Michael Brown Shooting

[Morgan]

FERGUSON GRAND JURY DECISION: The Ferguson Grand Jury decided that Officer Darren Wilson acted lawfully in fatally shooting Michael Brown.

 

Who do you believe is the aggressor in the Michael Brown shooting? Please provide evidence for your stance. 

Edited November 25, 2014 by Morgan

[Aslan]

Only the jury had all of the evidence and they made the decision they felt was just based on that evidence.  Anything else is conjecture.

[WISD0MTREE]

I typed "Michael Brown Jury Ev" and "Michael Brown is Israel Evil Occupier". Do I even want to know? 

 

EDIT: I was talking with a friend through texts. I would post the whole thing, but it is on my phone (I'm on my PC). Basically, a chest cam (like a GoPro) could avoid the whole thing... Just the cost. I quick checked the BLS for police and sheriffs and got around $95,307,000 for everyone. I did not check what the BLS defined as police/sheriffs, whether or not they accounted for feds, and all of that. Still, with those, eventually we will make up that in legal fees, but we might need to upgrade them, replace the batteries, replacing broken cameras, etc. 

www.usdebtclock.org

Edited November 25, 2014 by WISD0MTREE

[Alex]

I don't think we'll ever truly know who the aggressor was. For me, that hardly matters, though.

 

I think looking at this from a legal perspective, based on the precedent from previous supreme court decisions, it's simply not justified to shoot Brown 6 times. We're only ever going to get one side of this story, because Brown is unfortunately dead. I think this is a pretty objective article with a lot of information if you want to read more about the incident: http://www.vox.com/cards/mike-brown-protests-ferguson-missouri/mike-brown-ferguson-MO-protests

 

EDIT: Here's the autopsy report: http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1370715-2014-5143-autopsy-report.html

Grand Jury's Interview with the Officer, Darren Wilson: http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1370766-interview-po-darren-wilson.html

Darren Wilson's Medical Records: http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1370726-darren-wilson-medical-records.html

Firearm Forensics Report: http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1370723-crime-lab-firearm-evidence.html

[Ayayay]

Where is the "I don't care" option?

[Pwnius Scrubius]

>inb4 revolution

 

In all seriousness, I would expect police officers to try to injury and not actually kill, especially when it is a black teen. Though, he may have freaked out and decided very quckicly that if he wanted to survive he would kill him, cus who knows?

 

And do police training actually teach this, to not kill unless.. well you know hitmen, mafia cartel maybe.

Edited November 25, 2014 by Pwnius Scrubius

[Toxxikation]

Only the jury had all of the evidence and they made the decision they felt was just based on that evidence.  Anything else is conjecture.

Exactly why I'm not going to comment on this. It's pointless to.

[Belisarius]

A grand jury is only concerned about whether the indicted for a crime, leading to a trial. The Grand Jury DOES NOT decide whether someone is guilty or not guilty. The anger against the Grand Jury seems to be at their dismissal of eye witness testimony that implied that Michael Brown did not attack Officer Wilson. 

 

For the most part, Grand Jury almost always chose to indict. Why? After all, the Grand Jury job is not to determine whether the crime happened; that's the Trial's job. And it's safer to move to trial than to reject that.

 

From FiveThirtyEight:

 

 

Wilson’s case was heard in state court, not federal, so the numbers aren’t directly comparable. Unlike in federal court, most states, including Missouri, allow prosecutors to bring charges via a preliminary hearing in front of a judge instead of through a grand jury indictment. That means many routine cases never go before a grand jury. Still, legal experts agree that, at any level, it is extremely rare for prosecutors to fail to win an indictment.

“If the prosecutor wants an indictment and doesn’t get one, something has gone horribly wrong,†said Andrew D. Leipold, a University of Illinois law professor who has written critically about grand juries. “It just doesn’t happen.â€

 

The article goes on to say that while it is rare for grand juries to refuse to indict, police shootings seem to be the exception. Further, Grand Juries do not operate like regular juries. A regular trial jury is composed of members of the community who are summoned by a judge, Grand Juries are often composed of retirees who want to "make a difference" and are tasked with handling multiple cases in their jurisdiction over a long period of time. They are not legal experts nor have any formal training in the law. They generally only hear the prosecutor's side of the story, so it is a bit galling to see how they didn't indict him. 

