home

More National Guardsmen Called to Ferguson

MO Governor Jay Nixon has ordered 2,200 more national guardsman to Ferguson.

More than 2,200 additional National Guard troops will take to the streets in the St. Louis area at night, Gov. Jay Nixon announced. They will join 700 Guardsmen already on the scene and hundreds of local police officers.

The Washington Post notes some contradictions in Wilson's testimony and "unorthodox police procedures." The New York Times says much of the evidence was conflicting.

< Ferguson G. J. Decision : No Indictment, Violence Erupts | Pre Thanksgiving Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Contradictory witnesses? (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by toggle on Tue Nov 25, 2014 at 07:08:13 PM EST
    Having reviewed excerpts from the various witnesses posted by the Atlantic, it's hard to fairly call them contradictory. Yes, some of the witnesses tried their best to spin it against Wilson with various conclusory allegations (.e.g, "It was an execution" after describing Brown advancing on Wilson), but the credible witnesses agreed on the important underlying facts.

    With one exception (which was obviously perjured) they agreed that Brown was advancing on Wilson and that he never raised his hands significantly. All that commented on it, as best I can remember, said the shooting happened from close range, not the 20-30 feet claimed in initial reports.

    This was corroborated by the blood trail that went at least twenty feet behind Brown's body, indicating that he was advancing when he was shot. The shell casings also seem to be staggered, corroborating Wilson's account.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/11/major-contradictions-in-eyewitness-accounts-of-m ichael-browns-death/383157/?single_page=true

    You have to give the author, Conor Friedersdorf, some credit for being honest about the testimony, as well as ultimately admitting Wilson shouldn't have been charged, even if he does engage in the same editorializing and "conflicting evidence" spin.

    So if the findings agree (4.67 / 3) (#94)
    by sj on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 02:31:13 PM EST
    with your predetermined narrative, they're corroboration. If they conflict then it's spin.

    You won't be the only one with that outlook.

    Parent

    I am distinguishing between facts and conclusions (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by toggle on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 04:44:22 PM EST
    I don't mean to say that there's no value in conclusions or impressions of witnesses, but in this particular case I expect a lot of bias from the witnesses, if nothing but because they have to live among the same people who've just rioted when their assumptions about what happened were not confirmed.

    Parent
    Does anyone think Black witnesses were not (none / 0) (#173)
    by Palli on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 10:47:27 PM EST
    Intimidated during the investigation and GJ process?

    "I expect a lot of bias from the witnesses, if nothing but because they have to live in the same" institutionalized White power structure when their accounts of the incident are not accepted.

    Parent

    Hands up "significantly" (none / 0) (#7)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Nov 25, 2014 at 11:25:40 PM EST
    that he never raised his hands significantly.

    So when they say he "never raised his hands", that's what they mean.

    In order to qualify for "raising his hands" he had to have been reaching for the sky in a significant way -- and with a bullet in his arm and more on the way.

    Having his hands up in front of him or at shoulder level or at head level is just not "significant" enough to qualify for the phrase "raising his hands".

    I think we're getting the picture -- it had to be a "significant" hands up -- anything less doesn't count.

    Parent

    No (3.50 / 2) (#92)
    by toggle on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 02:24:57 PM EST
    Some said he never raised his hands at all, others described him sort of pointing them out a little in what they characterized as a frustrated or submissive gesture.

    Given the (literally) violently held beliefs of the people in that community and the accompanying social pressure to confirm them, I don't put as much stock in the witnesses' characterizations as I do in their descriptions of hard facts. You're free to disagree, I guess.

    Parent

    violently held beliefs of the people.... (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Palli on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 02:55:03 PM EST
    Well, then, Gov. Nixon has violently held beliefs.

    Parent
    Facts (2.00 / 1) (#187)
    by Palli on Thu Nov 27, 2014 at 01:00:44 AM EST
    16 witnesses told investigators MB had HANDS UP & 15 say he was shot RUNNING AWAY

    pbs.org/newshour/updates

    Parent

    See Witness chart here (none / 0) (#188)
    by Palli on Thu Nov 27, 2014 at 01:27:00 AM EST
    Categories Not Clear (none / 0) (#200)
    by RickyJim on Thu Nov 27, 2014 at 07:59:56 AM EST
    Because there were multiple shots, I am not sure what some of the column headers like, "Was MB running away from DW when fired upon" mean.  Am I mistaken in believing that Wilson testified that he fired at a fleeing Brown and missed, then Brown turned around and charged Wilson?  I would like to know how many witnesses backed up Wilson on that but I can't tell from the chart.

    Parent
    most witnesses seem to say (none / 0) (#29)
    by leftwig on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 10:45:06 AM EST
    his hands were not in the air, more out to his side, not up in surrender, so I guess we could start there.

    Parent
    If his hands were out to his side (none / 0) (#36)
    by nycstray on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 11:14:48 AM EST
    how did he reach into his waistband with one?

    Parent
    Forearm (none / 0) (#44)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 11:46:31 AM EST
    If his hands were not up at some point, whether at shoulder level or head level or out to his side,  then how did a bullet enter the front of his forearm and exit the back of it????

    His arms may not have been up way high or up for long but they had to be up in some way to take that round in it where it did.

    Parent

    Okay, not believing everything the cop (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by nycstray on Tue Nov 25, 2014 at 07:43:30 PM EST
    says and I question his judgement. I do find it fascinating that he had time to wonder if it would be legal to shoot Brown . . .

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Nov 25, 2014 at 11:16:29 PM EST
    He had time to think about that but no time to think about where his gas pedal was so as to put his foot on it and drive away from him.

    And not one investigator or prosecutor or legal mind ever thought to ask him that question.

    Parent

    The police (4.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 07:12:06 AM EST
    The police are trained not to flee from violent criminals. Amen to that.

    Parent
    So then (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 08:26:40 AM EST
    Jaywalking is a felony???

    Wow -- who knew???

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 08:53:24 AM EST
    Punching the officer in the head and attempting to take his firearm.

    No doubt the officer's training was to apprehend such dangerous individuals.

    Parent

    3rd hand (none / 0) (#18)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 09:24:55 AM EST
    Punching the officer in the head and attempting to take his firearm.

    You did listen to his ABC interview last night --

    He inadvertently admitted that he was holding Brown by his right wrist. That sounds like what the witnesses said.

    So while Wilson was holding Brown's right wrist  Brown hit him with his weaker left hand on the right side of his face.

    So then how many hands did Brown have??? Did he have a third one???

    Parent

    Two (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 06:05:54 PM EST

    No more than two hands are needed to both hit the officer and attempt to take his firearm.

    Parent
    Deliberately being obtuse (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Redbrow on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 01:22:54 PM EST
    Won't change the facts in evidence. It is really coming off as pathetic and beyond desperate, bordering on pathological.

    Parent
    Jaywalking.... (none / 0) (#133)
    by unitron on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 05:12:52 PM EST
    ...,being the crossing of street somewhere other than a crosswalk or intersection, has absolutely nothing to do with this case, which involved walking down the middle of the street, not crossing it.

    Parent
    Cops should be trained to think (2.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Palli on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 02:14:30 PM EST
    on their feet and appraise situations intelligent and quickly.

    Which is bias training is important. DW thinking, such as it was, was through a racist white supremacist lens.  Only a white racist could doubt that when you read his well rehearsed testimony or watch the video of him approach a citizen at their home. He had that reputation.

    Parent

    All of the action happened within (none / 0) (#105)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 03:02:01 PM EST
    144 seconds... 1 minute and 44 seconds.

    Parent
    All the more reason for better training (none / 0) (#109)
    by Palli on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 03:07:14 PM EST
    doing he more prudent action sometimes requires practice.

    And I am sick of people saying police is the most dangerous job.  It is not

    Parent

    So what would you train them to do? (none / 0) (#146)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 06:39:13 PM EST
    They have stopped two suspects. One reaches inside and grabs/hits the officer.

    When the officer shoots at him he turns and runs.

    Would you train the officer to pursue or let the suspect escape??

    Parent

    All of the action happened within (none / 0) (#106)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 03:02:01 PM EST
    144 seconds... 1 minute and 44 seconds.

    Parent
    So perfect (none / 0) (#110)
    by Yman on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 03:15:44 PM EST
    144 seconds... 1 minute and 44 seconds.

    Yet another, alternate Jim-"reality"!

    Heh, heh, heh ...

    Parent

    Some minutes have 100 seconds (none / 0) (#143)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 06:17:38 PM EST
    Some minutes have only 60 seconds.

    Kind of like long tons and short tons or statute miles and nautical miles. Some pounds have 16 ounces and some pounds have 100 pence.

    Perhaps this is a case of a rarely used minute.  Maybe it's the famouse Nwe York minute.

    Parent

    If you don't like it (none / 0) (#147)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 06:41:38 PM EST
    then blame Chip and the St Louis Dispatch.

    It is their numbers.

    Parent

    Only joshing (none / 0) (#162)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 09:27:40 PM EST
    So then (none / 0) (#14)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 08:27:09 AM EST
    Jaywalking is a felony???

    Wow -- who knew???

    Parent

    Everybody lies... (3.50 / 2) (#68)
    by fishcamp on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 12:57:01 PM EST
    especially cops.

    Parent
    Link for "especially" cops? (none / 0) (#161)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 09:19:56 PM EST
    In Defense of Mr. McCulloch (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by RickyJim on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 11:21:44 AM EST
    Almost immediately after the Aug. 9 shooting, there began rioting, looting, Ben Crump, Al Sharpton and media attention galore.  Was he going to let the case fester a couple of years, like the Trayvon Martin affair, before a trial?  He concluded that the best way to defuse the situation was to get all the facts out to the public ASAP.  He figured that what really happened would disseminate out to the populace and eventually justify whatever action he took.  He managed to get all the evidence out in only 2 and 1/2 months.

