Ferguson Megathread

[Washington Resistance Army]

Same difference, I've been up for a long time but I'm enthralled by NSG and don't want to go to sleep.

Not if the statement was crafted to meet the legal definition it isn't.

It pretty well coincides with the evidence, the DNA inside the car does match that Brown was reaching for the gun when he got shot. Wilson has said he feared for his life, but ultimately we can never know if he really did or not unless you strap him to a lie detector and even then it might not be accurate. He might have genuinely been scared, or he might have been trigger happy and wanted to shoot someone, I don't know.

[Kelinfort]

If the evidence was so in favor of Brown, how do you explain the Grand Jury's decision not to indict? Those jurors must have either been extremely racist or mentally incapable.

Or the prosecutor sabotaged the case.

The prosecutor had personal bias, so it's not out of the question he could have done a lukewarm job. What prosecutor lets a grand jury hear all the evidence against?

[The UK in Exile]

Not if the statement was crafted to meet the legal definition it isn't.

It pretty well coincides with the evidence, the DNA inside the car does match that Brown was reaching for the gun when he got shot. Wilson has said he feared for his life, but ultimately we can never know if he really did or not unless you strap him to a lie detector and even then it might not be accurate. He might have genuinely been scared, or he might have been trigger happy and wanted to shoot someone, I don't know.

It doesn't coincide with the witnesses who say Brown was trying to surrender, which are also consistent with the evidence.

He says he's scared for his life, but if so, why did get out of his car and chase Brown? why did he attempt to reach, first for his mace and then for his baton BEFORE reaching for his gun? why did he think Michael Brown had his hand in his waistband whilst charging? why does the police force have no record of recieving a call for back-up? why didn't he confirm having back-up on the way before pursuing a man he claimed to be mortally afraid of?

Why didn't the prosecutor ask him these questions?

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

so any other attempts at explaining the closing in blood stains?

for the "stumbling forward" narrative to even be possible it would require that the (last) shots be consistent with a person getting shot at whilst leaning over / forwards to break their fall (otherwise if they didn't they'd probably either be dead or unconscious so they'd just drop flat not keep on maintaining balance) is that even the case?

[Cymrea]

Why didn't the prosecutor ask him these questions?

Because it was a grand jury, not a trial.

[The UK in Exile]

so any other attempts at explaining the closing in blood stains?

for the "stumbling forward" narrative to even be possible it would require that the (last) shots be consistent with a person getting shot at whilst leaning over. is that even the case?

A) spatter from the wounds inflicted by Wilson.
B) he stumbles forward several steps after being hit as surrendering.
C) its from the wound he recieved in the car.

And yes, its entirely consistent. The wound to his head would require him to be leaning forward.

[The UK in Exile]

Why didn't the prosecutor ask him these questions?

Because it was a grand jury, not a trial.

Why didn't the grand jury ask them?

[Dyakovo]

Why didn't the prosecutor ask him these questions?

Because it was a grand jury, not a trial.

The prosecutor is allowed to interview any witnesses that appear at the grand jury, so your reasoning fails.

[Washington Resistance Army]

It pretty well coincides with the evidence, the DNA inside the car does match that Brown was reaching for the gun when he got shot. Wilson has said he feared for his life, but ultimately we can never know if he really did or not unless you strap him to a lie detector and even then it might not be accurate. He might have genuinely been scared, or he might have been trigger happy and wanted to shoot someone, I don't know.

It doesn't coincide with the witnesses who say Brown was trying to surrender, which are also consistent with the evidence.

He says he's scared for his life, but if so, why did get out of his car and chase Brown? why did he attempt to reach, first for his mace and then for his baton BEFORE reaching for his gun? why did he think Michael Brown had his hand in his waistband whilst charging? why does the police force have no record of recieving a call for back-up? why didn't he confirm having back-up on the way before pursuing a man he claimed to be mortally afraid of?

Why didn't the prosecutor ask him these questions?

As pointed out above, everyone is biased and it's pretty obvious which side the prosecutor favored. The whole thing was a bit odd in how it was handled, but the grand jury felt there wasn't enough to indict him on any charges and I accept that.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

so any other attempts at explaining the closing in blood stains?

for the "stumbling forward" narrative to even be possible it would require that the (last) shots be consistent with a person getting shot at whilst leaning over. is that even the case?

