Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: Even dumber than Ferguson

  1. #1

    Default Even dumber than Ferguson

    http://news.yahoo.com/police-officer...051329575.html

    "Ballistic evidence shows Myers fired three shots before his gun jammed, Dotson said. Police said they recovered the 9 mm gun, which had been reported stolen on Sept. 26.

    The officer fired off 17 rounds. Preliminary autopsy results show a shot to the head killed Myers, according to medical examiner Dr. Michael Graham.

    The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported that Graham said Myers was shot six or seven times in the lower extremities and the fatal shot entered his right cheek."

    And we got protesters. What the hell is wrong with these people?

  2. #2
    You have a methane cloud hovering over you. Since you can't smell it, it must not be important.
    Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
    If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?

  3. #3
    First time I've seen you use "than" appropriately, Lewk.

  4. #4
    Are they just dragging out this grand jury investigation on purpose? Is there a big piece of evidence that hasn't been leaked? Is this being leaked to deliberately lay the groundwork for no indictment, so that it's less of a surprise?

    Police Officer in Ferguson Is Said to Recount a Struggle
    By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT, MATT APUZZO and JULIE BOSMANOCT. 17, 2014

    WASHINGTON — The police officer who fatally shot Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., two months ago has told investigators that he was pinned in his vehicle and in fear for his life as he struggled over his gun with Mr. Brown, according to government officials briefed on the federal civil rights investigation into the matter.

    The officer, Darren Wilson, has told the authorities that during the scuffle, Mr. Brown reached for the gun. It was fired twice in the car, according to forensics tests performed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The first bullet struck Mr. Brown in the arm; the second bullet missed.

    The forensics tests showed Mr. Brown’s blood on the gun, as well as on the interior door panel and on Officer Wilson’s uniform. Officer Wilson told the authorities that Mr. Brown had punched and scratched him repeatedly, leaving swelling on his face and cuts on his neck.

    In September, Officer Wilson appeared for four hours before a St. Louis County grand jury, which was convened to determine whether there is probable cause that he committed a crime. Legal experts have said that his decision to testify was surprising, given that it was not required by law. But the struggle in the car may prove to be a more influential piece of information for the grand jury, one that speaks to Officer Wilson’s state of mind, his feeling of vulnerability and his sense of heightened alert when he killed Mr. Brown.

    Police officers typically have wide latitude to use lethal force if they reasonably believe that they are in imminent danger.

    The officials said that while the federal investigation was continuing, the evidence so far did not support civil rights charges against Officer Wilson. To press charges, the Justice Department would need to clear a high bar, proving that Officer Wilson willfully violated Mr. Brown’s civil rights when he shot him.

    The account of Officer Wilson’s version of events did not come from the Ferguson Police Department or from officials whose activities are being investigated as part of the civil rights inquiry.

    In the many accounts of Mr. Brown’s death, the most potent imagery has come from his final moments, when he and Officer Wilson faced each other on Canfield Drive. Some witnesses have said that he appeared to be surrendering with his hands in the air as he was hit with the fatal gunshots. Others have said that Mr. Brown was moving toward Officer Wilson when he was killed.

    Few witnesses had perfect vantage points for the fight in the car, which occurred just after noon on Aug. 9. Mr. Brown was walking down the middle of the street with a friend, Dorian Johnson, when Officer Wilson stopped his S.U.V., a Chevy Tahoe, to order them to the sidewalk.

    Within seconds, the encounter turned into a physical struggle, as the officer and Mr. Brown became entangled through the open driver’s-side window.

    One witness, Piaget Crenshaw, said later that while she could not see clearly, it appeared Mr. Brown was “trying to flee.” Another witness, Tiffany Mitchell, said that she had watched with alarm from a close distance and that as the two briefly struggled, “Michael was pulling off and the cop was trying to pull him in.”

    Michael T. Brady, who lives nearby, said that the altercation was “something strange,” but that he could not tell exactly what was happening. “I can’t say whether he was punching the officer or whatever,” Mr. Brady said. “But something was going on in that window, and it didn’t look right.”

    However, Mr. Johnson’s description of the scuffle is detailed and specific, and directly contradicts what Officer Wilson has told the authorities.

    Mr. Johnson has said that Officer Wilson was the aggressor, backing up his vehicle and opening the door, which hit Mr. Johnson and Mr. Brown and then bounced back.

