Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 09:41 AM) So every time there's a national story, prosecutors throw their hands in the air, present all available evidence to a grand jury, specifically decline to ask for an indictment and ask questions that paint the suspect as a baby-saving hero? I am doubtful. In speaking with my 2 partners, who have 20 and 25 years of states' attorneys experience, they both said the same thing: I would have not brought charges based on the evidence. I could have gotten an indictment by putting on one witness (the, "I can indict a bologna sandwich" joke) If I had the pressure of the national media, FBI and Dept. of Justice, i'm going to probably do exactly what this guy did: take the decision out of my hands, give a grand jury all the information they would get at a trial, and let them decide.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 09:35 AM) This was handled completely differently from the regular GJ process. It was a sham, and it was done intentionally to give cover for not charging Wilson. If the prosecutors simply thought that there wasn't enough evidence, then they should have had the courage to make the determination themselves explicitly and present their reasoning. Instead, they go this route so that they can place the burden on a GJ that they've rigged to get the outcome they wanted anyway but provide themselves a shield. If they make their own case instead of going with the GJ shield in the first place, there's less rage and less transparent corruption that's driving the rage and reaction in the first place. Oh bulls***. This became a national story, with the FBI and Dept of Justice all over him. You cannot compare this to any normal proceeding.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 09:30 AM) A grand jury presentation is pretty much the exact opposite of transparent. A transparently conducted case is one where a prosecutor takes enough evidence to the grand jury to obtain an indictment and then conducts a public trial in an adversarial process, with the prosecutor arguing the case and the defendant calling witnesses to support that case. This is not a transparent or overboard case at all. This was not conducted in an adversarial sense. The person who talked for 20 minutes about how the evidence in his opinion wasn't consistent and the officer was believable was the person whose job it was to do the prosecution and who also happens to, by all accounts, be close to that police department anyway. This was set up to return no indictment. There's no reason whatsoever to present exculpatory evidence to a grand jury unless you want them to not return an indictment. Their job is to determine whether there is probable cause to bring a case to trial, not to try the case. Transparent in the sense that you're going to get all 70 hours worth of transcripts to pour over. That's not common either. The dude was covering his ass from both sides. Not sure how you guys don't see that. And by the way, you guys misconstrue the purpose of a grand jury. The grand jury is basically a mock-trial to give the prosecutor a feel for how the evidence would shake out in an actual trial. That necessitates in some cases the defendant's own testimony, especially here where only one person involved in the crime is still around. That's not super common, but this isn't a very common case to begin with.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 09:25 AM) It is not remotely believable that Brown kept charging at Wilson, only getting stronger with each bullet that hit him. He's a 300 lb dude with adrenaline pumping through his body. Obviously he's not being literal there either.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 09:24 AM) You specifically responded to me saying that this should have been heard in a jury trial presented as an actual case with the point "oh you can't have understood that fear". No one on a jury is going to have understood that either. No one on the grand jury would have either. Why should we trust their opinions based on what you just said? No, it was your and SS' disbelief about Wilson's testimony that i'm getting that.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 09:24 AM) Citation needed. Um, the press conference last night? He mentioned this approx. 5 times.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 09:23 AM) Well, don't spend months showing everyone just how much of a sham the GJ was going to be for one. Then, don't leak information to the business community to start an arms build-up ahead of the decision, further tainting the process and undermining your own credibility. Then, don't preemptively say you're going to heavily militarize the whole situation by calling out the national guard. After that, probably not a good idea to announce that the GJ has reached a decision but hold off on announcing it for hours, letting everything come to a boil. And last but not least, don't hold a sanctimonious press conference announcing the no-bill in which you indict everyone but Wilson and whine relentlessly about the media. None of that would have stopped this and you know it. The prosecutor went overboard because of pressure on both sides. He laid everything out and was transparent about it from the get go. The leaks are still bulls***, since really other than Wilson's testimony, nothing was leaked. We learned for the first time last night that many of the witnesses changed their story and/or admitted they didn't actually witness the entire thing. That wasn't part of the narrative either. Surely mistakes were made as there are in every investigation and ever hearing, but nothing egregious. Nothing that would have changed the outcome here. You're just looking for a scapegoat.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 09:18 AM) I love how this is an argument against a jury trial system existing at all. No, it's me thinking you guys are so full of your white guilt/police hate/gun hate that you can't believe a guy when he describes the fear he saw that day. Like it's not even remotely believable. As if you've been in a similar situation before.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 08:49 AM) There is no forensic evidence that conflicts with multiple witness testimony that Brown was surrendering when Wilson began firing again. The witnesses who changed their story and/or admitted they actually didn't witness Brown surrendering, they were just passing along what they overheard. Oh, and the other witnesses who disagree that he was surrendering and that he was actually heading towards Wilson. And they were black witnesses, so, no racist intent!

