Ferguson vs. the Police PT. 2

kennyc · **#41** by **kennyc** » Nov 25, 2014 6:21 pm

Briton wrote:....

Who are you quoting? (PITA when people do that).

Agreed! PITA! Please attribute quotes properly!

CdesignProponentsist · **#42** by **CdesignProponentsist** » Nov 25, 2014 6:26 pm

Steve wrote:
Teague wrote:I don't know what's happening with all this. Does anyone have a list of the facts of what we absolutely know what happened. I don't want anything inferred or guessed, just the facts please? TY

About what, exactly? Another unarmed black kid is shot and killed by a police officer. Despite multiple witnesses seeing the kid surrender with his hands in the air a grand jury sees insufficient grounds to bring charges against the police officer.

4,799 pages of grand jury testimony and evidence in the Darren Wilson case Has links to it all.

What about forensic evidence? It usually provides a much more accurate account of an event than just eyewitness testimony.

laklak · **#43** by **laklak** » Nov 25, 2014 6:45 pm

For those who disagree with the grand jury's decision, what would you have them do? They met 25 times over the course of 3 months, heard over 70 witnesses, and viewed innumerable videos. Eyewitnesses disagreed with each other. Some changed their stories completely. There was a raft of forensic evidence, 3 independent autopsies, and no consensus between witnesses. The prosecutors even released ALL the evidence, which almost never happens. Then there's that pesky assumption of innocence, which is granted to the most vile of criminals, but somehow doesn't apply to a law enforcement officer. Because, well, he's white. And a cop.

The grand jury has a far lower threshold than a trial jury does, grand juries only need a preponderance of evidence. Once it goes to trial the bar is raised significantly, from a preponderance to beyond a reasonable doubt. If the evidence does not rise to the first how will it rise to the second? This is precisely the purpose of grand juries, to determine if there is enough evidence to warrant a trial. In this case they found it did not. Now, you can disagree, but based on what, exactly? Have you spent days on end going over the evidence? Have you personally cross-examined the witnesses?

You either live in a society based on the rule of law or you don't, there's no middle ground. You can't say "well, in this case we'll just convict based on sensationalized, unsourced media reports because it's obvious he's guilty". The system does not always work, but it works as well as any system anybody's ever tried before.

Willie71 · **#44** by **Willie71** » Nov 25, 2014 7:15 pm

Well, considering the evidence that was covered up, based on just skimming the report, suggests significant corruption. The process was only loosely based on the law. What this comes down to is quite simple, either we believe that a man shot 3-4 times already was physically able to charge towards the officer, from over 30 feet away, supporting the officer's "belief" that he was in a life threatening situation, or the fatal shot came as Brown was falling forward succumbing to his injuries. I know what makes more sense medically. The rest is smoke and mirrors, as the moment in question is the fatal shot.

laklak · **#45** by **laklak** » Nov 25, 2014 7:32 pm

Seems a bit stupid to release the entirety of the grand jury's evidence if there's an obvious cover up. But, stranger things have happened.

Brown was 6' 4" and weighed 292 pounds. At least one of the shots was in his hand. He was hit 7 times, all in the front of his body. The last shot, the fatal shot, was to the head. So, the cop has shot this dude 6 times and he's still coming at him? Man, if I hit somebody 6 times with .40 S&W hollow points and he was still standing I'd sure as hell be taking the head shot. Now I'm reconsidering the Bersa 9mm I ordered, maybe I need to go with .45 ACP.

I don't know what actually happened, and apparently neither does anyone else except Wilson.

Willie71 · **#46** by **Willie71** » Nov 25, 2014 8:04 pm

Its very unlikely that a man with 5 previous gunshot wounds to the chest and head would still be running. In the movies, maybe, but in real life? Its much more likely that the fatal head shot came as Brown was falling forward, incapacitated. His eye and jaw were blown open before he was killed!

Have you read any of the testimony? Its pretty funny to think of this as evidence when you actually read it. What it came down to was they believed the officer, nothing more.

One of the examiners did testify the first shot was to the back of the arm, and also that the hand did not show GSR initially, but a picture presented by the police later showed GSR. Initially a microscope was needed to see the GSR, but a picture was provided later, after 2 autopsies were done? Seems odd doesn't it?

Jerome Da Gnome · **#47** by **Jerome Da Gnome** » Nov 25, 2014 8:38 pm

The unidentified witness wrote that the 18-year-old Brown “has his arms out with attitude,” while “The cop just stood there.” The witness added, “Dang if that kid didn’t start running right at the cop like a football player. Head down.”

The witness told of hearing “3 bangs,” but “the big kid wouldn’t stop.”

The witness’s account of the unarmed Brown charging Wilson--even after he had been shot in the hand during a struggle at the cop’s patrol car--supports the officer’s contention that he fired a series of shots as Brown bore down on him.

