Ferguson ruling

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
The premise of your arguement is that crime is acceptable in a society if the harm of enforcing the law may be greater than not enforcing law. This relies on a retrospective analysis to be effective and rewards people who break laws and react violently when stopped.
No. The premise of my argument is that there are multiple ways of enforcing the law, and police should have a duty to choose the one that will cause the least harm to the suspect, not the one that's most macho. Officer Wilson should have never gone alone against two youngsters, one of them being 6'4" and 290 lbs, in the first place.

I still believe that this started as an altercation about jaywalking, and escalated from there, hence my logic. And I still believe that every single police shooting should be prosecuted by independent and fair prosecutors (which was not the case here, given the prosecutor's incredible personal history). I have no qualm with the grand jury.

Edit: I meant police killing, not just shooting.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I just always try to give the benefit of the doubt to David in front of Goliath.
Oh really -
Well, let me tell you a little story. I have done nothing but serve this population my entire career. Since I was 15 years old and first got involved in EMS, I have been working to take care of these people. I am the one providing the medical care, and I am the one paying for it. I paid my way through college working as a paramedic on the weekends because I didn't get any special treatment or scholarship. Instead, I worked. Out in the streets, in the midst of the fights, the crime, the shootings and the stabbings. I have been in their homes, I have been in their churches and their schools. I have seen the way these people treat police officers. They are hardly the Davids.

And what do I get in return? Well, perhaps it could be when I was shot in the hand in a random drive-by at age 19. Or maybe it was the time my house was robbed while living in the hood because it is all I could afford while trying to pay for college. Or maybe my car being broken into time and again while at work, in the hospital, treating this same population.

Im tired of it all. There is a behavior issue here. I have watched it for 18 years and it has not changed in the least. Police officers do not go on shift with the intent to brutalize or target anyone. They respond to 911 calls as they are received and respond to each situation in the best way possible to keep themselves and the public safe. A police officer should NEVER be placed in the position of having to holster their weapons specifically when dealing with a segment of the population that time and again proves themselves to be a danger to the public. That is absolutely ludicrous!!

They are NOT the DAVIDS!! They are NOT the VICTIMS!!

My jewish ancestors fled Germany prior to the holocaust. Im white, but my family had no slaves. No, instead they were trying to escape the gas chamber. Its time for this population to put on their big boy pants and move past the injustices of the past. What else can us middle class white folks offer? What else can we possibly put on a silver platter that would satisfy these people?

Christ, get this buffoon administration out of office !!!
 
No. The premise of my argument is that there are multiple ways of enforcing the law, and police should have a duty to choose the one that will cause the least harm to the suspect, not the one that's most macho. Officer Wilson should have never gone alone against two youngsters, one of them being 6'4" and 290 lbs, in the first place.

I still believe that this started as an altercation about jaywalking, and escalated from there, hence my logic. And I still believe that every single police shooting should be prosecuted by independent and fair prosecutors (which was not the case here, given the prosecutor's incredible personal history). I have no qualm with the grand jury.

I think we're in agreement of your premise you just stop short of applying it broadly or to this situation. You mentioned "walking away" from Brown walking down the middle of a street that created an unsafe situation for him, his friend, and drivers. All this is predicated on the idea that Brown will react violently and buck the legal authority of police to stop him. I'm suggesting that is unacceptable and not practical.
 
Last edited:
JLM, that might be true for Ferguson, and even for Michael Brown. But this has been a PR disaster from the beginning, and what pisses off most people is this feeling that dirt was swept under the carpet. At least that's what pisses me off. This is the nth police killing I hear about.

I was pretty much on the side of Officer Wilson for a very long time, for similar reasons to you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There is only one kind of logic [formal].
http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Logic
  • Informal logic is the study of natural language arguments. The study of fallacies is an especially important branch of informal logic. The dialogues of Plato[6] are good examples of informal logic.
  • Formal logic is the study of inference with purely formal content. An inference possesses a purely formal content if it can be expressed as a particular application of a wholly abstract rule, that is, a rule that is not about any particular thing or property. The works of Aristotle contain the earliest known formal study of logic. Modern formal logic follows and expands on Aristotle.[7] In many definitions of logic, logical inference and inference with purely formal content are the same. This does not render the notion of informal logic vacuous, because no formal logic captures all of the nuances of natural language.
  • Symbolic logic is the study of symbolic abstractions that capture the formal features of logical inference.[8][9] Symbolic logic is often divided into two branches: propositional logic and predicate logic.
  • Mathematical logic is an extension of symbolic logic into other areas, in particular to the study of model theory, proof theory, set theory, and recursion theory.
Not that it matters.
 
Wilson was aware that Brown was wanted for stealing cigars from a convenience store minutes earlier. That point had been in dispute since Ferguson police released a video of the convenience store and said Wilson had known Brown was a suspect — only to have the police chief retract that statement not long after, saying the cop didn't make the stop in relation to the theft.
That's how I remember it, too.
Wilson told the panel that, with the charging Brown about eight to 10 feet away from him, he aimed a final shot at his head.
And that's OK? Wow, just wow!
Brown's body was found 153 feet away from the vehicle. That suggests, as witnesses said, that Brown was fleeing from the cop when bullets cut him down.
Do you still believe the entirety of the officer's story?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh really -
Well, let me tell you a little story. I have done nothing but serve this population my entire career. Since I was 15 years old and first got involved in EMS, I have been working to take care of these people. I am the one providing the medical care, and I am the one paying for it. I paid my way through college working as a paramedic on the weekends because I didn't get any special treatment or scholarship. Instead, I worked. Out in the streets, in the midst of the fights, the crime, the shootings and the stabbings. I have been in their homes, I have been in their churches and their schools. I have seen the way these people treat police officers. They are hardly the Davids.

And what do I get in return? Well, perhaps it could be when I was shot in the hand in a random drive-by at age 19. Or maybe it was the time my house was robbed while living in the hood because it is all I could afford while trying to pay for college. Or maybe my car being broken into time and again while at work, in the hospital, treating this same population.

