Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Police discrimination, misconduct, Ferguson, MO, the Roman Legion, and now math???

Police discrimination, misconduct, Ferguson, MO, the Roman Legion, and now math??? (Page 18)
Thread Tools
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 26, 2014, 02:21 PM
 
I want everybody to know I just as mad at all of you as pooka is for daring to have a dog in this race.

Shame on all of you.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 26, 2014, 02:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I feel like there are pieces missing from your argument.

What's the motivation for a prosecutor to leave a shit stain across their career to exonerate someone when they can protect their career and let the accused off with a GJ?
I think this case will leave a shit stain on the prosecutor's career no matter what he does: do you seriously think the people who are protesting are happy with the way he has handled the case? Do think he'll get their votes next time?
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I was thinking, this case amply demonstrates why electing prosecutors might not be the best policy. Maybe we should start appointing them, like justices.
Sure, that would help in my opinion. But it wouldn't entirely eliminate the problem, because very often prosecutors have to work with the police departments to build their cases. Something that will be hampered if he tries »one of their own«. But still, it'd be better.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 26, 2014, 02:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
There's tremendous pressure from a silent majority not to, as well.
That's true, and that's the reason why I wrote it was a »damned if you do, damned if you don't«-type of situation for the prosecutor.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 26, 2014, 02:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Do think he'll get their votes next time?
STL minorities don't vote

Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
But it wouldn't entirely eliminate the problem, because very often prosecutors have to work with the police departments to build their cases. Something that will be hampered if he tries »one of their own«. But still, it'd be better.
Internal affairs must get by somehow. Or maybe we need to appoint DA for the police and another for the people.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 26, 2014, 02:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I think this case will leave a shit stain on the prosecutor's career no matter what he does: do you seriously think the people who are protesting are happy with the way he has handled the case? Do think he'll get their votes next time?
A protestor is still just one vote in a booth.

The three possibilities were:

1) Not to indict
2) To hold a GJ
3) To indict and lose

I posit 1 and 3 are bigger shit stains.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 26, 2014, 02:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
[...] I posit 1 and 3 are bigger shit stains.
My point was that this is not a case a prosecutor clamors for because no matter what, the prosecutor won't emerge unscathed.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 26, 2014, 03:27 PM
 
And my point was the prosecutor is going to go for the option which leaves the shortest stain.

Unless I misunderstand, you seem to think the stain of indicting a cop and losing is equivalent to handing it off to a grand jury.

I see the damage from one as being far greater than the other, and have provided mechanisms for why that is.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 26, 2014, 03:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I don't think this applies here: there is tremendous public pressure to try this case. I'm sure every prosecutor in the county was dreading this case, because no matter what happens it'll leave shit stains on your career. Besides, the purpose of a trial is not just to make a conviction but to establish the »truth« in the eyes of the law.
Public pressure is irrelevant, and it should be. Emotion isn't a valid reason to push something to trial, the truth is, the GJ didn't find probable cause because there wasn't any.

PS. The law isn't about "the Truth", it's about facts and what can be proven.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 26, 2014, 04:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Public pressure is irrelevant, and it should be. Emotion isn't a valid reason to push something to trial, the truth is, the GJ didn't find probable cause because there wasn't any.
Up until the last subclause, I agree: the grand jury determined that according to them there wasn't any probably cause. That doesn't mean they were right or that grand juries composed of other people would reach the same conclusion. When I look at the case that was presented, it stinks of collusion. Like I wrote earlier, maybe the FPD just wanted to protect one of their own and make the evidence in the case more clearcut.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
PS. The law isn't about "the Truth", it's about facts and what can be proven.
I've never claimed that. I wrote »establishing the truth in the eyes of the law« (meaning it needs to be established with the help of evidence to the level that is relevant, e. g. beyond reasonable doubt, probable cause or preponderance of the evidence) -- which is very different from finding »the truth«. But establishing the truth in the eye of the law is one of the aims of a trial, and it surely may have helped to exonerate Wilson in case he wasn't guilty.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 26, 2014, 05:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Up until the last subclause, I agree: the grand jury determined that according to them there wasn't any probably cause. That doesn't mean they were right or that grand juries composed of other people would reach the same conclusion. When I look at the case that was presented, it stinks of collusion. Like I wrote earlier, maybe the FPD just wanted to protect one of their own and make the evidence in the case more clearcut.
I don't believe it stinks of collusion, it stinks of ignorance of the law and the misguided belief that desire = reality.

