So, I'm not sure if I've got the facts right but isn't this what basically happened according to the physical evidence:
Brown steals from a convenience store
Wilson received a call about a guy who stole from a convenience store on his way to some unrelated call.
Wilson happens to drive by, identifies the suspect and pulls up next to him
???
Brown attacks Wilson, during the struggle Brown is shot in the hand
Wilson exits the car
???
Wilson shoots Brown a bunch of times, during which Brown was moving towards Wilson without his hands up in surrender.
As far as I can tell, there isn't much grounds for an indictment, considering that all the witness testimony is at best misremembered and at worst rumors fed by the media shitstorm. I have the vague feeling that I should be disagreeing with the decision, especially in light of Ferguson's handling of everything, but it's starting to sound like a bit of a witch hunt.
Wilson did not actually know about the convenience store robbery at the time he pulled up to shoot Brown for jaywalking.
To that same end Malcom X was successful. MLK is appreciated more because of the peaceful protesting but without the closed fist open hand nature of the civil rights movement nothing would of been done.
People say things like this a lot, but there is no way to actually know if the violence was necessary or even helpful in achieving success. I am skeptical of pretty much every claim that a violent protest is responsible for change, outside of revolution.
History unfortunately is not as kind as your opinion.
psn: PhasenWeeple
+2
Options
SwissLionWe are beside ourselves!Registered Userregular
So, I'm not sure if I've got the facts right but isn't this what basically happened according to the physical evidence:
Brown steals from a convenience store
Wilson received a call about a guy who stole from a convenience store on his way to some unrelated call.
Wilson happens to drive by, identifies the suspect and pulls up next to him
???
Brown attacks Wilson, during the struggle Brown is shot in the hand
Wilson exits the car
???
Wilson shoots Brown a bunch of times, during which Brown was moving towards Wilson without his hands up in surrender.
As far as I can tell, there isn't much grounds for an indictment, considering that all the witness testimony is at best misremembered and at worst rumors fed by the media shitstorm. I have the vague feeling that I should be disagreeing with the decision, especially in light of Ferguson's handling of everything, but it's starting to sound like a bit of a witch hunt.
Seeing as the convenience store clerk did not call the police, there are questions about whether or not Wilson knew anything about the store situation.
There is also doubt as to who initiated the altercation with the car.
There is no conclusive evidence that Brown was moving towards Wilson except for Wilson's own statement, which need I remind you, compares Brown's face to that of a demon, and the boy himself to The Incredible Hulk.
And the very fact that there are question marks in your still simplistic hearsay version of events means that there is absolutely grounds for indictment.
I have half a feeling people saying "There really isn't enough there for an indictment" don't actually know what the word means and what the situation involves.
And it'd only be comparable to a "Witch Hunt" if that phrase had historically been reserved for situations in which a populace demands that rule of law be applied to actual witches flying around and killing people with their government-supplied wands with impunity.
So, I'm not sure if I've got the facts right but isn't this what basically happened according to the physical evidence:
Brown allegedly steals from a convenience store Wilson received a call about a guy who stole from a convenience store on his way to some unrelated call.
Wilson happens to drive by, identifies the suspect and pulls up next to him
??? Brown attacks Wilson, during the struggle Brown is shot in the hand
Wilson exits the car
???
Wilson shoots Brown a bunch of times , during which Brown was moving towards Wilson without his hands up in surrender.
As far as I can tell, there isn't much grounds for an indictment, considering that all the witness testimony is at best misremembered and at worst rumors fed by the media shitstorm. I have the vague feeling that I should be disagreeing with the decision, especially in light of Ferguson's handling of everything, but it's starting to sound like a bit of a witch hunt.
Corrections about with respect to 'facts'. Nothing else is concrete enough to call a fact, and there is a bit of ambiguity about the order of the last three.
That, plus the ???? absolutely indicates enough evidence for an indictment. Doesn't mean he's going to be convicted - on evidence alone, without the other factors, the ambiguity would almost certainly provide reasonable doubt for Wilson - but definitely enough to indict.
+7
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
Seeing as the convenience store clerk did not call the police, there are questions about whether or not Wilson knew anything about the store situation.
The second set of ??? in that timeline involves Brown running 135 feet away while Wilson (illegally) continues firing at him before he stops, turns, raises his hands, and is shot dead
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
Indictment is not conviction. Questions about what happened in the shooting death of an unarmed civilian are more than sufficient evidence that hey maybe a trial would straighten this all out.