Im tired of it all. There is a behavior issue here. I have watched it for 18 years and it has not changed in the least. Police officers do not go on shift with the intent to brutalize or target anyone. They respond to 911 calls as they are received and respond to each situation in the best way possible to keep themselves and the public safe. A police officer should NEVER be placed in the position of having to holster their weapons specifically when dealing with a segment of the population that time and again proves themselves to be a danger to the public. That is absolutely ludicrous!!

They are NOT the DAVIDS!! They are NOT the VICTIMS!!

My jewish ancestors fled Germany prior to the holocaust. Im white, but my family had no slaves. No, instead they were trying to escape the gas chamber. Its time for this population to put on their big boy pants and move past the injustices of the past. What else can us middle class white folks offer? What else can we possibly put on a silver platter that would satisfy these people?

Christ, get this buffoon administration out of office !!!

I think we got to where we are today, because we are too lenient as a country. Whenever someone says or does something that may be racially sensitive, that person is forced to apologize, even if they may be right. That gives the other side the belief that they are right. Now today, apparently everything involving a black person and a white person is about race. I feel like the people who constantly pays attention to race and tries to blame it on race are the true racists. It's just sad that we are where we are today and we are not getting anywhere. I am not a big fan of rudy guilliani but i'm glad he spoke up and told the public what he believes, and not just some neutral stuff to cover things up. [And of course Giuliani gets huge backlash b/c he didn't support the Ferguson community..]
 
anbuitachi, there is way too much political correctness in the American society in general, not only about race.
 
anbuitachi, there is way too much political correctness in the American society in general, not only about race.

Yes but race is probably the biggest one. Then there's gender and stuff. That's contributes to why we don't really get anywhere as a country.
 
I meant in terms of consistency or logic proper rather than an academic branch of logic.
I actually don't care. I am not always right, and I know it. I might be very wrong even in the current thread.

I was just suggesting that we could all use fancy words and split hairs. A friendly discussion should not be about how many forms of logic exist.
 
Alright guys, I know what I said may have came off a bit strong. Clearly I was generalizing b/c I didn't want to write a paper on this on SDN... But seriously people need to be stop being super sensitive and be more REALISTIC. Something sound great in your head, but it just isn't how things work, or how our minds were designed to work. Obviously in an ideal world, all would be equal, but we don't live in that world and never will. We need to make the best of what we have in this world..... I know a lot of people agree with me, b/c I have spoke to them in person. Some don't agree as well but that's understandable, however I did notice that most people are too sensitive about these things and refuse to speak up if their opinions may sound harsh.

With regards to what you said DocOk, you come off as extremely ignorant. You got to look at the big picture. Socioeconomics have a big role, yes I agree, but what caused this socioeconomic divide? I believe that has a lot to do with cultural as well. This has been discussed recently by Stephen A Smith (the ESPN guy) which received a backlash (which always happens when you talk about sensitive topics). It's easy to blame things just on money/socioeconomics, but thats just a way out of the bigger issue.

Like Charles Barkley and Mark Cuban talked about as well, a lot of it has to do with how you present yourself.. you can be poor and still present yourself fine. One way to do that is not have your pants hanging at your knees. Another way to go at it is not to have piercings and tattoos covering most of your body. You can make the argument that people have the right to do whatever they want, and they shouldn't be judged b/c of that, well guess what, other ppl can judge however they want unfortunately, and unfortunately, there are some things you do that leaves a negative mark.

[also people need to stop assuming that when i say something it applies to all blacks in general. it's just relative guys...]


^this is exactly what is happening in this country. Browns case is partially related to that as well. And unfortunately we aren't doing anything to fix the big issue, the cause of things. That's what i meant by culture. everyone want changes overnight, no one wants to do the marathon



Well I'm glad my tattoos and piercings stopped me from becoming a class officer in a med school that's 90% white, president of multiple organizations, toastmaster winner, and a very highly rate resident (from my evaluations and scores). Haha You do not know what you're talking about.
 
Unorthodox police procedures emerge in grand jury documents
When Ferguson, Mo., police officer Darren Wilson left the scene of the shooting of unarmed teenager Michael Brown, the officer returned to the police station unescorted, washed blood off his hands and placed his recently fired service revolver into an evidence bag himself.
The transcript showed that local officers who interviewed Wilson immediately after the shooting did not tape the conversations and sometimes conducted them with other police personnel present. An investigator with the St. Louis County Medical Examiner’s office testified that he opted not to take measurements at the crime scene.
When Wilson returned to the police department after the shooting, he was permitted to drive by himself. No one photographed his bloodied hands before he washed up at the station because “there was no photographer available.”

Later, injuries to Wilson’s head caused by punches he said were thrown by Brown were photographed by a local detective at the Fraternal Order of Police building, not at police headquarters.

An FBI agent interviewed by the grand jury said he did tape his interview with Wilson. The agent, who was not identified, said Wilson washed up immediately after the shooting because he was worried about the danger presented by some one else’s blood, not about preserving evidence.
Wilson ultimately said he fired two shots inside the vehicle. After one shot fired he noticed shattered glass and saw blood on his hand, an indication, he said, that Brown had been hit.

However, a Ferguson police officer and a detective with the St. Louis County Police said that Wilson told them only shot was fired inside the car. The two officers – one a 38-year veteran of the Ferguson police force and the other a county detective -- were among the first to talk with Wilson after the fatal shooting. Wilson and the other officers said the weapon failed to fire multiple times inside the vehicle.

There was also confusion in the official police testimony about whether Brown was carrying cigarillos at the time of his encounters with Wilson.
Why does this sound more and more like a fraternal cover-up?
 
Oh really -
Well, let me tell you a little story. I have done nothing but serve this population my entire career. Since I was 15 years old and first got involved in EMS, I have been working to take care of these people. I am the one providing the medical care, and I am the one paying for it. I paid my way through college working as a paramedic on the weekends because I didn't get any special treatment or scholarship. Instead, I worked. Out in the streets, in the midst of the fights, the crime, the shootings and the stabbings. I have been in their homes, I have been in their churches and their schools. I have seen the way these people treat police officers. They are hardly the Davids.

And what do I get in return? Well, perhaps it could be when I was shot in the hand in a random drive-by at age 19. Or maybe it was the time my house was robbed while living in the hood because it is all I could afford while trying to pay for college. Or maybe my car being broken into time and again while at work, in the hospital, treating this same population.

