Ferguson

[Timsup2nothin]

Actually, you didn't answer the question. You made up a hypothetical situation in an attempt to skirt your ignorance on the matter and to resist having to say that for the simple fact that someone is dead means the cop did something wrong, ergo it's always the cops' fault. Just admit it.

Why should I admit something that anyone paying attention can readily see isn't the case? Especially when the person calling for the admission is obviously so intent on picking a fight that he is not paying attention?

Once again, from the first time I was asked several days ago:

Turned what should have been a routine investigative stop into a dead body in the street. By at the very least doing at least one thing I would expect cops to be trained not to do, which put him in a vulnerable position that he had to shoot his way out of.

Again, that's at the very least.

And yes, since then I have repeatedly told you that the at least one thing that cops should certainly be trained not to do, which I firmly believe they are trained not to do since I never see them do it, which is try to exit their vehicle with a large suspect in a position where he could easily use their own car door as a weapon.

Of course since me giving an answer that you don't like doesn't fit your narrative that I haven't answered the question you have just ignored it...but this is a forum not some barroom debate where drunk observers might not be able to recall that I have in fact answered. Here, all people have to do is look back a page or two. So your repeated obviously false claims just destroy whatever credibility you may have brought to the table.

 

[Senethro]

Shouldn't you at least call for backup when engaging suspects that can bulk up to run through bullets?

 

[onejayhawk]

Shouldn't you at least call for backup when engaging suspects that can bulk up to run through bullets?

Who has the time?

J

 

[Smote]

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1370513-grand-jury-volume-24.html

Some highlights:

Page 84-85 Alizadeh plays defense lawyer

Page 109 Grand jury suspects investigation bias

Page 134-136 Alizadeh tells grand jury that an unconstitutional statute is "not entirely incorrect" and doesn't describe the discrepancy, but broadly uses words like "just ignore it totally" - meaning totally ignore the discrepancy, but easily misconstrued as to mean, ignore the change

She goes on to tell them to not worry that part of the statute they were using to determine whether use of force was justified was unconstitutional. She says, "As far as you need to know, just don't worry about that." She blatantly disregards the fact that grand juries are dependent on her for legal information.

 

[Senethro]

Who has the time?

J

This is a silly answer and you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel here.

If hes dangerous enough to run through bullets then backup was required. Imagine if Browns friend had got involved?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Shouldn't you at least call for backup when engaging suspects that can bulk up to run through bullets?

Probably, but until he started shooting he didn't know he was dealing with a mutant.

However, not letting three hundred pound suspects slam your own car door on you is pretty basic.

 

[Commodore]

That's refreshing.

I still think in the long view you should consider that the erosion of equal protection under the law is a bad thing, but at least you aren't trying to pretend everything is just hunky dory.

I do consider it and I do think it is a bad thing, I am just not motivated to do anything about it since the current system serves my interests. Once that changes (and I do expect it to change given the trend in society lately) I'll be out there demonstrating along side you.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I do consider it and I do think it is a bad thing, I am just not motivated to do anything about it since the current system serves my interests. Once that changes (and I do expect it to change given the trend in society lately) I'll be out there demonstrating along side you.

It may be too late by then, but I'll be honored.

 

[onejayhawk]

This is a silly answer and you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel here.

If hes dangerous enough to run through bullets then backup was required. Imagine if Browns friend had got involved?

It's exactly the answer. There was no time to get backup.

J

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It's exactly the answer. There was no time to get backup.

J

Because that suspect walking down the street could disappear in a puff of smoke at any moment? Not that I'm agreeing that a simple investigative stop should require calling for backup...it should just not involve handing the suspect a car door and letting them hit you with it.

 

[JohnRM]

^ No, of course not. It is impossible for a man on foot to escape from a cop who refuses to get out of his car.

Why does a cop need back-up to stop a petty thief?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

^ No, of course not. It is impossible for a man on foot to escape from a cop who refuses to get out of his car.

Why does a cop need back-up to stop a petty thief?

Apparently he doesn't. He can just shoot him.

If your argument is founded on the idea that everyone else will follow you in skipping over all the discussion of the proper approach to a suspect on foot, which is to have the moment of vulnerability when you are getting out of the car occur at a safe distance, you are really way off target.

