WILSON NOT INDICTED

[MeekMonizzLLLLLLe14]

i still think you cannot compare this shit to trayvon martin. trayvon didn't rob a store and was attacked by a wanna be cop and killed. mike brown robbed a store and its still unclear if what happened in those moments after. while there are shady cover ups by the cops including bringing the weapon home i still think there isn't clear cut evidence on mike browns end espcially since this shit started because he robbed a store.

It's interesting that you dont want to compare them when the incidents are so strikingly similar. Just think about Darren Wilson's words in that document, calling him a "demon" and "Hulk Hogan" and then consider the last photo that the Zimmerman's defense attorney provided for the jurors to see, which was supposed to demonstrate his frame and physical prowess. The reasons why Mike Brown and Trayvon were killed were informed by the same ideas, as were the subsequent legal proceedings that allowed them their killers to walk free. There is a presumption of guilt and dangerousness that has unfairly made people of color, particularly young black men, targets of police aggression and violence.

Look at the character assassination campaign of both these young men. Look at the obvious biases and inherent unfairness in the legal proceedings. There are so many identical themes.

i completely agree with the dehumanizing of Brown and i think the department had a fucked up the "investigation". But at the same time i still think Trayvon is a tragedy because that nigga did nothing wrong and was walking from home. As a black male if i had a future kid that is what concerns me about the issues of race and inequality in this country when it comes to certain law enforcement (not all) and these nuts that wish they had any excuse to kill a nigga who did nothing wrong and is following the law.

That said while Wilson seems to have hate toward black males and did kill Brown he actually did commit a robbery. That is something you can teach your kid not to do to put them in a spot where they could be killed. And even if they don't listen to you its something they will have to be liable for.

 

[LUClEN]

What investigation? They didn't do one.

 

[kingblaze84]

According to many of the witnesses, Mike Brown's back was turned to the officer as Darren Wilson was firing at him. Why should that be discarded?

BECAUSE HE WAS NOT SHOT IN THE BACK.

this would tend to support the notion that the eyewitnesses saying Brown's back was to Wilson when Wilson shot him are, in fact, wrong.

the problem with having a preconceived notion of what the result will be is that you're arguing over and over that no witness testimony can be discarded because... well, actually, we don't get a reason. it doesn't seem to matter if forensics or other witnesses contradict them, because you're going to repeat "why should that be discarded" no matter what.

More than half of the witness statements said that Brown was running away from Wilson when the police officer opened fire on the 18-year-old, while fewer than one-fifth of such statements indicated that was not the case.

and yet despite the fact that more said he was than wasn't, it doesn't mean that is what actually happened. ironically, you posted this before AND I RESPONDED TO YOU:

"so i touched on this with the earlier article, but i'll quote it again:

"He gave as an example witnesses who said they saw Wilson pump bullets into Brown’s back, sticking with their story even after autopsies demonstrated that no bullets entered Brown’s back."

it's entirely possible that more than half the witnesses gave testimony that was NOT SUPPORTED by the evidence. "

Despite all that, my main problem with the decision is that the prosecutor did pass the buck. He didn't want to indict the officer despite the tons of eyewitness testimony-

seriously, who cares about the "tons" if what the "tons" says isn't supported by physical evidence?

i mean, could we criticize the handling of the case without going on and on about the discarded witnesses? because i really think there's enough problems with it that we can, you know?

Brown wasn't shot in the back but bullets can miss right? Perhaps Brown was running away and Darren fired at him and simply missed until Brown faced him. Either way, the case could have been handled much better, as Trashboat posted above, the prosecutor was never serious about getting an indictment

 

[kingblaze84]

This case was never intended to go to trial

One of Officer Wilson's key lines of defence was that Michael Brown made him fear he was going to be shot because he tried to grab his gun while in his car.

But Wilson placed the gun in an evidence bag himself and the weapon was not tested for fingerprints because, an investigator argued, 'he never lost control of his gun', Huffington Post reported.

