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.

I suggest you put on a pair of boots and a police uniform and do the job for a few weeks before you make more ignorant statements like that.

CdesignProponentsist wrote:

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?

Nope.

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:

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.

The officer claimed that he had to grab for his gun due to being beaten in the face and fearing for his life due to the blows.


Here is the photo from hospital immediately after which does not look like a man who had been struck 10 times like he initially told the police.

Wilson hospital record: "no bleeding, no laceration, no ecchymosis [bruises]" A cross-examiner's dream, but no c-x of Wilson on this, natch
2:37 PM - 25 Nov 2014

http://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/11/25/72 ... grand-jury

laklak wrote:For those who disagree with the grand jury's decision, what would you have them do?

I think the issue is as much with the prosecution than it is the jury. Jurors were asked to find their own evidence. Stuff was being leaked the media and introduced into the courtroom by jurors prior to it ever being mentioned by the prosecutor. The ordeal went on too long with too much information and not enough structure. There was all sorts of contradictory and questionable statements being made by Wilson, witnesses, and experts with no cross examination to call them out on it.

It wasn't a typical case of a prosecutor laying out what he believes is the strongest evidence for a charge and letting the jury decide if it was enough. The thing was a circus and it looks a lot like that's what they wanted it to be from the beginning.

GT2211 wrote:
Here is the photo

The photo? Because there where numerous photos released.

Can we presume you just made a mistake?

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:

GT2211 wrote:
Here is the photo

The photo? Because there where numerous photos released.

Can we presume you just made a mistake?

Yes there more photo's. No, they don't show evidence he was savagely beaten. Or do you have some?

GT2211 wrote:

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

The officer claimed that he had to grab for his gun due to being beaten in the face and fearing for his life due to the blows.

Considering the officer had bruising about his head and Brown's blood was inside the vehicle, the story fits the evidence.

Btw, Brown's friend, the one that was stealing with him, he tells essentially the same story with Brown jumping up to the car pushing the door closed on the cop and there being a struggle inside the car. He has no reason to confirm the cops story. This is the story he told when it all happened.

GT2211 wrote: The thing was a circus and it looks a lot like that's what they wanted it to be from the beginning.

You should look this guy up, he has been down there : Van Jones : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Jones

He had to resign as Obama's Green Czar due to his subversive activities.

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:

GT2211 wrote: The thing was a circus and it looks a lot like that's what they wanted it to be from the beginning.

You should look this guy up, he has been down there : Van Jones : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Jones

He had to resign as Obama's Green Czar due to his subversive activities.

What on earth does he have to do with this case?

Why is this particular case of a young black man being riled up into riots?

Did Brown charge Wilson? yes = 5 no = 10 can't say = 6

Were Browns hands up? yes = 9 no = 2 can't say = 10

You missed the YT that was posted right away where a guy in the background was saying Brown kept charging.

Again, there is no reason for some guy at the scene, from the neighborhood, to confirm the police story before anyone even knew what it was.

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:

GT2211 wrote:

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

The officer claimed that he had to grab for his gun due to being beaten in the face and fearing for his life due to the blows.

Considering the officer had bruising about his head and Brown's blood was inside the vehicle, the story fits the evidence.

Btw, Brown's friend, the one that was stealing with him, he tells essentially the same story with Brown jumping up to the car pushing the door closed on the cop and there being a struggle inside the car. He has no reason to confirm the cops story. This is the story he told when it all happened.

Johnson's story doesn't really line up with Wilson's story at all. That's a pretty disingenuous account of facts.

Obama: Don't use Ferguson as an excuse for violence:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... -violence/

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:Why is this particular case of a young black man being riled up into riots?

Yeah, well, we have no evidence that it is. We have evidence that a bunch of talking heads say it is, but I've seen riots in Vancouver ostensibly because some Canucks won a hockey game.

Seriously, I have seen absolutely no evidence that anybody who was actually rioting was doing it because they gave a personal wet slap about Brown. Nor have I seen the slightest attempt to present such evidence.

And there is some evidence against it, as the rioters smashed in the windows of businesses that had signs protesting the shooting of Brown. If anything, the rioters were equal opportunity and smashed in anything they could get near.

GT2211 wrote:Here is the photo from hospital immediately after which does not look like a man who had been struck 10 times like he initially told the police.

Are you a forensic medical examiner, or are making assumptions?

CdesignProponentsist wrote:

GT2211 wrote:Here is the photo from hospital immediately after which does not look like a man who had been struck 10 times like he initially told the police.

Are you a forensic medical examiner, or are making assumptions?

Neither

I spent a good chunk of time today reading some of the 4000+ pages, and have to say, based on the evidence I read, I'm surprised by the decision. I worked in forensic mental health for two decades, so I'm familiar with how the system works, and this is a puzzling case. It seems they spent a lot of time on multiple details, and the issue of teasing out whether there was imminent danger to the officer at the time of the fatal shot was left vague. Granted, I didn't read it all, and will keep reading. I saw a lot of smoke and mirrors.

Willie71 wrote:I spent a good chunk of time today reading some of the 4000+ pages, and have to say, based on the evidence I read, I'm surprised by the decision. I worked in forensic mental health for two decades, so I'm familiar with how the system works, and this is a puzzling case. It seems they spent a lot of time on multiple details, and the issue of teasing out whether there was imminent danger to the officer at the time of the fatal shot was left vague. Granted, I didn't read it all, and will keep reading. I saw a lot of smoke and mirrors.

I kind of agree. After reading Dorian Johnson's transcript it felt like there was as much time spent on why they would be walking in the street as there was the actual initial incident.