I've never claimed that. I wrote »establishing the truth in the eyes of the law« (meaning it needs to be established with the help of evidence to the level that is relevant, e. g. beyond reasonable doubt, probable cause or preponderance of the evidence) -- which is very different from finding »the truth«. But establishing the truth in the eye of the law is one of the aims of a trial, and it surely may have helped to exonerate Wilson in case he wasn't guilty.
There wasn't enough credible evidence to try him, why pump it up into yet another national "circus" trial? Wow, think about all the missed media opportunities, all the wailing and gnashing of teeth from special interest groups when the inevitable Not Guilty verdict gets handed down.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2014, 06:27 AM
 
A case for incitement to riot?

     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2014, 12:51 PM
 
If they'd put as much effort into raising their son (as they have trying to "get justice" for him) he'd be alive and happy today.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2014, 04:16 PM
 
Interestingly, having read through things, what happened in the car seems more pivotal than what happened afterwards WRT determining whether it's probable a crime was committed.

If Brown actually punched a cop in the face, the bar for the use of deadly force had been severely lowered. To the point where he could get killed merely by surrendering wrong, such as surrendering by coming to a stop and turning around.

I've seen it noted Wilson's injuries don't seem severe, and the (likely true) accusation he tarted it up as much as possible for the GJ. I see those as irrelevant. When you punch a cop you don't get to plead "it was just a love tap".
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2014, 04:23 PM
 
The only other explanation I see as possible is Wilson hit himself with Brown's fist during the tug-of-war. Even if that's probable, which I'm not sure it is, convincing a jury beyond a reasonable doubt of this is a stretch, considering the only evidence we have of this is Dorian Johnson saying he didn't see Brown punch Wilson.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2014, 05:51 PM
 
^^^^

In the middle of cooking Thanksgiving dinner so I don't have time to say much. But suffice it to say the hospital said Wilson was heathy and not in any kind of distress. Many people have noted that people with SUNBURN routinely look worse than Wilson did. And the largest red mark ... can't even call it a bruise ... was on his RIGHT cheek. The side of his face that was OPPOSITE side from Brown. Think about that one for a moment. One of his fellow cops could have easily slapped him on the way to the hospital to do that kind of "damage". And remember the private autopsy didn't show any damage to Browns hands that would indicate him punching someone In the face.

OAW
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2014, 05:58 PM
 
Could the damage on Wilson be faked? No question.

Is that probable? Ehhhh...


As for the side of the face Wilson was hit on, it's going to be most probable, Brown would have been able to punch better with the arm Wilson didn't have a hold of, no?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2014, 06:04 PM
 
I want to repeat though, punching a cop is punching a cop. How good the lick was is irrelevant. What's going to determine whether you live or die after doing that is going to be your relative body mass. A 130% advantage means the cop can reasonably say they're in fear for their life.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2014, 06:07 PM
 
Also, have a good dinner! Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours, sir!
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2014, 09:24 PM
 
"Punch a cop, lose your life"? This just jumped out at me. We all got punched in school, perhaps other times. Usually less since high school.

Have we adopted a class system, where a blue-uniform person can do what they like to us, but a single punch means a death sentence?