    Did he choose the best method to accomplish his goal?  In the US we don't have what the rest of the world does: Investigative Judges running a police investigation, holding (usually open) hearings, deciding on an indictment and compiling the dossier of evidence that both sides are restricted to using at trial.  Would a Coroner's Inquest have accomplished the same goal?  There is information online about them, but I have not gone through it enough to know more than they were much more popular in the 19th century.  So what is wrong with having a couple of his lawyers and 12 citizens, armed with subpoena power, have a non adversarial inquest where they all ask questions of the witnesses the local authorities and FBI have interviewed previously and then a public release of the proceedings?  As far as I can tell, he made the right choice.

    By your logic (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 12:11:57 PM EST
    So McCullough is biased against criminals, is that what you are saying?

    And no, he isn't a conservative Republican at all. He's a Democrat.

    Parent

    Maybe (none / 0) (#62)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 12:44:48 PM EST
    But he still probably would have been acquitted. What would have been your complaint then?

    Parent
    So now you know (none / 0) (#99)
    by sj on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 02:51:16 PM EST
    what the verdict would have been? And you are so certain that you are getting in people's faces with that "inevitable" verdict?

    And I bet you think they should take you seriously.

    Parent

    McCullough knows who votes (none / 0) (#127)
    by jondee on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 04:45:50 PM EST
    He's made the elementary calculations.

    And there are plenty of conservative Democrats. Especially in states like Missouri. Before conservatism became a religion with articles of faith, it was always a matter of degree.

    Parent

    Not secret (none / 0) (#152)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 07:06:46 PM EST
    democrats (none / 0) (#163)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 09:35:12 PM EST
    .
    So was a Bull Connor who had a chair on the DNC.

    Parent
    That is no Summary (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by RickyJim on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 12:14:16 PM EST
    It is just somebody trying to discredit the GJ investigation by bringing up a couple of examples of witnesses, with an anti-Wilson slant, undergoing hostile but very reasonable questioning by the lawyers.  Did she go through the testimony from all the witnesses to make sure that the pro Wilson ones didn't have to submit to such questions? Why don't you also quote stuff from Theconservativetreehouse as well as the DailyKos?

    Parent
    The Right Choice? (2.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 11:47:37 AM EST
    - or the White Choice?

    Parent
    Wow (none / 0) (#63)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 12:44:50 PM EST
    No wonder people did not want to testify. Talk about prosecutorial intimidation.

    Parent
    Just to clarify, the entire chain of power (none / 0) (#125)
    by Redbrow on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 04:37:39 PM EST
    Is composed of democrats. From the whitehouse and DOJ to Governor Nixon, to the mayors of St. Louis and Ferguson to McCulloch. They are all democrats.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#174)
    by Palli on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 10:51:19 PM EST
    Almost immediately after the Aug. 9 shooting, there began police white power institutionalized cover-up.

    Parent
    Well, (5.00 / 5) (#46)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 11:47:03 AM EST
    1) That's not what happened.

    B) Cops are taught to pursue dangerous suspects.

    3) Wilson had not yet learned how to bridge the time-space continuum, thus he did not know that backup would be there "within about a minute."

    Well it is definitely what happened (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 05:05:46 PM EST
    Not all police departments teach their cops to pursue suspects on foot without backup. Some departments have procedures which state that a lone officer should not initiate pursuit but should wait for backup.

    In some areas, an officer does not even get out of their vehicle to write a traffic ticket until another police car arrives.

    Parent

    Prosecutors Bust a Pro Wilson Witness (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by RickyJim on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 05:22:58 PM EST
    From a Washington Post review of Grand Jury testimony.
    One woman told an elaborate story about driving around looking for a friend's apartment when she pulled into a parking lot to ask for directions. She said she was there in time to see Brown "lunging" into the car to his waist, she said. Later, she said, Wilson had his gun drawn and pointed at Brown. That's when "Brown started to charge . . . kind of like a football player, like this, with his hands out," she said, clenching her fists.

    But federal prosecutors later discredited the woman, demanding to know the spelling of the friend's name and asking to look at her e-mail records to prove that she had written a message to the friend. The prosecutors then returned from a break to say they viewed her computer search history, finding suspicious searches, and that there was no report of a car matching hers near the scene of the crime.



    Wonder (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by whitecap333 on Thu Nov 27, 2014 at 05:03:47 AM EST
    what they're going to do about the witnesses whose brains are so twisted with racial hatred that they gave demonstrably false testimony against Wilson?

    Odd that our WaPo journalists seem to have such an aversion to discussing forensic evidence.  You know, like that long trail of blood behind Brown's body, confirming that he was closing on Wilson.

    Parent

    I wonder what they are going to do (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by MO Blue on Thu Nov 27, 2014 at 07:13:24 AM EST
    about the witness whose brain was so twisted with racial hatred he/she wrote this in his/her journal on the day Brown was shot:

    "Well I'm going to take my random drive to Florissant.  Need to understand the Black race better. So I stop calling Blacks N!ggers and start calling them people. Like dad always said, you can't fear or hate an entire race cause of what one man did 40 years ago."

    Of course, I substituted an "!" For the  "i" that was actually written in the journal. On the random drive to observe those who may or may not be now on this very day honored with the label of people, the trip was diverted just long enough to become a witness for Wilson complete with all the descriptors of Brown (minus the N word) that would be expected of someone of this caliber.

    Parent

    Would that be (none / 0) (#197)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Nov 27, 2014 at 07:32:06 AM EST
    this woman???

    She along with others should face perjury charges.

    Parent

    So then (none / 0) (#139)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 05:28:52 PM EST
    one of Wilson's Chargers bites the dust.

    Parent
    Was the Prosecution (none / 0) (#175)
    by Palli on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 11:11:39 PM EST
    sloppy or willfully negligent preparing that witness material before presenting to the GJ?  

    The damage was done. Deliberately "wasted" time in those precious hours when the GJ are "pouring their hearts and souls into making a decision". More evidence of the peculiar McCullouh "give them everything" GJ process.

    Parent

    Note here (none / 0) (#177)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 11:29:39 PM EST
    that this witness was going to give testimony in Wilson's favor -- that Brown was lunging into the Tahoe window as the aggressor.

    But it was the FBI who caught her lying -- not McCulloch's office.

     McCulloch was going to use her to bolster Wilson's account without even vetting her credibility but it was federal prosecutors who nailed her.

    But we haven't heard that on the news much have we???

    Thanks go to Ricky Jim for pointing it out.

    Parent

    So it never got to GJ (none / 0) (#181)
    by Palli on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 11:46:51 PM EST
    Thanks, Chip

    Parent
    "Leafy Green" Revisited (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by whitecap333 on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 05:50:34 PM EST
    I have mentioned, on several occasions, that Brown apparently had on his person, at the time of his encounter with Wilson, the material needed to make "blunts" of stolen "cigarillios."  That is confirmed by the Crime Laboratory Controlled Substance Analysis Report.  It indicates that a "knotted clear plastic bag containing green vegetation" was submitted for analysis.  The "vegetation" was found to be marijuana, in the amount of 1.589 grams.  

    The penalties for possession of marijuana, in Missouri, are said to be quite harsh.  This leads to the inference that Brown, when Wilson backed up to him, had cause to be alarmed that he was about to be "busted" not only for theft, but possession of marijuana as well.  Just how would one go about persuading a jury that he didn't attack Wilson in an attempt to escape detention and "frisking"?  On the testimony of Dorian Johnson?

    I hope we are done with attempts to suggest that a theft at Ferguson Market did not occur.  The admissions of Dorian's lawyer (former mayor of St. Louis) and the radio dispatches seem to show otherwise.

    How harsh are the penalties in MO for (none / 0) (#145)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 06:31:32 PM EST
    Possession of 1.6 (rounded) grams of marijuana? Is it a felony? What exactly is your definition of harsh? Is the penalty harsher than what it would be for the alleged robbery?

    You keep revisiting this subject but to the best of my knowledge you have never gave the specifics of the penalty.

    Parent

    I thought (1.00 / 2) (#151)
    by whitecap333 on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 07:02:15 PM EST
    one of our "postmodern hippies" might assist with that.

    Parent
    Nah, it is your statement that (5.00 / 4) (#153)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 07:09:55 PM EST
    that penalties are quite harsh. Surely you wouldn't make that statement numerous times without knowing what the penalties actually are. So tell us,

    how harsh are they?

    Parent

    Often wonder what happens (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by CoralGables on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 10:42:02 PM EST
    when somone is totally consumed with a topic when that topic ceases to be of interest to anyone...what happens to chip?


    Which reminds me (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by CoralGables on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 10:46:01 PM EST
    Whatever happened to the person that swore up and down that Jon Huntsman was going to win the Presidency in 2012?

    Parent
    The Ferguson Protests are not going away (3.50 / 2) (#176)
    by Palli on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 11:18:05 PM EST
    If they cease to be of interest to you, go live in your gated community and order all you needs on line. Stay out of discussions about the future.

    Parent
    Your comment makes me try and remember (5.00 / 3) (#178)
    by CoralGables on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 11:30:15 PM EST
    everything else that people said wasn't going away, that becomes forgotten.

    Parent
    I assure you (2.20 / 5) (#193)
    by whitecap333 on Thu Nov 27, 2014 at 05:11:44 AM EST
    it will not be forgotten, in 2016, that liberals climbed into bed with the "Hands Up" crowd, and incited, with their rhetoric, the orgy of looting and arson we have witnessed.  

    Parent
    You are as far off the rails (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by CoralGables on Thu Nov 27, 2014 at 06:52:07 AM EST
    as the other side of this discussion.

    Parent
    I just perused (3.00 / 2) (#198)
    by whitecap333 on Thu Nov 27, 2014 at 07:40:43 AM EST
    an article in NPR: Ferguson documents: How the grand jury reached a decision.  The top rated comment, with 343 "recs," is "It looks like the grand jury got it right."  The Hands Up Special has left the rails.

    Parent
    He wasn't shot while running away (4.20 / 5) (#21)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 09:40:47 AM EST


    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 06:59:09 PM EST
    I think what we are seeing is the police feeling justified in pursuing people who refuse to comply with unreasonable requests and who dare to walk or run away from the master

    Brown was a suspect in a convenience store robbery and had just assaulted a police officer and had been shot at while trying to take the officer's weapon from him....

