Ferguson, MO

[zyxt9]

The fact that you're asking this is a pretty good indicator that you're going beyond just looking at the evidence. We don't know the time from the first shot to the last shot. It could have been 2 second, it could have been 20. We don't know. Why do you think a pause can't be more than 1 second?

What testimony are you relying on? I posted the most suggestive thing I saw in a set of excerpts selected by a news organization, what have you found?

We know it wasn't 2 seconds, right? Near impossible to fire 10 rounds in 10 seconds and actually hit the target. We also know it wasn't 20 seconds, right? Eyewitness testimony would have included something about the shots being taken were not in rapid succession at some point. One shot every 2 seconds??? Come on Gulo, you are really trying to stretch the evidence by trying to claim that. I stated my data has a 90% chance of being accurate, you are trying to push it into the 10%. Fine. Answer this: at what rate of speed is it acceptable for someone in Brown's situation to move toward the cop despite the gun being pointed at you? The ONLY defense for Brown's actions is to determine he was moving so slowly as to not present a threat. What rate of speed would that be? Even 1'/sec is a threat, Gulo.

I'm using what you have posted. You said it appears there is a pause. For all we know, there may NOT have been a pause. You were the one to say it appears there was a pause.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Ummm...reality. Where do you get your's? Damn Gulo, Wilson was 100% justified in shooting this guy. 100%. Never should we expect someone in his situation to not shoot. 20' of ground covered...Brown was a threat. Period.

What expectation do you think I'm pushing? I'm saying there's uncertainty and a lack of evidence there. You're the one claiming your position is supported by physical evidence, but really, you're making assumptions about the rate of fire and pauses based on witness testimony that you haven't quoted yet and a set of expectations of this guy's shooting accuracy.

 

[zyxt9]

So you're good with the difference in the indictment rate of policy officers and everyone else. Prosecutors arguing in defense of the person they are prosecuting makes sense and you don't see a conflict of interest.

Where did I say that? I said in the Wilson case, no cop should ever be prosecuted in that exact situation.

I've posted that in the other shootings on this board that the opposite should happen, that those cops deserve to at a minimum go before a trial jury, and IMO should be in jail for negligence at best.

Wilson did nothing wrong.

I fail to understand why THIS case is the one being focused on when so many more important and justifiable cases are present. Why focus so hard on this one when the cop was justified in the shooting?

 

[Gulo Blue]

We know it wasn't 2 seconds, right? Near impossible to fire 10 rounds in 10 seconds and actually hit the target. We also know it wasn't 20 seconds, right? Eyewitness testimony would have included something about the shots being taken were not in rapid succession at some point. One shot every 2 seconds??? Come on Gulo, you are really trying to stretch the evidence by trying to claim that. I stated my data has a 90% chance of being accurate, you are trying to push it into the 10%. Fine. Answer this: at what rate of speed is it acceptable for someone in Brown's situation to move toward the cop despite the gun being pointed at you? The ONLY defense for Brown's actions is to determine he was moving so slowly as to not present a threat. What rate of speed would that be? Even 1'/sec is a threat, Gulo.

I'm using what you have posted. You said it appears there is a pause. For all we know, there may NOT have been a pause. You were the one to say it appears there was a pause.

There might not have been a pause. And I'm not arguing about what rate constitutes a charge. I'm questioning your assertion about your position being based on physical evidence. I wasn't at 1st. At first I thought I had missed something because when I looked at it, I didn't see anything that let me know how quickly Brown was moving. Back when I saw that diagram I posted, I was specifically looking for something about how quickly Wilson was shooting because that question was on my mind.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Where did I say that? I said in the Wilson case, no cop should ever be prosecuted in that exact situation.

I've posted that in the other shootings on this board that the opposite should happen, that those cops deserve to at a minimum go before a trial jury, and IMO should be in jail for negligence at best.

Wilson did nothing wrong.

I fail to understand why THIS case is the one being focused on when so many more important and justifiable cases are present. Why focus so hard on this one when the cop was justified in the shooting?

If the prosecutor makes that argument to the grand jury, he's defending the guy he's supposed to be prosecuting. If that's what prosecutors are supposed to do, then fine, but indictment rates suggest to me that they typically don't. If you're planning on defending the guy, don't prosecute to begin with.

