Rioting in STL

[DC Muskie]

Earl Banks, the black man who wrote the article I posted, disagrees with you. Instead of being focused on a virtually non-existent problem, white racist cops killing young black males for no reason, we should focus on real problems, like young black males killing other young black males and other black on black crime.

Well as white man, how that matters again, is deflection, I am able to see the issue for what it is...trust. Trust in transparency, process and an opportunity for justice. Instead, you, a white man, and Mr. Banks, a black man, decide to seek out deeper issues and focus not on a killing, OH NO, that's not the issue, the REAL issue is how terrible the black community is in general.

It's like trust is only one way street. Basically what you, Earl, Rudy, and other oddly named dudes, think is trust will simply solve itself if the black community just "get its shit together."

No one is ignoring black on black crime, despite what you think, society doesn't reflect what is said on Facebook, Twitter and Cable News. What was sought, in this very specific case, is whether trust could rise up and grow, and last night on both sides, it failed miserably.

But please by all means, tell me how poor black communities need to learn respect. That certainly has helped. The same way people who want to limit the right of guns has certainly helped reduce gun violence.

[DC Muskie]

I'm not sure where DC is going with this, but a huge part of this which hasn't been discussed enough is how terribly the Ferguson government and police department has handled this.

I'm not sure if their handling of the incident and aftermath was malicious, racist or just purely incompetent, but they're reaping what they've sown. This is now just as much about lost trust in a government* as it is about what exactly led to Michael Brown's death.

Is it really hard to understand? What does black and black crime have to do with this white cop killing this black guy?


No, I was commenting on the article. While others may have brought up some facts regarding crime statistics (which are interesting and relevant), I did not. I merely pointed out that you have to look both outside and within. Notice I said "pointing the finger sometimes has to be done into the mirror TOO". Some people maybe just assume it's always an unfounded attack. I'm all for transparency and justice. I'm all against foolish violence that accomplishes NOTHING POSITIVE. I think my point was fair, valid and balanced. There's far too little balance here. That's the problem. And I made zero mention of race. What were you referring to?

Race is at the heart of article. Did you not read it?

[xu82]

Race is at the heart of article. Did you not read it?

I read about people being honest and accountable. You said I was commenting on race. It's a 360 degree thing. You get nowhere if each side just blames the other. Everybody has to be held acountable. Do you not agree with that? If not, this is hopeless. (Did you see my bold TOO? Or does an agenda blind you to that?) People need to be open to both sides.

[NY44]

Is it really hard to understand? What does black and black crime have to do with this white cop killing this black guy?

I got your point, just didn't want to put words in your mouth.

[OH.X.MI]

Echoing Vee's sentiment, I thought I would share something I witnessed today. As some of you may the Ohio Innocence Project at UC's College of Law is an organization that works to exonerate people throughout Ohio. Last week, after years of work, OIP's efforts finally helped exonerate Ricky Jackson, a Cleveland man who served 39 years for a murder he didn't commit; the longest amount of time served for a wrongful conviction in American history. Mr. Jackson is also a black man and race almost certainly played a role in his wrongful conviction.

I'm not a part of OIP and don't really know much about the case, but today Jackson came and spoke at the College of Law today and I was absolutely blown away by what he had to say. Mr. Jackson spoke a lot about forgiveness. Forgiveness for the 12 year old boy who wrongly identified him in 1975 and even about forgiveness for the police officers who pressured the boy into a wrongful identification and forgiveness for the prosecutors who insisted he was guilty for nearly four decades. I can't recall Mr. Jackson's exact words, but he said something along the lines that for every wrong committed against him it was repaid by all those who worked tirelessly for his freedom.

As other's have said, this country isn't perfect and our justice system may not always be fair. But I wish the entire country could learn form Ricky Jackson. The road to justice isn't through chaos and destruction, it's through forgiveness, the grace of god, and working together as one. That may sound like a cliche to a lot of people and there is no way I can possibly understand the pain of Ricky Jackson or the Brown family, but I too will pray for Mike Brown's family, Officer Wilson, and this country tonight.

[DC Muskie]

I read about people being honest and accountable. You said I was commenting on race. It's a 360 degree thing. You get nowhere if each side just blames the other. Everybody has to be held acountable. Do you not agree with that? If not, this is hopeless. (Did you see my bold TOO? Or does an agenda blind you to that?) People need to be open to both sides.

You liked an article that basically tells the black community to "get its shit together." Where do you read that the other side needs to be "held accountable?" I've read it twice, and I fail to see it.

[waggy]

"The other side" was held accountable. Unless you think with the massive scrutiny that all parties involved didn't do everything they should with regards to their duties and the law.

The grand jury didn't indict. Sorry.

[DC Muskie]

The grand jury didn't indict. Sorry.

No kidding, when the prosecutor abdicated his responsibility.

[waggy]

No kidding, when the prosecutor abdicated his responsibility.


Sour grapes. Lots of people looked at this.

The kid was a thug. Again, sorry.

[DC Muskie]

I hope Prosecutor McCollough resigns soon.

[waggy]

No wonder we have rioters. There is no respect for, well, anything. Not the country, its laws, or those trying to uphold them.

[vee4xu]

Picking up on OH.X.MI's point. There are innocent people put into prison who either stay for decades before being exonerated, die in prison before being exonerated, or worse yet, being incorrectly put to death by the state. I don't see any outrage for the Ricky Jacksons of the world or all innocent people put to death. Yet, people willingly go and commit crimes against communities and other people's properties in situations where the party to whom justice is administered by a police officer is at least questionable. Another question, if these agitators (media's term) who want to burn, pillage and loot, why don't they burn down their own homes, or their family member's homes? Why take it out on innocent victims and businesses? I don't get it.

[vee4xu]

No kidding, when the prosecutor abdicated his responsibility.

I've heard and read this a few times now. I'm not smart enough and don't know enough about the St. Louis County Grand Jury process to know why this man abdicated his responsibility. Can you or someone help me better understand why?

[D-West & PO-Z]

Picking up on OH.X.MI's point. There are innocent people put into prison who either stay for decades before being exonerated, die in prison before being exonerated, or worse yet, being incorrectly put to death by the state. I don't see any outrage for the Ricky Jacksons of the world or all innocent people put to death. Yet, people willingly go and commit crimes against communities and other people's properties in situations where the party to whom justice is administered by a police officer is at least questionable. Another question, if these agitators (media's term) who want to burn, pillage and loot, why don't they burn down their own homes, or their family member's homes? Why take it out on innocent victims and businesses? I don't get it.

Biggest reason I am against the death penalty, but thats another thread.

[xu82]

You liked an article that basically tells the black community to "get its shit together." Where do you read that the other side needs to be "held accountable?" I've read it twice, and I fail to see it.

BOTH sides need to be held accountable. Stop this nonsense. Why does one side have to be right and the other wrong. They are both right AND wrong. That's life. We need to work on it! Geez, why is this so hard?

It was refreshing to hear from someone from the black community who said something more than "we're being persecuted". The riots are about not having transparency and the prior actions of the police. Thta's wrong too. We've seen and heard plenty from that view. And innocent people have needlessly lost their livlihood as a result!

[DC Muskie]

I've heard and read this a few times now. I'm not smart enough and don't know enough about the St. Louis County Grand Jury process to know why this man abdicated his responsibility. Can you or someone help me better understand why?

He kept telling them that this case was unique. The took a middle road approach and never once questioned Wilson on his conflicting statements to police after the incident and what he said in the grand jury. However, he decided to present "witnesses" who said they really didn't see anything.

Basically his job is to seek an indictment, not merely half ass it. Did you notice how he wasn't pissed at an indictment? Instead he blamed the media, the angry white middle man calling card when it comes to racial issues.

[DC Muskie]

BOTH sides need to be held accountable. Stop this nonsense. Why does one side have to be right and the other wrong. They are both right AND wrong. That's life. We need to work on it! Geez, why is this so hard?

What sides are you talking about? Seriously, tell me which sides? What sides are Earl talking about?

[vee4xu]

Biggest reason I am against the death penalty, but thats another thread.

I am against the death penalty, too.

[OH.X.MI]

Basically his job is to seek an indictment, not merely half ass it. Did you notice how he wasn't pissed at an indictment?

That logic is exactly why people like Ricky Jackson end up in prison for crimes they didn't commit. I understand the Mike Brown situation is extremely unique, but maybe if some prosecutors didn't push for indictments so vigorously all the time a lot of things would be better off. I don't know everything about the situation of course, but I'm more than okay with a prosecutor taking a middle road approach when things are not so clear. Also I am fairly certain witnesses did testify from the other side of the argument... not that witnesses testimony is really worth a whole lot.

[DC Muskie]

That logic is exactly why people like Ricky Jackson end up in prison for crimes they didn't commit. I understand the Mike Brown situation is extremely unique, but maybe if some prosecutors didn't push for indictments so vigorously all the time a lot of things would be better off. I don't know everything about the situation of course, but I'm more than okay with a prosecutor taking a middle road approach when things are not so clear. Also I am fairly certain witnesses did testify from the other side of the argument... not that witnesses testimony is really worth a whole lot.

Then don't bring it to the grand jury. His job in that room is to be the advocate for the law. If he feels no laws were broken, don't take it to them. Never, ever take the middle ground.

And then never, ever go on a rambling speech telling everyone why he failed.

[OH.X.MI]

Then don't bring it to the grand jury. His job in that room is to be the advocate for the law. If he feels no laws were broken, don't take it to them. Never, ever take the middle ground.

And then never, ever go on a rambling speech telling everyone why he failed.