    I mean, really?????

    Parent

    Wasn't he shot before he ran away? (none / 0) (#35)
    by nycstray on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 11:13:25 AM EST
    He was shot at the car (none / 0) (#39)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 11:20:33 AM EST
    during the struggle for the gun.

    The comment was; "how does a man running away and is shot..."

    He wasn't shot while running away.  Not sure why I was downrated for once again correcting a factually incorrect statement, but some people just want to believe the narratives in their own heads.

    Parent

    That sentence is correct (none / 0) (#43)
    by nycstray on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 11:43:33 AM EST
    he was running away and was shot. Perhaps the word "wounded" would have worked better for you?

    Parent
    No, he wasn't (none / 0) (#49)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 11:59:37 AM EST
    The statement was incorrect.  All of his wounds were on the front of him  - he was not shot while running away.

    A more accurate statement might be (and I don't know as I haven't gone through all the transcripts) is that "he was shot at while running away..."

    But he was not shot while running away.

    Parent

    Wasn't he shot BEFORE he started (none / 0) (#58)
    by nycstray on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 12:37:10 PM EST
    running away at the car? So while he was running away, he was wounded right? Therefore he was running away while shot, since he was wounded by a gun(shot). How else do you describe being wounded by a gun and running away? This is NOT about the sequence of events, but about Brown still being a threat, and the comment basically is, how is a man who has been shot and is running away  still a threat?

     

    Just for grins- how does a man running away and is shot- pose a threat to this 6'4" 210 man and is about 150 feet (half a football field) away from Wilson. Could he not wait for the backup that was there within about a minute????????????

    Surely you can comprehend this now . . .

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 12:43:43 PM EST
    He was wounded AT THE CAR during the struggle.  THEN he started running away, where he was NOT wounded until he turned around, faced Wilson, and then, by all credible accounts, started charging him.

    Which is why the statement is simply incorrect.  It's pretty simple and the physical evidence is there for all to see and backs it up.

    Parent

    How was he wounded at the car? (none / 0) (#66)
    by nycstray on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 12:49:36 PM EST
    Did he cut himself?

    So he magically healed and had no wounds while running away?

    Parent

    I think you are talking past each other (none / 0) (#67)
    by CST on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 12:51:50 PM EST
    I think you're using two different meanings of the term "was shot" - with you jb using the present tense version - ie. he was being shot at while running away, where nystray is using the past tense version - ie. was shot, then ran away.  In the past tense he still "was, in the recent past, shot" while he was running.

    So it's not that "the statement was incorrect" it's that you are interpreting two different meanings for the same statement - both of which are valid(ish? I'm not the grammar police - at least common) uses of the term.

    Parent

    Yes, and one of us is trying to (none / 0) (#76)
    by nycstray on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 01:18:28 PM EST
    deflect, it seems.

    Parent
    Yes, you are (2.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Ruby on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 02:08:59 PM EST
    So Brown was not wounded when he was running? (none / 0) (#91)
    by nycstray on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 02:16:53 PM EST
    Odd, I thought he was wounded at the car and then ran, aka running while wounded/shot. Aka, you call that a deadly threat?

    Parent
    Brown's wound at the car was a grazed (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 03:07:06 PM EST
    thumb.

    Parent
    Police apprehend (none / 0) (#42)
    by me only on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 11:30:40 AM EST
    suspects.  It kinda is their job.

    The man in Minnesota was trespassing and refused to leave.

    Parent

    #19 and #20: (3.50 / 2) (#207)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Nov 27, 2014 at 04:01:22 PM EST
    Look carefully at  markers #19 and #20:

    Why is there a distance between them if they are from the same wound of the same person???

    It appears as if #20 could be the right hand bleeding as he is facing away and #19 is the same right hand bleeding after he has turned around.

    But more importantly look carefully at 19: The blood goes out about 3 feet from the main spot and then comes back. Why would that be???

    Answer is simple: He lifted his bleeding right hand up and out after he turned around.

    That blood pattern shows that he had his hands up and/or out at some point and for some period of time after he turned around.

    Evidence thereof is right there written in blood in the street.

    One Small Point (3.00 / 4) (#24)
    by whitecap333 on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 09:58:11 AM EST
    This site is replete with claims that Darren Wilsons testimony was rehearsed, guilefully crafted well "after the fact" with the advantage of knowing the results of the investigation.  In the "document dump," you will find a transcript of an interview of Wilson which took place on the morning of 8-10-14, the day after the incident.  It is a continuation of an interview conducted immediately after the incident.  Wilson says that, after instructing Brown and Johnson to clear the road, he saw the pack of "cigarillos" in Brown's hand, alerting him to the fact that Brown might be the subject of the radio dispatch about the theft of cigars at the Ferguson Market.  (Radio Dispatch, Track 350:  "He took a whole box of Swisher cigars";  Track 366:  Officer 21 [Wilson]: "You guys need me?"]  

    Obviously, Wilson intended to question Brown about the Ferguson Market theft when he backed up, and attempted to exit his patrol car.  This is consistent with his recent ABC interview.  

       

    It is not obvious at all that Wilson (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by MO Blue on Thu Nov 27, 2014 at 07:59:49 AM EST
    Intended to question Brown about the robbery.

    Testimony of the first person to interview Wilson after the shooting:

    Second, now we have a transcript of his direct supervisor's testimony. Sergeant LNU* responded to the scene within minutes after the shooting and was the first person to interview him.

    Question by a Prosecutor Ms. Alizadeh

    Q: Did he know about it? Did he talk about knowing about the stealing?

    A: He did not know anything about the stealing call.
    
Q: He told you he did not know anything about the stealing?

    A: He did not know anything. He was out on another call in the apartment complex adjacent to Canfield Green.
[GJ, Vol. V, pp. 52-53]

    Question by a GJ member

    A: He did not mention it to me again. I learned about it at a later time.

    Q: Has he ever told you, yeah, I didn't know anything about what happened up at the Ferguson Market?

    A: Yes, he told me that in subsequent conversations.

    Q: He told you he didn't know about there being a stealing at the Ferguson Market?
    
A: Correct
    [GJ, Vol. V, p. 58




    Parent
    Not just Ferguson anymore (2.00 / 1) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 25, 2014 at 06:49:47 PM EST
    protests in 37 states tonight.  We are gonna need more national guard.

    And (3.50 / 2) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 25, 2014 at 06:55:03 PM EST
    a bigger boat.

    Parent
    gunshot wound (none / 0) (#5)
    by Uncle Chip on Tue Nov 25, 2014 at 11:10:07 PM EST
    He described the soot, or unburned gunpowder, on a graze wound on Mr. Brown's hand, proof that it was shot at a range of six to nine inches.

    So all the slop that we have been treated to for the last two months has been exactly that. How does 6 to 9 inches away indicate a struggle for the gun.

    Furthermore we find out that Brown was never inside the SUV as we have been inundated with for 3 months -- that it was just his arm and hands. He was outside the window the whole time.

    Then Wilson in an interview today admits that he had a grip on Brown's right wrist and was pulling on it with his left hand while trying to shoot him with the gun in his right hand -- just as witnesses said.

    That explains the gunshot to Brown's right hand more than him reaching for the gun with his right hand across his body -- something virtually impossible to do even for a contortionist.

    And of course no one was able to explain the shot to Brown's right forearm unless he was shot from behind running away or shot with his forearm and hands up facing the shooter.

    Then we find out that Wilson was allowed to leave the scene and wash up and bag his own gun. Really!!!  

    And then there is McCulloch's inability to tell time trying to convince us all that a 12:02 call was made at 12:01. Really!!! It must have been one incriminating call -- and it was.

    The fact remains that Wilson's account of what happened after he left the SUV would have taken 30 to 40 seconds if it went the way he prefabricates it -- but he was pumping bullets into Brown within 7 seconds and was finished wihin just 14 seconds.

    No witnesses were needed for the Grand Jury to have known that -- just incontrovertible timestamped forensic evidence that had to be lied about to the very end -- and a whole lot of people saw it coming.

    Respect for a lot of people who used to be held in high regard took a nosedive yesterday without the prospect of it ever recovering.

    "Unbelievable" story of officer Wilson (none / 0) (#8)
    by Green26 on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 12:13:32 AM EST
    This is a good article based on Wilson's testimony.

    Vox.com.

    Klein just doesn't want to believe Wilson (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by Slado on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 06:23:33 AM EST
    Any account will have holes in it as we've all learned from this site when it comes to eyewitness testimony.

    So what are we left with?   Physical evidence.   That evidence backs up Wilsons story.    If not completely at least way more then the other conflicting eyewitness accounts.

    Klein simply can't figure out why Brown attacked Wilson in the first place.   It doesn't make sense to him and starting with that premise he starts analyzing Wilsons testimony with a critical eye.

    Its pretty obvious that Klein had his mind made up before reading the new material and simply doesn't want to believe.   He puts himself in Wilsons position and uses his value system to judge if Wilson's story makes sense and the article just turns into what would Ezra have done and since Wilson's and Brown's actions don't equal what he'd have done it just isn't believable to him.


    Parent

    Slado (none / 0) (#11)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 07:58:21 AM EST
    So what are we left with?   Physical evidence.

    You mean the physical evidence that officer Wilson was allowed to contaminate and compromise??? That evidence???

    And the physical evidence that investigators didn't photograph because they didn't have a battery for his camera??? That evidence???.

    We now know that Wilson had Brown's  blood on his hands and after the shooting he was fiddling with stuff back inside his SUV. And no one stopped him???

    How do we know that that some or all of that blood found inside the door didn't come from Wilson's blood dripped hands while he was fiddling there???

     And not one grown up in that Grand Jury room was bothered by that???

    And then he was allowed to return to the station unattended, change his clothes, and wash up. How much physical evidence washed down that drain???

    And he bagged his own weapon -- Really!!!! Was that before or after he washed off.

    And all this contaminated stuff was presented to us and the Grand Jury as if it was properly processed evidence.

    The articles above from the Times and Post are quite revealing.

    The shock in St Louis was not the Grand Jury decision but the extent to which the police, prosecutor, reporters, and talking heads went to   deliberately misconstrue contaminated evidence.