Im tired of it all. There is a behavior issue here. I have watched it for 18 years and it has not changed in the least. Police officers do not go on shift with the intent to brutalize or target anyone. They respond to 911 calls as they are received and respond to each situation in the best way possible to keep themselves and the public safe. A police officer should NEVER be placed in the position of having to holster their weapons specifically when dealing with a segment of the population that time and again proves themselves to be a danger to the public. That is absolutely ludicrous!!

They are NOT the DAVIDS!! They are NOT the VICTIMS!!

My jewish ancestors fled Germany prior to the holocaust. Im white, but my family had no slaves. No, instead they were trying to escape the gas chamber. Its time for this population to put on their big boy pants and move past the injustices of the past. What else can us middle class white folks offer? What else can we possibly put on a silver platter that would satisfy these people?

Christ, get this buffoon administration out of office !!!


What does any of this have to do with the kid getting shot by the cop.

The issue isn't whether Brown was justified in his actions or not. The issue is that he wasn't even indicting.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-federal-grand-jury-not-indicting-visualized/
 
What does any of this have to do with the kid getting shot by the cop.

The issue isn't whether Brown was justified in his actions or not. The issue is that he wasn't even indicting.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-federal-grand-jury-not-indicting-visualized/

How do you feel when you get sued for a bad outcome when you did your job correctly As trained? Now better yet, what if your bad outcome also meant you had to quit your job, leave the profession and fear for your life for at least the next 10 years?

You don't bring an indictment when no crime was committed.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: jwk
None of you have jobs where you have to worry about going home at night. Unless you have been victimized by these scum, you have no right to judge the officer's response as inappropriate.

Risk is part of the job. Every day for the last 13 or so years, a bunch of mostly 19-25 year olds serving in Afghanistan and Iraq, facing a violent enemy desperate to kill them (or worse, abduct and torture then kill them) have accepted very restrictive rules of engagement, which require clear hostile intent before you can open fire. Many are dead because they waited to see clear intent or even for the other guy to shoot first, rather than risk killing innocent people.

Why can't the police adhere to at least that standard - especially in a non war zone, in the absence of devoted ideological enemies sworn to kill them?

I've seen Marines exercise extraordinary restraint and caution, accepting very real personal risk, when dealing with angry people whose intent is unclear. Damn if I won't demand at least the same kind of restraint and caution from a CIVILIAN police officer sworn to serve and protect my fellow American citizens in our own cities. If they can't handle that, they should find a new line of work.
 
What does any of this have to do with the kid getting shot by the cop.

The issue isn't whether Brown was justified in his actions or not. The issue is that he wasn't even indicting.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-federal-grand-jury-not-indicting-visualized/

We shouldn't indict people when there isn't enough evidence to support a conviction, just to make people feel better.

Because that worked out so well with George Zimmerman. We could extend this circus with another absurd trial and another farce of a prosecution, and have the same protests and civil unrest following an acquittal.


I have no idea what really happened or if Brown deserved to get shot. From the evidence made public, however, not indicting the officer is the correct decision.
 
Careful. Being convicted/cleared of a crime does not necessarily mean that one is guilty/innocent, just that one had worse/better lawyers, or was presented as less/more sympathetic to the jury.

We, as a society, still treat a lot of people like the hunchback of Notre-Dame.

Careful? The grand jury heard days of testimony. All they needed was a "probable cause" to indict, not "beyond a reasonable doubt". And they found nothing to warrant it. We can say that some criminals get off, but we can flip it around and say some innocent folks get put behind bars too. At the end of the day, we need to let the justice system to do it's job, and it did.

As far as "unbelievable stories", I find it pretty unbelievable that a kid robs a convenient store (corroborated with evidence), assaults the clerk (corroborated withe evidence), defiantly walks down the middle of the street (corroborated by witnesses), defies a police officer, assaults the police officer (corroborated by evidence), and attempts to struggle for the officers' gun (corroborated by evidence) all of a sudden had a moment of clarity and put his hands in the air to surrender before being gunned down in cold blood. The logical ending to the story is that he continued his pattern of reckless decision-making that ultimately ended in his death, and the hard evidence suggests that as well. That is why there was no indictment.
 
Because initially nobody from the police talked about the robbery, suggesting that it is a police afterthought. The initial story was about jaywalking, and only much later the police published the video capture from the store, and even then just to prove Michael Brown's character.

Had officer Wilson said publicly "I tried to arrest a robbery suspect and he became violent" from the beginning, on day 1, things wouldn't have escalated like this.

You have no evidence that things wouldn't have escalated. None at all. Protests were already rowdy before the video was released. Protocol was followed by the police department in that the officer involved was asked to save all his testimony for the grand jury. That's what he did. Nothing wrong with releasing hard evidence that depicts antisocial behavior of a man minutes before initiating a violent struggle with a police officer that ended in his death.
 
Risk is part of the job. Every day for the last 13 or so years, a bunch of mostly 19-25 year olds serving in Afghanistan and Iraq, facing a violent enemy desperate to kill them (or worse, abduct and torture then kill them) have accepted very restrictive rules of engagement, which require clear hostile intent before you can open fire. Many are dead because they waited to see clear intent or even for the other guy to shoot first, rather than risk killing innocent people.

Why can't the police adhere to at least that standard - especially in a non war zone, in the absence of devoted ideological enemies sworn to kill them?

I've seen Marines exercise extraordinary restraint and caution, accepting very real personal risk, when dealing with angry people whose intent is unclear. Damn if I won't demand at least the same kind of restraint and caution from a CIVILIAN police officer sworn to serve and protect my fellow American citizens in our own cities. If they can't handle that, they should find a new line of work.

So Officer Wilson should have just let Michael Brown beat the crap out of him? How many times should a punk punch a cop before it becomes an illegal act and he can defend himself?
 
Careful? The grand jury heard days of testimony. All they needed was a "probable cause" to indict, not "beyond a reasonable doubt". And they found nothing to warrant it. We can say that some criminals get off, but we can flip it around and say some innocent folks get put behind bars too. At the end of the day, we need to let the justice system to do it's job, and it did.

