simple yes or no will suffice, and then i'm done with you.
If you were familiar with Grand Juries, you would probably be as troubled as I am at how the prosecutor in this case basically acted as Wilson's defense attorney. That is what is so disturbing. I'm sorry, but that is not how justice should work.

 

[theprestige]

Sad but doesn't really matter. The fix was in from the beginning. : mad :

What would have been the grand jury's proper response to this?

 

[Checkmite]

Citing security concerns, Darren Wilson resigns from Ferguson police force

"I, Darren Wilson, hereby resign my commission as a police officer with the City of Ferguson effective immediately. I have been told that my continued employment may put the residents and police officers of the City of Ferguson at risk, which is a circumstance that I cannot allow.​

Somebody had to tell him that?​

 

[marplots]

I heard he resigned to work on the pilot for a new cop drama. I just hope they can get Zimmerman to costar.

 

[This is The End]

That's the whole point of the process where grand juries investigate potential crimes.

You must not know much about grand jury statistics if you think that is the "whole point".

 

[Kaosium]

You must not know much about grand jury statistics if you think that is the "whole point".

Maybe the point is the Grand Jury shouldn't even have been convened for this case, so naturally it would fall into the rare statistical exceptions category.

Michael Brown had been caught stealing on camera, forcing his way out the door, physically cowing the shopkeeper. He then attacked a police officer, fled, then turned and charged back at him. All within ten minutes. Being as he'd proved himself a violently inclined three hundred pound menace, Darren Wilson had few other options. I've been going over Cylinder's map trying to find another scenario that fits the physical evidence and the only ones I can come up with are so silly (and low probability) I'd be embarrassed to post them.

However there's two other cases recently which were whitewashed by a sympathetic grand jury 'prosecution' that would have made this point a whole lot better. In those cases there never was a threat, the police just sprayed down some innocent kid from cover only to find out the victim wasn't waltzing around in broad daylight/inside a store with an assault rifle, it was just a pellet gun. Both times they started shooting either instantaneously or within a second or two of shouting an unexpected command at a distracted toy bearer. In one case a woman died as a result of the police attack; in the other the police put three bullets into a neighboring house. Thus had a warning shot been fired it would have been certainly less dangerous to citizens (especially the poor victims of acute police paranoia) than the 'new normal' they're trying to sell us of 'shoot first, then shoot again to make sure--hose 'em down if you have to!'

However, I guess when the Crumpster commands, the frenzied dingbats follow, get shaken down for their cells and cars by gangbangers, then Trotskied by the hardliners and are left to bleed in the snow whimpering about Grand Jury statistics for a goddam case that had no business ever going to a grand jury.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Read my post above about having a friend of a cop trying a cop. Do you think that is fair? A simple yes or no will suffice, and then i'm done with you.

You don't think that Prosecutor's can prosecute cops because they work with them? I bet that is a surprise to all of the bent cops who have ended up in Jail. Or are you going to provide evidence that the Two Assistant Prosecutors that took the GJ were friends of Wilson?

If you were familiar with Grand Juries, you would probably be as troubled as I am at how the prosecutor in this case basically acted as Wilson's defense attorney. That is what is so disturbing. I'm sorry, but that is not how justice should work.

He didn't act as Wilson's defence attorney, majorly because 'he' wasn't even involved. If you didn't know that much, why should I listen to anything you say?

The two Assistant Prosecutors that ran the case gave the Jury all of their evidence because they had no choice. The only reason it went to the GJ was to try and placate the mobs. Go and look at the evidence, and not just the Police Statements because a lot of the witnesses actually changed their testimony before the GJ form what they actually said in their statements, and then figure out what evidence the Prosecution actually had.

I'll help you. Here's what they couldn't have used if they wanted to get an indictment

1) Any of the Three Autopsy results.
2) Any of the physical evidence at the scene, such as blood and shell casing positions
3) Any of the 7 witnesses that stated that Brown was moving towards Wilson at the time of the shooting
4) Any of the remaining witnesses who changed their statements on the stand, which is all but 1

Do you really think that a GJ wouldn't have seen through a case that consisted on a half dozen read police statements and one witness on the stand?

What do you think would happen to that case at trial?

 

[LTC8K6]

I'm not sure how the prosecutor or assistant prosecutors for St. Louis County, would be friends of a beat cop in Ferguson?

 

[LashL]

It would appear, you are correct.

Thank you for acknowledging that. I take it that you are withdrawing your previous allegations and that you now accept that your previous assertions, and the sources upon which they were based, were incorrect.

For purposes of clarity, I am referring to these posts of yours and the allegations made in them, and in the sources that you cited in those posts, which were incorrect:

OUCH!!

http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/shocking-mistake-in-darren-wilson-grand-jury-364273731666

This makes me sick. I see this broke 3 days ago. And I did not read this thread. Jeez....

It doesn't matter. They were given wrong information. And the prosecutor couldn;t even answer a very simple, basic question that a 9th grader could.

Thank you for acknowledging that the sources you cited were incorrect, and that your reliance upon them was also incorrect. I take it that you have since read the relevant portions of the transcript that I cited, and have since learned that going to a legitimate source is far better than relying upon an obviously biased source.