They can also match the blood droplets found on the street coming from Brown. The location of the droplets and the distance between them can give forensic scientists an idea of the direction Brown was headed in and about how fast.
On top of that, they have the shell casings from the weapon that was discharged. Plus the angle of the wounds. There is a lot of information that the GJ had besides testimony. That is why I said certain witnesses were more believable than others. Here are all the docs released by the prosecutor - ( New Window )
I wouldn't post this unless I trusted the source. You can take it or leave it.
************************
Wilson saw Brown and his buddy walking on the yellow line of a busy street and told them to get to the sidewalk. Brown's response was to to assault Wilson with punches to the face through the car window. Wilson responded by shooting Brown twice - first hitting him in the hand and in the arm. After being shot, Brown had enough and attempted to flee.
It was at this point Wilson should have/ could have stayed in the car and waited for back-up. Tracking down a kid with two bullets in his arm would be easy. Instead he got out of the car and shot Brown again in the leg as he was trying to get away.
After being shot a third time, Brown charged Wilson likely in fear that the bullets were not going to stop coming and that his only chance to survive was to get the gun away from Wilson.
As Brown charges, Wilson fires the fatal shots.
The grand jury received so many conflicting versions that they would not indict. However, forensics show -- and according to my source, this will come out -- that Brown was shot 3 times before he charged.
Wilson may very well have told Brown to "get down" before firing the fatal shots. Brown however, was in "fight or flight" mode as you can imagine one would be after being shot 3 times. "Flight" wasn't working so "fight" kicked in.
Brown was an idiot for assaulting a cop. Wilson was enraged and took it further then it needed to go.
Wilson may very well have told Brown to "get down" before firing the fatal shots. Brown however, was in "fight or flight" mode as you can imagine one would be after being shot 3 times. "Flight" wasn't working so "fight" kicked in.
Brown was an idiot for assaulting a cop. Wilson was enraged and took it further then it needed to go.
I wasn't there but it Sounds like "Fight" kicked in when he was asked to move from the middle of the road.
RE: From a trusted source in St Louis involved in this: Â
I wouldn't post this unless I trusted the source. You can take it or leave it.
************************
Wilson saw Brown and his buddy walking on the yellow line of a busy street and told them to get to the sidewalk. Brown's response was to to assault Wilson with punches to the face through the car window. Wilson responded by shooting Brown twice - first hitting him in the hand and in the arm. After being shot, Brown had enough and attempted to flee.
It was at this point Wilson should have/ could have stayed in the car and waited for back-up. Tracking down a kid with two bullets in his arm would be easy. Instead he got out of the car and shot Brown again in the leg as he was trying to get away.
After being shot a third time, Brown charged Wilson likely in fear that the bullets were not going to stop coming and that his only chance to survive was to get the gun away from Wilson.
As Brown charges, Wilson fires the fatal shots.
The grand jury received so many conflicting versions that they would not indict. However, forensics show -- and according to my source, this will come out -- that Brown was shot 3 times before he charged.
Was this person on the scene or was this a direct account from Wilson?
I'm not sure that account is any more or less verifiable regardless of your feelings it's legit. Not saying it isn't but context of where or from whom your source says it came from.
Are white, middle aged laker fans residing in MO. Those fuckers are always looking to riot. Though I could be wrong.
Dude, you and I are on the same wavelength! It is like you are inside of my head. The last person I met who I had such a connection with was this little stripper at a club near the airport. :)
either you or your source (or both) are full of it...according to the evidence presented to the grand jury, the interaction between Wilson and Brown was NOT the result of Wilson telling them to get out of the street...it was after Wilson had started driving away and realized the two matched the description of the robbery suspects that something occurred...things escalated after that...
RE: From a trusted source in St Louis involved in this: Â
I wouldn't post this unless I trusted the source. You can take it or leave it.
************************
Wilson saw Brown and his buddy walking on the yellow line of a busy street and told them to get to the sidewalk. Brown's response was to to assault Wilson with punches to the face through the car window. Wilson responded by shooting Brown twice - first hitting him in the hand and in the arm. After being shot, Brown had enough and attempted to flee.
It was at this point Wilson should have/ could have stayed in the car and waited for back-up. Tracking down a kid with two bullets in his arm would be easy. Instead he got out of the car and shot Brown again in the leg as he was trying to get away.
After being shot a third time, Brown charged Wilson likely in fear that the bullets were not going to stop coming and that his only chance to survive was to get the gun away from Wilson.
As Brown charges, Wilson fires the fatal shots.
The grand jury received so many conflicting versions that they would not indict. However, forensics show -- and according to my source, this will come out -- that Brown was shot 3 times before he charged.
Funny, but I saw the forensic pathologist decribing the wounds and he did not mention leg wound - three in the hand and arm and three head and chest. maybe he just chose to ignore the leg wound in his interview.
In comment 12002589 EricJ (formerly Tyleraimee) said:
Quote:
In comment 12002347 Modus Operandi said:
Quote:
Are white, middle aged laker fans residing in MO. Those fuckers are always looking to riot. Though I could be wrong.
Dude, you and I are on the same wavelength! It is like you are inside of my head. The last person I met who I had such a connection with was this little stripper at a club near the airport. :)
Anyway, the attached link is something that may help those who are fearful of getting arrested by the police. How Not To Get Your Ass Kicked By The Police - ( New Window )
Yeah. It's not like you have a history of making not-thinly-veiled racist remarks in the past and then laughing about it...or anything.
a fantastic post by Benjamin Watson. I am not religious and I believe education/exposure is the long term answer so don't see eye to eye on the second half of the last paragraph, but otherwise I think it articulates both sides of the debate here beautifully. Link - ( New Window )
a fantastic post by Benjamin Watson. I am not religious and I believe education/exposure is the long term answer so don't see eye to eye on the second half of the last paragraph, but otherwise I think it articulates both sides of the debate here beautifully. Link - ( New Window )
Beats the hell out of just about anything else out there.
a fantastic post by Benjamin Watson. I am not religious and I believe education/exposure is the long term answer so don't see eye to eye on the second half of the last paragraph, but otherwise I think it articulates both sides of the debate here beautifully. Link - ( New Window )
Excellent post. One paragraph identifies him as a particularly thoughtful person ....