I don't disagree this entire situation was very poorly handled. Having the announcement at 8pm has the be the biggest PR screw up since Tu and Cheekz went to the press conference and the hour long nonsensical monologue was painful to watch. Maybe it shouldn't have been brought to grand jury, but the prosecutors office was really between a rock and hard place.

[xu82]

What sides are you talking about? Seriously, tell me which sides? What sides are Earl talking about?

You are clearly more interested in perpetuating this than agreeing there is a middle ground. The cops need to be fair (and punished when they're not), and people should not burn down their own communities and steal because there's an opportunity to do so. Apparently you want to disagree, so there's no point in trying to convince you. How many times do I have topoint out BOTH SIDES have some responsibility? Is that not true? This is complicated, but at it's core it's very simple.

[LadyMuskie]

The interview Wilson did with ABC will do him no favors. What an idiot. Just shut up already.

[vee4xu]

And then there's this:


http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/11/12-year-old_boy_shot_by_clevel_1.html#incart_most-read

[xu82]

Having the announcement at 8pm has the be the biggest PR screw up since Tu and Cheekz went to the press conference and the hour long nonsensical monologue was painful to watch.
Damn, that was funny!
Now I'm going to be in trouble for not having the proper sympathy and respect for the arsonists....

[DC Muskie]

You are clearly more interested in perpetuating this than agreeing there is a middle ground. The cops need to be fair (and punished when they're not), and people should not burn down their own communities and steal because there's an opportunity to do so. Apparently you want to disagree, so there's no point in trying to convince you. How many times do I have topoint out BOTH SIDES have some responsibility? Is that not true? This is complicated, but at it's core it's very simple.

I agree with the premise, but that's not what Earl wrote about. That was my issue. You liked an article that didn't address everything you just wrote, so I find that puzzling to say the least.

[xu82]

I agree with the premise, but that's not what Earl wrote about. That was my issue. You liked an article that didn't address everything you just wrote, so I find that puzzling to say the least.
I found it refreshing to hear something more toward the middle. I'd also like someone rationally saying we need more transparency. I like the level headed people on both sides. That's the only way we make progress. What's so puzzling about that? You just jumped on it for some reason. Are you less in the middle?

[DC Muskie]

I found it refreshing to hear something more toward the middle. I'd also like someone rationally saying we need more transparency. I like the level headed people on both sides. That's the only way we make progress. What's so puzzling about that? You just jumped on it for some reason. Are you less in the middle?

You and I read two different columns. I like people saying we need more transparency, and not just because I've been saying that for months in this case. But if you are suggesting that is what Earl is doing, there is nothing to support the idea that he shares that transparency view.

[xu82]

You and I read two different columns. I like people saying we need more transparency, and not just because I've been saying that for months in this case. But if you are suggesting that is what Earl is doing, there is nothing to support the idea that he shares that transparency view.

OK, I'm not now referring to any specific article, and, quite frankly, I know less about the facts in this issue than you seem to. Spending too much time on this is not productive for me (and I'm proving that tonight). Having said that, I am pretty damn sure the answer (as usual) lies in the middle. Both sides are right, and both sides are wrong. The people who don't abuse the innocent - on either side - need to get the extremists under control. Neither side should blame until they admit their guilt and reform. I think that was a recent homily I half heard...maybe not.

[DC Muskie]

OK, I'm not now referring to any specific article, and, quite frankly, I know less about the facts in this issue than you seem to. Spending too much time on this is not productive for me (and I'm proving that tonight). Having said that, I am pretty damn sure the answer (as usual) lies in the middle. Both sides are right, and both sides are wrong. The people who don't abuse the innocent - on either side - need to get the extremists under control. Neither side should blame until they admit their guilt and reform. I think that was a recent homily I half heard...maybe not.

Yes and I believe columns like this don't even come close to accomplishing what is really needed, trust. But it makes people feel good because it places blame squarely on the black community and diminishes the tragedy that can and does occur when a black man dies at the hand of a white cop.

[GoMuskies]

Then don't bring it to the grand jury. His job in that room is to be the advocate for the law. If he feels no laws were broken, don't take it to them. Never, ever take the middle ground.

And then never, ever go on a rambling speech telling everyone why he failed.

Prosecutors aren't advocates for anything other than justice. If he had decided NOT to go to the grand jury, THAT would have started a REAL riot. The prosecutor didn't fail by not getting an indictment.

[DC Muskie]

Prosecutors aren't advocates for anything other than justice. If he had decided NOT to go to the grand jury, THAT would have started a REAL riot. The prosecutor didn't fail by not getting an indictment.

Bob McCollough would agree with you. He didn't think he failed, in fact he got exactly what he wanted.

[GoMuskies]

And you think that is a problem because...

[DC Muskie]

And you think that is a problem because...

He sucks at his job?

[GoMuskies]

Maybe you misunderstand what his job is...

[DC Muskie]

Maybe you misunderstand what his job is...

Actually doing it? No I'm sure I understand.

[XU 87]

Yes and I believe columns like this don't even come close to accomplishing what is really needed, trust. But it makes people feel good because it places blame squarely on the black community and diminishes the tragedy that can and does occur when a black man dies at the hand of a white cop.

Trust? I'm more concerned with truth and facts. You can except truth and facts, or you can ignore them when they don't fit into your narrative.

(Just talked to my mom. She said I am the best looking kid in the family.)

[DC Muskie]

Trust? I'm more concerned with truth and facts. You can except truth and facts, or you can ignore them when they don't fit into your narrative.

(Just talked to my mom. She said I am the best looking kid in the family.)

You must suck at relationships, including your mom, if you dismiss trust and focus only on truth and facts.

[GoMuskies]

Actually doing it? No I'm sure I understand.
You kind of seem to not

[DC Muskie]

You kind of seem to not

Not at all actually.

[vee4xu]

Maybe you misunderstand what his job is...

This. The prosecutor said last night if folks didn't like the outcome, then they should work to change the law. I didn't really understand that until this mooring when I heard that Missouri has a law that allows police to use force when they have cause to believe that either they or the community at large are potentially in danger. By the metrics of the law that I heard this morning, I assume the prosecutor was suggesting that no indictment came because the law as written and interpreted by the Grand Jury, based on the testimony of witnesses, didn't warrant an indictment. His point was, those who think that an indictment should have been made should ask their lawmakers to address the issue of the law dealing with how police are permitted to act in these kinds of situations. The prosecutor also said that he had five charges ready to file against Officer Wilson, so the Grand Jury should have known this, right? If so, it isn't like the prosecutor was in there without any charges to consider. Again, I am no expert and have spent little time researching all of this, but deductive reasoning is bringing me to these way of thinking at the moment. That may be dangerous, but it is where I am.

[XU 87]

You must suck at relationships, including your mom, if you dismiss trust and focus only on truth and facts.

Gee, that's kind of a personal attack. Would you like me to respond in kind? I can, but I would prefer not to.

[DC Muskie]

This. The prosecutor said last night if folks didn't like the outcome, then they should work to change the law. I didn't really understand that until this mooring when I heard that Missouri has a law that allows police to use force when they have cause to believe that either they or the community at large are potentially in danger. By the metrics of the law that I heard this morning, I assume the prosecutor was suggesting that no indictment came because the law as written and interpreted by the Grand Jury, based on the testimony of witnesses, didn't warrant an indictment. His point was, if those who think that an indictment should have been made, then they should ask their lawmakers to address the issue of the law dealing with how police are permitted to act in these kinds of situations. The prosecutor also said that he had five charges ready to file against Office Wilson, so the Grand Jury should have known this, right? If so, it isn't like the prosecutor was in there without any charges to consider. Again, I am no expert and have spent little time researching all of this, but deductive reasoning is bringing me to these way of thinking at the moment. That may be dangerous, but it is where I am.

Take the time to read the evidence he put out. Particularly the testimony of Wilson. He also made it a point to tell the grand jury that this case was unique.

He failed at his job. He didn't even try.

[DC Muskie]

Gee, that's kind of a personal attack. Would you like me to respond in kind? I can, but I would prefer not to.

I trust your decision.

[XU 87]

Take the time to read the evidence he put out. Particularly the testimony of Wilson. He also made it a point to tell the grand jury that this case was unique.

He failed at his job. He didn't even try.

He didn't even try. And you know this how?

[XU 87]

I trust your decision.

You shouldn't get so upset and make such personal attacks when people disagree with you.

[DC Muskie]

He didn't even try. And you know this how?

I read the evidence he put out and listened to his rambling 20 minute speech.

Hell even after his stupid speech where he made the claims that witnesses he called were liars, people who perjured themselves, when asked if charges would be filed against them, he said no.

So yeah, he didn't even try.

[LadyMuskie]

Take the time to read the evidence he put out. Particularly the testimony of Wilson. He also made it a point to tell the grand jury that this case was unique.

He failed at his job. He didn't even try.

What else could the prosecutor have done?

[DC Muskie]

You shouldn't get so upset and make such personal attacks when people disagree with you.

I'm not sure where you came up with this response. And nothing I said was personal.

[DC Muskie]

What else could the prosecutor have done?

Questioned Wilson when he gave conflicting statements to the grand jury. That's for starters.

[XU 87]

I'm not sure where you came up with this response. And nothing I said was personal.

Some people might take it as a personal attack when they are told, "you must suck with relationships, including your mom."

I think that it really hurts your argument when you say things like this. Stick to the facts when arguing something. That approach is much more effective.

[DC Muskie]

Some people might take it as a personal attack when they are told, you must sick with relationships, including your mom."

I think that it really hurts your argument when you say things like this. Stick to the facts when arguing something. That approach is much more effective.

It's a fact that people suck at relationships when they don't trust. Or when they are oversensitive.

[LadyMuskie]

Questioned Wilson when he gave conflicting statements to the grand jury. That's for starters.

