Ferguson

[MobBoss]

"Final 10 shots"

148 feet

Sounds like a case for a petit jury to get right or wrong.

So, is it your claim that Officer Wilson was about 50 yards away when Brown was shot, or that simply the police vehicle was about 50 yards away, with Officer Wilson being somewhat closer than that?

Also, do you have any idea how hard it is to hit 10 out of 10 shots at a man sized target 50 yards away with a handgun? Just curious.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Again, in a case with huge stakes at hand, locally and possibly nationally, with attention from even the White House, what you are suggesting simply makes no logical sense what-so-ever.

None.

As opposed to your suggestion that with all that scrutiny this ambitious prosecutor would choose this case to just abandon doing his job. Where's the 'logical sense' in that, bub?

 

[MobBoss]

As opposed to your suggestion that with all that scrutiny this ambitious prosecutor would choose this case to just abandon doing his job. Where's the 'logical sense' in that, bub?

Actually, that's what you are suggesting (i.e. prosecutor acting more like a defense attorney, etc.).

And it seems you agree with me, it makes no logical sense.

 

[JollyRoger]

Final 10 shots implies more than 10 shots. Plus the self defense spin was about a scuffle in or near the car - such defense is no longer all that relevant once the dead guy ends up 50 yards away.

Arguments on both sides - sound like a case for a petit jury.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I'll give you that. He handled this in a very unconventional manner. But putting the prosecutor and his failings aside; was the decision reached by the grand jury the wrong one considering the physical evidence?

What do you think is a greater cause for concern, a police officer shot an unarmed man under somewhat murky circumstances, or a county prosecutor is willing to torpedo a case now and then if the accused has his favor?

 

[MobBoss]

Final 10 shots implies more than 10 shots. Plus the self defense spin was about a scuffle in or near the car - such defense is no longer all that relevant once the dead guy ends up 50 yards away.

I notice you don't comment on whether it was simply the vehicle and not necessarily Officer Wilson that was that distance away from where Brown was shot.

How quick do you think a guy like Brown could sprint less than 50 yards? 40 yards? 30?

 

[Commodore]

"Final 10 shots"

148 feet

Sounds like a case for a petit jury to get right or wrong.

What does the amount of shots fired have to do with anything? If someone who has displayed a desire to kill you is charging at you, you are going to keep shooting at them until they either stop charging at you or fall down dead. So yes, officer Wilson fired a lot of shots at Brown and hit him 6 times, but it wasn't until the final hit that Brown stopped advancing and fell down dead. What was Wilson supposed to do? Stop shooting after hitting him once even if that didn't stop him?

 

[JollyRoger]

How quick do you think a guy like Brown could sprint less than 50 yards? 40 yards? 30?

If he is sprinting away from the vehicle, then the scuffle at the vehicle becomes irrelevant for self-defense purposes. Or at least an item best left to a petit jury.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Actually, that's what you are suggesting (i.e. prosecutor acting more like a defense attorney, etc.).

And it seems you agree with me, it makes no logical sense.

In the greater picture it makes perfect sense...this prosecutor has been accused of torpedoing his own cases before when the accused was a cop. This "I am going to just dump the case and let the jury see everything" claim is his way of presenting his failure to prosecute the case properly in a way that people unfamiliar with the normal workings (and fellow cop apologists like you, bub) can spin it as something other than what it is.

People who are familiar with how things are normally done are left to either say "normally a prosecutor has every opportunity to railroad an indictment, so the fact this guy didn't is blatantly strange", or not. Since admitting the system is grossly rigged in favor of the prosecution is unlikely, the guy expects a pass.

Except from the torch bearing mob. If they get hold of him it will be a short dealing of justice.

 

[Commodore]

What do you think is a greater cause for concern, a police officer shot an unarmed man under somewhat murky circumstances, or a county prosecutor is willing to torpedo a case now and then if the accused has his favor?

In general I would say the latter. For this specific case, I would say the former since the decider in this case was a jury of 12, not the prosecutor. And there was a reporter on CNN who actually applauded the prosecutor for dumping all the evidence in the lap of the grand jury. His point was basically, what sort of backlash and criticism would that prosecutor have faced if he had withheld even a single shred of evidence from the grand jury? He would have been accused of manipulating the results to get the desired outcome (something he is being accused of anyway).

And I also don't think he intentionally torpedoed the case, I just think he didn't want to deal with it. Which is, of course, a problem since dealing with stuff like this is pretty much his job and he should step down if he can't handle the responsibility anymore.

 

[MobBoss]

In the greater picture it makes perfect sense...this prosecutor has been accused of torpedoing his own cases before when the accused was a cop. This "I am going to just dump the case and let the jury see everything" claim is his way of presenting his failure to prosecute the case properly in a way that people unfamiliar with the normal workings (and fellow cop apologists like you, bub) can spin it as something other than what it is.