Quote:
I'M INTROSPECTIVE, because sometimes I want to take "our" side without looking at the facts in situations like these. Sometimes I feel like it's us against them. Sometimes I'm just as prejudiced as people I point fingers at. And that's not right. How can I look at white skin and make assumptions but not want assumptions made about me? That's not right.
I'M FEARFUL because in the back of my mind I know that although I'm a law abiding citizen I could still be looked upon as a "threat" to those who don't know me. So I will continue to have to go the extra mile to earn the benefit of the doubt.
"Do you have anything to back that up?" - halfback20
On Monday, Prosecutor Bob McCulloch announced that a grand jury had decided not to indict Darren Wilson, the officer who killed Michael Brown. But that decision was the result of a process that turned the purpose of a grand jury on its head.
Justice Antonin Scalia, in the 1992 Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, explained what the role of a grand jury has been for hundreds of years.
It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented.
This passage was first highlighted by attorney Ian Samuel, a former clerk to Justice Scalia.
In contrast, McCulloch allowed Wilson to testify for hours before the grand jury and presented them with every scrap of exculpatory evidence available. In his press conference, McCulloch said that the grand jury did not indict because eyewitness testimony that established Wilson was acting in self-defense was contradicted by other exculpatory evidence. What McCulloch didn’t say is that he was under no obligation to present such evidence to the grand jury. The only reason one would present such evidence is to reduce the chances that the grand jury would indict Darren Wilson.
Compare Justice Scalia’s description of the role of the grand jury to what the prosecutors told the Ferguson grand jury before they started their deliberations:
And you must find probable cause to believe that Darren Wilson did not act in lawful self-defense and you must find probable cause to believe that Darren Wilson did not use lawful force in making an arrest. If you find those things, which is kind of like finding a negative, you cannot return an indictment on anything or true bill unless you find both of those things. Because both are complete defenses to any offense and they both have been raised in his, in the evidence.
As Justice Scalia explained the evidence to support these “complete defenses,” including Wilson’s testimony, was only included by McCulloch by ignoring how grand juries historically work.
There were several eyewitness accounts that strongly suggested Wilson did not act in self-defense. McCulloch could have, and his critics say should have, presented that evidence to the grand jury and likely returned an indictment in days, not months. It’s a low bar, which is why virtually all grand juries return indictments.
There has been lots of commentary here to the point that, if the GJ wouldn't indict, the case had no chance for a guilty verdict at trial. Well, as I have been saying all along, the normal GJ has DA representing the People, and this one didn't and that makes all the difference in the world.
In this NY Daily News article, a defense attorney explains clearly in several examples how he believes the DA steered the GJ NOT to indict. The attorney focuses on 6 points, but this is my favorite:
Quote:
Wilson’s account of a struggle for his gun in his car is corroborated by physical evidence, but what happened next is hotly disputed.
Some witnesses testified that Brown was shot in the back while running away. Others say he was standing still. Some backed Wilson’s account that Brown was charging him. One testified he saw Brown on his knees with his hands up, and was ridiculed by prosecutors.
“Basically just about everything that you said on Aug. 13, and much of what you said today isn’t consistent with the physical evidence that we have in this case, OK,” the prosecutor said.
Kuby said that “wildly improper commentary encapsulates what the prosecutors were doing. Steering the grand jury not to indict.”
There's lot's more int here, of course. It all goes back to my main point, though. The DA decided not to push for an indicment, as in most GJ situations, but to just sorta stay out of the way, with some nudges in Wilson's favor here and there.
In an actual trial, the prosecutor would be fiercely attacking discrepancies in the story. And, if Wilson decided to testify, it wouldn't be 4 yours or stream of consciousness ending with
Quote:
Is there something that we have not asked you that you want us to know or you think is important for the jurors to consider regarding this incident?
Usually, a potential defendant doesn't testify in a GJ, as is his right, in part because he fears getting ripped to shreds by a DA who will contradict him and in part because he can use his words against him at trial.
The second part is certainly true, except the entire set of circumstances would be different (e.g., a predominately black town with only white officials and a handful of black cops.)
As far as the first part is concerned, you are relying on the same presentation of the evidence as the GJ, from a DA who demonstrably didn't want to indict. Why should we be impressed? Read and the refute the Daily News analysis I linked, and then we can have a reasonable discussion. If not, not.
the Think Progress article linked by Sphinx and the Daily News article, taken in combination, make a powerful case for two indictments: of Wilson, using the low bar that normally applies to indictments, and of the DA for refusing to recuse himself despite a powerful conflict of interest. Both, taken together, suggest other than straightforward behavior by the DA.
the Think Progress article linked by Sphinx and the Daily News article, taken in combination, make a powerful case for two indictments: of Wilson, using the low bar that normally applies to indictments, and of the DA for refusing to recuse himself despite a powerful conflict of interest. Both, taken together, suggest other than straightforward behavior by the DA.
FWIW, I read the NYDN article and thought that the lawyer who wrote it was LOOKING for an indictment. I thought he tilted some items and cherry picked some evidence and ignored others in order to reach his POV. Same with parts of the Progress report.
Very hard to start with a neutral starting point and not look for the evidence that support "your" point of view.
"anger began brewing because of the various descriptions of what had happened and because of the underlying tensions between the Police Department and a significant part of the neighborhood". Why were there "underlying tensions"?
On the afternoon of June 12, 2000, two unarmed black men pulled into the parking lot of a Jack in the Box in the northern suburbs of St. Louis, just a few miles from where Michael Brown was killed by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, earlier this month.