The grand jury process is not a trial. It's more of a story-telling process than a chance for cross-examination. But, the jury members are free to ask questions. What else did he do wrong?

[XU 87]

It's a fact that people suck at relationships when they don't trust. Or when they are oversensitive.

I'm just trying to help you argue more effectively. We can talk again later. But remember- facts are your friends. Have a good Thanksgiving.

[DC Muskie]

The grand jury process is not a trial. It's more of a story-telling process than a chance for cross-examination. But, the jury members are free to ask questions. What else did he do wrong?

You're exactly right it's not a trial. But you have a chance to cross examine people. He accepted Wilson's testimony as fact, whereas you dismissed other witnesses as not factual. Another thing he did wrong.

[DC Muskie]

I'm just trying to help you argue more effectively. We can talk again later. But remember- facts are your friends. Have a good Thanksgiving.


I agree facts are good. Check out number 1:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/communication-success/201210/7-keys-long-term-relationship-success

And give thanks that I'm your friend who takes time to educate you!

[XU 87]

I agree facts are good. Check out number 1:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/communication-success/201210/7-keys-long-term-relationship-success

And give thanks that I'm your friend who takes time to educate you!

One other thing. When you find yourself in a "I'm right and everyone else is wrong!" situation, it's a good idea to reevaluate your position.

PM me if you want some more advice. As you know, I'm always willing to help you.

[DC Muskie]

One other thing. When you find yourself in a "I'm right and everyone else is wrong!" situation, it's a good idea to reevaluate your position.

PM me if you want some more advice. As you know, I'm always willing to help you.

Oh I didn't mean to upset you. It's pretty simple, read The Five Dysfunctions of a Team and see what the foundation of a team is. I'll give you a hint, it rhymes with rust.

Remember, you told me facts are your friends! If that means I'm right, how can I be wrong as well?

[LadyMuskie]

You're exactly right it's not a trial. But you have a chance to cross examine people. He accepted Wilson's testimony as fact, whereas you dismissed other witnesses as not factual. Another thing he did wrong.

I'll admit I have not read through the entire transcript yet, but weren't there two female prosecutors who were running the show, so to speak? Doesn't McCulloch say on the second page of the transcript that the two of them are the ones presenting the case? Does he show back up later and cross-examine witnesses, but doesn't show up for Wilson's testimony?

[GoMuskies]

The New York Times published Wilson's address? Are they fucking nuts?

[DC Muskie]

I'll admit I have not read through the entire transcript yet, but weren't there two female prosecutors who were running the show, so to speak? Doesn't McCulloch say on the second page of the transcript that the two of them are the ones presenting the case? Does he show back up later and cross-examine witnesses, but doesn't show up for Wilson's testimony?

There were three people prosecuting the case. Another thing he did wrong, act like the grand jury in this case was an independent body. And he sold that to cover his ass.

[DC Muskie]

The New York Times published Wilson's address? Are they fucking nuts?

Great, I'm sure that will be helpful.

[XU 87]

The New York Times published Wilson's address? Are they fucking nuts?

I just saw that. Incredible.

[xu82]

The New York Times published Wilson's address? Are they fucking nuts?

Apparently so! That's crazy and irresponsible.

[LadyMuskie]

There were three people prosecuting the case. Another thing he did wrong, act like the grand jury in this case was an independent body. And he sold that to cover his ass.

So, did he or did he not cross-examine some witnesses but not others?

[xu82]

I hope that address remains unoccupied for a while. By anyone!

[OH.X.MI]

The New York Times published Wilson's address? Are they fucking nuts?

Wow that is beyond irresponsible.

[DC Muskie]

So, did he or did he not cross-examine some witnesses but not others?

He also did not instruct the jury on what charges to consider. This something he has done in every other case. Again, fail.

[LadyMuskie]

He also did not instruct the jury on what charges to consider. This something he has done in every other case. Again, fail.

You still haven't answered my first question. Did he or did he not cross examine some witnesses but not others? Because I just read through the medical examiner's testimony and he does not ask a single question there. In fact, it appears he's not even in the room.

[DC Muskie]

You still haven't answered my first question. Did he or did he not cross examine some witnesses but not others? Because I just read through the medical examiner's testimony and he does not ask a single question there. In fact, it appears he's not even in the room.

Somehow the jury was told of Wilson's knowledge that Brown was a suspect in the robbery, when two days after the event, the police chief publicly stated the opposite. And how is it that Wilson made Brown as a suspect, encountered him and told him to get on the sidewalk, called for backup, but none of that information was released on the police communications transcripts of that night? McCollough didn't ask about that.

[xu82]

What was the distance of the final shot(s)? How fast was he moving? What was ths position and condition of the shooter? So much we don't know.

[DC Muskie]

What was the distance of the final shot(s)? How fast was he moving? What was ths position and condition of the shooter? So much we don't know.

153 feet. Like a demon. Facing him, scared and hurt.

That's what we know, because that's in the evidence distributed out last night.

[LadyMuskie]

Somehow the jury was told of Wilson's knowledge that Brown was a suspect in the robbery, when two days after the event, the police chief publicly stated the opposite. And how is it that Wilson made Brown as a suspect, encountered him and told him to get on the sidewalk, called for backup, but none of that information was released on the police communications transcripts of that night? McCollough didn't ask about that.

Was McCulloch questioning him during his grand jury testimony? Who are the witnesses that he called liars? I ask because I just opened up all two dozen volumes of the transcripts available through NPR and McCulloch does not appear to have been present during any of the recordings that took place in those transcripts. The two female attorneys are listed in every volume as being the counsel of record. So, I'm trying to figure out where it is in these transcripts that he was cross-examining some witnesses, but not others.

[DC Muskie]

Was McCulloch questioning him during his grand jury testimony? Who are the witnesses that he called liars? I ask because I just opened up all two dozen volumes of the transcripts available through NPR and McCulloch does not appear to have been present during any of the recordings that took place in those transcripts. The two female attorneys are listed in every volume as being the counsel of record. So, I'm trying to figure out where it is in these transcripts that he was cross-examining some witnesses, but not others.

Keep reading. And remember that McCullough is the Prosecuting Attorney of St. Louis County.

[SemajParlor]

153 feet. Like a demon. Facing him, scared and hurt.

That's what we know, because that's in the evidence distributed out last night.

Don't forget that only 1 bullet wound was sustained from close range. 12 shots in total.

[LadyMuskie]

Keep reading. And remember that McCullough is the Prosecuting Attorney of St. Louis County.

Please direct me to the volume and page of the grand jury testimony where McCulloch is the one questioning a witness. Also, please do the same for Volume 5 where he questions Darren Wilson. Because, honestly, I'm not going to read through every bit of this and since you seem to already know where it is, you should surely have this information already available.

[D-West & PO-Z]

Wow is that true? 153 feet?? That is not close at all. For all you sports fans out there that is 51 yards. 51!!! I would have never ever guessed that. You get the sense he was 10-20 feet away and charging. Wow

[DC Muskie]

Please direct me to the volume and page of the grand jury testimony where McCulloch is the one questioning a witness. Also, please do the same for Volume 5 where he questions Darren Wilson. Because, honestly, I'm not going to read through every bit of this and since you seem to already know where it is, you should surely have this information already available.

You can also listen or read in his ramblings last night about witnesses who lack credibility. You won't find him questioning Wilson which is one of things he did wrong.

Don't try looking for things that aren't there Lady. He's the prosecutor. It's his grand jury. He's the elected official. I'm not going to do the work for you because you are frustrating yourself.

[DC Muskie]

Wow is that true? 153 feet?? That is not close at all. For all you sports fans out there that is 51 yards. 51!!! I would have never ever guessed that. You get the sense he was 10-20 feet away and charging. Wow

That's what he said last night. I was shocked when I heard it.

[xu82]

153 feet. Like a demon. Facing him, scared and hurt.

That's what we know, because that's in the evidence distributed out last night.

Interesting. I'll wait to see how much I want to share, but I've got a lot of unfortunate personal experience in this area. No one should be too high and mighty on either side. It's a lose-lose deal.

[DC Muskie]

It's a lose-lose deal.

No doubt. I need to check the distance.

[D-West & PO-Z]

That's what he said last night. I was shocked when I heard it.

I mean that is really unbelievable. I was already skeptical of him and if the shooting (outside of the car) was necessary and now that it said he was 153FT away how does that not raise red flags??? I mean wow.

[DC Muskie]

I mean that is really unbelievable. I was already skeptical of him and if the shooting (outside of the car) was necessary and now that it said he was 153FT away how does that not raise red flags??? I mean wow.

It can't be that long...I need to check it.

[DC Muskie]

Brown died 150 feet away. Wilson shot 10 feet away. Sorry for confusion.

[D-West & PO-Z]

Brown died 150 feet away. Wilson shot 10 feet away. Sorry for confusion.

Ok wow, that makes a lot more sense, I was going to say that would have been inexcusable.

[SemajParlor]

Brown was killed 153 ft away from the cop car. I believe Wilson chased him initially - so they were closer.

Anyone read the part where Wilson said "Hey guys, why don't you walk on the sidewalk?" They refuse. "We're almost at our destination," one of them replies. Wilson tries again. "But what's wrong with the sidewalk?"

Then later he says he was punched in the face twice and the third may have not knocked him out. BS meter is off the charts.

[xu82]

Brown died 150 feet away. Wilson shot 10 feet away. Sorry for confusion.

Ten feet away with a 6'5" 280 lb guy who tried to steal my gun and shots were fired? I'm glad he was shot in the front and not in the back. Stop with all the bullshit. Yes, stuff needs to be fixed. Don't act like we're oppressed and this is an example.

[LadyMuskie]

You can also listen or read in his ramblings last night about witnesses who lack credibility. You won't find him questioning Wilson which is one of things he did wrong.

