gina the idea of segregation is sick and twisted. but you do grasp the idea of some of the issues. you seem to have trouble with the solutions.
all issues need a symbol and mike brown became it.....but sometimes symbols cloud the real issues. we become too focused on the symbol.
the real issues here is the state of different neighborhoods across this country. its about disproportionate profiling. its about economic opportunity. its about alot of things.
don't lose sight of the forest for the tree's.
Profiling? Possibly. In this instance Officer Darren Wilson saw two young black kids walking in the street instead of on the sidewalk, and he wanted them to walk on the sidewalk, they refused to do so when he told them to. If they had moved to the sidewalk, would it have turned out differently?
I think it could have, except that PO Darren Wilson's statement indicated a call came over his radio about the convenience store having just been robbed, and these two guys were in close proximity to that store, I think he could have been pursuing them on that basis in addition to not appreciating that they did not get on the sidewalk when told to.
again...this isn't about mike brown....its bigger
http://apps.stlpublicradio.org/ferguson-project/evidence.html
Easy documents just click on them and read.
PO WIlson's testimony
http://www.kmov.com/special-coverage-001/ferguson-files
To make the file big so you can read it, after you click on the file, click on the big box on the right of the icons to enlarge it.
[Edited on 11/29/2014 by gina]
[Edited on 11/29/2014 by gina]
That is just plain sick and twisted thinking Gina.
X2.
Your first sentence says it all. The grand jury (which is optional in MO if the DA has a backbone) heard ALL the evidence supporting Wilson. To that, I would add "as though it were all true." Because this was not a trial and the only side presented was the prosecution's, none of the evidence was challenged, no testimony was questioned, and no exhibits were authenticated. There were ample contradictions of statements and reports to warrant a trial on the facts of the case.
In places were a grand jury is required, a DA takes a case to the grand jury in order to GET an indictment. The prosecution's job is to prosecute "in search of the truth."
When that fails so deplorably as it did in Ferguson, I don't think anger and frustration should be characterized as "childish."
Actually when a prosecutor analyzes the evidence and determines that there is insufficient evidence to obtain a conviction in his or her own judgment, he doesn't bother to even bring the case to a grand jury but simply decides not to bring charges (See e.g. Zimmerman, George) When he brings charges and forces a trial for political reasons (see e.g. Zimmerman George) then the defendant is eventually acquitted. (See e.g. Zimmerman, George). In this case the DA recognized the politically charged nature of the case (Thank you Mr. Holder and Mr. Sharpton) and decided his best course of action was not to force an indictment by withholding expository evidence from the grand jury but allowing them to make the obvious decision for him, to not bring charges. This is what happened. You all have picked the wrong poster boy for fighting police brutality. Michael Brown for reasons that may never be known, after strong arm robbing a convenience store, decided to assault a police officer and at the very least, give the officer the reasonable belief that he was in danger of losing his gun. ALL the forensic evidence supports this story which was told by Wilson to the grand jury not in the presence of an attorney. Every single witness who contradicts Wilson was easily impeached. This is an open and shut case of self defense. There ARE cases of police brutality. We all remember Abner Louima and Rodney King. I'm sure there are many others. But Darren Wilson is an individual entitled to the rights of all accused and the biggest right is to not be held personally responsible for the ills of society at large.
[Edited on 12/1/2014 by dougrhon]
So only things proven in a court of law are true? Seriously? Did you see the tape? If you did, you would know that it was Brown in the tape. Meanwhile, the DA did the right thing by going to a grand jury. I believe that he is required to do that in Missouri. And if the evidence was not good enough to get an indictment, there is no way there could have been a guilty verdict.
That's the point. The DA is NOT required to go to a grand jury to get an indictment in MO. Rather than admit the facts were contradictory and that a young man was DEAD because of an officer shooting and bring criminal charges, he tossed it to a grand jury.
Interesting that you leap from a no-bill by 12 grand jurors to a not guilty verdict by jurors at a trial, which would not necessarily have taken place in Ferguson, where evidence AND rebuttal are offerred.
It's all moot. I hope the Ferguson family gets some answers through a civil trial and law enforcement gets a hard look from federal investigators.
