StrangeSox

Animals don't have any control of fire so no, it's literally an exclusively human-like behavior.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 08:54 AM) On here? Lol. No, in general. The Brute Caricature

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 08:49 AM) Uh what? They weren't called animals because of their race. They were called animals because they acted like animals. Who cares what color they are. The anonymous rioters were called animals too. Were you pissed? Black people are generally described more as animals, beasts etc. than any other race. It's not exactly a new phenomenon or dog-whistle.

Wilson also described Brown as looking like a Demon: Wild animal who only gets more enraged as you shoot him; a demon. This sounds like reasonable testimony sufficient enough to rule out even probable cause for an indictment.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 08:40 AM) Of all the people who post here, for you to ignore forensic evidence is just baffling. There is no forensic evidence that conflicts with multiple witness testimony that Brown was surrendering when Wilson began firing again.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 08:16 AM) sounds like one crazy conspiracy. It's hard to imagine a worse way to handle the event if they were looking to minimize unrest, but I'm willing to assume incompetence over malice.

He was also asked a bunch of questions about the sick baby he helped just before the shooting by the prosecutor. I don't think cross-examination would have been all that hard for him.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 07:59 AM) Well, I do think all workers should be treated better., regardless of what company they work for. That was merely pointing out the faux outrage and fake hatred of Walmart from the same people who shop on Amazon and tout how amazing Amazon is while ignoring they're Walmart, too. I think I've posted this article here before, but yeah Amazon (or their warehouse contractors) treat their employees pretty horribly also. And you're also right that individual consumer boycotts generally mean s***.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 24, 2014 -> 08:58 AM) All I need is 50 from Orton and I'm good. A combined 58 from Orton, Buffalo D and Tucker will work

Wilson's testimony available here "he only gets stronger with every bullet!!!" are you f***ing kidding me

Photos of Wilson's injuries here http://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/11/24/72793..._content=monday

QUOTE (ptatc @ Nov 24, 2014 -> 09:21 PM) It said in an article that the grand jury has been seated since May. Are they sequestered like a regular jury? Having this going since May is crazy. I think gj meet a few times a month,and they usually are considering more than one case. They're typically aa rubber stamp or a shield.

It's incredibly rare for a grand jury to do what this one just didhttp://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/

Batteries?

Well absolutely no one should be surprised by this.

This announcement was a train wreck.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 24, 2014 -> 05:33 PM) The only "evidence" that he had his back turned while shooting is witness heresay. All medical points to him facing the front. Even if they took this guy to trial he isnt going to get convicted. Witness testimony isn't hearsay. It's a firsthand account of what they saw. Hearsay would be someone saying what a witness told them they saw e.g. "Bill said he saw Michael put his hands up." That's not allowed, but Bill can definitely come in and testify to what he personally saw. But yeah, I just said that the autopsy indicates that of the shots that actually hit him, they all appear to have come from the front. We don't know, however, how many shots Wilson fired and where he fired them from. If Wilson was 100% on target after a short foot chase in a high-tension situation, he's an incredible shot. How many rounds his discharged and where the shell casing were found would be crucial evidence, but without a full, public trial, I don't know that we'll ever know that.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 24, 2014 -> 05:19 PM) I'm curious, let's flip the switch here: Let's take the cop component out of this. You just have person A allegedly shoots person B at a party. You've got what amounts to 50/50 testimony, with some people saying he did it, some people saying he didn't. He obviously denies it. Do you bring charges on that kind of case? What if he's convicted? Would you not be all up in arms that he was convicted on conflicting evidence? My guess is no - to find guilt you need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. You need some good, hard evidence. 50/50 generally isn't enough because you're presumed innocent until proven guilty. Why is the situation reversed when a cop is involved? Why is it basically that the cop is guilty unless he proves himself innocent? Here you've got, at best, a split in the testimony (this assumes that the anonymous witnesses were found and gave testimony consistent with the newspaper articles). Some say he's surrendering, some say he isn't. Some say he's shooting him down from the back, some deny it. Why the different perspective? It's not reversed when a cop is involved. But we're at a grand jury level here, no a full trial. The burden is simply probable cause, not beyond a reasonable doubt. If a full, public trial can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt, okay. But so far as we can tell with just some leaks from the GJ, the "probable cause" seems to have been met. You also don't have "at best" split testimony in this case, though. You've got the guy who killed Brown and is trying to avoid a murder charge and, from what's publicly known, multiple witnesses all telling a different story from the one Wilson is and more or less similar to each other. They all agree that he's surrendering. Some believe Wilson fired at Brown as he was fleeing, others don't appear to say one way or the other. All agree that he was fatally shot while facing Wilson. Most seem to agree that he staggered towards Wilson possibly after being shot again, but none support Wilson's version of being charged.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 24, 2014 -> 05:16 PM) Wasnt there medical evidence and an autopsy just released that basically disputes him running or being far away? The one shot to his hand was at close range. There was gunpowder residue in the wound. That's believed to have come during the struggle in/through the car in which two rounds were fired. The other shots all appeared to enter from his front side, but they were not at close range (close meaning within a couple feet). He was not shot in the back, but IIRC one of the arm wounds was inconclusive. What it doesn't and can't rule out is if Wilson shot at him as he ran away but didn't hit him.