 

[zyxt9]

If the prosecutor makes that argument to the grand jury, he's defending the guy he's supposed to be prosecuting. If that's what prosecutors are supposed to do, then fine, but indictment rates suggest to me that they typically don't. If you're planning on defending the guy, don't prosecute to begin with.

Well IMO it should never have even gone before a GJ, and only did so due to the outside pressures. Prosecutor would never have pursued even the GJ but was forced into it by public pressures.

Now, should he have done his job without defending the defendant, absolutely. His job was to prosecute regardless of personal beliefs or evidence contrary to guilt, just like a defense attorney must defend their client regardless of evidence of guilt or innocence.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Well IMO it should never have even gone before a GJ, and only did so due to the outside pressures. Prosecutor would never have pursued even the GJ but was forced into it by public pressures.

Now, should he have done his job without defending the defendant, absolutely. His job was to prosecute regardless of personal beliefs or evidence contrary to guilt, just like a defense attorney must defend their client regardless of evidence of guilt or innocence.

According to findlaw.com, grand jury proceedings don't involve a judge or a defense lawyer, it's just the prosecutor and the jury members and all the prosecutor has to do is convince a supermajority of the jury members that there was probably cause. Probably cause is a lower standard of proof.

From wikipedia:

In the criminal context, the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1 (1989), determined that probable cause requires "a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found" in deciding whether Drug Enforcement Administration agents had a reason to execute a search. Courts vary when determining what constitutes a "fair probability": some[who?] say 30%, others 40%, others 51%.

This setup, where there's a prosecutor, no defense lawyer, and a low standard of proof has resulted in over 99.993% of cases going before a grand jury resulting in an indictment in federal court.

538.com pointed out that the numbers would be different for state courts, but that non-indictments are still "extremely rare" at any level. Police shooting are an exception to this rule. Good stats aren't available because this stuff isn't reported, but surveying the cases that made newspapers revealed that officers are rarely charged (which is to be expected) and when they are, they rarely yield an indictment. 1 out of 81 cases in Dallas from 2008-2012 for example. That's a staggering difference. 99.99% for non-officers vs something in the ballpark of 1.2% for officers.

 

[Michchamp]

According to findlaw.com, grand jury proceedings don't involve a judge or a defense lawyer, it's just the prosecutor and the jury members and all the prosecutor has to do is convince a supermajority of the jury members that there was probably cause. Probably cause is a lower standard of proof.

From wikipedia:

This setup, where there's a prosecutor, no defense lawyer, and a low standard of proof has resulted in over 99.993% of cases going before a grand jury resulting in an indictment in federal court.

538.com pointed out that the numbers would be different for state courts, but that non-indictments are still "extremely rare" at any level. Police shooting are an exception to this rule. Good stats aren't available because this stuff isn't reported, but surveying the cases that made newspapers revealed that officers are rarely charged (which is to be expected) and when they are, they rarely yield an indictment. 1 out of 81 cases in Dallas from 2008-2012 for example. That's a staggering difference. 99.99% for non-officers vs something in the ballpark of 1.2% for officers.

I said all that in post #438.

 

[Michchamp]

Well IMO it should never have even gone before a GJ, and only did so due to the outside pressures. Prosecutor would never have pursued even the GJ but was forced into it by public pressures.

Now, should he have done his job without defending the defendant, absolutely. His job was to prosecute regardless of personal beliefs or evidence contrary to guilt, just like a defense attorney must defend their client regardless of evidence of guilt or innocence.

this is wacky... the prosecutor decides to charge a defendant, or take it before a grand jury... but the prosecution is often (if not always) in the tank for the police. Had he done his job without defending the defendant, he probably should've just charged him with murder... but he was biased in favor of the police, so he used a grand jury (with plenty of favorable leaks to the press...) to whitewash the officer's actions.

If the matter is as cut and dry as you claim (based on your own made up "facts" and the officer's account) he has nothing to worry about, right? he'll definitely be acquitted.

Even IF Brown attacked the officer and the shooting was justified as self defense, this is still bad policing... no mere, warrantless traffic stop should result in a shooting. The people were right to be pissed off, and as much of America is finally realizing, events like this shooting don't happen in a vacuum; there's a continuous pattern of discrimination and harassment that finally blows up when something like this happens.

 

[zyxt9]

People should be pissed about the two Ohio shootings and the NYC death, all 3 of those deserve to be sent to trial.