The watermelon comment (not made by you) makes me sick.
The point I was making is that the grand jury has lower standard in reaching a decision. A trial needs to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A grand jury must only decide if there is enough evidence to charge a person with a crime. The grand jury hears the evidence and witnesses from the prosecution but does not hear from the defense. If they didn't feel there was enough to charge Wilson, there is no way a case could be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Correct. In fact, with Wilson's attorney able to put on an affirmative case for the defense there is no way in hell a conviction would be remotely conceivable. We don't or shouldn't put men on trial to placate the mob crying out for blood. That's exactly what was done in the Zimmerman case and that was the entirely predictable result.
all issues need a symbol and mike brown became it.....but sometimes symbols cloud the real issues. we become too focused on the symbol.
the real issues here is the state of different neighborhoods across this country. its about disproportionate profiling. its about economic opportunity. its about alot of things.
don't lose sight of the forest for the tree's.
The real issue is the life and freedom of one individual man accused of a crime. That is the ONLY issue. Once the case is done we can stop talking about how Officer Wilson gunned down an innocent Mike Brrown and THEN we can get to the issues you raise. We must never conflate guilt or innocence in one case with collective guilt. That is not the way the American justice system operates.
The real issue is the life and freedom of one individual man accused of a crime. That is the ONLY issue. Once the case is done we can stop talking about how Officer Wilson gunned down an innocent Mike Brrown and THEN we can get to the issues you raise. We must never conflate guilt or innocence in one case with collective guilt. That is not the way the American justice system operates.
I agree. I have to trust the system and move on.
That is just plain sick and twisted thinking Gina.
X2.
Your first sentence says it all. The grand jury (which is optional in MO if the DA has a backbone) heard ALL the evidence supporting Wilson. To that, I would add "as though it were all true." Because this was not a trial and the only side presented was the prosecution's, none of the evidence was challenged, no testimony was questioned, and no exhibits were authenticated. There were ample contradictions of statements and reports to warrant a trial on the facts of the case.
In places were a grand jury is required, a DA takes a case to the grand jury in order to GET an indictment. The prosecution's job is to prosecute "in search of the truth."
When that fails so deplorably as it did in Ferguson, I don't think anger and frustration should be characterized as "childish."
Actually when a prosecutor analyzes the evidence and determines that there is insufficient evidence to obtain a conviction in his or her own judgment, he doesn't bother to even bring the case to a grand jury but simply decides not to bring charges (See e.g. Zimmerman, George) When he brings charges and forces a trial for political reasons (see e.g. Zimmerman George) then the defendant is eventually acquitted. (See e.g. Zimmerman, George). In this case the DA recognized the politically charged nature of the case (Thank you Mr. Holder and Mr. Sharpton) and decided his best course of action was not to force an indictment by withholding expository evidence from the grand jury but allowing them to make the obvious decision for him, to not bring charges. This is what happened. You all have picked the wrong poster boy for fighting police brutality. Michael Brown for reasons that may never be known, after strong arm robbing a convenience store, decided to assault a police officer and at the very least, give the officer the reasonable belief that he was in danger of losing his gun. ALL the forensic evidence supports this story which was told by Wilson to the grand jury not in the presence of an attorney. Every single witness who contradicts Wilson was easily impeached. This is an open and shut case of self defense. There ARE cases of police brutality. We all remember Abner Louima and Rodney King. I'm sure there are many others. But Darren Wilson is an individual entitled to the rights of all accused and the biggest right is to not be held personally responsible for the ills of society at large.
[Edited on 12/1/2014 by dougrhon]
My point was that the DA in MO doesn't need to go to a grand jury to get an indictment. He could have decided not to prosecute period. His action in tossing it to the grand jury was a CYA move that backfired.
I repeat a young man is DEAD because he may or may not have stolen some cigarette product (don't know, don't care what it was). Wilson called him over to his car prior to receiving notice about a "robbery" that used to be called shoplifting.
BTW, did Wilson not have an accelerator in his car?
