Ferguson Megathread

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Meh, if it's a serious crime why not. Aim for the feet/legs and there's not much to worry about. People's homes are generally not underground, you know.

that's pretty ignorant. ever hear of ricochet? it was the middle of a summer day. there were lots of people on the street. anyone could have been killed.

sure, in a true emergency with a person endangering the lives of those people on the street--by shooting at them, perhaps-- it is justified to shoot to kill in order to save those lives. a kid who made a cop feel like a fool in his squad car? not justified.

I was not referring to this particular case and it has already been shown by 3 different autopsies that contrary to witness' statements, the kid was NOT shot whilst facing away.

Obviously if there are a lot of people on the street you won't shoot, duh.

Also, getting shot in the extremities could only be honestly classified as "lethal" if something like the femoral artery were struck.

[Ashmoria]

that's pretty ignorant. ever hear of ricochet? it was the middle of a summer day. there were lots of people on the street. anyone could have been killed.

sure, in a true emergency with a person endangering the lives of those people on the street--by shooting at them, perhaps-- it is justified to shoot to kill in order to save those lives. a kid who made a cop feel like a fool in his squad car? not justified.

I was not referring to this particular case and it has already been shown by 3 different autopsies that contrary to witness' statements, the kid was NOT shot whilst facing away.

Obviously if there are a lot of people on the street you won't shoot, duh.

Also, getting shot in the extremities could only be honestly classified as "lethal" if something like the femoral artery were struck.

the police don't shoot to wound. no one shoots to wound.

[The Cobalt Sky]

yeah. as our pro-Wilson posters point out it isn't uncommon for black men to get killed in this country. what IS unusual is to have no trial for the person who killed an unarmed black teen. the slap-in-the-face of letting Wilson walk without even having a trial is what made people lose it.

The part of the narrative of institutionalized killing of blacks or institutionalized "turning a blind eye" that doesn't add up is that it was not the system which failed here: evidence was brought before a grand jury to determine whether or not to indict the cop. Last time I checked a jury is formed not of supposedly corrupt or racist bureaucrats or government employees, but, *gasp* random citizens who are eligible. Yet somehow the police / judiciary are still to blame here for whatever reason amirite?

Is the grand jury anonymous? Is it even all white?

Random people can be racist. The prosecution could be terrible at prosecuting. Also, there's a such thing as an Uncle Tom.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

The part of the narrative of institutionalized killing of blacks or institutionalized "turning a blind eye" that doesn't add up is that it was not the system which failed here: evidence was brought before a grand jury to determine whether or not to indict the cop. Last time I checked a jury is formed not of supposedly corrupt or racist bureaucrats or government employees, but, *gasp* random citizens who are eligible. Yet somehow the police / judiciary are still to blame here for whatever reason amirite?

Is the grand jury anonymous? Is it even all white?

the grand jury was 12 people with 3 of them being African American. I don't know anything else about the demographics.

if you believe what you wrote you might want to look up articles on how a grand jury usually works. you will find it very different from what was done in this case.

Not really interested in doing that right now but will gladly listen, if you want to tell me that is.

Is a decision to indict made by unanimous vote as with verdicts?

[Gauthier]

Jay Nixon's political career has got to be toast at this point. This boob calls in the national guard a week in advance, has a good 8 hours to deploy the guard (between the announcement that the grand jury had reached a decision and the press conference revealing what the decision was) but at the moment of truth he sits there like a bump on a log and lets chaos reign.

I can't say for sure, but I'm 90% certain that his failure on this was a result of political pressure from some of the same idiots who were handwringing over the response to the lootfest in August.

if he runs for president the democrats could get the racist vote back.

Southern Strategy 2: Electric Boogaloo

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

The part of the narrative of institutionalized killing of blacks or institutionalized "turning a blind eye" that doesn't add up is that it was not the system which failed here: evidence was brought before a grand jury to determine whether or not to indict the cop. Last time I checked a jury is formed not of supposedly corrupt or racist bureaucrats or government employees, but, *gasp* random citizens who are eligible. Yet somehow the police / judiciary are still to blame here for whatever reason amirite?

Is the grand jury anonymous? Is it even all white?

Random people can be racist. The prosecution could be terrible at prosecuting. Also, there's a such thing as an Uncle Tom.

I've watched video(s) containing evidence that was supposedly shown to the grand jury ; among them there was a picture of a memorial to Brown (which between you and me is completely irrelevant but what still included by the prosecutor)

And if random people can be racist propose a different solution then.

And, really, an Uncle Tom?

[Ashmoria]

the grand jury was 12 people with 3 of them being African American. I don't know anything else about the demographics.

if you believe what you wrote you might want to look up articles on how a grand jury usually works. you will find it very different from what was done in this case.