Indictment is not conviction. Questions about what happened in the shooting death of an unarmed civilian are more than sufficient evidence that hey maybe a trial would straighten this all out.
That would be an ignominious concession for the police and politicians in Ferguson.
Just to be clear I don't care too much about gun ownership. On a long enough time line that will sort itself out, seeing as you are statistically more likely to be killed by your own gun than me being killed by a bad gun owner.
So, I'm not sure if I've got the facts right but isn't this what basically happened according to the physical evidence:
Brown steals from a convenience store
Wilson received a call about a guy who stole from a convenience store on his way tofrom some unrelated call. (Page 99, 12-18. Detective testimony.) Alternate; never knew about the convenience store call. (Page 52, 14 - Page 53, 8. Sergeant testimony)
Wilson happens to drive by, identifies the suspect and pulls up next to him as he and another associate are walking in the middle of the street, then radios in a pedestrian check after being told "the fuck with what you have to say" (Page 101, 1 - Page 102, 4. Detective testimony.)
???
Brown attacks Wilson, during the struggle Brown is shot in the hand
Wilson exits the car
???
Wilson shoots Brown a bunch of times, during which Brown was moving towards Wilson without his hands up in surrender.
As far as I can tell, there isn't much grounds for an indictment, considering that all the witness testimony is at best misremembered and at worst rumors fed by the media shitstorm. I have the vague feeling that I should be disagreeing with the decision, especially in light of Ferguson's handling of everything, but it's starting to sound like a bit of a witch hunt.
So, I'm not sure if I've got the facts right but isn't this what basically happened according to the physical evidence:
Brown allegedly steals from a convenience store Wilson received a call about a guy who stole from a convenience store on his way to some unrelated call.
Wilson happens to drive by, identifies the suspect and pulls up next to him
??? Brown attacks Wilson, during the struggle Brown is shot in the hand
Wilson exits the car
???
Wilson shoots Brown a bunch of times , during which Brown was moving towards Wilson without his hands up in surrender.
As far as I can tell, there isn't much grounds for an indictment, considering that all the witness testimony is at best misremembered and at worst rumors fed by the media shitstorm. I have the vague feeling that I should be disagreeing with the decision, especially in light of Ferguson's handling of everything, but it's starting to sound like a bit of a witch hunt.
Corrections about with respect to 'facts'. Nothing else is concrete enough to call a fact, and there is a bit of ambiguity about the order of the last three.
That, plus the ???? absolutely indicates enough evidence for an indictment. Doesn't mean he's going to be convicted - on evidence alone, without the other factors, the ambiguity would almost certainly provide reasonable doubt for Wilson - but definitely enough to indict.
This bolded is my major issue here. There is A LOT of ambiguity in the minor details of how things unfolded and yet seeming rigid coherence in certain uttered phrases or emotive acts in regards to what I have read through so far.
So, I'm not sure if I've got the facts right but isn't this what basically happened according to the physical evidence:
Brown steals from a convenience store
Wilson received a call about a guy who stole from a convenience store on his way to some unrelated call.
Wilson happens to drive by, identifies the suspect and pulls up next to him
???
Brown attacks Wilson, during the struggle Brown is shot in the hand
Wilson exits the car
???
Wilson shoots Brown a bunch of times, during which Brown was moving towards Wilson without his hands up in surrender.
As far as I can tell, there isn't much grounds for an indictment, considering that all the witness testimony is at best misremembered and at worst rumors fed by the media shitstorm. I have the vague feeling that I should be disagreeing with the decision, especially in light of Ferguson's handling of everything, but it's starting to sound like a bit of a witch hunt.
Seeing as the convenience store clerk did not call the police, there are questions about whether or not Wilson knew anything about the store situation.
There is also doubt as to who initiated the altercation with the car.
There is no conclusive evidence that Brown was moving towards Wilson except for Wilson's own statement, which need I remind you, compares Brown's face to that of a demon, and the boy himself to The Incredible Hulk.
And the very fact that there are question marks in your still simplistic hearsay version of events means that there is absolutely grounds for indictment.
I have half a feeling people saying "There really isn't enough there for an indictment" don't actually know what the word means and what the situation involves.
And it'd only be comparable to a "Witch Hunt" if that phrase had historically been reserved for situations in which a populace demands that rule of law be applied to actual witches flying around and killing people with their government-supplied wands with impunity.