It's good advice not to punch a cop. But I don't like where the reasoning places us today. What if they demand bows, salutes, or full prostration from us lower classes, upon pain of death too?
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2014, 10:14 PM
 
Perspective. It's much more like, "punch a cop, go for his gun, lose your life". It's one of the fastest ways I know of to be fitted for a toe tag.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 28, 2014, 12:21 AM
 
As a civilian, a guy 130% my weight starts trying to pummel me, I'm in fear for my life. The only difference the cop angle makes is now I'm charged with the duty to stand my ground.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 28, 2014, 12:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Perspective. It's much more like, "punch a cop, go for his gun, lose your life". It's one of the fastest ways I know of to be fitted for a toe tag.
Going for the gun makes it an order of magnitude worse, but we only have Wilson's testimony on that.

With the punches, we have Wilson's testimony, Johnson's testimony things got very heated between Brown and Wilson (even though he didn't see a punch), marks on Wilson's face, and footage of Brown manhandling someone 10 minutes earlier.

The punches are probable, going for the gun is not.
     
Powerbook
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: München, Deutschland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 28, 2014, 09:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
He wasn't referring to Brown.
Yes he was. And since it doesn't seem to be clear, I make no differences between Brown the Gentle Giant and the brown gentle giants on the streets. The former managed to shuck and jive himself into a bullet, the latter trying to "avenge" him or whatever their crude, childish, thuggish reasoning behind this arson and violence is.
Aut Caesar aut nihil.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 28, 2014, 11:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Going for the gun makes it an order of magnitude worse, but we only have Wilson's testimony on that.
… and I don't think Wilson's testimony adds up. At the very least it sounds as if it has been embellished after the fact to justify the shooting.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 28, 2014, 11:48 AM
 
Hence my assertion the claim is not probable.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 28, 2014, 01:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Hence my assertion the claim is not probable.
You wrote that »the punches were probable while going for the gun was not«. I am not believing Wilson's whole testimony (including the punches) because his whole story (including the way he was punched) doesn't add up.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 28, 2014, 01:51 PM
 
I wrote the punches were probable because of four separate pieces of evidence. Wilson's testimony was only one of those pieces.

If you have counter-evidence which accounts for all four pieces, I'm all ears.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 28, 2014, 06:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
If you have counter-evidence which accounts for all four pieces, I'm all ears.
It's not clear to me whether there is evidence at all (apart from Wilson's testimony) that these injuries have been caused by Brown attacking him and what the circumstances were. And why would I need counter-evidence?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 28, 2014, 07:29 PM
 
I'm going to determine the probability of any given scenario based on the evidence at hand.

For my scenario we have:

1) Wilson's testimony
2) Marks on Wilson
3) Video of Brown assaulting someone a few minutes earlier
4) Johnson's testimony the exchange between them was, from his perspective, extraordinarily tense on both sides


For your scenario we have:

1) Wilson's testimony doesn't add up


If the term "counter-evidence" does not appeal to you, I don't know... is it wrong to ask for more "precision" in the argument with which you've reached your determination?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 28, 2014, 08:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm going to determine the probability of any given scenario based on the evidence at hand.
Your evidence does not conclusively point to Brown either:
Originally Posted by subego View Post
1) Wilson's testimony
… which I find not credible.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
2) Marks on Wilson
Equivocal evidence, their mere presence doesn't tell you who caused them and under what circumstances.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
3) Video of Brown assaulting someone a few minutes earlier
Unrelated to the injuries.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
4) Johnson's testimony the exchange between them was, from his perspective, extraordinarily tense on both sides
The fact that the situation was tense doesn't say anything about what has happened, including whether Brown attacked Wilson and caused the injuries or whether he was Wilson's victim.