People who are familiar with how things are normally done are left to either say "normally a prosecutor has every opportunity to railroad an indictment, so the fact this guy didn't is blatantly strange", or not. Since admitting the system is grossly rigged in favor of the prosecution is unlikely, the guy expects a pass.

Except from the torch bearing mob. If they get hold of him it will be a short dealing of justice.

This is laughable. It only 'makes sense' if one is so paranoid about the government and cops that its the only imaginable reason for a Grand Jury to come to the conclusion it did.

In a case with national media and White House attention. Yeah. Totally. The fix was in from the beginning yeah.

Real convincing argument bub, real convincing.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

This is laughable. It only 'makes sense' if one is so paranoid about the government and cops that its the only imaginable reason for a Grand Jury to come to the conclusion it did.

In a case with national media and White House attention. Yeah. Totally. The fix was in from the beginning yeah.

Real convincing argument bub, real convincing.

Given that the cop apologist's mind has long since been made up, a cop apologist is the last person whose opinion on the quality of an argument would be asked for, or of concern. And yes bub, you have long since been written off as the epitome of cop apologists.

Thanks for prefacing your statement with "this is laughable", bub...but most people expect no less by now I'm sure.

 

[Berzerker]

when did judicial reformists fall in love with grand juries?

I always cringe when I hear prosecutors can indict a ham sandwich, WTH kind of system is that?

my god, people are complaining because the jury got to see the evidence?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

In general I would say the latter. For this specific case, I would say the former since the decider in this case was a jury of 12, not the prosecutor. And there was a reporter on CNN who actually applauded the prosecutor for dumping all the evidence in the lap of the grand jury. His point was basically, what sort of backlash and criticism would that prosecutor have faced if he had withheld even a single shred of evidence from the grand jury? He would have been accused of manipulating the results to get the desired outcome (something he is being accused of anyway).

And I also don't think he intentionally torpedoed the case, I just think he didn't want to deal with it. Which is, of course, a problem since dealing with stuff like this is pretty much his job and he should step down if he can't handle the responsibility anymore.

In general I too would say the latter. In this specific case he is making this claim that "I did it this way to avoid the backlash", but under this level of scrutiny and with the potential consequences, wouldn't it be paramount to treat this case the same way he has treated cases throughout his career. Wouldn't that in fact be the best way to defuse criticism, to be able to honestly say "I did this the best way I know how, as I have always done with every case"?

He is oh for five on cases where the accused is a cop, by the way. So I think he can honestly say he handled this case consistent with his past performance.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

when did judicial reformists fall in love with grand juries?

I always cringe when I hear prosecutors can indict a ham sandwich, WTH kind of system is that?

my god, people are complaining because the jury got to see the evidence?

No, they are complaining because they firmly believe that in any case where the accused was not a cop the prosecutor would have handled the case much differently...which calls into question whether the people of StLouis county are actually getting a little thing called equal protection under the law. That is, by the way, something the constitution says they are entitled to, and something the UN has agreed is a basic human right.

 

[Saigon]

You act like all the protesters are looting and rioting.

If the prosecutor recognize the sensitive nature of the announcement, he wouldn't have made his long winded closing argument at 8:30 pm and he wouldn't have spent 20 minutes trolling before making the announcement.

You spend several hours a day trolling our forum though?

 

[Commodore]

In general I too would say the latter. In this specific case he is making this claim that "I did it this way to avoid the backlash", but under this level of scrutiny and with the potential consequences, wouldn't it be paramount to treat this case the same way he has treated cases throughout his career. Wouldn't that in fact be the best way to defuse criticism, to be able to honestly say "I did this the best way I know how, as I have always done with every case"?

He is oh for five on cases where the accused is a cop, by the way. So I think he can honestly say he handled this case consistent with his past performance.

Oh, I won't deny this prosecutor is definitely a tool and would probably be well advised to step down after this debacle. It is my position though that despite his incompetence, the grand jury ultimately did arrive at the right conclusion given the physical evidence.

 

[JollyRoger]

You spend several hours a day trolling our forum though?

I keep waiting for the looting and rioting.

 

[Commodore]

I keep waiting for the looting and rioting.

How does one loot and riot on an internet forum?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Oh, I won't deny this prosecutor is definitely a tool and would probably be well advised to step down after this debacle. It is my position though that despite his incompetence, the grand jury ultimately did arrive at the right conclusion given the physical evidence.

Unfortunately in the absence of proper prosecution we will never know.

By the way, calls for him to resign after his previous 'efforts' to prosecute cops failed miserably went unheard. Do you think this time will be different? If so, why?