"You have to figure out why it sank and prevent it next time.  Just like obama addressing this issue.  He calls for change but doesnt say what to change."

Well, expecting a politician to directly address an issue is like waiting to hit the lottery. And Obama is the same guy who passed a health care law without addressing the primary problem of health care, the obscene cost that's the result of the game of footsie the insurance companies and the health care providers play so they can get richer at the expense of the people who can least afford it, but that's another discussion.

Again, I think what happened in Ferguson is you had an officer who didn't have the skills and intelligence to be placed in the situation he was in trying to bully a couple of teenagers/young adults (I think I read Johnson was 20 or 21, which does not make him a teenager anymore) and the situation blew up on him. I don't think a 40-year-old cop with 15 years of experience would have handled it the same way. 

Speaking to a couple of people walking down the street and figuring out that they were involved in a robbery is excellent police work.  Could he have used verbal judo better and got them to comply?  Maybe but to fault him for not is monday morning qbing in its largest form.  Sometimes folks understand less polite ways better.  We just dont know.  Police shoot people in this country often.  It can always be second guessed.  The would have should have could have game can always be played.  In the end we dont know what could have been done to advoid the mess.  You know this because you cant point to a single action to change.  Only that someone else may have done a better job and thats just your opinion.

The age of these subject is a concern in the opposite manner to me.  Young men are loose cannons.  Some are anyway.  If brown was 40 year old with 20 years of criminal history under his belt things would have gone different as well.  He would have cuffed up and been out of jail in a week after his case was plead down to a misdemeanor and his probation extended.  He would have got his teeth fixed and a hair cut while he was in jail.

Edit: 40 year old cops with 15 years of experience were all younger and less experienced at one time.

Body cameras are a huge push right now.  Im split on the subject.  They would be nice and save alot of hassle.  They would cover your ass if someone accuses you of wrong doing.  Also make report writing and witnesses verbal statements easier.

There are many drawbacks tho. 

1.  You have to pay for them.  My dept cant even afford dash cameras.  Body cameras cost 100 bucks.  Not as expensive hut im telling you, 100 bucks an officer will not be seens as nothing. 

2.  If laws makes them mandatory grants will have to pay for them.  Departments cant be expected to bare that cost.  Plus it isnt even mandatory they provide me with a vest.  Makes the priorities of the public very clear.


3. They fail.  They will fail.  When they fail, the battery dies or whatever will the cop be accused of purposely causing the failure.

4.  Police are more then walking talking camera men.  The public has a huge distrust in them and lack of respect.  Idk that cameras help or hurt that distrust.  If dept doesnt have cameras will prosecution take place.  We get no dui convictions partly because we cant afford dash cameras.  The courts do not take officers word.

5.alot of the public will not talk to you about whatever you are working on if they are being taped.  That is one of the biggest issues for me. 

6. Sometimes people need to be called a fucker...seriously.  it isnt PC but it works.  Not everytime.  Not in every situation but at times cursing someone is the only way to get the situation under control.  Most the public doesnt understand that because they dont understand the people law enforcemwnt deal with.  They have no clue these people even exist.

7. Do you want to be given a break by an officer?  If im on camera i may not be able to give youma second chance.

"I still don't know how anyone defends this guy's actions. The cop. Again, I would think members of law enforcement would be the first to identify him as an underqualified cop who should not have been put in the situation he was in."

I've read some pretty absurd things on this and other message boards. This ranks really high up there.

AP actually gave you an out that was undeserved. Brown isn't dead because of anything Wilson did wrong. Brown is dead because of a series of bad decisions he made over a 15-20 minute time period. He committed a robbery, elected to act in a conspicuous manner after the robbery, assaulted a police officer and then chose to try to assault the officer a 2nd time. Had he made a better decision at any of those points, he'd still be alive.

Also, the County Prosecutor is catching a lot of heat which is completely undeserved.

Was this grand jury process handled different from other cases--absolutely. Was that because Wilson was a cop--sort of, it was certainly because of the high profile nature of the case. Did that different treatment alter the final result--not a bit. The fact of the matter is this case never goes to trial, and McCulloch and anyone who understands the system knows that.

This case wasn't winnable. There are multiple conflicting accounts of what happened. Witnesses said Brown was shot from behind. Some said Wilson was shot while his arms were raised to surrender. Some said Wilson stood over Brown after wounding Brown and fired the fatal shots execution style. Some corroborated Wilson's testimony that Brown ran away, stopped, turned around and charged Wilson. These massive inconsistencies give the defense reasonable doubt before the case goes to trial.

