Ferguson Live Feed

[George S]

In a probable cause hearing the prosecution alone presents evidence. The question is whether or not there probably is a crime. The son of a friend was not allowed to present any exculpatory evidence. Not allowed to call witnesses contradicting the prosecution. The charge was eventually dismissed. Nevertheless most locals know only of the original charge.


If the prosecutor had presented only the single fact that the fatal 2 shots were fired while the victim was horizontal. The shot prior to that was to the body from about 35 feet. (How long can a running back at full charge cover ten yards -- that is the distance of those fatal shots.)

But, no, the police are half of the Law and Order team. The prosecutor presented the case, including exculpatory evidence.

Should there have been a trial? Probably. If only to show the neutrality of prosecution of "one of their own."

Would a jury have found Wilson not guilty? Probably.

Would there have been riots at that stage? Probably. People who feel the justice system does not work have few choices.

 

[repoman]

It really is to bad that the police staition and courthouses couldn't be burned down instead of small businesses.

Here in Seattle the Capitol Hill police precinct was cordoned off.

I am sure that some of the cop killers out there must have been justified. Like a victim of civil forfeiture or the drug war swat raid would want to kill a cop for sure. .

 

[NobleSavage]

I don't see the logic of a general riot. Storm the Bastille, sure.

 

[Derec]

I don't see the logic of a general riot. Storm the Bastille, sure.

Given that French justice minister mouthed off about Ferguson I would not object to rioters going there, but how many of them do you think can afford a plane ticket to Paris or even have a valid passport?

 

[Shadowy Man]

But he is using his mortal fear for the justification for the shooting. If he was so fearful for his life why did he pursue the man who instilled that fear? One would argue that if he pursued, he was no longer in fear of his imminent death. He could have followed in his car. He could have gotten out of the car and taken a defensible position behind the car. He could have called again for backup. There are many actions he could have taken...

Again, you are arguing that a cop should not chase a suspect. This seems like a great stretch.

No, I am arguing that he can't claim he's in mortal fear if he's chasing the suspect. The fact that the suspect disengaged from the first interaction resets the situation. His new situation is of his unarmed suspect at a distance of 30 - 40 feet, with gunshot wound(s). He then claims that he was charged and the only recourse he had was to empty his gun on him. I'm just pointing out that it is possible that other actions could have been taken, especially if he was as fearful as he claims. Now, I understand why in an interview he would show no remorse and state that there's nothing else he could have done -- this is to legally distance himself from any potential wrongful death suit or other civil claim. If he admits that he might have done something differently if he could do it again or show that he thought maybe there was something wrong about what he did, that would only be used against him. He took his legal advice well.

The problem is that I don't assume that the officer is telling the truth. The way that he and the police department have conducted themselves after the shooting do not instill me with much confidence. Too many elements of the investigation weren't handled well and other factors like the police department telling the FAA to disallow news helicopters from covering their response to the riots. Furthermore, given the large number of questionable actions that police officers have taken all around the country recently, I find that officers can be in a "boy who cried wolf" kind of situation. Even if he's telling the truth, it's hard to believe him.

To believe that he's telling the truth is to believe that there was a person so enraged with him that he would run directly into a flurry of bullets to get at him. That really boggles the mind! Maybe if he was on some kind of mind altering drugs or had some other kind of mental deficiency that might be reasonable, but no mention has been made that Michael Brown was extraordinary in that regard.

 

[Sabine Grant]

There aren't two cases. In the Zimmerman case there was a jury trial in which Zimmerman was acquitted. With Wilson, the grand jury determined that there wasn't even probable cause that a crime had taken place. Had there actually been a trial for Wilson then you might be able to compare the two.

*hair split*

It is not a hair split. Shadowy Man is correct. That is why in my post, I did NOT compare a trial to a Grand Jury but a Stand Your Ground Hearing and Grand Jury proceedings. Both SYG Hearing and Grand Jury address the merit of pressing charges. The only nuance is that in a SYG Hearing charges have already been filed and the Hearing held by a sole Judge (at least in Florida) can declare immunity from criminal charges, criminal charges which have already been filed by the Prosecutor. The Grand Jury is not dealing with a case where charges have already been filed. The Grand Jury is empowered to decide whether charges are to be filed. Neither GJ nor SYG are a trial. The Zimmerman case was a trial where charges had been filed by SA Angela Corey.