 

Again, indicting him does not make Darren Wilson guilty. It leads to a trial to determine that. And quite honestly, more police shootings SHOULD go to trial. Police should be held at a higher standard, and if that means we have to bring the hammer down on their misconduct, I can only say that's a good thing.

[Grillick]

Belisarius hit the nail on the head. Any time a police officer kills a civilian, there should be an indictment.

[elsuper]

I typed "Michael Brown Jury Ev" and "Michael Brown is Israel Evil Occupier". Do I even want to know?

 

I bit and searched this out further. It was a talk by a Dr. Michael Brown examining Israel, unrelated to Ferguson, which disappointed me, because I was hoping it was some kind of conspiracy theory.

 

Where is the "I don't care" option?

 

Exactly. This is awful all around; if Brown was killed in cold blood, that's awful, and if Wilson acted in self-defense and has been pilloried for it, that's also awful, although not quite as much. But am I going to be the one who turns the tide of injustice by examining the evidence and arguing with people over the internet about it? I have other things to do besides learn everything about one more killing.

Edited November 25, 2014 by elsuper

[Ayayay]

Here is the transcript, all 4800 pages of it. Go ahead and read it, ok? Edited November 25, 2014 by underlordgc

[Pwnius Scrubius]

Here is the transcript, all 4800 pages of it. Go ahead and read it, ok?

Ain't nobody got time fo' dat. Let's go riot instead.

 

WHO'S WITH ME!?

[Grillick]

Here is the transcript, all 4800 pages of it. Go ahead and read it, ok?

Riddle me this: why the !@#$ is there 4800 pages of internally inconsistent testimony, and why was the defendant permitted to testify at a grand jury hearing? The purpose of this hearing is to determine whether the state has enough evidence to bring the action, not to determine whether the defendant is guilty.

[Ayayay]

Ain't nobody got time fo' dat. Let's go riot instead.

 

WHO'S WITH ME!?

Yes, because how else would you prove that your ethnicity isn't violent?

 

Riddle me this: why the !@#$ is there 4800 pages of internally inconsistent testimony, and why was the defendant permitted to testify at a grand jury hearing? The purpose of this hearing is to determine whether the state has enough evidence to bring the action, not to determine whether the defendant is guilty.

*shrug* I don't really care.

I just thought people would like to read it and be informed before posti- hahaha, sorry, I can't say that with a straight face. None of y'all are gonna read that and we all know it.

Edited November 25, 2014 by underlordgc

[elsuper]

Here is the transcript, all 4800 pages of it. Go ahead and read it, ok?

 

I'm interested in a word count; anyone know how to get one of this?

[Aisha Greyjoy]

No indictment means the Prosecutor didn't want one.  The old saying is a Prosecutor can "indict a ham sandwich."

[Maleficent_2014]

I am satisfied with the grand jury's decision.

[Memph]

The autopsy report seems to suggest Brown was mostly shot while facing Wilson.

 

Many witnesses seem to offer accounts that contradict that, claiming he was shot while he was running away (from behind).

 

There is one witness though (Witness 10) that claims after the altercation in the car window where the first shot was fired, Brown started to run away, then stopped and turned around as Wilson started coming after him with his gun drawn. The witness claims Brown then started to charge towards Wilson at full speed, starting from a distance of about 15 yards, and Wilson started firing a few shots when the gap was down to about 10 yards. Brown then stopped for a bit and then charge again and Wilson fired a few more shots and Brown collapsed.

 

If that's actually what happened, I don't think Darren Wilson did anything wrong and justifiably acted in self defence the whole time.

 

However, there was another witness (Witness 14) that claimed things happened somewhat differently. Supposedly Brown raised his hands when he turned around, palms facing himself, presumably to check out his injury since I think the first shot hit his hand or wrist. Wilson told Brown to stop (while he was already stopped) and then Brown took a few steps towards Wilson with his hands up (palms facing Wilson) and started getting shot at. Then he supposedly stopped and Wilson told him to stop again and he was hunched over and slowly started moving towards Wilson again (like staggering, with hands up) and Wilson shot at him again and then Brown collapsed.

 

This testimony seems to suggest that while Brown was moving towards Wilson each time he was shot he wasn't moving aggressively (unlike Witness 10 who described him as charging).

