Ferguson / Staten Island Decisions -- No Indictments

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

You mean the forensic evidence that was actually collected. Not the officer's gun. Not the blood on the officer's hands. Not the measurement of where the officer stood. Not the statement given to the first investigating officer because the guy didn't take any notes. The forensic evidence that puts the officer in the best possible light. That forensic evidence.

 

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

I wonder what this discussion would be like on a message board comprised mostly of those who make a living dealing with issues objectively.

 

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

It very much was. His distances were that Brown ran 20-30 feet and then turned around and came toward him 10 feet ... but Brown died 150 feet from the car.

Other testimony (about Brown getting his hands on the gun and his blood on Wilson) couldn't be contradicted because that evidence was not taken in the first place. Mostly that's where the fix came in. Remember, we're not just talking about a general idea of a racist brutal white police force -- there is a long documented history of it in Ferguson, with Wilson's superiors (who were in charge of the scene) having been part of that culture for quite some time.

 

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

The evidence that showed he was not shot in the back, or while being stood over. Can we start with that?

The people who said that lied. Period. They lied.

And, those lies are part of what made this case such a big deal. It's part of why folks like Sharpton were drawn to it. It's part of why the media was drawn to the story. It's part of why the lawyers for Brown's family were drawn to the story.

Wilson was convicted in the court of public opinion before anyone examined any actual evidence. And, he was convicted based on lies.

 

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

A. Perhaps he's aware of the Jack in the Box incident in which, coincidentally, McCulloch failed to get an indictment on two officers who fired 21 shots at a pair of drug dealers who they claimed tried to run them over, though evidence shows the drug dealers tried to get away while driving in reverse.

2. The witnesses who said Wilson was shot in the back may have been influenced by the fact that Wilson shot at Brown while he was running away but missed, which was corroborated by forensic evidence. It's entirely possible they heard the shots and ducked, when the gunfire stopped, they looked up and saw a dead man in the street and assumed he had been shot in the back. As noted, eyewitness testimony can be unreliable without being an outright lie.

And again, I'm not even arguing that Wilson should be convicted. But it's damned obvious this case reaches the threshold of probable cause and that a jury trial should have been held.

 

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

You are justified in taking the cop's gun if he is racist and you are a minority or a liberal with sufficient level of white guilt.

But you can only shoot at him once. If you have to empty the chamber to stop him, give it back.

 

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

True. You are right about that. But, like time, people often misjudge distance in a situation like this.

The grand jury would understand that this was incorrect, but not necessarily a lie, like the folks who said Wilson shot Brown in the back, and later admitted to not even witnessing the events.

 

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

So people pissed an unarmed black teen was killed by a white cop are damned when they lie and compromise the case. When the cops—who are investigating one of their own who killed an unarmed black teen—lie, ignore evidence and completely botch an investigation, they are automatically off the hook the because the first group lied. Just want to make sure I'm understanding everything here.

 

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

YF, you know it isn't a "lie." It's an incorrect eyewitness account as many accounts were, and as many accounts always are. pern noted how the timeline could have led people to conclude something that didn't really happen.

It isn't a lie. It's just an example of why prosecutors and law enforcement don't like eyewitnesses. They're always wrong even when they are 100 percent convinced they're right.

 

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

So are you alleging that, for no other reason than Brown telling Wilson to go fuck himself when Wilson told him to get out of the middle of the street, a pissed-off Wilson drew his weapon and basically executed him for disrespect?

And that, once they realized what Wilson had done and that the victim was some anonymous black teenager, the racists occupying all levels of the Ferguson police department simply closed ranks to protect him?

Again, not saying you're wrong, but a conspiracy of this magnitude is difficult to imagine.

 

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

Excellent. Wilson wasn't lying, he was just wrong, but everyone else was lying.

That clears it up.

 

Re: Ferguson Decision -- No Indictment

Is the difference of about 35 yards that big of a deal when a cop is trying to provide details after he has shot someone dead?