# Governor calls in National Guard ahead of grand jury decision in Ferguson shooting



## Explorer (Nov 17, 2014)

I'd previously said that I suspected that the officer wouldn't be indicted for the Ferguson shooting. The grand jury decision about whether the officer will be charged is coming soon.

And in anticipation of possible violence after that decision comes out, the governor has called in the National Guard. 

National Guard called in ahead of Ferguson grand jury decision - CBS News

I had a weird set of thoughts about this, and I don't know how to feel about my train of thought.

Is this some strange form of racism, where it's assumed that some elements in the community are completely unable to hold back their violent tendencies?

Or is it a valid recognition that some elements of the community are unable to protest peacefully? 

Was this decision reasonable or not? I just don't know, but it's sad that I might do the same if preventing such violence was my responsibility. 

Anyone else have either strong ambivalence about this, or strong feelings one way or another about the National Guard decision?


----------



## asher (Nov 17, 2014)

The timing makes it look suspect or paranoid. I can't say whether Nixon actually knows the verdict ahead of time or not, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if there's no indictment, which would (and rightfully should) cause a renewed wave of protesting. And we've seen how Ferguson PD likes to handle that.

I have seen it said (I have not checked the veracity of the claim) that the SoE is required first in order to organize and call in the National Guard, which would make this more reasonable but still kinda paranoid.

I will wait and see, but I'm not holding my breath either.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Nov 18, 2014)

Good!!! We need to "beat back" (it's a figure of speech sensitive guys) these vandals and lawless heathens!!! Call in more troops I say.


----------



## AxeHappy (Nov 18, 2014)

Heathens? Really?


----------



## Captain Butterscotch (Nov 18, 2014)

Racism? Nah. If you look at it pragmatically, based on what happened during the time it all started, I think it was a good decision. If they have a peaceful protest then all the power to them. 

Also, I think that the community is a good indicator of what might happen. There are reports of shops boarding their windows and battening the hatches ahead of time. These are people directly in the community, the people that are hearing and seeing indicators of the general mood around them. No one is hoping for violence, but there is no harm in preparing for all outcomes. 

All it takes for a riots and general insanity in situations like this is for one jackass to try and start something with an officer or Guardsmen. Governor Nixon would be guilty of negligence if there wasn't at least a plan in place for something like that, imo.


----------



## flexkill (Nov 18, 2014)

AxeHappy said:


> Heathens? Really?


----------



## Sumsar (Nov 18, 2014)

Hmm in principel the protest should be peacefull, and the protesters should remember that it is not the shop owners in the community that is racist (necesarrily), so there is really no reason to try and burn down the town. On the other hand since when did peacefull protest lead to any usefull outcome? Sure you might get same vague promises from politicians that shit will change, although it will not. Nothing wrong with violent protest in my book, as long as you are violent againts the right people - modern democracy after all started as violent protest againts the kings of various European countries.


----------



## Thrawn (Nov 18, 2014)

Whilst the trouble in the area at the time of the incident makes an emergency action plan a sensible course of action, the announcement of a state of emergency feels like it's foreshadowing a decision in favor of the police-officer and is making Ferguson an even bigger target for trouble makers.


----------



## asher (Nov 18, 2014)

Yeah. It was fairly well documented that most of the actual looting and proper rioting, outside of some small clashes with police, were outside agitators...


----------



## UnderTheSign (Nov 18, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Good!!! We need to "beat back" (it's a figure of speech sensitive guys) these vandals and lawless heathens!!! Call in more troops I say.


Lawless? I don think they're calling the Guard on Ferguson PD..


----------



## Demiurge (Nov 18, 2014)

Probably a pragmatic move, but for the people who believe that the fix is in will be inclined to take this as a sign that the decision has already been made and they're not going to like it.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Nov 19, 2014)

UnderTheSign said:


> Lawless? I don think they're calling the Guard on Ferguson PD..




Good one.


Seriously though, there were outsiders piling in to the town last time just for the sole purpose of looting and stealing, not to mention the local thugs basking in the "excuse".

Peaceful protest is one thing, but we all know just how long that would/will last.
Looting, Vandalism After Vigil for Missouri Man Killed by Cop - ABC News


----------



## Xaios (Nov 20, 2014)

The kind of people who use peaceful protests as an excuse to starting looting and committing vandalism just disgust me. I remember the same thing happened in England a couple years ago when they had a very similar situation there.

However, if the officer in question doesn't get convicted and there are protests, let's hope the Guard remembers to target actual looters and not peaceful protesters.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Nov 20, 2014)

I keep reading the thread title as "*Governor calls in Latino Guard*," which makes me think of an army of cholos rolling in in olive drab lowered Impalas.


----------



## JamesM (Nov 20, 2014)

I'm home from university in St. Louis this weekend and the coming week. I say bring it on. 

Just kidding, this is saddening. There will be riots regardless of the outcome of the indictment announcement. People have already made their minds up.


----------



## Explorer (Nov 20, 2014)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> I keep reading the thread title as "*Governor calls in Latino Guard*," which makes me think of an army of cholos rolling in in olive drab lowered Impalas.


At some point, I remember being conscripted into an "army of Mexicans" fronted by JJ Rodriguez here on SS.org, due to some weird thing on another website. I think that was before the SS.org rules were changed to ban certain discussions about what happened to SS.org members on other fora.


----------



## crg123 (Nov 24, 2014)

So I guess he wasn't indicted and let off scot free 

so now this is happening: 
Ferguson live updates: City erupts as police cars burn, shots are fired - LA Times


----------



## asher (Nov 25, 2014)

Who woulda thunk.

I'm not sure I want to catch up on my blog roll tomorrow because it's going to be crazy angry. Rightfully so, mind...


----------



## MFB (Nov 25, 2014)

Simpsons nailed it years ahead of it's time, per usual


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Nov 25, 2014)

It seems that the eye-witnesses testimonies support the officer's version of events. 
The young man and his buddy scuffled with the officer for the weapon, failed, decided to flee and then tragically changed his mind and decided to not halt, but in fact charge the armed officer.
Seems unlikely that the young man would do that, but apparently that's what the witnesses testified. (and btw these were not white witnesses if it matters or not to anyone is up to them)


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams (Nov 25, 2014)

There's a bunch of kids gathered at my college campus protesting this right now too.


----------



## hairychris (Nov 25, 2014)

Even if the police & justice system round STL aren't racist, they're doing a fantastic impression of being so.

....ing up local businesses isn't great, but am not surprised that it all kicked off though.

Sigh.


----------



## Vrollin (Nov 25, 2014)

Explorer said:


> Is this some strange form of racism, where it's assumed that some elements in the community are completely unable to hold back their violent tendencies?
> 
> Or is it a valid recognition that some elements of the community are unable to protest peacefully?
> 
> ...



Only one way to look at that decision now.....

They were always going to need it though, whether or not the officer was convicted. 
Officer not convicted, crowd riots out of anger due to the belief that an injustice has been served.
Officer convicted, crowd riots out of anger due to acknowledgement that an officer has murdered someone....
They were already angry and wound up, it was inevitable, just like soccer matches celebrations gone bad, doenst matter whether you win or lose, shits gunna get ....ed up....


----------



## MikeH (Nov 25, 2014)

I'm on neither side of the verdict here, because I'm admittedly ill-informed and have stayed away from this case since it began.

But, how in the absolute fuck does rioting, looting, and burning down buildings helping the black community look more civilized and deserving of justice?


----------



## Grief (Nov 25, 2014)

What has happened to his friend who was the other suspect in the robbery? 
Will he be charged?


----------



## Emperor Guillotine (Nov 25, 2014)

MikeH said:


> But, how in the absolute fuck does rioting, looting, and burning down buildings helping the black community look more civilized and deserving of justice?


Because of these uncivilized actions, racial stereotypes are coming into play heavily here, man.







In the meantime, Bill Cosby is probably shaking his head at this.


----------



## Captain Butterscotch (Nov 25, 2014)

Everyone knew this would happen. 

The only way to fight perceived injustice is to...create actual injustice by burning down local business and buildings, looting them, and generally destroying their own community? Bunch of f4cking tacticians down there in Ferguson.


----------



## TheStig1214 (Nov 25, 2014)

Captain Butterscotch said:


> Everyone knew this would happen.
> 
> The only way to fight perceived injustice is to...create actual injustice by burning down local business and buildings, looting them, and generally destroying their own community? Bunch of f4cking tacticians down there in Ferguson.



This. So much this. Seriously, ever heard of not shitting where you eat?


----------



## fps (Nov 25, 2014)

Set the stage for a conflict, then step back and go "woah, savages" when the other side then treats it as a conflict. Classic move.


----------



## JamesM (Nov 25, 2014)

Lots of burning buildings and cars out here. The city is still on fire in places. Craziness. Maybe I should have stayed in my small college town this week.


----------



## asher (Nov 25, 2014)

> It is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that *a riot is the language of the unheard.*
> 
> -MLK



If you cannot even understand it, I'm not really sure what to say any more.


----------



## MikeH (Nov 25, 2014)

Emperor Guillotine said:


> Because of these uncivilized actions, racial stereotypes are coming into play heavily here, man.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wait. Are you saying that posting a racist meme on the internet is the equivalent of smashing windows and looting buildings? Or am I missing the point?


----------



## asher (Nov 25, 2014)

This is a rather long, but very good read about police relations with the largely black communities around St. Louis:

How municipalities in St. Louis County, Mo., profit from poverty - The Washington Post


----------



## crg123 (Nov 25, 2014)

Want to see something really ....ed up people found in those files they released to the public (They might have found it before but this is the first I'm seeing of it):






Look at the Victim and suspect. What's up with that?


----------



## asher (Nov 25, 2014)

There was a comment about that being SOP for cases with violence and officers. Will retirve when not on phone.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 25, 2014)

Honestly, the level of chaos would be much lower IMO had the local PD not continuously agitated the situation from the beginning (once the protesting started, not the shooting itself). It was the arrogance of the local PD that has escalated this whole thing to the level it is currently at. Don't get me wrong, I don't think there'd be no protesting or rioting, but there were multiple opportunities for things to possibly deescalate and they chose to go on the offensive almost every time instead. This whole thing has been one big ego trip. It doesn't matter if the police were 100% in the right from the get go, if they get aggressive so is the mob. It really isn't a complicated concept, but some people just can't get themselves out of the way to see the right path.


----------



## asher (Nov 25, 2014)

Some more craziness emerges, and some other new details.



> The distance from the front wheel of the officers SUV to Mr. Browns body was 153 feet, 9 inches, an investigator said.