    Parent

    I don't think there is much left to sau (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Slado on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 12:16:15 PM EST
    You do not believe that Mr. Brown was shot in self defense.

    That is clear.

    Maybe your right but no matter what there wasn't enough evidence presented to the GJ to charge him and I haven't read anyone seriously arguing that if the prosecuter had done everything he could to put the best case forward against Wilson and went to trial that he had any chance of a conviction.

    So what are we left with?   Did the police department do the best investigation possible?   No.   Do they probably ever treat law enforcement officers with the same sort of scrutiny they'd treat any other suspect?   Probably not.  

    That doesn't prove that Wilson didn't defend himself.

    You seem  to be hyper focused on inconsistencies in an attempt to discredit all evidence that Brown was shot n self defense without acknowledging that it might be that simple.   His actions prior, the known physical evidence,  the testimony of other witnesses and frankly common sense.

    This whole thing disturbs me.   It is not good that a police officer can shoot an unarmed man in the stree but what put those two in that situation?   To me it appears Brown started the confrontation and the tragedy started.  

    I

    Parent

    Do you not read anything (2.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Palli on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 02:51:54 PM EST
    The is a great deal of professional criticism of the conduct of this GJ process. Just read the ABA.

    Your conclusion: To me it appears Brown started the confrontation and the tragedy started."  

    Wrong. What initiated the confrontation was the initial traffic stop and Wilson's "Get the fuck on the side walk".

    Parent

    ABA? (none / 0) (#124)
    by Redbrow on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 04:21:10 PM EST
    Or the NBA bs you posted previously?  Get your sources/facts straight. There is a major difference between the ABA and the NBA.

     The National Bar Association is a joke that is infamous for racial bias.

    Parent

    I have been read the actual GJ (none / 0) (#148)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 06:51:37 PM EST
    testimony. Dull reading in some places, very interesting others.

    And the physical evidence that investigators didn't photograph because they didn't have a battery for his camera??? That evidence???.

    And it shows that the medical examiner directed a police officer to take the photographs he wanted.

    Really Chip, read the GJ testimony and quit making misleading statements. BTW - It leaves no doubt that Brown was facing Wilson when shot. It leaves no doubt that Brown reached inside Wilson's SUV.

    BTW, if you missed the link the other day, I can't remember who gave it to us h/she has my thanks, here it is again.

    Educate yourself.

    Grand Jury testimony

    Parent

    Hey Jim -- (none / 0) (#158)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 08:23:14 PM EST
    Did you notice that Wilson included an extra series of gunshots to his repertoire???

    And that was not lost on lawyers and reporters discussing it today wondering how that could possibly be or how he could have possibly misspoken when he had over 5 weeks to rehearse for it.

    He somehow can't count the number of bullets in his gun.

    Parent

    Hey Jim (none / 0) (#165)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 09:53:34 PM EST
    If you read  all the testimony of the Grand Jury, could you tell me which page has the testimony of the fingerprint expert that shows Brown's fingerprints were on Wilson's gun. I haven't  been able to find any report or analysis that references that information anywhere.

    Parent
    McCulloch stated Brown's DNA was on (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 09:55:34 PM EST
    Wilson's gun

    Parent
    Thanks but I didn't ask about DNA (none / 0) (#170)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 10:33:53 PM EST
    IIRC an expert testified that his blood was on the gun so it stands to reason that his DNA was there. What I'd like to see is what the fingerprint expert said about Brown's fingerprints on the gun. I've seen photos of test that indicate Brown's hand print is on the outside of Wilson's SUV but no photos of Brown's prints on Wilson's gun. Wilson testified that Brown actually had a hold of the gun and forced it down towards Wilson's thigh. If Brown was bleeding, blood could drip onto the gun without Brown actually touching it but his fingerprints on the gun would definitely confirm Wilson's testimony that Brown grabbed the gun.

    Parent
    HuffPo article states the gun (none / 0) (#183)
    by oculus on Thu Nov 27, 2014 at 12:07:33 AM EST
    was not tested for fingerprints:

    Parent
    That seems highly irregular (none / 0) (#189)
    by MO Blue on Thu Nov 27, 2014 at 01:54:48 AM EST
    Wilson claimed that Brown grabbed his gun and pushed it towards his thigh. The best evidence to support his claim would have been Brown's fingerprints on the gun and yet the police department chose not to do the tests.

    So bottom line there appears to be no forensic evidence to prove definitely that Brown's hand was ever on the gun.

    The investigator's explanation as to why they did not test for fingerprints does not pass the smell test. Both things cannot be true. Wilson said, "I was not in control of the gun." Investor said the decision not to test the weapon was because Wilson "never lost control of the gun."

    ....Wilson claimed that Brown had grabbed at Wilson's gun during the initial incident in the police car and that Brown's hand was on the firearm when it misfired at least once. Wilson also told police that he thought Brown would overpower him and shoot him with his own gun. "I was not in control of the gun," Wilson said. Eventually he regained control of the weapon and fired from within the car.

    Investigators could have helped to prove or disprove Wilson's testimony by testing his service weapon for Brown's fingerprints. But the gun was not tested for fingerprints. An investigator argued before the grand jury that the decision was made not to test the weapon because Wilson "never lost control of his gun."

    Aside: Thanks oculus I found the article. Actually now there are several links that weren't there when I googled earlier in the day.

    Parent

    Stoned People Don't Act Like That (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by RickyJim on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 07:59:17 AM EST
    That pretty much sums up the gist of Klein's claim that Wilson's story is unbelievable.  Is Klein a world renowned authority on the subject?

    Parent
    In Ezra's world (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 08:57:41 AM EST

    Ezra likely has no smoking buddies given to violence. Even if most stoners don't get violent that's a long way from assuming none do.

    Parent
    Because you don't seem to understand that the (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 11:16:11 AM EST
    Swiss practice comprehensive gun control this is for you.

    Parent
    Along with widespread ownership. (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 06:24:52 PM EST
    And every gun is registered (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 09:02:16 PM EST
    Automatic and semi-automatic weapons banned.  If convicted of a violent crime you may not own a gun.  If convicted of several non-violent crimes you may not own a gun.  Owning a gun in Switzerland is a priviledge, not a right.

    Parent
    Nor does it change the fact of the reserves keeping full autos at home.

    Parent
    I said gun control (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 09:59:34 PM EST
    And the Swiss practice comprehensive gun control.

    Parent
    And let us talk about the militia (none / 0) (#169)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 10:16:08 PM EST
    The militia may keep their weapons in their homes IF their unit commander allows it.  Their unit commander can also choose to have those weapons stored in an armory. It is the commanders choice, not any single Swiss citizen.  So once again, priviledge....not a right, and the unit commander may remove anyones weapon from them that they might choose.

    Not the same thing at all that you see in the US.  Completely the opposite mindset, and all autos are owned by the government....not by any individual....and any individual that gives any unit commander a reason to question their choices or behavior will have their weapon immediately removed from their possession.

    Parent

    Well, stoned, straight or on whatever... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 09:13:45 AM EST
      the behavior ascribed to Brown is highly unusual and atypical. That is something a factfinder should consider. It's not conclusive by any stretch but in assessing the evidence it is something that should be weighed together with the other evidence.

      Personally, (and I do mean only personally) I would find the fact that it is very atypical for a person to come toward  toward a person who is shooting at him as being a factor that tends to support the witnesses who described him as staggering or approaching slowly in a non-threatening manner.

       I'm not saying anything more than it is a factor that would weigh in my determination as to what Brown was most likely doing at that stage.

      The other thing to bear in mind is that, while important, reaching a conclusion as to what Brown was doing (and what was his intent) is not the end of the analysis.

      The ultimate question is what  was Wilson's belief as to nature and degree and threat  at the time he fired the fatal shot.  Wilson would not necessarily be guilty if he misconstrued  the actions and mistakenly believed Brown was an imminent threat.

       

    Parent

    Well to use part of his testimony (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 09:26:26 AM EST
    Wilson, a 28 year old, 6'4", 210 lb. man saw himself as a 5 year old child and viewed Brown as a demon. It seems that beliefs and feelings don't have to be reality based. They just have to be part of the testimony.

    Parent
    I'm not sure what you mean (none / 0) (#22)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 09:50:44 AM EST
    Two statutes appear to come into play:

    563.031.Use of force in defense of persons.

    1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person, unless:

    (1) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case his or her use of force is nevertheless justifiable provided:

    (a) He or she has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened use of unlawful force; or

    (b) He or she is a law enforcement officer and as such is an aggressor pursuant to section 563.046; or

    (c) The aggressor is justified under some other provision of this chapter or other provision of law;

    (2) Under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the person whom he or she seeks to protect would not be justified in using such protective force;

    (3) The actor was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of a forcible felony.

    2. A person may not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless:

    (1) He or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself, or herself or her unborn child, or another against death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony;

    (2) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle lawfully occupied by such person; or

    (3) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter private property that is owned or leased by an individual claiming a justification of using protective force under this section.

    1. A person does not have a duty to retreat from a dwelling, residence, or vehicle where the person is not unlawfully entering or unlawfully remaining. A person does not have a duty to retreat from private property that is owned or leased by such individual.

    2. The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of physical restraint as protective force provided that the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the restraint as soon as it is reasonable to do so.

    3. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section. If a defendant asserts that his or her use of force is described under subdivision (2) of subsection 2 of this section, the burden shall then be on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not reasonably believe that the use of such force was necessary to defend against what he or she reasonably believed was the use or imminent use of unlawful force.

      As you can see, the general justification/self-defense provisions of Missouri law require that the person asserting self-defense was "reasonable" in his belief it was necessary. That means the belief cannot be without basis in reality, which is a different concept than  being incorrect. The question is essentially is would a "reasonable person" in Wilson's shoes have believed the use of deadly force was necessary.

      The other statute would be even more problematic for a prosecution.