 

[Zkribbler]

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1370513-grand-jury-volume-24.html

...Page 134-136 Alizadeh tells grand jury that an unconstitutional statute is "not entirely incorrect" and doesn't describe the discrepancy, but broadly uses words like "just ignore it totally" - meaning totally ignore the discrepancy, but easily misconstrued as to mean, ignore the change

She goes on to tell them to not worry that part of the statute they were using to determine whether use of force was justified was unconstitutional. She says, "As far as you need to know, just don't worry about that." She blatantly disregards the fact that grand juries are dependent on her for legal information.

The Missouri statute is the old "Fleeing Felon" ruling, i.e. anyone [police officer, victim, bystander] has the right to shoot a person who is fleeing who is suspected of committing a felony. In 1985, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Tennessee v. Garner that, to justify the use of deadly force, the fleeing felon has to pose an imminent threat to the officer or the community.

So, when officer Wilson emerged from his car, firing several shots at the unarmed, fleeing Brown, Wilson was committing an illegal assault. Brown therefore had the legal right to attempt to defend himself by turning around and charging Wilson [if, indeed, that's what he did].

Some more interesting discrepancies I've run across:

Wilson's sergeant testified that Wilson told him that Wilson was unaware of the robbery, and that he stopped Brown only because Brown was walking down the middle of the street. The Chief of Police echoed this statement in the earliest news reports. After the shooting, Wilson told St.Louis investigators that he stopped Brown because Brown matched the description of the robber, e.g. black T-shirt carrying Cigarillos. The video of the robbery shows the robber wearing a WHITE T-shirt. Neither the Ferguson police officer who first investigated the scene nor the medical examiner who did the first search of Brown's body mentions finding any Cigarillos.

Wilson told the first investigator that he'd fired three shots. Later that day, Wilson told the St.Louis investigator that he'd fired four shots. It turns out, he'd fired 12. Wilson told the first Ferguson officer on the scene that, while he had Brown were wrestling over the gun, it "went off" once. Wilson told the FBI he fired twice inside the car. Wilson also told the FBI that he didn't fire again until Brown was charging him. That would mean that, while Brown charged from 30 feet to 8 feet away, Wilson would have had to have fired 10 times.

Wilson told the Ferguson officer that, just before Brown charged, he raised his hands in a "charging motion." However, Wilson told the FBI, Brown never raised his arms.

Wilson told the Ferguson officer that, while he and Brown were struggling inside the care, Brown moved his hand outside the car and told his friend to "here, take this," but that Wilson couldn't see what it was. Wilson told the FBI that he distinctly saw Brown hand his friend the Cigarillos.

Somewhat frustrating is that the Ferguson police report of the incident, with measurements, sketches, etc. is not among the documents posted online. Neither is there any fingerprints or DNA report on Wilson's gun, which would have indicted whether or not Brown had grabbed it as Wilson claims.
Edit: Hold on. There's a long document entitled "14-43984-care-main.html" which appears to be the investigative report.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It is interesting that she 'accidentally' informed the grand jury that an inapplicable law applied to the situation...considering that the law was ruled unconstitutional before she even went to law school. It's not like she can say she developed a habit of referring to it back when it was valid and just had a little flashback episode or something.

But that's okay, it was already abundantly clear she was sent in there to avoid getting an indictment, not to actually get one.

 

[Kaitzilla]

...Somewhat frustrating is that the Ferguson police report of the incident, with measurements, sketches, etc. is not among the documents posted online.

I've poked around and here's all I can find regarding police reports.

Incident #2014-12388
Cigar Store Robbery
https://cbsstlouis.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/doc-aug-15-2014-903-am.pdf

Incident #2014-12391
???
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/aclumomikebrowncombinedincidentreport.pdf

Incident #2014-43984
Shooting Death of Michael Brown
(Warning, this .pdf is a 200MB download!!!)
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/newsgr...vidence/assets/reports/14-43984-care-main.pdf


Have fun with all the redacted information.