As far as "unbelievable stories", I find it pretty unbelievable that a kid robs a convenient store (corroborated with evidence), assaults the clerk (corroborated withe evidence), defiantly walks down the middle of the street (corroborated by witnesses), defies a police officer, assaults the police officer (corroborated by evidence), and attempts to struggle for the officers' gun (corroborated by evidence) all of a sudden had a moment of clarity and put his hands in the air to surrender before being gunned down in cold blood. The logical ending to the story is that he continued his pattern of reckless decision-making that ultimately ended in his death, and the hard evidence suggests that as well. That is why there was no indictment.
No, that's not the reason. The reason is that the indictment was pursued by a prosecutor coming from a cop family, with a cop father who was gunned down when he was 13, with cop uncles, who hasn't indicted one cop in 23 years of activity. Capisci? That's why people are rioting.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So Officer Wilson should have just let Michael Brown beat the crap out of him? How many times should a punk punch a cop before it becomes an illegal act and he can defend himself?
If feeling threatened, officer Wilson should have driven away until reinforcements came, not play John Wayne. This was an execution, not self-defense. Before the lethal shot to the head, 153 feet from the police car, the witnesses described the victim as staggering, obviously going down, hence definitely not a threat anymore. The shot to the head so far from the police car should have prompted an indictment in any civilized country.

Did you see the photos from the medical examiner? Officer Wilson had just a couple of facial bruises. That's how badly beaten he was. The reason to empty 6 bullets into his victim were two facial contusions. Life-threatening contusions they were.

http://www.businessinsider.com/darren-wilson-injuries-grand-jury-2014-11

darren-wilson-5.jpg


rtr4ffr5.jpg


rtr4ffr7.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So he should have just let Michael Brown beat the **** out of him and all is well?
So Officer Wilson should have just let Michael Brown beat the crap out of him? How many times should a punk punch a cop before it becomes an illegal act?

Don't be obtuse.

The quote I replied to was:
None of you have jobs where you have to worry about going home at night. Unless you have been victimized by these scum, you have no right to judge the officer's response as inappropriate.
and I'm disagreeing that I (we) have no right to demand that officers exercise restraint and attempt to de-escalate and defuse confrontations.

If indeed Brown did assault the officer then of course the officer should respond with the minimum force required to stop that threat. And I'd give wide discretion and the benefit of the doubt to the officer who has to make an instant decision regarding the level of force to use. That's not blank check approval ... and it's not reflexive condemnation of lethal force, either.

Brown was a large guy; we know from the robbery video he was willing to threaten, intimidate, and use force. If he hit me, I'd shoot him too. (If I'd been the store clerk and he'd done to me what he did to the clerk on the video, I'd have shot him.)

If the officer had time to safely disengage and call for backup, he should have done that. Brown was clearly not committing a felony at the moment and was no immediate threat to anyone else. If nothing else, attempting to forcibly apprehend a large suspect, alone, surrounded by other people, was unwise. Bad police work.


I am simply arguing that police officers must accept some risk - indeed, MORE risk than a citizen who is not a police officer - when dealing with the public, and that JLM's statement that I have no right to pass judgment on the level of force a public servant uses against a citizen is, well, crap.
 
There is only one kind of logic [formal].

What's interesting about your perspective is it places the actions of Brown on the Officer; where, in reality people exercise their own agency independent of others. Also, you make judgements based on a retrospective vantage point that is not possible with our uni-linear perception of time.

The premise of your arguement is that crime is acceptable in a society if the harm of enforcing the law may be greater than not enforcing law. This relies on a retrospective analysis to be effective and rewards people who break laws and react violently when stopped. I don't agree that satisfies the requirements for justice.

Your position is good. I am a principle-based person too. Thing is, real life requires sound judgment calls, many times in a matter of seconds or minutes. You have to try to evaluate and treat certain areas in a sense, like DMZs, where there may be an overriding authority, but prudence and great caution is required for the sake of the civilization and individuals within it. In some cases, it may be straight up and forward what has to be done. In other situations, it's not so clear--and you have to approach it with good assessment skills and much caution. Reasonable cause should be balanced with wisdom. Of course, as a practical matter, any confrontation would have been better with police as a team/partners in the approach. This practical matter annoys me most of all. I don't think police officers serving in these areas, even on a regular basis, should be doing so alone, period. Also, I continue to believe Michael was influenced by drugs. No one would be idiotic enough to run to attack a PO holding a gun unless they were hyped on drugs or somehow snapped psychologically.

I don't know the whole deal out there; but they didn't even use good sense with the National Guard. I looked at the situation on the news and kept thinking, stunods! If this is how their authority handles larger craziness--as what transpired last night, it is no surprise if they fall short as they serve and protect on a daily basis. Better leadership and wisdom seems lacking.
 
FFP,

His testimony was that he is required to pursue the person in the act of crime, who was also his assailant. In that regard, that would be the PO's job--regardless of color or anything else. But in this particular area, given the history, it only makes sense that these officers should go out in no less than twos IMHO. Budget restraints are probably a part of this situation--that and crappy leadership.

Having said all of that, we would be foolish to presume that bigotry is no longer an issue. But Al Sharpton is only hurting America. There is indeed something to the point of cultural issues as well. Hate on hate, in either direction is a MAJOR fail, and the media needs to approach this with wisdom and balanced thinking.
 
Why did the cop get out of the car in pursuit of the suspect, if he was afraid for his life? Why not call for reinforcements? Because he's the sheriff in the latest Western movie? No, because he knows that he can shoot that suspect, if needed, and get away with it. Macho, macho, macho man...

Because an officer is required to give pursuit to a suspect if he can safely do so. At that point you can't just sit in your car and let him get away, you have to give pursuit.
 
If feeling threatened, officer Wilson should have driven away until reinforcements came, not play John Wayne. This was an execution, not self-defense. Before the lethal shot to the head, 153 feet from the police car, the witnesses described the victim as staggering, obviously going down, hence definitely not a threat anymore. The shot to the head so far from the police car should have prompted an indictment in any civilized country.

I'm sorry, but what does the distance from the car have to do with anything? He was a fleeing suspect being pursued on foot. Where the car was parked is irrelevant.