During his September 16 grand jury testimony, Wilson, 28, recounted how he tussled with Brown when the teenager grabbed for his gun while lunging into the squad car. As they fought over the weapon, Wilson testified, the teenager taunted him, yelling, “You’re too much of a pussy to shoot me.”

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/dar ... son-897043

The_Metatron · **#48** by **The_Metatron** » Nov 25, 2014 9:13 pm

I expect that grand jury applied the law. Here's what needs to happen:

That standard of self defense needs to be raised for law enforcement people. They need to be able to demonstrate their lives, or the lives of others, were in actual danger. Not perceived, or imaginary, or "I was afraid...", but actual, imminent danger.

These people are granted more power with the use of force. They should therefore be held to a higher standard for using it.

If Joe Cop judges poorly and kills an unarmed kid? Then Joe Cop is, at the very least, done being a cop. Forever. At the very least.

We are seeing far, far too many stories in the news about cops killing citizens by using asymmetric force.

There is no consequence to it, and that needs to change. Dramatically.

But first, a paradigm shift. Cops need to understand they exist to serve the people, not the law. Above all else, the people.

In this case, Brown was not on a sidewalk, which started the whole thing. Wilson wasn't interested in that kid's safety, he was interested in compliance. "Get off the street, and onto the sidewalk." He didn't get what he demanded, and escalated it until that kid was dead.

For jaywalking? This started over jaywalking?

That cop was looking for an excuse to act. He got what he sought.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Jerome Da Gnome · **#49** by **Jerome Da Gnome** » Nov 25, 2014 9:20 pm

The_Metatron wrote:
For jaywalking? This started over jaywalking?

No, strong-armed robbery.

A customer in the store called 911. The store owner was too afraid to call police.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=464_1408123040

Warren Dew · **#50** by **Warren Dew** » Nov 25, 2014 9:38 pm

Willie71 wrote:Well, considering the evidence that was covered up, based on just skimming the report, suggests significant corruption. The process was only loosely based on the law. What this comes down to is quite simple, either we believe that a man shot 3-4 times already was physically able to charge towards the officer, from over 30 feet away, supporting the officer's "belief" that he was in a life threatening situation, or the fatal shot came as Brown was falling forward succumbing to his injuries. I know what makes more sense medically. The rest is smoke and mirrors, as the moment in question is the fatal shot.

If Brown was already falling forward succumbing to his injuries, any additional shot was not the fatal one - an earlier shot was the fatal one.

Warren Dew · **#51** by **Warren Dew** » Nov 25, 2014 9:42 pm

The_Metatron wrote:I expect that grand jury applied the law. Here's what needs to happen:

That standard of self defense needs to be raised for law enforcement people. They need to be able to demonstrate their lives, or the lives of others, were in actual danger. Not perceived, or imaginary, or "I was afraid...", but actual, imminent danger.

These people are granted more power with the use of force. They should therefore be held to a higher standard for using it.

If Joe Cop judges poorly and kills an unarmed kid? Then Joe Cop is, at the very least, done being a cop. Forever. At the very least.

We are seeing far, far too many stories in the news about cops killing citizens by using asymmetric force.

There is no consequence to it, and that needs to change. Dramatically.

But first, a paradigm shift. Cops need to understand they exist to serve the people, not the law. Above all else, the people.

Agreed so far.

In this case, Brown was not on a sidewalk, which started the whole thing. Wilson wasn't interested in that kid's safety, he was interested in compliance. "Get off the street, and onto the sidewalk." He didn't get what he demanded, and escalated it until that kid was dead.

Walking in the street is a legitimate traffic safety issue, and not just for the pedestrian. And the evidence is that Brown did a lot more of the initial escalation than the officer did. The problems didn't come until later.

Willie71 · **#52** by **Willie71** » Nov 25, 2014 9:44 pm

Warren Dew wrote:
Willie71 wrote:Well, considering the evidence that was covered up, based on just skimming the report, suggests significant corruption. The process was only loosely based on the law. What this comes down to is quite simple, either we believe that a man shot 3-4 times already was physically able to charge towards the officer, from over 30 feet away, supporting the officer's "belief" that he was in a life threatening situation, or the fatal shot came as Brown was falling forward succumbing to his injuries. I know what makes more sense medically. The rest is smoke and mirrors, as the moment in question is the fatal shot.

If Brown was already falling forward succumbing to his injuries, any additional shot was not the fatal one - an earlier shot was the fatal one.

A shot can incapacitate someone without killing them. The ME's report said that all of the gunshots could have been survivable with medical attention, except one.

Warren Dew · **#53** by **Warren Dew** » Nov 25, 2014 9:45 pm

Steve wrote:
kennyc wrote:
Steve wrote:
Teague wrote:I don't know what's happening with all this. Does anyone have a list of the facts of what we absolutely know what happened. I don't want anything inferred or guessed, just the facts please? TY

About what, exactly? Another unarmed black kid is shot and killed by a police officer. Despite multiple witnesses seeing the kid surrender with his hands in the air a grand jury sees insufficient grounds to bring charges against the police officer.

