Likes: 
Faceplams: Like I said, I didn't look at all the evidence. So you're telling me that Brown's fingerprints were on Wilson's gun?
If so, then my bad.
But Wilson's testimony to that effect, is not forensic science.
Active Member
Like I said, I didn't look at all the evidence. So you're telling me that Brown's fingerprints were on Wilson's gun?
If so, then my bad.
But Wilson's testimony to that effect, is not forensic science.
Last edited by Deepvoid; 11-25-2014 at 09:11 AM.
Captain Rustleboots
His DNA, yes. And there was gunpowder on Browns hand. In addition to other things.Originally Posted by Deepvoid
Alt-Left Leaning Cunt
This is really such a great statement from the family, by the way. Simple, but powerful. Gives the people a goal to work towards, and something for people on both sides to unite on.
Trollhunter
One thing for sure that Wilson lied about in his testimony is that he was aware of the robbery and responding to it. This is one of the key things the cops flip flopped on. The police would've gotten this out quickly if it was true.
Also, pulling your vehicle in front of them to "cut them off?" They were on foot. Again, park and get out to pursue. If you're so concerned about the big scary black man why telegraph that you're going to question them from such a vulnerable position? What were you doing when Brown was asking his friend to hold the cigarillos and supposedly handing them to him?
This isn't correct procedure.
This testimony reeks of rehearsed answers.
Consider the OH case where that 12 year old was killed. The police quickly stated he had an air gun that looked real. I'm way more inclined to buy that story than any of this.
Last edited by Swykk; 11-26-2014 at 07:22 AM.
Active Member
Grabbing a cop's gun is a no-no. This alone justifies the shooting.
With that being said, I love this quote from Wilson: "The only way I can describe it, it looks like a demon, that's how angry he looked."
My dealings with demons have been limited to date so I can't speak for experience but sure looks like Wilson could have used the Winchester brothers.
Trollhunter
Nice Supernatural reference.
Bite me
All answers to all juries are rehearsed. Attorneys prepare their clients to take the stand. I know this may be shocking to people, but all witnesses are 'prepared' by attorneys before taking the stand, mostly about what not to say, not to volunteer information, not to answer questions not asked of you, not to elaborate, etc etc. Wilson was probably prepared by the FOP attorneys in the same manner. But his testimony had to be consistent; any inconsistencies between his sworn testimony before the grand jury and prior statements would be noted by the grand jury. The time of the squad car incident was about 90 seconds, total. A grand jury would take that into account.
The transcript says that he was listening to the police scanner after having responded to the sick baby call, that's how he heard about the robbery (a 911 alert came in via the scanner in his squad car, that's also how he heard about the sick baby call which was not his call). But this whole thing appears to have escalated not because of the cigars. It sounds like the cop being alone in a squad car was improvising until backup arrived, which was stupid. But he was telling what happened. He isn't allowed to go back and make things up to make it seem like "procedure." He has to tell the truth, even when the truth shows that what he did might have been (or definitely was) improper procedure.
Last edited by allegro; 11-25-2014 at 10:51 AM.
Bite me
Perhaps unfortunately, in the case of a police officer using deadly force and considering all of the physical evidence, Wilson's testimony -- to a grand jury -- is often more important than forensic science.
Here are the jury instructions, and all the police officer has to show is "reasonably believed that the offender would endanger life or inflict serious injury ..." (see Wilson's very last statement in the transcript, wherein he stresses that he'd called for backup):
Last edited by allegro; 11-25-2014 at 10:49 AM.
Alt-Left Leaning Cunt
I often times think of the officers who believe in the first amendment, and their feelings and actions during times like these. There has to be a serious internal struggle for quite a few of them, I would imagine.
Bite me
This has been discussed in this thread already, I think, but the VAST MAJORITY of police officers do NOT want to use their guns EVER, because there's too much paperwork, but mostly because usually somebody is dead. It leads to serious PTSD, no matter whom the officer killed, the officer often ends up with PTSD and ends up in counseling. So don't for one second think this Wilson guy is getting away unscathed. He killed somebody. That's not something any cop ever gets over.
Wilson is also allegedly in talks to resign.
Last edited by allegro; 11-25-2014 at 10:48 AM.
Trollhunter
http://www.vox.com/2014/11/25/728116...ons-story-side
A bit more detailed than what I said but good to see someone else seeing the same holes I saw.
Alt-Left Leaning Cunt
Yeah, I don't think most cops want to shoot people. I mean more specifically the manner in which police forces are choosing to respond to protesters. I mean, there has to be a good portion of officers who realize how incredibly fucked up it is.
Bite me
Ah, that's true.
Although, the total morons at that protest in Ferguson last night are just giving Militarization of police forces more justification, unfortunately.
Last edited by allegro; 11-25-2014 at 10:56 AM.
Bite me
"Which doesn't mean Wilson is a liar. Unbelievable things happen every day. The fact that his story raises more questions than it answers doesn't mean it isn't true."
The problem is that the author then suggests that indictment and a trial is the solution; and that's not how the system works.
What I'm really curious about is a toxicology report on Brown. Was one done, or was it ever released? Because, supposedly, a lot of Wilson's sworn testimony was corroborated by the sworn testimony of several other eye witnesses, and if Brown's behavior really happened, that dude musta have been on some serious fucking drugs. I mean, really. I can't explain somebody acting like that, normally, unless they were fucked up on something. And I'm really curious to know what.
