Ferguson

[Zkribbler]

All of your comments about what occurred in the vehicle are simply presumptions, not facts.

Was Wilson's hand on the handle of the gun, or was it not?
Was Wilson's finger on the trigger of the gun, or was it not?
Was Brown's flesh found in the mechanism of the gun, or was it not?
Could Brown have placed his hand there while the gun was holstered, or could he not?

 

[Colonel]

Was Wilson's hand on the handle of the gun, or was it not?
Was Wilson's finger on the trigger of the gun, or was it not?
Was Brown's flesh found in the mechanism of the gun, or was it not?
Could Brown have placed his hand there while the gun was holstered, or could he not?

1. Yes
2. Yes, its his gun
3. Yes, (to my knowledge)
4. Some yes, some no, also noting to have hand on the barrel and to obstruct the weapon are two different places. It appears that it was a misfire on both shots so I doubt seriously that Brown had his hand on the barrel. He more then likely went for it after the altercation had begun with the Officer tried to draw it.

Also, for your previous post responding to me, I refer you to Mobby's post on the previous page.

And to add SCOTUS and Missouri law say he could have shot at him while fleeing. I was never stating that he did, just that it would have been legal.

 

[Paul in Saudi]

Any word yet on prosecuting the people who leveled their guns at the protestors? How about the guys who attacked the press? Is the fellow who started yelling about "ing animals" still employed? Why?

 

[Colonel]

Any word yet on prosecuting the people who leveled their guns at the protestors? How about the guys who attacked the press? Is the fellow who started yelling about "ing animals" still employed? Why?

Depends which ones your talking about. The ones on the blockade line weren't punished because that is what they were supposed to do. The Officer who aimed his rifle and threatened the press was suspended. The one who called them "****ing animals" and pointed his gun at them was suspended and transferred.

 

[JollyRoger]

Witness 40 and the Prosecutor that let her lie to the Grand Jury also need to be prosecuted.

 

[Colonel]

Witness 40 and the Prosecutor that let her lie to the Grand Jury also need to be prosecuted.

What about the numerous witnesses on the other side that lied should they be prosecuted too?

 

[JollyRoger]

What about the numerous witnesses on the other side that lied should they be prosecuted too?

If they were not at the scene, but lied about that - sure - start with them. Those at the scene would need closer evaluation to distinguish between misperceptions and lying.

 

[Berzerker]

Dorian Johnson said Michael Brown didn't threaten the cop...much

I dont think Dorian meant to say that, kinda looked like it slipped out at the end of an interview. I'd be interested if he told the GJ about how Michael was threatening the cop.

But the blood stains and shell casings show Michael's threat was real, he was headed in Wilson's direction when he was gunned down.

The only witnesses I've seen on MSNBC said he turned and surrendered. I believed them... I was fairly sure Wilson would be indicted because it looked like he executed the kid as he surrendered. I watch too much MSNBC Thats twice I fell for their propaganda

 

[MobBoss]

If they were not at the scene, but lied about that - sure - start with them. Those at the scene would need closer evaluation to distinguish between misperceptions and lying.

I think he is referring to the 'hands up, don't shoot' crowd since that was an entire fabrication.

 

[JollyRoger]

I think he is referring to the 'hands up, don't shoot' crowd since that was an entire fabrication.

Yeah - witness 40 was clear that she didn't see that happen - guess she was telling the truth there.

Does anyone know if Hannity has stopped quoting her yet?

 

[Colonel]

Yeah - witness 40 was clear that she didn't see that happen - guess she was telling the truth there.

Does anyone know if Hannity has stopped quoting her yet?

I'm not one to say that either side is blameless in this, the Prosecutor I do hold blameless simply because he presented all the witnesses to the Grand Jury regardless of how legit they seemed. As he could have just indicted on his own without the Grand Jury it stands to reason he was trying to show everyone an unbiased objective review by the Grand Jury, thus he presented all the evidence to them.

As to the witnesses on both sides who lied, I would sincerely hope that they are prosecuted to the fullest extent of law.

 

[JollyRoger]

How is it unbiased to allow in a pro-Wilson "witness" who the Prosecutor knew wasn't even there? And he didn't even ask her questions that would have easily revealed she was lying. It's not the prosecutor's job to allow lies in the name of lack of bias - it is the prosecutor's job to see that justice is done . That is not served by allowing such a blatant lie go uncontested before the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury may have very well made the right decision, but allowing Witness 40 to testify should be grounds for at least discipline by the State Bar.

If a defense attorney had put her on the stand at a jury trial and knowingly let her lie so blatantly, the Prosecution would tear her up on cross examination and the defense attorney could very well face discipline. It would be breaking ethical rules for sure.

 

[Colonel]

How is it unbiased to allow in a pro-Wilson "witness" who the Prosecutor knew wasn't even there? And he didn't even ask her questions that would have easily revealed she was lying. It's not the prosecutor's job to allow lies in the name of lack of bias - it is the prosecutor's job to see that justice is done . That is not served by allowing such a blatant lie go uncontested before the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury may have very well made the right decision, but allowing Witness 40 to testify should be grounds for at least discipline by the State Bar.

If a defense attorney had put her on the stand at a jury trial and knowingly let her lie so blatantly, the Prosecution would tear her up on cross examination and the defense attorney could very well face discipline. It would be breaking ethical rules for sure.

Under Missouri law for Grand Juries it simply states that the Prosecutor has to present information for their consideration. Clearly the Prosecutor had to realize that more then a few witnesses on both sides were lying to some degree or completely. Yet they were placed in front of the Grand Jury. I consider that an objective non-biased review of the case. Also its not clear that the DA knew about the level in which that specific witness was lying. As the DA wasn't directly presenting the evidence to the Grand Jury I again hold him blameless.

 

[JollyRoger]

The DA has admitted in a radio interview that he knew she was an outright fraud. She had no business testifying.

 

[Colonel]

The DA has admitted in a radio interview that he knew she was an outright fraud. She had no business testifying.

Legally defensible based on the requirement for the DA to present information to the Grand Jury. Not present evidence for Jury trial.

 

[JollyRoger]

Misinformation

 

[onejayhawk]

Dorian Johnson said Michael Brown didn't threaten the cop...much

I dont think Dorian meant to say that, kinda looked like it slipped out at the end of an interview. I'd be interested if he told the GJ about how Michael was threatening the cop.

But the blood stains and shell casings show Michael's threat was real, he was headed in Wilson's direction when he was gunned down.

The only witnesses I've seen on MSNBC said he turned and surrendered. I believed them... I was fairly sure Wilson would be indicted because it looked like he executed the kid as he surrendered. I watch too much MSNBC Thats twice I fell for their propaganda

I swore off broadcast news years ago. It is not so much there is bias. It's that they are always looking for shock value, even when it has to be fabricated.

J

 

[MobBoss]

Misinformation

Conspiracy theorists unite!

 

[Berzerker]

The DA has admitted in a radio interview that he knew she was an outright fraud. She had no business testifying.

I dont think he said he knew at the time

 

[JollyRoger]

Conspiracy theorists unite!

I'm not saying the Grand Jury got it wrong - I'm saying the Prosecutor knowingly let a pro-cop "witness" give information even though he knew that she was lying about being at the scene. The Prosecutor admitted it when directly confronted about it. Change spiracy to fession and you get a bit closer.