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/26/u...e-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

But how the hell do you see this and not think the game is rigged? (emphasis mine)



> Enclosed is a copy of my initial autopsy report that you requested. My conclusions are based on my re-autopsy findings of August 16; on my review of Dr. autopsy report that I received on October 22; and on the police and medical examiner photographs, X-rays and microscopic slides from the first autopsy, and my examination of Mr. Browns clothing, *all of which I saw for the first time on November 12, the day before my Grand Jury testimony*, and which I continue to review.
> 
> *I have not yet been permitted to have access* to requested police crime scene photographs and reports, to the results of the forensic examination of the patrol car, to the Christian Hospital EMS report of Mr. Brown and the emergency room examination of Officer Wilson, to the ballistics information, to the results of the autopsy hand swabs and fingernail clipping examinations, and to witness statements.
> 
> For 25 years as medical examiner, 25 years as forensic pathologist for the Police, and as the forensic pathologist member of the Correction Commission Medical Review Board, I have been involved with the investigation of deaths that occur in police encounters and all deaths that occur in jails and prisons in *The above requested information is the usual information obtained to be able to correlate the autopsy findings with other information that is necessary to permit full medical evaluation of deaths such as that of Mr. Brown.*



And much more... uh... stuff, here: Read the Ferguson Grand Jury Testimony and Witness Interviews Here


----------



## asher (Nov 25, 2014)

crg123 said:


> Want to see something really ....ed up people found in those files they released to the public (They might have found it before but this is the first I'm seeing of it):
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sorry for linking to DailyKos, but:

All police shootings are "assaults on law enforcement" in Ferguson grand jury



> Q: Were you told when you initially arrived at the scene that there was some type of altercation involving an officer and the deceased?
> A: Yes, ma'am.
> Q: And that was described as an assault?
> A: Correct.
> ...


----------



## will_shred (Nov 25, 2014)

Why are people so goddamn stupid? 

Yes another police officer got away with murder and that is a horrid injustice, but I don't see how destroying community businesses is going to ameliorate the problem.


Dear Humanity: 






Sincerely, Will.


----------



## asher (Nov 25, 2014)

Because through the entire process, the PD and the city has basically given the entire community _a giant middle finger_. Ponder the MLK quote above for a second and come back to this. Read the articles. Then put yourself in their shoes.








> This is the system that this morning I am being told I have to &#8220;trust&#8221; and &#8220;put my faith in&#8221;. The one that was never meant to protect anyone who looks like me. The system that allowed Darren Wilson to walk, and arranged a public shaming of the victim and his family in a strange tirade where the county prosecutor defended the officer accused of killing an unarmed black man and ripped into the eyewitnesses as being anything but credible. The system that decided that 8 PM local time was the best time to announce the decision after supposedly sitting on that decision for a weekend. The system that took over 100 days to determine that there was no evidence worthy of even sending this case to trial. The system in that photo above, I am being told, I have to &#8220;believe in&#8221;.
> 
> You will excuse me if I withhold that benefit of the doubt. In his testimony, Wilson, a 6&#8217;4&#8243; man, referred to Mike Brown as &#8220;it&#8221;, and &#8220;a demon&#8221;. He wasn&#8217;t human. He was a thing, and there&#8217;s no penalty for shooting a thing and so this thing was shot time and time again because it had to be put down, a monster, a beast, a nightmare made flesh.
> 
> And whatever actually took place on that street that day, *it does not warrant a trial to investigate it.* That is the lesson here. Did Brown deserve the ultimate sanction, the taking of his life? We&#8217;ll never know. There&#8217;s no trial to compare the evidence, to advocate one way or another in a court of law, nothing to weigh, no due process. He wasn&#8217;t worth that. That&#8217;s what the system says.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 25, 2014)

The people who are doing the looting aren't the people who actually care about the case or society at large. They are just opportunists. They see chaos unfold in Ferguson so they take that opportunity to loot stores since they are more likely to get away with it.

That's pretty much always the case in these sort of situations. I don't think a peaceful protest is really even possible anymore and thanks to editing and 24 hour news it doesn't take long for the media to delegitimize most causes.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash (Nov 25, 2014)

MikeH said:


> But, how in the absolute fuck does rioting, looting, and burning down buildings helping the black community look more civilized and deserving of justice?


Simple, the actions of a minority, shouldn't be applied to or used to judge the majority.

Going by your logic, the actions of Varg Vikernes and Jon Nödtveidt, shows that all metal heads are homophobic, homicidal, racist maniacs.


----------



## asher (Nov 25, 2014)

MikeH said:


> ...the black community look more civilized and deserving of justice?



*Everyone is deserving of justice.*

And it doesn't matter if they're "civilized" or not.


----------



## will_shred (Nov 25, 2014)

flint757 said:


> The people who are doing the looting aren't the people who actually care about the case or society at large. They are just opportunists. They see chaos unfold in Ferguson so they take that opportunity to loot stores since they are more likely to get away with it.
> 
> That's pretty much always the case in these sort of situations. I don't think a peaceful protest is really even possible anymore and thanks to editing and 24 hour news it doesn't take long for the media to delegitimize most causes.



Thank you for reminding me of that, I'm starting to go a little mad with all the shit that's going on in todays world.


----------



## Randy (Nov 25, 2014)

flint757 said:


> I don't think a peaceful protest is really even possible anymore and thanks to editing and 24 hour news it doesn't take long for the media to delegitimize most causes.



As somebody who, in a previous life, had a really bad temper... I can't agree with the notion that the actions of a few, some or even _all_ delegitimize the original issue. If anything, the frustration from failing to communicate the issue or receive an acceptable level of recognition of your points helps to _reinforce _ your reasons for outrage. 

Looting and random acts of violence don't directly serve to help the issue but they're still an indicator. 

Occupy Wall Street was a mostly non-violent display and how did that workout? Piece by piece, the police, the mayor and the legislative powers took away more and more ability for protesters to communicate their message (no camps, no standing on this side of the street, no blocking sidewalks, etc.), continually reinforcing those measures with physical force by the police, until Occupiers were so marginalized they just fizzled out. Missouri officials tried some of those same tactics ('can't stop walking, etc.) and it shows ZERO respect for people's right to discord, even if they're acting peacefully.

Like I said, I don't think torching innocent people's cars or businesses is fair to the people suffering those things but does it illustrate outrage in a way that can't go unnoticed? Yes.


----------



## asher (Nov 25, 2014)

^In some cities (coughOaklandcough) the police cracked down on OWS _hard_. Maybe they shoulda been more... aggressive.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 25, 2014)

Randy said:


> As somebody who, in a previous life, had a really bad temper... I can't agree with the notion that the actions of a few, some or even _all_ delegitimize the original issue. If anything, the frustration from failing to communicate the issue or receive an acceptable level of recognition of your points helps to _reinforce _ your reasons for outrage.
> 
> Looting and random acts of violence don't directly serve to help the issue but they're still an indicator.
> 
> ...



I didn't mean that it deligimizes the cause for myself, but to the public at large. You're right that it is possible to have a peaceful protest still. We had a peaceful sit in last year in our state capitol as well. It just seems like a 50/50 shot on whether or not crime will occur amongst the group and the venue seems to play a large part in the amount of crime that may or may not occur. In Ferguson the protesting was occurring in the middle of the town so it was nearby a lot of businesses making it easier to do most likely (just guessing).

I definitely agree that being shutdown can just make you more infuriated. I too have anger issues and I can genuinely say it does more harm than good to let it out most of the time. While it does bring the point home it also makes people turn a deaf ear to what you're trying to bring across. That being said, if no one is listening anyhow I suppose in the mind of an upset person they might not see anything worth losing.

It seems we've pretty much all, but lost our ability to effectively protest. You either get arrested or told you can't do X, Y, Z making it damn near impossible or ineffective.


----------



## asher (Nov 25, 2014)

Don't forget the media has a HUGE hand in how things get portrayed, and can easily highlight the looting over legitimate protest and issues. This is one of the few times I'll say thank god for Twitter.

Liberal MSM my left nut.


----------



## Emperor Guillotine (Nov 25, 2014)

Just a preview thing on TV. Apparently NBC is doing an interview with officer Darren Wilson?


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Nov 25, 2014)

I can understand that when things get bad enough, sometimes violence is the only way people can get their message across. In an ideal world that wouldn't be the case, but we obviously don't live in an ideal world.

That aside, though, despite whatever MLK or anyone else had to say about it, I just can't condone the direction these riots took. Want to act out violently to protest the government? Fine. Be violent _towards the government_. Torch a courthouse. Smash the windows of a post office. Tear down street signs and traffic lights. _Don't_ destroy the livelihoods of locals who are probably _on your own goddamned side_.

Want to be a big boy and express your rage through violence? Then do it in a way that threatens big boy consequences. "I'm mad at the police, so I'm going to... erm... burn down a liquor store! Yeah! that'll show 'em!" Mad at the police? How about attacking the police station or a courthouse? Wait, that might actually have dangerous consequences? Perish the thought.

TL;DR: You need to be violent? Fine. Do it in a way that makes sense.


----------



## Emperor Guillotine (Nov 25, 2014)

Ferguson protesters be like...


----------



## MikeH (Nov 25, 2014)

JoshuaVonFlash said:


> Simple, the actions of a minority, shouldn't be applied to or used to judge the majority.
> 
> Going by your logic, the actions of Varg Vikernes and Jon Nödtveidt, shows that all metal heads are homophobic, homicidal, racist maniacs.



2 people =/= Hundreds of people. So, no. That analogy is not valid.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash (Nov 25, 2014)

MikeH said:


> 2 people =/= Hundreds of people. So, no. That analogy is not valid.


100 looters =/= millions of people, sounds valid to me.


----------



## JamesM (Nov 26, 2014)

^ They ARRESTED nearly 100 looters. There were SO many more here in St. Louis.

It's the violent and thieving looters that are ruining this for the rest of the peaceful and noble people truly trying to make change. It's a damn shame. They're only making more jaded, ignorant non-black people say "That's just what [n'word]s do." So counterproductive. 

Fun fact: a vast majority of the looters aren't even from here. A great deal of them not even from my state. Damn shame. Such potential for change.


----------



## Explorer (Nov 26, 2014)

I previously noted, as things were moving towards a grand jury, that said jury would have the benefit of hearing all the evidence in its entirety. I suspected that the dodginess of some of the witnesses would be revealed, and that things which weren't widely reported would come to light for the jury members. 

I also noted that people who had seen only the edited Rodney King incident footage were horrified, and felt the police had overreacted. However, those who saw the full recording, with King's constant attacks on the police, felt the police had done all they could to try to subdue the suspect without killing him. (And if you haven't seen the full footage and believe the police were wrong, do yourself a favor and watch it. It's a good thing to be informed, especially if one is stating strong opinions without actually having full knowledge.)

When the grand jury decided not to indict the officer, is there any possibility that they had good reason to make that decision? 

I find it interesting that the protestors refuse to consider that possibility. 