The dispatch transcript released shows that he did know about the robbery, and that was his reason for approaching. I'm trying to only take into account actual evidence and not Wilson's own testimony, for obvious reasons.
Wilson's bruises and the autopsy report are consistent with what Wilson said happened in the car, although Wilson could have said something to provoke Brown.
It would be a stretch to say it was proven Brown was moving towards Wilson, but we know he was facing Wilson, did not have his hands up in surrender, and was either charging him or was falling when he was shot in the head.
The question marks are where there are holes in the story that have so far only been filled with witness testimony (which has been unreliable) or Wilson's testimony (which isn't really worth anything). They also can't really change the facts of the case, which are that Brown assaulted a police officer while fleeing a robbery. Police shooting and killing in such circumstances don't get indicted.
Maybe witch hunt isn't the right term, but there sure are a lot of people convinced Wilson shot Brown in cold blood without giving him the benefit of the doubt or reviewing all the evidence. (Which is understandable, since racial tensions have been building and police treatment of minorities have been historically appalling)
EDIT: I have to leave soon so I don't have time to find the Sergeant's testimony,so I'll assume you're right. What was going on with the dispatch call then?
So, I'm not sure if I've got the facts right but isn't this what basically happened according to the physical evidence:
Brown steals from a convenience store
Wilson received a call about a guy who stole from a convenience store on his way to some unrelated call.
Wilson happens to drive by, identifies the suspect and pulls up next to him
???
Brown attacks Wilson, during the struggle Brown is shot in the hand
Wilson exits the car
???
Wilson shoots Brown a bunch of times, during which Brown was moving towards Wilson without his hands up in surrender.
As far as I can tell, there isn't much grounds for an indictment, considering that all the witness testimony is at best misremembered and at worst rumors fed by the media shitstorm. I have the vague feeling that I should be disagreeing with the decision, especially in light of Ferguson's handling of everything, but it's starting to sound like a bit of a witch hunt.
Seeing as the convenience store clerk did not call the police, there are questions about whether or not Wilson knew anything about the store situation.
There is also doubt as to who initiated the altercation with the car.
There is no conclusive evidence that Brown was moving towards Wilson except for Wilson's own statement, which need I remind you, compares Brown's face to that of a demon, and the boy himself to The Incredible Hulk.
And the very fact that there are question marks in your still simplistic hearsay version of events means that there is absolutely grounds for indictment.
I have half a feeling people saying "There really isn't enough there for an indictment" don't actually know what the word means and what the situation involves.
And it'd only be comparable to a "Witch Hunt" if that phrase had historically been reserved for situations in which a populace demands that rule of law be applied to actual witches flying around and killing people with their government-supplied wands with impunity.
The dispatch transcript released shows that he did know about the robbery, and that was his reason for approaching. I'm trying to only take into account actual evidence and not Wilson's own testimony, for obvious reasons.
Wilson's bruises and the autopsy report are consistent with what Wilson said happened in the car, although Wilson could have said something to provoke Brown.
It would be a stretch to say it was proven Brown was moving towards Wilson, but we know he was facing Wilson, did not have his hands up in surrender, and was either charging him or was falling when he was shot in the head.
The question marks are where there are holes in the story that have so far only been filled with witness testimony (which has been unreliable) or Wilson's testimony (which isn't really worth anything). They also can't really change the facts of the case, which are that Brown assaulted a police officer while fleeing a robbery. Police shooting and killing in such circumstances don't get indicted.
Maybe witch hunt isn't the right term, but there sure are a lot of people convinced Wilson shot Brown in cold blood without giving him the benefit of the doubt or reviewing all the evidence. (Which is understandable, since racial tensions have been building and police treatment of minorities have been historically appalling)
This is the south we are talking about, they are not above it.
Fun fact! Missouri is not part of the South and gave almost 3x as many soldiers to the U.S. than to the traitors in the Civil War. So shove it.
Fingers crossed that the Justice Department finishes its investigations (shooting and police force) soon, but I'm not betting on it since they still haven't finished Zimmerman's investigation.
Fun fact! The delineation of states, north/south, has less to do with their official voted side on the civil war and more to do with their status as slave or free. Which is one reason why the Confederacy recognized Missouri as a seceding state in 1861. And why it had strong guerrilla resistance throughout and after the war!