Wilson was also allowed to drive himself away from the crime scene and wash blood off his hands, actions that are extremely unorthodox according to experts and government rules.

David Klinger, an expert on police shootings with the University of Missouri at St Louis, told The Washington Post: 'An officer driving himself back? Wrong. An officer booking his own gun into evidence? Wrong. The appropriate investigative procedures were not followed.'

And a 2013 Justice Department manual on processing crime scenes makes the procedure for dealing with blood extremely clear: 'Do not allow suspect to use bathroom facilities, or to alter his/her appearance, including brushing hair or washing hands.'

The first officer to interview Wilson after the shooting didn't record the conversation or take notes as he had 'multiple things going through my head besides what Darren was telling me'.

The jury also heard how a medical legal examiner who analysed the crime scene didn't take any measurements because 'somebody shot somebody', which was 'self-explanatory'.

This is exactly why people aren't satisfied with the results of the grand jury and investigation, the police and prosecution did everything in their power to cover up any possible negative Darren Wilson did. That last part about the police officer not recording the convo btw him and Darren Wilson tells me he didn't like the story Darren Wilson told him and wanted a do over. They came up with enough time to come up with a good, lying story about why an unarmed person was killed a bunch of feet away.

 

[LUClEN]

This case was never intended to go to trial

One of Officer Wilson's key lines of defence was that Michael Brown made him fear he was going to be shot because he tried to grab his gun while in his car.

But Wilson placed the gun in an evidence bag himself and the weapon was not tested for fingerprints because, an investigator argued, 'he never lost control of his gun', Huffington Post reported.

Wilson was also allowed to drive himself away from the crime scene and wash blood off his hands, actions that are extremely unorthodox according to experts and government rules.

David Klinger, an expert on police shootings with the University of Missouri at St Louis, told The Washington Post: 'An officer driving himself back? Wrong. An officer booking his own gun into evidence? Wrong. The appropriate investigative procedures were not followed.'

And a 2013 Justice Department manual on processing crime scenes makes the procedure for dealing with blood extremely clear: 'Do not allow suspect to use bathroom facilities, or to alter his/her appearance, including brushing hair or washing hands.'

The first officer to interview Wilson after the shooting didn't record the conversation or take notes as he had 'multiple things going through my head besides what Darren was telling me'.

The jury also heard how a medical legal examiner who analysed the crime scene didn't take any measurements because 'somebody shot somebody', which was 'self-explanatory'.

This is exactly why people aren't satisfied with the results of the grand jury and investigation, the police and prosecution did everything in their power to cover up any possible negative Darren Wilson did. That last part about the police officer not recording the convo btw him and Darren Wilson tells me he didn't like the story Darren Wilson told him and wanted a do over. They came up with enough time to come up with a good, lying story about why an unarmed person was killed a bunch of feet away.

We can't even know exactly how many feet because they never did measurements at the crime scene

 

[kingblaze84]

This case was never intended to go to trial

One of Officer Wilson's key lines of defence was that Michael Brown made him fear he was going to be shot because he tried to grab his gun while in his car.

But Wilson placed the gun in an evidence bag himself and the weapon was not tested for fingerprints because, an investigator argued, 'he never lost control of his gun', Huffington Post reported.

Wilson was also allowed to drive himself away from the crime scene and wash blood off his hands, actions that are extremely unorthodox according to experts and government rules.

David Klinger, an expert on police shootings with the University of Missouri at St Louis, told The Washington Post: 'An officer driving himself back? Wrong. An officer booking his own gun into evidence? Wrong. The appropriate investigative procedures were not followed.'

And a 2013 Justice Department manual on processing crime scenes makes the procedure for dealing with blood extremely clear: 'Do not allow suspect to use bathroom facilities, or to alter his/her appearance, including brushing hair or washing hands.'

The first officer to interview Wilson after the shooting didn't record the conversation or take notes as he had 'multiple things going through my head besides what Darren was telling me'.