I have intentionally and consciously avoided commenting on anything on any site regarding this matter. Doing so seems to serve little purpose. It is easy to be (mis)perceived as a racist or as someone who supports police state actions. I do feel the need (okay, desire) to respond to a couple of items here.
I repeat a young man is DEAD because he may or may not have stolen some cigarette product (don't know, don't care what it was). Wilson called him over to his car prior to receiving notice about a "robbery" that used to be called shoplifting.
Here's your video. Don't bother with the, "that might not be him" stuff, because it has already been corroborated that it is. "Robbery that used to be called shoplifting..." In my mind, theft is looking around the corners to be sure you're not seen - taking the item and stuffing it into your pants and then walking out the door while whistling, "Amazing Grace". When any form of threat or force is used - be it a pistol or BRUTE STRENGTH (shoving a shopkeeper who weighs 100 lbs less than you out of the way) - if I'm a juror, I'll accept that as robbery.
BTW, did Wilson not have an accelerator in his car?
So you are suggesting that an officer of the law actually cower and run from a perp?
This doesn't just apply to police officers. Go to L.A. and ask anybody wearing a blue or red bandanna. If someone DISRESPECTS your jurisdiction, turf ... or LAW - you simply MUST stand for what you believe in.
There was one thing that could have been done very early on in this incident that would have prevented all of this from happening. Can you tell me what it was?
That is just plain sick and twisted thinking Gina.
X2.
Your first sentence says it all. The grand jury (which is optional in MO if the DA has a backbone) heard ALL the evidence supporting Wilson. To that, I would add "as though it were all true." Because this was not a trial and the only side presented was the prosecution's, none of the evidence was challenged, no testimony was questioned, and no exhibits were authenticated. There were ample contradictions of statements and reports to warrant a trial on the facts of the case.
In places were a grand jury is required, a DA takes a case to the grand jury in order to GET an indictment. The prosecution's job is to prosecute "in search of the truth."
When that fails so deplorably as it did in Ferguson, I don't think anger and frustration should be characterized as "childish."
Actually when a prosecutor analyzes the evidence and determines that there is insufficient evidence to obtain a conviction in his or her own judgment, he doesn't bother to even bring the case to a grand jury but simply decides not to bring charges (See e.g. Zimmerman, George) When he brings charges and forces a trial for political reasons (see e.g. Zimmerman George) then the defendant is eventually acquitted. (See e.g. Zimmerman, George). In this case the DA recognized the politically charged nature of the case (Thank you Mr. Holder and Mr. Sharpton) and decided his best course of action was not to force an indictment by withholding expository evidence from the grand jury but allowing them to make the obvious decision for him, to not bring charges. This is what happened. You all have picked the wrong poster boy for fighting police brutality. Michael Brown for reasons that may never be known, after strong arm robbing a convenience store, decided to assault a police officer and at the very least, give the officer the reasonable belief that he was in danger of losing his gun. ALL the forensic evidence supports this story which was told by Wilson to the grand jury not in the presence of an attorney. Every single witness who contradicts Wilson was easily impeached. This is an open and shut case of self defense. There ARE cases of police brutality. We all remember Abner Louima and Rodney King. I'm sure there are many others. But Darren Wilson is an individual entitled to the rights of all accused and the biggest right is to not be held personally responsible for the ills of society at large.
[Edited on 12/1/2014 by dougrhon]
My point was that the DA in MO doesn't need to go to a grand jury to get an indictment. He could have decided not to prosecute period. His action in tossing it to the grand jury was a CYA move that backfired.
I repeat a young man is DEAD because he may or may not have stolen some cigarette product (don't know, don't care what it was). Wilson called him over to his car prior to receiving notice about a "robbery" that used to be called shoplifting.
BTW, did Wilson not have an accelerator in his car?
1. I don't think it backfired. Think what the outrage would have been if the white pro-police prosecutor made a unilateral (though proper) decision not to move forward with the case. His decision was the correct one.
2. Brown did not shoplift. He committed a robbery. Shoplifting is by definition done by stealth. Brown brazenly took what he wanted and assaulted the clerk. Much more serious.
3. Brown is not dead because he committed a robbery in a convenience store. He is dead because he assaulted an armed police office so that the officer had a reasonable fear that his gun would be taken justifying the shooting. Period.