In the car were Earl Murray, a small-time drug dealer, and his friend Ronald Beasley. Waiting for them were a dozen detectives. By the time Murray realized it was a sting, he was surrounded. Panicked, he put his car into reverse but slammed into a police SUV behind him. Two officers approaching the car from the front opened fire. Twenty-one shots rained down on Murray and Beasley.
In an ensuing investigation, the local prosecutor, Robert P. McCulloch, put the case to a grand jury, citizens who receive evidence under the instruction, questioning and watchful eye of the prosecutor to decide whether to press charges. The story presented to the grand jury was that Murray’s car moved toward the two officers, who then fired out of self-defense. The grand jury declined to indict the officers, and McCulloch said he agreed with the decision. [...]
Fourteen years ago, the two officers who shot Murray and Beasley were also invited to testify before the grand jury. Both men told jurors that Murray’s car was coming at them and that they feared being run over. McCulloch said that “every witness who was out there testified that it made some forward motion.” But a later federal investigation showed that the car had never come at the two officers: Murray never took his car out of reverse.
An exhaustive St. Louis Post-Dispatch investigation found that only three of the 13 detectives who testified had said the car moved forward: the two who unloaded their guns and a third whose testimony was, as McCulloch admitted, “obviously…completely wrong.” McCulloch never introduced independent evidence to help clarify for the grand jury whether Murray’s car moved forward.
On the last day of testimony, an investigator in McCulloch’s office read out a list of every interaction Murray and Beasley had had with law enforcement, even arrests that never resulted in charges.
A few hours later, the grand jury voted not to press charges.
This never would have even gone to a GJ and no one could tell your where Ferguson was on a map.
I disagree on the first part, especially if the parents raised enough awareness. Agree on the second part. But he's not and if you don't know why it's a big deal, you don't understand your country.
Your 9:27 Means what? Apparently the voters in St Louis County don't give a crap. From Wiki.
"Robert P. McCulloch is the Prosecuting Attorney for St. Louis County, Missouri, a post he has held since 1991. A Democrat, he has historically had bipartisan support as a popular prosecutor and has won re-election in 1994, 1998, 2002, 2006, 2010 and 2014, often unopposed but by wide margins when he has had an opponent.[1]"
The majority of those that matter, his constituents, either like the job he is doing or just don't care. We'll see what happens in 2018 if he runs. I bet odds are he wins re-election no matter what the rest of the country thinks.
the Think Progress article linked by Sphinx and the Daily News article, taken in combination, make a powerful case for two indictments: of Wilson, using the low bar that normally applies to indictments, and of the DA for refusing to recuse himself despite a powerful conflict of interest. Both, taken together, suggest other than straightforward behavior by the DA.
Unless one of these "powerful cases" (much like the "powerful analysis" by the three journalists you touted the other day) have some evidence that was not presented to the grand jury, there is nothing more to say here. It should be easy to see whether any evidence or testimony was omitted from the grand jury.
The prosecutor can say what he or she wants, he or she can stand up and demand that the grand jury indict and the grand jury can ignore everything the prosecutor says or does and do what they want. They are told this up front in their instructions.
"There are at least three possible explanations as to why grand juries are so much less likely to indict police officers. The first is juror bias: Perhaps jurors tend to trust police officer and believe their decisions to use violence are justified, even when the evidence says otherwise. The second is prosecutorial bias: Perhaps prosecutors, who depend on police as they work on criminal cases, tend to present a less compelling case against officers, whether consciously or unconsciously.
The third possible explanation is more benign. Ordinarily, prosecutors only bring a case if they think they can get an indictment. But in high-profile cases such as police shootings, they may feel public pressure to bring charges even if they think they have a weak case.
“The prosecutor in this case didn’t really have a choice about whether he would bring this to a grand jury,” Ben Trachtenberg, a University of Missouri law professor, said of the Brown case. “It’s almost impossible to imagine a prosecutor saying the evidence is so scanty that I’m not even going to bring this before a grand jury.”"
Since Scalia is cited above, I wonder what he would have to say in the third circumstance. I tend to think he did not have this in mind when he made the statements above.
I guess I do have a problem when a prosecutor is pretty much forced to go to a grand jury under public pressure under what he feels is u untrue or underwhelming evidence and must keep his mouth shut even if he feels the individual is being railroaded. I am thinking of not only police officers but unpopular figures of the day like a communist in the 50s.
Of course I admit I am not a lawyer and largely ignorant of our criminal justice system.
"anger began brewing because of the various descriptions of what had happened and because of the underlying tensions between the Police Department and a significant part of the neighborhood". Why were there "underlying tensions"?
On the afternoon of June 12, 2000, two unarmed black men pulled into the parking lot of a Jack in the Box in the northern suburbs of St. Louis, just a few miles from where Michael Brown was killed by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, earlier this month.
In the car were Earl Murray, a small-time drug dealer, and his friend Ronald Beasley. Waiting for them were a dozen detectives. By the time Murray realized it was a sting, he was surrounded. Panicked, he put his car into reverse but slammed into a police SUV behind him. Two officers approaching the car from the front opened fire. Twenty-one shots rained down on Murray and Beasley.
In an ensuing investigation, the local prosecutor, Robert P. McCulloch, put the case to a grand jury, citizens who receive evidence under the instruction, questioning and watchful eye of the prosecutor to decide whether to press charges. The story presented to the grand jury was that Murray’s car moved toward the two officers, who then fired out of self-defense. The grand jury declined to indict the officers, and McCulloch said he agreed with the decision. [...]
Fourteen years ago, the two officers who shot Murray and Beasley were also invited to testify before the grand jury. Both men told jurors that Murray’s car was coming at them and that they feared being run over. McCulloch said that “every witness who was out there testified that it made some forward motion.” But a later federal investigation showed that the car had never come at the two officers: Murray never took his car out of reverse.