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 08:31 AM) 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. What would you have done differently?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 07:40 AM) In a fair system, this would not go over well with cross examination, but that's why it shouldn't have been tried by a grand jury. I love how you guys can even pretend to know what it's like to have your life in danger to the point that you have to shoot someone.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 25, 2014 -> 04:56 AM) I'm blown away by a lot of the responses on here. The entire thing was orchestrated so that what has happened would happen. They damn near wanted riots - you have to figure - for the terrible way in which this whole thing was planned out. Of course they should've announced the decision in daylight hours. Of course they shouldn't have made all the big announcements about mobilizing the Nat'l Guard. The militarization of the police is what is being fought in the first place, so lets talk big and scary about how we're militarizing the situation, right!? Let's just further fan the flames. That makes sense. I'm sorry. Should people be rioting and looting? No, of course not. But do I understand the pain, fear, hatred, anger and hopelessness people feel in light of the mockery of justice they were given? Absolutely. I'm also not going to ignore that the people burning buildings are probably just burning buildings. There's truth to that. They don't care one way or another, it's just an opportunity to create free mayhem. I get that. And that's f***ed up. But in my mind, then the DA and the system shouldn't have rigged the outcome in the f***ing first place. This is a joke post, right?

Steady gunfire. Hundreds of shots. Stay classy guys.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 24, 2014 -> 10:19 PM) I would get perma-banned if I responded to this post the way I want to. You have got to be kidding. We're a civilized society. This is the opposite of civilized.

Good on ya Ferguson. Shining example of how you can break sterotypes.... sigh.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Nov 24, 2014 -> 08:24 PM) Really dumb. I heard they wanted to make sure kids were out of school and what not but to announce it this late is just stupid. If I'm a parent I'm happy they decided that. Who knows how crazy this will get. Hopefully it'll be a whole lotta nothing.

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?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 24, 2014 -> 05:02 PM) 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. The other kid Brown was with is not a credible witness at all IMO. He's the only one that supports the theory that Wilson initiated the fight. edit: re the bolded: it's cold blooded because Wilson is shooting someone who is unarmed, down on the ground and injured. And he's supposedly within 4-8 feet of him when he fires the last 4-5 shots.

