St Louis County - Police Officer Fatally Shoots 18-Year-Old (Michael Brown)

backslashbaby · Oct 23, 2014

Vince524 said:
Could you explain what you mean here? Not sure, you may be right and I may agree, but I'm not sure I understand what your saying.

For me, if these sources are saying that the fact he has THC in his post-mortem body means that he could have been hallucinating, what else are they misinterpreting or severely exaggerating? It takes away their credibility.

Vince524 · Oct 23, 2014

ShaunHorton said:
The statement that the SLCPD have witnesses that corroborate Wilson's side of the story means little in the wake of what the law enforcement agencies did after the shooting. It may be that they do and I would have no doubt those witnesses would fear for their lives if their identities were known.

However. Until they come forward or their identities are revealed, all we have is the statement from a law enforcement agency, which has zero respect and trust from the community, that they have those witnesses. Simply stating that those witnesses exist has no weight whatsoever.

That might be true to us, but the witnesses have I assume testified before the grand jury. Wouldn't the grand jury finding come down usually with a report. Hopefully it'll detail things without naming these people.

I understand why people want a trial, but you can't always try an officer for a shooting just to make people happy. And in all honesty, if there was a trial and all this came out in open court, my feeling is that it still wouldn't satisfy many out there. Only a guilty verdict would.

Xelebes · Oct 23, 2014

Some swift and decisive action outside of the trial regarding the Ferguson City Council, the Ferguson Police Department, and the St. Louis County Police Department would be nice.

zerosystem · Oct 23, 2014

Vince524 said:
That might be true to us, but the witnesses have I assume testified before the grand jury. Wouldn't the grand jury finding come down usually with a report. Hopefully it'll detail things without naming these people.

I understand why people want a trial, but you can't always try an officer for a shooting just to make people happy. And in all honesty, if there was a trial and all this came out in open court, my feeling is that it still wouldn't satisfy many out there. Only a guilty verdict would.

If the evidence shows that Wilson was lying then he deserves to rot in jail but if it shows he was telling the truth, what exactly do people want the authorities to do? Charge him anyway so that they can feel better?

I think its clear there was a disconnect between the people of Ferguson and the police department. Brown's death was the spark that ignited that powder keg. The antics of the media certainly did not help. They might as well have come out and declared Wilson guilty from day one. If Wilson is not indicted, I suspect we will see more of the same from them.

Vince524 · Oct 23, 2014

zerosystem said:
If the evidence shows that Wilson was lying then he deserves to rot in jail but if it shows he was telling the truth, what exactly do people want the authorities to do? Charge him anyway so that they can feel better?

I think its clear there was a disconnect between the people of Ferguson and the police department. Brown's death was the spark that ignited that powder keg. The antics of the media certainly did not help. They might as well have come out and declared Wilson guilty from day one. If Wilson is not indicted, I suspect we will see more of the same from them.

It also deserves to be said that regardless of Wilson's guilt or innocence, the Ferguson PD did absolutely nothing to be proud of in the days and weeks afterwards.

zerosystem · Oct 23, 2014

Vince524 said:
It also deserves to be said that regardless of Wilson's guilt or innocence, the Ferguson PD did absolutely nothing to be proud of in the days and weeks afterwards.

That's true. Their behavior did not help any. This entire situation is one big mess. I hope that if this does not go to trial, it does not become an even bigger mess.

kuwisdelu · Oct 23, 2014

zerosystem said:
If the evidence shows that Wilson was lying then he deserves to rot in jail but if it shows he was telling the truth, what exactly do people want the authorities to do? Charge him anyway so that they can feel better?

Why not charge him? If the evidence indeed shows his innocence, then a trial will show that.

Vince524 · Oct 24, 2014

kuwisdelu said:
Why not charge him? If the evidence indeed shows his innocence, then a trial will show that.

Let me make sure I understand you're position. You're advocating for the government to charge a man with a felony, when the evidence they have proves he's innocent? If he weren't a cop and there was no racial angle to this story, and the government had an average Joe who was accused of a crime, but the evidence they had showed that they believed him innocent, they should still charge him and that'd be okay?

robjvargas · Oct 24, 2014

kuwisdelu said:
Why not charge him? If the evidence indeed shows his innocence, then a trial will show that.

George Zimmerman has never been convicted of a felony. Did the jury trial show him as innocent?

Vince524 · Oct 24, 2014

robjvargas said:
George Zimmerman has never been convicted of a felony. Did the jury trial show him as innocent?

Been trying to figure out what you mean by this. Trials aren't meant to show innocence since we're all presumed innocent until proven guilty. They're supposed to prove him guilty. Again, like earlier, not saying I disagree with your assertion, just not clear what it was.

robjvargas · Oct 24, 2014

Vince524 said:
Been trying to figure out what you mean by this. Trials aren't meant to show innocence since we're all presumed innocent until proven guilty. They're supposed to prove him guilty. Again, like earlier, not saying I disagree with your assertion, just not clear what it was.