An exhaustive St. Louis Post-Dispatch investigation found that only three of the 13 detectives who testified had said the car moved forward: the two who unloaded their guns and a third whose testimony was, as McCulloch admitted, “obviously…completely wrong.” McCulloch never introduced independent evidence to help clarify for the grand jury whether Murray’s car moved forward.
On the last day of testimony, an investigator in McCulloch’s office read out a list of every interaction Murray and Beasley had had with law enforcement, even arrests that never resulted in charges.
A few hours later, the grand jury voted not to press charges.
Newsweek - ( New Window )
If two suspects decide to try to ram my vehicle and/or myself or other police officers, I think it is a pretty straightforward reaction by cops to try to kill them before they themselves are killed. Is that not SOP?
That article was written with total sympathy towards the "unarmed" suspects who used their car as a weapon.
that everybody decided on day 1 which "side" they were with, and nobody will bend on that decision, regardless of what they read or see.
Anybody that sympathized MAINLY with Brown initially, has held steadfast. Anybody that sympathized MAINLY with Wilson initially, has held steadfast. The same folks here on BBI that thought Brown instigated it, still believe that. And anybody that thought that Wilson was out of line, still believe that.
Basically, the Brown side reads tons of articles, ignores the ones that don't fall in line with their thinking, and run to BBI to post the ones that do, as if it is legit and final, and the others are fabricated. And the same can be said for the Wilson side. People see what the want to see, which is ironic because that's probably the exact case of why all the witnesses have varying stories. Anybody can cherry pick things to sway something to their side of a debate. And that's what is happening here, in this thread. its a good discussion, but it will never be settled.
that everybody decided on day 1 which "side" they were with, and nobody will bend on that decision, regardless of what they read or see.
Anybody that sympathized MAINLY with Brown initially, has held steadfast. Anybody that sympathized MAINLY with Wilson initially, has held steadfast. The same folks here on BBI that thought Brown instigated it, still believe that. And anybody that thought that Wilson was out of line, still believe that.
Basically, the Brown side reads tons of articles, ignores the ones that don't fall in line with their thinking, and run to BBI to post the ones that do, as if it is legit and final, and the others are fabricated. And the same can be said for the Wilson side. People see what the want to see, which is ironic because that's probably the exact case of why all the witnesses have varying stories. Anybody can cherry pick things to sway something to their side of a debate. And that's what is happening here, in this thread. its a good discussion, but it will never be settled.
*But*........
The a grand jury saw *everything*. Had an opportunity to view the case dispassionately, to evaluate evidence or observations, to ask questions to discuss, debate and come to a consensus. They saw the whole picture and decided to no bill.
It was deductive reasoning from the beginning. If you take Browns side you have to believe that a cop murdered this kid in the middle of the day, in the middle of the street because the "kid" was black.
If you think about the evidence you have Brown acting like a violent thug 15 minutes prior robbing a store and assaulting a clerk, then assaulting the cop through the police car window (the counter point was Wilson was trying to pull a 300lb violent man through his car window...which means you are an idiot if you believe that), then running off and turning around....
But folks want to believe that Wilson murdered some innocent kid?
Logic and reasoning told you the very mostly likely scenario here but folks refused to see things the way they were....Same reason people don't believe or accept that blacks commit more violent crime and that is one of the main reasons the criminal justice system seems slanted against them....These are statistics, undeniable...
Now is it the color of the skin that makes this occur? Of course not, we are all the same but the no one wants to address the real causes for these statistics...instead we try to unfairly make WIlson the poster child for what the issues really are.
Do blacks treated unfairly at times? Absolutely but that is only one slice of this pie but that is where all the focus is right now.....as if fixing that will solve the crime problem...both as those committing crime and as victims of the same.
Logic and reasoning told you the very mostly likely scenario here but folks refused to see things the way they were....Same reason people don't believe or accept that blacks commit more violent crime and that is one of the main reasons the criminal justice system seems slanted against them....These are statistics, undeniable...
.
Fuck off troll.
Honestly, mods, how is this shitstain allowed to keep posting stuff like this. He's peppered this thread with comments like this.
The initial narrative was so one sided 'unarmed kid shot multiple times in the back with his hands up' that at first I said to myself, that's really bad, what was that cop thinking. But then of course, more information came out. I do think the initial narrative was the key to why this case was so blown up. And it's a shame because most of it wasn't true. But I still run into people who think Brown was shot in the back, while he was running away, with his hands up.
Whether you like it or not. Did you miss this part of my statement too?
Quote:
Now is it the color of the skin that makes this occur? Of course not, we are all the same but the no one wants to address the real causes for these statistics...instead we try to unfairly make WIlson the poster child for what the issues really are.
Do blacks treated unfairly at times? Absolutely but that is only one slice of this pie but that is where all the focus is right now.....as if fixing that will solve the crime problem...both as those committing crime and as victims of the same.
are routinely investigated by means of a grand jury - but go ahead, PA - you're having fun, so keep making statements unsupported by fact.
There was a case of a police shooting of a White youth by a police officer in Utah in the same month as the Brown shooting. The prosecute reviewed the situation and found it to be a justified shooting with no charges filed. I see nothing in the story about it going to a grand jury. I have no issue with what happened there. I just question your statement about it being so routine to go to a grand jury. Do you have any statistics to back up your statement? I admit that I have no clue whether it is routine or not. Just would like to be educated.
"Wilson's testimony was among the most riveting. In almost 100 pages of testimony, Wilson gave a vivid and detailed narrative of how Brown punched him, went after his gun, ran away, then ran back at him in full charge."
GJ had almost 100 pages of testimony from Wilson.
Did they feel the need to call him in person?
One thing I did learn from listening to the pundits is that how GJ's are conducted vary state to state. What is common procedure in one state may not be in another and visa versa.