A combined force of over 12,000 Confederate soldiers, Arkansas State Troops, and Missouri State Guardsmen under Confederate Brigadier Ben McCulloch fought approximately 5,400 Federals in a punishing six hour battle.
See the bolded name? Wonder if Robert McCulloch, the attorney I believe purposefully presented the case terribly to the GJ, has any relation.
Since the man never lived in Missouri, I'd imagine no. Seriously, dude, why would you even post something like that?
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
- John Stuart Mill
+1
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
Were there any fatalities last night? Businesses and infrastructure can be rebuilt, people, not so much.
Not that I know of
Well, that's something at least.
More than anything else, I want for people to pay attention to this. Even if the rioting and protesting stopped tonight, there's a situation in Ferguson, MO that desperately needs to be not just scrutinized, but repaired.
0
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
Were there any fatalities last night? Businesses and infrastructure can be rebuilt, people, not so much.
Not that I know of
Well, that's something at least.
More than anything else, I want for people to pay attention to this. Even if the rioting and protesting stopped tonight, there's a situation in Ferguson, MO that desperately needs to be not just scrutinized, but repaired.
I'd be very surprised if things didn't pick up again tonight.
I'm hoping they pick up in a peaceful way though.
0
Options
SwissLionWe are beside ourselves!Registered Userregular
Seeing as the convenience store clerk did not call the police, there are questions about whether or not Wilson knew anything about the store situation.
The police were called. That isn't in dispute.
I didn't actually dispute that. But fair point in a roundabout way? A bystander called the police after the altercation in the store. Not the owner or any employees.
0
Options
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
Wilson’s case was heard in state court, not federal, so the numbers aren’t directly comparable. Unlike in federal court, most states, including Missouri, allow prosecutors to bring charges via a preliminary hearing in front of a judge instead of through a grand jury indictment. That means many routine cases never go before a grand jury. Still, legal experts agree that, at any level, it is extremely rare for prosecutors to fail to win an indictment.
“If the prosecutor wants an indictment and doesn’t get one, something has gone horribly wrong,” said Andrew D. Leipold, a University of Illinois law professor who has written critically about grand juries. “It just doesn’t happen.”
3DS: 2165 - 6538 - 3417
NNID: Hakkekage
+12
Options
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
The next paragraph in that is the really depressing part, no matter what your private opinions on racial politics is:
Cases involving police shootings, however, appear to be an exception. As my colleague Reuben Fischer-Baum has written, we don’t have good data on officer-involved killings. But newspaper accounts suggest, grand juries frequently decline to indict law-enforcement officials. A recent Houston Chronicle investigation found that “police have been nearly immune from criminal charges in shootings” in Houston and other large cities in recent years. In Harris County, Texas, for example, grand juries haven’t indicted a Houston police officer since 2004; in Dallas, grand juries reviewed 81 shootings between 2008 and 2012 and returned just one indictment. Separate research by Bowling Green State University criminologist Philip Stinson has found that officers are rarely charged in on-duty killings, although it didn’t look at grand jury indictments specifically.
To that same end Malcom X was successful. MLK is appreciated more because of the peaceful protesting but without the closed fist open hand nature of the civil rights movement nothing would of been done.
People say things like this a lot, but there is no way to actually know if the violence was necessary or even helpful in achieving success. I am skeptical of pretty much every claim that a violent protest is responsible for change, outside of revolution.
You know that this can just as easily be turned around, right? You may be sceptical that violent protest contributed to change, someone else might be sceptical that peaceful protest on its own is responsible for change. In themselves, those are opinions, or even beliefs, not arguments. Or has empirical research been made into the extent to which peaceful protest made a difference?
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
Were there any fatalities last night? Businesses and infrastructure can be rebuilt, people, not so much.
Not that I know of
Well, that's something at least.
More than anything else, I want for people to pay attention to this. Even if the rioting and protesting stopped tonight, there's a situation in Ferguson, MO that desperately needs to be not just scrutinized, but repaired.
I dunno so far all I see on facebook is talk of thugs and how the police are pretty much saints for what they do. I am unsure if there is a fence that many people can sit on for these types of issues.
The next paragraph in that is the really depressing part, no matter what your private opinions on racial politics is:
Cases involving police shootings, however, appear to be an exception. As my colleague Reuben Fischer-Baum has written, we don’t have good data on officer-involved killings. But newspaper accounts suggest, grand juries frequently decline to indict law-enforcement officials. A recent Houston Chronicle investigation found that “police have been nearly immune from criminal charges in shootings” in Houston and other large cities in recent years. In Harris County, Texas, for example, grand juries haven’t indicted a Houston police officer since 2004; in Dallas, grand juries reviewed 81 shootings between 2008 and 2012 and returned just one indictment. Separate research by Bowling Green State University criminologist Philip Stinson has found that officers are rarely charged in on-duty killings, although it didn’t look at grand jury indictments specifically.
I don't have some grand point to make on this, and I'm not suggesting we do so, but I wonder how often indictments would be brought against police officers who shot people under dubious circumstances if the prosecution was only allowed to detail the events of the incident at first, and not reveal that the shooter was an officer until the end of the hearings.
The next paragraph in that is the really depressing part, no matter what your private opinions on racial politics is:
Cases involving police shootings, however, appear to be an exception. As my colleague Reuben Fischer-Baum has written, we don’t have good data on officer-involved killings. But newspaper accounts suggest, grand juries frequently decline to indict law-enforcement officials. A recent Houston Chronicle investigation found that “police have been nearly immune from criminal charges in shootings” in Houston and other large cities in recent years. In Harris County, Texas, for example, grand juries haven’t indicted a Houston police officer since 2004; in Dallas, grand juries reviewed 81 shootings between 2008 and 2012 and returned just one indictment. Separate research by Bowling Green State University criminologist Philip Stinson has found that officers are rarely charged in on-duty killings, although it didn’t look at grand jury indictments specifically.
I don't have some grand point to make on this, and I'm not suggesting we do so, but I wonder how often indictments would be brought against police officers who shot people under dubious circumstances if the prosecution was only allowed to detail the events of the incident at first, and not reveal that the shooter was an officer until the end of the hearings.
The problem is that police really do operate under different rules w.r.t use of force than regular citizens. They are empowered by law to make arrests and detain people in what would be considered unlawful imprisonment if done by anyone else. And they're allowed to use lethal force under broader circumstances.
The big problems with cops not being indicted are the public perception that they are the "good guys" and thus their word has more value than anyone else's, even when they have every reason to lie to save their own ass, and conflict of interest by the prosecution.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
0
Options
SwissLionWe are beside ourselves!Registered Userregular
The dispatch transcript released shows that he did know about the robbery, and that was his reason for approaching. I'm trying to only take into account actual evidence and not Wilson's own testimony, for obvious reasons.
Wilson's bruises and the autopsy report are consistent with what Wilson said happened in the car, although Wilson could have said something to provoke Brown.
[...]
EDIT: I have to leave soon so I don't have time to find the Sergeant's testimony,so I'll assume you're right. What was going on with the dispatch call then?
And the bruises and shoddy autopsy are only really consistent with the accepted fact that there was some kind of altercation. We do not know how it began or how it transpired.
0
Options
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
The next paragraph in that is the really depressing part, no matter what your private opinions on racial politics is:
Cases involving police shootings, however, appear to be an exception. As my colleague Reuben Fischer-Baum has written, we don’t have good data on officer-involved killings. But newspaper accounts suggest, grand juries frequently decline to indict law-enforcement officials. A recent Houston Chronicle investigation found that “police have been nearly immune from criminal charges in shootings” in Houston and other large cities in recent years. In Harris County, Texas, for example, grand juries haven’t indicted a Houston police officer since 2004; in Dallas, grand juries reviewed 81 shootings between 2008 and 2012 and returned just one indictment. Separate research by Bowling Green State University criminologist Philip Stinson has found that officers are rarely charged in on-duty killings, although it didn’t look at grand jury indictments specifically.
I don't have some grand point to make on this, and I'm not suggesting we do so, but I wonder how often indictments would be brought against police officers who shot people under dubious circumstances if the prosecution was only allowed to detail the events of the incident at first, and not reveal that the shooter was an officer until the end of the hearings.
I think it would become fairly obvious in context.
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratorMod Emeritus
The next paragraph in that is the really depressing part, no matter what your private opinions on racial politics is:
Cases involving police shootings, however, appear to be an exception. As my colleague Reuben Fischer-Baum has written, we don’t have good data on officer-involved killings. But newspaper accounts suggest, grand juries frequently decline to indict law-enforcement officials. A recent Houston Chronicle investigation found that “police have been nearly immune from criminal charges in shootings” in Houston and other large cities in recent years. In Harris County, Texas, for example, grand juries haven’t indicted a Houston police officer since 2004; in Dallas, grand juries reviewed 81 shootings between 2008 and 2012 and returned just one indictment. Separate research by Bowling Green State University criminologist Philip Stinson has found that officers are rarely charged in on-duty killings, although it didn’t look at grand jury indictments specifically.
