Bod McColluch, Darren Wilsons "prosecutor" in the case about Michael Brown.

[none]

I hate to start another thread on this, but I have to ask.
The way I see it the prosecutor rambled on but basically said Darren Wilson's story didn't corroborate the eye witness accounts therefore there wasn't a compelling reason to charge Wilson.
Is that about the size of it?
That the prosecutor is an idiot and doesn't want to charge an innocent man because the perpetrator's story didn't match the witness accounts.
well duh, idiot prosecutor that does happen.

 

[Derec]

No. It was more the case that witness testimony was contradictory and much of the testimony that incriminated Wilson contradicted physical evidence. Basically, there wasn't much chance of getting a conviction because there was too much exculpatory evidence and incriminating evidence was so poor.
Even many of those who wanted an indictment admit that obtaining a conviction would have been a long shot.

 

[lpetrich]

Bob McCulloch took a dive, pure and simple. He acted like Darren Wilson's defense lawyer instead of like a prosecutor.

 

[none]

No. It was more the case that witness testimony was contradictory and much of the testimony that incriminated Wilson contradicted physical evidence. Basically, there wasn't much chance of getting a conviction because there was too much exculpatory evidence and incriminating evidence was so poor.
Even many of those who wanted an indictment admit that obtaining a conviction would have been a long shot.

piss poor excuse.
of course there was no evidence of hands in there air, there was only eye witness testimony.

 

[thebeave]

nm

 

[Derec]

piss poor excuse.

Lack of evidence is not an excuse, it's a reason.

of course there was no evidence of hands in there air, there was only eye witness testimony.

Very conflicting eyewitness testimony. Or are you one of those who say that all the contradictions in the gospels prove their truthfulness?

 

[none]

two witnesses said he was shot with his hands up.
that is all the prosecutor needed, he doesn't need a plethora of accounts.

 

[Derec]

two witnesses said he was shot with his hands up.
that is all the prosecutor needed, he doesn't need a plethora of accounts.
he's a pussy and you are very close to being one.

If there are others that say he wasn't than that changes everything.
A prosecutor is not obligated to bring quixotic cases to trial. Quite the opposite. Even when a violent mob really, really wants him to.

 

[none]

ahh whatever, I still think the prosecutor used wilsons account as a reason not to charge him

 

[ksen]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/newly-released-witness-testimony-tell-us-michael-brown-shooting/

 

[Derec]

ahh whatever, I still think the prosecutor used wilsons account as a reason not to charge him

Actually the grand jury made the decision not to charge Wilson. The prosecutor merely presented all the evidence.
Look at ksen's chart. Very contradictory testimony.

 

[ksen]

no, not as contradictory as people are making out, for example the question about if Brown had his hands up is almost unanimously "yes".

 

[Derec]

no, not as contradictory as people are making out, for example the question about if Brown had his hands up is almost unanimously "yes".

Most of those also said that he was fired at while running (proved to be false) or that he was "face down" when shot (also false).
Besides, having your hands up doesn't necessarily mean that you surrender, especially if you are moving toward the officer. Some witnesses say that he charged the officer and forensic evidence (blood found 25' behind Brown) conclusively proves that he moved toward the police officer. That is not an action of a surrendering man.

 

[ksen]

Was the blood behind Brown conclusively shown to be from him "charging" Wilson or could it have been blood spatter from some of his wounds flying behind Brown as he was hit?

 

[thebeave]

Its a common caricature that a grizzly bear has its arms raised above its head when its in attack mode. Its not surrendering. It seems that this is what the abominable snowmen type creatures do too. Watch the upcoming Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer and that snow beast in The Empire Strikes Back. So maybe this is what Michael Brown was doing.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

That there is a damn lot of witnesses. I'm going with the theory that the prosecutor was also the defender.

 

[ksen]

Huh, I wonder why Wilson wasn't asked about firing repeatedly while Brown was down, was Brown running away from Wilson when fired upon, was Brown kneeling when fired upon, or if Brown had his hands up when fired upon?

But I guess the prosecutor didn't think asking Wilson those questions was that important.

 

[Derec]

Was the blood behind Brown conclusively shown to be from him "charging" Wilson or could it have been blood spatter from some of his wounds flying behind Brown as he was hit?

25 feet? That's some magical, gravity defying blood!

 

[ksen]

Well, gunshot blood spatter is typically moving at over 100 feet a second so 25 feet doesn't seem like a big deal.

I noticed you didn't answer the question though.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Its a common caricature that a grizzly bear has its arms raised above its head when its in attack mode. Its not surrendering. It seems that this is what the abominable snowmen type creatures do too. Watch the upcoming Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer and that snow beast in The Empire Strikes Back. So maybe this is what Michael Brown was doing.

So now Michael Brown is not only a demon and the Incredible Hulk, but also a grizzly bear, the abominable snow man and the snow beast from Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer? Tell me, is he ever to be thought of as a human being and citizen?