Michael Brown shooting

[Tpoppa]

I'm sorry for the young man's family, but don't try to steal an officer's weapon.

Sorry, but I personally do not believe this actually occurred.   An unarmed pedestrian trying to assault an armed officer in a running vehicle??   Come on.  Couldn't Wilson just have driven to a safe distance and re-engaged...you know...life in danger and all that shit.  

 

Historically, our justice system is not particularly capable of punishing officers for wrong doing.  It's just not setup that way and officers know it.  

 

Police training 101:  when you are in court for any kind of excessive force say "I feared for my life."   Police are trained and coached to say this in court regardless of facts, you know...behind the blue line and all that shit.  Any current/former officers on this board care to disagree??!?!   

 

btw, I accept the decision of the grand Jury, but that doesn't mean I believe it.

Edited December 2, 2014 by Tpoppa

[Tpoppa]

I know that juries tend to believe officers.  I know that police lie under oath to "make the case" or to "cover their ass."   Not all, but it's an accepted part of the job. 

 

His name is clear in as much that he won't go to trail (and let's be real, even if he did there would be no conviction), but it's not so clear that he won't be looking over his shoulder for likely the rest of his life. 

[Josh1234]

Right. Wrong wording, but they interviewed almost 60 witnesses. It's the same process that would be used if you or I shot someone in defense. If it's good enough for us, it's good enough for this officer. I'm not a fan of cops, and that's not a secret, but the system did its job. I accept the jurors decision and am pleased this wasn't police brutality. I'm sorry for the young man's family, but don't try to steal an officer's weapon. Try to take mine, and you'll end up just as dead.

Officer Wilson might be a problem cop. I don't know, but in this case he was not.

 

Some of these statements are incorrect.

 

The process would've actually been different, had it been you or I... A prosecutor rarely puts the accused on the stand to testify, but this one did.  It's also pretty unusual to present ALL of the evidence to the grand jury, but this one did.  It's also pretty unusual (EXTREMELY unusual) for a grand jury to NOT indict.  And yet, this one didn't.

 

I've pretty heard this described as a complete and total farce where the "prosecutor" (who is a former cop, mind you) did everything he could to throw the case.

 

By putting the cop on the stand, the jurors then start to evaluate whether or not they think he was justified in doing what he did, or they think about whether or not he did it in the first place... But every good prosecutor knows that their job isn't to get the grand jury to examine those issues, it's to present enough evidence to indict the accused, as in, is there a CHANCE he might've done this and should we look further?

 

He presented ALLLLLLL to evidence to confuse the grand jurors and cloud the issue.  The common phrase in the legal profession is that a grand jury would return an indictment against a ham sandwich.  There's an infographic going around that points out that 99.99% of grand juries indict.  The number was like for 150,000 indictments, there were 11 that didn't.

 

Granted, I don't have a law degree, but when people who DO start saying this was total bullshit, it kind've makes me wonder.  

 

Or you can continue to believe what the press feeds you and assume he was totally innocent and shouldn't even be investigated.

 

On a personal level, the only reason I care is because it demonstrates how fucked up this country is, including the legal system.

[Tpoppa]

Some of these statements are incorrect.

 

The process would've actually been different, had it been you or I... A prosecutor rarely puts the accused on the stand to testify, but this one did.  It's also pretty unusual to present ALL of the evidence to the grand jury, but this one did.  It's also pretty unusual (EXTREMELY unusual) for a grand jury to NOT indict.  And yet, this one didn't.

 

I've pretty heard this described as a complete and total farce where the "prosecutor" (who is a former cop, mind you) did everything he could to throw the case.

 

By putting the cop on the stand, the jurors then start to evaluate whether or not they think he was justified in doing what he did, or they think about whether or not he did it in the first place... But every good prosecutor knows that their job isn't to get the grand jury to examine those issues, it's to present enough evidence to indict the accused, as in, is there a CHANCE he might've done this and should we look further?

 

He presented ALLLLLLL to evidence to confuse the grand jurors and cloud the issue.  The common phrase in the legal profession is that a grand jury would return an indictment against a ham sandwich.  There's an infographic going around that points out that 99.99% of grand juries indict.  The number was like for 150,000 indictments, there were 11 that didn't.

 

Granted, I don't have a law degree, but when people who DO start saying this was total bullshit, it kind've makes me wonder.  

 

Or you can continue to believe what the press feeds you and assume he was totally innocent and shouldn't even be investigated.

 

On a personal level, the only reason I care is because it demonstrates how fucked up this country is, including the legal system.