I don't have some grand point to make on this, and I'm not suggesting we do so, but I wonder how often indictments would be brought against police officers who shot people under dubious circumstances if the prosecution was only allowed to detail the events of the incident at first, and not reveal that the shooter was an officer until the end of the hearings.
it's pretty critical context
like, i am a big advocate of increased oversight and accountability for police, but leaving out the context that the shooter was a police officer in ostensible pursuit of her duties doesn't do anyone any favors.
The next paragraph in that is the really depressing part, no matter what your private opinions on racial politics is:
Cases involving police shootings, however, appear to be an exception. As my colleague Reuben Fischer-Baum has written, we don’t have good data on officer-involved killings. But newspaper accounts suggest, grand juries frequently decline to indict law-enforcement officials. A recent Houston Chronicle investigation found that “police have been nearly immune from criminal charges in shootings” in Houston and other large cities in recent years. In Harris County, Texas, for example, grand juries haven’t indicted a Houston police officer since 2004; in Dallas, grand juries reviewed 81 shootings between 2008 and 2012 and returned just one indictment. Separate research by Bowling Green State University criminologist Philip Stinson has found that officers are rarely charged in on-duty killings, although it didn’t look at grand jury indictments specifically.
I don't have some grand point to make on this, and I'm not suggesting we do so, but I wonder how often indictments would be brought against police officers who shot people under dubious circumstances if the prosecution was only allowed to detail the events of the incident at first, and not reveal that the shooter was an officer until the end of the hearings.
The problem is that police really do operate under different rules w.r.t use of force than regular citizens. They are empowered by law to make arrests and detain people in what would be considered unlawful imprisonment if done by anyone else. And they're allowed to use lethal force under broader circumstances.
The big problems with cops not being indicted are the public perception that they are the "good guys" and thus their word has more value than anyone else's, even when they have every reason to lie to save their own ass, and conflict of interest by the prosecution.
Well, the purpose of my thought experiment was what if, instead of coloring all the description of events that follow an awareness that it was done by a cop, we tell people exactly what happened and let the events sink into their consciousness, and then tell them a cop did it.
I suspect most people who have a boner for police authority would probably immediately then bestow the benefit of the doubt upon the cop, but perhaps there are some who would not have listened to the events with a critical ear knowing who was involved that would listen if they did not, and perhaps they would be troubled enough to vote for indictment even after learning that fact.
Reading the testimony, I'm at the interview with the FBI agent (pg. 157) — Just to clarify something with regards to questions regarding Wilson's background, hasn't it come up that he was formerly part of a department that was dissolved due to some measure of incompetence? If so, why wouldn't that come up when reviewing his background?
Posts
Really depressing. This is the status quo and I'm pretty sure nothing much is going to change in our lifetimes.
Wilson did not actually know about the convenience store robbery at the time he pulled up to shoot Brown for jaywalking.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
History unfortunately is not as kind as your opinion.
Seeing as the convenience store clerk did not call the police, there are questions about whether or not Wilson knew anything about the store situation.
There is also doubt as to who initiated the altercation with the car.
There is no conclusive evidence that Brown was moving towards Wilson except for Wilson's own statement, which need I remind you, compares Brown's face to that of a demon, and the boy himself to The Incredible Hulk.
And the very fact that there are question marks in your still simplistic hearsay version of events means that there is absolutely grounds for indictment.
I have half a feeling people saying "There really isn't enough there for an indictment" don't actually know what the word means and what the situation involves.
And it'd only be comparable to a "Witch Hunt" if that phrase had historically been reserved for situations in which a populace demands that rule of law be applied to actual witches flying around and killing people with their government-supplied wands with impunity.
Corrections about with respect to 'facts'. Nothing else is concrete enough to call a fact, and there is a bit of ambiguity about the order of the last three.
That, plus the ???? absolutely indicates enough evidence for an indictment. Doesn't mean he's going to be convicted - on evidence alone, without the other factors, the ambiguity would almost certainly provide reasonable doubt for Wilson - but definitely enough to indict.