There was one thing that could have been done very early on in this incident that would have prevented all of this from happening. Can you tell me what it was?
Called for an African-American police officer?
There was one thing that could have been done very early on in this incident that would have prevented all of this from happening. Can you tell me what it was?
Called for an African-American police officer?
Care to explain yourself on this response? I'm sure people would like to know what you are insinuating.
My point was that the DA in MO doesn't need to go to a grand jury to get an indictment. He could have decided not to prosecute period. His action in tossing it to the grand jury was a CYA move that backfired.
I repeat a young man is DEAD because he may or may not have stolen some cigarette product (don't know, don't care what it was). Wilson called him over to his car prior to receiving notice about a "robbery" that used to be called shoplifting.
BTW, did Wilson not have an accelerator in his car?
1. I don't think it backfired. Think what the outrage would have been if the white pro-police prosecutor made a unilateral (though proper) decision not to move forward with the case. His decision was the correct one.
2. Brown did not shoplift. He committed a robbery. Shoplifting is by definition done by stealth. Brown brazenly took what he wanted and assaulted the clerk. Much more serious.
3. Brown is not dead because he committed a robbery in a convenience store. He is dead because he assaulted an armed police office so that the officer had a reasonable fear that his gun would be taken justifying the shooting. Period.
1. I disagree. If the DA didn't believe there was sufficient reason to charge, he shouldn't have charged Officer Wilson and taken whatever flak there was. When a DA calls a GJ, he WANTS an indictment and presses to get one. This guy didn't even handle the questioning.
2. I defer to the ample knowledge re the nuances of shoplifting expressed by members of this board.
3. Brown is DEAD because Officer Wilson made a big deal of getting 2 teens out of the street and onto the sidewalk. It escalated from there.
What I find most disturbing is the sense here that death isn't an enormous price to pay for anything - jaywalking, stealing, mouthing off, or assaulting an officer. KILLING an officer gets a death penalty in some states, but nothing less.
3. Brown is DEAD because Officer Wilson made a big deal of getting 2 teens out of the street and onto the sidewalk. It escalated from there.
This certainly seems like a biased characterization of what went down. Fact is, no one except Wilson and others present at that moment can speak to this with any degree of certainty. The fact that the Grand Jury heard the testimony of those involved and declined to return an indictment speaks volumes. I don't really believe that the people who are protesting, particularly those who have turned to violence, care one bit about what actually happened in this particular case or care about the legal process that ensued. I agree with LeglizHemp, this is no longer about this particular case at all (and hasn't been for a while).
gina the idea of segregation is sick and twisted. but you do grasp the idea of some of the issues. you seem to have trouble with the solutions.
I have a very good grasp. The protesters want the police officer to be at least sent to prison because a) he is white and whites have oppressed black people for hundreds of years in some of their minds, or b) they think he just murdered an unarmed black kid, who did nothing to warrant being shot.
I think most of the protest is because he is white. We have protests going on in Times Square, the same way we did with the Trayvon Martin shooting.
My point is that the REAL ISSUE is poverty, but the only way they will realize that poverty is the basis of their discontent is to take race out of it. The only way to make it non racial is to have segregated neighborhoods. We actually already do have segregation, it is just economic rather than race. We can't rent or live in a wealthier neighborhoods, we are shut out due to to price. Blacks have been shut out due to poorer educations, they cannot compete with smarter white people who have received better educations. This is also why many colleges instituted the Pass/Fail course grading system right after demanding that colleges had to admit a certain percentage of minority students to comply with Equal Opportunity laws.
They dumbed down the educational system to try to make it easier for more of the have nots escape their poverty neighborhoods and upbrinings. Only college could give them a way out. But since they came from neighborhoods where even the high schools were not on the same level as in the white neighborhoods, they had to institute PASS/FAIL courses in college so they could get a degree like their better educated counterparts.
The protesters want to maintain they are still getting the short end of the stick by white policemen, the only answer for them is to live in all black neighborhoods with all black police forces. Then white officers will not be to blame, the real issues of bad behavior, anger at poverty will come to the forefront.