Not really interested in doing that right now but will gladly listen, if you want to tell me that is.

Is a decision to indict made by unanimous vote as with verdicts?

I don't know if it needs to be unanimous. in most states the grand jury is GRAND because there are 18 jurors and the decision (its not a verdict) doesn't need to be unanimous. Missouri has its own rules.

the grand jury is ONLY for the purpose of making sure that there is enough evidence to indict. they don't weight evidence, they don't hear from the accused, they don't hear from all witnesses or see all evidence. they are given the basics and whatever amount of evidence that is needed to show that it is reasonable to send the accused to trial. it takes at most one day. its only there to keep the prosecutors from using their office to punish their enemies or harass unliked minorities.

[The Cobalt Sky]

Random people can be racist. The prosecution could be terrible at prosecuting. Also, there's a such thing as an Uncle Tom.

I've watched video(s) containing evidence that was supposedly shown to the grand jury ; among them there was a picture of a memorial to Brown (which between you and me is completely irrelevant but what still included by the prosecutor)

And if random people can be racist propose a different solution then.

And, really, an Uncle Tom?

There isn't much of a way around it. It's not an "if," it's definite. People are still racist.

[Ashmoria]

if he runs for president the democrats could get the racist vote back.

Southern Strategy 2: Electric Boogaloo

given that the party goes to the right every time they lose an election, it could happen.

[The Cobalt Sky]

Southern Strategy 2: Electric Boogaloo

given that the party goes to the right every time they lose an election, it could happen.

Heheh. I just got that.

[The UK in Exile]

that's pretty ignorant. ever hear of ricochet? it was the middle of a summer day. there were lots of people on the street. anyone could have been killed.

sure, in a true emergency with a person endangering the lives of those people on the street--by shooting at them, perhaps-- it is justified to shoot to kill in order to save those lives. a kid who made a cop feel like a fool in his squad car? not justified.

I was not referring to this particular case and it has already been shown by 3 different autopsies that contrary to witness' statements, the kid was NOT shot whilst facing away.

Obviously if there are a lot of people on the street you won't shoot, duh.

Also, getting shot in the extremities could only be honestly classified as "lethal" if something like the femoral artery were struck.

He could quite easily have been shot AT whilst facing away whilst only been HIT whilst facing the officer. Which would mean witness statements aren't contradicted by the physical evidence. In addition as testified by the families forensic pathologist. The injuries to his arms are consistent with being shot from either direction.

[Dyakovo]

yeah. as our pro-Wilson posters point out it isn't uncommon for black men to get killed in this country. what IS unusual is to have no trial for the person who killed an unarmed black teen. the slap-in-the-face of letting Wilson walk without even having a trial is what made people lose it.

The part of the narrative of institutionalized killing of blacks or institutionalized "turning a blind eye" that doesn't add up is that it was not the system which failed here: evidence was brought before a grand jury to determine whether or not to indict the cop. Last time I checked a jury is formed not of supposedly corrupt or racist bureaucrats or government employees, but, *gasp* random citizens who are eligible. Yet somehow the police / judiciary are still to blame here for whatever reason amirite?

Is the grand jury anonymous? Is it even all white?

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/1 ... rand-jury/

[Pragia]

I was not referring to this particular case and it has already been shown by 3 different autopsies that contrary to witness' statements, the kid was NOT shot whilst facing away.

Obviously if there are a lot of people on the street you won't shoot, duh.

Also, getting shot in the extremities could only be honestly classified as "lethal" if something like the femoral artery were struck.

He could quite easily have been shot AT whilst facing away whilst only been HIT whilst facing the officer. Which would mean witness statements aren't contradicted by the physical evidence. In addition as testified by the families forensic pathologist. The injuries to his arms are consistent with being shot from either direction.

So he got shot AT, then turned towards Wilson to get hit? Seems legit.
Also source from any forensic analysis that those could have come from either way? Bullets don't make a hole straight through an arm, rounds don't have a "either way" pattern. Forensics can find one way or the other pretty easily.

[Dyakovo]

He could quite easily have been shot AT whilst facing away whilst only been HIT whilst facing the officer. Which would mean witness statements aren't contradicted by the physical evidence. In addition as testified by the families forensic pathologist. The injuries to his arms are consistent with being shot from either direction.

So he got shot AT, then turned towards Wilson to get hit? Seems legit.
Also source from any forensic analysis that those could have come from either way? Bullets don't make a hole straight through an arm, rounds don't have a "either way" pattern. Forensics can find one way or the other pretty easily.

Yes, it does. Possible scenario (that's supported by witness testimony):
Brown is fleeing, Wilson fires at him, Brown stops and turns around to surrender, Wilson shoots him.