Essentially, the Grand jury is (instead of the Prosecutor) the party who examines which evidence would support probable cause sufficient enough to file criminal charges.

In Florida, we are aware that SAs choosing the Grand Jury option has a lot to do with "protecting" their career keeping in mind that the higher their conviction rate from trials, the more popular and career successful they are. The Grand Jury option has become a way, if an indictment has been returned, for a SA who loses his/her case in the subsequent trial to benefit of "damage control" to their career. The GJ option being a signal of some sort of hesitation or not such a strong case that the SA can decidedly file specific charges with a high prospect of obtaining a conviction on the said charges via a trial. Meaning they are passing on a "hot potato" because they know it might burn their hands.

IMO it is purely speculative at this point to draw any conclusion that the appearing passivity of the Prosecutor was motivated by any pre existing bias or prejudice on his part. There is the possibility that he had already concluded " there is no way if this case goes to trial that I will get a conviction".

 

[Sabine Grant]

Again, you are arguing that a cop should not chase a suspect. This seems like a great stretch.

No, I am arguing that he can't claim he's in mortal fear if he's chasing the suspect. The fact that the suspect disengaged from the first interaction resets the situation. His new situation is of his unarmed suspect at a distance of 30 - 40 feet, with gunshot wound(s). He then claims that he was charged and the only recourse he had was to empty his gun on him. I'm just pointing out that it is possible that other actions could have been taken, especially if he was as fearful as he claims. Now, I understand why in an interview he would show no remorse and state that there's nothing else he could have done -- this is to legally distance himself from any potential wrongful death suit or other civil claim. If he admits that he might have done something differently if he could do it again or show that he thought maybe there was something wrong about what he did, that would only be used against him. He took his legal advice well.

The problem is that I don't assume that the officer is telling the truth. The way that he and the police department have conducted themselves after the shooting do not instill me with much confidence. Too many elements of the investigation weren't handled well and other factors like the police department telling the FAA to disallow news helicopters from covering their response to the riots. Furthermore, given the large number of questionable actions that police officers have taken all around the country recently, I find that officers can be in a "boy who cried wolf" kind of situation. Even if he's telling the truth, it's hard to believe him.

To believe that he's telling the truth is to believe that there was a person so enraged with him that he would run directly into a flurry of bullets to get at him. That really boggles the mind! Maybe if he was on some kind of mind altering drugs or had some other kind of mental deficiency that might be reasonable, but no mention has been made that Michael Brown was extraordinary in that regard.

Exactly my thoughts too. Except I would not know how to communicate them as clearly as you did! And you are absolutely correct that he had been duly coached and prepared for that interview so that there would be no possible "crack" to be found in his statements to be used against him in a civil suit. Categorically "there was no other alternative" and " I was doing my job".

 

[Shadowy Man]

Exactly my thoughts too. Except I would not know how to communicate them as clearly as you did! And you are absolutely correct that he had been duly coached and prepared for that interview so that there would be no possible "crack" to be found in his statements to be used against him in a civil suit. Categorically "there was no other alternative" and " I was doing my job".

And I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt here that his lack of remorse and inability to think of any other way to handle the situation were expressed due to legal coaching and not due to him being an unfeeling sociopath who actually feels no remorse about taking a human life.

 

[dismal]

Again, you are arguing that a cop should not chase a suspect. This seems like a great stretch.

No, I am arguing that he can't claim he's in mortal fear if he's chasing the suspect.

I'm not sure where you got the idea he is required to be in "mortal fear". He's a police officer in performance of his job. He approaches a man walking down the middle of a busy street in performance of his job. This leads to a violent confrontation. He chases a person who has just tried to wrestle his gun away in performance of his job. The man turns and comes back at him. He shoots. The question is not at all whether he was "in mortal fear". The question is whether his actions were reasonable.

The problem with saying "I don't believe Wilson" is the physical evidence and some witness accounts support his version of events. Trials do not operate based on you subjective assessments of his credibility. You need actual evidence that shows a crime was committed.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I'm not sure where you got the idea he is required to be in "mortal fear".

He claimed that. He said that as justification for the shooting.

He chases a person who has just tried to wrestle his gun away in performance of his job.

We have only his word that Brown was "trying to wrestle his gun away". Were Brown's fingerprints on the gun?

The man turns and comes back at him.

There is conflicting witness testimony as to whether Brown came back at him.

The question is whether his actions were reasonable.

No, that's a question for the trial. For the grand jury the question is whether there is probability of a crime being committed.