Don't try looking for things that aren't there Lady. He's the prosecutor. It's his grand jury. He's the elected official. I'm not going to do the work for you because you are frustrating yourself.

This is hilarious. You think I'm looking for things that aren't there? You're accusing an attorney of grave misconduct, the kind of misconduct that can get attorneys disbarred and when asked for proof you can't provide it and you think I'm looking for things that aren't there. Ramblings during an interview were not considered by the grand jury. The man wasn't even present during the questioning of these witnesses, and yet he's clearly guilty of gross malfeasance? And you think the miscarriage of justice is that Darren Wilson wasn't indicted? I think the gross miscarriage is that it's abundantly clear that most Americans do not understand the grand jury process - even a little bit.

You are doing yourself a great deal of harm by taking the word of reporters - who have no reason not to lie - instead of reading things for yourself out of the transcript. The articles written by reporters are often heavily biased and very much edited to fit the bias, including taking statements from transcripts without the proper context. I look forward to reading the transcript excerpts where the prosecutor who wasn't present managed to cross-examine witnesses.

I would also put this out there - eye witness testimony, especially from men, is notoriously bad. Google it and you'll get study after study about how inaccurate it is. The Innocence Project states that eye witness testimony is wrong almost 75% of the time. When I worked for a defense attorney, he never banked his case on eye witness testimony because it was easy to prove wrong. Human memory does not work like a video recorder. It's heavily influenced by previous experience, stress levels, ability to focus on detail and a plethora of other things. There's a reason why of the 60 eye witness testimonies taken in this case NONE of them are 100% compatible with the others - even those accusing Wilson of murder. So, most trial attorneys would tell you, if they were being honest, that eye witness testimony is some of the worst piece of evidence to bring with you to trial.

[xu82]

My uncle Leonard (a cop) was shot and killed trying to get a guy back to the hospital after he escaped. Every single second is life or death for these guys. I give them the benefit of the doubt. Full disclosure.

[Juice]

This is hilarious. You think I'm looking for things that aren't there? You're accusing an attorney of grave misconduct, the kind of misconduct that can get attorneys disbarred and when asked for proof you can't provide it and you think I'm looking for things that aren't there. Ramblings during an interview were not considered by the grand jury. The man wasn't even present during the questioning of these witnesses, and yet he's clearly guilty of gross malfeasance? And you think the miscarriage of justice is that Darren Wilson wasn't indicted? I think the gross miscarriage is that it's abundantly clear that most Americans do not understand the grand jury process - even a little bit.

You are doing yourself a great deal of harm by taking the word of reporters - who have no reason not to lie - instead of reading things for yourself out of the transcript. The articles written by reporters are often heavily biased and very much edited to fit the bias, including taking statements from transcripts without the proper context. I look forward to reading the transcript excerpts where the prosecutor who wasn't present managed to cross-examine witnesses.

I would also put this out there - eye witness testimony, especially from men, is notoriously bad. Google it and you'll get study after study about how inaccurate it is. The Innocence Project states that eye witness testimony is wrong almost 75% of the time. When I worked for a defense attorney, he never banked his case on eye witness testimony because it was easy to prove wrong. Human memory does not work like a video recorder. It's heavily influenced by previous experience, stress levels, ability to focus on detail and a plethora of other things. There's a reason why of the 60 eye witness testimonies taken in this case NONE of them are 100% compatible with the others - even those accusing Wilson of murder. So, most trial attorneys would tell you, if they were being honest, that eye witness testimony is some of the worst piece of evidence to bring with you to trial.

You pretty much have to kill someone to get disbarred. It takes a lot more serious shit than that, maybe a suspension.

[LadyMuskie]

You pretty much have to kill someone to get disbarred. It takes a lot more serious shit than that, maybe a suspension.

Tell that to Mike Nifong who was disbarred because of his mishandling of the Duke LaCrosse case.

[Snipe]

I just can't wait until a couple years from now in the next election cycle. I don't think that Democrats will ever tire of pushing cases like Brown and St. Travon.

And Fergadishu certainly makes for entertaining news programming.

Interesting take from the Washington Post:


Finally, what distinguishes Ferguson from the crowded historical catalogue of racially-motivated street violence is what has happened in recent weeks: The unseemly buildup to the announcement of the grand jury’s conclusion that no crime was committed in the shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown has produced an expectation of ugliness. What occurred Monday night — and may continue in the days ahead — is rioting as planned event, so pervasively predicted, so extensively prepared for as to obscure the power and meaning of the protests.

Rioting as a planned event is right. And the people of Ferguson will be picking up the pieces and wondering what happened for awhile. I doubt that they can ever recover.


A news media obsessed with predicting the next step, a security apparatus equipped to put down almost any uprising, and a political power structure apparently seeking to head off violence by predicting it have combined to produce an unprecedented sense of inevitability, reducing what has historically been an explosion of frustration to a kind of staged performance.

I would agree that this is a staged performance, and I could see it coming a long time ago. And our Justice department and the Democratic Party put money into both Ferguson and Sanford Florida and worked to coordinate with the protesters.

These aren't completely spontaneous acts of violence and destruction. They are more coordinated and choreographed than many people would like to believe. And if you like the Washington Post are starting to notice a pattern, get used to it. I now expect it to happen every election cycle. That is one hell of a way to run a railroad, but this is what diversity looks like.

[NY44]

Just another misstep by Ferguson. Why not bring in a special prosecutor?

[DC Muskie]

This is hilarious. You think I'm looking for things that aren't there? You're accusing an attorney of grave misconduct, the kind of misconduct that can get attorneys disbarred and when asked for proof you can't provide it and you think I'm looking for things that aren't there. Ramblings during an interview were not considered by the grand jury. The man wasn't even present during the questioning of these witnesses, and yet he's clearly guilty of gross malfeasance? And you think the miscarriage of justice is that Darren Wilson wasn't indicted? I think the gross miscarriage is that it's abundantly clear that most Americans do not understand the grand jury process - even a little bit.

You are doing yourself a great deal of harm by taking the word of reporters - who have no reason not to lie - instead of reading things for yourself out of the transcript. The articles written by reporters are often heavily biased and very much edited to fit the bias, including taking statements from transcripts without the proper context. I look forward to reading the transcript excerpts where the prosecutor who wasn't present managed to cross-examine witnesses.

I would also put this out there - eye witness testimony, especially from men, is notoriously bad. Google it and you'll get study after study about how inaccurate it is. The Innocence Project states that eye witness testimony is wrong almost 75% of the time. When I worked for a defense attorney, he never banked his case on eye witness testimony because it was easy to prove wrong. Human memory does not work like a video recorder. It's heavily influenced by previous experience, stress levels, ability to focus on detail and a plethora of other things. There's a reason why of the 60 eye witness testimonies taken in this case NONE of them are 100% compatible with the others - even those accusing Wilson of murder. So, most trial attorneys would tell you, if they were being honest, that eye witness testimony is some of the worst piece of evidence to bring with you to trial.

In all of this rambling I can't even figure out what point you are trying to make. He's the prosecutor, but you keep thinking what you want.

You think this case was the first time there was ever conflicting testimony presented to a grand jury? If you do, then you are incredibly naive. The only eye witness McCollough believed, was the one who stood accused of a crime. He presented that case to the grand jury and stood back and let the verdict come down the way he wanted. It's absolutely incredible.

I read the transcripts lady. It's all in there. I gave you a laundry list of the things he did wrong, and yet you keep focusing on whatever point you think overrides it all. You should then ask yourself, why on earth you think it's so important? And then follow it up with who faced reporters? Oh and who was elected? Oh and how he said how unique this case was.

Read those transcripts and then watch McCollough's speech after and if you come to the conclusion that everything was on the up and up, then there's nothing to convince you otherwise.

I think you also mentioned that men make terrible witnesses. I wonder if that means we never have trials that involve male witnesses! Talk about hilarious!

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

[DC Muskie]

Tell that to Mike Nifong who was disbarred because of his mishandling of the Duke LaCrosse case.

Even those guys got indicted!

[LadyMuskie]

Dude, if you're comfortable making claims that you can't back up with proof, then fine. All I asked was that you tell us where in the transcripts these things you claim happened, happened and you cannot do so. It's okay. We all get caught up sometimes and can't back things up. (By the way - Wilson's testimony begins on page 196 of Volume 5 and he is not questioned by McCulloch - unless the court reporter is in on the conspiracy.) Enjoy the holiday weekend!

[DC Muskie]

Dude, if you're comfortable making claims that you can't back up with proof, then fine. All I asked was that you tell us where in the transcripts these things you claim happened, happened and you cannot do so. It's okay. We all get caught up sometimes and can't back things up. (By the way - Wilson's testimony begins on page 196 of Volume 5 and he is not questioned by McCulloch - unless the court reporter is in on the conspiracy.) Enjoy the holiday weekend!

I backed it up. Gave you numerous examples. I can't help it lady, if choose not read what I wrote or what was in the transcripts.

Men make horrible witnesses! Focus on that! Forget McCollough is the prosecutor!

[NY44]

Just read Wilson's testimony. I'm no lawyer, but there is definitely some reasonable doubt. For one, according to Wilson, Brown made his charge after he had already been shot 3 times. That's obviously possible, but there's also reasonable reason to believe a man who was shot 3 times wouldn't be able to charge. Next, several have claimed that Brown surrendered at the very end and had his hands up. I don't see physical evidence making that impossible.

[Xville]

Just read Wilson's testimony. I'm no lawyer, but there is definitely some reasonable doubt. For one, according to Wilson, Brown made his charge after he had already been shot 3 times. That's obviously possible, but there's also reasonable reason to believe a man who was shot 3 times wouldn't be able to charge. Next, several have claimed that Brown surrendered at the very end and had his hands up. I don't see physical evidence making that impossible.