The jury also heard how a medical legal examiner who analysed the crime scene didn't take any measurements because 'somebody shot somebody', which was 'self-explanatory'.

This is exactly why people aren't satisfied with the results of the grand jury and investigation, the police and prosecution did everything in their power to cover up any possible negative Darren Wilson did. That last part about the police officer not recording the convo btw him and Darren Wilson tells me he didn't like the story Darren Wilson told him and wanted a do over. They came up with enough time to come up with a good, lying story about why an unarmed person was killed a bunch of feet away.

We can't even know exactly how many feet because they never did measurements at the crime scene

See, they never did a real investigation...I'm still shocked Darren Wilson got paid leave when he didn't even write a police report.

 

[Stiff]

According to many of the witnesses, Mike Brown's back was turned to the officer as Darren Wilson was firing at him. Why should that be discarded?

BECAUSE HE WAS NOT SHOT IN THE BACK.

this would tend to support the notion that the eyewitnesses saying Brown's back was to Wilson when Wilson shot him are, in fact, wrong.

Not necessarily. The autopsy showed that he did have a shot in the back of his forearm. It's not impossible that he got that while he was running from Wilson, in mid stride.

 

[K55N]

Maybe now we will return to the teachings of MALCOLM X AND MARCUS GARVEY.

people are too scared to rebuild the nation

If they keep shooting us we won't have any ot her option.

Well bust bk while building jk

 

[kingblaze84]

Even high school students know how corrupt and disgraceful the grand jury decision was....students are walking out of high schools all across the nation to protest the crooked decision to let Darren Wilson off without charges
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/01/high-school-students-protest-ferguson_n_6249802.html

On Monday afternoon, protesters around the country took to the streets to peacefully protest a grand jury's decision not to indict Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson for the killing of 18-year-old Michael Brown. Among the demonstrators were a number of young students, who left class in the middle of the school day to show solidarity with the protesters in Ferguson, Missouri.

Monday's protests took place at 12:01 Central Time, the time the unarmed teen was killed on Aug. 9. According to the Ferguson National Response Network Tumblr, students from about 10 high schools confirmed that they would participate in the protest. Pictures on social media show that students from other schools also left class to protest.

Since it was announced last Monday that Wilson would not be indicted, people of all ages have demonstrated their opposition, arguing that the shooting and subsequent grand jury decision are representative of pervasive racism and inequality in the United States.

 

[Big James]

This Mike Brown shit make me wish 2pac was still around.

 

[janklow]

Brown wasn't shot in the back but bullets can miss right? Perhaps Brown was running away and Darren fired at him and simply missed until Brown faced him. Either way, the case could have been handled much better, as Trashboat posted above, the prosecutor was never serious about getting an indictment

bullets aren't going to miss and hit him in the back if he's facing Wilson. yes, perhaps he was running away for a period of time and Wilson only shot him once he turned around. perhaps Wilson only fired when Brown was facing him. either way, you're having to make a larger logical leap to make the evidence fit your witness's statement when it's not the witness's statement that should be considered more reliable to begin with.

either way, the case could and SHOULD have been handled much better. which is why that's the point to harp on instead of fussing about discarded witnesses.

Not necessarily. The autopsy showed that he did have a shot in the back of his forearm. It's not impossible that he got that while he was running from Wilson, in mid stride.

more like a circumstance where he was raising his arms, which would jibe with the surrender theory. but witnesses saying bullets were being pumped into his back while he ran away are still not

 

[janklow]

sort-of-related plot twist:

The saga of Shawn Parcells, the uncredited forensics ‘expert’ in the Michael Brown case

Over the holiday weekend, CNN aired a pretty hard-hitting investigation of Shawn Parcells, the man who has become something of a cable news celebrity after assisting in an autopsy on Michael Brown.

Parcells became an overnight media star in August when he assisted in an autopsy commissioned by Brown’s family. He appeared time and again on major media outlets as a forensic pathology expert. He said over the years he’s testified in court dozens of times in several states.