You calling it an "execution" is just a terrible, terrible use of words. There is ZERO evidence to suggest that Brown didn't attack the officer in his car and then double back to charge towards him after initially fleeing. You can't call it an execution when a robbery suspect assaults a cop, disobeys direct orders from that cop, and then flees on foot.

And WTF does where the suspect got shot have to do with whether or not a use of force was justified? If I was an officer and had shot somebody who weighed nearly 300 lbs and they were still coming after me and not responding to direct commands to get down (which witnesses heard clearly from a distance), I'd be aiming for head or chest to get the confrontation over with. You don't stop shooting when they still coming at you because they are coming to kill you, not shake your hand or offer to talk about it.

So yes, Michael Brown was going to try to kill the officer. There is no other explanation for him after already having been shot to double back and charge at him. And keep in mind, this is reportedly an officer that has never even fired his weapon in the line of duty. It's not like some trigger happy guy looking to unload rounds in to people at the first provocation.
 
We shouldn't indict people when there isn't enough evidence to support a conviction, just to make people feel better.

Because that worked out so well with George Zimmerman. We could extend this circus with another absurd trial and another farce of a prosecution, and have the same protests and civil unrest following an acquittal.


I have no idea what really happened or if Brown deserved to get shot. From the evidence made public, however, not indicting the officer is the correct decision.

Well, that's the whole problem. There was not a need to show "enough evidence to support a conviction". The only need was to show probable cause. The experts seem to agree

http://us7.campaign-archive1.com/?u=b493e6c4d31beda32fdaf8e2d&id=73514e334b
 
Well, that's the whole problem. There was not a need to show "enough evidence to support a conviction". The only need was to show probable cause. The experts seem to agree

http://us7.campaign-archive1.com/?u=b493e6c4d31beda32fdaf8e2d&id=73514e334b


Why exactly is the National Bar Association "the expert" on this matter?

"The National Bar Association was founded in 1925 and is the nation's oldest and largest national network of predominantly African-American attorneys and judges"


The actual experts I've seen suggest that there was very little chance that any grand jury would ever send this to trial from the evidence provided. All the physical evidence and credible witnesses supported the officer's version of events.
 
I'm sorry, but what does the distance from the car have to do with anything? He was a fleeing suspect being pursued on foot. Where the car was parked is irrelevant.

You calling it an "execution" is just a terrible, terrible use of words. There is ZERO evidence to suggest that Brown didn't attack the officer in his car and then double back to charge towards him after initially fleeing. You can't call it an execution when a robbery suspect assaults a cop, disobeys direct orders from that cop, and then flees on foot.

And WTF does where the suspect got shot have to do with whether or not a use of force was justified? If I was an officer and had shot somebody who weighed nearly 300 lbs and they were still coming after me and not responding to direct commands to get down (which witnesses heard clearly from a distance), I'd be aiming for head or chest to get the confrontation over with. You don't stop shooting when they still coming at you because they are coming to kill you, not shake your hand or offer to talk about it.

So yes, Michael Brown was going to try to kill the officer. There is no other explanation for him after already having been shot to double back and charge at him. And keep in mind, this is reportedly an officer that has never even fired his weapon in the line of duty. It's not like some trigger happy guy looking to unload rounds in to people at the first provocation.
The distance has to do with everything. First of all, it goes against the story that the police officer was afraid for his life while in the car. Because that's what he said. You don't pursue a suspect you are scared of. You pursue a suspect you want to teach a lesson. If you're scared for your life, you wait for backup.

It was an execution because he didn't need to empty the sixth bullet in the suspect's head, when he was already falling (that's what more than one witness said). This is how you get a posterior-anterior trajectory for the bullet. That's an execution. And he clearly said he aimed for the head.

At the time he shot Michael Brown, he did not know Brown was a felony suspect. That's absolutely clear from the initial police communicates. So, for all purposes, everything escalated from the jaywalking incident. Which suggests just bad policing. Again.

The entire flow of events, the secrecy and contradictions from the police, the horrendous prosecuting, all suggest that they were trying hard to cover up just another police killing. It's shameful, or shameless, you call it anyway you want. This should not be the Wild Wild West. And again, why is a 28 year-old white kid policing alone a 70% black poor neighborhood? Also, does that kid look to you as one that would impose respect to uneducated (African American) males? We should stop this PC bull**** where anybody can be anything if they go to the right school/academy.

I personally don't want this kind of police officer on my street. I want true community police. But that's just me.

Stop expecting poor uneducated people to behave by the same standards as us. They are angry and resentful towards the establishment, so they won't just do whatever a police officer says, just because of his badge. Especially when they feel harassed for being black while jaywalking. Because that's what they think. And a good police officer should be sensitive to that, even if he has sacrifice his pride.
 
Because an officer is required to give pursuit to a suspect if he can safely do so. At that point you can't just sit in your car and let him get away, you have to give pursuit.
Of course you can sit in the car and pursue from a safe distance, while calling in backup. Again, if you were truly afraid for your life when he assaulted you in the car in the first place.

Michael Brown was not initially stopped because he was a robbery suspect. They did not invent this until days after. He was stopped because he was jaywalking, And that's the key, that's why people were/are rioting.
 
Of course you can sit in the car and pursue from a safe distance, while calling in backup. Again, if you were truly afraid for your life when he assaulted you in the car in the first place.

Michael Brown was not initially stopped because he was a robbery suspect. They did not invent this until days after. He was stopped because he was jaywalking, And that's the key, that's why people were/are rioting.

This pretty much sums it up.

Sola Civitas: The Left Favors the State Over the People in Ferguson
By: Erick Erickson (Diary) | November 26th, 2014 at 04:30 AM | 6


Michael Brown was a thief. He had used drugs, robbed a store, punched a cop, then the cop fatally shot him. Those are the facts.

To the left, that Officer Wilson was not found guilty of killing Michael Brown was an outrage. It was an outrage too when George Zimmerman was found not guilty of killing Trayvon Martin.

Essentially, the left is opposed to the people and instead prefers left-wing Democrats to the citizenry in our democratic form of government. When a jury of peers, whether a petit jury or grand jury, does not see things the way the left sees things, the system has failed, the people are stupid, and the result is an injustice.