He's no less credible than Wilson himself IMO since he's trying to save his own ass from a murder charge. The allegation isn't that Wilson shot Brown as he was on the ground, but that he kept firing as Brown was falling to the ground due to the other shots. Which, really, is the only way for that to have happened, justified or not. Brown was also shot in the chest and head several times prior to the final shot through the top of the head, and the angles just don't really work out if you assume he was charging at Wilson with his head completely down. Which is sort of silly anyway, because who runs at somebody with their face pointing straight down?

Right, and that's the point. Jenks has to assume a lot of things to get to the point where "probable cause" isn't even met. The other kid Brown was with claimed Wilson grabbed Brown first, so that's in dispute. Other witnesses claim they saw Brown trying to pull away from Wilson during the struggle. There's no other witnesses for what happened in the car: did Brown go for his gun to what, kill a cop? hold him at gunpoint? Did Wilson go to draw his weapon during the struggle and, seeing that, Brown tried to push the barrel away? Based on where Brown was shot in the hand, that matches up with the physical evidence we have. Assuming he actually had just attacked Wilson, why would he turn and stop? Because he's already been shot in the hand and probably can't really outrun anyone at 300lbs. What doesn't add up is why he'd run 70 feet or so away, stop, turn around and then charge at the guy with a gun who just shot him. And at least one witness stated that Wilson was firing at Brown as he ran away. There's nothing "cold-blooded" with how Brown got shot in the head. In fact, that part isn't even in dispute. That was the final, fatal shot so it absolutely happened as Brown was falling to the ground. Nothing about the autopsy indicates that he was charging at Wilson.

Based on the two stories I've read so far, what I imagine happened is that the kid got spooked by these police with guns pointed at him and wanted to show them that it was just a toy. As soon as he went to grab it out of his waistband, they shot him.

well that's what the orange tip is supposed to be for

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 24, 2014 -> 04:33 PM) Didn't that video get debunked though? Like, the witness admitted later that she didn't actually see it, she just heard that? There was something about that video that didn't add up but I don't remember what it was. No, and there was also video of two construction workers who witnessed it saying something similar.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 24, 2014 -> 04:31 PM) The law is grey. He needs to be in imminent danger of death or serious injury. If I were on the jury and if Brown was 30 feet away and moving towards him by an inch, I'm not convicting him. I'll say again: the dude attacked a cop and tried to take his gun. He's capable of anything. I'm not prescribing some BS proximity rule before he can shoot. We don't know what happened in the car. We only know that there was a struggle and that Brown got shot in the hand. You're having to assume your conclusion to let Wilson off the hook here. Brown was shot several times in the head and chest. He's going to fall down from that, and if he falls forward, it's not hard to have one of the bullets hit him in the top of the head.