Even if Brown had not stolen the cigars and Wilson had acted overly aggressive without theft, if situation results in Brown assaulting the much smaller officer, then runs, stops, and comes back toward the cop, the shooting is justified by the cop.

There are processes for reporting cops who are too aggressive. Friend could record it on cell, or other witnesses. Enough people file a complaint, go ahead and prosecute. The moment you demonstrate aggression against the cop though, all bets are off. You assault the cop, at a minimum you go to jail. You move toward the cop who has ordered you to stop and has drawn his gun on you, you are gambling with your life.

We need more prosecution against bad cops, definitely. But cops deserve the right to defend themselves, including using lethal force. Brown moved toward a cop he had assaulted, and Wilson did what any cop would do. He did not deserve the media backlash nor feel pressure to resign. The riots were unjustified. It was a good shoot.

Now, the FPD did a horrific job in providing the evidence to support Wilson, while the MSM got everyone lathered up into a riotous state. Those I have issue with and those parties did nothing to calm things down, but Wilson still was justified in his shooting of Brown due to Brown's actions.

 

[zyxt9]

Consider the Crawford situation, the guy did absolutely nothing to deserve being killed. How THAT doesn't go to at least three trials, one vs police, one vs 911 caller, one vs Walmart... those trials are a must. Not having any of those three trials deserves an uprising.

The 12 year old kid, that cop should be placed on desk duty for life at best. Sure the gun had its toy ID tip removed, but the actions of those two cops were too aggressive and those were piss poor tactics they used even on their approach, let alone jumping out with guns blazing like that.

NYC... that dude didn't deserve to be wrestled to the ground, he had not made any remotely aggressive moves against the cops. That deserved to go to trial.

Wilson, it was a good shoot, no trial is the correct decision.

 

[Thumb]

If you say Wilson was a good shoot/justified/what any cop would have done a million times will you finally convince yourself?

 

[Michchamp]

Now even the jackass prosecutor in Ferguson admits he knew "some witnesses" were lying. He knowingly put perjurors on the stand...

this guy is a disgrace. the MO bar should come done hard on his ass.

 

[Mitchrapp]

Now even the jackass prosecutor in Ferguson admits he knew "some witnesses" were lying. He knowingly put perjurors on the stand...

this guy is a disgrace. the MO bar should come done hard on his ass.

I remember when the verdict came down and he was on TV he said 'Some witnesses were lying." Maybe he didn't mean his own I don't know. But I don't think its a shock to anyone that some witnesses were lying..

 

[Thumb]

Wouldn't surprise me if this was knowingly done on purpose so that if the Grand Jury had ruled the other way, there would have a reason to get the indictment thrown out by a judge.

 

[tigersofjustice]

I remember when the verdict came down and he was on TV he said 'Some witnesses were lying." Maybe he didn't mean his own I don't know. But I don't think its a shock to anyone that some witnesses were lying..

They are all his own. The whole purpose of the proceeding is that they are unchallenged by defense attorneys and defense witnesses.

 

[Mitchrapp]

They are all his own. The whole purpose of the proceeding is that they are unchallenged by defense attorneys and defense witnesses.

Yeah but I think some that were caught lying were lying for Brown not for the cop. Others were probably lying for the cop. So in the end who knows what the fk went down..

 

[Michchamp]

Wouldn't surprise me if this was knowingly done on purpose so that if the Grand Jury had ruled the other way, there would have a reason to get the indictment thrown out by a judge.

I don't believe it would be necessary to throw anything out. The DA could just say "well they voted to indict, but my office isn't going to pursue charges"

It was apparently rigged enough to prevent it from even getting to that point.

 

[Mitchrapp]

I think rigged is a bit strong. Outside the black community and a few people here..I don't see a jury, this one or others voting to indict a police officer after he was attacked. Even if they thought he could have acted differently inditing a police officer after some guy, robbed a store - reached in the car and hit police officer .. it wasn't going to happen.

 

[Thumb]

I don't believe it would be necessary to throw anything out. The DA could just say "well they voted to indict, but my office isn't going to pursue charges"

It was apparently rigged enough to prevent it from even getting to that point.

The DA could, but then have he would have no deniability when the riots started. And need to sleep with an M1A1 tank under his pillow at night.

If a judge threw it out for lack of evidence based off lying/incorrect witness testimony, the prosecutor can always just shrug for the cameras and say at least he tried.