The problem with saying "I don't believe Wilson" is the physical evidence and some witness accounts support his version of events.

And some witness accounts don't support his version. That's why there's probable cause for a trial.

Trials do not operate based on you subjective assessments of his credibility.

This was not a trial.

You need actual evidence that shows a crime was committed.

No. You need evidence that shows a crime could have been committed.

 

[NobleSavage]

I don't see the logic of a general riot. Storm the Bastille, sure.

Given that French justice minister mouthed off about Ferguson I would not object to rioters going there, but how many of them do you think can afford a plane ticket to Paris or even have a valid passport?

The disturbing thing in that article is that France threw someone in prison for being a racist dumb ass.

 

[dismal]

He claimed that. He said that as justification for the shooting.

He chases a person who has just tried to wrestle his gun away in performance of his job.

We have only his word that Brown was "trying to wrestle his gun away". Were Brown's fingerprints on the gun?

The man turns and comes back at him.

There is conflicting witness testimony as to whether Brown came back at him.

The question is whether his actions were reasonable.

No, that's a question for the trial. For the grand jury the question is whether there is probability of a crime being committed.

The problem with saying "I don't believe Wilson" is the physical evidence and some witness accounts support his version of events.

And some witness accounts don't support his version. That's why there's probable cause for a trial.

Trials do not operate based on you subjective assessments of his credibility.

This was not a trial.

You need actual evidence that shows a crime was committed.

No. You need evidence that shows a crime could have been committed.

You seem desperately focused on things that don't matter.

However you did ask one question of fact. There was gun powder residue on Brown's hand and a bullet wound on his hand that is presumed to have come from the shots fired during the struggle in the car. This is pretty solid physical evidence that Brown's hand was near the gun.

Not of mention, it's not ok to wrestle with a cop even if you don't go for the gun. It's a serious crime.

 

[Frikki]

Just watching some rioters set a police car ablaze. I doubt any of them would get arrested which is a pity.

By the way, what happened to the newfangled sonic and microwave crowd control devices we've been hearing about for years. They would be perfect to field test on these protests

Were you hard when you typed that?

Mmmmmm police hurting those darkies. Like being back in the 60´s.

 

[Shadowy Man]

You seem desperately focused on things that don't matter.

Pointing out that the grand jury is being talked about as if it were a trial doesn't seem to be focusing on things that don't matter.

However you did ask one question of fact. There was gun powder residue on Brown's hand and a bullet wound on his hand that is presumed to have come from the shots fired during the struggle in the car. This is pretty solid physical evidence that Brown's hand was near the gun.

The question I asked was were Brown's fingerprints on the gun. Officer Wilson makes the claim in his testimony that Brown grabbed the gun. Your response does not address that question.

Not of mention, it's not ok to wrestle with a cop even if you don't go for the gun. It's a serious crime.

The only information we have about whose role was what at the car window is Wilson's testimony. It's clear that an altercation occurred, Wilson drew his weapon and fired it. Wilson testified that the trigger was pulled multiple times without it firing, which I find confusing, but perhaps there's something about the trigger mechanism I'm simply not understanding here.

The only part of Wilson's testimony that seems very reasonable to me and that it seems all the witnesses and evidence agrees with is that after Wilson fired his gun, Brown ran.

 

[repoman]

I think Derec might actually be Ramzpaul:



trust me, this is full of jaw droppers even for a practiced "racist troll" watcher like myself.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Lawrence O'Donnell shredded the prosecution last night.

 

[Angry Floof]

Lawrence O'Donnell shredded the prosecution last night.

Good to see some questioning about this farce instead of endless commentary about how violent protesters were(n't).

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Yep, his testimony is not convincing. The officer could have retreated to his SUV and called for back-up. Where was Brown to go? They could arrest him in the hospital.

 

[laughing dog]

Yep, his testimony is not convincing. The officer could have retreated to his SUV and called for back-up. Where was Brown to go? They could arrest him in the hospital.

I don't see how being in the hospital would have made him any less big or black or scary.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Yep, his testimony is not convincing. The officer could have retreated to his SUV and called for back-up. Where was Brown to go? They could arrest him in the hospital.

I don't see how being in the hospital would have made him any less big or black or scary.

Well if the officer had left the scene or Michael Brown had fled with bullet wounds I believe he would have been in the hospital and more importantly: alive. -- Not to say there wouldn't be trumped up charges on him.