A) spatter from the wounds inflicted by Wilson.
B) he stumbles forward several steps after being hit as surrendering.
C) its from the wound he recieved in the car.

And yes, its entirely consistent. The wound to his head would require him to be leaning forward.

No, I wouldn't call a 1 out of 6 wounds "entirely consistent".



plus, there is not enough information to make that claim. Entry angles would be vastly different. If the bullet entered from the front of the head and was headed towards the back of the head that would be inconsistent with the narrative. For it to even be possible it would require more or less a trajectory where the bullet enters the top of his head and is headed downwards to his neck/body. So top to bottom not front to back.

[Avenio]

Tennessee vs. Garner, 1984.

That also complies with Wilson's statements that he feared for his life.

It does not, since Brown had already been shot at that point. A gunshot victim hobbling away from an attack is not a threat.

[Cymrea]

Why didn't the grand jury ask them?

Because it was a grand jury, not a trial.

The prosecutor is allowed to interview any witnesses that appear at the grand jury, so your reasoning fails.

"It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented."
-Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, in the 1992 Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, explained what the role of a grand jury has been for hundreds of years.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Why didn't the grand jury ask them?

"It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented."
-Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, in the 1992 Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, explained what the role of a grand jury has been for hundreds of years.

"It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor.

I've read that numerous times but just can't get my head to wrap around it.

Please translate this legalese. What is "examine upon what foundation the charge is made"? Examine if there's any evidence at all?

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

It would be nice if someone with access to the data could shoot a clear ballistic gel casting. That would make it crystal clear.

[Dyakovo]

It doesn't coincide with the witnesses who say Brown was trying to surrender, which are also consistent with the evidence.

He says he's scared for his life, but if so, why did get out of his car and chase Brown? why did he attempt to reach, first for his mace and then for his baton BEFORE reaching for his gun? why did he think Michael Brown had his hand in his waistband whilst charging? why does the police force have no record of recieving a call for back-up? why didn't he confirm having back-up on the way before pursuing a man he claimed to be mortally afraid of?

Why didn't the prosecutor ask him these questions?

As pointed out above, everyone is biased and it's pretty obvious which side the prosecutor favored. The whole thing was a bit odd in how it was handled, but the grand jury felt there wasn't enough to indict him on any charges and I accept that.

And the grand jury failed to indict because McCullough did everything he could to ensure that they didn't.

[Cymrea]

"It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor.

I've read that numerous times but just can't get my head to wrap around it.

Please translate this legalese. What is "examine upon what foundation the charge is made"? Examine if there's any evidence at all?

The evidence is the foundation upon which charges are made, yes.

[The UK in Exile]

A) spatter from the wounds inflicted by Wilson.
B) he stumbles forward several steps after being hit as surrendering.
C) its from the wound he recieved in the car.

And yes, its entirely consistent. The wound to his head would require him to be leaning forward.

No, I wouldn't call a 1 out of 6 wounds "entirely consistent".



plus, there is not enough information to make that claim. Entry angles would be vastly different. If the bullet entered from the front of the head and was headed towards the back of the head that would be inconsistent with the narrative. For it to even be possible it would require more or less a trajectory where the bullet enters the top of his head and is headed downwards to his neck/body. So top to bottom not front to back.

he recieves wounds to the front and as he does he stumbles forward exposing the top of his head for the final and fatal shot. It entered at the top of his head and exited out of his Jaw.

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/ ... eport.html

Edit. sorry, mix up, the injury to the center of his face went down and exited through his Jaw. the injury to his scalp went down and right.

[Dyakovo]

"It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented."
-Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, in the 1992 Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, explained what the role of a grand jury has been for hundreds of years.

"It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor.

I've read that numerous times but just can't get my head to wrap around it.

Please translate this legalese. What is "examine upon what foundation the charge is made"? Examine if there's any evidence at all?

Simply put, the grand jury's job is to determine if there is probable cause. Nothing more.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

No, I wouldn't call a 1 out of 6 wounds "entirely consistent".