The burden of proof does not lie with Wilson. But you know..don't let facts get in the way of your narrative

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/22/autopsy-shows-michael-brown-shot-at-close-/

[NY44]

The burden of proof does not lie with Wilson. But you know..don't let facts get in the way of your narrative

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/22/autopsy-shows-michael-brown-shot-at-close-/

All that article (from over a month ago) says about his hands being up is that a forensic pathologist in San Francisco said the autopsy did not support that he had his hands up. What fact makes her say that?

[Xville]

All that article (from over a month ago) says about his hands being up is that a forensic pathologist in San Francisco said the autopsy did not support that he had his hands up. What fact makes her say that?

the fact i was alluding to is that the burden of proof does not lie with Wilson...the article that I linked puts doubts in your narrative. You are really trying to fit a square peg into a hole to support your narrative.

[SemajParlor]

Even those guys got indicted!

Haha was thinking the same thing as soon as I saw Nifong.

[NY44]

the fact i was alluding to is that the burden of proof does not lie with Wilson...the article that I linked puts doubts in your narrative. You are really trying to fit a square peg into a hole to support your narrative.

As I'm sure you know, this isn't a trial. If his account is that he did no wrong, and therefore a trial isn't necessary, then it's up to the prosecutor to question the hell out of it and make sure it's true. I didn't see that being done.

[Masterofreality]

Even those guys got indicted!

And ultimately the Duke players were innocent because of false accusations.

I'll leave it to the Justice System to decide whether Darren Wilson should have been indicted, and I trust it.

I also understand that differing opinions will be out there. I'll close my statement on this thread with this.

There was a large Protest here in Cleveland yesterday.. For a while it even closed the Lakeside Shoreway at Rush Hour. However, it was peaceful, the police held their ground and even protected the protestors. After two hours it dispersed peacefully. No Molotov Cocktails, no police car torchings.

Rather than idiots rioting and burning down their own houses, what happened here yesterday was the way to handle disgruntlement. Anyone who advocates otherwise should be thrown in a cell.

[GoMuskies]

Even those guys got indicted!

Given that those guys were factually innocent (and not just not guilty), it's not really a GOOD thing for Nifong's job performance that those guys got indicted. Quite the opposite, really.

[LadyMuskie]

I backed it up. Gave you numerous examples. I can't help it lady, if choose not read what I wrote or what was in the transcripts.

Men make horrible witnesses! Focus on that! Forget McCollough is the prosecutor!
Look. I get it. You can't back up your claims with facts. It's really okay. It's like how I think Oswald wasn't the lone gunman. I can't prove it but I really really want to believe I'm right.

And you understand of course that Nifong was disbarred because of his mishandling of the Grand jury wherein the Duke players never should have been indicted. So your other post is also just silly nonsense.

[RealDeal]

I'm picking out a thermos for you.

[RealDeal]

Not an ordinary thermos for you.

[XU 87]

No kidding, when the prosecutor abdicated his responsibility.

Why do you liberals just refuse to accept the facts? Why are you so desperate to proclaim, "the racist white cop killed the poor kid without any reason"?

The grand jury heard three weeks of testimony. They did not indict because there was not sufficient evidence to do so.

But because you didn't get the result you want, it's because the prosecutor didn't do his job, and apparently did not do so on purpose. And then you think he should resign.

[NY44]

Just read Wilson's testimony. I'm no lawyer, but there is definitely some reasonable doubt. For one, according to Wilson, Brown made his charge after he had already been shot 3 times. That's obviously possible, but there's also reasonable reason to believe a man who was shot 3 times wouldn't be able to charge. Next, several have claimed that Brown surrendered at the very end and had his hands up. I don't see physical evidence making that impossible.

87, Ville, all others, please answer these questions with the facts that I'm conveniently ignoring.

[XU 87]

87, Ville, all others, please answer these questions with the facts that I'm conveniently ignoring.

First of all, '"reasonable doubt' means, as a matter of law, that he's not guilty.

"Shot three times- shouldn't be able to charge." says who? Witnesses says he did. The last shot was from 12 feet away.

Brown tried to steal the cop's gun. He ran away and then ran back at the cop. He then got shot. There was testimony to support this. There was forensics to support this.

You don't indict someone on a murder charge with "he was shot three times. Most people would have stopped approaching after that" when the EVIDENCE says he continued to approach.

[vee4xu]

Let me say this again. My dad was a police officer for 27 years. I saw firsthand the stress of that job. We spoke many times about his experiences. One of my good friends, an officer with my dad's force, was murdered by two white drug informants when we were 27 years old. I have spoken to spouses and children of officers who either were killed in the line of duty or were disabled. So I know what I'm saying when I say the job of officer is very, very difficult. Many times they are called into highly charged and violent situations. Some where weapons are visible, some when they are not. In either case the trained officer has seconds to assess the situation and determine the danger level involved. They are also responsible to protect the people involved, including themselves. These situations happen thousands of times daily without incident. We don't hear about those. Sometimes incidents involve force, be it physical or using a weapon. Those are the ones we hear about. Bases on what I know from speaking with police officers, they prefer diffusing the situation without using force, but in these highly charged situations In which they feel force is necessary they have to do so. Bottom line: Unless and until you can speak directly to having been called into dangerous, highly charged situations every day of every year of your life you shouldn't pretend to know what that's like or opine on what an officer should have done anywhere, anytime.

[XU 87]

Basically his job is to seek an indictment, not merely half ass it. Did you notice how he wasn't pissed at an indictment? Instead he blamed the media, the angry white middle man calling card when it comes to racial issues.

Were you pissed off at Joe Deters when he didn't obtain an indictment of Dez Wells? Shouldn't Deters have only presented evidence that was unfavorable to Dez to obtain the indictment? Did you demand his resignation? Did you criticize him after he said "Dez is innocent".

[NY44]

First of all, '"reasonable doubt' means, as a matter of law, that he's not guilty.

"Shot three times- shouldn't be able to charge." says who? Witnesses says he did. The last shot was from 12 feet away.

Brown tried to steal the cop's gun. He ran away and then ran back at the cop. He then got shot. There was testimony to support this. There was forensics to support this.

First off, great paraphrasing of what I said.

You don't indict someone on a murder charge with "he was shot three times. Most people would have stopped approaching after that" when the EVIDENCE says he continued to approach.

First off, great paraphrasing of what I said.

You see no possibility that a man shot 3 times might not be a direct threat on an armed officers life? No reason to even ask the question?

There was also witness testimony that Brown was surrendering and putting at least one hand up when he was going down. In his speech, the prosecutor said witnesses were discredited by physical evidence, so I would expect there to be evidence which clearly rules this out. And who said murder? Wilson was wiped clean of any possibility of guilt. You'll see, this isn't the last we've heard of this from The Justice Department.

[XU 87]

You can speculate all you want to support your narrative. You can also pick and choose what facts you want to believe and simply ignore those facts, including forensic evidence, which doesn't support your narrative. But the facts are what they are.

As for the Justice Dept, we'll see if they proceed so they can curb your insatiable appetite to convict this cop.

One thing I've learned from this thread- some of you liberals go to incredible lengths to support your narrative. If any facts get in your way, you just ignore them. If the facts don't support your narrative- who cares. Or you claim the prosecutor threw the case.

I feel sorry for the officer. He did his job, almost got killed, but you and others want to put him in jail simply because of your political views.

[waggy]

"They" should be apologizing to the entire country for inciting an unfounded, intellectual riot.

[Kahns Krazy]

Is it really hard to understand? What does black and black crime have to do with this white cop killing this black guy?

Race is at the heart of article. Did you not read it?

Black crime is very relevant since Wilson's defense is that Brown committed a crime against him that directly led to Brown being shot. How is it not relevant?


Wow is that true? 153 feet?? That is not close at all. For all you sports fans out there that is 51 yards. 51!!! I would have never ever guessed that. You get the sense he was 10-20 feet away and charging. Wow

Your drool over this lie is nearly visible on the screen. Be honest with yourself. How excited did you get when you read this. Did you even stop to think about how unreasonable this is?


That's what he said last night. I was shocked when I heard it.

No need to check your facts before you go spread rumors.


Brown was killed 153 ft away from the cop car. I believe Wilson chased him initially - so they were closer.

Anyone read the part where Wilson said "Hey guys, why don't you walk on the sidewalk?" They refuse. "We're almost at our destination," one of them replies. Wilson tries again. "But what's wrong with the sidewalk?"

Then later he says he was punched in the face twice and the third may have not knocked him out. BS meter is off the charts.

I'm unclear on how those two things could not have happened, and what exactly the BS meter is picking up here.


Were you pissed off at Joe Deters when he didn't obtain an indictment of Dez Wells? Shouldn't Deters have only presented evidence that was unfavorable to Dez to obtain the indictment? Did you demand his resignation? Did you criticize him after he said "Dez is innocent".

This is a pretty reasonable point.

[D-West & PO-Z]

Black crime is very relevant since Wilson's defense is that Brown committed a crime against him that directly led to Brown being shot. How is it not relevant?



Your drool over this lie is nearly visible on the screen. Be honest with yourself. How excited did you get when you read this. Did you even stop to think about how unreasonable this is?

.

That was shock not drool. I read something that someone, who has said they read a lot of the doucments, said and I was shocked. I repeatedly said that was unbelieveable. I wasnt excited at all, I was shocked.

I forgot how good you were at 100% knowing others emotions while looking at a computer screen. No one has ever been misinterpreted on a message board.