 

[Berzerker]

So, when officer Wilson emerged from his car, firing several shots at the unarmed, fleeing Brown, Wilson was committing an illegal assault. Brown therefore had the legal right to attempt to defend himself by turning around and charging Wilson [if, indeed, that's what he did].

Wilson ran after him until Brown stopped, Brown then charged Wilson and he started shooting and back pedaling. His shots were fired in self defense...

Thanks Kaitz for the links

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Wilson ran after him until Brown stopped, Brown then charged Wilson and he started shooting and back pedaling. His shots were fired in self defense...

Thanks Kaitz for the links

Interesting bits of conflicting testimony that would have been interesting to see examined in a courtroom. Too bad that didn't happen.

 

[Berzerker]

what conflict?

with Dorian Johnson's version?

Gentle Mike didn't threaten the cop...much

 

[JohnRM]

what conflict?

with Dorian Johnson's version?

Gentle Mike didn't threaten the cop...much

Indeed. Pookie's testimony would have been quite jarring, I'm sure.

 

[Kaitzilla]

wow, WTH. It's like checks and balances failed because every Missouri leader involved in Ferguson justice is incompetent. Well done Missouri... you elected these guys.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/27/ferguson-five-leaders-failed-michael-brown

So apparently, St. Louis prosecutor Robert McCulloch doesn't care that a policeman killed someone.

Reasons:

Mike Brown was killed, and McCulloch didn't bother to build a compelling case against him. Instead, he used a grand jury to create the illusion that he was, but it was actually an elaborate farce (see below). After the indictment obviously failed, I've seen no further efforts to bring the cop that shot Mike Brown many times in the back to trial.

Why wouldn't McCulloch want to prosecute a cop?

His father was a cop who was shot in the line of duty. His brother, nephew, and cousin all served with the police, and his mother was a clerk there. He likely has very high feelings towards police and a bunch of social connections with them.

"“I couldn’t become a policeman, so being county prosecutor is the next best thing,” McCulloch once told the Post-Dispatch."

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_cdd4c104-6086-506e-9ee8-aa957a31fee5.html

He also refused to appoint a special prosecutor, which was demanded by the black community, which probably would have been an unbiased prosecutor.

Why the grand jury thing was a farce:

http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/shocking-mistake-in-darren-wilson-grand-jury-364273731666

The assistant prosecutor misrepresented the law for the Ferguson grand jury, took over two months to correct the mistake, then did it in a fashion where she didn't even say specifically how a mistake had been made, probably hoping that the jurors would discount the correction as unimportant.

On how grand juries work:
Grand juries are a tool for prosecutors to establish probable cause via jury instead of via judge/pre-trial.
"Grand jury proceedings are secret. No judge is present; the proceedings are led by a prosecutor;[14] and the defendant has no right to present his case or (in many instances) to be informed of the proceedings at all. While court reporters usually transcribe the proceedings, the records are sealed. The case for such secrecy was unanimously upheld by the Burger Court in Douglas Oil Co. of Cal. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 US 211 (1979)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_juries_in_the_United_States

They're intended as an aid to prosecutors to use. For this reason, a prosecutor's case is judged, with no defense. In this case, the prosecutors purposely made their own case look as problematic as possible so that the case would be thrown out, which is completely counter to how the indictment process was designed. Prosecutors are supposed to make the best case possible, not the worst case possible.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...-what-was-wrong-with-the-ferguson-grand-jury/

In this particular grand jury, 9 out of 12 grand jurors had to be convinced that there is probable cause to suspect a crime had taken place. Considering that for two months they were judging witness evidence based off of a law ruled unconstitutional in 1985 where its legal for cops to shoot fleeing suspects, and that contradictory evidence was purposely used to make the prosecution's case look weak, it is completely unsurprising that at least 4 out of 12 grand jurors were convinced that no crime had taken place.

But, who cares? There is no double jeopardy for indictments. The case never went to trial, so just try him again, right? The problem here is more simple - I don't think the prosecuting attorney, Robert McCulloch, wants to. If he did, he could just start this thing up again, go for another grand jury, or just go through pre-trial normally. Moreover, I don't think Governor Nixon cares that one of his district attorneys is not doing his job. (If he did care, he would replace McCulloch!)

That's a pretty strong argument!