by Simon 254 Replies latest forum announcements
I think some opinions are based on what happens in B action movies. Fights go on for 20 minutes and people are either totally impervious to bullets or can be killed from 2 miles away while looking the other way.
The incident apparently took less than a minute to play out if the last report I saw is correct.
Let's not confuse a grand jury with a trial. Only the state's case has been examined, not the defense. The prosecutor must demostrate to the grand jury that there are legal grounds to have file charges and conduct an actual trial.
Ideally, it should be that - whether there is evidence to support a prosecution that has a reasonable hope of a conviction.
If there is no indictment, that does not prove innocence--only that the prosecution has not yet justified taking the case to trial (they may be able to produce new or better evidence at a later date). If there is an indictment, that does not prove guilt--only that the prosecutor will have a chance to present their case to a judge and jury. This is only the first step in what may become a very long legal process.
Nothing proves innocence - the point of a confrontational system is to prove guilt and if that isn't done there is the presumption of innocence. No one has to prove their innocence though.
It's up to the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and I think they will have a very hard time doing that based on the evidence we've been able to see so far which makes me believe that the grand jury will not indict.
I'm retracting my previous comments, it appears I might have spouted off prematurely without gaining enough information.
.
How many shots were fired again? 6. 8. Maybe more I don't know I didn't follow the story, but the cop
1) killed an unarmed civilian -- should be fired
2) is a bad shot -- should be fired
3) couldn't handle the pressures of the job and reacted unprofessionally -- should be fired.
Grab your beer and popcorn, it's gonna be a good show.
Clearly you didn't follow the story... or even read any other comments on the thread. So...
How many shots were fired? From just the previous page of this thread:
As far as your argument that he should not have shot multiple times... If a guy that big is coming after you and shooting once doesn't stop him and he continues to come after you then you continue to shoot until he stops. The officers version is that that is what happened and if the evidence supports that then multiple shots are absolutely justified. If Michael kept coming after him the officer probably thought he either missed or hit an area that did not convince Michael to stop. Unless the evidence says Michael was lying prone on the ground and then shot several times I'm not certain what anyone expects. Would you fire one shot and when the huge guy charging you doesn't stop just shrug your shoulders and say 'oh well, I tried. Guess since the first shot didn't work I'll just let him have my gun to do what he will with it.'?
1) killed an unarmed civilian... who was over 6' and 300 lbs and fought for the officer's gun.
2) copied from just the previous page of this thread: I have to admit there is a certain entertainment value in reading comments about this from people who have never been in real fight and probably have never fired a gun. Pistols are notoriusly inaccurate and have low "stopping power." I'm not at all surprised when I hear about it taking multiple shots to bring some one or some thing down.
3) on what basis have you decided he couldn't handle the pressures of his job or that he reacted unprofessionally?
The Officer calling for the other patrol car was professional. Waiting for the other officer(s) to arrive would have been the better professional course. More nonviolent tactics could have been employed in first questioning Michael Brown and if necessary taking him into custody with several officers present. I am 6'4" 220lbs. if I was confronting a person 6"8" and 350lbs. I would wait for backup patrols. Officer Wilson looks about 5'10" and 175lbs..
The public was not in imminent danger, there was no apparent reason to rush things.
The public was not in imminent danger, there was no apparent reason to rush things.
You make a lot of assumptions and seem to think police officers should never take action against anyone unless they have overwhelming numbers. Real life isn't like that - they have to cover large areas with few people and get the job done. In this case it was asking some jerks to stop walking down the middle of the street - for their own safety!
But lets remember who exactly overreacted? If MB attacked the officer while he was in his vehicle which the forensic evidence supports then didn't he insitigate the situation?
The height / size difference is the "common sense" reason why it was the big guy who attacked the little guy.
1) killed an unarmed civilian -- should be fired
Cops should not be fired for killing unarmed civilians. This is what the whole case is about. It's whether he unlawfully killed someone.
2) is a bad shot -- should be fired
How many shots did he fire and how many hit him? Are you claiming that he didn't shoot him?
3) couldn't handle the pressures of the job and reacted unprofessionally -- should be fired.
Who says he acted unprofessionally? What is your basis for this claim? Please refer to the OP for what is and isn't going to be allowed on this topic.
According to the facts so far presented - by the audio transcriptions - the whole incident took less than 90 seconds.
According to the facts so far presented by the hospital report - the officer had injuries to his head - allegedly from an assault/engagement with the suspect/assailant.
Again - the incident took less than 90 seconds.