    563.046. Law enforcement officer's use of force in making an arrest.

    1. A law enforcement officer need not retreat or desist from efforts to effect the arrest, or from efforts to prevent the escape from custody, of a person he reasonably believes to have committed an offense because of resistance or threatened resistance of the arrestee. In addition to the use of physical force authorized under other sections of this chapter, he is, subject to the provisions of subsections 2 and 3, justified in the use of such physical force as he reasonably believes is immediately necessary to effect the arrest or to prevent the escape from custody.

    1. The use of any physical force in making an arrest is not justified under this section unless the arrest is lawful or the law enforcement officer reasonably believes the arrest is lawful.

    2. A law enforcement officer in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody is justified in using deadly force only

    (1) When such is authorized under other sections of this chapter; or

    (2) When he reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested

    (a) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony; or

    (b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon; or

    (c) May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.

    4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.

    Parent

    I'm not sure why my comment confused (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 10:13:10 AM EST
    you. In your comment you said:

    "The ultimate question is what  was Wilson's belief as to nature and degree and threat  at the time he fired the fatal shot.  Wilson would not necessarily be guilty if he misconstrued  the actions and mistakenly believed Brown was an imminent threat."

    As part of the reason why he felt his life was threatened, Wilson testified that he felt like a 5 year old child and that Brown looked like a demon. That was the stated belief system and  visual which Wilson used to help established the premise that Brown was an imminent threat to Wilson and to others.

    Parent

    I think this is some of what grates about (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by CST on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 10:52:35 AM EST
    not just this situation but a lot of these situations -

    Can't help but get the feeling that "I'm afraid of the big scary black man" is now a legitimate and legal reason to kill someone.

    Btw, I'm not saying that fear isn't real, unfortunately I'm sure it is for a lot of people, that's part of the problem.

    Parent

    Unfortunately it seems to be (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 11:22:31 AM EST
    getting more popular than SODDI.

    Parent
    I think that's part of the problem here (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 12:24:59 PM EST
    People are looking at the macro issues of race relations and police and trying to pigeonhole their thoughts on that with the actual facts in this case.  It's causing a lot of talking past each other and refusing to listen to the other side. Some cops are violent racist thugs, so of course it must be true in this case, right (despite witness testimony and physical evidence)?

    Can't help but get the feeling that "I'm afraid of the big scary black man" is now a legitimate and legal reason to kill someone.

    I couldn't agree more, but that wasn't the scenario here.  According to what I read from Wilson's interview and transcript was not, "I'm afraid of the big scary black man," but rather, "I'm afraid of the big scary black man who just seconds before had assaulted me and attempted to grab my gun."  I daresay that everyone would be afraid - whether the "big scary black man" was really a "big scary white man," or a "medium sized, but strong Asian woman," or a "middle-aged Native American man with a big gut."

    Parent

    btw (none / 0) (#65)
    by CST on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 12:48:03 PM EST
    I do not consider assault to warrant deadly force.

    And nowhere did I say that Wilson is a violent racist thug, or that the evidence says anything other than what it says.  I STILL don't think deadly force was appropriate.  Legal - probably.  But I also think the legal standard for appropriate force in these scenarios is way too low.

    No one is imposing "macro issues" of race relations and police.  I'm extremely certain that looking at Ferguson this is also a very local issue.  It's not like we're saying Baltimore has a problem so this is what happened in Ferguson.  Ferguson PD clearly has a problem.  And this scenario played out in that context.  You can't just eliminate that context from the discussion/analysis of the event.

    Parent

    So if assault is not (none / 0) (#70)
    by me only on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 12:59:49 PM EST
    enough to warrant deadly force, what exactly should Darren Wilson have waited for, his own death?

    Parent
    his life (none / 0) (#72)
    by CST on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 01:07:28 PM EST
    Was never in any real danger.  He was in a vehicle that he could have moved.  He should have waited for backup, and then arrested Wilson.  If Wilson had run away in the meantime, sure, you'd have one more person who got away with assaulting a police officer and cigar theft.  That is a much better outcome IMO than a dead Wilson.  Wilson did not have a weapon, he was not a deadly threat to the neighborhood.  I do not think police have a responsibility/right to shoot someone just because they might get away with a small crime.

    There is a very good reason assault and theft do not carry a death penalty in this country.

    Parent

    Okay, so Wilson (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by me only on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 01:31:10 PM EST
    was supposed to wait until Brown took the gun to respond?

    You have the luxury of sitting hundreds of miles away, months after the fact to make the claim that his life was not in danger.

    Vonderrit Myers shot at a cop about 2 months after the incident.  If he had lived, he would not have been given the death penalty for shooting at a police officer.  The court wouldn't even sentence him being shot.  The cop is not the court, all he can do is stop the threat.

    Would I love to issue the cops with phasers set to stun?  Absolutely.  I would even send money to make it happen.  Just haven't found them on Amazon.

    Parent

    Wilson said in testimony when asked (none / 0) (#104)
    by Palli on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 03:01:09 PM EST
    "Tasers are too uncomfortable." I don't use them.

    Parent
    I didn't say Taser (none / 0) (#114)
    by me only on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 03:39:12 PM EST
    And I don't mean Taser.

    Parent
    Some police departments have (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 02:37:37 PM EST
    written procedures on foot pursuit. I do not know if Ferguson has any written procedures but if not, maybe they need them.

    From what I've read other departments have some version of  advising that an officer should not initiate a foot pursuit if acting alone (e.g., one person unit). They should call and wait for backup. If a pressing need exists, a lone officer can keep the suspect in sight from a safe distance while coordinating containment. Those in pursuit are required to call the dispatcher immediately giving them all pertinent information regarding the pursuit including whether or not the subject(s) are armed.

    While much more than this is needed IMO, it sounds like one of many practical things to do.


    Parent

    Well.... (none / 0) (#31)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 10:47:30 AM EST
      There is every possibility the grand jurors are not so literal minded and capable grasping that Wilson was conveying something different than he believed he was five year old being confronted by a demon. That of course would not be "reasonable" but  might  raise the issue of criminal responsibility due to mental illness.

      The belief being conveyed was more likely interpreted as:  I believed Brown was capable of physically overpowering me, was very angry and was rapidly approaching me with the intent to harm me.

      The question is two-fold. Did he really believe that, and, if so, was that belief reasonable under the circumstances.

      Now, I might argue, the facial expression could just as easily been construed as reflecting intense pain because getting shot hurts and that the "hop" and approach could have been the awkward and erratic motions of a wounded man struggling to keep his balance, etc. That doesn't mean the other construction is unreasonable.

     

    Parent

    Words have actual meaning and weight (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 11:16:32 AM EST
    They can and do create a visual picture in the minds of an audience. And a jury is an audience. An audience picturing  a 5 year old being terrified by a big scary demon is hard to get beyond especially if a person might also find themselves scared by big black angry men. That type of word use can and often does transport a jury away from reasoning into feelings.

    From what I've seen of actual trials, I tend to think that this is a technique familiar to trial lawyers.

    Parent

    I have no doubt (none / 0) (#45)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 11:46:36 AM EST
    his lawyer prepped him for his appearance. No doubt word use, tone, demeanor and all that was discussed and practiced with an eye toward persuading the GJ.

       Obviously, no lawyer would advise a client to voluntarily appear before a GJ unless he thought there was a very likelihood doing so would help (and have little potential downside).

      In terms of likelihood of "random" people finding a person to be reasonably  afraid of someone else, "big black angry men" would probably be at or  near the top of the list.

      That Brown was big  was not in dispute. Size and strength is a totally legitimate factor to consider in assessing Wilson's state of mind, So is Brown's emotional state  and it's pretty difficult to construct a reasonable argument he wasn't angry, at least until he took a bullet or two. (That's where my questions about whether Wilson was justified coalesce. Once Brown fled/retreated and Wilson pursued, it does not follow that Wilson was necessarily justified in shooting Brown to death because of the altercation at the vehicle.)

       The only factor that should not come into play in assessing Wilson's mental state and its reasonableness is Brown's color, but that also was not in dispute and I highly doubt that any prejudices, latent or active, were triggered by Wilson's testimony. Either some Grand jurors were more inclined to believe a black man would engage in conduct justifying killing him or they weren't. I highly doubt anyone would become racist during the course of the proceedings.

     

    Parent

    That Brown was big was never in doubt. (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 12:29:22 PM EST
    His size was always emphasized. We  heard over and over and over again exactly how big he was. What I never read or heard in the media prior to the verdict was the fact that Wilson was also a very big man. He was the same height as Brown and he weight over 200 lbs. Wilson was not a small man. Yes, Brown outweighed Wilson but he  actually looked rather flabby. Wilson OTOH appeared to keep himself in much better shape.
    That was also a factor that was never discussed. The GJ members were not sequestered and details in the media were available to them. As an honest person, I think you will acknowledge that much of the leaked information was not favorable to Brown.

    Being a flat out racist and being afraid of black men, is not always one and the same thing. Unfortunately that fear has been promoted for as long as I've been alive. Many people here are horrified if you mention that you ride on our city's Metro system. In their minds, you are putting your life in danger by riding with that many black people. Are many of these people racists in other areas of their life - no - but they are afraid of being in a group of black people, especially men, who they don't know.

    When discussing this, you state what things should and should not be a factor in the decision process of the jurors. From a legal standpoint you are 100% correct. But jurors are not legal experts or pages of statutes in a law book. They are human beings who make decisions based on other favors.

    Parent

    I'm not sure how Wilson's size matters (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 12:41:21 PM EST
    He was in the car when confronted by Brown.  Yes, he's tall and big.  But Brown definitely had the advantage of having two hands free,facing Wilson, and knowing what he was going to do.  Think about the challenges of going through some fast food drive-thrus and reaching for change and food.  Now think about someone, even your own size, reaching in your car window, taking you by surprise, and trying to grab your purse - then imagine trying to defend yourself. You would be at a distinct disadvantage.  

    Try it this weekend - see if you can get the better of someone reaching in your car to grab you.

    Parent

    Nice story board you created (3.50 / 4) (#74)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 01:12:31 PM EST
    based on some but not all of Wilson's testimony.  I don't think the complete scenario you created has been proven so you are once again providing your opinion as fact.

