Ferguson

[MobBoss]

I was never convinced Zimmerman would be convicted because the police treated the crime scene like the dead guy was the criminal rather than being more proactive about treating it as if the shooter could have been the criminal.

The prosecution still had a shot at a win, using items put into evidence by the defense, but they did not pursue the winning theory.

As for this one, you have witnesses saying one thing and leaks implying the forensics ondicate otherwise. Lots of people in Texas being freed because the forensics were only looked at on the prodding by crazy liberals who think that relying only on eyewitness testimony is faulty. I am assuming you are moving into the crazy liberal camp on this one. If so, we will provide you the waterboarding kit for the FEMA Camp you will be running.

Not all the eye witness agree however...there were indeed some that indicated that Brown was rushing towards the police officer when shot.

So you have mixed witness accounts, but strong forensics confirming the Officers story.

Sound familiar?

 

[JollyRoger]

I'm not denying that if the leaks in regards to forensics are true, that the grand jury is right not to indict.

What I am asking is if you are now in the camp that is skeptical of eyewitness accounts? Is your skepticism high enough to cause you to consider removing the death penalty as punishment in cases where the great bulk of the evidence is mere eyewitness testimony (very little, if any forensic evidence)?

 

[MobBoss]

I'm not denying that if the leaks in regards to forensics are true, that the grand jury is right not to indict.

What I am asking is if you are now in the camp that is skeptical of eyewitness accounts? Is your skepticism high enough to cause you to consider removing the death penalty as punishment in cases where the great bulk of the evidence is mere eyewitness testimony (very little, if any forensic evidence)?

Actually, yes...and I don't think that's necessarily a deviation from opinion I've always had. In fact, I think I've argued the point that greater advancements in forensic science actually promote a more effective death penalty system in that it greatly bolsters the chance of random conviction error.

 

[Commodore]

Whenever I'm trying to kill someone I always make a point of running twenty feet away somewhere in the middle of the process, just to show the continuing seriousness of my intent.

Oh, wait, that would show that I've given up on the idea, wouldn't it?

Have you even read the results of the autopsy? It was released a while back and while it does not explicitly corroborate Wilson's story, the results do make his version of events seem like the more likely scenario. Brown was shot six times, all in the front of the head and chest. I don't know if you are familiar with physics at all, but one cannot be shot in the chest while running away from someone. Unless you are going to try to tell me he was running backwards.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Have you even read the results of the autopsy? It was released a while back and while it does not explicitly corroborate Wilson's story, the results do make his version of events seem like the more likely scenario. Brown was shot six times, all in the front of the head and chest. I don't know if you are familiar with physics at all, but one cannot be shot in the chest while running away from someone. Unless you are going to try to tell me he was running backwards.

So is there anything in the autopsy to show that the guy didn't start running away, maybe thinking he had subdued the officer...then recognized 'uh oh, dude is not as subdued as I thought, I'm toast' and stopped? Only to find out that all stopping did was make him a stationary target for a guy who was past just letting him yield.

See, unlike the cop apologists I don't claim to know what happened, I just put forth a very plausible explanation that has only one glaring flaw. Cop apologists just know a cop would never do such a thing.

By the way, why else would he start running away if he didn't think the cop was far enough out to not come up shooting? Assuming of course that he attacked the cop in the first place.

 

[Labtec600]

So is there anything in the autopsy to show that the guy didn't start running away, maybe thinking he had subdued the officer...then recognized 'uh oh, dude is not as subdued as I thought, I'm toast' and stopped? Only to find out that all stopping did was make him a stationary target for a guy who was past just letting him yield.

See, unlike the cop apologists I don't claim to know what happened, I just put forth a very plausible explanation that has only one glaring flaw. Cop apologists just know a cop would never do such a thing.

By the way, why else would he start running away if he didn't think the cop was far enough out to not come up shooting? Assuming of course that he attacked the cop in the first place.

Thinking he may have "subdued" the Officer? So you're now on the camp that Brown attacked the Officer?

Interesting.

 

[Commodore]

So is there anything in the autopsy to show that the guy didn't start running away, maybe thinking he had subdued the officer...then recognized 'uh oh, dude is not as subdued as I thought, I'm toast' and stopped? Only to find out that all stopping did was make him a stationary target for a guy who was past just letting him yield.