With the exception of Wilson's testimony (which I don't find believable), none of the evidence in your list implicates Brown.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
If the term "counter-evidence" does not appeal to you, I don't know... is it wrong to ask for more "precision" in the argument with which you've reached your determination?
My comment was quite specific: I don't find Wilson's statement credible, because his story doesn't make sense and seems as if it has been embellished with details to help his case (e. g. that during the fight, Brown turned around, gave the stolen cigars to his friend and continued fighting, the fact that Brown supposedly taunted Wilson to shoot or that an unarmed Brown pretends to reach his imaginary weapon). Cui bono? I'm not claiming I have reached this conclusion »beyond reasonable doubt« or in satisfaction of other legal standards. But you don't have to be a lawyer or a juror to form such an opinion. The only way to know objectively what has happened if we had a video of the altercation -- which we don't, so all we have to go on is forensic evidence and witness accounts (including Wilson's, of course). The fact that some forensic evidence wasn't collected in the first place adds more question marks. Cui bono? Ditto for the reluctance of FPD to release information to the media. Again, this has nothing to do with being able to legally implicate someone, it's just a matter of common sense and perception.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 28, 2014, 08:49 PM
 
I'm discussing probability. This, by definition, excludes conclusivity from the discussion, no?

Also, the claim Brown stopped fighting to hand off the cigarillos was made by Johnson.



Edit: to be clear, the marks make it more probable Brown hit Wilson. The behavior displayed by Brown in the video makes it more probable he used physical violence at a later point. Johnson's testimony as to the extremity of Brown's behavior during the scuffle at Wilson's SUV makes it more probable he resorted to physical violence during the encounter.

Likewise, that Wilson (IMO) tarted his story up makes it less probable Brown hit him.
( Last edited by subego; Nov 28, 2014 at 09:20 PM. )
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 29, 2014, 12:56 AM
 
A second clarification, which is important enough to warrant its own post.

The most important piece of testimony is going to be from Dorian Johnson. If there's rope to hang Wilson, he's the one who has it.

If you take everything in Johnson's testimony at face value up until the point where Wilson fires inside the vehicle, Wilson, while being a huge asshole, hasn't done anything outside the legal boundaries of what a cop can do to you.

If at any time during this altercation Brown hit Wilson, then everything Wilson does up until he fires the first shot outside the vehicle is also within the legal bounds of what a cop can do to you. Again, to be clear, I am going 100% on Johnson's telling of events so far. I'm saying this is if Wilson has behaved exactly how his most hostile witness says he has.

The pivotal question is whether Brown hit Wilson.

By Johnson's own testimony, there were times he didn't see Brown's right hand. We can't just rely on his testimony because he states it's possible he didn't see the pivotal event. We're forced to look at other evidence, which is unsurprisingly going to be less hostile towards Wilson, as we've exhausted our most hostile option.

Essentially all the remaining evidence which has relevance to this encounter points to Brown having hit Wilson.

Johnson, again... most hostile witness, testified Brown was intensively resisting.

Brown displayed violent behavior shortly before.

Wilson has marks to the effect of being hit.

Wilson says he was hit. As I said above, there's a very low bar for how hard he needs to get hit for this to be reasonably considered a life threatening situation.

Similarly, the bar for a Grand Jury isn't "reasonable doubt", it's "probable cause". It needs to be improbable Wilson was hit.

I posit getting "improbable" out of the above four things requires something of an extraordinary argument, certainly something beyond Wilson laying it on thick (which was almost undoubtedly in his best interest to do).


Past the first shot outside of the vehicle, well... one pivotal moment at a time.
( Last edited by subego; Nov 29, 2014 at 01:42 AM. )
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 30, 2014, 12:08 PM
 
So, of the protesters who actually know how to read, do you think any have read the Grand Jury stuff ? Perhaps they just got the word from Al Sharpton, or Jesse Jackson.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 30, 2014, 02:18 PM
 
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 30, 2014, 04:40 PM
 
From the linked article.
Wilson recently was married to another Ferguson police officer, Barbara Spradling, 36. The couple are expecting their first child. Wilson said the department has asked that Spradling, a 12-year veteran, also resign. He said she has so far declined to do so.
Now there's departmental integrity. The wife has nothing to do with this. To my knowledge, she wasn't even nearby at the time.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 30, 2014, 04:54 PM
 
I think, similarly to what happened for the last municipality Wilson worked for, the whole FPD needs to be nuked and paved.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 30, 2014, 07:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
So, of the protesters who actually know how to read, do you think any have read the Grand Jury stuff ? Perhaps they just got the word from Al Sharpton, or Jesse Jackson.
Ultimately, this is McCullough's fault.