    The surprise factor is rather doubtful based on other elements of Wilson's testimony. According to Wilson's own testimony both of Brown's hands were not free when the he claims the first punch was thrown.


    Parent

    So you agree with me (none / 0) (#117)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 03:47:19 PM EST
    You would not be able to defend yourself well against someone your own size if they approached you while you were in your own car.

    Great.

    Parent

    Evidently you have nothing relevant to (3.50 / 2) (#129)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 04:46:55 PM EST
    contribute so you have decided to build straw men. A straw man argument like this is always the first indication that you know you misstated points in your comment and can't defend them.

    Parent
    i think both absolute and relative size (none / 0) (#73)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 01:08:00 PM EST
     are relevant factors.

      Relative size kind of goes without saying but in terms of justifying the use of deadly force, I think absolute size also matters. A big strong can inflict more damage on a person of any size than can a smaller weaker one.

       I'd be more  likely to believe that a man of any size reasonably feared serious bodily injury or death from a very large man than from an average sized or small man.

      JBinDC: Wilson was not in the vehicle, trapped or otherwise,  when he killed Brown. I have tried repeatedly, with limited success, to point out the question was whether Wilson reasonably believed deadly force was necessary when he fired the fatal shot. Being justified even seconds before does not necessarily mean a person is justified once the circumstances change.

     

    Parent

    No he wasn't (none / 0) (#116)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 03:46:40 PM EST
    But he was in the car when Brown approached and initially assaulted him.

    Parent
    Wilson had power (none / 0) (#159)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 08:39:46 PM EST
     windows that would have stopped Brown and trapped him if he had wanted to.

    Those power windows especially in those Tahoes are quite powerful.

    Furthermore he had a gas pedal and it worked if he wanted to use it.

    His story of a struggle for the gun does not pass the smell test as even he admits that he was holding Brown's right wrist with his left hand in his ABC interview and trying to not let go.

    If he was holding onto his wrist then he didn't want him to go and the witnesses were correct as to what they saw and he perjured himself in that GJ room.

    Parent

    So, just for accuracy, (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 12:46:03 PM EST
    Wilson 6'4" 210
    Brown 6'5" 289

    Parent
    I think I mentioned that (4.00 / 3) (#69)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 12:58:10 PM EST
    Brown outweighed Wilson and weight is not the sole factor determining strength.

    Wilson is the first 6'4", 210 lbs child in history.


    Parent

    Maybe this specific topic is too ridiculous, and too "yesterday's news," to continue...

    Parent
    But Brown is the "demon" in Wilson's (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by nycstray on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 01:15:29 PM EST
    mind. Wilson specified he felt like a 5yo child, Brown has not specified he felt like a little baby. Oh wait, he can't . . .

    Parent
    fwiw, "baby" is the term used by Crump (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 01:27:00 PM EST
    w/respect to Brown:
    "That baby was executed in broad daylight," Crump said during a press conference Monday afternoon


    Parent
    Yes, you are right. That statement does qualify (none / 0) (#84)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 01:46:29 PM EST
    as similar to Wilson portraying himself as a 5 year old child.
    Do you think that Crump might have had a reason to use that particular word? Maybe he knew that word generated a particular picture in the minds of those who heard it.

    Do you think that Wilson had a reason to assume the smallness of a 5 year old child when he chose to use those words in his testimony or when he described Brown as a demon? Maybe Wilson knew that those words would generate a particular picture in the minds of those who heard them.

    Parent

    Well, it sounds like we are in agreement. (none / 0) (#85)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 01:57:22 PM EST
    Both terms are incongruous and paint a picture.

    Parent
    Yep (none / 0) (#86)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 01:59:42 PM EST
    "Demon." Wonder how Holder will process (none / 0) (#93)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 02:25:54 PM EST
    that.

    Parent
    How do you process that? (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 02:38:42 PM EST
    Well, if Wilson's grand jury was carefully (none / 0) (#98)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 02:44:36 PM EST
    rehearsed w/an alert attorney, the latter should have suggested perhaps a word conveying fear but less likely to lend itself to supporting convictions Wilson's reason for shooting Brown was due to Wilson's being racist.

    Query to someone who has read all the documents: did Wilson use this term in his prior statements?  In the TV interview?

    I will say, demons are usually portrayed as red.

    Parent

    I saw it in the TV interview (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by nycstray on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 02:57:11 PM EST
    they showed part of the interview on the national news, which is where I saw him say that and that he considered whether it was legal for him to shoot Brown (when Brown was running away).

    I can't remember exactly if he said demon or demonic, but he was talking about how he felt vs Brown/ how Brown looked to him.

    Poor widdle thing that Wilson is . . . I guess it's a good thing the big 6'4 man does not have to walk around my size all his life. Can't imagine how he would feel if he were really 5'5" and 105lbs . . . or really the size of a 5yo!

    Parent

    I found that part telling... (4.25 / 4) (#112)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 03:23:56 PM EST
    Wilson had time to consider if he could legally shoot an unarmed man...not how can I descalate the situation, not how can I make an arrest here, but can I shoot this man now?  

    That's f#cked up, eh?

    Parent

    I couldn't believe he said that (none / 0) (#115)
    by nycstray on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 03:39:16 PM EST
    and that it didn't get much of a reaction. . . WTF?!

    Parent
    A giant steaming pile... (2.00 / 1) (#120)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 04:02:30 PM EST
    of WTF all around kid.

    And it ain't even about indictments, convictions, prison time...all the Dude ever wanted was the police to stop killing people so frequently.

    Cuz the chain/court/cage thing ain't really working for private sector violence when the law & order people actually try...never mind public sector when they ain't trying. WTF do we do?

    I'm down to go Bobby style and disarm the police...I  feel it's that drastic.  If we can't change human nature, disarmament may be our only hope.

    Parent

    Then we mst also disarm the populace. (none / 0) (#121)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 04:06:22 PM EST
    Sold! (none / 0) (#123)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 04:11:46 PM EST
    I've preemptively struck and never been strapped! ;)

    Parent
    Of curse, neithe Wilson nor others (none / 0) (#119)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 03:54:37 PM EST
    (except Brown and, perhaps Johnson) knew definitively, prior to Wilson's "discharging his service revolver," whether Brown had any weapon on his person.

    Parent
    Brown knew Wilson was.... (none / 0) (#122)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 04:09:27 PM EST
    and every Black man in America has a reasonable fear of the police, and alotta White ones too for that matter...were the alleged fisticuffs justified on those grounds?  

    Retract the question...I know enough of the law to know who can't win.

    Parent

    If Wilson's gj testimony is accurate, Brown (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 05:00:56 PM EST
    was verbally hostile from the first encounter and was the physical aggressor while Wilson was in uniform on a marked law enforcement vehicle. Then Brown pushed Wilson's gun against Wilson's leg and tried to pull the trigger.

    Making me curious as to any previous contacts Brown had w/law enforcement.  Why did Brown behave the way he did?  Very strange.

    Parent

    Jphnson's first account said DW (none / 0) (#179)
    by Palli on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 11:41:26 PM EST
    started with "Get the fuck in the sidewalk."  
    There is video evidence and several first person narratives collaborating DW initiating police contact with citizens in a decidedly crude and abusive manner. The guy was not a PO of high esteem among 69% of the community he served.

    Parent
    Wilson's account suspicious (none / 0) (#184)
    by Palli on Thu Nov 27, 2014 at 12:11:36 AM EST
    Why did Brown behave the way [Wilson said] he did?  Very strange.

    This is exactly why his version of the dialogue is doubtful and exactly why the evidence, planted or real, is so crucial. A normal Black teenager would not respond to a White cop with this language. White cops expect and are given deference, even if they are know as a bully in blue. But with weed in the picture, the cops could create "plausibility".

    Parent
    Demons are what ever color people decide to (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 03:51:44 PM EST
    Assign to them when they hear the word.  If Wilson used the word to describe a person who was actually red or painted red, your statement might be relavent but he used the word to describe Michael Brown who was black. The word picture he was conveying was of Michael Brown, a black male, as a demon.

    As an aside, You may conger up the color red for a demon but I don't think your statement is accurate. If you google images of demons throughout history you will find that they come in various colors and only a few are red. Here is an image of just one black demon in the group.

    Parent

    Then why did you decided to continue to (none / 0) (#79)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 01:26:15 PM EST
    mention it? You chose to do so.

    Wilson did claim the smallness of a  5 year old child. Never heard Michael Brown make a similar claim. If you are referring to his mother or father mentioning the word baby when referring to Michael, I think many of the mothers or fathers here will attest to the fact that they have at times referred to their grown child or grandchild as their baby. It is a pretty normal thought and reference when a child dies before a parant.

    Parent

    "baby" w/respect to Brown.

    Parent
    I saw that (none / 0) (#83)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 01:44:56 PM EST
    Reply to that comment almost done.

    Parent
    You do not understand (none / 0) (#182)
    by Palli on Thu Nov 27, 2014 at 12:00:32 AM EST
    he nature of racism. Underlying racist thinking is a triggered response. Psychological experiments have made this apparent. A normal well-ajusted person apparently without overt racism can be given "situational permission" to entertain and act on racist thinking. A court room is an ideal place to instill prejudicial thinking in a jury.

    The only factor that should not come into play in assessing Wilson's mental state and its reasonableness is Brown's color, but that also was not in dispute and I highly doubt that any prejudices, latent or active, were triggered by Wilson's testimony


    Parent
    My advice (none / 0) (#107)
    by Palli on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 03:04:54 PM EST
    Read DW testimony transcript. As one defense said it sounds like a bad Hollywood script.

    Parent
    I Can't Think of a Reaonable (none / 0) (#57)
    by RickyJim on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 12:33:26 PM EST
    reason for Brown moving towards Wilson other than Brown had the idea of overpowering Wilson.  Whether or not it was reasonable that Brown could, in the state he was in, actually do that, was decided in a split second by Wilson in the affirmative.  Maybe people should be taught in school how to behave when an officer confronts you.  My practice has been to be motionless unless asked to move, and apologetic.  And often I avoid a ticket that way.