[D-West & PO-Z]

Let me say this again. My dad was a police officer for 27 years. I saw firsthand the stress of that job. We spoke many times about his experiences. One of my good friends, an officer with my dad's force, was murdered by two white drug informants when we were 27 years old. I have spoken to spouses and children of officers who either were killed in the line of duty or were disabled. So I know what I'm saying when I say the job of officer is very, very difficult. Many times they are called into highly charged and violent situations. Some where weapons are visible, some when they are not. In either case the trained officer has seconds to assess the situation and determine the danger level involved. They are also responsible to protect the people involved, including themselves. These situations happen thousands of times daily without incident. We don't hear about those. Sometimes incidents involve force, be it physical or using a weapon. Those are the ones we hear about. Bases on what I know from speaking with police officers, they prefer diffusing the situation without using force, but in these highly charged situations In which they feel force is necessary they have to do so. Bottom line: Unless and until you can speak directly to having been called into dangerous, highly charged situations every day of every year of your life you shouldn't pretend to know what that's like or opine on what an officer should have done anywhere, anytime.

I get what you are saying and its a good point, situations like that have to be very nerve racking and hard to assess and downright scary etc.

However I hate when people say you arent allowed to have an opinion on a situation unless you have been in that exact situation. This message board wouldnt exist if that were the case.

[NY44]

You can speculate all you want to support your narrative. You can also pick and choose what facts you want to believe and simply ignore those facts, including forensic evidence, which doesn't support your narrative. But the facts are what they are.

As for the Justice Dept, we'll see if they proceed so they can curb your insatiable appetite to convict this cop.

One thing I've learned from this thread- some of you liberals go to incredible lengths to support your narrative. If any facts get in your way, you just ignore them. If the facts don't support your narrative- who cares. Or you claim the prosecutor threw the case.

I feel sorry for the officer. He did his job, almost got killed, but you and others want to put him in jail simply because of your political views.

You keep telling me about these facts, yet you have not shared a single one.

No one here wants to put Wilson in jail. We want him to be put on trial to find answers and justifications for this killing. Wilson's story might be completely true, unbelievable things happen all the time, but there are still a lot of questions to be answered.

[xu82]

We want him to be put on trial to find answers and justifications for this killing. Wilson's story might be completely true, unbelievable things happen all the time, but there are still a lot of questions to be answered.
Wasn't that what the grand jury was for? So wait, you just didn't like what they came up with? All I want is due process. It didn't lead to a trial.

[XU 87]

You keep telling me about these facts, yet you have not shared a single one.

No one here wants to put Wilson in jail. We want him to be put on trial to find answers and justifications for this killing. Wilson's story might be completely true, unbelievable things happen all the time, but there are still a lot of questions to be answered.

I will try again. The facts are 1) brown and the cop wrestled in the car and brown went for his gun 2) brown then ran away after the cop shot his gun 3) cop chased after Brown 4) brown turned around and ran at the cop and got shot.

We don't have murder trials to satisfy the mob mentality of "we demand a public trial to find out answers that we have questions to". We don't have murder trials to engage in some sort of intellectual fact expedition. Instead, We have murder trials after probable cause has been found that a crime was committed. No probable cause was found. And if you can't get probable cause you don't have a trial to determine "beyond a reasonable doubt".

[waggy]

NY44 needs to start paying for this education. And maybe ask X for some money back.

[paulxu]

Why do you liberals just refuse to accept the facts?

Apparently I missed the logic class at X, where it was proved that if you disagree with something it equals "refuse to accept facts."
I also missed the one where disagreement with something equaled your party affiliation; in this case having an opinion that is different concerning the process outcome = liberal.

Can I get a refund on that class?
(full disclosure: I probably skipped that particular class to check on my Dana burger)

[XU 87]

Apparently I missed the logic class at X, where it was proved that if you disagree with something it equals "refuse to accept facts."
I also missed the one where disagreement with something equaled your party affiliation; in this case having an opinion that is different concerning the process outcome = liberal.

Can I get a refund on that class?
(full disclosure: I probably skipped that particular class to check on my Dana burger)

Aw c'mon Paul, that wasn't directed at you!

But the people arguing for indictment on this thread are all liberals.

The "fact" that I was referring to in that particular post was there is not enough evidence to indict. Yet one of our liberal posters claims that the reason there was no indictment was because the prosecutor threw the case.

[NY44]

But the people arguing for indictment on this thread are all liberals.

Correlation does not imply causation. Logic 101

[XU 87]

Correlation does not imply causation. Logic 101

When your opinion is not supported by the facts, then your opinion is wrong and should be amended. Logic 100

[vee4xu]

I will try again. The facts are 1) brown and the cop wrestled in the car and brown went for his gun 2) brown then ran away after the cop shot his gun 3) cop chased after Brown 4) brown turned around and ran at the cop and got shot.

We don't have murder trials to satisfy the mob mentality of "we demand a public trial to find out answers that we have questions to". We don't have murder trials to engage in some sort of intellectual fact expedition. Instead, We have murder trials after probable cause has been found that a crime was committed. No probable cause was found. And if you can't get probable cause you don't have a trial to determine "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Winner, winner chicken dinner. Or Thanksgiving dinner as the case am be. If I am a cop and someone who just tried to take my service revolver, who after unsuccessfully doing so runs away from me, then turns back and runs towards me, I have to question that person's motives and how they relate to my safety and the safety of others nearby.

[vee4xu]

p.s. - because at the point the person decides to come back after me in this situation, then he's plain and simple a threat and color of skin goes out the window.

[NY44]

When your opinion is not supported by the facts, then your opinion is wrong and should be amended. Logic 100

Says the man who denies global warming and the peer review process.

Listen, you're not going to convince me and I'm not going to convince you. I have read all there is to, I know the facts how I see them. My main beef is with the process. Even with the horrible method which with Ferguson handled the scene of shooting and it's lack of transparency aside. There has been no accountability by the city from the start. I can't tell if the city is malevolent or just incompetent. I was not convinced by the questioning of McCulloch, so much so that I wonder about conflicts of interest. I think there are a lot of questions that went unasked, some of which I've asked here, which someone who really had the victim's rights and justice in mind might have.

You can assume that people are upset and angry because they want to steal liquor or get votes, but I think it's because there is something very wrong here. Especially with such a strong and wide response across this country.

1. Cameras on cops.
2. Special Prosecutors for Grand Juries in police shootings.
3. For God's sake when you kill a man at least have the decency to cover his body.

Gone for the weekend. Happy Thanksgiving to all..yes, even to you 87.

[XU 87]

What do you mean you're leaving? I've got three more hours in a car. What am I supposed to do? What about me?

Where is DC Muskie? Semaj Parlor, did see what I just wrote?

[xu82]

What do you mean you're leaving? I've got three more hours in a car. What am I supposed to do? What about me?

Where is DC Muskie? Semaj Parlor, did see what I just wrote?

Your liberal friends found the way to hurt you the most.... abandon you in your time of need!

[SemajParlor]

What do you mean you're leaving? I've got three more hours in a car. What am I supposed to do? What about me?

Where is DC Muskie? Semaj Parlor, did see what I just wrote?


What do you mean you're leaving? I've got three more hours in a car. What am I supposed to do? What about me?

Where is DC Muskie? Semaj Parlor, did see what I just wrote?

Sorry - haven't had a chance to read a lot today. I'm about to leave my pretty normal office job and get ready for Turkey.

Xville and Xavierj's mind just got blown that I don't live off food stamps and welfare checks yet have the capacity to show sympathy to those who do.

[XU 87]

Sorry - haven't had a chance to read a lot today. I'm about to leave my pretty normal office job and get ready for Turkey.



What kind of response is this? I'm sorry? Where is the part about "87, you're a cold hearted conservative who hates dogs"?

Let's get to it. Start typing.

[XU 87]

Your liberal friends found the way to hurt you the most.... abandon you in your time of need!

This is why I don't like liberals. You can't count on them.

[xu82]

Sorry - haven't had a chance to read a lot today. I'm about to leave my pretty normal office job and get ready for Turkey.

Xville and Xavierj's mind just got blown that I don't live off food stamps and welfare checks yet can show empathy to those who do.

Forget the office job, here's the real test: If a cop tells you to do something, what are you going to do?
A) Ignore him
B) Try to take his gun
c) Comply

[vee4xu]

Did Officer Wilson shoot at or shoot Mr. Brown when he fled the police cruiser after having tried to swipe Officer Wilson's gun? No. When did Officer Wilson shoot Mr. Brown? Only after Mr. Brown CHOSE to turn and run at Officer Wilson after having fled and trying to steal his gun. And, Officer Wilson stopped shooting when Mr. Brown stopped charging him and only commenced shooting when Mr. Brown AGAIN CHOSE to start charging at Officer Wilson. I don't know about anyone else, but I wouldn't blame Officer Wilson for questioning Mr. Brown's intentions at that point. After all it was Mr. Brown who CHOSE to run at Officer Wilson. At some point Mr. Brown has to be accountable for his choices. He put himself in the position of having Officer Wilson making a decision in a heated, volatile moment. Mr. Brown must be as accountable for that decision as others are saying Officer Wilson should be for his decision to shoot.

[SemajParlor]

What kind of response is this? I'm sorry? Where is the part about "87, you're a cold hearted conservative who hates dogs"?

Let's get to it. Start typing.

That was kinda weak, thought I had to reply with something. Actually I haven't brought up anything about political ideologies, that's all you.

[SemajParlor]

Forget the office job, here's the real test: If a cop tells you to do something, what are you going to do?
A) Ignore him
B) Try to take his gun
c) Comply

Either A or C. I have respect for police officers but it would of course depend on what he tells me and what I have done to warrant him telling me. I'm fairly certain I'd be alive with whatever option I went with though.