He was too much of a pussy to take the heat for not indicting Wilson, also known as his job. Instead, he gamed the **** out of the system to cover his own ass.

So, yeah. You can get to the part where Wilson shouldn't have been charged if you dig through two tons of shit McCullogh wheelbarrowed to deflect blame off himself.

I'm not mad at the people who think the Grand Jury was a joke. You reap what you sow.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 30, 2014, 08:45 PM
 
I'm going to have to disagree. Not that this is McCulloch's fault. That much is a given considering his history in STL. What I'm saying is that the issue is NOT whether Brown hit Wilson. What's undisputed is that there was some sort of scuffle at the car. Whether Brown or Wilson was the aggressor is completely irrelevant IMO. Because what we do know without question is that Wilson shot Brown at the car. In the hand? In the chest? Who knows? What matters is that he was shot. So then he takes off running for his life. OVER 150 FEET AWAY! Ran so hastily that he lost a flip flop in the process. So the PIVOTAL question in my view is whether someone who had ALREADY BEEN SHOT once ... and likely grazed again while he was fleeing ... will stop, turn around, and "charge" the police officer who is STILL SHOOTING at him? I call bullsh*t! Because we have no reason to believe an 18 year old who was about to start college on MONDAY was inclined to commit SUICIDE BY COP on the Saturday before. Just saying ...

OAW
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 30, 2014, 11:04 PM
 
I'm placing such importance on what happened inside the SUV because it so strongly effects how one interprets later events. A Wilson who was hit by Brown could be defending himself, a Wilson not hit by Brown is unquestionably a homicidal maniac. Regardless, my point wasn't to take away from the importance of events outside the vehicle, but draw attention to how the events inside the vehicle are more important than they would appear. Before reading Johnson's testimony and seeing the investigation map, I would have ranked the events outside the vehicle as most important. I was surprised by my change of opinion.

Where I challenge your argument is in focusing on Brown's intent. If the question at hand was whether Brown committed a crime (other than fleeing) once Wilson left the vehicle, then Brown's intent would come into play. We're not trying to answer that question though. We're trying to determine if Wilson committed a crime. It's his intent which concerns us.

What I argue is relevant to determining Wilson's probable intent is not Brown's actual intent, but the appearance of his intent.

Unfortunately for Brown, having probably precipitated a situation wherein a cop is now in fear for his life, hopped up on adrenaline, and has already fired his weapon inside his own vehicle, actions which were intended as compliance, and would appear to be compliance were it a non-violent suspect, no longer appear so.

An example of such an action would be stopping quickly from a flat-out run, pivoting, and throwing your arms up when the officer is right behind you.

Considering the proximity of the casings to the body, and presuming they weren't tampered with, we can conclude Brown was shot at a range where someone is capable of being a physical threat.
( Last edited by subego; Nov 30, 2014 at 11:36 PM. )
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 1, 2014, 09:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
From the linked article.

Now there's departmental integrity. The wife has nothing to do with this. To my knowledge, she wasn't even nearby at the time.
I agree that they shouldn't ask her to resign/fire her, even if she was nearby (so long as she wasn't involved in any wrongdoing). From a practical perspective, though, I think it'll be hard for Wilson and his wife to stay in the larger Ferguson area.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 1, 2014, 11:49 AM
 