All attorneys have an ethical obligation not to call a witness knowing the witness' testimony will be false. The objective physical evidence prevents McCulloch from ever calling the witnesses who said Brown was shot in the back because the autopsy refuted that testimony. The witnesses who claimed an execution were refuted by an audio recording showing that the shots outside the car came in two volleys, separated by very little time, not a bunch of shots followed several seconds later by a kill shot or two.

In addition to the witnesses who testified that Brown charged Wilson, this fact is conclusively proven by the physical evidence at the scene. After the altercation at the car, Brown runs east (all of this information can be found in a diagram of the scene which was part of the information released after the announcement).  Wilson follows, also traveling east. At some point Brown stops and turns around (had to have happened since there are no shots in the back). Question is, did he turn around and stop or turn and charge.

The crime scene diagram shows that Brown's blood was found 27 feet east of where his body fell. The only way this happens is if Brown is moving WEST when shot other blood is also found between the farthest spot and the body. That physical evidence confirms Brown turned and came back.

One other significant item of evidence--the location of Wilson's shell casings. Wilson fired 10 shots outside of the vehicle. He was using a semi-automatic weapon which would discharge the casings to the right. 9 of the casings are found either southeast or directly south of Brown's body. The other was 1 foot west and south of Brown's body. What does that mean?  Wilson was retreating as Brown was charging. He was trying to keep enough distance between himself and Brown to allow Brown to go down to the ground (either voluntarily or involuntarily). Unlucky for Brown the fatal shot occurred as he was falling.

Point is, this evidence corroborates the witnesses who said Brown was moving toward Wilson. McCulloch cannot ethically call the other witnesses knowing their testimony is false. He could not have won a conviction, and when a prosecutor cannot convict, he is ethically duty bound to dismiss charges.

So yes, McCulloch's office could have indicted Wilson (as the saying goes, you can indict a ham sandwich), but imagine the uproar a couple months after the indictment when he then has to dismiss.

Was the grand jury manipulated?  Yes. It was manipulated to do what McCulloch himself would have been legally required to do.

At the end of the day, the fact that reasonable people can reasonably disagree whether the right result occurred means the defense has to win.

"I've read some pretty absurd things on this and other message boards. This ranks really high up there."

See, we had gone all this time without making this discussion personal. I don't know what you found absurd, but I would think as a former member of the law enforcement community you would be among the first among us to recognize shoddy police work. 
One of the reasons there is mistrust from the public toward cops is partly due to the idea that they cover for each other in situations like this, like McCulloch clearly has in this instance. I challenged AP to give me an instance when a cop was indicted for a wrongful death. I believe he claimed there have been "thousands," but he couldn't give me one specific case. I'm sure there have been, but I can't think of one. I know a couple of NYC cops pleaded guilty to shoving the handle of a broom or a plunger up that Haitian guy's ass back in the '90s, but that's the only case I can think of off the top of my head.
The bottom line is a young man who was unarmed was shot to death by a police officer, and according to the system, the person who is responsible is the dead kid. Now, tell me again what part is absurd?

artie_fufkin wrote:

"I've read some pretty absurd things on this and other message boards. This ranks really high up there."

The bottom line is a young man who was unarmed was shot to death by a police officer, and according to the system, the person who is responsible is the dead kid. Now, tell me again what part is absurd?

 

After 9 pages of discussion your still not engaging in it.  I agree the titanic sunk and brown didnt have a firearm.   There might be alittle more to each story tho.

"How do you feel Officer Wilson failed?"

Oh, I don't know. The dead body? I think we've exhausted all sides of the discussion here. If the three of you want to keep insisting we ought to live in a police state where a cop can shoot an unarmed kid and not have to answer for it, that's your prerogative. But I've got other things to do than bang my head against a wall with this issue.

Last edited by artie_fufkin (11/28/2014 7:07 pm)

artie_fufkin wrote:

"I've read some pretty absurd things on this and other message boards. This ranks really high up there."

See, we had gone all this time without making this discussion personal. I don't know what you found absurd, but I would think as a former member of the law enforcement community you would be among the first among us to recognize shoddy police work. 
One of the reasons there is mistrust from the public toward cops is partly due to the idea that they cover for each other in situations like this, like McCulloch clearly has in this instance. I challenged AP to give me an instance when a cop was indicted for a wrongful death. I believe he claimed there have been "thousands," but he couldn't give me one specific case. I'm sure there have been, but I can't think of one. I know a couple of NYC cops pleaded guilty to shoving the handle of a broom or a plunger up that Haitian guy's ass back in the '90s, but that's the only case I can think of off the top of my head.
The bottom line is a young man who was unarmed was shot to death by a police officer, and according to the system, the person who is responsible is the dead kid. Now, tell me again what part is absurd?