[Edited on 12/2/2014 by gina]
My point was that the DA in MO doesn't need to go to a grand jury to get an indictment. He could have decided not to prosecute period. His action in tossing it to the grand jury was a CYA move that backfired.
I repeat a young man is DEAD because he may or may not have stolen some cigarette product (don't know, don't care what it was). Wilson called him over to his car prior to receiving notice about a "robbery" that used to be called shoplifting.
BTW, did Wilson not have an accelerator in his car?
1. I don't think it backfired. Think what the outrage would have been if the white pro-police prosecutor made a unilateral (though proper) decision not to move forward with the case. His decision was the correct one.
2. Brown did not shoplift. He committed a robbery. Shoplifting is by definition done by stealth. Brown brazenly took what he wanted and assaulted the clerk. Much more serious.
3. Brown is not dead because he committed a robbery in a convenience store. He is dead because he assaulted an armed police office so that the officer had a reasonable fear that his gun would be taken justifying the shooting. Period.
1. I disagree. If the DA didn't believe there was sufficient reason to charge, he shouldn't have charged Officer Wilson and taken whatever flak there was. When a DA calls a GJ, he WANTS an indictment and presses to get one. This guy didn't even handle the questioning.
2. I defer to the ample knowledge re the nuances of shoplifting expressed by members of this board.
3. Brown is DEAD because Officer Wilson made a big deal of getting 2 teens out of the street and onto the sidewalk. It escalated from there.
What I find most disturbing is the sense here that death isn't an enormous price to pay for anything - jaywalking, stealing, mouthing off, or assaulting an officer. KILLING an officer gets a death penalty in some states, but nothing less.
The weight of the evidence indicates Brown is dead because he assaulted the officer and grappled for his gun not because he jay walked or robbed a store.
Shouldn't a cop be sure that he sees a weapon before he decides to shoot? If the victim did assault the officer and go for his gun, it's clear the victim failed to get the gun. In which case, the cop had possession of his own gun versus a perp trying to punch him. If the cop successfully secured his gun, why not use pepper spray or a billy club? Its not lawful to respond to a punch with gunfire. In most states, that's excessive force.
They wouldn't have to worry, as long as they've taught their sons to not rob stores.
Please tell my no one is moronic enough to actually think that photo was real?
Please tell my no one is moronic enough to actually think that photo was real?
Sorry, I couldn't resist, made chortle when I saw this.
My point was that the DA in MO doesn't need to go to a grand jury to get an indictment. He could have decided not to prosecute period. His action in tossing it to the grand jury was a CYA move that backfired.
I repeat a young man is DEAD because he may or may not have stolen some cigarette product (don't know, don't care what it was). Wilson called him over to his car prior to receiving notice about a "robbery" that used to be called shoplifting.
BTW, did Wilson not have an accelerator in his car?
1. I don't think it backfired. Think what the outrage would have been if the white pro-police prosecutor made a unilateral (though proper) decision not to move forward with the case. His decision was the correct one.
2. Brown did not shoplift. He committed a robbery. Shoplifting is by definition done by stealth. Brown brazenly took what he wanted and assaulted the clerk. Much more serious.
3. Brown is not dead because he committed a robbery in a convenience store. He is dead because he assaulted an armed police office so that the officer had a reasonable fear that his gun would be taken justifying the shooting. Period.1. I disagree. If the DA didn't believe there was sufficient reason to charge, he shouldn't have charged Officer Wilson and taken whatever flak there was. When a DA calls a GJ, he WANTS an indictment and presses to get one. This guy didn't even handle the questioning.
2. I defer to the ample knowledge re the nuances of shoplifting expressed by members of this board.
3. Brown is DEAD because Officer Wilson made a big deal of getting 2 teens out of the street and onto the sidewalk. It escalated from there.What I find most disturbing is the sense here that death isn't an enormous price to pay for anything - jaywalking, stealing, mouthing off, or assaulting an officer. KILLING an officer gets a death penalty in some states, but nothing less.
The weight of the evidence indicates Brown is dead because he assaulted the officer and grappled for his gun not because he jay walked or robbed a store.