All good points.  

 

 

Right. Wrong wording, but they interviewed almost 60 witnesses. 

 

But there weren't 60 witnesses to the shooting.  The prosecutor interviewed the few eye witnesses and many others who had 2nd hand information.  If you listened to the prosecutor's statement (I did), the prosecutor was looking for any inconsistencies in their testimonies and used them to discredit the witnesses.

 

Discrediting witnesses that can prove a crime was committed is not the job of the prosecutor, that is the job of a defense attorney. 

Edited December 2, 2014 by Tpoppa

[zx3vfr]

Magz in 3..2..1.

[smccrory]

Magz in 3..2..1.

Zx3vfr value add in... 0

[zx3vfr]

Zx3vfr value add in... 0

Lying sack of crap in -328747

[Tpoppa]

Interesting read about Wilson's current situation.  

 

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/03/us/ferguson-darren-wilson-protection/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

[cOoTeR]

Did you guys read the testimonies that were presented to the grand jury for yourself or are you blindly following the cop hater beliefs?

Why not submit to a polygraph? Because the results are determined by interpretation you can be 100% honest and fail or be 100% dishonest and pass. The test itself picks up natural reactions to being nervous muscle tightness, heartbeat, breathing etc.. Most people get nervous when they lie but they also have the same reactions to stress. So reliving a stressful situation will cause the same involuntary reactions. Or just being stressed about the test can make it look like a person is being dishonest. So he could pass the test and everyone would go with the fact that they are based on interpretation and not 100%accurate so the test was wrong and they still don't believe him. Still wouldn't clear his name. Second he could take it and the results could show he was being dishonest even if it was just the stress reaction to thinking about a stressful time when he shot somebody. Think about telling a story about a stressful time such as a close call or crash on a motorcycle. As you rethink about the details your heart rate will most likely increase. Doesn't mean you're lying just that your body is reacting to stress.

If you haven't read the court documents you should. The prosecutor wasn't the person involved in the grand jury proceedings. He was there the first day to instruct the grand jury and inform them that they were being held longer due to the case and they were only going to work the Wilson case. Other than that it was the assistant prosecutors that handled the case.

Why would you expect the prosecution to not present all they evidence? They need all the facts to make an informed decision. Leaving out information would look like they were hiding something to me.

The reason it is uncommon for the accused to testify to the grand jury is they do so alone without their lawyer to help them and 5th amendment rights. It's the accused that decides to testify or not, not the prosecutor.

Read the testimony of Dorian who was with Brown when the shooting happened. He is very detailed about a lot of stuff that Wilson did but claims not to be sure what a lot of Brown's actions were. Seems like convenient amnesia or bending the truth to me. If they weren't looking for trouble why didn't Brown and Johnson get out of the street when the cop told them to? Or when they were hit by the cop trying to open the door why didn't they back up if they or Brown weren't trying to attack Wilson in the car? Wilson and Johnson both testified that Wilson said get back or I'll shoot from inside the car when he drew and pointed his gun at Brown. Why didn't Brown get back then? Johnson claimed Wilson was holding Brown with only his left hand. preventing him from getting back as ordered. Brown was then shot straight on. If he was trying to get away and not go for the gun why was he shot straight on and not through the side? I'm significantly smaller than brown but I can garauntee that there isn't a person on this planet that can hold me with one hand while they are seated in a vehicle. I'm at least going to get turned away. Also in his testimony Wilson stated he pulled the trigger multiple times and the gun didn't fire it also malfunctioned after the first shot and Wilson had to rack the slide to get it ready to fire again. The easiest way to get a gun to do this is to push the slide back to prevent it from firing or disrupting the slides motion as it is ejecting and chamber the rounds. Which is quite likely if someone is trying to take it from the person using it. Johnsons testimony also stated that Brown didn't have both hands up when Wilson shot him away from the cop car.

Cops are not trained to say they feared for their life after using force. They are trained to NOT use deadly force unless they have a reason to fear for their life or someone else's life because that is when deadly force is necessary. So of course they are going to say that's why the used deadly force, because that actually is the reason they used deadly force. If you're stopped at an intersection and the light turns green and you get hit by someone running the red light after you go you are going to have the same answer as anyone else who's ever gone through a green light if asked. If asked why you entered the intersection you're response would be something along the lines of because the light was green. The scenario is not the same but you can see my point. Any relevant response will be similar to any other person because everyone is taught to wait until the light is green before entering the intersection. They aren't taught to give the same answer is just that the answer to the question is the same.