The Grand Jury that decided not to charge Officer Wilson with a crime was made up of individuals who were chosen and empaneled while Michael Brown was still alive. They could not have foreseen the events. They are not elected officials, but private citizens who are called upon by the government to serve in a capacity on behalf of their fellow citizens.

Their role is to exam the facts of crimes in a system heavily weighted toward prosecution of crimes. They weigh those facts and balance them with laws enacted by legislators outlining the parameters by which crimes are defined. If the facts do not measure up, there is no indictment.

The private citizens who gave up their time to become intimately familiar with the facts of the case and who interviewed all the witnesses and reviewed all the physical evidence are now being second guessed by armchair liberal pundits who want Officer Wilson charged. The left is now pushing a new line that Darren Wilson’s testimony just does not make sense. They ignore that the Grand Jury treated Darren Wilson’s testimony as that of a man trying to avoid an indictment. They weighed it less than other eyewitnesses and physical testimony.

But the left does not trust the private citizenry of the United States. They want to control what we eat, how we live, our doctor-patient relationships, and every other aspect of our lives. They favor massive bureaucracies of technocrats to the people.

From Obamacare to school lunches to big gulps to Ferguson, MO, the left thinks it must control the processes of our lives and, when the citizens deviate from what they want, the citizenry must be overridden. Democrats only support democracy when their finger is on the scale to their advantage.

As they have embraced their collectivist selves, they have rejected justice in favor of social justice. Officer Darren Wilson must be sacrificed to right an accumulation of wrongs he did not commit. He must be the scapegoat for the priests of the collective.

Leftism is more and more a secular religion. And in this secular religion, the people are not allowed to read and interpret the scriptures for themselves. They need intermediaries in the form of leftwing academics and Democratic Party leaders.

Christians have solus Christus, or Christ alone, and the left has now sola civitas, the state alone. The rest of us will be made to worship accordingly.

Nonetheless, Michael Brown was a thief who met his match in a bullet fired by a police officer just trying to do his job. The evidence shows this. But the left will not be placated until there is a sacrifice to the gods of social justice, what ever that is this week.
 
On the contrary - it's a civics lesson.
 
No, that's not the reason. The reason is that the indictment was pursued by a prosecutor coming from a cop family, with a cop father who was gunned down when he was 13, with cop uncles, who hasn't indicted one cop in 23 years of activity. Capisci? That's why people are rioting.

This makes zero sense and convinces me that you have an agenda. Violent riots were breaking out loooong before the prosecutor's aptitude and background became an issue. You know that.

Ferguson didn't want justice. They wanted a predetermined outcome and were going to riot with anything less than that.
 
Of course you can sit in the car and pursue from a safe distance, while calling in backup. Again, if you were truly afraid for your life when he assaulted you in the car in the first place.

Michael Brown was not initially stopped because he was a robbery suspect. They did not invent this until days after. He was stopped because he was jaywalking, And that's the key, that's why people were/are rioting.

According to grand jury testimony from the officer, in the process of stopping the suspect it became apparent that he was the suspect from the store robbery for which he was dispatched.
 
The distance has to do with everything. First of all, it goes against the story that the police officer was afraid for his life while in the car. Because that's what he said. You don't pursue a suspect you are scared of. You pursue a suspect you want to teach a lesson. If you're scared for your life, you wait for backup.

It was an execution because he didn't need to empty the sixth bullet in the suspect's head, when he was already falling (that's what more than one witness said). This is how you get a posterior-anterior trajectory for the bullet. That's an execution. And he clearly said he aimed for the head.

The idea that if you are afraid for your life while a suspect is assaulting your in your police cruiser that you should not then follow them after they run is just crazy. The fact that he is a police officer OBLIGATES him to follow, even if he was afraid during the initial confrontation. He can't just say "well that dude's crazy so I'm not going after him".

As for "he didn't need the sixth bullet in the ... head, when he was already falling". You don't know that and it's a subjective claim. Witness clearly state Brown was still coming towards him. There is NO physical evidence that suggests he shot the kid after he was down on the ground. You yourself pointed out how unreliable those witnesses can be so doesn't it seem like the maybe 1/2 of a second between where he was "charging" towards him as several witnesses claimed and he hit the ground would be a bit subjective as to how much he was still moving when the last shots were fired?

I mean if you have a near 300 lb person that has already assaulted you and is turning around and charging at for your more, you shoot until they aren't coming at you any more. I mean why was Brown running back at him and clearly ignoring commands that witnessess could clearly hear to stop and get down after he'd already been shot several times?
 
i think people dont realize that 1 punch from a 290 lb man can actually kill you. i know in movies they show ppl fighting for a yr, throwing punches at each others faces and still be fine.. but in reality 1 punch can kill, esp from a 290 lb man.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/ferguson-grand-jury-necessarily-bad-thing/story?id=27176127

^above interview w/ wilson. apparently its his first time firing his gun on duty. unfortunate that his first time led to something liek this
 
Oh really -
Well, let me tell you a little story. I have done nothing but serve this population my entire career. Since I was 15 years old and first got involved in EMS, I have been working to take care of these people. I am the one providing the medical care, and I am the one paying for it. I paid my way through college working as a paramedic on the weekends because I didn't get any special treatment or scholarship. Instead, I worked. Out in the streets, in the midst of the fights, the crime, the shootings and the stabbings. I have been in their homes, I have been in their churches and their schools. I have seen the way these people treat police officers. They are hardly the Davids.

And what do I get in return? Well, perhaps it could be when I was shot in the hand in a random drive-by at age 19. Or maybe it was the time my house was robbed while living in the hood because it is all I could afford while trying to pay for college. Or maybe my car being broken into time and again while at work, in the hospital, treating this same population.

Im tired of it all. There is a behavior issue here. I have watched it for 18 years and it has not changed in the least. Police officers do not go on shift with the intent to brutalize or target anyone. They respond to 911 calls as they are received and respond to each situation in the best way possible to keep themselves and the public safe. A police officer should NEVER be placed in the position of having to holster their weapons specifically when dealing with a segment of the population that time and again proves themselves to be a danger to the public. That is absolutely ludicrous!!

They are NOT the DAVIDS!! They are NOT the VICTIMS!!