    “He just reached his arm out the window and grabbed my friend around his neck, and he was trying to choke my friend,” Mr. Johnson told reporters after the shooting. “He was trying to get away, and the officer then reached out and grabbed his arm to pull him inside the car.”

    Officer Wilson then drew his weapon, Mr. Johnson said, and threatened to shoot.

    “In the same moment, the first shot went off,” he said. “We looked at him. He was shot. There was blood coming from him. And we took off running.”

    Never, Mr. Johnson said, did Mr. Brown reach for the officer’s weapon.

    The officials briefed on the case said the forensic evidence gathered in the car lent credence to Officer Wilson’s version of events. According to his account, he was trying to leave his vehicle when Mr. Brown pushed him back in. Once inside the S.U.V., the two began to fight, Officer Wilson told investigators, and he removed his gun from the holster on his right hip.

    Chief Jon Belmar of the St. Louis County Police Department has said in interviews that Officer Wilson was “pushed back into the car” by Mr. Brown and “physically assaulted.” The department is conducting the local investigation into Mr. Brown’s death.

    Spokesmen for the F.B.I. and the Justice Department declined to comment.

    In an interview, Benjamin L. Crump, a lawyer for the Brown family, dismissed Officer Wilson’s account of what happened in the S.U.V. that day.

    “What the police say is not to be taken as gospel,” Mr. Crump said, adding that Officer Wilson should be indicted by the grand jury and his case sent to trial. “He can say what he wants to say in front of a jury. They can listen to all the evidence and the people can have it transparent so they know that the system works for everybody.”

    He added: “The officer’s going to say whatever he’s going to say to justify killing an unarmed kid. Right now, they have this secret proceeding where nobody knows what’s happening and nobody knows what’s going on. No matter what happened in the car, Michael Brown ran away from him.”

    The grand jury has been meeting in Clayton, Mo., since Aug. 20. Robert P. McCulloch, the St. Louis County prosecutor, has said that he expects a decision on probable cause by mid-November.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/18/us...-struggle.html

  5. #5
    More than likely they are worried about riots.

    Its a sad day when the police and the courts are afraid of criminals.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    More than likely they are worried about riots.

    Its a sad day when the police and the courts are afraid of criminals.
    It's also a sad day when they are scared of openness and scrutiny.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post
    It's also a sad day when they are scared of openness and scrutiny.
    I don't have a problem with agreeing to that. I'm all in favor of more cameras as long as the footage can also be used to convict more thugs.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    More than likely they are worried about riots.

    Its a sad day when the police and the courts are afraid of criminals.
    Don't you think it's a sadder day when the police and/or courts aren't trusted by the community they're supposed to "serve and protect"? Would they even have to "worry" about riots if people had faith/trust that the system was fair and just to begin with?

  9. #9
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    I don't have a problem with agreeing to that. I'm all in favor of more cameras as long as the footage can also be used to convict more thugs.
    Well, I was aiming more at openness of investigation (by having a trial). I thought having your day in court was one of those enshrined american principles, surely you applaud an open trial that sorts out the facts, out in the open, so by the end it's clear (or as clear as it can be) what happened, and if there is a guilty party, they are punished.

    BTW, I think a problem is that there seems to be a growing number of people who don't trust the police conducting investigations on themselves (which is not entirely unreasonable, which surely you agree with considering you don't trust any government institution when they make comments that affect their own position, or at least that's what you've stated in the past). Which leads them to believe that certain cops are in fact the thugs, and are therefore as outraged as you are about criminal thugs. Imagine how you feel when you read a 'thug' got away with it due to a technicality, and then imagine your thug actually got away because he and his colleagues covered it up. Now I'm not saying this happened, but I assume that's what a lot of people are thinking now. And it's not like it never happens that the cops cover each other's asses when it comes to complaints about police abuse (of all kinds, not just shooting or other violence but also messing with evidence, false statements, etc.). And if that happens too often (or at least appears to happen), people lose their trust in the police - and there you are wondering whether people are stupid for not believing the police's side, but the more important issue is: why do so many people not believe the police? It is an institution people should be able to trust, after all.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  10. #10
    So are you suggesting we due away with the grand jury process and just let a DA bring anyone to trial? Think about this before you answer.