Edited December 3, 2014 by cOoTeR

[cOoTeR]

Interesting read about Wilson's current situation.  

 

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/03/us/ferguson-darren-wilson-protection/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

The guy that got arrested for the threats, I wouldn't be surprised if a terrorism investigation isn't launched looking into him. His name appears to be Muslim and Isis has stated they plan to divide our country. (Current Race issues over Ferguson have our opinions divided). Another Isis threat is to attack police and military and this case has cop hate at an all time high. At a first glance it looks like that guy who got arrested was recruiting to encourage or carryout what is a current terrorist threat.

[Tpoppa]

Why would you expect the prosecution to not present all they evidence? They need all the facts to make an informed decision. Leaving out information would look like they were hiding something to me.

 

 

If this was a trial I would agree with you.  Not for an indictment.

 

If the prosecutor was truly seeking an indictment all he had to say was

"Wilson shot and killed Brown.  Some witnesses said it appeared that Brown was attempting to flee or surrender.  Should this go to trial?"  That would get an indictment 99% of the time.  

 

A prosecutor NEVER shows his full case to the grand jury.

 

Cops are not trained to say they feared for their life after using force. 

 

Bullshit.  As part of their job they are professional witnesses.  They are not professional truth tellers.  They are coached on what to say and what not to say in court and what details to omit so their testimonies are difficult to discredit.  

 

Eye witnesses on the other hand are not professional witnesses.  It is far easier to discredit an eye witness who doesn't regularly testify in court as part of their job.

Edited December 3, 2014 by Tpoppa

[madcat6183]

I think this was all a gov't setup by Obama.  Clearly this is the answer.

[Tpoppa]

The guy that got arrested for the threats, I wouldn't be surprised if a terrorism investigation isn't launched looking into him. His name appears to be Muslim and Isis has stated they plan to divide our country. (Current Race issues over Ferguson have our opinions divided). Another Isis threat is to attack police and military and this case has cop hate at an all time high. At a first glance it looks like that guy who got arrested was recruiting to encourage or carryout what is a current terrorist threat.

 

I think it was a mistake for Wilson to resign.  If he was an active officer he would be afforded more official means of protection.  Unfortunately, it appears he will need it for the foreseeable future.  Perhaps he and his family can enter some type of witness protection program?

[redkow97]

Did you guys read the testimonies that were presented to the grand jury for yourself or are you blindly following the cop hater beliefs?

 

 

Probable cause is a very low burden of proof.

 

My mentor attorney used to joke that "you could indict a ham sandwich if you wanted."

 

To answer your question directly, I admit that I have not read all the testimony, nor reviewed any more evidence than has been widely reported by major media outlets.  With that said, I do think there was probable cause to indict Officer Wilson, but also probable cause to believe that he had a valid affirmative defense (self defense).

 

Is it the grand jury's duty to indict any time there is probable cause?  Or are they allowed to say, "yeah, there is probable cause, but there is also evidence that he'll escape conviction due to the circumstances" and choose not to indict on a case they anticipate the prosecution losing.

 

Honestly, I am leaning toward the former...  Don't BE the trial court.  Let the trial court do its job.  Who knows - maybe some evidence is suppressed, and there is an outcome the grand jury would not have anticipated.  (whether or not that's a good thing is a different debate)

[ohiomike]

 

 

Wilson and his family's lives have changed for the worse regardless of which version you believe.  They fled their home and have been in hiding for months.  They will likely spend a good deal more time in hiding or living in fear of reprisal.   It would be in Wilson's best interest to attempt to clear his name.  If he indeed told the truth in court (many dispute this), why not submit to a polygraph and make the results public?

You mean like Richard Jewel who was falsely accused of the bombing incident at the Atlanta Olympics?  BTW, there is a justifiable reason why polygraphs are not admissable in court, they are too easily manipulated.  I sure wouldn't put my life on the line based on a polygraph result.

 

But I'm with those who feel like the grand jury outcome should end it all.

[cOoTeR]

If this was a trial I would agree with you. Not for an indictment.

If the prosecutor was truly seeking an indictment all he had to say was

"Wilson shot and killed Brown. Some witnesses said it appeared that Brown was attempting to flee or surrender. Should this go to trial?" That would get an indictment 99% of the time.

A prosecutor NEVER shows his full case to the grand jury.

Bullshit. As part of their job they are professional witnesses. They are not professional truth tellers. They are coached on what to say and what not to say in court and what details to omit so their testimonies are difficult to discredit.