It was a response to someone else. About what a trial would or could accomplish. You seem to be taking my point without that context.

Will a trial show Officer Wilson's innocence? Maybe not. Whether it's right or wrong to do so, George Zimmerman is still considered in a very negative light. And he was acquitted.

Vince524 · Oct 24, 2014

robjvargas said:
It was a response to someone else. About what a trial would or could accomplish. You seem to be taking my point without that context.

Will a trial show Officer Wilson's innocence? Maybe not. Whether it's right or wrong to do so, George Zimmerman is still considered in a very negative light. And he was acquitted.

Okey Dokey.

backslashbaby · Oct 24, 2014

If someone kills someone else, I'd expect to see a trial in most cases. The only reason not to would be overwhelming, clear evidence of innocence.

Aren't the different witness statements by so many folks enough in this case to go to trial? There's no video of what happened.

I guess it could be done like so many rape cases, where there's just not enough evidence to convict, even if suspicions are that the guy is guilty. That makes me sad that so many rapists don't even get charged, though. I like to see the victims have a day in court (if that's what they want). Ferguson may just want its day in court. That seems reasonable to me.

I like the 'grand juries will indict a ham sandwich' bit. Trials are very useful to understand what happened, for transparency, imho. That the case looks like it would probably lose is less important to me, although costs can make it become more important in reality. If there are victims who feel that justice is only served through a trial, I get that. If nobody's much bothered by what happened and the case looks shaky, then that's different.

Vince524 · Oct 24, 2014

backslashbaby said:
If someone kills someone else, I'd expect to see a trial in most cases. The only reason not to would be overwhelming, clear evidence of innocence.

Aren't the different witness statements by so many folks enough in this case to go to trial? There's no video of what happened.

I guess it could be done like so many rape cases, where there's just not enough evidence to convict, even if suspicions are that the guy is guilty. That makes me sad that so many rapists don't even get charged, though. I like to see the victims have a day in court (if that's what they want). Ferguson may just want its day in court. That seems reasonable to me.

I like the 'grand juries will indict a ham sandwich' bit. Trials are very useful to understand what happened, for transparency, imho. That the case looks like it would probably lose is less important to me, although costs can make it become more important in reality. If there are victims who feel that justice is only served through a trial, I get that. If nobody's much bothered by what happened and the case looks shaky, then that's different.

I would think if the evidence isn't strong enough to support a prosucution, they won't bring it to trial. If they have witnesses that say both A & B and the physical evidence supports A which is what the defendant says and you know you can't either disprove A or prove B then you won't take it to trial. I'm sure there's a standard that the DA has to believe he can meet before he's allowed to charge.

Maybe if Mark is around he can chime in.

backslashbaby · Oct 24, 2014

Vince524 said:
I would think if the evidence isn't strong enough to support a prosucution, they won't bring it to trial. If they have witnesses that say both A & B and the physical evidence supports A which is what the defendant says and you know you can't either disprove A or prove B then you won't take it to trial. I'm sure there's a standard that the DA has to believe he can meet before he's allowed to charge.

Maybe if Mark is around he can chime in.

This case is with the grand jury, so that's what will decide whether it goes to trial, right?

I'm saying I like when grand juries err toward a trial going forward.

Then I gave my personal opinion about why trials can be useful even if the case is shaky. That's how I lean (unless the jurisdiction really can't afford it).

My opinion is certainly not how it goes frequently enough for my tastes! Rape cases very rarely go to trial, really. I do think that's sad - for the victims and community.

ShaunHorton · Oct 24, 2014

They have two stories, with witnesses on both sides. As far as I can see, the autopsy and evidence the public knows about doesn't really lean either way. There might be more coming out in the Grand Jury hearing, but I can't see why there wouldn't at least be a trial for the transparency. Otherwise it just looks to the public like they're specifically favoring one group of witnesses and one story over the other.

Vince524 · Oct 24, 2014

ShaunHorton said:
They have two stories, with witnesses on both sides. As far as I can see, the autopsy and evidence the public knows about doesn't really lean either way. There might be more coming out in the Grand Jury hearing, but I can't see why there wouldn't at least be a trial for the transparency. Otherwise it just looks to the public like they're specifically favoring one group of witnesses and one story over the other.

I thought I read the the autopsy did more to support Wilson's story. Again, there's still a lot we don't know.

raburrell · Oct 24, 2014

The forensics expert quoted by the Post-Dispatch says she never said the findings confirm Wilson's story.

The most pervasive rumor I see is that the leaks are coming from the grand jury (obviously, that's unconfirmed and speculative). If true, given the spin being applied in the process, that's... troubling.

rugcat · Oct 24, 2014

ShaunHorton said:
They have two stories, with witnesses on both sides. As far as I can see, the autopsy and evidence the public knows about doesn't really lean either way. There might be more coming out in the Grand Jury hearing, but I can't see why there wouldn't at least be a trial for the transparency. Otherwise it just looks to the public like they're specifically favoring one group of witnesses and one story over the other.