There have been protests by nearby college students, and I had a nice conversation with someone who kept insisting she knew more about the evidence than the jury members. I asked her where she had seen the full evidence presented, and she finally admitted that she hadn't. 

I asked her that question: Was there any possible set of circumstances where the evidence would show the officer acted properly? She didn't want to say yes... which was just as prejudiced an opinion as what she claimed she was protesting. She even admitted it, which was nice. 

I can't wait until the full evidence is available to the public, and then see what happens to the discussion. Given how many still make assertions about the Rodney King incident without ever educating themselves though, I suspect that the same will happen with this incident. 

Why do the work to have an informed opinion, when ignorance is spontaneous?


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash (Nov 26, 2014)

JamesM said:


> ^ They ARRESTED nearly 100 looters. There were SO many more here in St. Louis.


Be that as it may, but my point still stands.



> It's the violent and thieving looters that are ruining this for the rest of the peaceful and noble people truly trying to make change. It's a damn shame.


I agree.


----------



## MikeH (Nov 26, 2014)

JoshuaVonFlash said:


> 100 looters =/= millions of people, sounds valid to me.



When was I ever condemning every black person for the actions of these people anyways? I said that it was making the black community look bad. Not that every black person is a looter and rioter. Just as stated above, the violent ones are ruining it for the majority, which is what I was saying in my initial post.


----------



## Emperor Guillotine (Nov 26, 2014)

crg123 said:


> Want to see something really ....ed up people found in those files they released to the public (They might have found it before but this is the first I'm seeing of it):
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Weird...


----------



## JamesM (Nov 26, 2014)

^That's not Mike Brown my friend. 

Mike Brown being misidentified on social media


----------



## asher (Nov 26, 2014)

Plus it _doesn't fvcking matter_ what he looks like on social media. Kid had no juvie record in a town where *over 50% of people have warrants*.



Explorer:

1. Calling a Grand Jury for this at all is pretty unusual.
2. Evidence dumping on the jury is also extremely unusual.
3. Having the person in question testify for hours is also highly unusual.
4. No ability to fully cross-examine any witnesses.
5. Evidence dump lets in some _ridiculous_ stuff (see Witness #40 journal).
6. The police have been withholding evidence, see statements from the medical examiner.
7. They didn't even bother taking scene photos with an excuse roughly equivalent to "dog ate my homework" when we already know the body was out for *four hours*.
8. Why are you implying that only the witnesses that support Michael Brown are unreliable? If all witnesses are inherently unreliable to some extent, that should apply evenly across the board.

There's a common adage that a DA can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. Or not, as they desire, depending on how they build a case (or don't).

But most of THAT doesn't even matter that much.

An indictment is not a verdict.

It does not proclaim Darren Wilson guilty or innocent.

*It states that there is no reasonable doubt as to whether there has been a crime and it doesn't bear further investigation. Are you honestly going to tell me that's the case, given the amount of conflicting information?*

A full and proper trial may well have found Wilson innocent after giving everything the attention it deserves.


----------



## will_shred (Nov 26, 2014)

I feel like a lot of the arguments on every side of this national "debate" are mostly formed from a black and white view of the lives of African Americans. The social problems faced by black America run very, very deep and have SO many contributing factors. These people have a lot working against them, and our system has always worked against them. These riots on Ferguson have been brewing up long before this shooting, it was just the straw that broke the camels back so to speak. 

One thing that's really been bugging me is white people debating over the problems faced by black Americans. I usually try to avoid these "debates" because i'm white and live in a wealthy suburb. I don't think I have the perspective to accurately make any comments about the behavior of these people. Outside of what I know about the cycles of poverty, and the statistics that really seem to point to systemic racism in our system.

 



I also think that the fact that he wasn't even indited is what has people really raging. If he had been brought to trial and found innocent after through cross examination by a component prosecutor, than so be it. I think the fact that there won't even be a trial in such a massive case is ....ed up.

I think this is also relevant.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash (Nov 26, 2014)

MikeH said:


> When was I ever condemning every black person for the actions of these people anyways? I said that it was making the black community look bad.


Mike, the fact that you think that rioters and looters make the black community as a whole look bad is what I take issue with. As I said before black people as a whole shouldn't have to take flak for the actions of a few criminals, but they do, and it's that kind of thinking that racial profiling, laws that are unfair to blacks and minorities as a whole, and unreasonable fear/prejudice stem from. The main problem with humanity is that many of us seem to lack the ability to see things from someone else's perspective, the rioting you're seeing (not that I support it or the looting, especially the looting) is people's collective frustration with not being heard and being treated like near second class citizens everyday.


----------



## Gothic Headhunter (Nov 26, 2014)

If I may say what I think Mike was trying to get at, because this is what I believe, he was saying that by blacks rioting and looting and participating in other violent crimes, they are only making other people, such as the police, think that they are right in basically dehumanizing them. People _are_ using the actions of a few to judge the actions of many. Knowing this, why would you purposely give them more to work with? At least do what Tim said and protest in a way that makes sense.


----------



## will_shred (Nov 26, 2014)

Both of you are making perfectly valid points


----------



## asher (Nov 26, 2014)

> But the goal of criminal law is to be fair&#8212;to treat similarly situated people similarly&#8212;as well as to reach just results. McCulloch gave Wilson&#8217;s case special treatment. He turned it over to the grand jury, a rarity itself, and then used the investigation as a document dump, an approach that is virtually without precedent in the law of Missouri or anywhere else. Buried underneath every scrap of evidence McCulloch could find, the grand jury threw up its hands and said that a crime could not be proved.



How Not to Use a Grand Jury - The New Yorker


----------



## Randy (Nov 26, 2014)

Regarding the exchange between JVF and MikeH:

What irritates me and, IMO, wreaks of racism is the notion that black people are expected to 'act' a certain way to buck a stereotype or to legitimize themselves. The idea that there's rioting and that it reinforces some kind of preconception about black people is absolutely racist. 

'They' have nothing to prove to 'us'. 

People of every different racial and ethnic background have a history of rioting during periods of unrest, and in a lot of scenarios, justifiably so.


----------



## asher (Nov 26, 2014)

Randy said:


> Regarding the exchange between JVF and MikeH:
> 
> What irritates me and, IMO, wreaks of racism is the notion that black people are expected to 'act' a certain way to buck a stereotype or to legitimize themselves. The idea that there's rioting and that it reinforces some kind of preconception about black people is absolutely racist.
> 
> ...





Said it better than how I was thinking about responding.

It's not on them to make cops not dehumanize them. It's on the cops to not dehumanize other people, or it's on everyone to enact institutional change when the attitudes become entrenched in the institutions.


----------



## GizmoGardens (Nov 26, 2014)

Randy said:


> Regarding the exchange between JVF and MikeH:
> 
> What irritates me and, IMO, wreaks of racism is the notion that black people are expected to 'act' a certain way to buck a stereotype or to legitimize themselves. The idea that there's rioting and that it reinforces some kind of preconception about black people is absolutely racist.
> 
> ...



Agree 100%. For people to say 'blacks' shouldn't be rioting looting seems to me like you're not really watching what is going on. And nobody has anything to prove to anyone; everyone needs to take responsibility for their own actions and should be held accountable as such. 

Nobody should be rioting and looting. Not because it makes some group look bad, and not because it reinforces stereotypes... They shouldn't be doing it because it's fvcking wrong, no matter how anyone chooses to rationalize it. The protesters/demonstrators and rioters/looters may not be completely mutually exclusive, but arbitrarily lumping them together is only going to breed more contempt and division.


----------



## will_shred (Nov 26, 2014)

Randy said:


> Regarding the exchange between JVF and MikeH:
> 
> What irritates me and, IMO, wreaks of racism is the notion that black people are expected to 'act' a certain way to buck a stereotype or to legitimize themselves. The idea that there's rioting and that it reinforces some kind of preconception about black people is absolutely racist.
> 
> ...



The only thing I have to add to this statement is this little meme. 







Black people riot over years of systematic injustice, everybody loses their minds. White people riot over a ....ing sports team and it's business as usual.


----------



## Xaios (Nov 26, 2014)

will_shred said:


> Black people riot over years of systematic injustice, everybody loses their minds. White people riot over a ....ing sports team and it's business as usual.



Fair point, although to me that just says that more should be done to condemn the actions of sports looters.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Nov 26, 2014)

Xaios said:


> Fair point, although to me that just says that more should be done to condemn the actions of sports looters.





And why is it always the winning team's fans? Seems more sensible that the losing team's fans would be the ones getting violent.
Sports, Can be fun, but a simple game should never be turned into anything more than a simple game.


----------



## asher (Nov 26, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> And why is it always the winning team's fans? Seems more sensible that the losing team's fans would be the ones getting violent.
> Sports, Can be fun, but a simple game should never be turned into anything more than a simple game.



Oh, that happens too 

2011 Vancouver Stanley Cup riot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## crg123 (Nov 26, 2014)

This is an on ramp from I-93 to I-90 in the heart of Boston today, the day before Thanksgiving. Despite what the sign says this is a underground highway type area where people travel at 60-65 mph (It's Boston people haha) and there are plenty of twists, turns and blind spots. I'm all for protest but people are going to get killed or cause a pile up. This is ridiculous. Blocking road is one thing, but right at the corner of a highway with only 12 people is another.


----------



## MikeH (Nov 26, 2014)

Randy said:


> Regarding the exchange between JVF and MikeH:
> 
> What irritates me and, IMO, wreaks of racism is the notion that black people are expected to 'act' a certain way to buck a stereotype or to legitimize themselves. The idea that there's rioting and that it reinforces some kind of preconception about black people is absolutely racist.
> 
> ...



People seem to be taking my comment way out of context due to my wording. I understand rioting is not a "black thing". I never once claimed that it was. Nor would I ever condone rioting over a fucking sports team, or anything of the like. But in this exact instance, the rioters are predominantly shown to be black. And to say that it isn't a race thing is just flat out lying. I've seen more than one video of a group of black rioters attacking white people for just being present. Do I believe this reflects the character of the majority? Absolutely not. But has the media made this a black vs. white issue? In most cases, yes. And because of that, my comment regarding the black community was made because a large percentage of the population who see any sort of news on this case will see it as black vs. white. It's not right, but it's definitely what's happening.


----------



## Namelyguitar (Nov 26, 2014)

Let's promote World Peace!


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Nov 26, 2014)

Xaios said:


> Fair point, although to me that just says that more should be done to condemn the actions of sports looters.


 
Bingo. Isn't "two wrongs don't make a right" something pretty much _everyone's_ parents taught them?