FWIW, here's the Wikipedia breakdown of the witnesses and their knowledge: Dorian Johnson Dorian Johnson, a friend of Brown, was walking with him in the street. Johnson said that Wilson pulled up beside them and said, "Get the f*** on the sidewalk."[65][66][67][68] The young men replied that they were "not but a minute away from [their] destination, and [they] would shortly be out of the street".[68] Wilson drove forward without saying anything further, only to abruptly back up, positioning his vehicle crosswise in their path, almost hitting the two men. "We were so close, almost inches away, that when he tried to open his door aggressively, the door ricocheted both off me and Big Mike's body and closed back on the officer."[29] Wilson, still in his vehicle, grabbed Brown around his neck through the open window.[36] Brown tried to pull away, but Wilson continued to pull Brown toward him "like tug of war".[69] Brown "did not reach for the officer's weapon at all", and was attempting to get free of Wilson rather than attack him or take his weapon from him.[66][70][71][72][73] Wilson drew his weapon and said, "I'll shoot you" or "I'm going to shoot", and almost instantaneously fired his weapon, hitting Brown. Following the initial gunshot, Brown was able to free himself, at which point the two fled. Wilson exited the vehicle, after which he fired several rounds at the fleeing Brown, hitting him once in the back.[29][68] Brown turned around with his hands raised and said, "I don't have a gun. Stop shooting!" Wilson then shot Brown several more times, killing him.[29][50] Johnson's attorney stated that Wilson did not attempt to resuscitate Brown, did not call for medical help, and "he didn't call it in that someone had been shot."[6] Johnson told local TV stations shortly after the shooting that Brown had been surrendering[74] when Wilson opened fire without cause or warning. Johnson's attorney, Freeman Bosley, stated that Johnson had confirmed with law enforcement his and Brown's roles in taking the cigars prior to the shooting incident.[51] Michael Brady Michael T. Brady, who lived near the scene of the shooting, said that he observed an initial altercation on the police vehicle while inside looking through a window. "It was something strange. Something was not right. It was some kind of altercation. I can't say whether he was punching the officer or whatever. But something was going on in that window, and it didn't look right." Brady could see Johnson at the front passenger side of the vehicle when he and Brown started running suddenly; he did not hear a gunshot or see what caused them to run. He saw Wilson get out of the vehicle and "start walking briskly while firing on Brown as he fled".[32] Brady then ran outside with his camera phone to record the event. By the time he got outside, Brown had turned around and was facing Wilson. Brown was "balled up" with his arms under his stomach and he was "halfway down" to the ground. As he was falling, Brown took one or two steps toward Wilson because he was presumably hit and was stumbling forward; Wilson then shot him three or four times. Brady said that the pictures he took of Brown with his arms tucked in under his body is the position he was in as he was shot three or four more times by Wilson before hitting the ground.[75] Piaget Crenshaw Piaget Crenshaw said that, from her vantage point, it appeared that Wilson and Brown were arm wrestling before the former shot Brown from inside his vehicle. Wilson then chased Brown for about 20 feet before shooting him again. "I saw the police chase him ... down the street and shoot him down."[76] When Brown then raised his arms, the officer shot him two more times, killing him.[77] According to earlier reports that appeared on August 10, Crenshaw saw Brown attempt to flee with his hands in the air and that he was hit with several shots as he ran.[73][78] On August 18, after the release of Baden's autopsy report, Crenshaw told CNN that no shots hit Brown's back as he was running away, "Clearly none of [the shots] hit him, but one, I think, did graze him as they said on the autopsy report. At the end, he just turned around ... after I'm guessing he felt the bullet grazed his arm, he turned around and he was shot multiple times."[79] Tiffany Mitchell Tiffany Mitchell arrived in the area to pick up coworker Piaget Crenshaw.[29] In an August 13 televised interview with a local CBS affiliate, Mitchell said she saw Brown and Wilson struggling through the window of Wilson's vehicle. "The kid was pulling off and the cop was pulling in." She started to take out her phone to record video, but then she heard a gunshot, "so I just started getting out of the way." After the first shot was fired, Brown started to run away. "After the shot, the kid just breaks away. The cop follows him, kept shooting, the kid's body jerked as if he was hit. After his body jerked he turns around, puts his hands up, and the cop continues to walk up on him and continues to shoot until he goes all the way down."