Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 55

Thread: Police Shooting in Ferguson

  1. #31

    Default

    Twelve shots were fired, 7 hit Brown. See paragraph 3 of link.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...r-9881046.html

  2. #32
    Build the Tower Verre antinimby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    in Limbo
    Posts
    8,976

    Default

    That's right but that's not what you said before.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wobert Wedford View Post
    well 12 bullets into a person sure are! Overkill? That's more than a firing squad.

  3. #33

    Default

    OK it was 7 .40 caliber bullets that hit him not 12, but I think in terms of the outcome we shouldn't argue over the difference.

  4. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by antinimby View Post
    And you sitting in front of your TV 6700 km away in London know for sure it's racism eventhough a grand jury with access to all the facts and details of the case don't agree with you.

    The Grand Jury only has what the prosecutor presents to them. In this case many other lawyers are seeing gaping holes in Darren Wilson's story that the prosecutor never seems to address. And blatant corruption of the chain of evidence that makes his story even more difficult to corroborate.

  5. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wobert Wedford View Post
    Twelve shots were fired, 7 hit Brown. See paragraph 3 of link.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...r-9881046.html
    Why did he need to fire 12, it only takes one or two to stop and person.

  6. #36
    Build the Tower Verre antinimby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    in Limbo
    Posts
    8,976

    Default

    Oh really? Is that a proven fact or is that just your guess?


    The grand jury aren't filled by dumb people. If there are holes in the cop's story, surely that would make them skeptical and give them reason to indict him. The fact that they decided not to shows that they found his explanation convincing.

  7. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by antinimby View Post
    Oh really? Is that a proven fact or is that just your guess?


    The grand jury aren't filled by dumb people. If there are holes in the cop's story, surely that would make them skeptical and give them reason to indict him. The fact that they decided not to shows that they found his explanation convincing.
    I don't think you understand what a grand jury does. This wasn't a trial, the grand jury is a tool for the prosecutor to determine if their case will stand up in a jury trial. Its not the grand jury's job to find holes in the targets story, they only evaluate what is given them by the prosecutor.

    Its the prosecutors job to vet witnesses and find holes in the targets story.

  8. #38
    Build the Tower Verre antinimby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    in Limbo
    Posts
    8,976

    Default

    I know perfectly well what a grand jury is. When someone uses the word 'indict' instead of the word 'convict' that should let you know that they know it wasn't a trial.

  9. #39
    I admit I have a problem
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    North Koreatown
    Posts
    532

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by antinimby View Post
    The grand jury aren't filled by dumb people. If there are holes in the cop's story, surely that would make them skeptical and give them reason to indict him. The fact that they decided not to shows that they found his explanation convincing.
    The cop's story has so many holes, even Nancy Grace is calling foul ...

    Nancy Grace Goes Off on Darren Wilson: ‘It Doesn’t Add Up!’

    Nancy Grace joined CNN’s Brooke Baldwin to discuss the Ferguson grand jury decision Wednesday afternoon and she had a lot to say about Officer Darren Wilson’s version of the story, which has finally come out through his testimony and interviews. According to her, the whole thing “doesn’t add up.” ...

    “Look, do you know how many times I have sided against a cop?” Grace asked. “Never. But to me, this is bigger than a badge. And I don’t like speaking out against a cop, but this doesn’t add up.”

    Later, when Baldwin asked Grace if the grand jurors should have questioned Wilson’s story more, she said it was the prosecutor who failed, not the jurors. “The grand jurors are like sheep, they’re babes in the woods. The prosecutor’s duty is to seek the truth,” she said. “I am telling you that the prosecutors, if they want an indictment, they will get an indictment.”

    More story + video here:
    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/nancy-gra...doesnt-add-up/

  10. #40
    Build the Tower Verre antinimby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    in Limbo
    Posts
    8,976

    Default

    Nancy Grace? LOL.

    She is part of the sensation seeking media. She is also taking side with the anti-Wilson sentiment because frankly, that is more politically correct. She's not stupid, she has a public image to uphold. Her take on this should be taken with a grain of salt.

    She is basing her opinion on the photos of Wilson, saying all she saw was redness. I have experience with getting punched and the bruising doesn't appear right away. The visible sign immediately following getting hit is redness, not the black and blue.