A Grand Jury's job is to determine whether there is enough evidence presented to warrant a trial – evidence which shows a crime was indeed committed and that the accused committed that crime.

It is not their job to provide transparency, nor is it their job to make decisions based on political considerations. Just like a regular jury their job is to assess the facts that are presented to them and to make a judgment about those facts.

For those of you who believe that a trial is no big deal, and that an innocent man has nothing to fear from one, let me remind you of the number of innocent men languishing in prison today, all convicted by juries, sometimes on very flimsy evidence.

zerosystem · Oct 24, 2014

kuwisdelu said:
Why not charge him? If the evidence indeed shows his innocence, then a trial will show that.

So what you're saying is if someone attacks you with deadly force and you defend yourself, killing your assailant in the process, and the cops come to the conclusion that it was self defense, the prosecution should go ahead and try a case that they don't believe in and that they know has no grounds? What would that accomplish?

If that's the case, those cops in New York who shot that guy with the hatchet better look out. They had guns, so they clearly used excessive force. I mean, they're cops, right? They could have taken him down with their nightsticks instead of elevating the situation.

AMCrenshaw · Oct 24, 2014

zerosystem said:
So what you're saying is if someone attacks you with deadly force and you defend yourself, killing your assailant in the process, and the cops come to the conclusion that it was self defense,

Since when are cops the judge and jury? They could provide one opinion/assessment of the situation.

the prosecution should go ahead and try a case that they don't believe in and that they know has no grounds?

the prosecution wouldn't, if indeed they agreed with the police officers and bought kuwisdelu's story - which isn't a given.

ShaunHorton · Oct 24, 2014

Vince524 said:
I thought I read the the autopsy did more to support Wilson's story. Again, there's still a lot we don't know.

Websites and news organizations are reporting that statement, not that said statement was ever said by the expert who conducted the autopsy. Just like there have been some random reports that Brown might've been so high on Marijuana that he was hallucinating, conjecture with almost no basis in reality that I'm aware of. (Could someone point me to some kind of scientific study that state marijuana alone can induce hallucinations? I can't find a one.)

If anything I find it gives doubt to Wilson's story that Brown reached and was shot while they were struggling over the gun, since we now know there is none of the soot or powder stipple on any of Brown's wounds which would indicate a close-range shot like Wilson's story would be.

backslashbaby · Oct 24, 2014

rugcat said:
A Grand Jury's job is to determine whether there is enough evidence presented to warrant a trial – evidence which shows a crime was indeed committed and that the accused committed that crime.

It is not their job to provide transparency, nor is it their job to make decisions based on political considerations. Just like a regular jury their job is to assess the facts that are presented to them and to make a judgment about those facts.

For those of you who believe that a trial is no big deal, and that an innocent man has nothing to fear from one, let me remind you of the number of innocent men languishing in prison today, all convicted by juries, sometimes on very flimsy evidence.

So it's better to decide their fate (and society's) on even less evidence/less cross-examination, etc? Because that's what a grand jury would be doing if they erred toward Not Guilty without being sure.

I thought that's why we have the 'ham sandwich' saying. But I don't know exactly where that came from, so maybe that's not why.

rugcat · Oct 24, 2014

backslashbaby said:
So it's better to decide their fate (and society's) on even less evidence/less cross-examination, etc? Because that's what a grand jury would be doing if they erred toward Not Guilty without being sure.

You seem to have forgotten the basics of the American legal system. No one has to prove they are not guilty. They are presumed innocent until proven guilty. That's the job of the state – to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty.

You don't send people to prison if you're "not sure" if they're guilty or not. And you don't indict people for a crime when you know that there is no possibility of finding them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Except, of course, when indictments are a result of political circumstances. Like when the public demands a trial whether there is reason for one or not.

backslashbaby · Oct 24, 2014

rugcat said:
You seem to have forgotten the basics of the American legal system. No one has to prove they are not guilty. They are presumed innocent until proven guilty. That's the job of the state – to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty.

You don't send people to prison if you're "not sure" if they're guilty or not. And you don't indict people for a crime when you know that there is no possibility of finding them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Except, of course, when indictments are a result of political circumstances. Like when the public demands a trial whether there is reason for one or not.

They do not need to be proven guilty in the grand jury stage, no. How could they be, what with no defense and all? Maybe the basics aren't as basic as you may think!

St Louis County - Police Officer Fatally Shoots 18-Year-Old (Michael Brown)

~~~~*~~~~

Are you gonna finish that bacon?

Delerium ex Ennui

practical experience, FTW

Are you gonna finish that bacon?

practical experience, FTW

Revolutionize the World

Are you gonna finish that bacon?

Are you gonna finish that bacon?

Are you gonna finish that bacon?

~~~~*~~~~

Are you gonna finish that bacon?

~~~~*~~~~

AW's resident Velociraptor

Are you gonna finish that bacon?

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee

Lost in the Fog

practical experience, FTW

...

AW's resident Velociraptor

~~~~*~~~~

Lost in the Fog

~~~~*~~~~

*

*

*

*

*