[Kahns Krazy]

That was shock not drool. I read something that someone, who has said they read a lot of the doucments, said and I was shocked. I repeatedly said that was unbelieveable. I wasnt excited at all, I was shocked.

I forgot how good you were at 100% knowing others emotions while looking at a computer screen. No one has ever been misinterpreted on a message board.

You did not once say it was unbelievable, but you did repeat the item 4 different times in different ways. Also, when you add multiple punctuation points (3 exclamation points!!!), emphasis (never ever) and a "Wow", you are conveying emotions. If you don't want them interpreted that way, you should work on your written communication.

[D-West & PO-Z]

I mean that is really unbelievable. I was already skeptical of him and if the shooting (outside of the car) was necessary and now that it said he was 153FT away how does that not raise red flags??? I mean wow.


You did not once say it was unbelievable, but you did repeat the item 4 different times in different ways. Also, when you add multiple punctuation points (3 exclamation points!!!), emphasis (never ever) and a "Wow", you are conveying emotions. If you don't want them interpreted that way, you should work on your written communication.

You are a joke. You couldnt even go double check. HAHA

Thanks for the advice Kahns but I'm not sure I need communication advice from someone who cant read!

[D-West & PO-Z]

And just for clarification I never said there was no emotion in my post. You just got the wrong emotion. It was shock.

Thank you though for telling me my emotions, really appreciate it. Can I write you whenever I am feeling something but cant quite figure out what it is? I am not sure I will be ever to experience life now without you there to help explain what I am feeling.

[Lamont Sanford]

My final score:

XU87 & Kahns - 1
Liberals - 0

Happy Thanksgiving to all...even our Liberal friends on this board!

[Snipe]

I got shut out of the scoring

[waggy]

I got shut out of the scoring

Things you'll hear DC Muskie say for $1000 Alex.

[GoMuskies]

I am thankful that I get to share this space with all of you dumb assholes. Merry Turkey Day!

[Masterofreality]

I am thankful that I get to share this space with all of you dumb assholes. Merry Turkey Day!

Yeah, but only 2 other of us turkeys have over 10,000 posts on this infernal board.

We're STUFFING content up in heah!!!

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

[Kahns Krazy]

You are a joke. You couldnt even go double check. HAHA

Thanks for the advice Kahns but I'm not sure I need communication advice from someone who cant read!

Nice. You used "unbelievable" as a synonym for "amazing" then later claimed you were using it to mean "not able to be believed". Of course, this "unbelievable" fact didn't stop you from drawing conclusions about Wilson's claim of self defense. It sure seems like you believed it. You can't even be honest with yourself.

[Kahns Krazy]

And just for clarification I never said there was no emotion in my post. You just got the wrong emotion. It was shock.

Thank you though for telling me my emotions, really appreciate it. Can I write you whenever I am feeling something but cant quite figure out what it is? I am not sure I will be ever to experience life now without you there to help explain what I am feeling.

Sure thing. In this post, you are feeling like a jerk that pounced on a falsehood and accused an officer of lying. When the truth was revealed, you felt defensive and wanted to lash out with personal attacks. Let me know next time you need help.

[D-West & PO-Z]

Ok wow, that makes a lot more sense, I was going to say that would have been inexcusable.


Sure thing. In this post, you are feeling like a jerk that pounced on a falsehood and accused an officer of lying. When the truth was revealed, you felt defensive and wanted to lash out with personal attacks. Let me know next time you need help.

No actually when the truth was revealed that was my post above. That makes a lot more sense that he shot with the person charging 10 feet away But keep making up your own narrative. (Exhausted is my current emotion)

[D-West & PO-Z]

I should have ignored your original reply that started all this, every other person you quoted did. I was the only fool stupid enough to try and reason with you Khans.

[Snipe]

This really isn't about Ferguson, or Mike Brown. This is about social justice and ginning up the black vote. Who can be for racist whites hunting down and killing young black men? Which side are you on?

People arrive in droves from outside to cause mayhem and stoke the flames. You can see the professionally made signs and t-shirts. Celebrety race baiters like Sharpton come to town. Jessie Jackson actually did some fundraising. They even have a voter registration tent right at the site where the young man died. George Soro's money is flowing in. Immigration advocates (http://www.mira-mo.org/wordpress/)are getting in on the deal, as are the Palestinian Gaza (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/20/michael-brown-gaza-and-muslim-americans.html)faction.

It is a parade of leftist causes in this carnival of chaos. The money and trouble coming pouring in, and I seriously doubt that Ferguson will ever recover. Who wants to live in Ferguson? If you are black, and you buy into the Democratic party strategy of white police hunting down and shooting young black men, Ferguson doesn't sound like a nice place. And if you are white, well I just take it for granted that most white people are averse to black race riots and looting. It worked so well for Detroit.

White people are racist. I get it. Amusing to see that even White Democrats are under the gun, like the prosecutor and the governor. That is going to continue as the Demographics change and they no longer need you. They will begin more and more to let you know how they feel about you and your Whiteness.

And if the Grand Jury fails to indict the union member with the swollen face and busted eye socket, people from outside of Ferguson are going to torch Ferguson, and it will go up in flames to all of our live coverage amusement.

Just wanted to give myself a pat on the back for predicting the outcome and seeing it so clearly on August 20th.

There will come a day when the perpetual outrage machine wins out and it will be a total victory. A day will come when we all agree to sacrifice the next Darren Wilson to the wolves to try to prevent more of the carnival of carnage from the Democratic party's Social-Justice-Industrial-complex. Like the Washington Post article I cited yesterday, this is all so rehearsed that we all saw it coming. Millions of dollars of damage in Ferguson alone. At some point people look at the trade-offs and I don't think they will want to keep the Darren Wilsons from the wolves of Social Justice and Moveon.org, because the price to pay will be too high.

This thing is way bigger than just the Brown kid. The problem of course is that the Brown kid by the evidence was an asshat, just as Trayvon Martin was an asshat that was in the act of busting open George Zimmerman's skull on the concrete pavement and reaching for his firearm when things went south. Trayvon's crowd had their day in court and lost, and yet still his degenerate mother is a poster child for Social Justice. She didn't even raise Trayvon, but she did trademark "Justice for Travon" and make over a million dollars. It is incredible. The fact that she still has the gall to show her face is something, but she is still a celebrity. Wet your finger and you can tell the way the winds are blowing.

White people are racist.

[paulxu]

You don't want to be in the camp of the noted extreme liberal Antonin Scalia.


On Monday, Prosecutor Bob McCulloch announced that a grand jury had decided not to indict Darren Wilson, the officer who killed Michael Brown. But that decision was the result of a process that turned the purpose of a grand jury on its head.

Justice Antonin Scalia, in the 1992 Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, explained what the role of a grand jury has been for hundreds of years.

"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."

This passage was first highlighted by attorney Ian Samuel, a former clerk to Justice Scalia.

In contrast, McCulloch allowed Wilson to testify for hours before the grand jury and presented them with every scrap of exculpatory evidence available. In his press conference, McCulloch said that the grand jury did not indict because eyewitness testimony that established Wilson was acting in self-defense was contradicted by other exculpatory evidence. What McCulloch didn’t say is that he was under no obligation to present such evidence to the grand jury. The only reason one would present such evidence is to reduce the chances that the grand jury would indict Darren Wilson.

Compare Justice Scalia’s description of the role of the grand jury to what the prosecutors told the Ferguson grand jury before they started their deliberations:

"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."
As Justice Scalia explained the evidence to support these “complete defenses,” including Wilson’s testimony, was only included by McCulloch by ignoring how grand juries historically work.

There were several eyewitness accounts that strongly suggested Wilson did not act in self-defense. McCulloch could have, and his critics say should have, presented that evidence to the grand jury and likely returned an indictment in days, not months. It’s a low bar, which is why virtually all grand juries return indictments.

But McCulloch chose a different path.

You just can't trust those liberal Supreme Court justices.

[waggy]

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."


This case likely wouldn't have even been presented to a grand jury if not for the political pressure. And I think that grand jury presentations take many forms depending on the circumstances and the prosecutor. There could be bias one way or the other, or even a totally neutral situation. Completely eliminating bias should be strived for and is the ideal, but I don't see how it's ever honestly completely eliminated. For example, I would view an indictment of Wilson as bias in the system.



"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."

Who does this quote belong to?

[paulxu]

Who does this quote belong to?

According to the article, the prosecutors who presented to the grand jury in the Wilson case.

Wags, I think this entire case was unusual, and that we'll probably never know exactly what happened. Most of the time I think the cops should get the benefit of the doubt. This particular case had a lot of inconsistencies that might better have been sorted out at a trail.

[GoMuskies]

Paul, Scalia only said that because he assumed the defendant would be black, obviously.

[waggy]

Well you didn't bother to link the article. There is some odd word structure especially in the last sentence or two. Not trying to parse things, but unfortunately a lot of people like to sling misinformation, so just trying to get things clear.

The convenience store footage tells the story Paul.

The fact that a city had to be burn to the ground is a travesty. And then you post shit like you just did. Perpetuating this garbage. Why don't you go outside and just set your own city on fire?

[Juice]

Well you didn't bother to link the article. There is some odd word structure especially in the last sentence or two. Not trying to parse things, but unfortunately a lot of people like to sling misinformation, so just trying to get things clear.

The convenience store footage tells the story Paul.

The fact that a city had to be burn to the ground is a travesty. And then you post shit like you just did. Perpetuating this garbage. Why don't you go outside and just set your own city on fire?

Here's where you've been consistently wrong. That video has little to nothing to do with the decision to indict. If it showed him him with a gun then sure but it means nothing.

[waggy]

I'm consistently wrong that Brown had a recent history of attacking people?