[80] Mitchell also appeared on CNN that evening, describing what she witnessed as follows: "As I pull onto the side, the kid, he finally gets away, he starts running. As he runs the police get out of his vehicle and he follows behind him, shooting. And the kid's body jerked as if he was hit from behind, and he turns around and puts his hands up like this, and the cop continued to fire until he just dropped down to the ground and his face just smacks the concrete."[81] Construction worker A construction worker at the nearby apartment complex, who spoke to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on condition of anonymity, said that he saw Brown running away with Wilson 10 to 15 feet behind. About 90 feet away from the vehicle, Wilson fired a shot at Brown, whose back was turned. Brown stumbled, stopped, put his hands up and said "OK, OK, OK, OK, OK." The worker believed Brown had been wounded. With his hands up, Brown began walking toward the officer, at which point Wilson began firing at Brown and backing away. After the third shot, Brown’s hands started going down, and he moved about 25 feet toward Wilson, who kept backing away and firing. The worker was unable to discern if Brown's movement toward the officer was "a stumble to the ground" or "OK, I'm going to get you, you're already shooting me." The worker disputed the claim, by defenders of Wilson, that Brown rushed at the officer, "I don't know if he was going after him or if he was falling down to die. It wasn't a bull rush."[82] In a cellphone video obtained by CNN on September 11, which captured the reaction of the construction worker and a colleague, one of them can be heard saying "He had his f**n hands up." The workers said they were approximately 50 feet away from Wilson when he opened fire. Jeffrey Toobin, CNN's legal analyst said that this video could play an important role in the case.[83] James McKnight James McKnight said he witnessed the shooting and that Brown held his hands in the air just after he turned to face Wilson. He stumbled toward the officer, but didn't rush him, and "the officer was about six or seven feet away" from Brown.[32] Phillip Walker Phillip Walker, a 40-year-old resident of a nearby apartment complex, said he saw Brown walking "at a steady pace" toward Wilson with his hands up and that he "did not rush the officer", adding that Wilson's final shot was from a distance of about four feet.[82] Emanuel Freeman Emanuel Freeman, a 19-year-old resident of a nearby apartment complex, on witnessing the shooting, began tweeting about the incident two minutes after it began. Freeman stated that Wilson fired twice at Brown while he was running away, and five more times after he turned around to face Wilson.[84][85] Grand jury witnesses On October 16, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch published an interview with a black Canfield resident who testified before the grand jury. The man, who did not want his name released, said he saw the entire event. Wilson drove past Johnson and Brown and then backed up again. A scuffle ensued in the police vehicle and Wilson's hat flew off. There was a gunshot at the vehicle, and then Brown ran down the street followed by Wilson. Wilson aimed his gun at Brown and repeatedly yelled "Stop", but did not fire until Brown turned around and stepped toward Wilson. At that point Wilson fired three shots. Brown staggered toward Wilson from 20 feet away with his hands out to his sides, when Wilson fired again. The witness said that Brown was already falling as the last shots were fired and that, in his opinion, the final shots were murder.[39] According to several people close to the grand jury investigation, seven or eight witnesses have given testimony consistent with Wilson's account. Details of the testimony were not reported. Speaking on condition of anonymity to The Washington Post, the sources said that the witnesses are all African American, and that they have not spoken publicly out of fear for their safety.[63] Bystander heard on video An unidentified bystander, heard speaking in the background of a video recorded shortly after the shooting, is heard saying that after Brown stopped running and turned, "Next thing I know he's coming back towards the police. The police had his gun drawn on him. Police kept dumping on him, I'm thinking that the police missed him." The bystander said that he heard "at least five shots". He continued, "I think ... dude start running, kept coming toward the police."[86][87]

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 24, 2014 -> 02:29 PM) Drinking game for tonight: Do a shot every time somebody misuses the term "verdict" when discussing the grand jury's decision. one: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30185686