----------



## Vrollin (Nov 27, 2014)

delete post


----------



## will_shred (Nov 27, 2014)

crg123 said:


> This is an on ramp from I-93 to I-90 in the heart of Boston today, the day before Thanksgiving. Despite what the sign says this is a underground highway type area where people travel at 60-65 mph (It's Boston people haha) and there are plenty of twists, turns and blind spots. I'm all for protest but people are going to get killed or cause a pile up. This is ridiculous. Blocking road is one thing, but right at the corner of a highway with only 12 people is another.





This is the kind of stupid shit that makes activists look bad. If one of them gets hit by a car, I honestly believe they deserve it for being SO stupid as to think blocking an interstate is a good idea.


On another note, this Furgeson fiasco has really brought the suburban racists out of the woodworks. I mean, the kind of people who are racist but they're just not self aware enough to realize it. The kind of people who honestly believe that institutional racism ended after the civil rights act was signed into law.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Nov 27, 2014)

The only thing I'll say about his whole ordeal is that I ....ing hate hipster protesters. The shitheaded dirt bags who want to capitalize on tragedy to fuel their own self worth. What the .... does blocking traffic or torching community lots do? It makes me sick that there's all sorts of forward thinking that could be done, and instead these people are standing in the roads with their thumbs up their asses. Actively push for body cameras or something. Petition, demand, act. Standing in traffic, chanting names, etc accomplishes nothing. In a few months time it's just gonna be "just another" dead black kid barely anyone speaks of. Make some efforts instead of just pointing blame, even if the blame is correctly placed.

Regardless of if Wilson was morally and/or legally right, there needs to be something in place to take as much doubt out of shit as possible. If there was a dash cam or body cam involved here, there would be much less doubt one way or the other. I just think it's depressing that another opportunity for change is being wasted, paid for with the blood of a young man, regardless of guilt or innocence.


----------



## asher (Nov 27, 2014)

Gotta change the culture. A lot of those dash cams get "bumped" when the officer gets out of the car, or body cams "don't work".

Like, they didn't even *try* to come up with good bullshit for not taking crime scene photos. Why would they do cams?


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Nov 27, 2014)

Then penalize people who "bump" them. And that crime scene thing is horse shit. I'm on my phone and can't look it up, but there WERE tons of photos taken. Just not by that one guy who deemed it unnecessary because there already were tons. Crime scene photos were taken though.

Edit: but yeah, there needs to be repercussions for people who lose or "lose" footage.

edit edit: In Volume 1, page 32, immediately after the "because the batteries died" statement, they continue questioning which is conveniently left out of the picture. 

to quote lines 1-25:



> A: No, ma'am.
> 
> Q: Why not?
> A:My battery in my camera died.
> ...


It goes on from there too, which you can read for yourself. It's not just a "pffft, I want to cover something up so I'll just tell them my batteries died" kind of thing, and I find it hilarious how that image deliberately left out the further explanation as to why pictures weren't taken by the individual. The fact that people willingly omit context/explanation is embarrassing. Even more embarrassing that people don't look into it themselves.


----------



## asher (Nov 27, 2014)

It's still a crock of horse shit reason not to do your damn job.

Especially when we already know the PD held almost everything to its chest and didn't even let the medical examiner look at anything until the day before, as already evidenced.

ed: that being said, I should be a bit more thorough, you're right.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Nov 27, 2014)

They did do their job though. The pictures were in fact taken, albeit not by the individual. The individual decided they had what they needed, and that included pictures that were readily available to them if they wanted. This person wasn't responsible for taking stock of the crime scene. All they needed was evidence on how the body was laid when they arrived, which they had, and to look at the body to determine things like how many bullet wounds. They also had methods of being able to tell if the body had been moved, which they had determined it had not.

I'm still reading through the documents, but so far this is where I'm at. I intend to read every single page of it and not hop on any form of hype train. So far, with what I've read, the only judgement I can make is that I think this guy didn't do anything out of line. I'll have to see what all of the other evidence entails.

edit: Of course immediately after posting, I read that they do in fact document things like bullet casings. Still learning, yo.


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (Nov 28, 2014)

will_shred said:


> Yes another police officer got away with murder



From the evidence presented, I'd like to understand how you feel that this officer murdered, "poor innocent Michael Brown". 

Unless of course you believe that everything that Wilson said was a lie? Maybe not, but I'm assuming you do. Even though backed up by witnesses. Black witnesses at that.


----------



## asher (Nov 28, 2014)

*some witnesses. There are also a lot of witnesses who backed that Brown did not turn and charge...


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Nov 28, 2014)

I haven't been through all the evidence yet, but from what I've seen there's a lot variety in witness statements against Wilson and the ones in his favor seem to be the same. At this point it's hearsay as I haven't personally read the statements yet.

Currently only on the second volume. I've been lacking free time recently.

Edit: also, if I remember correctly, there were 2 casings outside the car, a handful between the car and Brown, and a handful past Brown's body, which implied the both re-approached the sun after a volley of rounds.


----------



## Choop (Nov 28, 2014)

None of the witness reports I had seen suggest that Brown charged at the police officer, only that he had stopped running and turned around, either holding his gut or having his hands up. Probably both at one point or another. I dunno man. Like from everything I've seen there appears to have been a tussle at the police vehicle where Brown may have struggled with the cop but at the point where Brown had tried to escape and stopped I'm not convinced it was necessary to kill him.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Nov 28, 2014)

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/newsgr...e/assets/reports/witness-40-journal-entry.pdf

Guys own words were running at him "like a football player."


----------



## asher (Nov 28, 2014)

I cannot take that journal seriously at all. Have you read the whole thing? It's ridiculous. It sounds stupidly contrived, pretty much exactly like someone who's totally out of touch trying to write a sympathetic witness. Why isn't there more of the journal? If this is an eye witness account, where the hell is the witness?


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Nov 28, 2014)

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/newsgr...ce/assets/interviews/interview-witness-10.pdf

I'll dig through more of the witnesses accounts and post the ones I find that say he charged and edit this post.


----------



## asher (Nov 28, 2014)

You can pull up numerous eye witness accounts saying either side happened. How does that help us here? Is one side's testimony intrinsically more trustworthy than another?

ed: And just in case I wasn't clear, when I called for the eyewitness, I meant #40, the author of the journal, in particular.


----------



## Choop (Nov 28, 2014)

Chokey Chicken said:


> http://graphics8.nytimes.com/newsgr...ce/assets/interviews/interview-witness-10.pdf
> 
> I'll dig through more of the witnesses accounts and post the ones I find that say he charged and edit this post.



Right on. I think it's good to see as much stuff as is available on the matter. I confess I haven't looked beyond the other day when I was checking all of this stuff out, maybe it was Monday/Tuesday. These interviews are pretty interesting, though it conflicts many witness video interviews who say he never charged. Another thing that's weird is that there is a lot of inconsistent recollection of when gunshots were heard in regards to the sequence of events from witnesses. I feel like that's something that would be difficult to miss. :S (not talking about those interviews specifically, but just regarding all interviews I've seen in general)


----------



## asher (Nov 28, 2014)

Choop said:


> Right on. I think it's good to see as much stuff as is available on the matter. I confess I haven't looked beyond the other day when I was checking all of this stuff out, maybe it was Monday/Tuesday. These interviews are pretty interesting, though it conflicts many witness video interviews who say he never charged. Another thing that's weird is that there is a lot of inconsistent recollection of when gunshots were heard in regards to the sequence of events from witnesses. I feel like that's something that would be difficult to miss. :S (not talking about those interviews specifically, but just regarding all interviews I've seen in general)



Article on eye witness reports, memory, and also this case:

Ferguson grand jury&#8217;s huge mistake: What the transcripts reveal about eyewitness testimony - Salon.com



> A host of psychological factors make eyewitness testimony far from reliable. . .The easiest way to sum up those factors is this: People are as a general matter actually quite bad at recalling accurately what they&#8217;ve witnessed, and, worse yet, they (we) tend to have great confidence in our ability to recall events accurately. More perversely still, people attempting to judge the credibility of eyewitnesses put great stock in the level of confidence a witness displays in regard to the accuracy of the witness&#8217;s recall, even though experimental psychology has demonstrated that there is no correlation between such confidence and accurate recall.
> 
> Many other factors conspire to make eyewitness testimony unreliable: confirmation bias leads us to see what we expect to see, even if it isn&#8217;t actually there, while misinformation effects produce false memories of things that never happened. A famous example of the latter is a Dutch psychology experiment in which more than half of the subjects recalled seeing film footage of an airliner crashing into a building, after researchers referenced the footage in interviews with the subjects. Although the plane crash was a real event that the subjects all recalled vividly, no footage of the crash ever existed.
> 
> In another famous experiment, subjects were asked to count the number of passes made by two basketball teams wearing different colored jerseys. In the midst of the game, a man in a gorilla suit walked slowly across the court. When asked afterward if they had noticed anything unusual during the game, nearly half of the subjects didn&#8217;t recall anything noteworthy. Such experiments illustrate our tendency to miss even the most obvious evidence when we are under various kinds of cognitive stress.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Nov 28, 2014)

asher said:


> You can pull up numerous eye witness accounts saying either side happened. How does that help us here? Is one side's testimony intrinsically more trustworthy than another?



Yes it is more trustworthy because the several that side with Wilson all say the same thing. It's called consistency, and it means a lot. Truth doesn't vary. The ones against him I've read so far are all drastically different and factually wrong given the physical evidence. (I've only read a few... My iPad is slow as shit.) I've read that he shot him in the back, I've read that he fired 6 or 7 times from in the car, I've read he shot him in the head while he was on his knees. One guy said it was a sedan and not an SUV.

With the evidence we know, we know Wilson fired 12 times, brown was hit 9 times. 2 rounds were at the car, one of which grazed his hand in close quarters, evidenced by stippling, and the two casings found at his car. That leaves ten rounds to be fired, minus eight more that hit him in the front. Everyone who says he was shot while running away or with his back turned say he fired more than two rounds. Every person I've read so far says the officer shot at his back, which is factually not true.

So far the factual evidence just discredits every single one of these witnesses, so their statements are rendered invalid. It might be what they think they saw, but physical evidence shows that they're just flat out wrong. Again, I'm way early into reading the evidence, but as it stands it really does appear that the grand jury made the right choice. (And that might change as I read on.)

Don't get me wrong... Racism and abusive cops are definitely a thing. I've been profiled before... It happens, and frequently. I've seen cops flaunt their power around to make their dicks feel bigger. This case just does not stink of it to me so far.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Nov 28, 2014)

asher said:


> Article on eye witness reports, memory, and also this case:
> 
> Ferguson grand jurys huge mistake: What the transcripts reveal about eyewitness testimony - Salon.com




I can't go to the link as it crashes my iPad, but I will agree that eyewitness testimony is generally useless. People are forgetful as shit, and they like to fill in their own blanks.

Which leaves physical evidence, which so far is certainly not in favor of most of the stuff people are saying made it murder.


----------



## asher (Nov 28, 2014)

Chokey Chicken said:


> Don't get me wrong... Racism and abusive cops are definitely a thing. I've been profiled before... It happens, and frequently. I've seen cops flaunt their power around to make their dicks feel bigger. This case just does not stink of it to me so far.



Despite the documented systematic racism and some corruption (self-reporting discipline?!) of the Ferguson PD and their completely lackadaisical, inept, or intentionally misleading handling of the case?


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Nov 28, 2014)

I'm not going to pretend I know much. I've still only read the first 1 and a half volumes.

I would like links to your claims though, as it would greatly help in forming my opinion. I'd google around myself, but as it stands this iPad is driving me up a wall with how finicky it's being. I may just duck out because arguing this stuff changes nothing. 

For the record, Asher, I really like you and feel your heart is always in a good place. Whether or not Wilson is guilty, it's great that there are folks with "privilege" speaking up for those with less of a voice. (I'm totally assuming you're a white cis-male, so apologies if I've assumed wrong.)

I can't stress it enough that I'm still looking into this and ultimately undecided, albeit admittedly leaning towards Wilson's side. I can't stress enough that I know racism is alive and well and minorities are treated frequently as suspect. (I'm "of color." I get constant Mexican jokes/assumptions despite being Puerto Rican.) I'm just sick of tumblr pricks twisting facts, making shit up, and blatantly leaving information unsourced, and I may or may not be taking that out on you.

I'm also not defending Wilson as a person. I won't get into it much more though, as I'm a long ways away from forming an actual educated opinion.


----------



## asher (Nov 28, 2014)

Yup, white-ass cis young adult male right here  Also, thank you! I have quite a bit of respect for you as well, so that means a lot.

I'll try to dig up some of the previous links tomorrow. I've been following the whole thing fairly well, and the PD was putting out a lot of nonsense (Wilson recognized Brown, no wait he couldn't have, body out in the street for hours, driving over the memorial repeatedly, releasing contextless videos, etc). And then we just get to the... questionable Grand Jury proceedings and setup, since there normally *isn't one at all*.

Check out my latest links when you get to a better browser, there are some good reads about the legal stuff at the least.

While both my impression from what I've seen/read and also my gut tells me Wilson and the PD (which the DoJ is investigating as a whole, separately) are full of horse shit, I'd be okay if it went to a full trial and then he were found innocent of any wrong-doing. But given the way this has all been handled, and how much conflicting information there is, doesn't it warrant real answers?


----------



## Captain Shoggoth (Nov 29, 2014)

Xaios said:


> The kind of people who use peaceful protests as an excuse to starting looting and committing vandalism just disgust me. I remember the same thing happened in England a couple years ago when they had a very similar situation there.






Captain Butterscotch said:


> Everyone knew this would happen.
> 
> The only way to fight perceived injustice is to...create actual injustice by burning down local business and buildings, looting them, and generally destroying their own community? Bunch of f4cking tacticians down there in Ferguson.




Aye, same thing happened here in 2011. Beyond fucking stupid


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Nov 29, 2014)

After watching the cop's interview after the verdict, my conclusion is that he was indeed most likely in fear of his life and in an absolutely terrified state when this was happening.
I don't think it was warranted at the point of the fatal shots, but the number of shots he fired and the number of misses tells of his terror at the moment.
He IMO should have never been a cop, but the positions must be filled and they at this time don't (as far as I know) do a "courage under fire" test of any kind prior to their hiring of local officers.

It's not really all that unlike the T. Martin case where you have poor decisions being made by both parties, and in both cases the armed party happened to be guys with not a whole lot of coolness under pressure.

If Wilson would have remained calm and just aimed low things wouldn't have ended as badly for everyone involved.


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (Nov 29, 2014)

Edit


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (Nov 29, 2014)

Brown committed robbery. Used his size to intimidate the store clerk. That much is indisputable from the video evidence. 

Is it that much of a stretch that he was in the same frame of mind when confronted by Wilson?

Unless this cop is flat out lying about what happened as well as the people that back up his story of events, Brown was just asking to get shot. I mean really. Punching a cop and trying to grab his gun? What would any of you expect to happen?


----------



## UnderTheSign (Nov 29, 2014)

FILTHnFEAR said:


> Brown committed robbery. Used his size to intimidate the store clerk. That much is indisputable from the video evidence.
> 
> Is it that much of a stretch that he was in the same frame of mind when confronted by Wilson?
> 
> Unless this cop is flat out lying about what happened as well as the people that back up his story of events, Brown was just asking to get shot. I mean really. Punching a cop and trying to grab his gun? What would any of you expect to happen?


Please show the video evidence because in the past week I've seen stuff that suggests Brown did pay for the goods. 

Also, even if he did steal it was a pack of smokes... You think anyone is stupid enough to die over that?


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Nov 29, 2014)

@trenchlord, he aimed at center of mass which is what they're trained to do as it's the easiest target to hit. If his story is to be trusted, he walked on and through several hits to the lower body.

@UnderTheSign, actually yes I do think someone is stupid enough to die over a pack of smokes. Someone at a local BK was knifed for a pack of smokes. I've seen people throw fists and almost run other people over trying to avoid getting in trouble with security. You'd be surprised what people are capable of doing.

I have to look into the video as well as I sort of remember hearing that it ended up showing nothing.


----------



## Explorer (Nov 29, 2014)

FILTHnFEAR said:


> Brown committed robbery. Used his size to intimidate the store clerk. That much is indisputable from the video evidence.





UnderTheSign said:


> Please show the video evidence because in the past week I've seen stuff that suggests Brown did pay for the goods.



Is one of the things you've seen in the past week the video where Brown reaches over the counter and grabs stuff, and then throws the owner back? Because that seems to not suggest that Brown paid for the goods. 

The call to 911 by the store owner also doesn't seem to suggest that Brown paid. 

If only an easy search could find the footage. It's a shame that it's so well hidden... but I found it using an elite hacker tool called Google. 



To me, that footage and the 911 call suggest something other than what you concluded. If I were you, I'd reconsider everything from the sources from which you've seen stuff in the past week, especially if they just glossed over that robbery video... but only if you're interested in the facts, of course....


----------



## asher (Nov 29, 2014)

Explorer, would you mind going back and responding to a couple questions I directed at you?


----------



## Explorer (Nov 29, 2014)

asher said:


> Explorer, would you mind going back and responding to a couple questions I directed at you?



Absolutely, and sorry for not responding earlier.

It's gonna be hard to keep inserting tags, so I'll just add comments. I apologize for taking the easy route.

----

Explorer:

1. Calling a Grand Jury for this at all is pretty unusual.

That could be, and yet I don't remember anyone objecting from the Brown side. That argument seems to be in play because Wilson wasn't indicted. 

2. Evidence dumping on the jury is also extremely unusual.

Having been on a jury, I can say that I've spent time slogging through evidence. That's the duty of a jury. 

3. Having the person in question testify for hours is also highly unusual.

Okay. 

4. No ability to fully cross-examine any witnesses.

Wouldn't cross-examination be something for the criminal trial, rather than the grand jury? I would think of that as highly unusual.

5. Evidence dump lets in some _ridiculous_ stuff (see Witness #40 journal).

And the jury would have the duty to slog through it. 

6. The police have been withholding evidence, see statements from the medical examiner.

Is that cause for a different legal action? 

7. They didn't even bother taking scene photos with an excuse roughly equivalent to "dog ate my homework" when we already know the body was out for four hours.

Okay.

8. Why are you implying that only the witnesses that support Michael Brown are unreliable? If all witnesses are inherently unreliable to some extent, that should apply evenly across the board.

I'll state directly that if physical evidence contradicts eyewitness testimony, then that kind of unreliability applies to everyone. 

(deleted ham sandwich reference)

An indictment is not a verdict.

It does not proclaim Darren Wilson guilty or innocent.

It states that there is no reasonable doubt as to whether there has been a crime and it doesn't bear further investigation. Are you honestly going to tell me that's the case, given the amount of conflicting information?

No, the jury told everyone that such was the case. 

A full and proper trial may well have found Wilson innocent after giving everything the attention it deserves.

Again, it's the jury who has the burden of diligence.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Nov 29, 2014)

It seems pretty clear that Wilson was not out of line in actually stopping brown. Both for walking in the street (I personally dislike jaywalkers, it's dangerous) and for back tracking when he realized Brown fit the description of a crime recently committed. (it'd have to be one hell of a coincidence if he were stopping just some random black guy, considering the area had many he could have picked on. Why was it the one who had some sort of altercation with a store clerk?) The store owner clearly didn't want Brown to leave the store for one reason or another, and he was shoved and then intimidated to not pursue. Holy .... is Brown huge, too. Unless that store clerk was unreasonably small, it's not unreasonable to fear for your life if you got into a physical altercation with him. Unarmed people can in fact kill you if you don't stop them one way or the other from approaching. 

At this point it really just comes down to if Brown was approaching and/or how he was approaching Wilson it seems. The fact that there were bullet casings beyond the body is cause for concern, albeit not 100% conclusive. (could have been blown, or kicked by accident/purpose) The fact that there were what appear to be blood stains (evidence pieces 19 an 20 I think) fairly far behind the body is also cause for concern. I'm curious to see what the analysis of those are, though I couldn't find it with a quick skim.

Both of those seem to indicate that Brown moved towards Wilson after he was wounded at the very least. Why he approached Wilson is up for debate still, I suppose. Did rage take over and he wanted to attack Wilson? We know he's hot headed and likes to intimidate people. But would someone who knows the other guy will shoot (as he'd already been shot) even try to stop and surrender, or would they think they've crossed the point of no return and try to flee to safety? Would they drop prone to the ground with hands on their head? Given the physical evidence, he seems to have moved towards Wilson. Did Brown fear for his life and maybe charging was a last ditch effort to defend himself? Can it even be considered defending himself if he attacked the officer while he was still in his car? (People don't typically start physical altercations while still in their vehicle... You're at a great disadvantage so I have a hard time believing that altercation was started by Wilson.) Maybe he did surrender and was just approaching and Wilson fired the last 8 rounds into him. But after being shot, why would he still approach Wilson? Depending on what forensics says about those potential blood stains, that might say a lot. 

If this went to trial, there's just way too much reasonable doubt and I feel it would be smacked down really quickly by a jury doing it's job. Is knowing without a doubt that there is reasonable doubt what is considered lack of "probable cause?" I could go on and on, but I'll just shut up for now because I'm not sure I'm articulating my thoughts properly.

I'm gonna head back and check that link, Asher. If you have some more, I'd greatly appreciate them too. I'm also gonna poke through more of the evidence/testimony.

edit: those were in fact blood stains and they were in fact leading towards where his body was found. Brown was definitely moving towards Wilson for one reason or another.


----------



## Necris (Nov 30, 2014)

Deandre Joshua Identified As Man Fatally Shot During Ferguson Protests


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Nov 30, 2014)

FILTHnFEAR said:


> Unless this cop is flat out lying about what happened as well as the people that back up his story of events, Brown was just asking to get shot. I mean really. Punching a cop and trying to grab his gun? What would any of you expect to happen?




 Indeed.


----------



## loqtrall (Dec 1, 2014)

^ That. 

That's exactly what I was thinking. If someone punched ANYONE (not just a cop) in the face and tried to steal their gun, I'd think that'd warrant shooting that person. The fact that it WAS a cop makes it seem ridiculous that people believe the cop shouldn't have shot the kid. You can get shot by coming at an officer with any object used as a weapon, but trying to take an officers gun after assaulting him? How are any of you surprised he got shot? That's one of the only situations I think deadly force would be necessary aside from being shot at/attacked with a deadly weapon. Who on Earth would punch a police officer and try to take their firearm? That's one of the most idiotic ideas I've ever heard of. I think attempting to take a cop's FULLY LOADED gun is grounds for being shot. I'm pretty sure we all know what would have happened if Brown had gotten that gun from Wilson.


----------



## Vrollin (Dec 1, 2014)

loqtrall said:


> The fact that it WAS a cop makes it seem ridiculous that people believe the cop shouldn't have shot the kid.



This is the other problem, people are looking at and referring brown to a "kid," the reality is he was a fighting age male, and a large one at that. Well beyond the age of innocence and ignorance, he knew right from wrong and rolled the dice. You gotta pay to play and sometimes the world dishes out stupid prizes for stupid people.....


----------



## asher (Dec 1, 2014)

But he didn't and then ran away.

Is he still a threat that needs to be stopped at all costs? Is Wilson's life still in danger?


----------



## asher (Dec 1, 2014)

Vrollin said:


> This is the other problem, people are looking at and referring brown to a "kid," the reality is he was a fighting age male, and a large one at that. Well beyond the age of innocence and ignorance, he knew right from wrong and rolled the dice. You gotta pay to play and sometimes the world dishes out stupid prizes for stupid people.....



Wilson's just as big as Brown was. 6'4" 210lb (I think, might be higher) of muscle.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Dec 1, 2014)

asher said:


> Wilson's just as big as Brown was. 6'4" 210lb (I think, might be higher) of muscle.



Shows what i know , I was under the impression he was a little twirp.
Anyways, he sure looked/seemed meek in the interview. Maybe he just has a small head, like my girlfriend always says of me


----------



## asher (Dec 1, 2014)

Also, yes other people, I do owe you all some longer responses or articles, when I have the brainpower and time I'll get back to yous


----------



## asher (Dec 1, 2014)

Stumbled across this and just want to drop it in.

Use of deadly force by police disappears on Richmond streets - ContraCostaTimes.com

Richmond, CA: in 2004, the *12th most violent city in the nation,* and probably the most in the Bay. Since 2008, there's been an average of *one officer in a shooting incident a year* and *one officer-killed person since 2007.*, and violent crime has plunged.


----------



## crg123 (Dec 1, 2014)

This surprised me. Please forgive me for posting something on Glenn Beck's blog this was just the first link that popped up haha , but this quite a different reaction than what I what I would expect from people on MSNBC.

&#8216;I Can&#8217;t Take It Anymore&#8217;: Joe Scarborough Gives Passionate Defense of Police Over &#8216;B.S. Being Spewed&#8217; in Michael Brown Saga | Video | TheBlaze.com


----------



## asher (Dec 1, 2014)

JoeScar is a complete toolbag talking head.


----------



## Explorer (Dec 1, 2014)

asher said:


> But he didn't and then *ran away.*
> 
> Is he still a *threat that needs to be stopped at all costs? Is Wilson's life still in danger?*



Was Brown running away from the officer at the point he was shot, or moving towards the officer? I don't remember any physical evidence that Brown received a bullet while running away.

Now, rephrasing the question to match the actual situation: After an altercation had ended at your police vehicle, would you still have a reason to apprehend someone who had robbed a store and then assaulted a police officer, for the safety of the community? Yes, such a person would be a threat to the community, so you would apprehend them. 

Would you treat that person as a deadly threat, after they had committed a strong-arm robbery and then assaulted you while attempting to take your gun, if they were then charging towards you? Yes, you would. 

Just my thoughts, but not invalidated by the physical evidence (and recorded 911 calls and dispatch records are part of the evidence).


----------



## FILTHnFEAR (Dec 1, 2014)

asher said:


> But he didn't and then ran away.
> 
> Is he still a threat that needs to be stopped at all costs? Is Wilson's life still in danger?



As I understand it. He started to run away and Wilson told him to stop. Brown turned around and came at Wilson. Got shot, stopped, and charged again. I would say it's safe to say Wilson's life was still in danger. Especially considering Browns previous actions.



asher said:


> Wilson's just as big as Brown was. 6'4" 210lb (I think, might be higher) of muscle.



So are you saying that because they were similar in size(Brown was a lot bigger that 210lbs, I'm 230lbs and Brown was a hell of a lot bigger than me) Wilson should have taken his chances and tangled with Brown? Bad idea.



UnderTheSign said:


> Also, even if he did steal it was a pack of smokes... You think anyone is stupid enough to die over that?



He stole something, which then led to an escalating situation with a police officer that got him shot dead. There was nothing intelligent in Michael Browns actions.

Yes. Michael Brown was stupid enough to die over a pack of smokes. And that's sad.

I'm not sure what other option Wilson had other than dropping this guy. Someone the size of Brown charging at you, after already hitting you and trying to take your firearm from you, getting shot, and STILL coming at you!? 

As logtrall already stated. Is there any question what would have happened had Brown gotten the gun from Wilson or gotten his hands on him?


----------



## loqtrall (Dec 1, 2014)

FILTHnFEAR said:


> As lo*q*trall already stated.


----------



## Captain Butterscotch (Dec 1, 2014)

Physical evidence has shown that he received no bullets to his back. If you assault a cop, white or black or green or goddamn orange, you're gonna have a bad time.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Dec 1, 2014)

asher said:


> But he didn't and then ran away.
> 
> Is he still a threat that needs to be stopped at all costs? Is Wilson's life still in danger?



Evidence shows he likely made his way back. Evidence also suggests he was never shot at while his back was to the officer. At what point does it become fair for him to use lethal force?

Unarmed people are not in fact harmless, as is evidenced by this video:



Hell, in that other thread with the gif of two dudes getting knocked the .... out with one punch is further proof that things can go south really fast if someone gets close enough and you have bad enough luck to not defend yourself.

If Brown was in fact approaching, then Wilson had limited time to decide whether or not to try to use other means of stopping him. Personally, I wouldn't have trusted mace or a night stick to stop him soon enough to prevent possible fatal harm, and I seem to remember he didn't have a taser on him, so that was out of the question.

edit: According to the autopsy report, Brown was closer to 300. 289, in fact.


----------



## Randy (Dec 2, 2014)

Too many conversations going on for me to single one out, so I'll just leave my statement here and whoever thinks it applies to their argument, feel free to reply.

I thought the explanations Wilson provided as to why he couldn't/didn't use non-lethal means were a bit bullshit. Off the top of my head, I believe he said the 'heat of the moment', situationally, it didn't occur to him to just wind up his window or drive away and wait for backup... then I believe he said he wasn't carrying a taser because he never had a comfortable way of carrying it on his belt, and then he didn't use the pepper spray because it was too awkward/difficult to reach for. Feel free to correct me on those details, but those sound like some pretty lame excuses to outline the ONLY option was the lethal one.

Does police training legitimately say, like "eh, use whatever method is most convenient for you at the time"? Or are there literally no parameters for escalation? If so, why didn't he just pull out his gun and shoot the kid as soon as he let up?


----------



## loqtrall (Dec 2, 2014)

Randy said:


> If so, why didn't he just pull out his gun and shoot the kid as soon as he let up?


 
This is because Brown ran away. Wilson had his gun aimed at him, but obviously didn't want to shoot him in the back. If anything, Wilson was actually NOT looking to using lethal force, otherwise he would have filled Brown with lead after he tried to take the weapon. Instead, he told Brown to stop (persuing someone who robbed a store, assaulted a cop, and tried to steal a cop's weapon, imagine that), Brown turned around and said "You won't shoot me" (instigating?), and charged Wilson.

In the time it would have taken for Brown to reach Wilson, I doubt there was any spare time for him to holster his weapon, unclip the pepperspray from his belt, then use it. That saying that pepperspray would have brought down a 6'4, 300lb guy who has adrenaline running through him, which is unlikely. Everyone who opposes Wilson's use of deadly force approaches this like there was no way Brown could have beaten Wilson to a bloody pulp if he reached him. Have you seen Brown in that video. That ............ is BIG. He towered over both the store clerk and his friend, and dwarfed them in size. I have two friends who are 6'4 and 6'6 and around or over 300lbs and I would NEVER want to fight them. I completely understand why Wilson shot. It wasn't "use the method most convenient", it was "use the method most readily available when there's an immediate danger of being harmed or killed by a very big and violent person who is charging at you". It's not like Brown got on his knees, or kept running. All bullet wounds were in his front, and there was blood trailing BEHIND his body, meaning he stopped, turned around, and started moving toward Wilson. Had Brown gotten on the ground or kept running, he'd probably be alive today. His actions make the fact that he was unarmed insignificant.


----------



## Randy (Dec 2, 2014)

loqtrall said:


> This is because Brown ran away. Wilson had his gun aimed at him, but obviously didn't want to shoot him in the back... Instead, he told Brown to stop (persuing someone who robbed a store, assaulted a cop, and tried to steal a cop's weapon, imagine that)



Okay, so he didn't want to shoot a fleeing suspect in the back... pepper spraying somebody fleeing who just assaulted a police officer is an unheard of practice? 

Also, pepper spray isn't like punching someone in the chest, where their stature relative to your stature determines how effective your attack is... 30lbs or 300lbs, pepper spray in your eyes and in your nose and mouth will severely disorient and BLIND you. 

I'm tired of the notion that the gun is the only reliable weapon that police carry. We can put a man on the moon but we can't safely neutralize a person without killing them. Imagine that.

Darren Wilson is also 6'4". Brown was 300+lbs, not because he was a professional wrestler, he was ....ing fat. Darren Wilson is a much more height/weight appropriate 210lbs., as well as license officer who likely went through some kind of self defense training, as well as probably some degree of physical conditioning. He got his ass kicked because it's impossible to fight a standing person through a window while you're sitting. And by "got his ass kicked" I mean that little rosey spot he had on his cheek. You make it sound like he was wrestling Babe the Blue Ox with his bare hands. Out of his car and with a few ounces of pepper spray in Brown's eyes, I think Wilson stood a *wee* bit more of a chance.

You're free to you own opinion, my personal experience with the police, I don't like the notion of them being 'judge, jury and executioner' with no cameras, limited oversight, the burden of proof being on the civilian and so little necessity for de-escalation.


----------



## Explorer (Dec 3, 2014)

It's interesting that folks have read the other topic, where the officer didn't react fast enough to save his own life, and haven't offered any comment at all. 

http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/politics-current-events/284547-opposite-world-ferguson.html

To me, when I hear the arguments about how officers shouldn't be empowered to make split-second decisions about safety in the face of a deadly threat, and I read the story of the dead officer in the other topic, I just want to know how this philosophy would work in practice.


----------



## flint757 (Dec 3, 2014)

Explorer said:


> It's interesting that folks have read the other topic, where the officer didn't react fast enough to save his own life, and haven't offered any comment at all.
> 
> http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/politics-current-events/284547-opposite-world-ferguson.html
> 
> To me, when I hear the arguments about how officers shouldn't be empowered to make split-second decisions about safety in the face of a deadly threat, and I read the story of the dead officer in the other topic, I just want to know how this philosophy would work in practice.



There isn't a catch all answer to any situation. The police should have a right to react for their safety and the safety of those around them, but they shouldn't be given blanket authority to always do so with the most lethal force at their disposal every time either. Sometimes their split second decision is dead wrong and that shouldn't be buried, which it almost always is when it comes to any legal ramifications that could occur from an incident (I have no opinion on the officers guilt in this particular case though).

Also, people just simply aren't always interested in posting in every thread you create (and you create a lot of them, most with the intention of baiting people). That doesn't support one argument over the other and to assume so is rather dishonest.


----------



## loqtrall (Dec 3, 2014)

flint757 said:


> Also, people just simply aren't always interested in posting in every thread you create.



I think what Explorer was trying to say is: People who are vehemently contesting his opinion on the matter more than likely read that thread and had nothing to say about the fact, even though it proved that Michael Brown could, in fact, have been in a threat even though he was unarmed. An unarmed man ran up to a cop, punched him, and got his gun and shot him dead. If Michael Brown had gotten the gun, the same thing would have happened to Wilson, which in turn makes it seem like deadly force was necessary.

I'll just reiterate what I said before: In what way does attempting to take A GUN, FIREARM, LOADED WEAPON from a POLICE OFFICER not warrant deadly force? Obviously the person isn't going to try to take the officers weapon just to run away with it and say "Hey, I got a cop's gun!". I say that if someone is trying to take a cop's weapon, that person is more than likely going to try to kill that cop if they get the weapon, and deadly force would be necessary as it's a threat to the officer's life. Sure, Brown ran away, but he turned around, instigated Wilson by saying he wouldn't shoot him, then charged at him. CHARGED at him after *trying to take his weapon and assaulting him*. At least in my opinion, that is a clear indicator that deadly force is necessary.


----------



## loqtrall (Dec 3, 2014)

Eh, I've had enough police debate to last a lifetime, I'm ducking out of this one now, guys. Good luck with your opinions!


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Dec 3, 2014)

loqtrall said:


> Eh, I've had enough police debate to last a lifetime, I'm ducking out of this one now, guys. Good luck with your opinions!



Don't need any luck with my opinions  they come so easily.


----------



## asher (Dec 3, 2014)

loqtrall said:


> CHARGED at him after *trying to take his weapon and assaulting him*. At least in my opinion, that is a clear indicator that deadly force is necessary.



This is not fact. This is one of the key and highly controversial points of the entire debate. We have a lot of witnesses saying he did, a lot saying he didn't (plus the calculations that he died something like 150' from the car).

But like: he *didn't* get the gun. He then started running away. How is shooting at a fleeing suspect "your life in imminent danger"?


----------



## vilk (Dec 3, 2014)

I feel like if he would have dropped the guy while they were in the car, maybe that makes sense, what with the whole reaching for the gun and fighting thing. People hear about the whole "scuffle" and say "OK yeah I guess I can see why that might warrant deadly force" ... but the thing is, that scuffle _was all the way over and done with_ when bacon shot the guy dead in the street.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Dec 3, 2014)

asher said:


> This is not fact. This is one of the key and highly controversial points of the entire debate. We have a lot of witnesses saying he did, a lot saying he didn't (plus the calculations that he died something like 150' from the car).
> 
> But like: he *didn't* get the gun. He then started running away. How is shooting at a fleeing suspect "your life in imminent danger"?



He didn't shoot at Brown while he was running away though. He didn't shoot a fleeing suspect, unless Brown was running backwards or something. Again, the physical evidence shows that after a physical altercation from in the car, Brown did take off. Again, given the physical evidence, Wilson pursued. Given the placement of the shell casings, and the blood patterns on the ground, Brown was in fact moving towards the SUV where it started. The only thing that remains cloudy to me was HOW Brown was approaching Wilson. It's easy to fear for your life if you were inches away from biting it not 30 seconds before. Should we expect him to use mace which we know he had? I don't fault him for not using it if he was being charged. I've seen lots of people throw fists while maced. If they're indeed charging, mace won't do much of anything. It's good if it's all you have, but I wouldn't count on it ending an attack. A tazer on the other hand would have been my choice, but he didn't have one.

It really boils down to how he was being approached, and regardless of that, how he perceived he was being approached. I can see people from a distance mistaking a "come at me bro" kind of arm gesture as at the very least a half hearted "hands in the air." The point is, is that you don't approach someone you were just in a fight with at all, unless you're looking to further the confrontation. If you surrender, you get your ass on the ground, on your stomach, hands on your head, and your legs spread. There is absolutely zero way to read that wrong, but there are plenty of ways to misread someone approaching/facing you, even if they're surrendering. Shit gets cloudy when adrenaline is pumping and people can make bad decisions, but not entirely unreasonable if you were in their shoes. Even if Brown was surrendering, he made a huge mistake approaching the person he was just in a fight with, which we can realistically believe he did given the evidence.


----------



## Randy (Dec 3, 2014)

^
I can understand and agree with a lot of your arguments but there's a HUGE caveat to all that I have to address.

The United States is one of few modern countries in the world that still has a death penalty. Even with that as the case, not every state allows for the death penalty. And even beyond that, a person gets a fair trial (with loads of evidence presented, options for the defendant to move the trial elsewhere or pick a different jury, etc.) and an almost innumerable amount of appeals and (what's supposed to be, but that's another discussion all together) a controlled/humane method of execution.

That's the barrier for legally allowing the state to kill somebody, but out in the field it's a matter of how much adrenaline is pumping, and whether or not the cop has a taser that fits comfortably on his utility belt or thinks he can step out of the way of a pepper-spray-blinded, flailing, fat man? That's what I meant by 'judge, jury and executioner'... we (rightfully, IMO) give people so many chances to plead their case, analyze and re-analyze evidence (sometimes years or even decades later) but knee-jerk decision making to execute an unarmed person sounds like justice enough to you?

Different strokes for different folks, but I don't like the idea of those kinds of shortcuts being available when my life is on the line.


----------



## tedtan (Dec 3, 2014)

Randy said:


> knee-jerk decision making to execute an unarmed person sounds like justice enough to you?



This wasn't an execution, though; it was self defense. And note that I'm not I'm not saying that force was necessary or justified in this particular case as I don't know one way or the other, I'm just making a distinction between defending oneself in the heat of the moment and making a calculated decision to take another person's life.

Exaggerating self defense into execution comes across more as biased propaganda rather than an honest, objective intent to discover the truth of the situation.




Randy said:


> I don't like the idea of those kinds of shortcuts being available when my life is on the line.



Agreed. But it doesn't change reality unless we send police out without firearms, at which point they would be severely under-gunned, so that's not likely in the US.


----------



## wat (Dec 3, 2014)

Explorer said:


> *Is this some strange form of racism*, where it's assumed that some elements in the community are completely unable to hold back their violent tendencies?



Maybe, maybe not.

But regardless, it's a pragmatic decision based on the reality of the situation. 

It's bringing an umbrella/raincoat because there is a good chance of severe rainstorms.


----------



## Randy (Dec 3, 2014)

tedtan said:


> Exaggerating self defense into execution comes across more as biased propaganda rather than an honest, objective intent to discover the truth of the situation.
> 
> Agreed. But it doesn't change reality unless we send police out without firearms, at which point they would be severely under-gunned, so that's not likely in the US.



Well yeah, I probably am biased because I've 1.) been lied to by the police 2.) had the police lie on ticket/arrest report 3.) had the police use an unnecessary amount of force against me and people I was with. This is referring to multiple, unrelated incidences, different individual police officers and different police forces.

So yeah, I'm a little biased with regard to the notion that the actions of the police are irrefutable or assumed to be 'right' more often than that of the civilian. I also find the amount of time between Brown attacking officer Wilson to when Wilson was out of the car and discharging his weapon (150 feet from the car where the altercation took place) to be enough time/distance for there to be some calculation in Wilson's actions. It's my opinion that he already expected to fire his gun before this supposed rushing attack by Brown took place. 

Regarding the second part, once again... man on the moon but no viable alternative to shooting civilians with live ammunition? By his own assessment, Wilson 'could have' driven away and waited for backup, 'could have' had has taser on him or 'could have' used the pepper spray but none of them were convenient enough options. Are there any repercussions for that? In any other industry, you're expected to have different tiers of options when reacting to an incident and, more often than not, if you jump immediately to the most extreme option without visiting the others (or because you're ill prepared) you're reprimanded. Was Officer Wilson reprimanded for not carrying his taser on him?

I agree with you that unarmed police is way too dangerous an option in this country, but how about some degree, ANY degree of oversight with regard to police action other than 'well, he said the guy moved fast and he was scary, so let the bullets fly'. That kind of one dimensional, 'only one option' shit doesn't fly in any other industry.


----------



## asher (Dec 3, 2014)

^

If he's running away... why not chase him down *with the car you're still in*?

Besides. We know the 154' feet thing. If this holds true, Brown ran those 154 feet and then still had time to turn and charge back, all the while being shot at... in around 7 seconds?

Also, note, I said "shooting *at*", not shooting.

Acoustic experts detail purported Ferguson shooting - The Washington Post


----------



## tedtan (Dec 3, 2014)

Randy said:


> Well yeah, I probably am biased because



You are. We all are. Even when we make a concerted effort to be as objective as possible, our subconscious biases are still present to some degree. I was merely pointing it out so you would be aware of it in the future, not accusing you of anything.




Randy said:


> I've 1.) been lied to by the police 2.) had the police lie on ticket/arrest report 3.) had the police use an unnecessary amount of force against me and people I was with. This is referring to multiple, unrelated incidences, different individual police officers and different police forces.



Ditto. I may be a white male, but having hair down to my ass doesn't always go over very well with the "Bubba" types here in Texas. So I'm not jumping to take an officer at their word.




Randy said:


> So yeah, I'm a little biased with regard to the notion that the actions of the police are irrefutable or assumed to be 'right' more often than that of the civilian.



Agreed, but it is a fundamental part of the judicial system to presume that the police are the good guys. Even the bad ones, at least until they're proven otherwise (and, as people, they should have their due process, too).




Randy said:


> I also find the amount of time between Brown attacking officer Wilson to when Wilson was out of the car and discharging his weapon (150 feet from the car where the altercation took place) to be enough time/distance for there to be some calculation in Wilson's actions. It's my opinion that he already expected to fire his gun before this supposed rushing attack by Brown took place.



150 feet is only 50 yards. That's 5 to 6 seconds for someone in good shape, maybe 10 to 12 seconds for someone not in very good shape. That's enough time for a bit of thinking, but it still goes by pretty quick. But who knows - maybe Wilson wanted revenge for being attacked. There is too much contradictory evidence to say conclusively one way or the other. And that is really the key to the jury's verdict here - the prosecution couldn't PROVE Wilson guilty given all the contradictory evidence (reasonable doubt and all), so they decided there was no reason to go to trial.




Randy said:


> Wilson 'could have' driven away and waited for backup



Yes, but the job he is trained and paid to do is to subdue the bad guys, and sometimes that needs to be done before backup arrives. We don't know if this is one of those times or not, but it is plausible.




Randy said:


> 'could have' had has taser on him



I would change that to should have had his taser on him, as I agree that shooting someone should not be the goal (generally speaking - there are times when it is the appropriate response to prevent more deaths).




Randy said:


> Was Officer Wilson reprimanded for not carrying his taser on him?



Probably not, but he should be.




Randy said:


> I agree with you that unarmed police is way too dangerous an option in this country, but how about some degree, ANY degree of oversight with regard to police action other than 'well, he said the guy moved fast and he was scary, so let the bullets fly'. That kind of one dimensional, 'only one option' shit doesn't fly in any other industry.



Perhaps body cameras that can't be removed/disabled is the appropriate answer. At least that way they can't just get away with their inappropriate actions. And being held accountable should deter such actions in the future.


----------



## asher (Dec 3, 2014)

tedtan said:


> Agreed, but it is a fundamental part of the judicial system to presume that the police are the good guys. Even the bad ones, at least until they're proven otherwise (and, as people, they should have their due process, too).
> 
> ......
> 
> ...



They don't have to PROVE Wilson guilty. That's for a real, full trial. It's a question of probable cause, and the fact that there is *so much conflicting evidence and attention it makes a farce of the judicial system that this was decided to not warrant proper investigation*. Especially with how McCullough set things up and acted much less like a prosecutor and much more like a defense attorney.


----------



## tedtan (Dec 3, 2014)

asher said:


> We know the 154' feet thing. If this holds true, Brown ran those 154 feet and then still had time to turn and charge back, all the while being shot at... in around 7 seconds?



My understanding is that Wilson didn't fire at Brown until after he had already turned back towards him. So those seven seconds would be after Brown had already ran the first 50 yards away and then turned back towards Wilson. And the evidence appears to support this, as the bullet wounds entered the front side of Brown and exited his back side.


----------



## asher (Dec 3, 2014)

Which could be both turning to surrender or turning to run.

Read the thing I linked about the acoustic analysis. A burst of initial shots, a pause, then more. Weren't there shell casings by the car?


----------



## tedtan (Dec 3, 2014)

asher said:


> They don't have to PROVE Wilson guilty. That's for a real, full trial.



No, you have to prove that there is enough evidence to warrant a trial. And when there is enough evidence to cause significant reasonable doubt come trial time, there isn't enough evidence to justify the trial. This isn't to say that this incident shouldn't be investigated further and perhaps even indict Wilson again when/if the evidence warrants it. It just means the jury made a reasonable and practical decision knowing that he couldn't be convicted in a trial based on the evidence before them at that time.




asher said:


> It's a question of probable cause, and the fact that there is *so much conflicting evidence and attention it makes a farce of the judicial system that this was decided to not warrant proper investigation*.



There should absolutely have been (and still could be) a proper investigation. But that needs to be done before a grand/petit jury is summonsed to determine if there is enough evidence to warrant a full trial.




asher said:


> Especially with how McCullough set things up and acted much less like a prosecutor and much more like a defense attorney.



It's probably pretty common for these guys to stick together, but this does seem fishy. But fishy isn't evidence, it's just suspicion of wrongdoing without proof.


----------



## fps (Dec 3, 2014)

It might be justification in terms of US law, to shoot someone when things go down like this. But that doesn't make it morally right. That's all I want to say, to expand slightly, I've read a lot on both sides and think the officer probably felt he had to do what he did. But beyond the legal there's the moral, and so many officers being armed, being trained to see every person they interact with as both target and threat, this cannot be a constructive way to police a country.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Dec 3, 2014)

He could easily pursue on foot. There comes a time when using your vehicle is unreasonable. The fact that all of the casings were damn close to brown, and some past him, shows that just because the car was 150 feet away doesn't mean Wilson was. 

Sorry I can't read that link in depth, I have 5 minutes before I head out to get my wife from work, but what I've read seems faulty. (I promise I'll read it when I get back though.) The fact that it says only ten rounds were fired when there were I think 11. When we know there were two fired by the car, and the rest were at least several seconds later because they were down the street. Even then, unless I'm remembering wrong, 9 rounds hit him/grazed him. It doesn't add up. 

Alright, I'm heading out the door, but I'll be back in a bit to elaborate a bit more/read the whole article and give my up to date opinion and such.

Quick edit. 12 rounds fired so the audio might have missed the 2 when he was at the car. The 10 recorded were all when they were both down the street.

Edit Edit: I read the article, and I still think it's very iffy and unreliable. A bunch of people who rely on specific technology, lacking that specific technology, and giving their best opinions with what they had. They also didn't take into account that 12 rounds were fired, and they missed 2 in the recording, so Wilson had moved at some point.

One of the most interesting pictures, I think, is this one:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/newsgr...guson/photos/2014-43984/photos-1/74810024.jpg

The things labeled "19" and "20" are confirmed blood stains from Michael Brown. That black/red stain behind that is where Brown's body was. He was without a doubt heading towards the SUV. 

18, 16, 15, 14, and 21 are all casings from the gun. The two cones that you can't see the numbers on are also marking bullet casings, if I'm not mistaken. (It's hard to read the numbers in the chart that's given.) 17 was an apparent projectile. Wilson's SUV was 154 feet down the road in the direction the camera is facing. (ie, if the cameraman looked towards "17," he would see the SUV.)

I'm hurting my brain trying to think about it all so I'm just gonna trail off here for now.


----------



## asher (Dec 8, 2014)

Interesting development with the evidence dump - there's a good deal of witness testimony missing.

Ferguson grand jury documents withheld


----------



## Vrollin (Dec 8, 2014)

fps said:


> It might be justification in terms of US law, to shoot someone when things go down like this. But that doesn't make it morally right. That's all I want to say, to expand slightly, I've read a lot on both sides and think the officer probably felt he had to do what he did. But beyond the legal there's the moral, and so many officers being armed, being trained to see every person they interact with as both target and threat, this cannot be a constructive way to police a country.



Moral? What did you wan't him to do, invite him to sit down and have a cup of tea with Brown?
When someone tries to pinch your weapon, they are always going to be seen as threat. If you are drawing your weapon in a hostile situation you better believe it comes down to who is a threat and who is your target, your not worried about anyone else except that mother ....er trying to do you or others harm.
Now if we wanted to all share your rose coloured glasses and hold hands I guess the world could work differently...?


----------



## asher (Dec 9, 2014)

Group Considers Filing Ethics Complaint Against McCulloch « CBS St. Louis


----------



## asher (Dec 16, 2014)

So, about that completely ridiculous journal by Witness #40:

Addicting Info &#8211; Ferguson Witness 40 Revealed As Ex-Felon With History Of Lying To Police

So the DA put her material out *three times* and put her up on the stand.

Where was the incredulity for witness testimony for her?


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Dec 18, 2014)

All of the eye witness testimony was bull to me. Some knowingly lied, some lied unknowingly. I couldn't really care less about the stupid journal entry or the person behind it. The physical evidence is more than enough to keep my mind made up that Wilson was in the right. If you're going to bring up lying witnesses, how about you talk about the witnesses that all say he was shot in the back, or that Wilson tried pulling Brown through the window of his SUV? What about any of the witnesses who said Brown never approached Wilson when we know he did given the blood evidence?


----------



## asher (Dec 18, 2014)

It was to *you*.

But not to how the DA treated them, remotely. Which was my point (worded poorly, sorry).


----------



## Explorer (Dec 18, 2014)

Chokey Chicken said:


> *The physical evidence is more than enough* to keep my mind made up that Wilson was in the right. If you're going to bring up lying witnesses, how about you talk about the *witnesses that all say he was shot in the back, or that Wilson tried pulling Brown through the window of his SUV*? What about any of the witnesses who said *Brown never approached Wilson when we know he did given the blood evidence*?



This. 

Physical evidence trumps testimony. 

That's why science doesn't embrace Bigfoot or alien abductions as fact.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Dec 18, 2014)

asher said:


> It was to *you*.
> 
> But not to how the DA treated them, remotely. Which was my point (worded poorly, sorry).



I should say that it didn't mean "nothing" to me, but it means much less than physical evidence. For instance, it doesn't matter how many people say they saw him get shot in the back, there were no bullet holes in the back. Worse still is the amount of people who say he never approached Wilson when the blood trails well behind the body clearly say otherwise.

You can sort of puzzle piece together what happened by taking all of the eyewitness testimony and piecing together consistencies, but even then it's still sort of a guessing game, and it's all unreliable. What you can do is take your puzzle piece testimony and line it up with physical evidence, which tells it's own, much more reliable, story. In the end, the physical evidence lends credibility to not Brown's, but Wilson's story.

I still think it's buckets full of depressing that a kid had to die regardless of how thuggish he may or may not have been. Death should never be celebrated, but we shouldn't demonize someone who has a large quantity of physical evidence pointing towards his non-guilt. Every bit of evidence in support of Brown was all speculation and/or omission of certain aspects of what happened. 

I'm also not saying that certain police entities aren't corrupt, and I'm not saying blacks, or people of color in general, are treated fairly in general. I just happen to think that this particular case went just as it should have. Sometimes the black guy really is just the aggressor/criminal, and I unfortunately think this was one of those cases.

For the record, I find it downright sickening how many racist ....s were clouding the comment sections of anything related to this, and any of the following cases.


----------