See, unlike the cop apologists I don't claim to know what happened, I just put forth a very plausible explanation that has only one glaring flaw. Cop apologists just know a cop would never do such a thing.

By the way, why else would he start running away if he didn't think the cop was far enough out to not come up shooting? Assuming of course that he attacked the cop in the first place.

I would assume Brown probably wasn't thinking straight since the toxicology report showed he did have marijuana in his system at the time of the shooting. Now I am not saying it was the weed that made him act the way he acted, but he definitely wasn't in his right state of mind, and maybe he thought charging the cop again was a good idea in the state of mind he was in.

Like I said, initially I was with the protestors on this one, but all the evidence that has come out since the shooting occurred has changed my mind. Eye witnesses initially saying Brown attacked the officer when they didn't realize they were being recorded on smartphones and then saying Wilson executed him in the street when the media showed up, coupled with the results of the official autopsy report make me think this really was a case of self-defense. Given the amount of evidence in favor of officer Wilson, I would be very surprised if the grand jury decides to indict and take this to trial.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Thinking he may have "subdued" the Officer? So you're now on the camp that Brown attacked the Officer?

Interesting.

There was a fight. I never said there wasn't. I've seen plenty of cops try to start fights. There is never any doubt in my mind that their thinking is 'if I start to lose I can always shoot you'. I have never seen any reason to think that isn't what happened here.

A verbal confrontation turns physical. That's what they frequently do among normal people when one of them won't be satisfied with anything less than total obsequious capitulation.

One person in a physical confrontation tries to pull a gun. The other person grabs for the gun. That's certainly what I would do.

The only thing I can see from the evidence that Brown did that I wouldn't have is start to run before making sure the fight was over. Never run from a gun is one of my many rules. They kick in under duress when there isn't time to think things through. I would have come out of the truck with the gun or in a body bag, so I would not have gotten shot front or back from twenty feet away.

@Commodore...at a guess if there is a source of 'not thinking straight' in play in this situation it would most likely stem from being in a fight for his life. Kids get in brawls; fistfights, shoving matches. They aren't equipped for dealing with a stone killer. It's a very hard thing to get your head around when you realize for the first time that you are eye to eye and hand to hand with someone who is willing to see you die.

As to 'maybe he thought charging the cop again was the right thing to do'...maybe he thought he had made a really bad mistake and he should just give up rather than continuing to run. We'll never know, because we sure as heck can't ask him, can we?

 

[bhsup]

I'm not denying that if the leaks in regards to forensics are true, that the grand jury is right not to indict.

What I am asking is if you are now in the camp that is skeptical of eyewitness accounts? Is your skepticism high enough to cause you to consider removing the death penalty as punishment in cases where the great bulk of the evidence is mere eyewitness testimony (very little, if any forensic evidence)?

IF there are conflicting eyewitness accounts, with some backing up the forensics and some being apparent coordinated lies by a community trying to portray the person as a gentle giant, wouldn't you be skeptical of some of them? That only makes sense.

 

[JollyRoger]

I am skeptical of eyewitness accounts as a general principle. I don't need those qualifiers to get to skepticism. Too many victims have been sent to prison based on mere eyewitness accounts.

 

[Commodore]

I am skeptical of eyewitness accounts as a general principle. I don't need those qualifiers to get to skepticism. Too many victims have been sent to prison based on mere eyewitness accounts.

I couldn't agree more. If anything, eyewitness accounts should really only be used as a starting point to develop leads for a criminal investigation, not as actual evidence.

 

[Antilogic]

Have you even read the results of the autopsy? It was released a while back and while it does not explicitly corroborate Wilson's story, the results do make his version of events seem like the more likely scenario. Brown was shot six times, all in the front of the head and chest. I don't know if you are familiar with physics at all, but one cannot be shot in the chest while running away from someone. Unless you are going to try to tell me he was running backwards.

If his hands were up, facing the officer, I would expect most of the bullets to hit him in the front. If you get hit in the head, I would expect your arms to fall.

Currently, the "leaked" autopsy report (only one of several) claims the pattern of hits "proves" Brown was lunging at the officer, but that pattern is perfectly consistent also with what I outlined above.

