Ferguson Live Feed

[Jayjay]

What exactly do the cigarellos have to do with Wilson killing Brown, since Wilson had no knowledge of the theft? Johnson's testimony also puts Brown outside of the car and surrendering when the fatal shots were fired.

Wilson claims in his post-grand jury public interviews that he did know about the robbery, and seeing Brown walking with a box of cigarillos was the reason why he originally stopped him. What makes you think Wilson is lying?

 

[Testy Calibrate]

Body cameras will make it harder for cops to do their job, at least in the south.

Why do you think so?

Because, when dealing with thugs and criminals, they will be unable to apply the necessary force without going through trial by media. Why else?

 

[Jayjay]

Why do you think so?

Because, when dealing with thugs and criminals, they will be unable to apply the necessary force without going through trial by media. Why else?

A situation where a cop has time to stop and think about what using lethal force might look like in the media aftewards, is a situation where use of lethal force is probably not warranted in the first place. Besides the tapes would serve to exonorate the police in cases where such force is warranted.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

It is about finding probable cause to proceed. The conclusion need not be a done deal in order to determine if there is reason to look further.

And what is the purpose of that?

What is the purpose of what?

 

[Testy Calibrate]

Because, when dealing with thugs and criminals, they will be unable to apply the necessary force without going through trial by media. Why else?

A situation where a cop has time to stop and think about what using lethal force might look like in the media aftewards, is a situation where use of lethal force is probably not warranted in the first place. Besides the tapes would serve to exonorate the police in cases where such force is warranted.

That's a good point. I hadn't thought about it from that angle. Still, I think I read that the police unions were against the cameras. That suggests to me that they are a bad idea, but, I dunno. It's a complicated issue like all political issues I guess. That's why I don't vote.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

What exactly do the cigarellos have to do with Wilson killing Brown, since Wilson had no knowledge of the theft? Johnson's testimony also puts Brown outside of the car and surrendering when the fatal shots were fired.

Wilson claims in his post-grand jury public interviews that he did know about the robbery, and seeing Brown walking with a box of cigarillos was the reason why he originally stopped him. What makes you think Wilson is lying?

In an afternoon press conference, Ferguson, Mo. Police Chief Thomas Jackson said Wilson did not initially make a connection between the robbery and Brown,whose death spurred violent protests and unrest in the St. Louis suburb over the past week.

Wilson stopped Brown and a friend because "they were in the middle of the street, blocking traffic," Jackson said.

Hours later, however, Jackson told a slightly different story to CNN and NBC, saying that Wilson noticed Brown was carrying a box of cigars that had been reported stolen. Wilson, he said, initially stopped Brown for blocking traffic, but as he began driving past Brown, he noticed Brown was holding cigars.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...souri-police-michael-brown-shooting/14098369/

If seems to me that if robbery had been the reason for the stop, then that would have been the initial reason given. Think about it. You just killed a man. Which reason would you give? He was obstructing traffic, or he just robbed a convenience store.

Sounds like editing the story to me.

 

[Trausti]

What exactly do the cigarellos have to do with Wilson killing Brown, since Wilson had no knowledge of the theft? Johnson's testimony also puts Brown outside of the car and surrendering when the fatal shots were fired.

Wilson claims in his post-grand jury public interviews that he did know about the robbery, and seeing Brown walking with a box of cigarillos was the reason why he originally stopped him. What makes you think Wilson is lying?

Heh, they really did release everything. This is the radio traffic for the day: http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1370609-radio-traffic.html This is Wilson's grand jury testimony: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1370518-grand-jury-volume-5.html On page 209 of the testimony he says that he heard the call about the robbery (which described the suspects, pg. 6) and then later radioed, using his call sign Frank 21, "put me on Canfield with two and send me another car." This is on page 9 of the radio traffic. So Wilson knew of the robbery, knew the suspects' description, and called for backup before the confrontation. That's supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.

 

[Jayjay]

Wilson claims in his post-grand jury public interviews that he did know about the robbery, and seeing Brown walking with a box of cigarillos was the reason why he originally stopped him. What makes you think Wilson is lying?

In an afternoon press conference, Ferguson, Mo. Police Chief Thomas Jackson said Wilson did not initially make a connection between the robbery and Brown,whose death spurred violent protests and unrest in the St. Louis suburb over the past week.

Wilson stopped Brown and a friend because "they were in the middle of the street, blocking traffic," Jackson said.