My jewish ancestors fled Germany prior to the holocaust. Im white, but my family had no slaves. No, instead they were trying to escape the gas chamber. Its time for this population to put on their big boy pants and move past the injustices of the past. What else can us middle class white folks offer? What else can we possibly put on a silver platter that would satisfy these people?

Christ, get this buffoon administration out of office !!!

I love, how you take a SUBSET of a black population and extrapolate this into the ENTIRE BLACK population.

Well, I have taken care of hillbilly, redneck, trailer trash White folks who behave just as badly as the ghetto/hood Black people. These people tend to be lazy, meth/drug addicted, ignorant ass, uneducated white people who leech off the Government Welfare. These people come to the ER to seek drugs. These people are buying stuff on EBT cards that I as an African American, hardworking tax payer is paying for just like you German Jewish self.

Stop acting like ALL BLACK PEOPLE are THESE PEOPLE.

I worked my way thru school as well. Joined the military, became a nurse and put myself thru school without any special treatment. I did not get a SPECIAL BLACK PEOPLE SCHOLARSHIP to got to school, but paid for it myself and came out with six figures in debt. I know no one who got a special black person scholarships. Guess what, the majority of the African American population are poor and therefore do not even pursue college due to financial hardships. And why are the poor? Please read my previous post.

THESE PEOPLE, are your neighbors, teachers, your nurses, your doctor's as well. THESE PEOPLE do not live in a vacuum world of their own.

I bet you are the scared ass White person who steps to the other side of the sidewalk whenever a black male approaches you from the other direction in fear for your life. Because THESE PEOPLE ARE A DANGER TO THE PUBLIC.

What a racist statement to make. And you, as a Jewish person, whose ancestors were persecuted and put in the Gas Chamber solely because of their race are continuing to perpetrate the myth of THESE PEOPLE.

Really? Maybe you should go find yourself a nice Jewish Country and live there in peace away from all THESE DANGEROUS PEOPLE. Oh yeah, there is a country like that, and last I heard, they were busy killing all the Muslims in the West Bank. Yeah, THOSE PEOPLE.

Stop spewing racist crap and look in the mirror. You are no better than THESE PEOPLE.

What's a White person to do? HMM, What you should be asking is WHAT IS THE HUMAN RACE, as in EVERY TYPE OF AMERICAN to do to try and fix a very complicated problem amongst a community that has suffered years of injustice and continues to be marginalized even today.
 
Last edited:
Risk is part of the job. Every day for the last 13 or so years, a bunch of mostly 19-25 year olds serving in Afghanistan and Iraq, facing a violent enemy desperate to kill them (or worse, abduct and torture then kill them) have accepted very restrictive rules of engagement, which require clear hostile intent before you can open fire. Many are dead because they waited to see clear intent or even for the other guy to shoot first, rather than risk killing innocent people.

Why can't the police adhere to at least that standard - especially in a non war zone, in the absence of devoted ideological enemies sworn to kill them?

I've seen Marines exercise extraordinary restraint and caution, accepting very real personal risk, when dealing with angry people whose intent is unclear. Damn if I won't demand at least the same kind of restraint and caution from a CIVILIAN police officer sworn to serve and protect my fellow American citizens in our own cities. If they can't handle that, they should find a new line of work.
Off topic,
but is that why there is 100,000 plus civilians dead...? Because they followed the rules of "restrictive engagement" right?
 
The idea that if you are afraid for your life while a suspect is assaulting your in your police cruiser that you should not then follow them after they run is just crazy. The fact that he is a police officer OBLIGATES him to follow, even if he was afraid during the initial confrontation. He can't just say "well that dude's crazy so I'm not going after him".

As for "he didn't need the sixth bullet in the ... head, when he was already falling". You don't know that and it's a subjective claim. Witness clearly state Brown was still coming towards him. There is NO physical evidence that suggests he shot the kid after he was down on the ground. You yourself pointed out how unreliable those witnesses can be so doesn't it seem like the maybe 1/2 of a second between where he was "charging" towards him as several witnesses claimed and he hit the ground would be a bit subjective as to how much he was still moving when the last shots were fired?

I mean if you have a near 300 lb person that has already assaulted you and is turning around and charging at for your more, you shoot until they aren't coming at you any more. I mean why was Brown running back at him and clearly ignoring commands that witnessess could clearly hear to stop and get down after he'd already been shot several times?

Exactly. He was a suspect in a robbery and now had physically assaulted a police officer.

I don't recall too many episodes of Cops that went like "The suspect is fleeing on foot. I'm going to pursue. On second thought, I'll remain in my car and wait for more officers to arrive."

It also bears mentioning that Wilson's testimony is corroborated by expert analysis that Brown was moving towards the officer as he was being shot by a 20 foot trail of blood trailing behind him away from the officer.

This is also relevant because it blows up his friend's on-scene testimony that Brown was not moving towards The officer and never did. It makes him a liar whose testimony shouldn't even be considered and probably wasn't. He committed perjury.

Wonder why many of the witnesses refused to testify under oath for fear of retaliation. It probably wasn't because they were going to corroborate Michael Brown being the victim.
 
This pretty much sums it up.

Sola Civitas: The Left Favors the State Over the People in Ferguson
By: Erick Erickson (Diary) | November 26th, 2014 at 04:30 AM | 6


Michael Brown was a thief. He had used drugs, robbed a store, punched a cop, then the cop fatally shot him. Those are the facts.

To the left, that Officer Wilson was not found guilty of killing Michael Brown was an outrage. It was an outrage too when George Zimmerman was found not guilty of killing Trayvon Martin.

Essentially, the left is opposed to the people and instead prefers left-wing Democrats to the citizenry in our democratic form of government. When a jury of peers, whether a petit jury or grand jury, does not see things the way the left sees things, the system has failed, the people are stupid, and the result is an injustice.

The Grand Jury that decided not to charge Officer Wilson with a crime was made up of individuals who were chosen and empaneled while Michael Brown was still alive. They could not have foreseen the events. They are not elected officials, but private citizens who are called upon by the government to serve in a capacity on behalf of their fellow citizens.

Their role is to exam the facts of crimes in a system heavily weighted toward prosecution of crimes. They weigh those facts and balance them with laws enacted by legislators outlining the parameters by which crimes are defined. If the facts do not measure up, there is no indictment.