Even in that (above) article:
"Why did Michael Brown, an 18-year-old kid headed to college, refuse to move from the middle of the street to the sidewalk? Why would he curse out a police officer? Why would he attack a police officer? Why would he dare a police officer to shoot him? Why would he charge a police officer holding a gun? Why would he put his hand in his waistband while charging, even though he was unarmed?"
Yeah, this is all some stupid assed shit. Even robbing and scaring the fuck out of the store owner. What the fuck was going on? Had he sniffed some GLUE or something? If this wasn't his normal behavior, and he was going off to college, then something was way the fuck off, because this sounds like glue-sniffing.
Last edited by allegro; 11-25-2014 at 11:03 AM.
Trollhunter
Maybe I'm confused but I thought you (and others) have said just because the grand jury didn't indict doesn't necessarily mean charges won't be brought against Wilson. Did I get that wrong?
Josh Wink was on HLAH
White people riot because a hockey team did a thing. Black people riot because they are still three-fifths of a person in the eyes of cops. But yeah, it's the black riots that are the problem.
Bite me
No, you didn't get that wrong, but after listening to the statement of the Prosecutor last night and hearing that the Justice Department and Eric Holder have been involved in this investigation all along, and have been involved in gathering testimony and sharing evidence, the chance of a Federal indictment (or any other kind of indictment) is a snowball's chance in Hell.
It's highly probable that the Wilson family will sue the police department in a civil court, as inferred by the attorneys last night, but who knows.
Last edited by allegro; 11-25-2014 at 11:16 AM.
Bite me
I think we are supposed to get all of the evidence that the grand jury considered, eventually. The Prosecutor stated last night that a lot of the inconsistent testimony was thrown out by the grand jury, not sure if the friend's testimony was considered inconsistent.
The court is redacting the names in all of the transcripts before releasing them to the public, so that's gonna take a while.
Bite me
This was a grand jury, which means that they were there to decide whether or not to indict / arrest; the grand jury does not determine guilt. Guilt or innocence would come at a later trial date, had this officer been indicted for a crime. The grand jury determined that the officer had not committed a crime.
Josh Wink was on HLAH
He talks in this
Bite me
Yeah, we've seen him talk, here in the U.S., on every news station about 400 times.
The question was whether or not we will see a transcript of his sworn statement before the grand jury.
The Prosecutor stated last night that many of the witness statements given immediately after the event provided inconsistent or changing testimony, etc. I wonder if there is a written version of the Prosecutor's statement somewhere online, there must be ...
Last edited by allegro; 11-25-2014 at 11:25 AM.
Josh Wink was on HLAH
Trollhunter
Ah I got it, @allegro . I didn't see that.
Last edited by Swykk; 11-25-2014 at 11:40 AM.
Bite me
Yeah, I'm seeing it here, too:
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/...ocs/index.html
Oh my god, I'm never gonna get any work done, now.
Well, this answers my question: only some weed in Brown. Weed only makes you mellow, dude.
Yeah, even the FBI was questioning the witnesses (see page 23).
Last edited by allegro; 11-25-2014 at 11:36 AM.
Active Member
Killer Mike and EL-P played St. Louis last night:
Last edited by DigitalChaos; 11-25-2014 at 11:34 AM.
Active Member
So, the Grand Jury trial wasn't about guilt and conviction. It was about whether there should have been a trial. Maybe @allegro can elaborate on the difference a bit, because even I am struggling here. It certainly seems like the bar should be lower for answering "should we have a trial?". Like, if there is a 51% chance that a crime happened, then it should go to trial (IMO). Then you leave that strict requirement for guilt in the actual trial.
Bite me
I already quoted him and answered, above.
The grand jury met over 25 times, reviewed hours and hours of sworn witness testimony gathered by both the Prosecutor's office and by the FBI, reviewed three separate autopsy reports (Medical Examiner, FBI, Brown family), reviewed various forensic data reports and photographs, requested additional photographs, etc. etc., so they actually reviewed MORE EVIDENCE than a jury in a trial would ever see.
Ultimately, the grand jury is still bound and limited by those jury instructions, which is the law of the land. You can change the parameters of the law, changing the definition of the use of deadly force by police officers (which changes by case law, as evidenced by that very last paragraph of the below), but until that happens, Prosecutors and grand juries can't indict police officers based on laws that don't exist. Here it is, again:
Last edited by allegro; 11-25-2014 at 11:53 AM.
Active Member
I did see the bit about justified force... so that says the Grand Jury not only found a lack of guilt, but a justified action.
I guess it is more a question of the purpose of a Grand Jury compared to a normal(?) trial and why they use the same bar for guilt when they aren't trying to prove guilt?
Active Member
"deadly force" is "justified" to "effect an arrest": I guess you can arrest a corpse?
also, I guess cops are allowed to initiate and provoke a situation "that would endanger life or inflict serious physical injury."
Yeah they've written these laws to cover their asses beforehand.
These laws need improving please.
The Enhancer
They did that at least twice in my town, and again when G'n'R didn't play a show... Tangent.
When someone is shot at close range there'll be gunpowder residue all over them.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