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 24, 2014 -> 04:40 PM) 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. We know what Wilson supposedly told investigators. And I don't know that that's ever really been questioned. Why would Wilson attack Brown if he's in the squad car? Why would the gun go off? If you were just attacked by a cop and you got away, why would you suddenly surrender? None of that really adds up. What does add up is that the kid just robbed a store, he's stopped by a cop and decides he's not going to be taken to jail and tries to obtain the upper hand from the cop but fails. Yeah see this is the biggest problem for me with this theory. Basically Wilson has to be a calculated, cold blooded killer. He had to refrain from shooting Brown as he's running away from the car, wait until Brown finally surrenders, and THEN shoot him. I find that incredibly hard to believe.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 24, 2014 -> 04:18 PM) We've also got video of witnesses to the shooting immediately after it happened running to the scene yelling "he had his ****ing hands up". 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.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 24, 2014 -> 03:54 PM) He was at least 30 feet away from Brown, and I'm pretty sure the law is not on your side with that interpretation. But we're still back to there not being any evidence, leaked or otherwise, that we know about at this point that supports Brown making a move at Wilson. Maybe there are some witnesses we don't know about who testified to the GJ, but what's publicly known contradicts that claim. She explicitly disavowed the conclusion the reporter stated in her piece. Which is good, because you can't even draw the conclusion the reporter stated from an autopsy result. You also can't know what the reporter did or didn't summarize because we don't have a transcript of their verbal conversation. It's equally possible that the reporter simply misunderstood what she was being told and ran with it because it'd be a big story (and it was!) 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. Btw, wasn't there a shot at the top of his head with facial abrasions? How is that possible unless he's barreling towards the guy?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 24, 2014 -> 03:33 PM) Nobody disputes that there was some sort of struggle at the car. Really, though, whether Brown attacked Wilson or Wilson grabbed Brown isn't really relevant. Even if we go with what's reported as Wilson's version of events, we're still left with Brown turning and running away from Wilson and Wilson chasing after him. At that point, he doesn't have justification to use deadly force on Brown. Uh, disagree completely. That struggle - what happened, how it happened, etc. - sets the stage for how Wilson can act afterwards. If he was attacked, if Brown went after the gun, if Wilson was injured, Brown could have been 10-15 feet away and just motioned in Wilson's direction and I'd be fine with Wilson shooting him. The threat of danger was real given what he just went through. Brown is a person who just fought with a cop and tried to get his gun. He's capable of anything. I don't recall the specifics, but I remember that "misquote" being a bunch of bologna. I remember thinking the report basically summarized their verbal conversation, whereas her official statement wasn't really definitive about anything. To me, the verbal, conversational opinion is much more indicative of her conclusion that some canned, prepared statement about being misquoted. edit: it essentially came down to "expert thinks forensics backs Wilson's claim" v. "I can't say with 100% certainty that the forensics back Wilson's claim." It was a hedge.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 24, 2014 -> 02:48 PM) An alleged criminal who allegedly attacked a cop and then ran away who got shot. What evidence that's been leaked do you think completely clears Wilson? The most that's really been leaked is "several witnesses support Wilson's version of events" without any specificity on whether they support a portion of Wilson's story or all of it. That's all we have at this point. Wilson's version of events and the public witness statements all more or less match up until the moment Michael Brown turns around. Multiple witnesses say Brown then surrendered while Wilson's leaked story is that Brown then charged at him. Nothing that's been leaked so far gives any indication one way or the other on that last, crucial part. edit: this is why an actual trial would be beneficial, so we're not just relying on leaked and vague pieces of evidence. I don't think anything "completely" clears him. We'll never have that. Obviously I'm assuming what we've read is true. If it's true, I don't think charges should be brought. You've got the forensic report that says he was shot from close range in the thumb. There were reports that Wilson got punched. Brown's blood all over Wilson and the car. I still think the independent med. examiner who told the reporter the forensics matched Wilson's story that Brown was not surrendering, and the retraction that was really not a retraction, is persuasive. Obviously I don't know. I'm not given the evidence like the grand jury. But if all of those things I've read are true, I do not think charges would be appropriate. You've got a guy that attacked a cop, tried to grab his gun and got shot. Other than some witnesses - whose eye-witness testimony is always unreliable right? - everything else seems to support Wilson's story or at least the story as laid out by the police dept. Throw in the way the states attorney is handling this - multiple prosecutors, everything being transcribed, promises to be open and transparent - I mean obviously there's public pressure here to do SOMETHING.