 

[Ephesian429]

Dutch news is reporting that gun and bullet sales are up enormously in Ferguson and environment. That is surely going to end well.

Most of these sales are people who are in fear of the protest, residents, business owners and such. I would expect these Missouri folks to keep them holstered unless directly threatened.

 

[Berzerker]

Eye witnesses initially saying Brown attacked the officer when they didn't realize they were being recorded on smartphones and then saying Wilson executed him in the street when the media showed up

that aint a contradiction, both can be true

There was a fight. I never said there wasn't. I've seen plenty of cops try to start fights. There is never any doubt in my mind that their thinking is 'if I start to lose I can always shoot you'.

You were complaining about definitive statements? I seriously doubt anyone with a gun starts a fight planning to use it once they're losing. That kind of thinking can get you killed...

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You were complaining about definitive statements? I seriously doubt anyone with a gun starts a fight planning to use it once they're losing. That kind of thinking can get you killed...

Cops have far more effective weapons than guns. They almost always have numbers. They invariably have the fact that their testimony outweighs anyone elses, so the opponent is by definition the criminal no matter what the outcome. The number of reasons they (rightly) believe that they can start a fight without any concern for consequences is nearly endless. That thinking does get people killed, but very seldom the cops.

 

[JollyRoger]

The initial police spin was that Brown's body ended up about 35 feet from the vehicle. They were only off by about 113 feet.

 

[Angst]

For this post, I'm using the terminology "captive" of someone that is arrested by the police for something for the lack of a better word off my head.

http://politiken.dk/indland/ECE2461...mark-politiet-er-oftere-good-cop-end-bad-cop/

This article (Danish, sorry) talks about some differences between Danish and American police.

I know "American" is a broad, most probably imprecise stroke, but I still feel I should mention some things.

According to the article, American police uses a so-called "Reid" method which is intended to break down a captive and can lead to false testimony and a false confession. The method accordingly has the intention to break those down the police is already targeting, not the intention to have the captive provide an as-good-as-possible testimony. In Denmark the intention of interrogation is to have the captive provide information, not to frame the captive. The article directly talks about an anecdote of a Danish pedagogue who broke down during an American interrogation and was falsely accused and jailed for nine months.

Additionally, the article states that apparently cops are allowed to lie to captives in America. They are not in Denmark. They're allowed to withhold information, but not to lie. On the other hand, withheld information may not be evidence, the captive must be informed about evidence so it can figure out what to do with it with his or her lawyer.

Of course, sometimes Danish police officers don't follow the rules and can make informal hearings, for example, gathering information during casual chatter, or when the defending attourney isn't present. But testimonies provided during this period is not legitimate information for court and as such the judge will not allow information provided during informal hearings.

Even with this state of things (If it is truly a difference between Danish and American legal systems, I sincerely hope your state's police department isn't like what is informed in this article) this article is actually going into criticism of Danish police when it hasn't acted according to the law. It mentions an episode when some Danish officers have taken a captive out for coffee and interrogated him informally (it's very normal to temporarily incarcerate suspects in Denmark so some time outside is very welcome to a captive. That said, our prisons are really, really humane, prison cells look like small apartments) which the lawyer said was illegitimate evidence. Additionally, the difference between the written and spoken (court) testimony is sometimes too large and when the difference is there, it’s usually making the suspect’s case worse.

Still, I think this is just about the actual extent of current police corruption in Denmark.

 

[Antilogic]

This is why it is recommended that you exercise your right to remain silent and wait for a lawyer to represent you. Except you have to actually talk and say you are exercising your right to remain silent otherwise the police may take that as proof you are guilty.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

This is why it is recommended that you exercise your right to remain silent and wait for a lawyer to represent you. Except you have to actually talk and say you are exercising your right to remain silent otherwise the police may take that as proof you are guilty.

Police generally take the fact that they are talking to you and you aren't wearing a badge as proof that you are guilty.

 

[James Stuart]

Police generally take the fact that they are talking to you and you aren't wearing a badge as proof that you are guilty.

Living in Western Sydney, I've had my share of completely unnecessary run-ins with the police. But ffs, get off your high horse. Wait until you hear the evidence before forming your opinion.