Hours later, however, Jackson told a slightly different story to CNN and NBC, saying that Wilson noticed Brown was carrying a box of cigars that had been reported stolen. Wilson, he said, initially stopped Brown for blocking traffic, but as he began driving past Brown, he noticed Brown was holding cigars.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...souri-police-michael-brown-shooting/14098369/

If seems to me that if robbery had been the reason for the stop, then that would have been the initial reason given. Think about it. You just killed a man. Which reason would you give? He was obstructing traffic, or he just robbed a convenience store.

Sounds like editing the story to me.

I stand corrected. The initial reason according to Wilson's testimony was indeed blocking traffic, and he said he only made the connection to the robbery after he saw the box of cigarillos after the initial contact. I also checked Jackson's statement, he was rather specific that the initial contact wasn't related to the robbery. I don't see a contradiction between that and the later clarification.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

Wilson claims in his post-grand jury public interviews that he did know about the robbery, and seeing Brown walking with a box of cigarillos was the reason why he originally stopped him. What makes you think Wilson is lying?

Heh, they really did release everything. This is the radio traffic for the day: http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1370609-radio-traffic.html This is Wilson's grand jury testimony: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1370518-grand-jury-volume-5.html On page 209 of the testimony he says that he heard the call about the robbery (which described the suspects, pg. 6) and then later radioed, using his call sign Frank 21, "put me on Canfield with two and send me another car." This is on page 9 of the radio traffic. So Wilson knew of the robbery, knew the suspects' description, and called for backup before the confrontation. That's supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.

why is that supercalifragilisticexpialidocious?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

A situation where a cop has time to stop and think about what using lethal force might look like in the media aftewards, is a situation where use of lethal force is probably not warranted in the first place. Besides the tapes would serve to exonorate the police in cases where such force is warranted.

That's a good point. I hadn't thought about it from that angle. Still, I think I read that the police unions were against the cameras. That suggests to me that they are a bad idea, but, I dunno. It's a complicated issue like all political issues I guess. That's why I don't vote.

It's not complicated. Police unions oppose it because they prefer the cover of obscurity. If you have a video, however, a lot of questions disappear. Police officers are just afraid of the truth. Were I an officer - an honest and well-trained one - I'd welcome the camera same as I'd welcome a sidearm. Maybe the former should be required if you're carrying the latter. The simple fact is that if Wilson had been wearing a camera there wouldn't be so many unanswered questions. If I were Wilson that's exactly what the fuck I'd want.

 

[laughing dog]

How are secret grand juries a way of showing transparency?

All the testimony and evidence was released to the public.

The public does not know who the witnesses are. The public cannot judge how credible any of them are. The public does not know the make up of the grand jury nor the vote. Releasing testimony and evidence makes the process less clouded, but that does not make it transparent.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

5. The case should have never been presented to the grand jury to begin with.

Disagree. I think events of this magnitude deserve a proper review of the evidence.


What I think happened here is that the DA did what he should have done--presented the case honestly rather than simply seek an indictment like usual.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Because, when dealing with thugs and criminals, they will be unable to apply the necessary force without going through trial by media. Why else?

A situation where a cop has time to stop and think about what using lethal force might look like in the media aftewards, is a situation where use of lethal force is probably not warranted in the first place. Besides the tapes would serve to exonorate the police in cases where such force is warranted.

Second this. The only time you can stop and think about the use of lethal force is deciding whether to end a standoff by assault or sniper. Otherwise the very nature of the situation means that if you can stop and think about it you don't need to--the answer is don't shoot.

- - - Updated - - -

A situation where a cop has time to stop and think about what using lethal force might look like in the media aftewards, is a situation where use of lethal force is probably not warranted in the first place. Besides the tapes would serve to exonorate the police in cases where such force is warranted.

That's a good point. I hadn't thought about it from that angle. Still, I think I read that the police unions were against the cameras. That suggests to me that they are a bad idea, but, I dunno. It's a complicated issue like all political issues I guess. That's why I don't vote.

Too many cops have an attitude that they must protect their own right or wrong. Cameras get in the way of that.

 

[Trausti]

All the testimony and evidence was released to the public.

The public does not know who the witnesses are. The public cannot judge how credible any of them are. The public does not know the make up of the grand jury nor the vote. Releasing testimony and evidence makes the process less clouded, but that does not make it transparent.

I'd actually commend the DA for not releasing the names of the witnesses thus sparing them the inevitable private and media harassment.