[The UK in Exile]

He could quite easily have been shot AT whilst facing away whilst only been HIT whilst facing the officer. Which would mean witness statements aren't contradicted by the physical evidence. In addition as testified by the families forensic pathologist. The injuries to his arms are consistent with being shot from either direction.

So he got shot AT, then turned towards Wilson to get hit? Seems legit.
Also source from any forensic analysis that those could have come from either way? Bullets don't make a hole straight through an arm, rounds don't have a "either way" pattern. Forensics can find one way or the other pretty easily.

Absolutely, makes perfect sense. He runs and when he hears the officer firing at his back, he turns round to surrender. Source is the Grand jury evidence. I can link it when I get back home. Look at your arm, hold it up in a don't shoot gesture, now hold it at your side. The bicep moves from inside to outside your arm, the hits to the arm where only grazes and could have come from either side depending on where his hands were. Which depend's on which witness you believe.

[Pragia]

So he got shot AT, then turned towards Wilson to get hit? Seems legit.
Also source from any forensic analysis that those could have come from either way? Bullets don't make a hole straight through an arm, rounds don't have a "either way" pattern. Forensics can find one way or the other pretty easily.

Yes, it does. Possible scenario (that's supported by witness testimony):
Brown is fleeing, Wilson fires at him, Brown stops and turns around to surrender, Wilson shoots him.

Please explain kill shot at angle to the head then. A surrendering man isn't leaning into the gunman.

[The UK in Exile]

Yes, it does. Possible scenario (that's supported by witness testimony):
Brown is fleeing, Wilson fires at him, Brown stops and turns around to surrender, Wilson shoots him.

Please explain kill shot at angle to the head then. A surrendering man isn't leaning into the gunman.

Neither is a man who is charging. He's got his head up looking at his target. There are any number of reasons his head might have been angled down.

[The Carlisle]

Please explain kill shot at angle to the head then. A surrendering man isn't leaning into the gunman.

Neither is a man who is charging. He's got his head up looking at his target. There are any number of reasons his head might have been angled down.

One reason is when he got shot in the chest, he caved in, exposing the top of his head. Another round hit there, killing him.

[Dyakovo]

Yes, it does. Possible scenario (that's supported by witness testimony):
Brown is fleeing, Wilson fires at him, Brown stops and turns around to surrender, Wilson shoots him.

Please explain kill shot at angle to the head then. A surrendering man isn't leaning into the gunman.

Doubling over is a normal reaction to pain.

[Keyboard Warriors]

Do people think a conviction would have been likely had Wilson been black and not a police officer? Going off the evidence people have in this thread, I still have a feeling that there's enough uncertainty about this trial that anyone in the defendant's position would have escaped sentencing even though their guilt is the seeming more plausible option.

[The UK in Exile]

Do people think a conviction would have been likely had Wilson been black and not a police officer? Going off the evidence people have in this thread, I still have a feeling that there's enough uncertainty about this trial that anyone in the defendant's position would have escaped sentencing even though their guilt is the seeming more plausible option.

The evidence would seem to be that if your black and not a police officer, you're lucky if you make it to the trial at all.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Perhaps the best decision would be to have another grand jury decide without the cop presenting his defense.

EDIT: It's stuff like this situation that could have been entirely prevented had he been wearing a body camera. In that the issue would have been almost crystal clear.

[Greed and Death]

I was not referring to this particular case and it has already been shown by 3 different autopsies that contrary to witness' statements, the kid was NOT shot whilst facing away.

Obviously if there are a lot of people on the street you won't shoot, duh.

Also, getting shot in the extremities could only be honestly classified as "lethal" if something like the femoral artery were struck.

the police don't shoot to wound. no one shoots to wound.

Well dumb people who should not be allowed to have guns shoot to wound.

[Greed and Death]

Perhaps the best decision would be to have another grand jury decide without the cop presenting his defense.

EDIT: It's stuff like this situation that could have been entirely prevented had he been wearing a body camera. In that the issue would have been almost crystal clear.

My understanding is Missouri allows the defendant the option of testifying at the grand jury.

[Greed and Death]

The part of the narrative of institutionalized killing of blacks or institutionalized "turning a blind eye" that doesn't add up is that it was not the system which failed here: evidence was brought before a grand jury to determine whether or not to indict the cop. Last time I checked a jury is formed not of supposedly corrupt or racist bureaucrats or government employees, but, *gasp* random citizens who are eligible. Yet somehow the police / judiciary are still to blame here for whatever reason amirite?

Is the grand jury anonymous? Is it even all white?

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/1 ... rand-jury/

A hack job analyzing of a legal opinion.
Scalia was explaining the bare minimum of the constitutional rights a defendant has at a grand jury. States are allowed to give the Defendant the right to testify at a Grand jury at either the statute or constitutional level, and DAs are allowed to use their discretion to present more evidence (or not to bring charges).