    She also said that he should have drove away. She is such a moron. No cop in their right mind would ever flee a criminal. It just doesn't work that way. Their job is to confront the perpetrator not run away.

  11. #41
    I admit I have a problem
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    North Koreatown
    Posts
    532

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by antinimby View Post
    No cop in their right mind would ever flee a criminal. It just doesn't work that way. Their job is to confront the perpetrator not run away.
    1. If Officer Wilson thought his life was still in danger after shooting Michael Brown in the hand, then why didn't he pause for backup instead of running down the road after him?

    2. Then, 150 feet down the road, in the final moments when Wilson catches up to Michael Brown: Some of the witnesses contradict him, but Officer Wilson says Michael Brown turned and charged at him. Well then, why didn't Wilson just dodge him? Michael Brown is fat and bleeding and unarmed, and Officer Wilson has been fit enough to catch up to him. Doesn't Wilson have lots of options besides shooting Michael Brown multiple times in the chest and head? In minutes, a dozen police will be there to tackle and arrest Michael Brown. Time was on Officer Wilson's side — why didn't he just wait?

    Maybe Wilson had good answers for all this. A prosecutor at a real trial could have asked him.

  12. #42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by antinimby View Post
    The grand jury aren't filled by dumb people.
    You don't have to be dumb to be mislead.
    If there are holes in the cop's story, surely that would make them skeptical and give them reason to indict him.
    And who finds those holes? Jurors do not question witnesses.

    The mechanism of a grand jury was spelled out in 1992 US vs Williams by, of all people, Justice Scalia:
    It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented.
    However, the instructions to the Ferguson grand jurors was:
    And you must find probable cause to believe that Darren Wilson did not act in lawful self-defense and you must find probable cause to believe that Darren Wilson did not use lawful force in making an arrest. If you find those things, which is kind of like finding a negative, you cannot return an indictment on anything or true bill unless you find both of those things. Because both are complete defenses to any offense and they both have been raised in his, in the evidence.
    Prosecutors do not act as defense attorneys. If they think a person is not guilty or if they don't have a case, they don't issue a complaint. There is no grand jury or preliminary hearing. If he does have a case, then it goes to a preliminary hearing or grand jury to find probable cause to indict. Both procedures have a low bar to indict.

    Over 70 hours of testimony was heard by about 60 witnesses. Much was made by prosecutor Robert McCulloch at his post-grand jury announcement that the eye-witnesses testimony conflicted. Anyone familiar with court cases knows that eye-witness testimony is rarely ever in agreement, even at trial. If you paraded dozens of eye-witnesses before grand juries, indictments would be hard to come by. While dismissing most eye-witness testimony as contradictory and different from original statements, McCulloch specifically quoted only one, witness #10, who agreed with Officer Wilson's testimony. What the jurors never heard was that witness #10 also changed his testimony from his original statement to police, in which he said he was 100 yards away. At his appearance before the grand jury, he cut the distance in half.

    Witnesses, both positive and negative, have their own prejudices and confirmation biases that influence what they perceive. Witness #40 maintained an explicitly racist journal.

    These discrepancies are sorted out in an adversarial trail, where there is cross examination by both sides.
    Quote Originally Posted by antinimby View Post
    The grand jury aren't filled by dumb people.
    This includes the prosecutors, right? McCulloch further removed himself from the proceeding by having all questions asked by two assistants. Here's some of the information they gave to the jurors:

    Asst prosecutor Kathy Alizadeh on Sept 16:
    I’m going to pass on to you all. You all are going to receive a copy of a statute. It is section 563.046. And it is, it says that law enforcement officers use of force in making an arrest. And it is the law on what is permissible and when in making an arrest by a police officer.”
    The copy given to the grand jurors was of a 1979 Missouri law that was declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in 1985. All such state laws which gave the police authority to shoot suspects who were fleeing became unconstitutional.

    The Missouri law stated: “…justified in the use of such physical force as he or she reasonably believes is immediately necessary to effect the arrest or to prevent the escape from custody.”

    It is so much an anachronism that you can date cops-and-robbers movies by the dialog “Stop or I’ll shoot.”

    This information was given to the grand jurors before Wilson testified. And it stood uncorrected for 9 weeks.