I would acknowledge shoddy police work if it had occurred. As I said, Wilson shouldn't have driven close enough to allow Brown to attack him inside his car. Other than that, Wilson did everything else just fine.

You keep coming back to the fact that Brown was unarmed like it's some dispositive fact. It isn't. An unarmed person has the ability to take a life.

The bottom line is a criminal who chose to attack a police officer once and then decided to come back for a second pass was killed. Sounds like a good result for society in general.

" I think we've exhausted all sides of the discussion here."


¤Other than the fact the Titanic ended up at the bottom of the ocean, it was a successful voyage.

▪and he may have to move to another community, but at least he's still above ground and breathing.

▪Really? Wilson, who is living and breathing, is the victim, as opposed to the dead man?

▪The bottom line is a young man who was unarmed was shot to death by a police officer, and according to the system, the person who is responsible is the dead kid. Now, tell me again what part is absurd?

▪I guarantee he won't make the same mistakes again. 

▪but he didn't deserve to die because he stole a handful of cigars and wouldn't walk on a sidewalk.

▪At least he still has one to live. Unlike Mr. Brown.

▪Oh, I don't know. The dead body? 

You have not discussed it.  If you refuse to that isfine.  However it isnt fair to say one side is wrong and not be able to say why.  Simply stating you disagree with the end result over and over does not mean you discussed the issue.  This is what the brown side has done.  They call for change and how unfair this was but get stuck on the same points you have.  Yes brown is dead and he didnt have a gun.  That isnt the whole story.  If the brown side cant understand that then neither side can have a discussion and neither side will.  It is impossible.  Anything the wilson side says is over ruled by, "brown is dead".  If anyone actually thinks that is the point that wins this debate the debate itself is pointless.

artie_fufkin wrote:

"How do you feel Officer Wilson failed?"

Oh, I don't know. The dead body? I think we've exhausted all sides of the discussion here. If the three of you want to keep insisting we ought to live in a police state where a cop can shoot an unarmed kid and not have to answer for it, that's your prerogative. But I've got other things to do than bang my head against a wall with this issue.

Sorry if a 300 pound kid manhandled him, and he felt his life was in danger after barely getting away (having to shoot from inside the cruiser), and more importantly, i can't disprove anything about his version of the events.... I'm not sure how it would be justice to go ahead with a trial that had 0% chance of winning.

You haven't shed a single tear for Dillon Taylor though. Nobody has, and he never touched the police officer who shot him. Is it better when a black cop shoots a white guy? It shouldn't be, but that guy had a past. He also had headphones and made a sudden movement. He's dead now. He didn't grab the cop, punch him, cuss him out, grab his gun, get shot at, come back at the cop, and get shot (Mike brown did this). He didn't comply with instruction, wearing headphones, he may not have heard it. Then he made a movement that looked like he was bringing out a weapon. He was unarmed, and actually might have just been pulling up his pants. He is dead though, and all America cares about is Mike "the mauler" Brown who got seriously high on some good blunt, and tried getting physical with one too many people.

It's sad to me. There are more worthy cases that deserve protest.

Last edited by alz (12/01/2014 12:57 am)

tkihshbt wrote:

If you haven't seen people talking about Dillon Taylor, then you're not looking hard enough. It hasn't had the same amount of attention as the Michael Brown ordeal, but it's still been discussed.

As for "The Mauler," it's truly interesting times when black people transform into demons, hulk up and charge a police officer shooting at them. Frankly, I think the story sounds about as likely as me banging Kate Upton, but...umm, okay.

Then all you have to do is explain how the two blood stains (the two circles farthest to the right on the diagram) ended up 20+ feet further east than Mike Brown's body if he wasn't moving toward Wilson.

Also the shell casings.  How do the shell casings (which kick right from a semi-automatic weapon) end up, in some cases, further east of Wilson's body unless Wilson was actually east of where Brown ultimately fell and moved back to the west as Brown was moving toward him?


[img]http://media.kmov.com/images/363*264/SceneRender1.PNG[/img]

Last edited by forsberg_us (12/01/2014 12:36 pm)

I thought it was established that he was facing him and started coming toward him, but the dispute is the manner in which he did it. I just don't know how we go from "he's running away" to "wait a minute, I'm a black demon, so I'll just go back at him."