[Juice]

I'm consistently wrong that Brown had a recent history of attacking people?

1) Wilson didn't know that so it doesn't go into his frame of mind and 2) if you think that a charge of violence allows justification for deadly force then a good amount of police encounters with civilians can result in police shootings with no repercussions.

[waggy]

We have are not debating what Wilson knew or didn't. We are now trying this in the court of public opinion.

Eye-witness testimony is conflicting. Ultimately he said, she said. So not conclusive.

But from the convenience store footage I can clearly see that Brown was a thug.

And forensics supports the officers account.

Your entire position rests on Brown not having a gun. So what?!!! Police officers are given guns to use for protecting themselves and the community. There is nothing here. Well except a dead guy, that probably deserved it.

[Juice]

We have are not debating what Wilson knew or didn't. We are now trying this in the court of public opinion.

Eye-witness testimony is conflicting. Ultimately he said, she said. So not conclusive.

But from the convenience store footage I can clearly see that Brown was a thug.

And forensics supports the officers account.

Your entire position rests on Brown not having a gun. So what?!!! Police officers are given guns to use for protecting themselves and the community. There is nothing here. Well except a dead guy, that probably deserved it.

Holy shit. You're like a hill Jack from northern Florida. None of what you base your arguments on is based on the law. Also, it's irrelevant. Also, it's pretty heartless to say a petty criminal deserved to die. His theft is the same level of misdemeanor as underage drinking, so do college kids deserve to die?

[waggy]

Holy shit. You're like a hill Jack from northern Florida. None of what you base your arguments on is based on the law. Also, it's irrelevant. Also, it's pretty heartless to say a petty criminal deserved to die. His theft is the same level of misdemeanor as underage drinking, so do college kids deserve to die?

He didn't die for petty theft. But the footage shows what a POS he was.

He died for whatever happen between him and Wilson.

Wilson has been given the authority. He was issued the gun. It's used within the law, yes, but a huge part of that is in his judgement. That is reality. I'm sorry you can't deal with that. But it doesn't matter, because you don't actually know what happened. All you know is that Brown didn't have a gun. And that DOES NOT MATTER.

[xu82]

,
All you know is that Brown didn't have a gun.
That wasn't from lack of trying.... part of the problem, I'm afraid.

[paulxu]

Well you didn't bother to link the article. There is some odd word structure especially in the last sentence or two. Not trying to parse things, but unfortunately a lot of people like to sling misinformation, so just trying to get things clear.

The convenience store footage tells the story Paul.

The fact that a city had to be burn to the ground is a travesty. And then you post shit like you just did. Perpetuating this garbage. Why don't you go outside and just set your own city on fire?

I am making no comment or judgment about the character of the person, the situation the police officer found himself in, whether his actions were lawful or not, or comments about the people involved and the stupidity of people rioting. You went off on a complete misdirection tangent that is nice and inflammatory, but has nothing at all to do with what I was pointing out.

My comments were about the process of the grand jury and how it was conducted very much out of the ordinary, as evidenced by Scalia's comments.
The quoted passage comes directly from the recorded testimony of the prosecutor as she was instructing the grand jury on it's responsibilities. It appears that rather than a grand jury deciding probable cause, this proceeding (with testimony from the potential defendant) was conducted as a regular trial.
I agree with Scalia comments from a Supreme Court case that it was not the appropriate methodology for a grand jury.

And I agree with Scalia about once every hundred years.

[waggy]

..we'll probably never know exactly what happened.


I was not off on a tangent.

I guess some people are just able to identify assholes in convenience stores, and some people aren't. What a gift I've been given.

[waggy]

about the process of the grand jury and how it was conducted very much out of the ordinary, as evidenced by Scalia's comments.

I agree with Scalia comments from a Supreme Court case that it was not the appropriate methodology for a grand jury.

Scalias comments are 25 years old and not about this case.

And my view is that men have been wrongly convicted because of bias, and wrongly convicted even without bias. It's not a perfect system. There is no such thing.

At the end of the day Wilson has been issued the gun to use in his judgement. Are you going to call him a liar when he says he feared for his life?

[paulxu]

Scalias comments are 25 years old and not about this case.

Congratulations! You finally figured it out.

My comments were not about the guilt, innocence, truth or falsehood of anyone.
They were about the process...and Scalia's comments were directly on target that this process was not handled in the way that grand juries are set up to be handled in American jurisprudence.

But nice effort on misdirection again.

[bobbiemcgee]

I wanted to riot after the OJ verdict. Somehow I contained myself. Hope he's rots in prison.

[waggy]

Congratulations! You finally figured it out.

My comments were not about the guilt, innocence, truth or falsehood of anyone.
They were about the process...and Scalia's comments were directly on target that this process was not handled in the way that grand juries are set up to be handled in American jurisprudence.

But nice effort on misdirection again.

Misdirection? Seems to me you don't want full disclosure. Evidence be damned we want an indictment! Otherwise their is no point to the article.

[Juice]

He didn't die for petty theft. But the footage shows what a POS he was.

He died for whatever happen between him and Wilson.

Wilson has been given the authority. He was issued the gun. It's used within the law, yes, but a huge part of that is in his judgement. That is reality. I'm sorry you can't deal with that. But it doesn't matter, because you don't actually know what happened. All you know is that Brown didn't have a gun. And that DOES NOT MATTER.

I honestly have no firm opinion whether he should have been indicted or not, I just want to correct people like you who incorrectly apply the alleged facts to the law. You do a poor job of identifying the relevant issues. For you it's whether the officer has been issues a gun, which doesn't matter since any citizen can possess a gun (depending on the state). What matters is if he was justified in using it, and again your arguments have rarely touched upon that.

[waggy]

If he says he feared for his life, you have to be a mind reader to conclude otherwise Juice.

[paulxu]

Misdirection? Seems to me you don't want full disclosure. Evidence be damned we want an indictment! Otherwise their is no point to the article.

Generally all the evidence is presented at a trial where both sides can examine witnesses, etc.

But you're right. That damn Scalia is a fire-breathing, radical, liberal.
It's obvious from his court opinion.
I blame that liberal Reagan for appointing him.

[Juice]

If he says he feared for his life, you have to be a mind reader to conclude otherwise Juice.

I'm absolutely shocked that Wilson said that (note the sarcasm). Any person can say that whether it's an officer or a person using an affirmative defense of self defense. It doesn't make it true or reasonable.

[waggy]

Based on the convenience store footage I find it completely reasonable.

[94GRAD]

Which is more plausible?

Officer Wilson has a checkered history of racism and treating locals with disrespect and contempt(we can check his employee file) and finally got his chance to act out his hatred.
Mr. Brown has an anger management issue and contempt for authority(we can check his record) and picked the wrong officer to question?

Maybe I'm over thinking it though

[Juice]

Based on the convenience store footage I find it completely reasonable.

And again you prove my point that you can't identify the relevant issue.

[Juice]

Which is more plausible?

Officer Wilson has a checkered history of racism and treating locals with disrespect and contempt(we can check his employee file) and finally got his chance to act out his hatred.
Mr. Brown has an anger management issue and contempt for authority(we can check his record) and picked the wrong officer to question?

Maybe I'm over thinking it though

Probably B but is that officer justified in using deadly force. No one on here has made a good argument for that other than "he robbed a convenience store" which is irrelevant. If it was then everyone whoever commits a robbery could be shot on the spot (they can't).

[94GRAD]

Probably B but is that officer justified in using deadly force. No one on here has made a good argument for that other than "he robbed a convenience store" which is irrelevant. If it was then everyone whoever commits a robbery could be shot on the spot (they can't).

I'm pretty sure punching the officer and trying to take his gun is a good argument

[xu82]

I'm pretty sure punching the officer and trying to take his gun is a good argument

I"m with you there. And turning around and coming back was a pretty bad decision.

[D-West & PO-Z]

Which is more plausible?

Officer Wilson has a checkered history of racism and treating locals with disrespect and contempt(we can check his employee file) and finally got his chance to act out his hatred.
Mr. Brown has an anger management issue and contempt for authority(we can check his record) and picked the wrong officer to question?

Maybe I'm over thinking it though

He was fired from a disbanded police force after the police force and all black community had so much animosity towards one another the city decided there was no other option.

[94GRAD]

He was fired from a disbanded police force after the police force and all black community had so much animosity towards one another the city decided there was no other option.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/darren-wilsons-first-job-was-on-a-troubled-police-force-disbanded-by-authorities/2014/08/23/1ac796f0-2a45-11e4-8593-da634b334390_story.html

"Officials say Wilson kept a clean record without any disciplinary action"

-Per the article from the Washington Post

[D-West & PO-Z]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/darren-wilsons-first-job-was-on-a-troubled-police-force-disbanded-by-authorities/2014/08/23/1ac796f0-2a45-11e4-8593-da634b334390_story.html

"Officials say Wilson kept a clean record without any disciplinary action"

-Per the article from the Washington Post

Fair enough.

[Frambo]

All you know is that Brown didn't have a gun. And that DOES NOT MATTER.

1549

Glad he didn't have this gun (assuming the picture is accurate)......Officer Wilson would be dead, but it might have gotten a quick mention on their local news. Cost Obama and Holder many rounds of golf!

[SemajParlor]

1549

Glad he didn't have this gun (assuming the picture is accurate)......Officer Wilson would be dead, but it might have gotten a quick mention on their local news. Cost Obama and Holder many rounds of golf!

Wrong. Not Mike Brown. The person there was named Joda Cain. This is similar to that fake picture of Wilson floating around of having a black eye in the hospital bed. Also wrong.

[SemajParlor]

Brown stole cigarillos : completely at fault in incident:: Wilson was previously divorced : History of making poor decisions