Grand Jury Sept. 16, 2014
MS Alizadeh, Asst. prosecutor: I'm going to pass out to you all, you are all going to receive a copy of a statute, It is section 563.046, and it is, it says law enforcement officers use of force in making an arrest, And it is the law on what is permissible, what force is permissible and when in making an arrest by a police officerLINK - page 5
That law was declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS in 1985. Darren Wilson testified hours later with that section of outdated law in the juror's hands.
On November 21, weeks later,and just minutes before the GJ went to deliberations, this from MS Alizadeh, Asst. prosecutor during an explanation about when an officer can use deady force:
previously in the very beginning of this process I printed out a statute for you that was, the statute in Missouri for the use of force to affect an arrest. So if you all want to get those out.
What we have discovered and we have been going along with this, doing our research, is that the statute in the state of Missouri does not comply with the case law. This doesn't sound probably unfamiliar with you that the law is codified in the written form in the books and they're called statutes, but courts interpret those statutes.
And so the statute for the use of force to affect an arrest in the state of Missouri does not comply with Missouri supreme, I'm sorry, United States supreme court cases.
So the statue I gave you, if you want to fold that in half just so that you know don't necessarily rely on that because there is a portion of that that doesn't comply with the law." ... that does correctly state what the law is on when an officer can use force and when he can use Deadly Force in affecting an arrest, okay. I don't want you to get confused and don't rely on that copy or that print-out of the statute that I've given you a long time ago. ... It is not entirely incorrect or inaccurate, but there is something in it that's not correct, ignore it totally
A Grand Juror asks ...
The supreme court, Federal court overrides Missouri statutes?
ADA MS Alizadeh: As far as you need to know, just don't worry about thatLINK - page 134
The ADA handed out an outdated law to the jurors and then, weeks later discovered the "mistake"? And then didn't have the inclination to actually explain the difference between the "new" law and the "old" law" in reference to the use of deadly force?
The "old" law said a police officer could use deadly force merely to to prevent the escape from custody. SCOTUS held:
The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Pp. 7-22. [471 U.S. 1, 2]LINK
There is a difference. Brown may or may not have been bull rushing Wilson but the thought in the juror's minds through 5-6 weeks of testimony and all through the Wilson testimony was to prevent the escape from custody.
As there never was a sincere attempt to persue an indictment. The transcripts will be quite rich with anecdotes that will be discoverable for years to come.
Most fascinating is that when the underlying problem with local law enforcement is mistrust, the prosecutor felt that the solution was to untertake this charade, and then say "trust us."
terms like "routinely" because it can be taken as applicable throughout the US. But, some DAs in NYS use the grand jury for every officer involved shooting that resulted in a fatality. And, unlike most grand juries it is not unheard for the subject of the gj, the officer,to testify.
terms like "routinely" because it can be taken as applicable throughout the US. But, some DAs in NYS use the grand jury for every officer involved shooting that resulted in a fatality. And, unlike most grand juries it is not unheard for the subject of the gj, the officer,to testify.
That makes much more sense to me that if it is routine to send officer involved shootings to a grand jury, then officer should be allowed to testify or evidence in his behalf should be allowed to be presented. Otherwise it is an innately unfair process and pretty much any shooting with lying witnesses or weak evidence would be indictable due to no chance to counter. In my opinion, the grand jury system with no chance to counter only works when a fair minded prosecutor not under public pressure sees a case that should go forward based on the evidence. It is subverted when a case goes to a grand jury mainly due to public pressure where the standard rules of no countering apply.
the officer involved cases are the rare exception when a defendant will use the right to testify at the grand jury.
notwithstanding the public pressure, this is typical of a police shooting case that goes to the grand jury. there are questions as to why an unarmed suspect ended up getting shot.
and of course, you should not bend the rules to appease popular demand. and I did not agree with releasing transcripts from the secret grand jury proceedings. sometimes, you just have to accept the fact that the system will come up with a result you don't like. although that is certainly easier for me to say than the Brown Family.
On top of that, they have the shell casings from the weapon that was discharged. Plus the angle of the wounds. There is a lot of information that the GJ had besides testimony. That is why I said certain witnesses were more believable than others.
Here are all the docs released by the prosecutor - ( New Window )
************************
Wilson saw Brown and his buddy walking on the yellow line of a busy street and told them to get to the sidewalk. Brown's response was to to assault Wilson with punches to the face through the car window. Wilson responded by shooting Brown twice - first hitting him in the hand and in the arm. After being shot, Brown had enough and attempted to flee.
It was at this point Wilson should have/ could have stayed in the car and waited for back-up. Tracking down a kid with two bullets in his arm would be easy. Instead he got out of the car and shot Brown again in the leg as he was trying to get away.
After being shot a third time, Brown charged Wilson likely in fear that the bullets were not going to stop coming and that his only chance to survive was to get the gun away from Wilson.
As Brown charges, Wilson fires the fatal shots.
The grand jury received so many conflicting versions that they would not indict. However, forensics show -- and according to my source, this will come out -- that Brown was shot 3 times before he charged.
Wilson may very well have told Brown to "get down" before firing the fatal shots. Brown however, was in "fight or flight" mode as you can imagine one would be after being shot 3 times. "Flight" wasn't working so "fight" kicked in.
Brown was an idiot for assaulting a cop. Wilson was enraged and took it further then it needed to go.
Wilson may very well have told Brown to "get down" before firing the fatal shots. Brown however, was in "fight or flight" mode as you can imagine one would be after being shot 3 times. "Flight" wasn't working so "fight" kicked in.
Brown was an idiot for assaulting a cop. Wilson was enraged and took it further then it needed to go.
I wasn't there but it Sounds like "Fight" kicked in when he was asked to move from the middle of the road.
************************
Wilson saw Brown and his buddy walking on the yellow line of a busy street and told them to get to the sidewalk. Brown's response was to to assault Wilson with punches to the face through the car window. Wilson responded by shooting Brown twice - first hitting him in the hand and in the arm. After being shot, Brown had enough and attempted to flee.