  11. #11
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    So are you suggesting we due away with the grand jury process and just let a DA bring anyone to trial? Think about this before you answer.
    No - I'm not that familiar with your procedures, but I considered grand jury process part of the 'day in court'. I thought the complaint was that this was being dragged out for a grand jury? And isn't that a good thing, to establish what happened? If not I'm not really sure what the complaint was this time.

    edit: BTW, we don't have grand juries, DA can attempt to bring charges to anyone (though there are of course guidelines on what charges they bring, and when) but a judge can dismiss it (and you can petition the judge to dismiss it). And if a DA doesn't want to bring charges, you can go to court and a judge may order the DA to bring it to court. In fact, wiki says only the USA has grand juries.
    Last edited by Flixy; 10-22-2014 at 01:50 AM.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  12. #12
    I'm fairly certain the reason its being dragged out is for public safety concerns. They are worried about rioters. I wish the police chief, the mayor or any of them had a pair of balls and just said this.

    "Grand Jury said there wasn't enough evidence to move the case forward. He's a fine officer and he'll be back on the streets soon making sure there is law and order. If you don't like it is your right to protest. Feel free to do it in a non violent method that breaks no city laws. But we are watching. Break a law, break windows, overturn cars, vandalize property or violate other ordinances and will come down on you hard. If your try to resist arrest we will bring you down. If you attempt to murder any of my officers with deadly weapons (such as fire arms, molotov cocktails, rocks or blunt weapons) we've got SWAT standing by to respond with lethal force at the first instance."

    Re-elected for life.

  13. #13
    Lewk, your quotes/citations don't jive. If the Grand Jury said there weren't enough facts to prosecute the case......there are other, more important questions to ask and consider.

    I'm fairly certain that you posted your position from a white male western (religious) perspective that doesn't reflect a national opinion.

    But then, I don't rely on opinion polls or surveys......

  14. #14
    I'm curious how you went about figuring my perspective doesn't align with national opinion. Now that I'm arguing that it DOES align I'm just curious how one comes to a conclusion without the use of any data. If you aren't using polls and/or surveys how do you form a belief on what most Americans believe?

    Ultimately regardless of the % that support Officer Wilson's clean shoot of a thug nearly all Americans believe in the benefits of law and order and oppose riots and looting in the street. And the best way to avoid rioting and looting is by taking out the minority of protesters who are violent.

  15. #15
    Do you want national/federal standards, or not?

  16. #16
    Hope is the denial of reality

  17. #17
    Thanks for the link Loki - some of the great stuff that comes out of it...

    Liberal Myth #1 "He was a good kid"

    Attacked a store owner prior to the shooting. Had drugs in his system. "Good kid" my ass.

    Liberal Myth #2 "He had his hands up" (which led to Hands up Don't shoot bull shit)

    Looks like he was within inches of the gun... ROFL.

    Liberal Myth #3 "He didn't attack the police officer, the police officer was a racist who killed an innocent black boy."

    Looks like he was IN the police car and his blood was ON the gun. Explain to me how that could possibly have happened unless the thug attacked the officer?

    How much you want to bet liberals will either A. Say that its all a police cover up lie or B. Make up some insane chain of events to somehow still portray Wilson as the bad guy. I'll get my popcorn because this should be entertaining.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Do you want national/federal standards, or not?
    National/federal standards in regard to what?

  19. #19
    So checking out Democratic Underground thread we have some fun theories:

    "I wasn't there, so I don't know, but I have this "feeling" that the cop grabbed Brown's hand with a misguided idea that he could put a cuff on him or something (for the grievous crime of jaywalking), and when Brown did what anyone would do when someone grabs their hand through a car window, he pulled back--the cop opens car door with force, hitting Brown, Brown shoves it back, cop grabs gun and shoots him through his hand, and Brown runs like hell realizing this dude is crazy (running out of a shoe) while getting gunned down in the road."

    "If your being held and fighting in through the window and then
    you see the cop just drew his gun out of his holster

    It's a natural reaction to try and either grab his gun hand or the gun.
    After those two shots it should have been over. "

    Hilarious.

  20. #20
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    Well to be fair, the second option might be possible though a lot less likely, the first option I agree completely. But even if the second option is possible, it is less likely so it probably should lead to acquittal, you'd have to prove the officer was wrong after all.

    Going back to the grand jury dragging on, and your expectation it will take a lot for some people to believe this, isn't a thorough case better? This case will be under scrutiny after all, there's no place for errors.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  21. #21
    Taking odds that the political hacks who flew to Missouri to promote the protests are going to apologize to the officer and his family?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  22. #22
    I suspect this case will pivot on how people interpret the fatal shots, instead of the first shots.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •