StrangeSox

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 26, 2014 -> 09:57 AM) Putting aside whatever he said later, which I don't think is all that fantastical... I do agree that a lack of recorded or written statement from Wilson immediately after is messed up. I can't speak for Missouri, but in at least one state, I can tell you that any use of force with a non-compliant subject required a special report to be filled out and a copy filed with the state, and that said report had to be completed within 24 hours. That alone should have been a start. Furthermore, in most deadly force scenarios, I'm pretty sure in Illinois (and in at least one other state) you typically have a seperate agency (State Police, county, neighboring town, non-police prosecuting authority, etc.) do an initial investigation or at least be part of it, including collecting statements. That is supposed to occur straight away. I think Chicago may be an exception here as they have a (supposedly) seperate internal review department for such things. Either way, if he didn't have to make a legally admissable statement for a month, either someone screwed up (intentionally or accidentally), or Missouri's laws need some tweaking. I'm wondering if all of the failures in the investigation and incident reporting is where a civil rights violation might come into play. Ferguson PD did turn the case over the St. Louis County either that Saturday or the next day, but StLC seemed preoccupied with conducting a military occupation of Ferguson and shutting down the media.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 26, 2014 -> 09:54 AM) It's not meant to be a real trial. It's more relaxed. There is less scrutiny of the evidence because the standard is different. You guys keep complaining about there not being a "pro-prosecution" but you're ignoring there also wasn't a "pro-defense" which would have ripped the 15 different versions of the event as reported by the witnesses (at least to the press). Yes there was, it was the prosecution team. It's not meant to be a real trial or a "mock trial." Grand jurors aren't supposed to be sorting through witness credibility and evidence reliability. That's for a full jury or bench trial to do. Inundating grand jurors with 70 hours of testimony and countless documents over 3 months while providing zero prosecutorial guidance or painting a coherent picture is pretty much guaranteed to return no indictment.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 26, 2014 -> 09:54 AM) He was shot from behind but it wasn't the fatal shots. He was definitely shot while fleeing. I don't think that's been shown?

Too bad we're all left having to argue over witness credibility and crime scene evidence* on the internet instead of having an actual trial, though. *another fun fact: the St. Louis County medical examiner didn't bother to photograph the scene because his camera batteries died. Real professional operation they've got there.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 26, 2014 -> 09:51 AM) Yeah I probably would because "I saw him shoot him down" (what Crenshaw initially reported after seeing Brown run away) is different from "he was running and I heard gun shots." Dorian Johnson also clearly said he was shot in the back. You don't say someone is shot in the back unless you saw it. You say that someone was running and you heard gun shots. Or someone was running and you saw them get hit and fall. I mean, best case i'm not taking their claims to be very credible. If they're going to report that he was shot down from behind (and that's not true) anything else they say, especially that Wilson supposedly pulled Brown into the car first, isn't very credible to me. Those witnesses still corroborate the stories about the final shots told be several other witnesses who made no mention of getting shot from behind.

The "prosecuting" attorney acted as a defense attorney and lied in his press conference blatantly at least once. This is abundantly clear from the questions that were asked--and not asked--of Wilson during his testimony.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 26, 2014 -> 09:45 AM) This isn't really THAT important of a distinction. I mean, you've got the victim of an assault reporting what he was seeing. He's hopped up on adrenaline and just killed someone. You have others from a distance seeing a guy move towards another guy. I've had this same problem in cases where some witnesses claim a bus jerked violently forward and others say it just stopped. A lot of that stuff is pretty relative. Staggering a couple of steps and charging for 10+ yards like the Hulk is a pretty damn important distinction. It's the distinction between justified and manslaughter if not murder to me.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 26, 2014 -> 09:42 AM) ? They had live witness testimony from these witnesses. With little or no pro-prosecution pressing and the grand jurors asking many of the questions, which is completely unlike a real trial.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 26, 2014 -> 09:42 AM) To me, even without reading the GJ stuff, this is the most damaging to those initial witnesses that started this whole surrender thing. 2 or 3 of them said he was shot in the back while running away. And the forensics show that he wasn't. Those are just flat out lies. No, they aren't. Imagine you see someone running from someone else and distinctly hear several gunshots fired before the person stops and turns around. Is it a "lie" if you think one of those shots hit the person, especially if you see the person is wounded (which Brown was)? Or is it an honest-but-typical eyewitness mistake? Like I said a few pages ago, if the ultimate result of this is that we apply the same level of scrutiny to all cases going forward as was applied at the indictment level here, great. But I'm not holding my breath for prosecutors to stop zealously pressing for convictions on evidence much weaker than what they had in this case.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 26, 2014 -> 09:39 AM) More conclusive? Blood pattens plus several witnesses show that Brown was moving towards Wilson. You have to be awfully stubborn in your position not to accept that. Most witnesses support at least a couple of steps or a stagger toward Wilson. But "moving towards" and charging at him like a wild beast that only gets more aggressive with every bullet that hits him, which is Wilson's story, are two very different things. And like I keep saying, it'd be nice to actually see this blood pattern evidence and have actual experts testify on it, not grand jurors drawing their own conclusions. I don't believe any witnesses ever claimed that Brown never turned around, but I could be wrong. Do you have any links to that?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 26, 2014 -> 09:37 AM) Someone really needs to see what the witnesses said in their grand jury testimony, because you keep relying on this but supposedly most of those witnesses changed their story later. "Supposedly." McCullogh flat-out lied about at least one claim (said Wilson didn't stand over Brown's body when there's photos of him doing it) in his post-victory press conference. But you're right, and I imagine some pretty thorough breakdowns of the grand jury document dump will be forthcoming in the next couple of weeks.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 26, 2014 -> 09:35 AM) I'm pretty sure that would be the opposite of what cops are trained to do. They're trained to have the person stay still while they move towards them. Brown would have been told to get on his knees with his hands up, then down on the ground. I don't think anyone but Wilson has testified that Wilson told Brown to get on the ground.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 26, 2014 -> 09:34 AM) The same witnesses who said that also said he wasn't moving forward, which is disproved by the physical evidence. Not exactly. I'm still waiting for something more conclusive than the non-expert conclusion reached by one member of the grand jury. A few witnesses thought he was shot in the back and, I think, maintain that Wilson shot at Brown while Brown was fleeing. No one disagreed that Brown eventually stopped and turned around before being fatally shot from the front. That these witnesses mistakenly believed that Brown was hit by these alleged shots fired from behind doesn't undermine the rest of their testimony.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Nov 26, 2014 -> 09:20 AM) Yeah, there have been way worse instances of police killing civilians, yet they are protesting one where the victim physically attacked the officer first. The uproar really started when the police trampled and drove over a makeshift memorial the night of the shooting. That led to the violence the next day, which led to the ridiculously over-the-top police response which turned it into a national story.

One really confusing part of Wilson's story: He says Brown initially struck him with his right hand, and later that Brown grabbed the gun on Wilson's right hip with his right hand. First is that the injuries are more on the right side of Wilson's face, not his left, and you'd expect a right-hand hit to hurt the left side of your face. The second is the really awkward positioning you'd have to take to grab a gun off of a seated person's right hip through a car window with your own right hand while still continuing to fight with your left. He also contradicts himself in the span of a couple sentences, first saying that Brown had complete control of the gun and then saying he wouldn't say that Brown had complete control of the gun, just some control.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Nov 26, 2014 -> 09:02 AM) Doesn't matter. If you continue to advance toward an individual you have already repeatedly punched in the face, the individual has every right to feel threatened. both parties are probably exaggerating a little. The officer trying to say he was charging the others side of witnesses say he he was slowly moving. Either way the fact that he was advancing toward and person he has already attacked gives that person a right to feel threatened. Twice, with what doesn't appear to be much effect: Somebody punching you in the face twice doesn't generally justify deadly force in response.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 26, 2014 -> 09:01 AM) Thats not what they said on ABC last night. They said he gave a statement to the supervisor on scene and then debriefed at the station. There's no written record. Ferguson PD didn't ask for one and used "we handed it over to St Louis County" as their excuse. St. Louis County also didn't bother. They managed to produce an incident report 10 days after the shooting, but it contained no statements from Wilson. Wilson did give a written statement to his lawyer shortly after the shooting, but that is and will remain secret. Wilson also thoroughly scrubbed blood and potentially gun shot residue off of his hands and face after the shooting, with no one bothering to collect any for evidence first.

fun fact from this 'investigation:' nobody bothered to get an official statement from Wilson on his version of events for at least a month after the shooting, giving him plenty of time to craft his story around everything that was publicly reported (plus whatever was leaked to him). Even with all of that prep time and advantage, he still came up with an at times fantastical story that the prosecution didn't bother to question at all.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 26, 2014 -> 08:00 AM) No, and to go further, if the initial witnesses don't lie by claiming that Brown had his hands up and/or his back to the officer when he was shot, and they admit that he was charging the officer, the story doesn't reach anywhere near this level. There were protests (mostly peaceful) in cities all over the US last night with people chanting "Hands up, don't shoot" which is all based on the initial lie that Brown had his hands up when he was shot. I still remain baffled as to why you think that this has been conclusively shown.

was this before or after you took a dump in their office? this is critical.

go out in style

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 04:08 PM) Really? One example? Brown's step father was on video screaming to the protesters to burn the town down. I guess black people love violence. that was just a segue into a weird piece of evidence from the grand jury investigation

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 02:36 PM) It's not, but if you haven't noticed the vast majority of people in this country are afraid of their own shadow when it comes to racial issues. We are so far removed from that line of thinking. well, there's this journal entry from one of the witnesses in this trial that doesn't exactly scream "so far removed from that line of thinking": This person admits to having a problem even calling blacks people. Of course, they just happened to take a drive to Ferguson that day, be at the scene of the shooting and give a recounting that's strongly in favor of Wilson.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 02:41 PM) For the record, there are FAR more white people living in poverty than all other races combined currently living in the United States. If you're talking specifically white non-hispanic, that's actually not true. White non-hispanics make up about 44.5% of all people in poverty. Page 13, Table 1: http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acsbr11-17.pdf 42.7M total in poverty 25.7M whites in poverty 19.0M white non-hispanics in poverty 9.4M black 11.2M Hispanic

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 02:40 PM) None of us were alive back then, s*** my family wasnt even ON this continent. I find no connection to what was done back then. My family came from a very notorious area in Germany and I do not have ingrained hatred or biases toward jews based on what some idiots did before I was born. It was a comment on where the stereotyping originally came from. Stereotyping black people as dumb animals didn't die out before you were born. Hell, The Bell Curve, which argued that blacks were genetically dumber, was published and widely debated in the 1990's.