Eye witnesses on the other hand are not professional witnesses. It is far easier to discredit an eye witness who doesn't regularly testify in court as part of their job.

So the prosecution should just go to the grand jury with their opinion and day indict this guy without presenting evidence? Or picking and choosing evidence to get an indictment? Or even worse what would happen if he only presented some evidence and the grand jury still didn't indict? Imagine the conspiracy theories that would come out of that. The prosecution had the evidence and testimonies of everyone and most likely knew the want enough evidence to indict Wilson. So why waste the time trying to prosecute?

I'm calling bullshit on your bullshit call. Please tell me about the law enforcement academies or law enforcement training you've attended? Specifically training where the officer is told to say they feared for their life? Witnesses and involved participants from both sides of a case often meet with legal council before they testify to prepare for court. That is common practice but there is no lying in court course that you seem to believe there is. Courts often will not let law enforcement officers testify in uniform because the opposing lawyer will claim that the uniform makes them appear more honest to a jury. So whose getting discredited right of the bat?

Edited December 3, 2014 by cOoTeR

[Tpoppa]

 Specifically training where the officer is told to say they feared for their life?

Don't be naive.  Not all training is written down in a textbook.  It's an accepted part of the job.  Not all cops, as I've previously stated, but for many you do what you need to do...ends justify the means...just only discuss it in certain company.

 

I am completely OK with you not believing me. 

[cOoTeR]

Don't be naive.  Not all training is written down in a textbook.  It's an accepted part of the job.  Not all cops, as I've previously stated, but for many you do what you need to do...ends justify the means...just only discuss it in certain company.

 

I am completely OK with you not believing me.

I don't believe you because actual experience tells me otherwise.

[Tpoppa]

I don't believe you because actual experience tells me otherwise.

Are you a cop?

 

It's the kind of thing that when a cop get's caught doing it they are referred to as bad cops.  The good cops are the ones that do it and don't get caught.  But, behind the line they all know, when another officer lies, you swear under oath that it's the truth or you just may not be welcome at that dept any longer. 

Edited December 3, 2014 by Tpoppa

[redkow97]

No amount of debate is going to change the decision that was made.

 

I'm focusing on this now:  http://abcnews.go.com/US/michael-browns-stepfather-apologizes-burn-outburst-ferguson/story?id=27331195

 

That story has been updated since I saw it reported on television last  night.

 

I think this is the proverbial "no-win" situation.

[cOoTeR]

Are you a cop?

 

It's the kind of thing that when a cop get's caught doing it they are referred to as bad cops.  The good cops are the ones that do it and don't get caught.  But, behind the line they all know, when another officer lies, you swear under oath that it's the truth or you just may not be welcome at that dept any longer. 

Something like that.

 

Get caught lying under any official capacity and a cop can lose their ability to testify in court. Google Giglio effect. It only takes one person to have integrity and be honest to get all the liars outted. The honest person cannot be treated unfairly due to whistleblower policies in most departments. Even so its easier to not be welcome in 1 department than to be barred from any law enforcement position as I already explained in the PM reply in sent you.

 

Once again nothing changes the fact that your statement that cops are trained to say "they feared for their life" is not a correct or true statement. Just because that's what you think reality is does not make it a fact.

Edited December 3, 2014 by cOoTeR

[Tpoppa]

Something like that.

In other words:  "no"

[cOoTeR]

Please read the court documents that document that details what the grand jury and prosecution had to go on. Don't be lazy and just jump on the story that the media wants you to believe. Form your own opinions instead of remaining blindly ignorant to the facts.

[cOoTeR]

In other words:  "no"

Incorrect^^^^^^ in the context you are using it. Did you not read the PM I sent you. But since you really want to know I'm a federal agent. So not a cop but plenty of experience as a Law Enforcement Officer at the state and federal level. So again since you want to try to call me out what is your law enforcement experience? I'm using first hand experience and facts to base my decisions and beliefs. What are you using?   

 

EDIT: Never mind got your PM. You know some cops and "banged" some lady cops. Your are officially an expert sir. 

Edited December 3, 2014 by cOoTeR

[Josh1234]

Stop being so obtuse.  Every cop on the world knows that the only way it's justifiable to kill someone is if they believe that person might harm them or someone else.

 

So maybe the cop isn't "trained" in what to say in court, but they're sure as hell trained in when it's ok to shoot someone and when it isn't.

 

That sort of makes it so that you don't HAVE to coach them on what to say in court.  If you've killed someone, then OF COURSE you're gonna say the 1 thing in court that you've specifically been trained on that would've made it OK to kill that person.