Everyone's favorite disgraced police officer turned state representative has something we need to know
SLPOA condemns Rams display
Roorda warned, "I know that there are those that will say that these players are simply exercising their First Amendment rights. Well I've got news for people who think that way, cops have first amendment rights too, and we plan to exercise ours. I'd remind the NFL and their players that it is not the violent thugs burning down buildings that buy their advertiser's products. It's cops and the good people of St. Louis and other NFL towns that do. Somebody needs to throw a flag on this play. If it's not the NFL and the Rams, then it'll be cops and their supporters."
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 1, 2014, 11:50 AM
 
I see that the 14th Street Bridge and 12th Street tunnel into DC were blocked by protestors this morning. I guess they think THIS will have people supporting them with such stunts? The message is one black thug is more important than the typical young black man killing another young black man problem. This is why they shouldn't be listening to clowns like Sharpton, Jackson, Holder or Obama.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 1, 2014, 12:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
The message is one black thug is more important than the typical young black man killing another young black man problem.
The message is that those tasked to serve and protect seem to have a knack of doing the opposite.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 1, 2014, 12:57 PM
 
This is the type of utter stupidity that black males have to deal with on a daily basis. Certainly not every individual black male every single day. But plenty of black males somewhere in this country routinely deal with this type of racist insanity day in and day out.

On a brisk day around 4:30 p.m. in Pontiac, Mich., a black man was walking down the street with his hands in his pockets when a police officer stopped him. His charge: walking with his hands in his pockets.

This is not a joke.


Video of the incident, which has been making the rounds across social media, shows the cop, who also recorded the incident, explaining to the man that his walking around was "making people nervous. They said you had your hands in your pockets."

"Wow, walking by having your hands in your pockets makes people nervous [enough] to call the police, when it's snowing outside?" the unidentified man says. "There's 10,000 people in Pontiac right now with their hands in their pockets."

The Pontiac police officer acknowledges that the man is right but notes that "we do have a lot of robberies, so just checking on you. You're fine, you're good?" he asks.

Watch the man's reaction below:
Police Detain Man for Walking With Hands In Pockets While it Snows On Thanksgiving | YouTube.com

This type of foolishness goes back decades. I mentioned earlier in the thread about how black males were historically taught not to run in public outside of a sporting event lest certain members of the larger society assume they were stealing and trying to get away. Not walking around with your hands in your pockets was also taught as well for similar reasons. Though usually that was because you didn't want certain people assuming you were clutching a weapon. Which is why I found it odd that the officer went to the old "We've had a lot of robberies in the area" excuse. You see it was one thing for my father and his father to have this grilled into them since they grew up during Jim Crow. It's another for me to get similar lessons though not as much. But the fact that in 2014 I have to relay this same thing to my son just to minimize his chances of police interaction is just plain nuts.

OAW
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 1, 2014, 01:01 PM
 
You really can't make this stuff up ...

A man is facing a felony menacing charge after two western Colorado sheriff’s deputies say he pointed a banana at them and they thought it was a gun.

The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel reports 27-year-old Nathan Rolf Channing, of Fruitvale, was arrested Sunday.

According to an arrest affidavit, Mesa County deputies Joshua Bunch and Donald Love said they feared for their lives even though they saw that the object was yellow. Bunch wrote in the affidavit that he has seen handguns in many shapes and colors.
White man arrested after pointing banana at police for fun | theGrio

OAW
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 1, 2014, 01:07 PM
 
I want to see what yellow banana guns he's seen.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 1, 2014, 02:07 PM
 
So, its' not news when its black on black violence. OK, just trying to understand your priorities.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 1, 2014, 02:12 PM
 
I'm not sure what you're referencing.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 1, 2014, 02:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
So, its' not news when its black on black violence.
Statistically speaking, no, and neither is white on white. Politically speaking, they aren't failing at their job, either.

Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
OK, just trying to understand your priorities.
That is one bald faced lie. If you were, you'd realize I was explaining the protests and nothing about my 'priorities'.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 1, 2014, 02:30 PM
 
To put it bluntly, anyone who tries to elevate civilian on civilian murders as being equal to events where police officers use excessive force is transparently trying to change the subject.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:43 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,