4,799 pages of grand jury testimony and evidence in the Darren Wilson case Has links to it all.

Which (bolded part) simply isn't true. (according to the grand jury verdict)

Huh? What's not true? The kid was white? He was armed? There weren't multiple witnesses? The Grand Jury decided to indict?

That's ok - I don't need a response.

I guess you're not actually interested in the truth, then?

For the benefit of those who are, witnesses saw Brown turn and put his hands up. Some thought he was surrendering; others thought he was raising them in order to charge and attack.

CdesignProponentsist · **#54** by **CdesignProponentsist** » Nov 25, 2014 10:05 pm

Willie71 wrote:Its very unlikely that a man with 5 previous gunshot wounds to the chest and head would still be running. In the movies, maybe, but in real life? Its much more likely that the fatal head shot came as Brown was falling forward, incapacitated. His eye and jaw were blown open before he was killed!

This argument is just as naive as the "Why didn't he aim for the legs" argument.

Shooting someone 5 times in the chest isn't a guarantee that they are going to be incapacitated, even when including head shots. It is dependent on where in the chest and head and if it includes a vital organ or not (brain, heart or major artery), and how much adrenaline the recipient has coursing through their veins.

Griz_ · **#55** by **Griz_** » Nov 25, 2014 10:35 pm

The question at hand is whether or not Officer Wilson reasonably feared grievous bodily harm or death. If yes, then he was justified in stopping that threat using lethal force (his firearm). If there was any reasonable evidence that he was not facing grievous bodily harm or death, then the Grand Jury would have voted for indictment. The Grand Jury had far more evidence and time than we or any of the political pundits do they found that there was not enough evidence to indict Wilson on any charge. Not just that he was innocent, but that there was not even sufficient evidence to take this to trial. Only by wading through all of the evidence presented to the Grand Jury are any of us remotely qualified to second guess that decision.

You don't put someone on trial in order to appease public opinion or because there is some remote chance that they could be found guilty; you put them on trial because there is at a least reasonable chance of a conviction. Usually the prosecution only gives a Grand Jury just enough evidence to get an indictment and proceed to trial but in this instance they gave them everything they had and still were not able to get it to trial. In my mind this should be telling us just how weak the case against Wilson really is.

My semi-informed opinion based on what I've read is that that Grand Jury made the right call.

Rachel Bronwyn · **#56** by **Rachel Bronwyn** » Nov 25, 2014 10:40 pm

I agree and, frankly, I think it's a testament to our culture that all you gotta say is "I was so scurred" in order to make killing a black kid, as a police officer, perfectly OK.

Teuton · **#57** by **Teuton** » Nov 25, 2014 10:47 pm

Interesting article:

"Why It’s Impossible to Indict a Cop. It’s not just Ferguson—here’s how the system protects police."

Jerome Da Gnome · **#58** by **Jerome Da Gnome** » Nov 25, 2014 10:49 pm

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:I agree and, frankly, I think it's a testament to our culture that all you gotta say is "I was so scurred" in order to make killing a black kid, as a police officer, perfectly OK.

That is not what happened. The 6' 4" 300 lbs "kid" was beating the officer in the face and attempted to take his gun.

CdesignProponentsist · **#59** by **CdesignProponentsist** » Nov 25, 2014 10:50 pm

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:I agree and, frankly, I think it's a testament to our culture that all you gotta say is "I was so scurred" in order to make killing a black kid, as a police officer, perfectly OK.

Is that what happened?

Jerome Da Gnome · **#60** by **Jerome Da Gnome** » Nov 25, 2014 10:50 pm

Teuton wrote:Interesting article:

"Why It’s Impossible to Indict a Cop. It’s not just Ferguson—here’s how the system protects police."

There is absolutely a problem, but this is not the case to use to make that point.

Ferguson vs. the Police PT. 2

Re: Ferguson vs. the Police PT. 2

Re: Ferguson vs. the Police PT. 2

Re: Ferguson vs. the Police PT. 2

Re: Ferguson vs. the Police PT. 2

Re: Ferguson vs. the Police PT. 2

Re: Ferguson vs. the Police PT. 2

Re: Ferguson vs. the Police PT. 2

Re: Ferguson vs. the Police PT. 2

Re: Ferguson vs. the Police PT. 2

Re: Ferguson vs. the Police PT. 2

Re: Ferguson vs. the Police PT. 2

Re: Ferguson vs. the Police PT. 2

Re: Ferguson vs. the Police PT. 2

Re: Ferguson vs. the Police PT. 2

Re: Ferguson vs. the Police PT. 2

Re: Ferguson vs. the Police PT. 2

Re: Ferguson vs. the Police PT. 2

Re: Ferguson vs. the Police PT. 2

Re: Ferguson vs. the Police PT. 2

Re: Ferguson vs. the Police PT. 2

Who is online