    Parent
    failure of imagination (none / 0) (#97)
    by sj on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 02:41:31 PM EST
    I Can't Think of a Reaonable (none / 0) (#57)
    by RickyJim on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 11:33:26 AM MDT

    reason for Brown moving towards Wilson other than Brown had the idea of overpowering Wilson.  

    I confess I'm surprised by this statement. Most people aren't so honest about their inability to think.

    Parent
    Can't think of a reason (none / 0) (#185)
    by Palli on Thu Nov 27, 2014 at 12:17:24 AM EST
    other than DW saying "Come over here".  Testimony

    Parent
    Default is to Regard Police Perception as Valid (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by RickyJim on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 09:57:05 AM EST
    There is that case where a black sheriff's deputy shot and killed a 70 year old white motorist who was reaching for his cane.  The District Attorney decided not to prosecute because the deputy made and "honest mistake".  Of course he didn't have to run an extensive Grand Jury investigation because there were no riots and looting over the incident.

    Parent
    Sorry, He was Shot but not Killed (none / 0) (#25)
    by RickyJim on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 10:06:19 AM EST
    "Perceived threat" should not be ... (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 10:32:06 AM EST
    Reconstructionist: "Wilson would not necessarily be guilty if he misconstrued  the actions and mistakenly believed Brown was an imminent threat."

    ... an acceptable standard for law enforcement -- or anyone else, for that matter -- in justifying the taking of another person's life. One would like to believe that in the year 2014, lynch law would finally be anathema in a civilized American society. But apparently not, according to the malleable and expedient tenets of Bob McCulloch and the Ferguson Police Dept.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    It's only half the standard (none / 0) (#77)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 01:21:49 PM EST
      and why shouldn't it be?

      If a factfinder finds one's perception was unreasonable then you have at most an imperfect defense that can serve in some circumstances to negate an element of a higher grade offense.

      Do you really believe that a person's mental state should be irrelevant to culpability? If so what principled reason do you have for believing it should on y  only in police cases or self-defense cases? If we are going to ignore mental state here why should we not ignore it for   all offenses and simply punish people based on the result of their actions regardless of lack of intent,  mistake, accident, etc?

      Or, perhaps, does it only apply when considering mental state leads to an outcome you wanted to be different?

       Advocating a very  extreme alteration of the law. should require a lot more than an inapt assertion of lynching in one specific case and preferably some actual thought about how  such a change would broadly apply.

     

    Parent

    Did you read Wilson's grand jury testimony? (4.00 / 3) (#103)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 02:59:38 PM EST
    I did last night, and to be perfectly honest, I found it contrived to the point of unbelievable, as though I were reviewing the first draft script of a "Law & Order" episode -- except that Asst. DA Jack McCoy certainly wasn't the type to take a dive or fall in front of a grand jury.

    Personally, I think Darren Wilson is nothing but 10 lbs. of Schitt shoved into a 5-lb. bag. He testified to a merciless beating he received from Michael Brown, one in which he feared for his life. The Ferguson PD even went so far as to allude to a very credulous media that he had his eye socket broken by a punch.

    But unfortunately, the photos taken of Wilson not too long after his fateful encounter with Brown not only do not support that particular narrative, at best they render it only so much hyperbole.

    Further, I think the prosecutor who questioned Wilson also knew he was full of Schitt, but she went along with it anyway and threw him a series of underhand softballs to elicit from him what everyone already knew he was going to say. At no time did she ever really challenge either his narrative or his credibility. And as a result, all we got was from this proceeding was a lot of kabuki and shibai. (That's Japanese for shuck-and-jive.)

    With due regard to Officer Wilson's mental state, it used to be that any claim of mental instability, temporary insanity, whatever, required an affirmative defense. That is, it was incumbent upon the defense counsel to prove that his or her client was simply too unhinged to know what he or she was doing at the time, and therefore cannot be held responsible / liable for his or her actions / reactions.

    Not any more, apparently, and particularly when the prospective defendant is a cop. Instead, we're just supposed to accept whatever he says at face value, and believe every single one of his words as though it were a direct quote from the Lord's own gospels. At least, that was how the prosecutor conducted what otherwise has to pass for cross-examination of Officer Wilson.

    I fully realize that police work is inherently stressful an sometimes very dangerous, and that can't help but take its toll on officers. I have two longtime friends who are both my age and also longtime members of the Honolulu Police Dept. One is a detective who works in vice, and the other is a sergeant who still does routine street patrol. Even in a big city that's as mellow as we are, their work has aged them significantly.

    But it can also be said, and far too many times in lamentable retrospect, that some law enforcement personnel really have no business wearing the uniform. And from everything that I've heard and read about him thus far, up to and including his grand jury testimony, I've concluded that Darren Wilson is likely one of them.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Is Wilson's Narrative Reasonable? (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by RickyJim on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 04:46:35 PM EST
    It depends on whether or not you think it reasonable that Brown could have behaved in the manner described in it.  Watching the video of Brown in the store robbery, which he knew darn well was being videotaped, I get the impression of a young man full of bravado and a feeling of invincibility.  Thus I can't dismiss Wilson's story as you do.  I read of young Darwin award winners all the time - recently for example, the actor who took a ride on the top of a train in Connecticut and ended up electrocuted.  So, although I don't personally know people like that, it doesn't seem so far fetched that Brown tried to get some kicks by sassing, punching, teasing and threatening a man with a gun.

    Parent
    RJ, the better question is: (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Nov 27, 2014 at 08:16:51 AM EST
    Could Wilson's story have taken place in the timeframe of 74 seconds???

    I challenge those bright minds of yours over there at the Conservative Treehouse to put a time clock on Wilson's story here.

    Could all of that have taken place within 74 seconds???

    It just goes on and on -- he did this -- does that -- he sees this -- and he thinks that -- and on and on for what sounds like 5 minutes.

    And yet witnesses say the altercation at the Tahoe lasted only 10 to 20 seconds and so does the Timeline based upon objective independent sources.

    And then he reports making calls to dispatch that did not happen -- and the Post and FPD and the prosecutor know that they did not happen making this story even longer and more unbelievable.

    And then there is that chase from the Tahoe followed by contemplation on his part and that extra series of gunshots that he says he fired --all of which would have taken a couple of minutes but independent documentation shows to have been only 14 seconds.

    After reading his testimony I am stunned that conservative websites fell for this guy's story lock stock and BS and continue to defend it and him.

    Parent

    a good description of Wilson (none / 0) (#186)
    by Palli on Thu Nov 27, 2014 at 12:20:46 AM EST
    man full of bravado and a feeling of invincibility


    Parent
    While you go so far overboard (none / 0) (#111)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 03:17:30 PM EST
     as to be 20,000 leagues under the sea ( and sacrifice a tremendous amount of credibility in doing so) I tend to agree with one of your premises.

      I do think from my admittedly cursory examination of the record that the prosecutors did not merely present the evidence as completely and even-handedly as possible and then leave it to the grand jurors to make a decision.  Without even addressing the point that doing what McCullough said he was going to do is very atypical and justly raises questions of "special treatment," I don't think he (or he had his assistants) simply served as impartial "technicians" to bring all the relevant evidence to the jury's attention in an impartial manner.

       It does strike me that the nature of the questions and the method in which they were asked  were sometimes designed to:

     a) highlight where evidence favorable to  Wilson was corroborated and more credible.

    b) highlight where unfavorable evidence was not corroborated or came from arguably less credible sources.

       I'm NOT saying either that the favorable evidence was not corroborated or that the unfavorable evidence was not fairly deemed to be of less weight, but I don't think he let "the facts speak for themselves."  I do think a fair case can be made that subtle (and some maybe  not so subtle) efforts were made to guide the GJ.

       If his goal was to reduce personal fallout by casting it as  just matter of his being a neutral assistant to the GJ that reached its decision independent of any direction from the prosecutors, I don't think that will or should fly.

     

    Parent

    So should the police... (none / 0) (#140)
    by unitron on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 05:32:26 PM EST
    ...wait until the perceived threat has actually been brought to fruition before doing anything about it?

    Parent
    Was Brown's behavior in the store... (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by unitron on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 05:22:49 PM EST
    ...a few minutes earlier highly unusual and atypical?

    Parent
    Nah (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by whitecap333 on Thu Nov 27, 2014 at 04:29:37 AM EST
    It was "typical teen behavior," a youthful indiscretion, quite unremarkable, no big deal.  Or so say Chip and Crump.

    Parent
    Wilson should have been tried in public (none / 0) (#28)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 10:41:41 AM EST
    In camera "exoneration" is absolute bull** in a case like this.

    Parent
    He Still Can Be Tried (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by RickyJim on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 12:19:22 PM EST
    Just find a convincing case in the treasure trove of evidence that was released and I am sure Wilson will be indicted.  Double jeopardy doesn't apply.

    Parent
    There is not sufficent evidence to claim (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by Redbrow on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 05:13:25 PM EST
    Marijuana causes psychosis but it is well established that it can trigger psychosis in predisposed individuals.

    I have first hand experience with freinds who turned into negative creeps after extended use of potent concentrates like, bho/honey oil/ butter/budda/ wax.

    Parent

    The infamous FL face eater (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Redbrow on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 05:24:23 PM EST
    Not impressive in the least (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by toggle on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 02:12:18 PM EST
    And not particularly well researched either.

    The first thing Klein has a problem with is the claim that Brown handed the cigars over to his friend during the fight, which triggers Klein's "bullshit detector."

    The problem is that this is exactly what Brown's friend said happened. Did Klein not even do a cursory look over the other witnesses' testimony?

    He also says this:

    Why did Michael Brown, an 18-year-old kid headed to college, refuse to move from the middle of the street to the sidewalk? Why would he curse out a police officer? Why would he attack a police officer? Why would he dare a police officer to shoot him? Why would he charge a police officer holding a gun? Why would he put his hand in his waistband while charging, even though he was unarmed?

    It's funny because Brown's friend says he was wondering the same thing, but he was talking about Brown robbing the liquor store despite there being cameras everywhere inside, and then brazenly walking down the middle of the street afterwards while making no effort to hide what he'd stolen.