It was at this point Wilson should have/ could have stayed in the car and waited for back-up. Tracking down a kid with two bullets in his arm would be easy. Instead he got out of the car and shot Brown again in the leg as he was trying to get away.
After being shot a third time, Brown charged Wilson likely in fear that the bullets were not going to stop coming and that his only chance to survive was to get the gun away from Wilson.
As Brown charges, Wilson fires the fatal shots.
The grand jury received so many conflicting versions that they would not indict. However, forensics show -- and according to my source, this will come out -- that Brown was shot 3 times before he charged.
Was this person on the scene or was this a direct account from Wilson?
I'm not sure that account is any more or less verifiable regardless of your feelings it's legit. Not saying it isn't but context of where or from whom your source says it came from.
Dude, you and I are on the same wavelength! It is like you are inside of my head. The last person I met who I had such a connection with was this little stripper at a club near the airport. :)
Anyway, the attached link is something that may help those who are fearful of getting arrested by the police.
How Not To Get Your Ass Kicked By The Police - ( New Window )
************************
Wilson saw Brown and his buddy walking on the yellow line of a busy street and told them to get to the sidewalk. Brown's response was to to assault Wilson with punches to the face through the car window. Wilson responded by shooting Brown twice - first hitting him in the hand and in the arm. After being shot, Brown had enough and attempted to flee.
It was at this point Wilson should have/ could have stayed in the car and waited for back-up. Tracking down a kid with two bullets in his arm would be easy. Instead he got out of the car and shot Brown again in the leg as he was trying to get away.
After being shot a third time, Brown charged Wilson likely in fear that the bullets were not going to stop coming and that his only chance to survive was to get the gun away from Wilson.
As Brown charges, Wilson fires the fatal shots.
The grand jury received so many conflicting versions that they would not indict. However, forensics show -- and according to my source, this will come out -- that Brown was shot 3 times before he charged.
Funny, but I saw the forensic pathologist decribing the wounds and he did not mention leg wound - three in the hand and arm and three head and chest. maybe he just chose to ignore the leg wound in his interview.
Quote:
Are white, middle aged laker fans residing in MO. Those fuckers are always looking to riot. Though I could be wrong.
Dude, you and I are on the same wavelength! It is like you are inside of my head. The last person I met who I had such a connection with was this little stripper at a club near the airport. :)
Anyway, the attached link is something that may help those who are fearful of getting arrested by the police. How Not To Get Your Ass Kicked By The Police - ( New Window )
Yeah. It's not like you have a history of making not-thinly-veiled racist remarks in the past and then laughing about it...or anything.
Link - ( New Window )
Beats the hell out of just about anything else out there.
Excellent post. One paragraph identifies him as a particularly thoughtful person ....
"Do you have anything to back that up?" - halfback20
Witness #10 - ( New Window )
Justice Antonin Scalia, in the 1992 Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, explained what the role of a grand jury has been for hundreds of years.
It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented.
This passage was first highlighted by attorney Ian Samuel, a former clerk to Justice Scalia.
In contrast, McCulloch allowed Wilson to testify for hours before the grand jury and presented them with every scrap of exculpatory evidence available. In his press conference, McCulloch said that the grand jury did not indict because eyewitness testimony that established Wilson was acting in self-defense was contradicted by other exculpatory evidence. What McCulloch didn’t say is that he was under no obligation to present such evidence to the grand jury. The only reason one would present such evidence is to reduce the chances that the grand jury would indict Darren Wilson.
Compare Justice Scalia’s description of the role of the grand jury to what the prosecutors told the Ferguson grand jury before they started their deliberations:
And you must find probable cause to believe that Darren Wilson did not act in lawful self-defense and you must find probable cause to believe that Darren Wilson did not use lawful force in making an arrest. If you find those things, which is kind of like finding a negative, you cannot return an indictment on anything or true bill unless you find both of those things. Because both are complete defenses to any offense and they both have been raised in his, in the evidence.
As Justice Scalia explained the evidence to support these “complete defenses,” including Wilson’s testimony, was only included by McCulloch by ignoring how grand juries historically work.
There were several eyewitness accounts that strongly suggested Wilson did not act in self-defense. McCulloch could have, and his critics say should have, presented that evidence to the grand jury and likely returned an indictment in days, not months. It’s a low bar, which is why virtually all grand juries return indictments.
But McCulloch chose a different path.
Link - ( New Window )
In this NY Daily News article, a defense attorney explains clearly in several examples how he believes the DA steered the GJ NOT to indict. The attorney focuses on 6 points, but this is my favorite:
Some witnesses testified that Brown was shot in the back while running away. Others say he was standing still. Some backed Wilson’s account that Brown was charging him. One testified he saw Brown on his knees with his hands up, and was ridiculed by prosecutors.
“Basically just about everything that you said on Aug. 13, and much of what you said today isn’t consistent with the physical evidence that we have in this case, OK,” the prosecutor said.
Kuby said that “wildly improper commentary encapsulates what the prosecutors were doing. Steering the grand jury not to indict.”
There's lot's more int here, of course. It all goes back to my main point, though. The DA decided not to push for an indicment, as in most GJ situations, but to just sorta stay out of the way, with some nudges in Wilson's favor here and there.
In an actual trial, the prosecutor would be fiercely attacking discrepancies in the story. And, if Wilson decided to testify, it wouldn't be 4 yours or stream of consciousness ending with
Usually, a potential defendant doesn't testify in a GJ, as is his right, in part because he fears getting ripped to shreds by a DA who will contradict him and in part because he can use his words against him at trial.
No such risk here.
Link - ( New Window )
As far as the first part is concerned, you are relying on the same presentation of the evidence as the GJ, from a DA who demonstrably didn't want to indict. Why should we be impressed? Read and the refute the Daily News analysis I linked, and then we can have a reasonable discussion. If not, not.
