WILSON NOT INDICTED
Options
Comments
-
i still think you cannot compare this ? 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 ? started because he robbed a store.
-
Monizzle14 wrote: »i still think you cannot compare this ? 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 ? started because he robbed a store.
naw bro your an uncle tom you are supposed to give the black person the benefit of the doubt regardless of any and all circumstances or you are racist. black people should be able to try to shoot police and not get hurt for it. ? america how dare those crackers defend themselves against an upstanding black man who graduated high school. -
Monizzle14 wrote: »i still think you cannot compare this ? 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 ? started because he robbed a store.
Mike Brown was no angel and that definitely hurt his image with the jurors (and the prosecution) but if Darren Wilson was so "threatened" by Mike Brown, why didn't he stay in the car after Mike Brown ran away the first time and call for back up? I think it's similar to Trayvon's case because in both cases, if both Zimmerman and Wilson stayed in the car and not try to act like Rambo, these killings of unarmed people wouldn't have happened. -
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. -
Monizzle14 wrote: »i still think you cannot compare this ? 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 ? 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. -
More then half of the witnesses say Michael Brown was running away when Darren Wilson started firing his second volley of shots from outside the car
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/newly-released-witness-testimony-tell-us-michael-brown-shooting/
Here’s a breakdown of the data we found:
More than 50 percent of the witness statements said that Michael Brown held his hands up when Darren Wilson shot him. (16 out of 29 such statements)
Only five witness statements said that Brown reached toward his waist during the confrontation leading up to Wilson shooting him to death.
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.
There was an even split among witness statements that said whether or not Wilson fired upon Brown when the 18-year-old had already collapsed onto the ground.
Only six witness statements said that Brown was kneeling when Wilson opened fire on him. More than half of the witness statements did not mention whether or not Brown was kneeling.
How is all this data not enough to at least indict? -
obnoxiouslyfresh wrote: »Monizzle14 wrote: »i still think you cannot compare this ? 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 ? 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.
She completely ignored how both Zimmerman and Darren Wilson could have avoided killing them by just staying in the car and calling for back up. Zimmerman called police but still wanted to act like Robocop. Same with Darren Wilson, he didn't have to shoot at someone running away or at a minimum, was far away from him. All he had to do was stay in the car and call for backup if he thought he was dealing with the Incredible Hulk. -
the thing that i think is also telling is that Wilson's account has him speaking with politeness and being met with a high level of aggressive disrespect. i don't doubt that it's POSSIBLE for this to have occurred... but somehow i find Johnson's version more likely.b4rPnQrC32H4cT wrote: »Particularly, since by both Johnson & Wilson's accounts, neither Brown nor Johnson immediately complied with Wilson's command to get on the sidewalk. Wilson probably felt his authority was disrespected and tried to strongarm 'em into submission like many law enforcers do, which ultimately lead to an avoidable death.
well, i don't know what you happen to think the social/racial implications are, so i will withhold a cosign.The Iconoclast wrote: »I just wonder if you acknowledge/accept the social and racial implications of this ordeal? Because if one does, then it's hard to fathom how one can come away equally annoyed at the social groups involved, especially with a historical context in mind.
but i will say this: the side that seems to think of Wilson as a step down from Jesus has annoyed me much more than the side that defends the virtues of Saint Brown. because the latter at least has some sincere issues wrapped up in their outrage over less-than-ideal victim.
-
honestly, the biggest reason NOT to compare them is to focus on the issues in each case and not let the debate over Brown get sidetracked by unrelated stuff that came up with Martin (for example, Wilson is at least legitimately a police officer, whereas Zimmerman's behavior is a whole can of worms).obnoxiouslyfresh wrote: »It's interesting that you dont want to compare them when the incidents are so strikingly similar.
totally agree there are some similarities, especially as regards "presumption of guilt and dangerousness." but one might have a more productive conversation if it's kept focused.
so i touched on this with the earlier article, but i'll quote it again:kingblaze84 wrote: »More then half of the witnesses say Michael Brown was running away when Darren Wilson started firing his second volley of shots from outside the car
"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. -
honestly, the biggest reason NOT to compare them is to focus on the issues in each case and not let the debate over Brown get sidetracked by unrelated stuff that came up with Martin (for example, Wilson is at least legitimately a police officer, whereas Zimmerman's behavior is a whole can of worms).obnoxiouslyfresh wrote: »It's interesting that you dont want to compare them when the incidents are so strikingly similar.
totally agree there are some similarities, especially as regards "presumption of guilt and dangerousness." but one might have a more productive conversation if it's kept focused.
so i touched on this with the earlier article, but i'll quote it again:kingblaze84 wrote: »More then half of the witnesses say Michael Brown was running away when Darren Wilson started firing his second volley of shots from outside the car
"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.