    Until Nov 21:
    Previously in the very beginning of this process I printed out a statute for you that was, the statute in Missouri for the use of force to affect an arrest. So if you all want to get those out. What we have discovered, and we have been going along with this, doing our research, is that the statute in the state of Missouri does not comply with the case law.

    This doesn’t sound probably unfamiliar to you that the law is codified in a written form in books and they’re called statutes, but the courts interpret those statutes. And so the statute for the use of force to affect an arrest in the state of Missouri does not comply with Missouri Supreme, I’m sorry United States Supreme Court cases.

    So the statute I gave you, if you want to fold that in half just so that you know don’t necessarily rely on that, because there is a portion of that that doesn’t comply with the law.
    She the handed out a new document and said:
    That does correctly state what the law is on when an officer can use force and when he can use deadly force in affecting an arrest, okay.
    I don’t want you to get confused and don’t rely on that copy or that print-out of the statute that I’ve given you a long time ago. It is not entirely incorrect or inaccurate, but there is something in it that’s not correct, ignore it totally.
    Even after such a significant error, she didn't just tell the jurors that a police officer cannot shoot a suspect to prevent flight. She left it up to them to figure out what part of the law didn't comply.

    And what's this bullshit about having to do research to figure out that a law has been off the books for 30 years.

    One of the jurors asked a question:
    The Supreme Court, Federal court, overrides Missouri statutes?
    Her answer:
    As far as you need to know, just don’t worry about that.”
    The simple, unambiguous answer, is yes.

    The other assistant prosecutor, Sheila Whirley, chimes in:
    We don’t want to get into a law class.
    WTF. It takes a law class to understand that a statute is unconstitutional?

    Much has been made about the willingness of Wilson to testify. Most defendants don't testify at trial, because of cross examination. They are less likely to testify at grand jury hearings, where the process is completely confrontational. their attorneys can be present, but don't participate.

    However, if the process is turned upside down, and the one-sidedness is a case for the defense, why wouldn't you testify.

    Wilson gave a four hour narrative to the jurors, basically unchallenged. When he said that he felt like a five year old against Hulk Hogan, no one pointed out that Wilson is 6-4, 210-220 lbs. no one asked him to describe what he meant by Brown coming at him "like a demon." Wilson maintained his narrative that Brown was 35 feet way, but Brown's body was 153 feet from the police car..

    This doesn't mean that Wilson is guilty, but such conflicts and discrepancies get resolved at a court trial, not in a grand jury room. That's what probable cause to indict means.

    Quote Originally Posted by antinimby View Post
    When someone uses the word 'indict' instead of the word 'convict' that should let you know that they know it wasn't a trial.
    They are just words unless acted upon.

    ------------------------------------------------

    The calls for a special prosecutor were justified. Even in a general sense, prosecutors are dependent on the police to get the data they need to do their job. In the particular case of Mcculloch, his father was a police officer who was killed in the line of duty. McCulloch once stated that if he could not become a cop, he would be the next best thing.

    McCulloch isn't dumb either. He acted brilliantly, publicly removing himself from the process, while in reality, he was in total control.

    http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/use-grand-jury

  13. #43

    Default

    I don't usually agree with Nancy Grace, but she does have a point - these prosecutors did a sloppy job of Shepardizing their statutes.

  14. #44

    Default

    If the DA wanted to get an indictment, he could have. He didn't want one.

    Why? Because he knew if this case went to a trial, he knew he'd lose. In point of fact, if this weren't a high profile case, he probably wouldn't have even filed charges. But he knew he couldn't get away with that, given the public outcry. So he dumped everything on the GJ, knowing that the evidence mostly backed up the cops story, and that it would get no billed. This way he could blame the GJ for the case not going to trial.

  15. #45

    Default

    I wanted to correct this, because it's incorrect. I have sat on a grand jury (in Manhattan), and I did ask the witnesses questions. Not directly. We wrote down our questions, and passed them to the ADA, who asked the witness the question. Not all questions are permissible, so the ADA screens them.

    In point of fact, I found a major discrepancy in a witness's testimony, and asked questions that essentially imploded an ADA's case (although she was able to straighten it out later and re-present it.)

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    You don't have to be dumb to be mislead. And who finds those holes? Jurors do not question witnesses.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software