 

[laughing dog]

The public does not know who the witnesses are. The public cannot judge how credible any of them are. The public does not know the make up of the grand jury nor the vote. Releasing testimony and evidence makes the process less clouded, but that does not make it transparent.

I'd actually commend the DA for not releasing the names of the witnesses thus sparing them the inevitable private and media harassment.

Regardless, that clearly does not make the proceedings transparent. Duh.

 

[ApostateAbe]

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/078c...f14/grand-jury-documents-rife-inconsistencies

FERGUSON, Mo. (AP) — Some witnesses said Michael Brown had been shot in the back. Another said he was face-down on the ground when Officer Darren Wilson "finished him off." Still others acknowledged changing their stories to fit published details about the autopsy or admitted that they did not see the shooting at all.

An Associated Press review of thousands of pages of grand jury documents reveals numerous examples of statements made during the shooting investigation that were inconsistent, fabricated or provably wrong. For one, the autopsies ultimately showed Brown was not struck by any bullets in his back.

Prosecutors exposed these inconsistencies before the jurors, which likely influenced their decision not to indict Wilson in Brown's death.

Bob McCulloch, the St. Louis County prosecutor, said the grand jury had to weigh testimony that conflicted with physical evidence and conflicting statements by witnesses as it decided whether Wilson should face charges.

"Many witnesses to the shooting of Michael Brown made statements inconsistent with other statements they made and also conflicting with the physical evidence. Some were completely refuted by the physical evidence," McCulloch said.

Lessons here?

 

[ApostateAbe]

[...]

One woman, who said she was smoking a cigarette with a friend nearby, claimed she saw a second police officer in the passenger seat of Wilson's vehicle. When quizzed by a prosecutor, she elaborated: The officer was white, "middle age or young" and in uniform. She said she was positive there was a second officer — even though there was not.

Another woman testified that she saw Brown leaning through the officer's window "from his navel up," with his hand moving up and down, as if he were punching the officer. But when the same witness returned to testify again on another day, she said she suffers from mental disorder, has racist views and that she has trouble distinguishing the truth from things she had read online.

Prosecutors suggested the woman had fabricated the entire incident and was not even at the scene the day of the shooting.

Another witness had told the FBI that Wilson shot Brown in the back and then "stood over him and finished him off." But in his grand jury testimony, this witness acknowledged that he had not seen that part of the shooting, and that what he told the FBI was "based on me being where I'm from, and that can be the only assumption that I have."

The witness, who lives in the predominantly black neighborhood where Brown was killed, also acknowledged that he changed his story to fit details of the autopsy that he had learned about on TV.

"So it was after you learned that the things you said you saw couldn't have happened that way, then you changed your story about what you seen?" a prosecutor asserted.

"Yeah, to coincide with what really happened," the witness replied.

Another man, describing himself as a friend of Brown's, told a federal investigator that he heard the first gunshot, looked out his window and saw an officer with a gun drawn and Brown "on his knees with his hands in the air." He added: "I seen him shoot him in the head."

But when later pressed by the investigator, the friend said he had not seen the actual shooting because he was walking down the stairs at the time and instead had heard details from someone in the apartment complex.

"What you are saying you saw isn't forensically possible based on the evidence," the investigator told the friend.

Shortly after that, the friend asked if he could leave.

"I ain't feeling comfortable," he said.

 

[repoman]

don't forget:

https://twitter.com/hashtag/whitelivesmatter

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIPZ09WcTWk

St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporter Joel Currier’s article about a Bosnian immigrant being murdered by hammer-wielding teenagers fails to mention the possibility that at least some of the teens were black until deep into the article. Conversely, a video shot by a resident of South St. Louis’ Bevo Mill neighborhood reveals heretofore-unpublished details about what happened near the intersection of Gravois Avenue and Itaska Street before the attack that left Zemir Begic, 32, dead

 

[Axulus]

I'm starting to notice a pattern. The social justice warriors need to know the colors of the skins involved in any event before they can formulate an opinion on the matter.

 

[George S]

I'm starting to notice a pattern. The social justice warriors need to know the colors of the skins involved in any event before they can formulate an opinion on the matter.

Why, yes. It is a kind of racism -- a pro-non-white racism. That stance is taken because many non-white people have been openly discriminated against in the past. Some of that continues to this day.

Regrettably, that is fact.

In my opinion it is not good to fight fire with fire. This reverse (anti-white) racism is as bad a fire as anti-non-white racism was, and sometimes still is.

Can't we all just get along? We are all people.