Agreed, he grappled for the officer's gun, that is when the officer knew he would probably have to use it in this instance because if someone is trying to take a gun away from a police officer, they have crossed the bounds of power.
There is also grand jury testimony that I have not read about the police calls, the officer testified he heard a call come over the radio before Mr. Brown got to his car about a recent robbery at the convenience store, now if Mr. Brown had gotten on the sidewalk as asked, what would have happened after that? It is likely that the police officer would have wanted to question Mr. Brown since he fit the description and had a box of Cigarellos with him, given Mr. Brown's dislike of law enforcement, he might have began an altercation at that point. On the anything goes thread there is a list of prior arrests for Mr. Brown.
The only thing I don't understand is how Mr. Brown ended up face down on the pavement when forensics show he was shot from the front. There was also something else interesting in the private autopsy report that said he was 77 inches tall, that is 7 foot 7. Is anybody that tall?
Worth watching, a matter of perspective.
Thanks for posting. I love this guy. He gets it.
The true photo is much less chortling....
There was also something else interesting in the private autopsy report that said he was 77 inches tall, that is 7 foot 7. Is anybody that tall?
Well, I was a math major, and I think 77 inches is 6 foot 5 inches tall.............. let's see, 6X12 =72, +5 =77 - yep, 6 foot 5 inches..... 
Shouldn't a cop be sure that he sees a weapon before he decides to shoot? If the victim did assault the officer and go for his gun, it's clear the victim failed to get the gun. In which case, the cop had possession of his own gun versus a perp trying to punch him. If the cop successfully secured his gun, why not use pepper spray or a billy club? Its not lawful to respond to a punch with gunfire. In most states, that's excessive force.
Back it up even further. Why decide to mix it up with a cop at all? Things might not turn out so well for you.
Shouldn't a cop be sure that he sees a weapon before he decides to shoot? If the victim did assault the officer and go for his gun, it's clear the victim failed to get the gun. In which case, the cop had possession of his own gun versus a perp trying to punch him. If the cop successfully secured his gun, why not use pepper spray or a billy club? Its not lawful to respond to a punch with gunfire. In most states, that's excessive force.
In the forensics it states that Mr. Brown had powder burns on his thumb and palm, meaning he did come in contact with officer's gun when it went off. The PO's statement was that Mr. Brown had tried to grab his gun and had his thumb on the trigger pull when the gun went off. The forensics support that Mr. Brown's hand was on the officers gun. So shooting once as a warning seems appropriate in that situation, but I think the gun accidentally went off.
All the rest of the shots fired all down Mr. Brown's arm, and the head shots raise other questions, because the private autopsy report shows that one shot went thru the top of his head and went down to his clavicle, which means Mr. Brown was probably on his knees, since the autopsy report says he was 77 inches tall, which is 6 foot 7. I think there are better ways to shoot to subdue someone than thru the top of the head.
http://apps.stlpublicradio.org/ferguson-project/evidence.html
[Edited on 12/4/2014 by gina]
Shouldn't a cop be sure that he sees a weapon before he decides to shoot? If the victim did assault the officer and go for his gun, it's clear the victim failed to get the gun. In which case, the cop had possession of his own gun versus a perp trying to punch him. If the cop successfully secured his gun, why not use pepper spray or a billy club? Its not lawful to respond to a punch with gunfire. In most states, that's excessive force.
This makes little sense. In the case where a cop believes the perp has a weapon (which is not this case) he shoots only if he believes he sees it. Do you mean he must be sure there IS a weapon? That's an impossible standard that will either get cops killed or cause them to avoid confrontational situations, the very thing they are paid to get involved in. There are reasons the police when arresting or even questioning someone tells the person to put his hands where the cop can see them. The police have no chocie but to treat sudden moves as threats.
As for the second point you say he didn't get the gun so the cop had no reason to shoot? Should he have waited until Brown actually got the gun to shoot? Oh wait then he would not have been able to. Bottom line he believed under the circumstances his life was in danger and the evidence supports that belief as being reasonable. That's why he wasn't indicted not because of endemic racism or generalized police brutality or anything like that.