The police were called. That isn't in dispute.
That would be an ignominious concession for the police and politicians in Ferguson.
I think you mean morons, not guns?
Guns don't kill people they are just really effective paper weights.
This bolded is my major issue here. There is A LOT of ambiguity in the minor details of how things unfolded and yet seeming rigid coherence in certain uttered phrases or emotive acts in regards to what I have read through so far.
Ugh.
Not liking this one bit.
FFXIV - Milliardo Beoulve/Sargatanas
Registered just for the Mass Effect threads | Steam: click ^^^ | Origin: curlyhairedboy
\
NNID: Hakkekage
The dispatch transcript released shows that he did know about the robbery, and that was his reason for approaching. I'm trying to only take into account actual evidence and not Wilson's own testimony, for obvious reasons.
Wilson's bruises and the autopsy report are consistent with what Wilson said happened in the car, although Wilson could have said something to provoke Brown.
It would be a stretch to say it was proven Brown was moving towards Wilson, but we know he was facing Wilson, did not have his hands up in surrender, and was either charging him or was falling when he was shot in the head.
The question marks are where there are holes in the story that have so far only been filled with witness testimony (which has been unreliable) or Wilson's testimony (which isn't really worth anything). They also can't really change the facts of the case, which are that Brown assaulted a police officer while fleeing a robbery. Police shooting and killing in such circumstances don't get indicted.
Maybe witch hunt isn't the right term, but there sure are a lot of people convinced Wilson shot Brown in cold blood without giving him the benefit of the doubt or reviewing all the evidence. (Which is understandable, since racial tensions have been building and police treatment of minorities have been historically appalling)
EDIT: I have to leave soon so I don't have time to find the Sergeant's testimony,so I'll assume you're right. What was going on with the dispatch call then?
FFXIV - Milliardo Beoulve/Sargatanas
Except this wasn't a Federal Grand Jury.
There is nothing worse than an uninformed opinion
Since the man never lived in Missouri, I'd imagine no. Seriously, dude, why would you even post something like that?
- John Stuart Mill
Not that I know of
Well, that's something at least.
More than anything else, I want for people to pay attention to this. Even if the rioting and protesting stopped tonight, there's a situation in Ferguson, MO that desperately needs to be not just scrutinized, but repaired.
I'd be very surprised if things didn't pick up again tonight.
I'm hoping they pick up in a peaceful way though.
I didn't actually dispute that. But fair point in a roundabout way? A bystander called the police after the altercation in the store. Not the owner or any employees.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/
NNID: Hakkekage
NNID: Hakkekage
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
I dunno so far all I see on facebook is talk of thugs and how the police are pretty much saints for what they do. I am unsure if there is a fence that many people can sit on for these types of issues.
I don't have some grand point to make on this, and I'm not suggesting we do so, but I wonder how often indictments would be brought against police officers who shot people under dubious circumstances if the prosecution was only allowed to detail the events of the incident at first, and not reveal that the shooter was an officer until the end of the hearings.
The problem is that police really do operate under different rules w.r.t use of force than regular citizens. They are empowered by law to make arrests and detain people in what would be considered unlawful imprisonment if done by anyone else. And they're allowed to use lethal force under broader circumstances.
The big problems with cops not being indicted are the public perception that they are the "good guys" and thus their word has more value than anyone else's, even when they have every reason to lie to save their own ass, and conflict of interest by the prosecution.
I'm simply going off of the Ferguson Police Chief's Statement on the matter
And the bruises and shoddy autopsy are only really consistent with the accepted fact that there was some kind of altercation. We do not know how it began or how it transpired.
I think it would become fairly obvious in context.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
it's pretty critical context
like, i am a big advocate of increased oversight and accountability for police, but leaving out the context that the shooter was a police officer in ostensible pursuit of her duties doesn't do anyone any favors.
Well, the purpose of my thought experiment was what if, instead of coloring all the description of events that follow an awareness that it was done by a cop, we tell people exactly what happened and let the events sink into their consciousness, and then tell them a cop did it.
I suspect most people who have a boner for police authority would probably immediately then bestow the benefit of the doubt upon the cop, but perhaps there are some who would not have listened to the events with a critical ear knowing who was involved that would listen if they did not, and perhaps they would be troubled enough to vote for indictment even after learning that fact.
Just in case any of you need a refresher on the whole thing from start to present