FWIW, I read the NYDN article and thought that the lawyer who wrote it was LOOKING for an indictment. I thought he tilted some items and cherry picked some evidence and ignored others in order to reach his POV. Same with parts of the Progress report.
Very hard to start with a neutral starting point and not look for the evidence that support "your" point of view.
On the afternoon of June 12, 2000, two unarmed black men pulled into the parking lot of a Jack in the Box in the northern suburbs of St. Louis, just a few miles from where Michael Brown was killed by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, earlier this month.
In the car were Earl Murray, a small-time drug dealer, and his friend Ronald Beasley. Waiting for them were a dozen detectives. By the time Murray realized it was a sting, he was surrounded. Panicked, he put his car into reverse but slammed into a police SUV behind him. Two officers approaching the car from the front opened fire. Twenty-one shots rained down on Murray and Beasley.
In an ensuing investigation, the local prosecutor, Robert P. McCulloch, put the case to a grand jury, citizens who receive evidence under the instruction, questioning and watchful eye of the prosecutor to decide whether to press charges. The story presented to the grand jury was that Murray’s car moved toward the two officers, who then fired out of self-defense. The grand jury declined to indict the officers, and McCulloch said he agreed with the decision. [...]
Fourteen years ago, the two officers who shot Murray and Beasley were also invited to testify before the grand jury. Both men told jurors that Murray’s car was coming at them and that they feared being run over. McCulloch said that “every witness who was out there testified that it made some forward motion.” But a later federal investigation showed that the car had never come at the two officers: Murray never took his car out of reverse.
An exhaustive St. Louis Post-Dispatch investigation found that only three of the 13 detectives who testified had said the car moved forward: the two who unloaded their guns and a third whose testimony was, as McCulloch admitted, “obviously…completely wrong.” McCulloch never introduced independent evidence to help clarify for the grand jury whether Murray’s car moved forward.
On the last day of testimony, an investigator in McCulloch’s office read out a list of every interaction Murray and Beasley had had with law enforcement, even arrests that never resulted in charges.
A few hours later, the grand jury voted not to press charges.
Newsweek - ( New Window )
I disagree on the first part, especially if the parents raised enough awareness. Agree on the second part. But he's not and if you don't know why it's a big deal, you don't understand your country.
"Robert P. McCulloch is the Prosecuting Attorney for St. Louis County, Missouri, a post he has held since 1991. A Democrat, he has historically had bipartisan support as a popular prosecutor and has won re-election in 1994, 1998, 2002, 2006, 2010 and 2014, often unopposed but by wide margins when he has had an opponent.[1]"
The majority of those that matter, his constituents, either like the job he is doing or just don't care. We'll see what happens in 2018 if he runs. I bet odds are he wins re-election no matter what the rest of the country thinks.
The prosecutor can say what he or she wants, he or she can stand up and demand that the grand jury indict and the grand jury can ignore everything the prosecutor says or does and do what they want. They are told this up front in their instructions.
The third possible explanation is more benign. Ordinarily, prosecutors only bring a case if they think they can get an indictment. But in high-profile cases such as police shootings, they may feel public pressure to bring charges even if they think they have a weak case.
“The prosecutor in this case didn’t really have a choice about whether he would bring this to a grand jury,” Ben Trachtenberg, a University of Missouri law professor, said of the Brown case. “It’s almost impossible to imagine a prosecutor saying the evidence is so scanty that I’m not even going to bring this before a grand jury.”"
Since Scalia is cited above, I wonder what he would have to say in the third circumstance. I tend to think he did not have this in mind when he made the statements above.
I guess I do have a problem when a prosecutor is pretty much forced to go to a grand jury under public pressure under what he feels is u untrue or underwhelming evidence and must keep his mouth shut even if he feels the individual is being railroaded. I am thinking of not only police officers but unpopular figures of the day like a communist in the 50s.
Of course I admit I am not a lawyer and largely ignorant of our criminal justice system.
On the afternoon of June 12, 2000, two unarmed black men pulled into the parking lot of a Jack in the Box in the northern suburbs of St. Louis, just a few miles from where Michael Brown was killed by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, earlier this month.
In the car were Earl Murray, a small-time drug dealer, and his friend Ronald Beasley. Waiting for them were a dozen detectives. By the time Murray realized it was a sting, he was surrounded. Panicked, he put his car into reverse but slammed into a police SUV behind him. Two officers approaching the car from the front opened fire. Twenty-one shots rained down on Murray and Beasley.
In an ensuing investigation, the local prosecutor, Robert P. McCulloch, put the case to a grand jury, citizens who receive evidence under the instruction, questioning and watchful eye of the prosecutor to decide whether to press charges. The story presented to the grand jury was that Murray’s car moved toward the two officers, who then fired out of self-defense. The grand jury declined to indict the officers, and McCulloch said he agreed with the decision. [...]
Fourteen years ago, the two officers who shot Murray and Beasley were also invited to testify before the grand jury. Both men told jurors that Murray’s car was coming at them and that they feared being run over. McCulloch said that “every witness who was out there testified that it made some forward motion.” But a later federal investigation showed that the car had never come at the two officers: Murray never took his car out of reverse.
An exhaustive St. Louis Post-Dispatch investigation found that only three of the 13 detectives who testified had said the car moved forward: the two who unloaded their guns and a third whose testimony was, as McCulloch admitted, “obviously…completely wrong.” McCulloch never introduced independent evidence to help clarify for the grand jury whether Murray’s car moved forward.
On the last day of testimony, an investigator in McCulloch’s office read out a list of every interaction Murray and Beasley had had with law enforcement, even arrests that never resulted in charges.
A few hours later, the grand jury voted not to press charges.
Newsweek - ( New Window )
That article was written with total sympathy towards the "unarmed" suspects who used their car as a weapon.