According to the facts so far presented - the suspect/assailant had an accomplice who provided much of the initial testimony to the news/law/legal teams.
In summary - if taking all these facts into account - the incident happened very quickly, there were two suspects the officer was trying to contain, a physical altercation results in injuries to the head of the officer. The issue of proclaiming the suspects as unarmed came afterward - at this point there is no proof or facts that have been offered wherein the officer had knowledge that his assailant was unarmed.
It could very well be that the officer fearing for his own life after the assault, believed the suspects to be armed and a danger to the public.
We have heard little since the beginning from the other suspect who is still alive, so we have to remember that one officer in the midst of a 90 second assault with one suspect, may have felt vulnerable to an assault with or without a weapon from the other suspect.
These are things the Grand Jury will have heard - I'm sure we will know soon whether or not this becomes a public court case. sw
there were two suspects the officer was trying to contain
What do you mean by 'contain'?
I thought the initial incident was that he was asking them to stop walking down the middle of the road. The notion that the much shorter officer tried to physically apprehend the 6'4" tall MB while sat in a police cruiser seems unlikely and was only a story given by the less than credible* friend who we assume had taken part in the robbery moments earlier.
* because he's previously made false statements to police, is obviously involved in the case and has already changed his story from "MB was shot in the back while running away" after other testimony and forensic evidence showed he was not plus no mention of MB fighting the officer in his vehicle which there is evidence of.
It could very well be that the officer fearing for his own life after the assault, believed the suspects to be armed and a danger to the public.
So far the evidence that we've seen, once you strip away all the hype, suggests this is the most straightforward explanation but I think it was one short incident of him being attacked and the threat of attack continuing.
If the forensic evidence had come out that contradicted the officers story and supported the others then it would be more credible. So far though, based on what I've seen, all the evidence has supported the officers version of events.
By 'contain' - I meant, he spotted the two suspects and therefore was trying to approach two and not one suspect who he believed had just been involved in a crime. (trying not to use inflammatory words or phrases)
My point was in fact that we keep hearing that the officer shot an 'unarmed teen'...this is good for media hype and activists and legal teams and infers that there was only one person involved in the whole incident and that somehow the officer should have known that the person who just assaulted him was unarmed.
There were two and that would have meant that while one person was assaulting the officer, that same officer might have been on a heightened awareness of trying to figure out where the other suspect was, if he was armed, if he was going to come at him from a different angle. In 90 seconds it could have been one officer trying to figure out what side the assault was or might be coming from.
At this point, we have no idea if the other suspect was in fact also trying hit the officer, if the other suspect was trying to get in through the passenger door to get the gun, if he was out of sight line or in sight - when dealing with two possibly violent offenders, things one can imagine would move very quickly.
On an aside - if this was just about the issue of police getting out of hand all over the country, it would be a different matter and we might see people rioting and protesting the any number of others who are victims - including the young man in Utah - the young white man killed by a black police officer. Or the homeless man with a pocket knife fired on by 6 officers when they could have subdued him by other means. This isn't about the police or we would see inclusion of all these matters. The rights of all people in the USA vs police are not the issue and that's clear by a lack of coverage across the board for all incidents instead of a specific few. sw
---
President Obama met with Ferguson protest leaders on November 5th, the day after the midterm elections. The meeting was not on his daily schedule. He was concerned that the protesters “stay on course.”
What does that mean?
And why is the president meeting with the violent Mike Brown protesters before a verdict is reached in the court case?
The Ferguson protesters have looted over 100 businesses in the St. Louis area.
The New York Times hid this in the 21st paragraph of their report:
But leaders here say that is the nature of a movement that has taken place, in part, on social media and that does not match an earlier-era protest structure where a single, outspoken leader might have led the way. “This is not your momma’s civil rights movement,” said Ashley Yates, a leader of Millennial Activists United. “This is a movement where you have several difference voices, different people. The person in charge is really — the people. But the message from everyone is the same: Stop killing us.”
At times, there has been a split between national civil rights leaders and the younger leaders on the ground here, who see their efforts as more immediate, less passive than an older generation’s. But some here said relations have improved in recent weeks.
Some of the national leaders met with President Obama on Nov. 5 for a gathering that included a conversation about Ferguson.
According to the Rev. Al Sharpton, who has appeared frequently in St. Louis with the Brown family and delivered a speech at Mr. Brown’s funeral, Mr. Obama “was concerned about Ferguson staying on course in terms of pursuing what it was that he knew we were advocating. He said he hopes that we’re doing all we can to keep peace.”
Obama wants the protesters to stay on course?
Unbelievable.