(Image)

plus, there is not enough information to make that claim. Entry angles would be vastly different. If the bullet entered from the front of the head and was headed towards the back of the head that would be inconsistent with the narrative. For it to even be possible it would require more or less a trajectory where the bullet enters the top of his head and is headed downwards to his neck/body. So top to bottom not front to back.

he recieves wounds to the front and as he does he stumbles forward exposing the top of his head for the final and fatal shot. It entered at the top of his head and exited out of his Jaw.

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/ ... eport.html

Edit. sorry, mix up, the injury to the center of his face went down and exited through his Jaw. the injury to his scalp went down and right.

Fair enough.

Nonetheless, you have to be realistic. Honestly, how far do you think someone getting shot at can stumble? Are you willing to claim that a distance short enough for this possibility you have presented to exist would not have been taken into account and presented by NY Times / their source?

[The UK in Exile]

he recieves wounds to the front and as he does he stumbles forward exposing the top of his head for the final and fatal shot. It entered at the top of his head and exited out of his Jaw.

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/ ... eport.html

Edit. sorry, mix up, the injury to the center of his face went down and exited through his Jaw. the injury to his scalp went down and right.

Fair enough.

Nonetheless, you have to be realistic. Honestly, how far do you think someone getting shot at can stumble? Are you willing to claim that a short enough distance for this possibility you have presented to exist would have been taken into account and presented by NY Times / their source?

look at the picture in the article, he makes it about the length of a car from the closest spatter to his final position.

[Seangoli]

The part that really angered me, however, was Wilson's interview. He didn't seem to try and console the family of Brown or even attempt to repair his image. If I were personally in that situation, I would extend my heartfelt sorrow to the family even if I was assaulted. Furthermore, I'd use the money my supporters gave me to start a fund for addressing inner city crime and police corruption.

He didn't do that because it could be construed as self-incriminating, or he may give testimony which could be interpreted as incriminating oneself accidentally. Accused statement are often crafted specifically to avoid self-incrimination. Hence why they are almost always seen as scripted. Because they need to be to avoid any chance of incriminating oneself. Admitting any wrong-doing in a case against you is the single fastest way to torpedo your entire defense. You cannot be compelled to incriminate yourself, nor should you be expected to. Sticking purely to the facts of what happened (in your words and your view) eliminates a good deal of the possibility to do so.

I'm someone who thinks that the Grand Jury was in the wrong in the instance, but the pure number of people who want the justice system to ignore the rights of the accused is baffling in this thread.

I've seen people support tampering with the Grand Jury process, to demanding the officer to incriminate himself, to turning this entire thing into a kangaroo court where Wilson must prove his innocence, and even that isn't enough for some people (Who want a conviction regardless if Wilson could prove his innocence).

Equally, take a very fine silver lining from the Grand Jury's decision as well:

Grand Jury decisions do not have double jeopardy rules applied to them, meaning that Wilson can still be charged with any crime up to and including the possible charges the Grand Jury was deciding on. Further, if the Prosecutor had such little faith in the evidence against Wilson in the Grand Jury, what makes you think that a criminal trial would be any different, only with the standard of proof being far higher to reach a conviction.

To be frank, if the Prosecution doesn't have their shit in order at the Grand Jury, it is likely going to be exactly the same at a criminal trial, which would inevitably lead to no conviction. If you think the Prosecution was a farce at the Grand Jury trial, it would have been amplified at an actual criminal trial, where the decision made would protect Wilson from being tried again.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

I've read that numerous times but just can't get my head to wrap around it.

Please translate this legalese. What is "examine upon what foundation the charge is made"? Examine if there's any evidence at all?

Simply put, the grand jury's job is to determine if there is probable cause. Nothing more.

that's the standard for arrest.

[The UK in Exile]

Simply put, the grand jury's job is to determine if there is probable cause. Nothing more.

that's the standard for arrest.

Not co-incidentally. They are the same.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

that's the standard for arrest.

Not co-incidentally. They are the same.

because all arrests end up being pursued *nod*

[The UK in Exile]

Not co-incidentally. They are the same.

because all arrests end up being pursued *nod*

No. But an arrest frequently elicidates information that casts the original evidence in a new light. Its logical however that the evidence that secures the arrest be of sufficent strength that if unchallenged it would result in a conviction.