Anybody that sympathized MAINLY with Brown initially, has held steadfast. Anybody that sympathized MAINLY with Wilson initially, has held steadfast. The same folks here on BBI that thought Brown instigated it, still believe that. And anybody that thought that Wilson was out of line, still believe that.
Basically, the Brown side reads tons of articles, ignores the ones that don't fall in line with their thinking, and run to BBI to post the ones that do, as if it is legit and final, and the others are fabricated. And the same can be said for the Wilson side. People see what the want to see, which is ironic because that's probably the exact case of why all the witnesses have varying stories. Anybody can cherry pick things to sway something to their side of a debate. And that's what is happening here, in this thread. its a good discussion, but it will never be settled.
Anybody that sympathized MAINLY with Brown initially, has held steadfast. Anybody that sympathized MAINLY with Wilson initially, has held steadfast. The same folks here on BBI that thought Brown instigated it, still believe that. And anybody that thought that Wilson was out of line, still believe that.
Basically, the Brown side reads tons of articles, ignores the ones that don't fall in line with their thinking, and run to BBI to post the ones that do, as if it is legit and final, and the others are fabricated. And the same can be said for the Wilson side. People see what the want to see, which is ironic because that's probably the exact case of why all the witnesses have varying stories. Anybody can cherry pick things to sway something to their side of a debate. And that's what is happening here, in this thread. its a good discussion, but it will never be settled.
*But*........
The a grand jury saw *everything*. Had an opportunity to view the case dispassionately, to evaluate evidence or observations, to ask questions to discuss, debate and come to a consensus. They saw the whole picture and decided to no bill.
If you think about the evidence you have Brown acting like a violent thug 15 minutes prior robbing a store and assaulting a clerk, then assaulting the cop through the police car window (the counter point was Wilson was trying to pull a 300lb violent man through his car window...which means you are an idiot if you believe that), then running off and turning around....
But folks want to believe that Wilson murdered some innocent kid?
Logic and reasoning told you the very mostly likely scenario here but folks refused to see things the way they were....Same reason people don't believe or accept that blacks commit more violent crime and that is one of the main reasons the criminal justice system seems slanted against them....These are statistics, undeniable...
Now is it the color of the skin that makes this occur? Of course not, we are all the same but the no one wants to address the real causes for these statistics...instead we try to unfairly make WIlson the poster child for what the issues really are.
Do blacks treated unfairly at times? Absolutely but that is only one slice of this pie but that is where all the focus is right now.....as if fixing that will solve the crime problem...both as those committing crime and as victims of the same.
.
Fuck off troll.
Honestly, mods, how is this shitstain allowed to keep posting stuff like this. He's peppered this thread with comments like this.
Do blacks treated unfairly at times? Absolutely but that is only one slice of this pie but that is where all the focus is right now.....as if fixing that will solve the crime problem...both as those committing crime and as victims of the same.
as if I need to make things up...again believe what you want
GJ had almost 100 pages of testimony from Wilson.
Did they feel the need to call him in person?
One thing I did learn from listening to the pundits is that how GJ's are conducted vary state to state. What is common procedure in one state may not be in another and visa versa.
Link - ( New Window )
MS Alizadeh, Asst. prosecutor:
I'm going to pass out to you all, you are all going to receive a copy of a statute, It is section 563.046, and it is, it says law enforcement officers use of force in making an arrest, And it is the law on what is permissible, what force is permissible and when in making an arrest by a police officer LINK - page 5
That law was declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS in 1985. Darren Wilson testified hours later with that section of outdated law in the juror's hands.
On November 21, weeks later,and just minutes before the GJ went to deliberations, this from MS Alizadeh, Asst. prosecutor during an explanation about when an officer can use deady force:
previously in the very beginning of this process I printed out a statute for you that was, the statute in Missouri for the use of force to affect an arrest. So if you all want to get those out.
What we have discovered and we have been going along with this, doing our research, is that the statute in the state of Missouri does not comply with the case law. This doesn't sound probably unfamiliar with you that the law is codified in the written form in the books and they're called statutes, but courts interpret those statutes.
And so the statute for the use of force to affect an arrest in the state of Missouri does not comply with Missouri supreme, I'm sorry, United States supreme court cases.
So the statue I gave you, if you want to fold that in half just so that you know don't necessarily rely on that because there is a portion of that that doesn't comply with the law." ... that does correctly state what the law is on when an officer can use force and when he can use Deadly Force in affecting an arrest, okay. I don't want you to get confused and don't rely on that copy or that print-out of the statute that I've given you a long time ago. ... It is not entirely incorrect or inaccurate, but there is something in it that's not correct, ignore it totally
A Grand Juror asks ...
The supreme court, Federal court overrides Missouri statutes?
ADA MS Alizadeh: As far as you need to know, just don't worry about that LINK - page 134
The ADA handed out an outdated law to the jurors and then, weeks later discovered the "mistake"? And then didn't have the inclination to actually explain the difference between the "new" law and the "old" law" in reference to the use of deadly force?
The "old" law said a police officer could use deadly force merely to to prevent the escape from custody. SCOTUS held:
The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Pp. 7-22. [471 U.S. 1, 2] LINK
There is a difference. Brown may or may not have been bull rushing Wilson but the thought in the juror's minds through 5-6 weeks of testimony and all through the Wilson testimony was to prevent the escape from custody.
Most fascinating is that when the underlying problem with local law enforcement is mistrust, the prosecutor felt that the solution was to untertake this charade, and then say "trust us."
the officer involved cases are the rare exception when a defendant will use the right to testify at the grand jury.
notwithstanding the public pressure, this is typical of a police shooting case that goes to the grand jury. there are questions as to why an unarmed suspect ended up getting shot.
and of course, you should not bend the rules to appease popular demand. and I did not agree with releasing transcripts from the secret grand jury proceedings. sometimes, you just have to accept the fact that the system will come up with a result you don't like. although that is certainly easier for me to say than the Brown Family.