What I think that means is that many of the witnesses saw Darren Wilson shooting at Michael Brown as he was running away, with his back turned. In fact, that's exactly what some of the witnesses have said. Yes Brown did not actually get shot in the back but some said he was being shot at with his back turned, so the physical evidence doesn't prove lying at all. Maybe some of the witnesses lied but remember, multiple witnesses said Darren Wilson fired as Brown was running away. Two white construction workers said the same thing, and ON CAMERA, one raised his hands in the air and said Brown's hands were in the air and he wasn't a threat. This info should be more then enough info to at least get a charge in, but the prosecutor confused he jury by giving so much data, more then needed.
The prosecutor questioned the witnesses but NEVER cross examined Darren Wilson, what a ? coincidence
-
i think you need to go back and actually read that article.kingblaze84 wrote: »What I think that means is that many of the witnesses saw Darren Wilson shooting at Michael Brown as he was running away, with his back turned. In fact, that's exactly what some of the witnesses have said. Yes Brown did not actually get shot in the back but some said he was being shot at with his back turned, so the physical evidence doesn't prove lying at all.
first, you need to stop phrasing it in terms of lying or not. we're not talking about witnesses LYING. we're talking about eyewitness testimony being INACCURATE. second, and this is the main thing, eyewitness testimony is inherently unreliable.
so what's happening is we're saying, "see, the fact that witnesses reported narratives that literally COULD NOT have happened," and you're taking it as if some witnesses told the truth and the rest lied. no. if a witness tells us that Brown had his back to the officer and the forensic evidence tells us this could NOT have happened, that witness is not necessarily lying. but it does mean it's time for you to come to terms with the fact that some of this witness testimony can, in fact, be discarded.
doesn't eliminate the larger issues here -such as whether or not the prosecutor was passing the buck to get the grand jury not to indict, for example- but how long are we debating the concept that not all witnesses have given testimony that can be considered accurate? -
i think you need to go back and actually read that article.kingblaze84 wrote: »What I think that means is that many of the witnesses saw Darren Wilson shooting at Michael Brown as he was running away, with his back turned. In fact, that's exactly what some of the witnesses have said. Yes Brown did not actually get shot in the back but some said he was being shot at with his back turned, so the physical evidence doesn't prove lying at all.
first, you need to stop phrasing it in terms of lying or not. we're not talking about witnesses LYING. we're talking about eyewitness testimony being INACCURATE. second, and this is the main thing, eyewitness testimony is inherently unreliable.
so what's happening is we're saying, "see, the fact that witnesses reported narratives that literally COULD NOT have happened," and you're taking it as if some witnesses told the truth and the rest lied. no. if a witness tells us that Brown had his back to the officer and the forensic evidence tells us this could NOT have happened, that witness is not necessarily lying. but it does mean it's time for you to come to terms with the fact that some of this witness testimony can, in fact, be discarded.
doesn't eliminate the larger issues here -such as whether or not the prosecutor was passing the buck to get the grand jury not to indict, for example- but how long are we debating the concept that not all witnesses have given testimony that can be considered accurate?
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? Eyewitness testimony is unreliable many times true but if 8 witnesses said I killed a man who wasn't a threat to me, I would definitely be in trial right now. This is just another case of the system protecting crooked cops when a govt itself is crooked (Ferguson's govt).
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/newly-released-witness-testimony-tell-us-michael-brown-shooting/
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.
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 and never bothered to cross examine Darren Wilson. He had no problem cross examining witnesses which is fine, but to never cross examine Darren Wilson? He protected Darren Wilson the ENTIRE process. He didn't press to the jury that Darren Wilson never bothered to write a police report. NOW WHY IS THAT? ? Mccoluch and the entire crooked govt of Ferguson. -
BECAUSE HE WAS NOT SHOT IN THE BACK.kingblaze84 wrote: »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?
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.
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:kingblaze84 wrote: »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.
"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. "
seriously, who cares about the "tons" if what the "tons" says isn't supported by physical evidence?kingblaze84 wrote: »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-
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? -
This case was never intended to go to trialOne 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'. -
obnoxiouslyfresh wrote: »Monizzle14 wrote: »i still think you cannot compare this ? 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 ? 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 ? up the "investigation". But at the same time i still think Trayvon is a tragedy because that ? 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 ? a ? who did nothing wrong and is following the law.
That said while Wilson seems to have hate toward black males and did ? 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.
-
What investigation? They didn't do one.
-
BECAUSE HE WAS NOT SHOT IN THE BACK.kingblaze84 wrote: »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?
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.
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:kingblaze84 wrote: »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.
"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. "
seriously, who cares about the "tons" if what the "tons" says isn't supported by physical evidence?kingblaze84 wrote: »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-
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 -
This case was never intended to go to trialOne 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. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »This case was never intended to go to trialOne 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 wrote: »This case was never intended to go to trialOne 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. -
BECAUSE HE WAS NOT SHOT IN THE BACK.kingblaze84 wrote: »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?
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. -
Well bust bk while building jk
-
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.
-
This Mike Brown ? make me wish 2pac was still around.