But an investigation by CNN that included interviews with attorneys, law enforcement and physicians suggests Parcells isn’t the expert he seems to be . . .

...

On September 1, the Kansas City Star ran a long article on Parcells and his sudden, national notoriety. (Fox 4 in Kansas City also ran a report in August.) The article describes the prior accusations against him, and characterizes his new-found fame as “vindication.” This passage in particular is striking:

Parcells said his work on the Brown case has him thinking, more than ever, about the future. He said he now is pondering going back to school for a master’s degree or perhaps enrolling in medical school.

“I need to get more credentials,” he said. “I love forensics and helping families. I’m OK with going to the next level.”

Think about that for a moment. This has been one of the most volatile, closely-watched stories of the year, and a story in which much of America is still trying to figure out what happened. It is a story with profound implications on race relations and policing — one where the slightest change in a narrative could have cascading effects throughout the country. An autopsy won’t always tell you what happened, but it can certainly help guide the narrative. An unethical medical examiner can do a lot of damage. And yet here was someone quoted authoritatively in newspapers across the country as a forensic pathologist, who was being proclaimed as a medical expert on cable news show after cable news show . . . now admitting he “need[ed] to get more credentials” — and pondering that perhaps he’ll go to medical school . . . someday. And he continued to appear on cable news after those admissions.

How does this happen? I think Baden’s implicit endorsement certainly contributed. The entire field of forensics is also rife with problems. The courts have also done a poor job keeping bad science out of criminal trials, keeping charlatans off the witness stand, and separating the good, science-based methods of analysis from subjective hokum. This is just another manifestation of that problem.

But the media outlets who continued to give Parcells a platform don’t get off the hook. (And that includes CNN itself.) As the Star article points out, one reason why Parcells became a regular on cable news is that he was one of the few people with inside knowledge who was willing to talk about the case. They were giving Ferguson saturation coverage. He was willing to talk. It was a good fit. Never mind that the guy had no business offering himself up as an expert. Cable news is more about stoking biases and inflaming partisans than about informing viewers.

And bias is part of the problem as well. Highly-charged, emotional stories continue to produce some strikingly unskeptical reporting, particularly stories that include a racial/political component. Several conservative websites, for example, picked up on Parcells’s history back in August. But Parcells was hired by the Brown family, so progressive sites like Wonkette belittled the accusations against Parcells, and accused the conservative sites of pushing their own narrative. Both sides were doing the pushing, of course. And it’s worth noting that Gateway Pundit, the same conservative site that correctly warned about Parcells, was also quick to publish erroneous information that advanced its own preferred Ferguson narrative.

A climate like this doesn’t allow any room to be both skeptical of Parcells’s credibility problems and still troubled by the shooting of Michael Brown. As with the Trayvon Martin story, once the lines have been drawn, nuance is dead. You’re either all-in on all of the talking points, or you’re on the other side.

Once a story has been infected with this level of conflict, neither side is much interested in facts or truth. Pointing out that Shawn Parcells may be a fraud is just signalling that you support Darren Wilson. Mocking those who question Parcells’s credibility lets the world know that you’re with the Brown family. Unfortunately, whether or not the guy who assisted on Brown’s autopsy and has since been proffering his opinions on televisions across America actually is a fraud quickly becomes irrelevant.

Balko is death on uncredited/fraudulent medical "experts," so it's really about THAT and not the case, but still.

 

[kingblaze84]

Brown wasn't shot in the back but bullets can miss right? Perhaps Brown was running away and Darren fired at him and simply missed until Brown faced him. Either way, the case could have been handled much better, as Trashboat posted above, the prosecutor was never serious about getting an indictment

bullets aren't going to miss and hit him in the back if he's facing Wilson. yes, perhaps he was running away for a period of time and Wilson only shot him once he turned around. perhaps Wilson only fired when Brown was facing him. either way, you're having to make a larger logical leap to make the evidence fit your witness's statement when it's not the witness's statement that should be considered more reliable to begin with.

either way, the case could and SHOULD have been handled much better. which is why that's the point to harp on instead of fussing about discarded witnesses.