The private citizens who gave up their time to become intimately familiar with the facts of the case and who interviewed all the witnesses and reviewed all the physical evidence are now being second guessed by armchair liberal pundits who want Officer Wilson charged. The left is now pushing a new line that Darren Wilson’s testimony just does not make sense. They ignore that the Grand Jury treated Darren Wilson’s testimony as that of a man trying to avoid an indictment. They weighed it less than other eyewitnesses and physical testimony.

But the left does not trust the private citizenry of the United States. They want to control what we eat, how we live, our doctor-patient relationships, and every other aspect of our lives. They favor massive bureaucracies of technocrats to the people.

From Obamacare to school lunches to big gulps to Ferguson, MO, the left thinks it must control the processes of our lives and, when the citizens deviate from what they want, the citizenry must be overridden. Democrats only support democracy when their finger is on the scale to their advantage.

As they have embraced their collectivist selves, they have rejected justice in favor of social justice. Officer Darren Wilson must be sacrificed to right an accumulation of wrongs he did not commit. He must be the scapegoat for the priests of the collective.

Leftism is more and more a secular religion. And in this secular religion, the people are not allowed to read and interpret the scriptures for themselves. They need intermediaries in the form of leftwing academics and Democratic Party leaders.

Christians have solus Christus, or Christ alone, and the left has now sola civitas, the state alone. The rest of us will be made to worship accordingly.

Nonetheless, Michael Brown was a thief who met his match in a bullet fired by a police officer just trying to do his job. The evidence shows this. But the left will not be placated until there is a sacrifice to the gods of social justice, what ever that is this week.
This is world-class dumb. I lean pretty much center-right on most issues, I hate leftism and PC. I just don't believe the police officer.
 
This makes zero sense and convinces me that you have an agenda. Violent riots were breaking out loooong before the prosecutor's aptitude and background became an issue. You know that.

Ferguson didn't want justice. They wanted a predetermined outcome and were going to riot with anything less than that.
I don't have any agenda. Why would I have one, on a medical student forum? Seriously, did you think long and hard before you said "Eureka!"?

They rioted initially because the kid was shot in the head and left in the street for hours. They riot(ed) because they were/are dumb and/or uneducated. But having a white prosecutor with an agenda (given his history), and seeing all the powerful white people of Missouri threatening them some more, seeing all the militarized untrained cocky police (not National Guard, just police) definitely did not help.
 
This is world-class dumb. I lean pretty much center-right on most issues, I hate leftism and PC. I just don't believe the police officer.
Darren Wilson was one of 60 witnesses that appeared before the grand jury. One person's testimony clearly didn't make or break this case, and it shouldn't. The grand jury had to decide the credibility of the witnesses they heard. City, county, state, and federal law enforcement agencies were involved in the interviewing of all the witnesses that testified. This case couldn't even get past probable cause (a much lower standard than "beyond a reasonable doubt") to indict - do you really think it would ever come to a conviction?
 
According to grand jury testimony from the officer, in the process of stopping the suspect it became apparent that he was the suspect from the store robbery for which he was dispatched.
What do you want him to say? "I killed him and I deserve to be tried for it"?

Nobody even mentioned Michael Brown was a robbery suspect until next day, when they put out a screen capture with him. All they talked about was being stopped for jaywalking.

Listen, I am not a fan of Michael Brown. I am just not a fan of police brutality either and, as a foreigner, I think we give way too much credit to the police in this country. The (Missouri) law is definitely on officer Wilson's side, as the aberrant Supreme Court precedent which I quoted pointed it out. And the law, as it is in many states, is not right (look it up for yourselves); it protects the police incredibly more than the regular citizen who actually was shot/killed.

Because people think I have an agenda (and not just respectfully disagree), I will stop commenting on this (and politics in general). Good night!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

pros·e·cu·tor

noun \ˈprä-si-ˌkyü-tər\
: a lawyer who represents the side in a court case that accuses a person of a crime and who tries to prove that the person is guilty


The modus of operandi of prosecutors across the US has always been to make cases against possible defendants. It has never been the duty of a prosecutor to go out of their way to not make a case against a possible defendant, to exonerate an individual. Whatever your position is, the definition of what a prosecutor does is a fact.
McCulloch went against the norms. Instead of being enthusiastic to file charges against the possible defendant, Wilson, he was more eager to explain why no charges would be filed against Wilson. When a prosecutor sounds more like the defense attorney of the accused, it speaks to a major problem. Prosecutors are not supposed to clear individuals of wrongdoing, they are supposed to look for any suggestion of wrongdoing even if the evidence is little. That is how it always has been, fair or not fair. The absence of McCulloch's motivation to do the job he has taken speaks to the larger problem of discrimination in the Ferguson justice system.
 
Last edited:
Darren Wilson was one of 60 witnesses that appeared before the grand jury. One person's testimony clearly didn't make or break this case, and it shouldn't. The grand jury had to decide the credibility of the witnesses they heard. City, county, state, and federal law enforcement agencies were involved in the interviewing of all the witnesses that testified. This case couldn't even get past probable cause (a much lower standard than "beyond a reasonable doubt") to indict - do you really think it would ever come to a conviction?
I knew it would not come to a conviction due the current justice system in Missouri.

Minor correction. Federal law enforcement of the Justice Department are still conducting a separate investigation that is independent from the state of Missouri and Ferguson police department.
 
Exactly. He was a suspect in a robbery and now had physically assaulted a police officer.

I don't recall too many episodes of Cops that went like "The suspect is fleeing on foot. I'm going to pursue. On second thought, I'll remain in my car and wait for more officers to arrive."

It also bears mentioning that Wilson's testimony is corroborated by expert analysis that Brown was moving towards the officer as he was being shot by a 20 foot trail of blood trailing behind him away from the officer.

This is also relevant because it blows up his friend's on-scene testimony that Brown was not moving towards The officer and never did. It makes him a liar whose testimony shouldn't even be considered and probably wasn't. He committed perjury.

Wonder why many of the witnesses refused to testify under oath for fear of retaliation. It probably wasn't because they were going to corroborate Michael Brown being the victim.

Is this serious?
 
Top Bottom