    Parent

    Also, why would Brown put his hand in his pants? (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by toggle on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 02:15:51 PM EST
    Because he'd recently suffered a grazing gunshot wound to the thumb on that hand.

    Then again, this is the guy whose organization reported that there was a bridge between Gaza and the West Bank, so what do you expect?

    Parent

    The witness (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by whitecap333 on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 03:24:01 PM EST
    identified as #10 in the "document dump" says "I'm not sure he pulled his pants up or whatever he did, but I seen some type of movement."  Looks like Brown almost lost his pants in this incident.  Perhaps he was just trying to keep them up, to avoid tripping.

    From the video of Brown's "shopping expedition," it may reasonably be inferred that 1) he became combative because he feared arrest, and 2) he was in a highly belligerent state of mind.  

    I see that Wilson, in his ABC interview, did not take issue with Stephanopoulos' characterization of the distance at which he began firing as 35-40 feet.

    Parent

    Justcie Scalia on a Grand Jury's role: (none / 0) (#30)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 10:45:30 AM EST
    Justice Antonin Scalia, writing on the 1992 Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams,

    It is the grand jury's function not `to enquire ... upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,' or otherwise to try the suspect's defenses, but only to examine `upon what foundation [the charge] is made' by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented.

    Compare Justice Scalia's description of the role of the grand jury to what the prosecutors told the Ferguson grand jury before they started their deliberations:

        And you must find probable cause to believe that Darren Wilson did not act in lawful self-defense and you must find probable cause to believe that Darren Wilson did not use lawful force in making an arrest. If you find those things, which is kind of like finding a negative, you cannot return an indictment on anything or true bill unless you find both of those things. Because both are complete defenses to any offense and they both have been raised in his, in the evidence.



    That is quite true (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Reconstructionist on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 10:52:59 AM EST
    and why I bolded the part about the defendant having the burden to inject a justification defense in the statute I cited above.

    But, a suspect  "not having the right" to testify or present exculpatory evidence is not synonymous with the State being prohibited from allowing it

      There is no question this was not a typical Gj proceeding, and I agree that conducting it in this matter reasonably gives cause for skepticism.  

      Again, though, just because one view is "reasonable" does not mean all others are "unreasonable."


    Parent

    Interesting legal analysis based on (none / 0) (#130)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 04:52:47 PM EST
    Wilson's grand jury testimony, physical evidence, and Missouri law re self defense. See Washington Post.    (Linkage fail.)

    If this is accurate, McCulloch should have declined to prosecute.


    If there was not sufficient evidence to (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 06:55:26 PM EST
    prosecute, then you are correct, McCulloch should have declined to prosecute rather than spend the time and money for a kabuki GJ.

    Would people think that McCulloch was showing preferential treatment to Wilson because he was a cop. Well yes, but many people thought he would do that from day one even after he announced he would put this before the GJ and that has not changed.

    Would there have been protests and riots. Probably, it would only have been a difference in timing.

    Nothing IMO was really accomplished by convening a GJ if all evidence indicated that according to the laws in MO, Wilson was not guilty.

    I can't say that information in the analysis was right or wrong since no link was provided but if accurate the matter should never have been submitted to a GJ.

    Parent

    Here's the headline and author: (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 07:57:45 PM EST
    Officer Wilson had a powerful case for self-defense under Missouri law [updated with thoughts on assessing a suspect's testimony before the grand jury]

    By Paul Cassell November 26 at 12:47 PM


    Parent

    The Difference (none / 0) (#154)
    by RickyJim on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 07:23:35 PM EST
    between McCulloch refusing to prosecute and the GJ no bill is that, according to Missouri law, the prosecutor could dump the evidence on the public.  Whether or not that will make the protests go away, after the public thoroughly digests that evidence, is still an open question.

    Parent
    I'm curious whetther law enforcement (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 08:07:01 PM EST
    and/or prosecuting agecncies are subject to the same Sunshine law McCulloch relied on in releasing the grand jury info.

    Parent
    Sorry, I should have said (none / 0) (#155)
    by RickyJim on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 07:27:16 PM EST
    according to Missouri law, in the case of a GJ no bill the prosecutor could dump the evidence on the public.

    Parent
    So how many bullets are in a (none / 0) (#137)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 05:23:56 PM EST
    Darren Wilson gun??? It holds 13 bullets -- 12 in the clip and 1 in the chamber.

    On page 228 of his testimony is the accounting for his shots:

    [A] He fires 2 in the SUV.

    [B] Then after chasing Brown he says that he shoots "a series of shots". He doesn't know how many but he says he hit Brown atleast once.

    [C] Then he says Brown keeps coming at him and he shoots "another round of shots". He says he sees him flinch. [Glide audio identifies this series as 6 shots]

    [D] Then he says he fires the final ones aiming at  his head. [Glide audio recording identifies this as 4 shots].

    A,C, and D are all scientifically documented but B is not. Wilson says that it was more than one but that exceeds the capacity of his weapon.

    I'm betting B however is the 13th  and missing bullet and the smoking gun of the shot fired while Brown's back was turned. It was the shot fired that made  Brown turn around. It may not have hit anything but it was fired while his back was turned.

    2 + 1 + 6 + 4 = 13

    the hand wound (none / 0) (#168)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 10:10:03 PM EST
    Apparently hand wounds bleed a lot and Brown's would have as well.

    But pictures of the Tahoe door do not show that much blood there for a wound that would bleed a lot.

    Wilson's testimony tells of him hitting Brown with his first shot and a struggle continued there for quite a while longer. So where is all the blood at the Tahoe???

    And if he ran with a bloody hand one would expect a lot of blood droppings marking the trail from the Tahoe to where he stopped 180 feet away -- but no such trail is marked by the CSIs.

    In Wilson's testimony he says that when he fired at Brown at the point where he turned around 180 feet away he was concentrating on his hand -- a strange thing to do or even say.

    Why his hand??? He said it -- check his testimony.

    But it turns out that right there where Brown stopped and turned around there is a pool of blood that is believed to have come from a prolifically bleeding wound -- the hand being the most likely suspect.

    And it's there and only there where he stopped, turned around, and stood for a few seconds.

    So it is highly likely that that spot 180 feet away is where the hand was hit and not in the Tahoe.  

    The myth of the hand wound in the Tahoe was only devised when they needed it to bolster the myth of the struggle for the gun in the Tahoe which Wilson he had to have as justification for chasing down and killing a fleeing felon who was trying to take his gun.

    Once again Wilson's testimony giving him up. What happens when it becomes clear that he committed perjury before the Grand Jury -- and it's becoming clearer by the day that he did.  

    Parent

    One last point here: (none / 0) (#180)
    by Uncle Chip on Wed Nov 26, 2014 at 11:46:03 PM EST
    Wilson says in his testimony that at the spot 180 feet from the Tahoe as he was firing he had tunnel vision on Brown's hands -- as if he was afraid that he would reach in his pants for a gun.

    But that hand that he was concentrating on had already been shot and was dripping blood profusely on the ground there according to the experts -- and thus he had nothing to fear from him trying to grab anything.

    So that was BS from Wilson all the way around.

    And yet the victimhood campaign of Darren Wilson marches on.

    Parent

    Red Herring #17 (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by whitecap333 on Thu Nov 27, 2014 at 04:15:11 AM EST
    Wilson has repeatedly, and consistently stated, as clearly as it can be stated, that he fired the fatal shots because he feared being "taken down," not because he feared Brown was carrying a gun.  

    Parent
    Wilson's red herring -- (none / 0) (#195)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Nov 27, 2014 at 07:11:25 AM EST
    Wilson has repeatedly, and consistently stated, as clearly as it can be stated, that he fired the fatal shots because he feared being "taken down," not because he feared Brown was carrying a gun.  

    I thought the same thing until I heard his ABC interview and read his GJ testimony beginning pg 227 line 10 to pg 228 line 8:

    When he does that ... his right hand goes under his shirt in his waistband ... I shoot a series of shots. I don't know how many, I just shot. ... I know I missed a couple, but I know I hit him atleast once because I saw his body kind of jerk or flenched. I remember having tunnel vision on his right hand, that's all. I'm just focusing on that hand when I was shooting.

    If his right hand had already been shot at the Tahoe and was dripping blood, then why would he need to focus on it????

    And if his right hand is in his waistband and Wilson is focusing his shooting there then why are all the wounds to Brown's upper body and not his lower abdomen???

    Furthermore if this statement of his is true then he had over 14 bullets in his gun that holds only 13. So just how many shell casings were picked up at the scene???  More than 13??? just 13??? or less than 13??? Were they all accounted for???

    Can you spell "perjury"???

    Parent

    Some Questions for jazzer22 (none / 0) (#204)
    by RickyJim on Thu Nov 27, 2014 at 10:24:15 AM EST
    1. When are you going to learn how to post links properly for this forum?
    2. When are you going to learn that the adversary system is a something you only find in English speaking countries?  The questions the Grand Jurors asked serve a better purpose than cross examination.  In the US, especially, lawyers only ask questions in court for which they already know the answer.
    3. Have you been following any blogs that are doing an in depth study of the evidence, like this one?  


    Legal expert dissects glaring GJ flaws (none / 0) (#205)
    by Dadler on Thu Nov 27, 2014 at 03:05:41 PM EST
    DM testimony, map, pictures (none / 0) (#206)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Nov 27, 2014 at 03:23:28 PM EST
    Testimony, map, pictures at the DM

    On the map there are markers 19 and 20 -- the spots of profuse bleeding from a hand wound per experts.

    Why is there no blood marking anywhere before that??? There's a lot of blood at 19 and 20 but very little back at the Tahoe. Why???

    Is 19 and 20 where he was shot in the right hand with his back turned as he was still running away, subsequently stopping, and turning around???

    And is that 11 shell casings on the ground there or 10 shell casings and a shoe.

    Care Main Report (none / 0) (#208)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Nov 27, 2014 at 11:40:49 PM EST
    Care main report

    12 shell casings found at the scene with one live round still left in the chamber per Wilson at variance with Wilson's telling of events.

    Was one shell casing picked up???