 

Although Wilson was probably close enough to tell if he was staggering or leaning forwards in a charge motion, the differences between the two would be pretty subtle for the witnesses who were further away. Witness 14 wasn't really sure what happened at the car window, while witness 10 might have been observing with a bias since he initially thought Brown shot Wilson. And if someone is just taking a few steps and you're a witness looking from far away, it might be hard to tell if it's the start of a sprint or a fast walk.

 

Witness 12's testimony seems to mostly support what Witness 14 saw.

 

If Brown was hunched over or leaning forwards, it would be hard to distinguish between whether he had his hands up like he was surrendering, or forwards like a charging football player.

 

And I think if he was really charging forwards that fast he wouldn't have been able to stop after the first round of shots.

 

So I think Darren Wilson probably should have been indicted, and have the case go to a trial by jury, although it seems like there probably wouldn't have been enough good evidence to convict him of anything.

[Maleficent_2014]

and then Brown took a few steps towards Wilson with his hands up (palms facing Wilson) and started getting shot at.

 

 

The forensic evidence doesn't support the testimony of witnesses claiming that Brown had his hands up either palms facing out, or otherwise. The injuries to the wrist and or hand took place when the suspect struggled for the officer's service weapon inside the vehicle. Multiple witnesses saw this, and heard this take place with at least one gunshot occurring during the struggle in which physical evidence at the scene corrooborates the testimony of the witnesses. Second, the most notable witness to the crime that claimed that Brown had his hands up came from the other suspect in the robbery at the store earlier that day, and was quickly shown to be incorrect and at the worst, fabricated.

Edited November 26, 2014 by Maleficent

[Memph]

The forensic evidence doesn't support the testimony of witnesses claiming that Brown had his hands up either palms facing out, or otherwise. The injuries to the wrist and or hand took place when the suspect struggled for the officer's service weapon inside the vehicle. Multiple witnesses saw this, and heard this take place with at least one gunshot occurring during the struggle in which physical evidence at the scene corrooborates the testimony of the witnesses. Second, the most notable witness to the crime that claimed that Brown had his hands up came from the other suspect in the robbery at the store earlier that day, and was quickly shown to be incorrect and at the worst, fabricated.

Read my post more carefully.

 

 

What I was saying was that he was shot during the struggle in the car, then ran away, stopped, then turned around. Witness 14 seems to be saying that Brown, after stopping and turning around, and then being told to stop, raised his hands first to look at his injury, then with his palms facing Wilson took a few steps towards him.

 

Witness 14 was not Brown's accomplice (Johnson) but a resident of the neighbourhood (housing projects?).

[Vincent]

Frankly I don't see the point of arguing who is the being aggressive or who being acting in defence. The concern now is rather to stop those rioting that resulted from this Grand Jury decision.

[Alex]

There are some great points made, about how Grand Juries almost always indict the suspects. 

 

Only the jury had all of the evidence and they made the decision they felt was just based on that evidence.  Anything else is conjecture.

 

They've released all of the evidence the grand jury was looking at, we can all make decisionsform opinions based on the evidence now as well.

[Maleficent_2014]

Read my post more carefully.

 

 

What I was saying was that he was shot during the struggle in the car, then ran away, stopped, then turned around. Witness 14 seems to be saying that Brown, after stopping and turning around, and then being told to stop, raised his hands first to look at his injury, then with his palms facing Wilson took a few steps towards him.

 

Witness 14 was not Brown's accomplice (Johnson) but a resident of the neighbourhood (housing projects?).

 

That's fine, but what I am also saying is that the forensic evidence and the autopsy doesn't support witness 14, based on the trajectory of the bullets. He did not have his hands up, or rather it is not conclusibvve that he had his hands up either facing the officer or otherwise. YOu asked if witness 14 is correct, then an indictment should have been justified. I am saying that it is impractical for that outcome to have been expected based on the evidence.

[Hereno]

>who was the aggressor?

 

meaningless question

 

>all but 4 people think that brown is in the wrong

 

well, i figured that much. this community is a plurality of 110 IQ 19-year-old white conservative boys

 

>"officer" darren wilson

 

lol/10

[Speaker Faris Wheeler]

The Jury had 2 decisions: 1. either charge Darren Wilson, and there wouldn't be rioting/looting, but it wouldn't be right (on what the evidence says). or 2. They would do what the evidence tells them and let Darren Wilson go, but there would be rioting.

 

It doesnt matter what opinions of the people are, the evidence told them what to do.