Not necessarily. The autopsy showed that he did have a shot in the back of his forearm. It's not impossible that he got that while he was running from Wilson, in mid stride.

more like a circumstance where he was raising his arms, which would jibe with the surrender theory. but witnesses saying bullets were being pumped into his back while he ran away are still not

We can agree the case should have been handled much better, and until people feel their voices are heard, there's going to continue being unrest in Ferguson and parts around the country. People aren't going to just forget about this case, especially when there are people on videotape screaming that Brown wasn't a threat at the time of his death....several witnesses, including two White construction workers, said that Wilson didn't even say get on the ground and that Brown was being shot at AS he was running away.
=player_detailpage

 

[LUClEN]

Tbh I see the lack of investigation as more problematic than the grand jury proceedings.

Essentially his word was taken at face value and any evidence which could have proven his claims false was deliberately foregone. Shows that the police are above the law and able to operate without criticism. They legitimize their own actions.

This is worse than tampering with evidence: this is people with power intentionally refusing to gather any. If it was due to incompetence some people should be getting fired. If it was due to unwillingness we should be throwing them in front of a judge.

 

[janklow]

We can agree the case should have been handled much better, and until people feel their voices are heard, there's going to continue being unrest in Ferguson and parts around the country.

yes. however:

...several witnesses, including two White construction workers, said that Wilson didn't even say get on the ground and that Brown was being shot at AS he was running away.

giving this a big "so what" since you're just repeating yourself without explaining why witnesses whose testimony isn't supported by the evidence should be considered so reliable.

now you're in here telling me to believe people because they're white. good lord

Tbh I see the lack of investigation as more problematic than the grand jury proceedings.

exactly.

 

[LUClEN]

We can agree the case should have been handled much better, and until people feel their voices are heard, there's going to continue being unrest in Ferguson and parts around the country.

yes. however:

...several witnesses, including two White construction workers, said that Wilson didn't even say get on the ground and that Brown was being shot at AS he was running away.

giving this a big "so what" since you're just repeating yourself without explaining why witnesses whose testimony isn't supported by the evidence should be considered so reliable.

What Evidence?

They basically picked the testimony that coincided with the officer's as the most reliable

which is absurd

it does not follow necessarily

 

[janklow]

What Evidence?

was Brown shot in the back?

 

[LUClEN]

What Evidence?

was Brown shot in the back?

What about the fact that the head shot came downwards?

 

[LUClEN]

 

[kingblaze84]

We can agree the case should have been handled much better, and until people feel their voices are heard, there's going to continue being unrest in Ferguson and parts around the country.

yes. however:

...several witnesses, including two White construction workers, said that Wilson didn't even say get on the ground and that Brown was being shot at AS he was running away.

giving this a big "so what" since you're just repeating yourself without explaining why witnesses whose testimony isn't supported by the evidence should be considered so reliable.

now you're in here telling me to believe people because they're white. good lord

Tbh I see the lack of investigation as more problematic than the grand jury proceedings.

exactly.

You're again disregarding tons of witnesses who saw the scene, which is very shameful of you. 8 witnesses saying Brown was not resisting and that he was not a threat is more then enough for probable cause. Probable cause means a POSSIBILITY that a crime was committed. 8 witnesses isn't enough to bring up a fucking charge? Get the fuck outta here, you damn right it's enough to bring up charges. Those two construction workers, both of whom were White (I say this because of the history of White people in this nation, known for the vast amounts of deceit and destruction in this land) themselves said Brown was NOT A THREAT. They went to the police to say this, along with 6 other people. I WILL REPEAT THIS because we're talking about probable cause.

If 8 witnesses said I shot a burglar as he was running away from my house, stealing a TV set, I'd be in jail. The cops wouldn't wait for no godamn, fucking evidence, they would have charged me on the spot. Ignoring witnesses, especially EIGHT of them, is disgraceful and WILL ALWAYS be remembered and brought up in this situation.